Русская версия

Site search:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Clay Table Label Goofs (S3-4) - B641116

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Remimeo Sthil Students Scien. staff SCIENTOLOGY III and IV


You will find in all poor auditing situations, where something has gone wrong, that you can figure yourself half to death if you do not know that all auditing errors are gross (huge, large, and in this meaning, basic).

The Gross Auditing Error most commonly found in auditing is just not following the directions for the process. Not mild departures but big ones. This often goes undetected by Case and Auditing Supervisors because the auditing report or the statement of some student is not complete or truthful about what was done.

If Case and Auditing Supervisors don’t know that sometimes reports or statements are most expressive in what they leave unsaid or even twisted to make somebody look good (safeguard repute), then the Case or Auditing Supervisor can worry himself or herself silly trying to find out why some case isn’t running.

Clay Table Healing and Clay Table Clearing, like any other processes, are subject to Gross Auditing Errors (GAEs), incomplete statements or reports or even falsified descriptions of what was or was not done.

“Unusual solutions” is a phrase describing actions taken by an auditor or a Case or Auditing Supervisor when he or she has not spotted the Gross Auditing Error. The “unusual solution” seldom resolves any case because the data on which it is based (the observation or report) is incomplete or inaccurate.

Sometimes people wonder why a certain order was given. They never ask what data was given that described the situation for which the order was given. Example: (Past pc reporting on an auditor) “The auditor was drunk.” Order given as a result: “Auditors must not drink.” Actual situation: Auditor was dizzy after a session and wobbled when he stood up; a whisky bottle in the office had been made into a lamp. The pc’s statement was false data. Therefore the order given by the D of P was an order which remedied nothing. The D of P should have seen this as natter and located instead the pc’s overt. That would have improved a case and spared an order.

Sometimes such data can be very convincing. In administration at long distances or in life one can’t always get the right data and so issues an order hopefully. But in auditing, the factors are fewer and under better control. And so incomplete or false data is easy to detect.


In Clay Table work of all kinds the pc must label everything he or she makes.

The word “everything” runs up against one of Man’s favourite aberrations. Man crunches things up, condenses, goes all out for togetherness or sameness. His Epitaph should be “It’s all the same.” Identifying things with things causes Man to call a number of things one thing. (He also is fond of calling one thing a number of things when he worsens on this point.)

I’ll show you how this works. Auditor’s Report: “The pc labelled everything.” Actual fact: The pc made a representation in Clay composed of 15 separate pieces, made one label giving all fifteen one name. Auditor’s complaint: “The pc isn’t progressing — no cognitions.”

In this case the auditor conceived the clay layout to be the “one thing” the pc said it was and had the pc “label it”. The pc did. One label.

Now the auditing direction in Clay Table work is to label every thing. The GAE was failing to get everything labelled.

Instead of figuring out some new process or angle to the case, all that would have been necessary was to get a complete, accurate description of the session. “Exactly what did the pc do?” And it would have transpired that the pc made “a picture”. “Was it labelled?” “Yes.” “What was it labelled?” “The pc labelled it ‘Catastrophe’ which is the word we were working on, of course.” At that point a smart D of P, Case or Auditing Supervisor would have figured it out. “How many things were there in the picture?” “Oh, about twenty.”

And the correct auditing direction would have been, “Go back and have the pc make the picture again if you’ve re-used the clay. And this time have the pc label everything — thing, piece, item — made. Got it? One label for each different bit of clay in the picture.”

That done, the pc’s case falls apart as the pc sees this or that should or shouldn’t be in the picture or why it is.

So the biggest goof in all processes is not doing the process.

And in C. T. work, the surest way in the world not to do the process is to let the pc make something and not get the pc to label it. And a thing of many parts must have a label on each part.