There are several distinct forms or styles of auditing. There was first the old finger snapping handling of engrams. Then there is Formal Auditing for which we still have TRs 0 to 4. Then there is Tone 40 Auditing, still used today in the CCHs. These are distinctively different styles and a good auditor can do one or another of them without mixing them up. Just as Tone 40 Auditing is still used, so is Formal Auditing — in fact Scientology 4 on the GPMs must be run only with Formal Auditing and the old TRs and other training are still used to develop it in the student.

Now there has emerged a new Auditing style. It is Listen Style Auditing. And the first thing to learn about it is that it is a new style of Auditing and that it is distinctly different from Formal Auditing and Tone 40 Auditing. Naturally an auditor who can do this new style can also do other styles better, but the other styles are themselves and this new style is itself. Listen Style Auditing is peculiarly fitted to undercut formerly difficult cases at the lower levels of Scientology and to get the necessary TA action.

Listen Style Auditing has or is developing its own TRs. It has its own technology and this leaves the technology of other Auditing Styles still valid and untouched.

Some of the data of Listen Style Auditing is:

1. The definition of Auditor is one who listens.
2. The pc is always right.
3. The task of the Auditor is to get the pc to comm/and to Itsa.
4. The success of the session is measured solely by Tone Arm Action.
5. The style applies to Scientology Levels I to III.
6. As the level in which it is used is increased, the amount of Auditor direction of the pc’s attention is increased. The gap becomes very wide in control between Level III and IV, so much so that only Formal Auditing is used for GPMs as this material is all sub-Itsa for the pc.

The basic crimes of Listen Style Auditing are:

1. Not getting Tone Arm Action on the pc;
2. Cutting the pc’s comm;
3. Cutting, evaluating or invalidating the pc’s Itsa;
4. Failing to invite Itsa by the pc;
5. Itsa-ing for the pc;
6. Not getting Tone Arm Action on the pc.

These are some of the major musts and crimes of Listen Style Auditing. While some of these also apply to Formal Auditing, to show you how different the new style is, if you tried to use only Listen Style Auditing on Scientology IV and failed to use Formal Auditing at that high level, the pc would soon be in a great big mess! So the style has its uses and exactions and it has its limitations.

Now, realizing it is a new style, not a whole change of Scientology, the older Auditor should study it as such and the new student — as mainly Listen Style will be taught in Academies — should spend some earnest time in learning to do it as itself. I have had to learn every new Auditing Style and sometimes have taken weeks to do it. I can still do them all, each as itself. It took me two weeks of hard daily grind to learn Tone 40 Auditing until I could do it with no misses. It’s like learning different dances.

And when you can polka and also waltz, if you’re good you don’t break from a waltz into a polka without noticing the difference — or looking silly. So the second thing to learn well about Listen Style Auditing is that it has to be learned and practised as itself.

Listen Style Auditing is peculiarly fitted by its simplicity to analysis by an instructor or student or old-timer. The steps are:

1. Learn HCO Bulletin of October 1, 1963.
2. Muck along with what you learned a bit.
3. Tape a 1 hour session you give on a tape recorder.
4. Analyse the tape.

You’ll be amazed at the amount of miss until you actually hear it back.

These are the points to look for:

1. Did the Auditor get a dirty needle (continual agitation, not a smooth flow up or down)? If so the Auditor cut the pc’s comm. This is entirely different from cutting Itsa. Just how was the pc’s comm cut? Listen to the tape. Whether the auditor got a DN or not, do this step. How many ways was the pc prevented from talking to the Auditor? Particularly how did the Auditor’s actions cut the comm with Auditing or unnecessary action? How was the pc discouraged from talking? What was said that stopped the pc from talking?
2. Establish whether or not the auditor got good TA action by adding up the session’s total down TA. See HCO Bulletin of September 25, 1963. If the Auditor did not get good TA action he or she either
1. Cut pc’s Itsa or
2. Restimulated nothing for the pc to Itsa.

Which was it? The odds are heavily on (a). Listen to the tape and find out how the auditor reduced the pc’s Itsa. Note that Itsa is entirely different than comm. Was the pc given anything to Itsa? Was the pc permitted to Itsa it? How much did the Auditor Itsa for the pc? Did the Auditor attempt to change the Itsas?

1. By various ways (by direct invitation, sounding doubtful, unconfident, challenging) an auditor can make a pc Whatsit. The amount a pc is made or allowed to Whatsit reduces TA action. How many ways did the Auditor make the pc Whatsit (give problems, confusions as answers or just plain put the pc into a questioning attitude)? How doubtful or worried did the Auditor sound? How much did the Auditor make the pc worry over TA action or other things (all of which add up to making the pc Whatsit, thus reducing Tone Arm Action)?
2. How much did the Auditor invite unwanted communication about confusions, problems by silence? How much did the Auditor prevent wanted communication by various actions?
3. What errors in the session are obvious to the Auditor? What errors are not real to the Auditor?
4. Does the Auditor have another rationale or explanation for not getting TA action or for what causes TA action? Does the Auditor consider there is another explanation for getting dirty needles?
5. Does the Auditor consider TA action unnecessary for session gains?
6. Does the pc in the taped session agree with the faults discovered? (May be omitted.)

Such a tape should be made periodically on an Auditor until that Auditor can get 35 Divisions of TA at any level from I to III on any pc.