The most painful thing I ever hope to see is an auditor “letting a pc Itsa”.

I have seen auditors let a pc talk and talk and talk and talk and run down and talk and run down and talk again until one wondered where if anywhere that auditor had been trained.

In the first place such an auditor could not know the meaning of the word ITSA.

The word means “It is a ........”

Now how an auditor letting a pc talk believes he is getting a pc to spot what IT is is quite beyond me.

This pc has been talking all his life. He isn’t well. Analysts had people talk for five years and they seldom got well.

So how is it supposed to happen today that a pc, let talk enough, will get well.

It won’t.

The auditor does not know the very basics of auditing skills. That’s all. These are the TRs.

An auditor who can’t do his TRs can’t audit. Period.

Instead he says he is “letting the pc Itsa”.

If by this he means he is letting the pc drive all over the road and in both ditches, then this isn’t auditing.

In auditing an auditor guides. He gives the pc something to answer. When the pc answers the pc has said “IT IS A ......” and that’s Itsa.

If the pc answers and the auditor acknowledges too soon the pc tends to go into an anxiety — he has been chopped. So he talks more than he wanted.

If the pc answers and the auditor does not acknowledge, then the pc talks on and on, hoping for an acknowledgement that doesn’t come, “runs dry”, tries again, etc.

So premature or late-or-never acks result in the same thing — the pc running on and on and on.

And they call it “letting the pc Itsa”. Bah! If a pc talks too much in session he either is getting cut off too fast by the auditor or hasn’t got an auditor at all. It isn’t

“Itsa”. It’s lousy TRs. (The one single exception is the pc who had years in analysis but even he begins to get better with proper TRs used on him.)

The proper cure is to drill the auditor until the auditor realizes:

1. The auditor asks the questions.

2. The pc says what is the answer, “It’s a .......”

3. The auditor acks when the pc has said it to the pc’s satisfaction and

4. The auditor acks when the pc has finished saying “It’s a .......”

And that’s Itsa.

Scientology auditing is a precision skill, not a gag blop goo slup guck blah.

1. The auditor wants to know ........

2. The pc says it is ........

1.2.1.2.1.2. etc.

Now an auditor who doesn’t know his technology about the mind and his processes of course never knows what to ask. So he or she simply sits like a lump of sacking hoping the pc will say something that makes the pc feel better.

A sure sign that an auditor doesn’t know an engram from a cow about processes is seeing a pc “Itsa” on and on and on.

In Scientology we do know what the mind is, what a being is, what goes wrong in the mind and how to correct it.

We aren’t psychoanalysts or psychiatrists or Harley Street witch doctors. We do know

The data about beings and life is there in Scientology to be learned.

It isn’t “our idea” of how things are, or “our opinion of” ....

Scientology is a precision subject. It has axioms. Like geometry. Two equilateral triangles aren’t similar because Euclid said so. They’re similar because they are. If you don’t believe it, look at them.

There isn’t a single datum in Scientology that can’t be proven as precisely as teacups are teacups and not saucepans.

Now if we get a person fresh out of the study of “the mystical metaphysics of Cuffbah” he’s going to have trouble. His pcs are going to “Itsa” their heads off and never get well or better or anything. Because that person doesn’t know Scientology but thinks it’s all imprecise opinion.

The news about Scientology is that it put the study of the mind into the precise exact sciences. If one doesn’t know that, one’s pcs “Itsa” by the hour for one doesn’t know what he is handling that he is calling “a pc”.

By my definition, an auditor is a real auditor when his or her pcs DON’T overtalk or undertalk but answer the auditing question and happily now and then originate.

So how to tell an auditor, how to determine if you have trained one at last, is DO HIS PCS ANSWER UP OR DO THEY TALK ON AND ON.

If I had an auditor in an HGC whose pcs yapped and yapped and ran dry and yapped while the auditor just sat there like a Chinese pilot frozen on the controls, I would do the following to that “auditor”:

1. Remedy A, Book of Case Remedies.

2. Remedy B, Book of Case Remedies.

3. Disagreements with Scientology, technology and orgs and Scientology personalities all found and traced to basic and blown.

4. A grind study assignment of the Scientology Axioms until the “auditor” could DO THEM IN CLAY.

5. A memorization of the Logics, Qs (Prelogics) and Axioms of Dianetics and Scientology.

6. TRs 0 to 4 until they ran out of his or her ears.

7. TRs 5 to 9.

8. Op Pro by Dup until FLAT.

9. A hard long study of the Meter.

10. The ARC triangle and other scales.

11. The Processes of Level 0.

12. Some wins.

And I’d have an auditor. I’d have one that could make a Grade Zero Release every time.

And it’s lack of the above that causes an “auditor” to say “I let the pc Itsa” with the pc talking on and on and on.

Scientology is the breakthrough that made the indefinite subject of Philosophy into a precision tool.

And pcs get well and go Release when it is applied.

[The above HCO B was reissued on 23 May 71 as Basic Auditing Series 8. See Vol. VII, page 253.]