I consider it is immensely important to have training and become as expert as possible in the basics of auditing, as well as OT3, NOTs, Solo NOTs and all other upper level material, as well as LHR's philosophical writing, some of which we refer to as 'the basics'. I firmly believe in the truth of sayings like: "You want to be the best auditor you ever had" and "Only if you become an expert auditor, you will attain the maximum gains from the upper levels, and only then you will make it" and "50% of gains come from auditing and 50% from training".

As I see it, training has four goals:

The more knowledge I have, and the more expert I am with the material LRH left us, the more I can chose to be at Cause, hence the KRC-triangle. Only with knowledge and expertise can we become free again to progress to an existence in a more advanced universe than this one, which is based on the laws of force and MEST.

Maybe we should have the ability to leave our roles on earth at our choice. I strongly doubt, however, that at this stage of the 'game' we have that choice. We probably had it and, hopefully, will regain it, just as we will regain other advanced abilities, like to walk on water, or to levitate - maybe fly, to name a few. Some very highly advanced human beings probably have, and operate, that choice already now, as Bob Ross mentioned. However, I consider that even those have a limited choice, i.e. they cannot leave their roles on earth permanently. They keep coming back, at their level. Eventually, when we all have achieved the highest level of enlightenment, then we will all have the choice to leave this physical universe permanently. In other words, the 4th Dynamic responsibility prevents us from leaving permanently -now-.

I consider our 'desire to change the condition of the body and mind' is not at all a 'whole other subject from the desire or struggle for Freedom'. I think they are closely connected and interdependent. Just one symptom of it is that more than 75% of all illness is psychosomatic.

I have never found that being 'under the control of an auditor', conflicted with, or hindered me from being 'at cause' in an auditing session. On the contrary: To me auditing always meant: I am responsible for having a case, I am responsible for getting rid of it, I have to do the work of looking and finding that which needs to be as-ised. Bob says: "...at some point or another the pc has to take off on his own." I think pcs always are totally on their own anyway. Auditors cannot do even the tiniest bit of their work for them.

I have always been immensely grateful to LRH for creating the Tech, and I was always immensely grateful that there were expert auditors to bring the Tech to me. I never experienced an auditor who was so heavy-handed as to make me be effect. I cannot really understand how one can 'at effect' be successfully audited at all. My auditors were never at cause in my sessions. They couldn't do the looking and searching for me, and just let me get on with it. I had to do it all by myself; and jolly hard work if often was, too. And if that wasn't me being at cause, I don't know what was. My auditors never disturbed me, always stayed discretely, silently 'in the background' and let me search around, find and give them the answer without ever making it in the slightest appear as if they were controlling me. I was always totally free to work it out and come to my own conclusions and cogs. 'At effect' in auditing?! What next?!

I have now been audited for 28 years by auditors who where properly taught and did a fantastic job of it - judging from the wins I had. I have also been a solo-auditor for the last 20 years and had fantastic gains from it. On balance I would say: I prefer being audited for these reasons:

In conclusion I would say: One has to recognise oneself as cause, and responsible cause at that, in order to get things done, whether one is being audited or auditing oneself.

Processing cannot become 'less and less helpful', like Bob says, as long as the auditor observes all the rules a good auditor would observe, and as long as the pc is interested in having something handled. I consider a pc who creates or misowns bank in order to run it, is irresponsible, asking for trouble and could get it. That's all.

Bob Ross says: "Not everyone had the R6 experience. Not everyone had the OT2 and OT3 experience". I strongly doubt that. (What does LRH say about it?) I agree, however, that 'not everyone went through the same implants', and that an auditor has to always 'audit the case in front of you'. The pc will then experience having moved 'toward cause'. I also agree that the road out is by greater and greater simplicity. But I consider it is the way out for all human beings. Those who think the way out is through more and more complexity, are just taking a detour. They will have to eventually come round to simplicity, and will, I think, enjoy the experience with relief.