

 


THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING

SH-Spec 5 renumbered 366

A lecture given on 6 February 1964

[checked against the old level 0 cassettes, omissions marked
with ">"]


[applause]

Thank you.

> I got everything here today but an easle.

Thank you very much.

> Roger, go over and help him bring in that easle.
>
> We have the agencies of the American Press with us today
> and their taking pictures for the Saturday Evening Post,
> so if you're subject to light shock or sleep lights or
> something of this particular character, go listen to it 
> over in the pavillion. [laughter]

Now, what is the date, here? What's the date?

Audience: 6th of February.

February what?

Audience: 6.

6 - 6th of February. What year?

Audience: A.D. 14.

Thank you. Thank you. February 6, A.D. 14, Saint Hill
Special Briefing Course. I'm going to talk to you about a
very arduous subject. The subject is the communication
cycle, and I think you might like to know something about
the communication cycle as used in auditing. It's a new
subject - new to many. [laughter]

If you look over communication, you'll find out that the
magic of communication is about the only thing that makes
auditing work. And if you could sit down to a meter—a
one-hand electrode - all by yourself and run some process on
yourself, it'd make a citizen out of you.

And the reason it'd make a citizen out of you, is you would
see a little bit of tone arm action at first, or if you
tripped across something like an active, loud, large GPM,
why, you might get yourself a quarter or a half a tone arm
division, or a couple of needle flashes. Now, you can
always get a needle flash. You can always get something of
that sort.

> [stage noises] Go ahead, just set it up there, we need
> an easel.

Now, the amount of tone arm action you would get doing this
would make you blink, because it's none. And you could run
some hot process on you that had been run by some auditor
and which gave him good TA - this process that has been run,
give you good TA, you see, when the auditor was auditing
it - then you sit down there with a one-hand electrode while
the process is still hot and run the commands on yourself,
you're going to get for a moment the residual of the
auditing. That is to say, the auditor will have stirred up
enough so that you'll see a little bit of charge go off,
and then your tone arm is going to go dead - and it's going
to stay dead.

Now, the reason for this has to do with the thetan in this
universe. Now, he has begun to consider himself MEST, and
he's begun to consider himself mass. And the being who
considers himself mass, of course, responds to the laws of
electronics and the laws of Newton, and is actually
incapable of generating very much, you see, or - which is
what we're interested in - asising very much. There's not
very much going to disappear there in the way of mass.

And this is a very discouraging sort of an activity.

Now, I have had to explore this particular field of
auditing - self-auditing, because most anybody does it, and
so forth—and what was this all about. And I have even
gotten ambitious enough to run an actual GPM,
bangity-bangity, bangity-bang, on a one-hand electrode.
That makes your hair stand on end. Well, it made my hair
stand on end. And my auditor fished me out. It didn't kill
me, I was able to breathe afterwards - that is, if I didn't
move much. But the same GPM, run with the same items and so
forth, would produce upwards to 175 TA divisions, down. And
the GPM, self-audited, produced 2.

Now, what was this all about? What was this all about? It
tells us (now, it isn't that experiment; other experiments
were made in this particular line) and it tells us that an
individual considers himself MESTy, or massy, if you see,
and therefore he has to have a second terminal. And a
second terminal is required to discharge the energy.

Now, a lot of auditors go further than this, and they go
downhill to a point where they think they're being the
second terminal to the degree that they think they pick up
the somatics and illnesses of the person they're auditing.
Well, get that.

Actually, there is no backflow of any kind hits the
auditor. There is no backflow hits the auditor of any kind.
But if he is so convinced that he himself is MEST, why, of
course, he will turn on somatics and everything else in
echo to the pc, because he's simply doing a matched
terminal with the pc, don't you see? Actually, nothing hits
the auditor. It has to be mocked up or envisioned by him. I
think you find that's quite amusing, because there are
whole schools of healing, back in the early days of Greece
particularly, where they picked up the pain out of
somebody's head, or off somebody's arm, and they got the
somatic very nicely and took it away and dumped it in the
trash bin. Spiritual healing has this in its textbooks, and
so forth.

Well, that is its genus, is just this two-pole proposition.

Now, you don't have to know anything about electricity or
electronics in order to go into this very deeply, but it's
obvious to you that for a motor to run or for something to
occur, like a light go on, that two poles have to be
involved. And energy passing between two terminals, or two
poles, makes an interchange, and it gives you what you call
electric light.

Now, of course, that is the burning of energy. In this
particular case you don't have the burning of energy, you
have the as-ising of energy where the auditor and the pc is
concerned.

Now, the ability to hold a position, or the ability to hold
two terminals apart, is a definition of power. Not how much
energy can be thrown by a unit, but the base, the strain
that is put on the base. The ability to hold these two
positions. That's a little bit outside of what we're
talking about. But here we have two poles. We have an
auditor and a pc, and as long as the auditor audits and the
pc replies, we get an apparent exchange of energy from the
pc's point of view, which doesn't hit the auditor; but
because they think of themselves, don't you see, at this
low, subvolitional level, as terminals, why, you get these
exchanges of energy going on, you see? And nothing hits the
auditor, and it asises as far as the pc is concerned.

But you have set up, in essence, a two-pole system, and
that will bring about an as-ising of mass. It isn't burning
the mass, it is as-ising the mass. And that's why there is
nothing hitting the auditor. Now, that is the essence of
the situation, and the magic involved in auditing is
contained in the communication cycle of auditing. You see,
now you are handling the smooth interchange between these
two poles. Eventually, the individual will get up to a
point where he does not consider himself to be matter, and
this no longer occurs. When you've got half of a pc's
actual GPMs run out, you start running into trouble. I'm
running into that trouble right now.

Unless the pc makes up her mind, or recognizes the truth of
the situation, I can't knock any energy off. I can ask the
question, and the meter is the deadest-looking meter you
ever saw in your life. Yet there's a red-hot GPM sitting
under this sort of thing. See, there'll be a red-hot item
or a red-hot this or a red-hot that. But I have to ask the
pc whether or not that is it. And when the pc looks at it
and decides that that is it, or that isn't it, only then do
I get an active meter.

And this is most amazing. This is most amazing. The GPM can
be sitting right there ready to read, and unless the pc has
looked at it and has thought it over, why, nothing happens
on the meter. Yet this same pc, before those - half of the
bank was run out, don't you see; all I had to do was sneeze
at the meter and I got rocket reads on anything, and the pc
didn't know anything about what was rocket-reading and what
wasn't rocket-reading. You get the advance? The advance is
upwards toward knowing one is one, see? And you get out of
these automatic physical-energy manifestations of the physical 
universe. And getting out of these things, you then get to a 
point where you've got intention.

Now, what is one of these GPMs, anyway, but a method of
limiting the pc's ability to intend? And that is the whole
idea behind implanting or any thing of that nature. The
whole idea is that if he intends positive, he gets
negative. If he intends negative, he gets positive. So,
therefore, he cannot decide.

Now, if you take somebody and every time he says yes you
say no, he eventually will get into an indecisional state
of mind. He can no longer intend yes, completely, see? So
this is how you could wear somebody down, break his spirit,
or make him a private in the army. Get the idea? Every time
he has a thought, you deny it. You see? There's where you
get your original power of choice. The ideas of power of
choice - and all such other ideas. The ideas of
self-determinism versus other-determinism. All these other
various ideas stem out of this alone. It is the ability to
intend something.

Now, somebody cannot write. He intends to write, and he'll
go around talking about writing, but he doesn't write.
Well, what is happening there, he is intending to write,
but something is intending that he not write. And that is
his mind kicking back at him, which is simply a
positive-negative proposition there, of two poles. Do you
see this?

All right. He intends to talk Arabic, but the mind says
that he can't talk Arabic. See, there's your
positive-negative. He intends not to talk Arabic and finds
himself chattering strange phrases, and you get these
speakings in foreign tongues that the hysterical
religionist very often is found to have, and so forth. In
other words, you get the positive and the negative
proposition. Well, a person has to be very MESTy indeed
before they are subject to these particular phenomena. And
the more MESTy that they consider themselves, the more
enmeshed in matter that they consider themselves, and the
more energied up they are, why, the more trouble they have
with this particular action. And, of course, as you go
upscale this phenomena drops away as progress is made in
this particular direction.

Now, what value is the auditor? Well, the auditor, of
course, is at his greatest value at the lowest level of the
case, is necessary all the way up through to step six - end
of actual GPMs— is necessary all the way. But the auditor
at very low levels can produce some of the most interesting
phenomena. And it was in the Dianetic days that they were
able to absolutely break their hearts, because you could
say to somebody so-so-so-and-so and so-and-so, and you
could handle engrams, you could handle matters associated
with the bank, and the pc would lose his or her arthritis,
would lose psychosomatic ills of one kind or another, and
never find out about it.

In other words, the auditor could sit there and as-is bits
of the thing, just by the automatic mechanical process of a
two-way communication with the pc. But the pc was so
snarled up and so sunk in, and considered themselves so
much a brick or a piece of rock or a wooden slab, that they
would never find out about it. And after the auditor had
cured up somebody's lumbosis completely, why, the person
would say, "Well, yes, but you haven't done anything about
my worries about my wife." Well, yes, he was incurable, he
was bedridden, he had to go around - the most he could look
forward to was a wheelchair. And the auditor would fix him
all up and he's walking around now, and he complains
because he hasn't had his wife straightened out.

In other words, he was actually influenced without his
knowledge. Do you understand this, now, from a two-pole
arrangement? Wherever an individual, wherever an
individual, then, thinks of himself as an animal, as
matter, as a bit of mud, as algae which has coadulated
[coadunated] into the difficulties of manhood, when you get
these various things, what do you eventually see? You see a
whole scientific world indulging in the philosophy of "man
is matter." So the spiritual values and natures of man are,
of course, lost completely. Only auditing can restore
these. Nothing else is going to restore them.

But when you look over the difficulties of auditing,
realize that you are handling simply the difficulties of a
communication cycle. And when you, yourself, as the
auditor, do not permit a smooth flow between you as a
terminal and the pc as a terminal, and the pc as a terminal
back to you, you get a no as-ising of matter: So you don't
get tone arm action.

Now, part of the trick of course is what has to be as-ised,
and how do you go about it? But that we call technique. And
if you remove technique, if you remove technique from the
area - let's not worry about the particulars, what button has
to be pressed or stepped on. We're not going to wonder
about this - what button. We're going to wonder only about
the communication cycle. We find, oddly enough, if the
auditor is actually capable of making the pc willing to
talk to him, he wouldn't have to hit a button to get tone
arm action. Do you see this? Now, the person who is
insisting continuously upon a new technique, a new
technique, or a very fancy technique, or that sort of
thing, is neglecting the basic tool of his auditing, which
is the communication cycle of auditing. He cannot make the
pc get tone arm action. Well, he can't make the pc get tone
arm action, basically, because the communication cycle
doesn't exist. And when the communication cycle does not
exist in an auditing session, we get this horrible
compounding of the felony of trying to get a technique, but
the technique cannot be administered to the pc because
there's no communication cycle to administer it.

So basic auditing is called basic auditing because it goes
prior to the technique. The communication cycle must exist
before the technique can exist. And, therefore, any case
supervisor is very, very well advised to merely heal up the
various points and portions that are missing as far as that
communication cycle is, and hit it as buttons. And in view
of the fact that the auditor is trying and the auditor is
doing something, to actually neglect whether or not the
auditing is good or bad - that's up to an auditing
instructor, isn't it? - just neglect that. But just look at
the case from the basis of "What parts of this
communication cycle are awry?" and "What isn't here in the
form of a response to the auditing question?" And simply
heal those points up.

Now, if you had a man lying unconscious in the street, you
certainly wouldn't be thinking up what technique to run on
him. If you wanted to bring him back to life and
livingness, what you would want to do is get him to talk to
you, or breathe, or flutter an eyelid. That would be
something. Oddly enough, the communication cycle all by
itself will cause him to flutter that eyelid.

You can take an unconscious person who has been in a coma
for some time, and by picking up their hand and making them
touch the pillow, and even touch your arm - you know, picking
up the hand (they have no volition here) - picking up the
hand, touching the shoulder, picking up the hand, touching
the pillow (giving them the command at the same time,
talking), and so forth, that person will come back to life.
This is the greatest magic that anybody ever saw. It's very
startling, but look, you're just trying to get this man
into communication with the auditor and communication with
his surroundings. And he'll come back to battery. And
there's no technique.

So, that should demonstrate to you that the fundamental
entrance to the case is not on a level of technique, but on
a level of the communication cycle. Now, all you have to do
is mark out how many branches of this communication cycle
can there be. There can be a communication cycle between
the pc and the auditor, and the pc and the auditing room.
And that's about it.

Now you can get particular, and you can have parts of the
auditing room, or you can have specific portions of the
auditor or the auditor's beingness - you can mark down to
that. And then you can maybe go afield from this particular
zone or area - if the person is already in a communication
cycle with the auditor—you can go afield and start to
address his present time problems. Now you can address
whether or not his wife fixes the tea properly or puts
arsenic in the coffee, as he is worried about. Now you can
address that sort of thing.

But this, of course, because it is distant from where you
are sitting, requires a technique. First you have to know
what he is worried about out there because it is not
present and visible for you to see, or for him to see. So
the technique selects out what he is worried about - a little
form of assessment, don't you see? And now you're into
techniques and processing, having left the field of the
communication cycle. If the field of the communication
cycle with the auditing room and with the auditor is all
solid ground, and if all of that is squared away, you can
now worry about technique.

Now, the auditor who comes tearing down to you sometime
as - when you're D-of-Ping someplace - and the auditor who
comes down and says to you, "Ho-ha-hai, I ... I just
can't get anyplace on Mrs. Hepsibah. Can't get anyplace on
Mrs. Hepsibah," and you say, "Well, why don't you run
so-and-so and so-and-so," will inevitably come back (you
give him a technique, you see) - will inevitably come back a
half an hour or so later and say, "That doesn't work
either." And you can keep up this silly cycle for a long,
long time. Because of course there is no technique being
delivered to the pc because there is no communication cycle
present.

Now, what needs to be repaired is the communication cycle,
and when you've got a communication cycle repaired, then
you can audit a technique. It's as elementary as that. Now,
there are many parts of this communication cycle that can
be addressed, because you have the pc there and you have
the auditor there. And, of course, the first part of it
that has to be addressed is the fact that the person is
having a session and is in a room and is being faced by an
auditor.

Now, if you take all those and write down the
categories - you write down all the categories, all the
different little bits that can be written down that are
part of this (it's best for you as an auditor to imagine
them rather than for me to give you a long catalog of them,
you see) - and then figure out how you're going to get him
into communication on each one of these points, realizing
that communication is simply a familiarization process
based on reach and withdraw.

Even when you speak to a pc, even when you speak to a
person, you are reaching; when you cease to speak you are
withdrawing. When he hears you, he has something
withdrawn - and at that moment he's a bit withdrawn, don't
you see? - but then he reaches toward you with the answer.
And you'll see him go into a withdraw while he thinks it
all over. See, he gets back and, well, he's - "Which ...
why did my grandfather have to marry the girl?" See? And he
thinks over this, and you'll see him think this over, and
he thinks that cycle through on a withdrawal, don't you
see? And then he will reach back to the auditor.

Now, he's already reached this reason. Now he will reach
the auditor with the reason, and he will say that was it.
Now you have made an exchange from the pc to the auditor,
and will see it reflect on a meter. Because that exchange,
now, is giving an as-ising of energy.

In the absence of that communication, you do not get meter
action. So the fundamental of auditing - the fundamental of
auditing - is the communication cycle! That's the fundamental
of auditing! And that is really the great discovery of
Dianetics and Scientology. It is such a simple discovery
that - and everybody does it. But you realize that nobody
knew anything about communication when it came along. The
number of chaps in communication companies and that sort of
thing, who fall around our neck saying "Really!" you know?

You say, "Well, communication, it consists of cause,
distance, effect," you know? "I ... yeah! By golly, it
does, you know!"

Well, it's just this sort of thing. It's a fundamental that
everybody knew was there. They've been watching apples fall
off trees for a very long time and Newton had to come along
and see an apple fall off a tree, see? And he said, "Hey,
apples fall off trees, and when they leave the tree they
hit the ground!" See? Everybody says, "Wow!" you know?
"Terrific!" you know? And his name has gone singing down
through the ages, because he noticed that apples fell off
trees.

It's always this sort of a thing. It's always this sort of
a thing which escapes the attention of people. Because MEST
is basically very complex stuff. And being very complex
(composed as it is out of electrons and molecules and
minerals and gee-whizzes of all kinds or another,
wavelengths and all this sort of thing), because of its
tremendous complexity - so complex that nobody can understand
it, they can only ... You know? Therefore, people who are
very plowed in, you might say, into matter, and who are
themselves thinking as matter, think very complexly. And
they cannot observe the simplest things with which they are
confronted. And they observe none of these things.

Now, you look over this. I call this to your attention. The
ease with which you can handle a communication cycle
depends on your ability to observe what the pc is doing.
Now, we have to add to the simplicity of the communication
cycle, the obnosis - the observation of the obvious. If the
pc hasn't been talking to you, and if the pc hasn't said
anything to you for a very long time, it is no time for you
to be thinking on the subject of "What do I say to the pc?"
You say, "What do I say to the pc?"

Please! I invite your attention that your inspection of
what you are doing should have ended with your training,
and thereafter is taken up exclusively with the observation
of what the pc is doing or is not doing. And your handling
of a communication cycle ought to be so instinctive, and so
good, that you are never worried over here about what you
do now. "Let's see, am I doing it right or am I not doing
it right? Let's see. I wonder how my acknowledgment was
that time. Did I say 'Okay' in an artificial frame of voice
or should I say it naturally, like 'O-kay.' No, that wasn't
right." No. The time for you to get this all fixed up is in
training. And in actual auditing, the communication cycle
that you watch is the pc's. That's the communication cycle
you watch. You know yours is good. So you don't worry about
it anymore.

Now, if you know your communication cycle is good, you
haven't any longer got to be upset about whether you're
doing it right or not. And you ought to be well enough
trained that when somebody says "catfish" to you, you look
at them and recognize they are no longer saying "catfish"
and have finished saying "catfish." And having finished
saying "catfish," it is time for you to acknowledge. But
you only acknowledge because they have finished the
communication. And your observation is simply limited to
the fact that they have completed their communication, and
that is your observation. Your observation is the
observation of the communication cycle of the pc. And you
get good enough so that you just lay in mothballs your
worry about your communication cycle when you're finished
training. That's the time it goes into mothballs. You
understand? You know how to do it now. Your business is the
communication responses and cycles of the pc. Do you see that?

This PC: You ask me, "What technique shall we run on this
pc?" Technique! What are you doing with a technique? Let's
look at the pc for a few minutes. "Oh yes, but," we say,
"well, the pc has got to have something to talk about." Oh,
come, come, come! You've been in Scientology or Dianetics
all this time, and you can't dream up something for him to
talk about? It's as corny as this: "You had any problems
lately?" See? Or it's corny as this: "How are you doing?"
Let's get this pc to talk so we can see what the score is.
Now this is the true - the true - touch of genius on a case.
This is what makes that auditor who can crack any case, and
when it's absent, has an auditor who couldn't crack an egg
if he stepped on it. This is the difference. This is the
difference. It's whether or not this auditor can observe
the communication cycle of the pc and repair its various lacks.

Now, I'm now talking to you - when I talk to you about the
auditor's communication cycle— I'm talking to you about
something that's so simple. It simply consists of asking a
question that the pc can answer, and then observing that
the pc answers it. And when the pc has answered it,
observing that the pc has completed the answer to it - that
the pc has answered it and has completed his answer to it
and is through answering it. And then saying "Cheerios" -
giving him the acknowledgment - bang! like that. Say, "All
right. You finished that," and then giving him something
else to do. That's all. You can ask the same question. Or
you can ask another question. It doesn't matter. But the
communication cycle is simply asking something that the pc
can answer. There's a lot of little trickery involved in
this, because that includes clearing the auditing command. 
See?

You don't say to somebody who's got a—you got a
five-year-old kid. And you say to him, "Have you had any
marital troubles lately?" and I don't think you're going to
get much of an answer. See, it requires that much good
sense: Ask a question that can be answered, and then ask it
of the pc so the pc can hear it and knows what he's being
asked, and then the pc answers the question; and being
bright enough to know that the pc is answering that
question, not some other question, and then knowing - and
this, by the way, is a very interestingly developed
instinct—you can tell when the pc is finished. And if you
don't develop that instinct, you're very often lost. You'll
say, "Well, did he end, or didn't he end?" and so on. Well,
some auditors try to make it up, making another technique
inside a technique, like, "Have you finished answering that
auditing question?" of course this is so much balderdash.
You should be able to know. It is a piece of knowingness.
See, you just know he's finished. He looks like he's
finished, he feels like he's finished, your telepathy tells
you he's finished, you get the idea? It's that esoteric.

He said, "Well, I ... I didn't have a grandfather." And
you now know that he is not going to say any more. See?
It's part sense. It's part his vocal intonation. But it's
an instinct that you develop. You know he's finished. So,
knowing he's finished, then you tell him he's finished.

It's like pointing out the bypassed charge, don't you see?
"You've answered it," you say. "You answered it." Actually,
if you said "Okay. Good," you might as well say "You've
answered it."

You have now found and located the bypassed charge in
answer to the question, and there it is, and you have said
it." See? That's the magic of acknowledgment, don't you
see? But, naturally, you say, "Good," "Very good," you
know, "All right," "Okay."

But if you got a long continuing thing, you don't want to
stop him too hard. So the degree of stop you put on your
acknowledgment is also your good sense. Because you can
acknowledge a pc so hard - and if your impingement on pcs 
is way up in the stars - that you finish the session right
there. You just end the session. You waste all that
remaining two hours that you had to go.

So he's talking on a consecutive line of thought and you
acknowledge as though you're not going to ask it anymore,
ever. And he won't think of it anymore, ever, either. So
frankly, now, when you've acknowledged it, you knew he was
finished and you said he was finished by acknowledging it,
and then you gave him something else to answer! Now,
that - aho-hu-rrrrrr-mmm! Second we got into itsa, we got
into trouble, man! Because we dropped out giving him
something else to answer. And an auditor will sit there
without giving the pc anything to do. And you've got to
develop a sensitivity. When did that pc finish answering
what you asked? At that point you say "Cheers," and give
him the next question.

But when you don't have that sensitivity, the pc answers
it, gets nothing from you, you sit there and look at him;
his social machinery goes into response that "We must not
be sitting here quietly doing nothing." Some pcs take up
humming, I hear - because the auditor hasn't acknowledged 
and given him a new question! The auditor just is not there,
that's all.

Now, it's a11 very well to do that sort of thing in
training, and it's forgivable, but not in an auditing
session, really. Now, after all. Pc has finished answering
the question, "Cheers! Thank you. Good. All right." Now you
know you've acknowledged something. You finished off that
cycle, so you better ask him, "Do fish swim?" man! "Are
there any other problems you've been worried about?" See,
he's finished that one. "Anything else upset you between
sessions?" See? But be in there, man! Don't stand there
tangle-footed saying "What do I do now? Oh!" Because at
this point the pc is going to overrun. He's going to start
making a session out of it, he's going to go onto auto. And
what did I just tell you about self-auditing? It gives no
tone arm action. So the degree that the pc hasn't any
communication cycle with the auditor, he doesn't get tone
arm action. So then the degree that the pc is sitting there
all by himself, self-auditing, gives you no tone arm
action. And that's actually - the absence of tone arm action
is the degree of self-audit the pc is indulging in. You
understand this cycle?

All right, well, that's all there is to that cycle. That's
all there is to that cycle. Now, for heaven's sakes, get
yours sufficiently well repaired that you don't have to
worry about it after training. And after that, spend your
basic auditing doing nothing but repair the communication
inabilities of the pc, and you will be a genius, man! You
crack 99 percent of the cases that walk in. A screaming
genius! People will look at you, "Wow!" you know? Well,
this fellow is awful worried because his wife's waffling
and ran off with a "waff-waf, and so forth,
waf-waf-waf-waf- waf-waf-waf..." and you say "Thank you,"
and he goes " Waf-waf-waf... "Thank you." "...
waf-waf-waf-waf..." "thank you! Thank you. Thank you.
Yeah, I heard ... I heard about your wife running off
with the chauffeur. Tha ... thank you. I got that. I ... 
I got that! I heard it. Yeah, yeah. Good! Thank you!
All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks. All right."

Guy will be looking at you like a snake that has just been
faced with a shotgun, see? "What has entered into my
perimeter? Is there something else around here? I could
have sworn I heard somebody speak."

A lot of you take over the case, and the guy is going,
"yip-yip-yap-yap-yap." And he says, "waffle, waffle, waf
and so forth and so on, and so on and I really don't have
any and so on and all these lollipops, they keep coming out
of the wah-blah-blah ..." You say, "Thank you."

And he goes, "Wa-wa-wana-nawa-wa ..."

You say, "Thank you."

And " Wa-wa. And then the - all the lollipops and the wife
ran away with the chauffeur, and so on. And it's all very
terrible ..."

And you say, "Thank you," and so forth.

"And it's all very terrible and the wife ran away with the
lollipops and, oh, the chauffeur came out, and ..."

Oh, don't be an idiot and sit there and let this go on
forever. He isn't talking to anybody. Now, that's what
you've got to recognize. Let's get down to some of these
problems here. Let's get down. What is this guy doing with
his communication cycle? You want to know how to bust
cases, that's how you bust them.

What's he doing? I'll give you an idea. Let me give you a
very, very high-school, way-upstairs analysis of this
situation, show you how far this can go - way up in the
clouds. Bang! Pc takes twenty minutes to answer the
auditing question. Now, the auditor, see, in this
particular case, he knows Scientology. He knows it
backwards, forwards and upside down, see? Guy takes twenty
minutes to answer the auditing question, and in that answer
of the auditing question, doesn't answer it. Now, the very
smart auditor, the very, very, very smart auditor, in
repairing this communication cycle from the pc, would look
at that, and he'd have three processes just like that.
Three processes he'd know he'd have to do on this pc. Pang,
pang, pang! This, I told you is very high school, see? It's
very up. Very upstairs.

(1) Pc cannot have an auditing question. It's pretty
obvious, isn't it? Didn't answer the question, so he
couldn't have gotten it. So your first process would be
"What auditing question wouldn't you mind being asked?" or
"What auditing question should you be asked?" or "What
question could you answer?" This is getting very
elementary, isn't it? "What question wouldn't you mind
answering?" You say that's running him at effect. No, it
isn't, because you're asking him to have the power of
choice over what question. You'd be surprised. You could
probably run that as a repetitive process for an hour or
two, and everything would get much brighter to this person.
Person would say, "Terrific process! Absolutely terrific
process. Never heard of such a process before! When did 
you dream that process up?" I mean, dream a process up, 
be damned. You just start processing him on a part of the 
communication cycle.

Now let's get more esoteric. Let's get much more esoteric.
If he says he hasn't had any auditing, we obviously would
adjudicate that he can't have any auditing. But we'd have
to repair something of the communication cycle of "What
question wouldn't he mind answering?" before we could ask
him a question that he would answer. Quite obvious, isn't
it? So you'd have to take first things first. And then we
would have to find out about this auditing thing, and I
think you'd find out, as your second process, it'd be
necessary for you to get him to get the concept of wasting
auditing, and others wasting auditing. Well, if he can't
have it, he's wasting it, because it's sitting in front of
him. Can't have auditing.

Well, if you got him to waste it in concept for a few
minutes or a half an hour or a session or something like
this, "Get the idea of you wasting auditing. Get the idea
of someone ..." - not have him pick up anything on recall,
man, because if you're auditing a case like that, you're
obviously auditing somebody who doesn't dare go back on the
backtrack. So don't say "What auditing have you had that
you wouldn't mind?" you see, because you're asking him to
go into the past. Well, obviously, that is like going out
into the outer perimeter. The past is not in the session.
That's going abroad, isn't it? Memory processes, and that
sort of thing, are out of the session and out of the
communication cycle. That's something you repair after
you've got somebody in session.

So your next process would be, as I said, waste auditing.
"Get the idea of wasting auditing."

"What could you do here that would waste auditing?" That's
very good, you see? "What could an auditor do here that
would waste auditing?" Because a person can't have
something, they must waste ii. If he isn't getting
auditing, he must not be able to have it. I mean, let's get
elementary. Let's go way back to 1952, get Elementary Have.
The ability to do. You could also get him to waste
communication or anything else, but I'm just dreaming up
three processes in a row here. Your first one is what
question could he answer, see, wouldn't he mind answering;
your next one is "Get the idea of wasting auditing"; and
the third one, "Who would I have to be to audit you?"

Now you've done a subvert, here. You've gone below the
session. See, you've brought him up to a point where he
could hear the fact that you're going to ask him a very
significant question. After I did that, I'd maybe work on
his memory. Because those three points would really be
healed. You'd see that whole case change. You'd see that
whole case change. And yet you're worried because he keeps
talking about his lollipops running out with - away with his
wife, or something of the sort. And you just get fixated on
the fact. You say, "This guy can't be audited because he
talks all the time, all the time, all the time, about
lollipops and the chauffeur, and it goes on and on and on
and on and on. And, therefore, if we don't remedy this
button about the lollipops, the chau ..." Why, hell's
bells, he doesn't even know what he's talking about.

It's whether or not he can receive an acknowledgment,
whether or not he can receive an auditing question, whether
or not he can have an auditing session, whether or not he
can sit in an auditing room, whether or not he can have an
acknowledgment, whether or not, you see, he can say
something to the auditor, whether or not - so forth. You get
all the little processes that go with this, see? Now, the
person took twenty minutes to answer an auditing question
and didn't answer it for those twenty minutes. Three
processes. Based on what? Just your knowledge of
Scientology and what the pc is doing in front of you.
Simple, huh? All right, we got a pc who's sitting there,
and he doesn't say anything. Let's take another case, let's
just do all this off the cuff. Pc isn't saying anything.

"Yeah."

"All right. Do birds fly?" (You're running some process,
you know?) "Do birds fly? I'll repeat the question...."

"Oh, hmm. Oh, hmm. (sigh) Yeah."

Well, let's dream up a process. We obviously can't have
"What question wouldn't you mind my asking you?" because
he's sitting there silent, man. Probably not a question of
being asked a question, it's a question of not being able
to respond to a question. Let's take it apart, let's find
out what the pc is doing, dream up something accordingly, 
see?

So we say, "What could you say to me?" Elementary. Long
comm lag, and he finally says something he can say to you.
You get this question over somehow to him. What could he
say to you?

And he finally says, "I ... I could say hello." Good, big
win, see? All right, let's build this up on a gradient.
Next thing you know, you've got him talking to you. But you
see, if you don't have the auditing cycle going from the pc
to the auditor, if you have tremendous communication
disabilities on the part of the pc, you actually don't have
any auditing cycle going that will discharge energy, and so
you don't have tone arm action. That simple? That's all
there is to it, actually. So, as soon as he can talk to the
auditor, don't get so overjoyed about this wonderful change
in him that you cease, now, to inspect his communication cycle.

Because if you've cured that, you will now find another
piece of it that's missing. In other words, you can go the
whole way. Do you see?

After he's gotten so that he can say something to you, well
now, now you might have to figure out what would he answer,
don't you see? And now you might have to figure out if he
could have an auditor. Now you might even go so far as to
find out what constituted getting better. I don't think you
have to invent a process as complicated as "What would be
worse than getting better?" But what the pc isn't doing is
where ... Well, let me put it this way. There's a little
formula involved: It's what the pc isn't doing that it
might be possible for the auditor to get him to do, see?
That's the formula. It isn't what isn't the pc doing that
we're going to get him to do - what is the missing ability?
Because obviously he's not OT, so you say, "All right, be
OT." You're going to have a lose here. I'm afraid that's
going to be a lose. Do you see? So, it's what can you get
the pc to do that the pc can regain the ability in doing?
See, that's the formula on which you're operating.

And, operating on that formula, you can find all sorts of
things. You can thresh around in the environment of the pc,
one way or the other, and if you're an alert auditor,
you'll see these little disabilities showing up here and
there, and so forth. A stammerer is about the easiest
diagnosis anybody ever had anything to do with. But how
many stammerers have I seen being audited on processes and
techniques? Well, it's absolutely foolish to audit a
stammerer on a technique. He obviously is having difficulty
communicating. What are you doing in an auditing session,
doing anything but to improve his ability to communicate to
the auditor? Now, you might find something silly like this
happen if you were auditing somebody who stammered: that he
would talk to the auditor eventually with complete
clarity - still stammered to other people. Well, this is
quite obvious. This is extremely obvious what you would now
do. You don't now instantly extend it to other people,
because there are other pieces of the communication
abilities right there in the session to be straightened up
before you go out into the outer perimeter of the society.
And usually where the auditor gets his lose is he repairs
something, gets a big win, and then there's thirty other
things to be repaired, sitting right in front of his
face - right in front of him - and he doesn't. He does some
kind of a jump into memory, or engram running, or
something. My God, just because the pc is now perfectly
willing to talk to you is no reason that the pc - who a few
minutes ago could not remember anything - it's no reason he
now can remember something. That's another ability.

Let's say somebody is trying to improve their memory. Well,
you improve somebody's memory after you've got somebody who
can receive an auditing question and answer it, and then
receive the acknowledgment resulting therefrom, and who can
sit there in an auditing session and be a pc and be
audited. Now you can go about improving memory, but oddly
enough, memory improvement starts with being able to
remember something in the auditing room, not something that
happened to him eight trillion years ago. It begins just a
minute ago.

I've seen a pc absolutely ruined, become unauditable, by
repetitively being asked questions having to do with memory
that the pc couldn't answer. So another rule in observing
the communication cycle, and so forth, is don't ask the pc
to do things the pc can't do. And if you've inadvertently
asked the pc to do something the pc now can't do, well, for
heaven's sakes, be enough on the ball, be sharp enough, be
really bright on this and recognize that you've asked the
pc something the pc can't do, and therefore you've given a
lose, and you better not compound the lose. Don't ask them
to do the same thing again that they now can't do.

This goes very elementary. You talk about flattening
processes. Very often you're asking a pc a process, you
see? "From where could you view catfish?" see? "From where
could you view catfish?" "From where could you view catfish?"

And the pc finally says, "That's all the answers there are."

And you know, the process had better be flattened. So you
say, "Well, from where could you view catfish?"

And he says, "Well, that's all the answers there are."

And you say, "From where could you view catfish?" And now
he has to invent an answer, and you're running a create
process. Your pc, if he doesn't ARC break, snarls up right
there.

I always respect a pc saying "There aren't any more
answers." I bail out of there in a hurry.

And when I ask the pc "From where could you view catfish?'
and we just took off into the blue here - "From where could
you view catfish?" See? That's the question I want you to
answer now. Answer the question" - and the pc says, "I'm
sorry, I ... I never viewed any catfish," I know right
away have been guilty of giving the pc an auditing question
which the pc couldn't answer, and I am guilty of not having
cleared the auditing question. I've gives the pc a lose.

Let's have a pc who is very deathly afraid of touching
mantels - mantel pieces. Just invent a nuttiness, see? All
right, we'll say! "All right, walk over there and touch
that mantelpiece." (We already knew he was this way, see or
we don't know he's this way.) We say, "Walk over there and
touch that mantelpiece."

And he says, "Uughh, I ... I ... I can't do that."

Soon as you've gotten into that situation, you got yourself
a lose. Let find out if the pc could do these things. Let's
discuss this process a little bit with the pc. Like, "How's
about ..." I don't care how grammatical or esoteric or
patterned you are about this, you see, because sometimes
you have to be very communicative. And you say, "How's about
if I ask you to walk around here and touch parts of this
room? What would you think about that? What if I ask you to
do something like that?"

And the pc says, "Oh, my God, I couldn't do that!
Ho-ho-ho-ho, no oh-oh! Particularly a mantelpi - Oh-oh-oh,
no! Don't ask me to do anything like that."

You say, "All right, I won't."

See, swift recovery. Now, you haven't given the pc any
lose. In fact you might have given him a little win. This
caused him a spooky feeling "You know, I'm really - I don't
really want to walk around here and tour the room."

Ah, he's interested now. "Well, is there anything around
here you wouldn't be too upset about touching? How's that?
How about some question like that?"

"Oh, I could ... I wouldn't be too scared of touching
that ... that spot on the floor." "What else wouldn't you
mind looking around here and ... ?"

Smooth as glass, you see? See? You cleared it, he said he
couldn't do this intrigued him, now you can hit a gradient
that he can do and build it back up, and you've got it made.

Every once in a while you see something like this. But if
you're not observing what the communication cycle of the pc
is, why, you're adrift all the time. Pc isn't answering the
question. Well, that's obvious. Maybe there's a hundred
thousand remedies could be dreamed up for this particular
activity, all within the perimeter of the auditing room. Pc
is this way, pc is that way, pc... Every time they sit down
in the chair they dust the chair off very carefully and
take some Kleenex and wipe the arms of the chair, and then
they sit down very gingerly into the chair. You've observed
this a couple of times. Well, there's no point in bringing
it sharply to their attention, but you must realize, it
must be borne home to you - with that much exaggeration,
certainly it'd bring it home—that this pc doesn't want to
touch very much around an auditing session. I mean, that
would be an elementary observation, don't you see? It might
have to do with chairs, it might be a GPM, but you can't
run all of that. Let's just chalk this up. Let's chalk this
up. Pc gingery on this subject. Obviously, somewhere up the
line you're going to run some objective process on this
pc - somewhere up the line. But ahead of that there might be
some much more attainable, but much less obvious thing,
such as the pc never looks at the auditor. That might be
touchable. "If you looked over here, what would you see?"
Doesn't really require him to look over there. He only need
guess at it. "What might you see?" You could even soften it
up to that, don't you see?

There's all kinds of things here that depend on auditor
observation. Where the pc breaks down in his communication
cycle with the auditor and where the pc breaks down in his
communication cycle with the environment is your entrance
point to the case. Those are the entrance points to the
case. If you haven't got him squared around so that he can
respond to the auditor, he of course can't answer any
auditing question, so what's this technique worry? Why are
you worried about a technique? No technique you ever
dreamed up is going to arrive.

Well, you have some fortuitous feeling that an automaticity
will turn on in the pc and answer you. Well, that's how
you're going to get the pc getting well and never finding
out about it.

They ran into that in Dianetics. They could actually run
'em through an engram. The engram was so easy to trigger,
and the bank responds to the auditor so beautifully, that
practically the whole session could be carried on without
the presence or benefit of a pc. Pc didn't have to enter
into it - and case loses occurred resultingly.

But these are the ways you crack cases. And the best way to
study it is just walk around it and take a look at all
possible ramifications that could be done about it, get
some acquaintance with old processes from '52, '53, '55, 
wonder which one of these processes are applicable to what, 
don't you see? There's all kinds of these processes. First 
Saint Hill, "Who would I have to be to audit you?" see? That's 
a nice process, see? But there's tons of these processes you
can ...

> [ The word "old" ("with old processes") in the above
> paragraph has been removed from the clearsound versions
> of this tape]

Oh, Lord! Well, they're being cataloged now, lots of them.
But they're honeys. They're honeys.

Sometimes you find a pc can't, absolutely cannot run some
process because one leg of it is wrong. Let's say SCS, and
yet the pc can't stand still. And it's required in the
process to stand still, and yet you're running Start,
Change and Stop on the pc.

Well, the pc's disability is the pc can't stand still. The
pc can start, the pc can change and the pc can stop, as
long as they don't have to stop much. So you say, well, we
can flatten stop - this will be all right. Oh, no, there must
be a leg underlying this. See, a pc disability - the pc
cannot stand still.

Well, what would you do about something like this? Well,
I'll tell you what not to do about it: neglect it. Don't
keep on running SCS, SCS, SCS, and the pc is going on, and
they go on, because what are they doing? They're running
with a prior consideration of the process.

Therefore, they never really take on any of the auditing 
commands.

They are running each auditing command, ("When I say
'Start,' you start that body" and so forth), "All right, I
just - that ... that'll give me a chance not to stand
still," see? The pc always amends it. Always amends the
auditing question, always amends the auditing question.

Don't you see? "I'll stop it, but I'll stop it quick enough
and get off of it so at no point during the stop have I
stood still." See? You get this idea? Well, a little
discussion with the pc will show up these various things.

Now, you can take a process and you can walk parallel with
SCS, and you can repair that point and run SCS afterwards.
Well, how would you go about standing still? Well, the
crudest way to go about it is just say "Stand still. All
right." "Don't stand still. Thank you." "Stand still.
Thank you." "Don't stand still. Thank you." That's the
crudest thing I know of, see? This is obviously right out
of the textbooks and technology of Scientology, you see?

"Stand still. Thank you." "Don't stand still. Thank you." 
"Stand still. Thank you." "Don't stand..." Automaticity is 
going to go away; this must be some kind of an automaticity 
that's all ready to trigger there. So if we get the person 
into any familiarity with it - because the person already 
realizes they can't do it. That recognition tells you that 
it's within the range of itsa.

But if you get somebody walking in on crutches that don't
know they're walking on crutches, you wouldn't say "Throw
away your crutches. Now walk." See, too high a gradient.
And they don't even worry about it. You get somebody
walking in and saying, "I got to get rid of these crutches,
man" - worry, worry, worry, present time problem, see?

Well, the thing to do is inspect their communication cycle
and their communication cycle with the auditor,
communication cycle with their mind, the communication
cycle with the environment - see, there's many of these
little communication cycles - let's inspect these various
things. Let's find out he's all right before we say "All
right. Throw away your crutches. Thank you." You got the
idea? See?

Normally, what the person is worried about is in actual
fact not what the person is bugged with. You very often
will get somebody running off on a total automaticity of
what's wrong with them, and they're not even listening to
themself talk. Actually, they will run off a total
automaticity of what's wrong with them, and they're not
even listening to themselves talk.

Sometimes they listen to themselves talk to find out what's
wrong with them. When you get into that situation, why,
it's elementary to repair the existing livingness of the
pc, but only after you've repaired their auditingness.

An auditing session is a highly artificial action. Highly
artificial. It's dreamed up, invented from scratch. Nothing
like it has really ever existed before. That's why a
psychoanalyst would lay an egg a minute - in a minute - if 
he cracked a textbook on Scientology and took it back to the
office to run it on one of his patients. Aughhh! And boy,
do they lay eggs! Why? Well, they're running Scientology
with a psychoanalytic auditing cycle. And, of course,
that's a wild auditing cycle if you've ever inspected it.

One psychoanalyst said, "I don't see how you can stand to
listen hour after hour after hour," and the other one says,
"Who listens?" But that's their appreciation of the
auditing cycle, and it's too bad to produce any great
effect, which is probably fortunate - because the theory
which goes back of it, and so forth, is highly artificial.
They don't produce any impingement, the auditing cycle
isn't there, and so on.

But this artificiality of an auditing session approximates - 
it's only artificial because it approximates in such harsh, 
staggering, visible reality, the exact precise points of 
contact with existence. And what it is, is a hopped-up, 
gunned-up contact with beings in existence, don't you see? 
Way up! It's something like putting [taking] a Model-T Ford 
and putting a Lycoming aircraft engine in it, see? And 
bzzzz-zzzz!

Well, all of communication always has consisted of cause,
distance, effect. Well, you jam it up into an auditing
communication cycle and it's full of bombs, man. See, bang!
Things are going to happen, because it's highlighted the
exact important points. For instance, you ask somebody on
the street out here, "What's important about communication?"

They say, "Well, being polite."

"Good. What are the parts of communication?"

"Oh, there's uh ... past participles and there's uh ...
present participles and uh ... there's grammar and ..."

See, they couldn't tell you any of this, don't you see?

All right, you gun in there, with cause, distance, effect,
you see? Ask a question, get it answered, acknowledge it,
see? Porowww! See? Wrooof! You're handling raw meat. And
you rehabilitate any part of this, and so forth, and then
something wakes up. Thetan can't help but wake up. The
ability to communicate is always terribly visible to a
reporter, or somebody doing work in this particular field.
They get around Scientologists, it knocks them flat. And
this photographer that was here today from the Saturday
Evening Post, and so forth - who has gone now, I imagine -
this boy's first remark to me is "They're all so uninhibited!"
after he got through taking pictures of you, you see?
"You're all so uninhibited."

He sees communication happening. He's very impressed with
you, you see? You're walking straighter, and you aren't all
tightened up, and you're not a bundle of nerves, don't you
see, and all this sort of thing. And he can't quite express
this thing, but he's already in a state of shock because
he's been hit, you see, with too much life, livingness, you
know - just hit him in the face. And yet, none of you really
probably said anything to him. It's that apparent.

Well now, you take this up and gun this up into an auditing
cycle, and the auditor is saying, "Do birds fly?" and the
pc is supposed to listen to this, and he is supposed to
understand this and he is supposed to sort out the answer
to this, and he is supposed to deliver it up now. And he's
going to get for that, "Thank you" straight into his skull.
And it isn't the parts of grammar, and it isn't this, and
it isn't that and it isn't the other thing, and ... If he
can stand up to this, he'll start getting the idea that he
can communicate. And he goes out of session, and he'll
start communicating with the environment. And the only
thing really wrong with people is, is they've withdrawn
from contact.

If you wanted to capsulize the entirety of difficulty with
the mind, take somebody who is no longer looking. The last
time he looked, there were three saber-toothed tigers ready
to bite him.

Now he is no longer looking. of course, he believes that
there are three saber-toothed tigers there. He'll sometimes
put up screens between himself and the tigers. And then, of
course, he never dares take down the screens, so he never
finds out if the tigers have gone. And he does this
throughout enough trillenia, he's got an awful stack of
tigers - all of which have left! But he doesn't know it. He
can't be sure they've left.

And so he's in a condition of total withdrawal - from his
environment, from himself. He's safeguarded himself with an
automatic bank; he's safeguarded himself with an automatic
beingness; he's got a valence standing where he ought to
be, and he knows that he came straight from mud and that he
is mud and that he'd better not be anything else, because
mud is relatively unpalatable when eaten by saber-toothed
tigers.

And a capsulization of all aberration is just a total
withdrawal. I don't care - that's a psychiatric term, of
course. They have some condition; they say "total
withdrawal." The psychiatrist is standing there totally
withdrawn, telling you about somebody who has gone into a
withdrawal, which I always considered very interesting.
This is not an apt term. It's one point where we're
crossing terms. But we're not talking about the psychiatric
withdrawal, we're just talking about the fact the guy has
retreated, that's all. He no longer dares put out a beam a
mile away. First he could put one out a light-year, then he
put one out a year, you see, and then he put one out a
hundred yards, and - pardon me, a mile. And then he got down
to a hundred yards. And each time he got enough "being
bitten," don't you see, that he no longer puts out to
distance, his remedy is always shorten the reach. And the
thetan has, as his standard remedy for safety, shorten the
reach. And what does he do when he gets into zero reach?

He actually can figure out how to invert a withdrawal into
an inverted withdrawal, and you get the cycle of the
dynamics coming on down, which is - he comes away from actual
reach, don't you see, and he comes down to zero actual
reach. Well, he's got to reach somehow, so he figures some
other way to reach, don't you see? He reads travel books or
something, you know? And he goes into these various cycles.
And there's always a zero of what he is doing, which then
has a remedy which is lower than that, and he gets down
into not just a total withdraw, he gets down to an
inversion of the inversion of the inversion of the
inversion withdrawal. Of course, the first point this shows
up is in an auditing session, and his ability to talk to
the auditor - about pertinencies.

The sensibility of his communication is also in point here.
You've asked him, "Do you have a car?" And he has explained
to you that General Motors stock has gone down for the last
year or so, and drops it at this point. So pertinencies - he
didn't answer the question, did he? So you get him into
some condition where he can answer the question, he can
speak up, where he can hear what you're saying, where he
can therefore receive the auditor. Because you've got
somebody on total withdrawal, one of your best remedies is
to see that he gets reached, don't you see? And you reach
him in order to get him to reach, don't you see? And these
are the conditions which you're trying to remedy with an
auditing cycle.

Now, if you want to be an absolute gee-whizzer to end all
gee-whizzers on cracking cases, don't you ever go around
drooling about this fellow sitting there, and he's saying,
"And my wife lollipopped with the chauffeur, and ... and
it's just all too tough, so on and so forth, and so on and
so on."

And you're trying to say to him, "This is - you know, the
session has ended." And he says, " ... and so and so on
and came down the chute, and there were eight sides of it,
and so forth; they were all hexagonal, you see, and so forth."

And you said, "The ... the session - the session ended some
time ago."

And he says, " ... and so on and so on. So I've always
said to chauffeurs since that particular time, I've said it
lollipopped the chauffeur!"

Don't now go to somebody, or try to crack a textbook to
find out what technique to run on this case. It isn't a
case of technique. He hasn't got anybody there to talk to.
He isn't talking to anybody. If he is, it's somebody else.
He isn't talking about a problem he could have, see? He
isn't even talking about a problem he's got! He probably
isn't even listening to himself anymore. He has no
familiarity with the environment, he is disoriented as to
where he is and so forth. And you want a technique?

He's got a paw. Well, you could say, "Now pick up your hand
and put it on the side of the chair and feel the side of
the chair."

He might go right on talking for some time without noticing
you're doing this. Then eventually say, "Hey, there's a
chair here." Big win.

But if you're going to deal in pcs at all who have
disabilities of any kind whatsoever, you've got to have a
session before you can have Class IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX,
X. You get the idea nose? You've got to have A session
before you can have a technique operating. This is the
value of the auditing cycle, this is its use, and this is
how to become one of the wildest case crackers anybody
ever had anything to do with. You get to be a screaming
genius on this subject, and something.

Oh, you make errors, you'll get too accusative, you'll all
of a sudden find you overcut - you've overestimated the pc's
ability here and there, and so forth, and you have to cut
it back.

But remember that it always requires adjustment.

The only other thing I would teach you, and like to teach
you about this, and I really wish I could, is that after
you've remedied it, it's been remedied. And don't keep on;
because this pc had a lot of tone arm action on what
question he could receive from the auditor, and so forth,
don't make that a lifetime profession. Because this is just
another method of non-observation.

Now that he can do this and is doing it, note that he is
doing it. See? He feels all right about it and he is doing
it. Note that, and now notice - notice, in other words, that
he's changed - and then notice what else you can put together.

So there's two more things to notice, don't you see? Is
when has that condition been remedied? - when has that little
ability been regained? - so that you can pull foot out of there.

And the other thing is observe now, newly and freshly, for
something else to do for the pc.

The reason I give you those other two is that sometimes it
happens so rapidly that you're just rocked back on your
heels. Pc has never talked to anybody before in their life,
and you all of a sudden have them talking to you
pertinently, in a blue streak. Well, let's not go on
remedying their ability to talk to the auditor. See, ability
regained. So you want to be able to notice that, and that's
all part of the observation.
And the real hot - the real hot auditor, the real guy that
gets case wins all over the place, is sitting in there
observing what is going on in the session, and if things
are going all right, doesn't remedy them, and if things are
going all wrong, picks up that point that can be remedied
and remedies it, until they are all remedied, and then
carries on. Those are the magic ways to go about this sort
of thing.

Well, you take over the technical aspect of some
Scientology organization. You're sitting in there doing
nothing but coaching up cases, doing nothing but coaching
up cases. Don't pay any attention to the auditing of the
cases - consider that's sincere and it's being done as best
it possibly can be. Ignore that aspect. Don't keep picking
on the auditors; that's a training job.

But just keeping watching - watching those communication
cycles. Note the communication abilities and so forth, the
appearance and that sort of thing, of a pc. Don't depend on
large tests having been made every fifteen minutes and
fourteen pounds of auditor reports to tell you whether or
not the pc's had a change. Let's look at this pc. Let's
listen to this pc in session. Is this pc talking better,
answering more pertinently, and so forth? If so, fine!
We're winning, and so forth. Let's not worry about that pc
until we get a bog, and there's a no-change condition
begins to take place with that pc. And the pc looking
brighter and got more spark in the eye than they had: Well,
their eye was - remember that this is a gradient - their eye
was absolutely complete pebble, stone, flat, lightless. And
now you can see a trace of color through the fog. That's an
improvement. See? Note the improvements. Don't just be
cynical about it the whole way, you see? Note the
improvements, because they sometimes take place rather 
slowly.

And just keep them moving up, and only pay attention
to - only pay attention to the communication cycle and the
ability of the person to handle the environment in his
immediate vicinity, particularly an auditing session. And
only pay attention to those things.

Never pay any attention to the person's problems, never pay
any attention to their goals in session, never pay
attention to any of these other things because obviously,
any auditor they got would take care of these things if the
pc was in session.

[on the old tape, the phrase above from "because obviously ..."
on to the end of the paragraph has a completely different
sound quality from the rest of the lecture and seems like a 
dubbed overlay]

See? Auditors are good at that. What they're not good at is
having somebody there fully in session. Because, of course,
that's the hardest trick. That's the roughest trick. But
there lie the biggest gains. And it looks so easy, looks so
kindergartenish, that you very often neglect it.

So you see that somebody is all straightened out, he can
talk to an auditor, an auditor can talk to him, that an
auditing cycle can take place, the person can receive an
acknowledgment, the person can have an auditing room, the
person can have an auditing session - all of these things are
possible everything is fine, and so forth: Well, aside from
occasionally catching somebody with a tremendous goof on
the subject of - they're running the service facsimile on the
person, and when it got [to] a service facsimile, the
auditor in this particular case couldn't find any service
facsimile because the person had been raised in a poor
family and didn't have any maids.

Then the thing to do is to get hold of the D of T and say,
"That auditor needs some training on service facsimiles."
Not to go into it. But the only trouble you're going to run
into from there on, don't you see, is going to be the
application of technique.

And that is never the trouble in Scientology, and it is not
the trouble, it is not the trouble with your pc that you're
having any trouble with at all. The techniques work like
mad, but all of them have the dependency of the pc fully in
session. The pc is fully in session, you can run almost
anything on them and they'll sail, don't you see? Pc not in
session, won't. The big bog is people do not get the pc
into session before they start running something. And
therefore they expect a technique will remedy something
that's sitting right in front of their faces, which is the
pc is not at all in session. Do you see?

All right. That's actually how to undercut cases left,
right and center, make a wide swath in all directions. And 
I think you can do it.

Thank you.


******** TAPE END



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
view for bookmarking
text only  mail this message to a friend
Sponsored by Fatbrain.com {*}  post reply    << prev · next >>  
subscribeto alt.religion.scientology 
return to search results 

 
 


SHOPPING ·  Yellow Pages ·  5¢ Long Distance 
Free Stuff  ·  Trade with Datek  ·  GET IT NOW @ NECX 
FREE downloads! ·  Auctions & Classifieds  
  
 
Home  ·  Communities  ·  My Deja News  ·  Power Search  ·  Post  
 


About Deja News  ·  Ad Info  ·  Our Advertisers 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1995-99 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved. 
Conditions of use  ·  Site privacy statement reviewed by TRUSTe  

