

 



COMM CYCLES IN AUDITING

SHSBC 290 renumbered 319

A lecture given on 25 July 1963

[checked against the old level 0 cassettes, omissions marked
with ">", also note one case where the old cassettes were
missing a paragraph that was restored in the clearsound version,
this is marked "#"]

[applause]

All right. Beautiful, sunshiny day here; cherish it. Go out
and make a facsimile of it.

This is what?

Audience: 25 July.

25 July. What do you know about that? A.D. 13, Saint Hill
Special Briefing Course.

The auditing cycle. Once upon a time there was an auditor
and he knew he could audit; he knew he could audit. But
pcs, they just wouldn't pc worth a nickel. And the auditor
said, "Well, I'll have to get out of Scientology because
pcs are no good."

You'd be surprised how often this line of logic - ha - gets in
the road. Most auditors, early on, have a definite idea
that there's tremendous variation in pcs, and that some pcs
can be audited and some pcs can't be audited, and that
there are good pcs and bad pcs, and all different kinds of pcs.

Well, there are worrisome pcs, but just to the degree that
you can't get them to get tone arm action. And some pcs are
closer to aquiver on the subject of a communication
breakdown than others; they're more nervy. Those things are
true. But practically no pc can stand up against a good
auditing cycle, you know, and say, "Well, I'm going on
being aberrated for the rest of my days because that makes
everybody wrong and makes me right."

The difficulty that an auditor gets into is normally found
in his own auditing cycle and his own impatience. His
disabilities in this particular line are last detected by
himself. In other words, he's really the last to find this out.

If an auditor wants to polish up his auditing, I recommend
putting a piece of session on a tape, at least a piece of a
session, and then listening to that tape back, and not
listening to the ramifications or the flubs. Anybody is
liable to make a duplicative-type flub, you know. Like,
you've had to change your auditing command - you heard me
make one the other day on that tape. I had to change the
command, because I was getting so much bang out of "mainly"
that I had to put "mostly." And then I was grooved into
saying "mainly," and my concentration, of course, was for
the pc, and I was slipping up and I was occasionally saying
"mainly" again when I was trying to say "mostly."

Well, you're liable to pick on that kind of thing as being
a very important error. Actually, it isn't very important.
What's important is: Did you complete your auditing cycle?
See, it really isn't how gracefully you completed it, but
did you complete it?

> Now there are two auditing cycles involved.  This is
> sequitur to the lecture I gave you last time.  And those
> auditing cycles are ... - pardon me -

There are two communication cycles that make up the
auditing cycles, and those are: cause-distance-effect with
the auditor at cause and the pc at effect; and
cause-distance-effect with the pc at cause and the auditor
at effect. Those are completely distinct, one from the other.

Now, the only place they impinge on each other at all - and
this is the only thing that connects them and makes an
auditing cycle - is the fact that the auditor, on his cycle,
has calculatingly restimulated something in the pc, which
is then discharged by the pc's auditing cycle.

So you see, you've kind of got a V lying on its side. You
see, you've got the upper V here with the auditor at the
top of the wing, you see, and he's cause, distance, effect;
and here at the point of the V, you customarily think of
that as just one turn. Actually, there's a complication
right there: It's what the auditor has said has caused a
restimulation at that point, and then the pc is honor bound 
to start an auditing cycle to get rid of the restimulation. 
Can you see that? And that is the game that is being played 
in an auditing cycle, and that's the entirety of the game. 
There's nothing else esoteric about it at all.

Don't think otherwise than that the auditor is
restimulating the pc. Now, some auditing - some
auditing - breaks down because the auditor is unwilling to
restimulate the pc. Now, you'll see this on a gross level
when somebody said, "I had to stop auditing him because the
somatics were so great." You see? I've actually heard
somebody say that - seriously.

And I think to myself, "The poor pc, man." At that point of
the V where those two come together and where effect turns
into cause, where the pc is there, at that point, you have
a restimulation and then the necessity of answering the
question to get rid of the restimulation.

Now, if the pc doesn't answer the question, the pc does not
get rid of the restimulation. If he alter-ises at that
point, then every restimulation is going to become an
alter-is. And all pcs who are having any trouble alter-is
at that point of the V.

Here, I'll draw you a picture. [See Lecture Chart] Here is
your V. And this is cause and this is distance and this is
effect. Now, here's your auditor, see? And here's the pc.
Now, at this point here is where you get your restimulation
factor. And this point is again, now, cause-distance-
effect, see? So we get cause-distance-effect, see? And
that's what an auditing cycle in actual fact looks like.

Now, there are some little inner cycles - there are some
little inner cycles that throw you off and make you think
that there are some other things to the auditing cycle. And
these little inner cycles are when you get
cause-distance-effect, and he has answered the question,
the auditor then says, "Thank you." Well, actually, that's
a shadow. And this now starts the shadow back, you see? You
understand?

See, there's a little extra communication cycle on here;
it's an extra cycle, see? And you have this as the
acknowledgment cycle. So you have here an ack, and of
course that goes this way, you understand, and is received
over here; and that's all there is to it. That's a little
fade-out, don't you see?

Well, I very often berate you for being not perceptive, and
not auditing the pc and not seeing what's happening to the
pc, or what's going on there, don't you see? So I get this
kind of an action here: There is another one of these
little shadow cycles. The pc has received the auditing
command. And that is such a tiny cause that nearly all
auditors who are having any trouble finding out what's
going on with the pc are missing that one.

You say, "Do birds fly?" and then you fail to perceive that
the pc received the auditing command. Now, that's because
he doesn't say anything. See, here's your main cycle:
cause-distance-effect; "Do birds fly?" See?

And the pc says, "No."

Well, actually, there's another cause in here; there's
another little tiny one, and it's right here and it's a
little c, see? And you're missing that one where you're not
perceiving the pc. Does he receive it?

You say, "Do birds fly?"

And he says ... That's all the cause that is emanated at
this point, by the pc. See, he just ...

See, that would be exaggerating it.

But you can tell by looking at him that he didn't
understand what you'd said, or that he was doing something
peculiar with the command he was receiving, you see? Doing
something peculiar with this command.

Well, it's actually whatever that message is that is in
response here, whatever message that is, does ride on this
line. And an auditor who isn't watching the pc at all then
never notices a pc who isn't receiving or understanding the
auditing command; and all of a sudden, somewhere along the
line, there's an ARC break, and then we do assessments and
then we patch up the session and all kinds of things go
wrong. Well, they actually needn't ever have gone wrong in
the first place.

What is the pc doing, completely aside from answering?
Well, that what he-is-doing is this other little
sub-cause-distance-effect line. So a complete auditing
cycle consists of no less than six communication cycles, if
you really want to get it down to the last ramifications.
But the important ones are four. You've got four
communication cycles.

Well, where are the other two? Where's the other two?
They're so tiny that you wouldn't really notice them, but
they are there. Cause-distance-effect of "Is the pc ready
to receive an auditing command?" See, is he ready to
receive an auditing command? He's going, "Oh,
rum-rum-rum-rum- rum." Well, that action is actually pc
causing, isn't it? And it has to ride up the line across
distance and [be] received at the auditor; and the auditor
perceives that the pc is doing something else.

You say, "That's not very important," you see? But it is;
it is. You'll find auditors goof that one very often. And
the pc is going... And the auditor says - he's nulling, let
us say - and he says, "catfish," "cat fur," and so forth. And
the pc is going like this, you see? See, he's not noticed
this first one.

That causes this kind of trouble: You've got the item "fur"
on a list that you're nulling, and you hit the item "fur"
and it goes through, actually, a complete auditing cycle,
one way or the other, because you very often say thank you
after you've done so. It's a very jammed-up auditing cycle,
but it's there, you see?

And then you go on to "catfish" on the next one, without
performing this top cycle: Is the pc ready to have
"catfish" read to him? No, he's hung up on "fur," and the
only time you ever get into real catastrophe is when the pc
is really hung up on "fur." God, when you said "fur," the
pc went, "Ew-w-w-w." Dong! and there he is, see?

"What's happened? Where is it? Ho! What's happened?" See?
You ever have that happen to you? Somebody goes over a
line - bong! it goes. And the next thing you know, in the
far-off distance you hear "catfish," "cat whiskers ... "

And you say, "What's that? Where's this? Who's what?" This
one becomes terribly important when you run into a
situation like that. You don't really pay too much
attention to it. But it exists. Got it? It exists.

And there's another one down here. There's another little
one down here: Pc received the acknowledgment. And
sometimes you violate that sixth one. You say, "Thank you!"
and the pc goes like this. Or that you say, "Thank you,"
and the pc ... If you were to do old-time Model Session
end-of-session mid ruds at that point, you'd find out the
pc asked you why you never acknowledged him. See? You have
been acknowledging him, but you've never seen that he
didn't receive the acknowledgment, don't you see?

That perception has another little tiny one in it, is: Has
the pc said everything? But that actually comes on this
line here: Has the pc answered everything, see? And it
becomes - the auditor is watching the pc, see? And the
auditor sees that the pc has not said all he was going to say.

Sometimes get in trouble with pcs that way.

Pc says, "Oh, yeah, it was sometime in the later days of
the Roman Empire..." You know he's going to say something
else, see? Well, this one isn't complete. So everything at
cause hasn't moved down the line here to you, effect. And
you haven't perceived all of the effect. So you go into the
acknowledgment one before this line has completed itself,
don't you see?

"Well, it was in the early days of the Roman Empire. Um ..."

"Thank you! Now, we will ..." Duh-uh-uh-uh. You've seen
that happen. That's chopping a pc's comm, see?

They didn't let this line here, which is the fourth
communication cycle, flow to its complete end. And then
this one, the acknowledgment, takes place. And of course it
can't go through because this, the fifth communication
cycle, is sitting up here on the fourth communication cycle.

So you say, "Thank you," and of course you're right back
against - and it's an inflowing line and they jam right there.

So there are six - if you really want to break it all
down - there are six communication cycles that make up one
auditing cycle. Six - not more than six, unless you start
running into trouble.

And when you violate that - one of those six, when you
violate one of those six - you of course are going to get
into trouble, then, which causes a mishmash of one kind or
another.

Now, I'll go over these again. I think you would care to
have me do that, wouldn't you? 

Audience: Yes.

All right. Up here we have number one: the pc. His
emanation at that point is simply his appearance and
presence. That's number one. Is he ready to have an
auditing command given to him? See, are we all set here for
the auditing command? That's number one. That's a
communication cycle consistence of cause, distance, effect.

Your next communication cycle on the thing - we had better go
into number three - is your auditor's communication straight
down to the pc. That is the auditing command and that you
normally consider the communication cycle. Got it? That's
what you normally say: "Do birds fly?" That's
cause-distance-effect received at the pc's - here.

Now he has to take care of and handle the charge at this
point (and I'll cover this in a minute), he'll have to
handle the charge at this point which has been restimulated
by the auditor. And now he originates (although we use
another designation; I've used origination otherwise, and
so forth): He has his answer, which is what you normally
call it. His answer, however, is a cause. And that's a
cause, a distance and an effect. You understand?

Now, your next one is an acknowledgment by the auditor
which goes over cause, distance, effect, is received by the
pc; and this is the perception of whether or not the pc
receives the acknowledgment. Got that?

But you go over this, work this thing out, you'll find out
that it's a very complicated arrangement. And you can count
on anybody studying this, promptly and immediately
afterwards not being able to audit at all. It's something
like taking a golf pro and say, "How do you handle your club?"

But this is your main show.

Now, what you've considered ordinarily the auditing cycle
has been this first V which I drew, which is
cause-distance-effect - with the pc at effect, the auditor at
cause. And then, at that V, the restimulation takes place
and you get cause-distance-effect.

Now, I'm not going to go into the rest of the auditing
cycle till I show you the center of this thing, okay?

There is another communication cycle inside the auditing
cycle - another communication cycle.

And that is at the point of the V. [See Lecture Chart]
Here's your pc and here's your auditor, and here was your 
cause, your distance, effect; here is your cause, your 
distance, effect and here was a C and here was an E. Don't 
you see? Cause-distance-effect at the pc. That's the auditing 
command. And then you've got cause-distance-effect which 
is the auditing response.

Well, we've opened up the point of the V. And here is your
little additional one, and that's between the pc and
himself. Here - see what this is. Now, this actually can be
multiple, and it depends upon the complications of the
mind. But because there has been an effect there, that
causes a cause. See? Because you have an effect at this
point of impact, you get a restimulation.

Now, that stimulation brings about charge, which then
causes the pc to emanate to get rid of that charge. So you
have an internal one, here, of cause-distance-effect inside
the pc's skull.

Well, that gives us seven communication cycles.

Now, I said this could be multiple. This is him talking to
him, see? And you say, "Do birds fly?" and this causes a
picture of birds. He receives the effect of the picture of
birds, and he causes a query of the picture. "Are they
flying?" And as a result, the answer comes back of the
flapping of the wings and he says, "Yes, they're flying."
And so with his thought he transmits, then, the causative
action to the auditor - now directed at the auditor - "Yes."
You see how that can be multiple?

Now, you're listening to the inside of his skull when
you're examining that V down there.

Now, if you think that the inside of the skull is more
important than the rest of the cycles, you're going to be
very, very disabused. This happens to be the least
important of all of the actions, except when it isn't being
done. And of course it's the hardest to detect when it
isn't being done. It's the hardest to detect.

Pc says, "Yes." Well now, what has the pc said yes to? And
you sometimes are "insufficiently incurious." You've said,
"Do birds fly?" and the pc receives this, and he gets a
picture of a dinosaur who is eating, and perceives that
dinosaurs eat and says, "Yes." And carrying out the
remaining part of the sentence, it would be, "Yes,
dinosaurs eat."

So this is actually what it sounds like to the auditor: "Do
birds fly?"

"Yes."

"Thank you."

See, that's what it sounds like to the auditor - that's the big V.

Actually, this is what happened: "Do birds fly.?"

And the point of the V is haywire; we get a dub-in, see?
Picture of a dinosaur flies up, because that's safer to
look at than birds, for some reason, or more interesting or
different. It's an alter-is of some kind or another - happens
on an automaticity.

The pc thinks he understands the question now on the basis
of "Do dinosaurs eat?" and says, "Yes."

And the auditor says, "Thank you."

Hey, wait a minute. What's going to happen to this pc?
What's going to happen to the pc? And that, in essence, is
this internal perception of line, which I showed you on the
other side. This cause-distance-effect backflash here, and
so forth, happens to include "Is the pc answering the
command I gave him?" Question.

Now, all of this is very complicated, isn't it? And it's
sufficiently complicated that any auditor ought to sit down
with a piece of paper and work it all out - and not expect me
to tell them. I think there are very few auditors ever
really inspected that to the degree that it's a multiple
cycle. There are seven or more communication cycles
involved in an auditing cycle. Now, it's actually weighty
enough that standing up here giving you a lecture on the
subject, off the cuff, see, it's very easy to get mixed up
on which cycle is which, because it requires a little bit
of concentration. You have to actually mock up a complete
session, see - complete auditing cycle - and pick out every
communication cycle in the auditing cycle.

Now, a communication cycle consists of just cause,
distance, effect, with intention and duplication. That's
all - that's a communication cycle. How many of these are
there in one auditing cycle? And that would include every
nuance of the auditing session. So you have to answer with
how many principal ones are there? Because some auditing
cycles could contain a couple of more.

The pc says, "Huh?" You see, that's a cause. That goes over
distance, effect.

And the auditor says, "Do birds fly?" He says, "I will
repeat the auditing question. Do birds fly?" And that goes
cause-distance-effect. But you immediately have added two
more cycles and so you've got nine - because there was a
flub, see? You got that?

So anything unusual that happens in the session adds to the
number of communication cycles to the auditing cycle, but
they're still all part of the auditing cycle.

Now, we've got repetitive commands as an auditing cycle,
and that's doing this same cycle over and over and over.

Now, I'll give you some homework here; this is for your own
good. You draw out all these communication cycles on a
scrap of paper for yourself. Just take a look at all these
things and mock up a session, like you do this and the pc
does that, and so forth. And all of a sudden it'll come
very straight in your skull how many of these things there
are, and you won't have a couple of them jammed up. Because
actually, what's mainly wrong with your auditing cycle is
you have confused a couple of communication cycles to such
a degree that you don't differentiate that they exist.
That's why you sometimes chop a pc who is trying to answer
the question, see?

You know whether he has answered the question or not.

Well, how did you know if he has answered the question or
not? By esoterics? New subject matter: esoterics. If you're
very skilled at esoterics, you could probably manage it.
But there are no esoterics involved. Even if it's
telepathy, it's cause, distance, effect. Doesn't matter how
that communication took place; you know whether he's
answered the auditing command by a communication cycle. I
don't care if the distance was zero. It was permeation from
same location in space; you were in the pc's head. I don't
care how you sense this or if you know that ordinarily this
pc is green when he answers an auditing command and he
turns pale white this particular time. You realize he's not
answered the auditing command. Well, how did you know that?
Well, obviously, it's a communication cycle inside the
auditing cycle.

So, I'll give you a little assignment there. You work that
thing out. How many of these things are there? And then
expect to drop the mashie and the niblick and hook one into
the woods for a day or two. So that's perfectly all right
to do that, see?

I myself occasionally take apart a piece of auditing and
find myself gapping briefly in a session, because I've been
trying to put together a very flexible R2H, because R2H
(the way it was originally released) is a very skilled
activity. It's too much for me. That's right! It's just too
confoundedly skilled. I know you can't do it. Impossible!
It's too prone to error. Good training: Man, if you can do
that, you can do anything! I mean it. If you can do that,
you can do anything.

But, boy, by the time you get some pc who's got an
insignificant ARC break that doesn't have the punch of an
engram or anything like that behind it, and you're trying
to date that confounded thing on a meter - it's just smooth 
as glass, and so forth - you practically have to ARC break 
the pc again to get the meter to read! Terrific training.

But inherent in that process - inherent in that process - there
are a great many processes which go pretty well south and
which will, actually, practically go one shot to OT, see?
It's masked, however, in the exact mechanics that you're
handling.

I found out that you have to use ten - a minimum of ten - steps
to get the terrific therapeutic result of which it's
capable. At least ten steps. In fact, I got one version of
it on the drawing table right now, which I've been working
with: I don't know, I think it must have about eighteen
separate steps. I'm just trying to milk this thing down for
maximum tone arm action, minimal error and maximal ease of
auditing. You're doing a training version now. It won't be
changed. Go right ahead with it.

But this is really putting that process up to make it get
its most results, see? And, by the way, there are only nine
levels of assessment in this newest version I'm working
out - just nine lines, takes care of the lot. But that's all
progress.

But I'm running all this on a pc. You get the idea? It's
all brand-new, and it's impossible to audit the original
version of it anyway. And I'm handling something that has
fifteen steps in it, all of which are strange and
different, and the pc has done something incredible in the
session that I haven't yet suspected. And boy! You talk
about the mashie and the niblick, man! You know? That golf
ball goes straight through the trees, hits a tree trunk,
caroms off a rock, goes straight up into the sky and
vanishes forever.

All right. Well, if you're nervy on the subject of handling
the basic tool of auditing, if that's giving you trouble
and if you can get yourself into trouble by suddenly
breaking it down and analyzing it, then it should be broken
down and analyzed at the time you're auditing something
nice and simple. That's the time it should be broken
down - not until you have three woods in your right hand and
four irons in your left hand and you're going to putt with
the heel of your golf shoe, see? I mean, this is not the
time to practice this auditing cycle.

So you go ahead and break it down. I've given you a general
pattern for an auditing cycle.

Maybe in working it over you can find a couple of extra
communication cycles in the thing. But they're all there,
and if you made somebody go through each one painstakingly
and painfully, you would find out where his auditing cycle
was jammed up. And it isn't necessarily jammed up on his
ability to say "Thank you!" It may very well be jammed up
in another quarter. Got that?

Now, there's a completely different auditing cycle inside
the same pattern.

Just wanted to make you comfortable and make you feel relaxed.

Let's work this one out. [See Lecture Chart] Here's the pc.
This pc, "he gonna originate." This has got nothing to do
with the auditing cycle. Scrub that other one! This now has
nothing to do with it. The only thing they have in common
is that they both use communication cycles. That they have
in common. But this is brand-new. This is the bolt from
Mars. It comes out of the blue, and an auditor who is
already concentrating ... He's auditing, you know ...
There are people, they used to read - they'd move their lips
while they read, you know? And everybody would make a lot
of fun of them, you know, for ... You know?

Well, an auditor who's handling his communication cycles
and his main auditing cycle on a lip-moving level, see - he's
brand-new at this sort of thing: the pc says something,
see, that is not germane to what the auditor is saying or
doing. And there is just - well, just trucks go over the
cliff, jet ships crash, see? All goes to hell, man!

So you actually have to be alert for this thing happening
at any time. And the way to prepare for it is just to
realize that it can happen any time; and just go into the
drill that handles it, and don't get it confused with the 
drill which you have as an auditing cycle; and consider it 
as its own drill. It's - its own drill. You shift gears into 
this drill when the pc does something unexpected.

And by the way, this handles such a thing as the pc
originates by throwing down the cans.

That's still an origin, see? That had nothing to do with
the auditing cycle. The auditing cycle went to pieces,
maybe, and this cycle came in. Well, the other auditing
cycle can't complete because this cycle is now here. Well,
that doesn't mean that this cycle has precedence or
dominance, but this cycle can start and take place and have
to be finished off before the other one can resume.

So this is an interruptive cycle. And it is cause and
distance and effect. And here's your auditor. The pc causes
something. Now your auditor has to originate, and your V is
inverted.

Now let's investigate here. Let's investigate that point.
Let's expand the point, just as we did in the auditing
cycle.

What's this going to be, a mad spate of question
marks or rockets flying off at oblique angles, or what's
going to happen at this point?

Well, Dankly, you can't put a machine at that point. You
can't put a machine action at that point, because this
thing has to be understood -  has to be understood. So, to
the degree that it is hard to understand, you have
cause-distance-effect, cause-distance-effect. You
understand? This is the auditor trying to clarify this
thing. And every time he asks a question, he's got a new
communication cycle.

Well, the trick that happens at the open V must not be such
as to merely get the original line, cause-distance-effect,
repeating itself. You mustn't have the pc continuing to
repeat that line, because the pc is now going to go
frantic. Because he can't get off of that line, he's stuck
in time, and it really upsets him.

So the auditor, when this V is expanded here, has to be
able to understand what the devil the pc is talking about.
Now, there's really no substitute for simply trying to
understand it.

The pc all of a sudden says, "But the Roman Empire didn't
have any legs!" "Tell me a little more about that, please."
That's a good response.

And the pc immediately goes off into can gesticulations
like mad and explains how because of North Africa being in
its situation, you see, Egypt being in its situation, and
that sort of thing, the Roman Empire didn't run on legs. It
didn't run on legs at all; it ran on rivers. We're now
getting in deeper.

"All right. Good enough; good enough. I hear what you're
saying, now. Give me a little more dope on this so I can
get a good grasp of it."

Oh, and the pc will go on and he'll expostulate and
understand it. And he'll understand it better through
telling you. And all of a sudden, you'll find out that he's
telling you it didn't have any legs, and it didn't have any
legs to stand on - that is what he really meant, and so
forth. And he's got it all doped out, and all of a sudden
you see what the hell he's talking about. And at that
point, you can resolve this point at the open V, you see?
And "Oh, that's what the hell he's talking about" is the
name of that expanded little V. "Oh, that's what the hell
he's talking about" is the name of that
cause-distance-effect, see? And then you say
(cause-distance-effect), "Thank you."

How many more lines can you put in there? Well, you have to
have another little line up here, which is another little
cause-distance-effect, before that origination takes place
so that you don't run into a jam and you don't give the
auditing command. He's originated that he's going to say
something. He says - see, whatever it is - and that's not the
time for you to say "Do fish swim?" See? You suddenly
notice there's a flicker across the table and the pc is
saying ...

See, that's another little communication cycle. So it's
cause-distance-effect. And effect at your point is to shut
up. See?

And then, you actually can have another little one, here,
that's a cause-distance-effect, of "I'm listening." Get the
idea? And then, of course, there's your extra ones down
here - when you've said "Thank you," then it's your
perception of the fact that he has received the thank-you.

And there's your origin.

Got it?

Audience: Yeah.

> Well the network that this is made out of - 
the building brick out of which all of these things are
made are communication cycles. That's just cause, distance,
effect, with intention and duplication, see? That's the
lot, see? But when you say "duplication" - when you say
this - you are carrying, then, the communication cycle over
into the A and the R. because there must be understanding.

Now, this is peculiar: There is a difference between an
auditing cycle and a military communication cycle. "Theirs
is not to question why; theirs is but to do and die" is
definitely the military attitude toward the whole thing.
And whereas this, too, can get into auditing - and actually
is not disallowed and is sometimes used, and not without
benefit. The guy is not going to touch that wall. "Thou
shalt touch that wall," you see? This kind of an action
very often takes place. He's not going to give up the
withhold. "Well, you goddamn well are going to give up the
withhold," you know? Bow! see? That sort of thing is very
often better than not doing anything about it. There are
more adroit ways to do it - but this is real crude auditing.

But that's the only time it gets over into the military cycle.

Now, the military cycle is simply cause, distance, effect,
compliance. And the auditing cycle is cause, distance,
effect, understand. So there is an A and an R at the effect
point. And therefore, there has to be an A and an R at the
cause point, so as to make "understand" acceptable at the
effect point. There doesn't have to be, but there had
better be. You see that? So there's where A and R fit in on
the communication cycle where auditing are concerned.

They are very carefully designed.

Now, a very syrupy affinity is very often highly
detrimental to auditing. But too snarly or abrupt an
affinity is also detrimental to auditing.

> Now lets get back to the fact that the auditing cycle ... -
we haven't completed talking about the auditing cycle by a
long ways. The auditing cycle, you would say, then, is TR
0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and so forth. Well, the auditing cycle has
very little to do with TR 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, just as such, and
only as such. The TRs have to do with the communication
cycle. And you have to put one all the way together at
about TR 5 or TR 6 to take in all of these communication
cycles. You understand?

What the lower TRs do is teach you to handle one
communication cycle -  see, from one side or the other - in
varying degrees of complication. Now, of course you've got
to have TR 0, because all of these things have to do with
confront. All of them have to do with confront, so you'd
say TR 0 is native to all of them. TR 1: Well, that's an
emanation. And TR 2 is a receipt.

So of course, those just handle what? They just handle
nothing but the communication cycle.

Do you see that?

Now, you can go on and build this up from this point on,
but you will find that a complete auditing cycle would
require a full-dress-parade TR that covered, maybe, at
least six. And then you could have another TR that covered
it up to nine, ten or twelve. And you could have another TR
that handled an origin through all of its cycles - but that's
supposed to be, right now, TR 4.

See, TR 4 - you've always had trouble with TR 4. Maybe I've
shown you why today. Look at TR 4. See, that's a picture of
TR 4. The V is the other way around. This thing is all
upside down, you see?

But that isn't all there is to the A and the R in
connection with the communication cycle. TR 1: How good is
somebody's TR 1? Well, let me tell you that the ability to
say "Do fish swim?" might serve, but how about being
comprehensible? How about being comprehensible?
Enunciatively comprehensible: you can understand the
syllables. How about that? We can get over that point. But
how about giving it an understandable communication? Now,
let's look at this in its widest ramifications. The
R-factor has to be present there so that it can be
duplicatable.

You very often, when you leave some auditors loose on
making up a command, or asking something, or there's a hole
in the routine and it doesn't give them those words, will
do a put-together of the statement to be said to the pc
which, at the arrival at the pc, is incomprehensible.

And yet an auditor is very often called upon to do this.
I've noticed this. I'm not being condemnatory of auditors
in general, but I've noticed here and there. When an
auditor -  some auditors are left completely on their own ... 
Well, something like this: "Well, get me a list.
Get me a list of the stuff he's worried about." And you
expect them to put together a question something like "What
are you worried about?" see? And you get some entirely
different, incomprehensible version, like "What are the
worst part of your worries sometimes?" Something like this.
Now, that's almost sensible compared to some of them I've
seen. They're just absolutely incomprehensible. Absolutely
incomprehensible.

I don't know how anybody - and I have actually seen somebody
run a level fitted into one of these five-to-fifteen
command brackets, which didn't make any sense at all, and
suddenly found to my horror that some pc had actually been
running on this for hours and hours and hours, and every
time they arrive at it, says, "I don't have a clue what
you're talking about at this point."

And the auditor just says, "I will repeat the auditing question."

So there's this factor in this communication cycle, that
the TR 1 aspect must be (1) enunciated in such a way as to
arrive in an understandable form, but very often, when the
auditor is formulating something, has to be formulated so
that it can be duplicated. So these two other factors are
involved, besides simply being at cause - is the cause going
out with any R? In other words, can you understand any part
of this thing? Is this an understandable statement? "Do
fish someti ... I'll repeat the auditing question: Do
fish somet ..." Naturally, no auditing can proceed.

You start dropping s's off of everything; or get somebody
with a Japanese curve; you get somebody doing something
that is a little bit offbeat in pronunciation - somebody from
Boston. Let's go worse - somebody from Maine. You ever hear a
"Maine-iac" talk? I was up there finding the Canadian
border. The United States government lost it. (They'd lose
their heads, you know, if you didn't watch them.) Anyway,
they lost the Canadian border and went up and found it
again. Found a tree had fallen on it and buried the marker.
They have little pyramids that look like the Washington
Monument that mark the border.

It was very necessary, because the Prohibition agents
didn't know where their authority started and ended, see?
It caused terrible things. We took the problem off because
what we were doing when we were surveying is we would stop
the rum runners and tell them we were Prohibition agents,
relieve them of their cargo, and we always had a lot to drink!

Anyway, we solved this problem practically. The U.S.
government could've taken a lot of leaves from, I think,
most of us on practical solutions to these problems.

But I spent the most delighted summer trying to learn to
speak "Maineiac." Gorgeous. And the French that had been
living up along the St. Lawrence didn't speak French and
they didn't speak English. They spoke something else. But
it was sure interesting. Got so I could speak the thing,
you know? I'd talk about "Baa-haaba" [Bar Harbor] with the
best of them. But it wouldn't go in an auditing session.

And very often, some pc gets saddled with an auditor that
he can't quite comprehend along some corner or another.
Now, you should recognize what's out. The only thing that
is out is the R-factor in the TR 1. And an auditor should
actually take great care to keep that one smoothed out. If
he knows he's doing something weird that the pc can't
comprehend, it doesn't matter how clumsily he sets it right
so long as he sets it right.

> The pc always questions -
supposing you can't tell the difference between the way he
pronounces flue and the way he pronounces six. You can
imagine these two getting jammed. The pc, for some reason
or other, always thinks the auditor is saying five when
he's saying six, and six when he's saying five.

What do you think's going to happen in R3R, see?

So therefore, it is up to the auditor to be comprehensible.
That's where the R-factor comes in.

Be comprehensible. Not only from standpoint of accent, but
sense: the comprehensibility.

Diction enters into this. I can see some university in the
future teaching auditing English, you see, or auditing
speech. Actually, it'd be a big department, because you'd
have to have the translation of all this stuff into German;
you have a translation and then its enunciation in
German - same factor would apply, don't you see? The same
factor in Swedish, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, all of this
stuff. How do you audit these guys, you see? Well, all
right. So you're going to have auditors perhaps from that
country, but remember, they will have the same frailties of
pronunciation.

> ** [the following paragraph was cut from the old level zero 
> version  but is present in the modern clearsound version
> - probably cut from the old version for reasons of
> confientiality]

# How about translation of line plots, what line plots
# actually sum up into. Some of these countries don't have
# good terminology to follow through on a line plot. And yet
# the line plot will only fire on the right terminology.
# Don't you see, there's a lot of stuff to be worked out on
# this particular factor. 

But there's stuff to be worked out on it right now.

An auditor who is not comprehended by the pc isn't doing
his TR 1 right. And therefore the R-factor is very germane
to whether the communication cycle can take place at all.
And if you say "Do fish ?" You can't do that. Do you see
that nothing happens and no communication cycle takes place
at all? So the R-factor can do a complete wipeout.
Interesting, isn't it? Then you have the pc who doesn't
want to be audited. He doesn't want to be audited at all.

Well, how on earth can you start that one going? Because
you've got to have a communication cycle before you can
even put an R-factor in. See, that's worse end to. He just
won't listen to any part of Scientology. This is not a
speech defect, but actually requires a lower-level process
which gets him to talk about Scientology anyhow.

We used to have one, "Well, tell me why you shouldn't be
audited." Tricky kind of an approach of this particular
character.

This is all very feasible. But this comes under the heading
of getting a communication cycle started, and the auditor
is very often confronted by that. So there is something
which actually is prior to the communication cycle, see,
and that you are very often happy to see exists. And when
it goes out the window, you very often are sitting there
with your eyes popped - you don't know quite what to do.
Well, the thing is, you can't get the communication cycle
going.

Now, very often the R-factor is out - wildly. Or the affinity
factor is out. The affinity factor is out because the pc is
being very misemotional. Well, oddly enough, you can do an
ARC Break Assessment today, and find the bypassed charge
and use that to complete the communication cycle which you
started and which wouldn't complete, because it is the
generated charge. And that was why I showed you,
particularly, the expanded point of the V.

What has happened there is inadvertently, one way or the
other, the point of the V has gone awry. The auditor
somehow or another or the pc somehow or another has
restimulated a charge which has then not been originated
either to the auditor or the pc. See, an overrestimulation
has taken place there. It's quite easy to do. It's quite
easy, though, to pick up these days. So, these ARC Break
Assessments is [are] a pilot of completing the
communication cycle and getting the auditing cycle going
again. See how that fits in?

All right. Now, that's all very well to talk about the
auditing cycle and say that's just all there is to the
auditing cycle, but there's (I mentioned a moment ago) the
repetitive auditing cycle. This cycle going over, and over,
and over, and over, and over again, is a specialized activity.

There's an auditing cycle of one cycle and then there is
the auditing cycle of the next cycle and the next cycle and
the next cycle and the next cycle, see? That's a different
thing -  doing it many times. You get your repetitive
process, and this is where that gets you in trouble. There
is a point where this over-and-over-again gets you in trouble.

You must, you absolutely must, complete a communication - all
communication cycles of an auditing cycle. Therefore, you
must complete an auditing cycle. But you must also
differentiate the difference between one auditing cycle and
the repetitive auditing cycle. And why must you generate
this difference? It's because one auditing cycle must be
completed, and a repetitive auditing cycles are very often
overdone, and don't need to be completed in some cases.
There's a difference.

Ooohh, where am I leading you now? You will say, "What's
this? What's this? You mean you don't flatten a process?"
Yes, you always flatten a process. But some auditor can get
so eager-beaver with his series - which is flatten the
process, see - that he forgets why he is flattening the
process. And that is your dominant cycle - is ability regained.

Why are you auditing the person in the first place? To do
an auditing cycle? To do a series of auditing cycles, known
as repetitive cycles, so that you can get a flattened
process? Now, you say, "Well, you're doing that to flatten
the tone arm action." No, that's right there with
repetitive auditing cycle; that belongs right there with
repetitive auditing cycle, don't you see? There is
something that dominates all of this; there's a greater
domination.

I'll show you what these points are. This will intrigue
you; I don't think perhaps many of you have ever looked at
this before. [See Lecture Chart] Here's your big cycle,
which is major cycle. See, that's a major auditing cycle.
And its proper name is Ability Regained.

Ha. I can see some of you now. You're auditing engrams like
mad and you hit this key engram and you hit the thing and
you all of a sudden got an OT on your hands, and the fellow
gets up and stretches and that sort of thing, and he's
getting all ready to square away, and he's wondering what
he should do with the body, and - you know? He's all set and
you're going on: "All right. What is the duration of this
engram?" Well, that's just too much dedication to this next
cycle, see?

And this you can call the Process (Cycle - Process Auditing
Cycle. This, of course, is just your single auditing cycle.
Your progress of case is up, like this, see? Now, if you
don't have your single cycle down, then of course you can't
do a repetitive cycle. Can't do a repetitive auditing
cycle, you can't flatten the process, in other words, you see?

Now, a process is flattened by tone arm action out, no comm
lag left, or
> intermediate, ability regained - pardon me, or
cognition - I'll draw you a picture of these
things - or ability regained. [See Lecture Chart] Now, you
understand, we're going here from the Process Cycle to this
Ability Regained cycle, you understand? We're going just
between those two. You understand here, that if you can't
do a single cycle, then it's certain that you're not going
to be very successful in completing any process auditing
cycle -  which is the repetitive cycles - and if you can't do
this, then you certainly are not going to produce the upper
one of ability regained. See? That's obvious.

But what is a flat process cycle? You sometimes come a
cropper on this and don't realize what you're coming up
against.

Now, three equal commands - this is the lousiest one, see?
Three equal commands. That's smelly, but you say the
process is flat, see? Safe to leave it. Well, you'd better
leave it at the CCHs, otherwise your pc is going to start
being unhappy. But remember that they must be confidently
done, or something like that. You can't have "He screamed
three times," you see? You very often - you'd be
surprised - you very often have this question asked of you.
You have some HPA student sometime saying, "Well, but he
was angry the same way for three different commands, so
therefore the process was flat."

Now, your next level up here - your next level - is a more
interesting level from a standpoint of that, but it's
perfectly safe to flatten it on a cognition. Guy gets a
cognition: "Oh, yes!" see? Even a minor cognition, do you
understand? That's not a major cognition; that's, you know,
minor cognition - he had a win. "Hey, well, what do you know!
That's why elephants fly." You know, that's all set. Hasn't
too much to do with the process, but you sort of stop the
process at that point. The pc is not going to suffer.

You understand that these first two levels that I'm talking
to you about, of "How do you flatten a process?" are
just - oh, that's awful shabby sort of a way to look at the
thing, but that's just the minimum. That's the minimum
security.

Now let's get to the real one, which is TA Flat - flat by TA.
That's your auditing cycles, repetitive auditing cycles,
and you no longer have TA action on it here, don't you see?
And up above this - and there are two levels of this, to make
it better - is a Major Cognition.

You'll see that sometimes. You'll see that sometimes. That
takes precedence. You haven't got the TA flat, but all of a
sudden he cognites all of the level is flat you're running.
You'll see him go pow! pow! pow! - off the meter. You've
got - "failure to scream" was the level you were running,
"about cats." And he says, "Oh! Oh, yeah! Yeah, yeah, yeah!
We used to mock up these forty-mile-high cats and yeah - oh,
well, what the hell! Yeah!" And you see the meter blow down
and bang and everything goes to hell. You try to run this
process again. He hasn't got any level there left to run.
In fact, continuing the process after one of those things
is invalidation of the pc.

Now, this is Ability Regained and that takes precedence
over all of these. This guy couldn't walk and you're
halfway through this and you haven't got the TA flat and so
forth and he hasn't had any cognition you're thinking about
and your processing cycle's a repetitive cycle, and all of
a sudden the pc says, "Hey, what do you know!" you know?
And he throws the electrodes down sideways and he gets up
and starts walking, you know? "Eh! Yeah, I can do it!"
Good, are you going to flatten the process now?

You may think I'm pointing out something ridiculous, but
you do this quite often. You spoil it.

You've got to know when to cut and run. See what I mean?
What you got coming right up is you're all of a sudden
going to make an OT - and continue to flatten the process.

Now, let's look at this, then. This single cycle - you got to
have that one down cold, and there's no doubt about that!
Got to be able to complete that. You got to be able to
complete it repetitively, time after time again, and that's
for flattening out a process. And the thing which takes
dominance over that, of course, is you flatten out the
process until you run into the ability regained.

Now, sometimes you don't run into an ability regained and
you go on and flatten the process, and have to do another
process before you regain the ability, don't you see?
Sometimes you have to flatten a lot of these before you get
up to that. Sometimes you halfway flatten one and you're
suddenly up to it. You see, but I'm just talking about
auditing cycles - repetitive auditing cycles - and where
they're aiming toward. You're aiming toward always getting this
one completed, but the only thing that interrupts it, in
any single cycle, is a cognition. Similar to repetitive
cycles, ability regained - a single auditing cycle that you
are doing runs into a cognition. What do you do in a case
like that? Well, you don't spoil the cognition by
completing the auditing cycle. You can start another
auditing cycle, if it is necessary to do so.

To that degree, to those modifications, these other things
must be pushed through to the bitter end.

All right. Well, I've given you the dope on this. I imagine
that you find this somewhat intriguing. It's a better look,
perhaps, than we have had at it. I've been meaning to get
around to it for some time, actually, and I've been
breaking it down myself so that it could be talked about
better. And you're seeing here a bit of gain; this isn't
something which I've known all the time and so forth and so
on. But I have been studying this ability regained in
relationship to finishing a whole series of auditing
cycles, and then I started breaking down the single
auditing cycle in its communication cycles and got it into
a more communicable form. And I think you'll find this very
useful, both in teaching people and in auditing, yourself.

I wish you luck. Just go on and audit. Don't try to make me
guilty by suddenly knocking the ball into the rough because
you've lost the grip.

Okay. Thank you very much.


