6209C18 SHSpec-189 Directing PC's Attention

     "Instead of reaching for an argument, reach for an E-meter." To
straighten out arguments, put the person or persons on a meter.  Pull missed
withholds on a nattery person.  Just sit him or her down as though no natter
had occurred and ask, "What have we failed to find out about you? What have I
failed to find out about you? In this session, have I missed a withhold on
you?", etc.

     When you use an E-meter, get something done.  You can do a great deal
with it, so use it to get somewhere.  The rules of auditing are to keep you
from doing ineffective things.  Men have been talking to men for thousands of
years, and the general result of these discussions has been nil.  How can we
use talking in auditing to get something to happen? The rules by which you
audit are the rules of an effective path to an accomplishment of reaching
someone, bettering someone, reaching an agreement, and improving existence.
But it is a highly circumscribed path.  There have been almost numberless
efforts in the past to cure people or make them better.  Almost all schools of
healing have involved talking or listening.  There is an effort to reach.
Axiom 10 applies throughout.

     We can now make this same talk effective.  Auditing has to do with the
comm formula.  This is the most fundamental fundamental of scientology.  When
someone says something and someone acknowledges it, if the statement is true
and the acknowledgment is received, mental charge can blow, de-intensify,
eraser be eradicated.  It is on this fact alone that auditing works.  It isn't
what is said.  It is Axiom 10.  The cycle of auditing follows this pattern:

     1. The auditor's question or command directs the PC's attention to a
        certain area of bank, causing a momentary restim.

     2. The PC, perceiving the area of bank that has been restimulated,
        responds by verbalizing.

     3. When he is acknowledged and receives the acknowledgment, he knows
        that he has responded.

     4. That area of the bank blows.

     Most auditing rules exist to maintain the purity of the auditing cycle.
The tech exists to determine what should be restimulated, in what sequence.
If you have done the auditing cycle right and you know what buttons should be
hit and what responses should be given, then you only need add repetitive
question and response and the proper sequence of questions, each followed by
the same cycle, to obtain the state of release, clear, theta clear, or OT.
That formula is the only reason anyone gets out.  There can be numberless
departures from the auditing cycle.  Other activities, like selling and
teaching, have their own cycles, which are different from the auditing cycle.
If the auditor has spent lifetimes being a salesman, he may use the wrong sort
of comm cycle and end up selling the PC an engram.  Or you may get someone who
thinks forgiveness of sins makes people better.  This person won't use the
proper auditing comm cycle.  He will do something else.

     Auditing is basically a cycle of command that operates as an
attention-director, eliciting a response from the PC and getting the PC to
as-is the restimulated area.  The PC knows he has done so when he receives an
acknowledgment from the auditor that it has occurred.  That cycle, all by
itself, is sufficiently powerful to get gains, no matter what words or process
is used.  The mere fact of directed attention and the acknowledgment that the
PC has directed his attention -- that fact by itself is therapeutic.  There
need be no significance in the command.

     The repetitive action adds duplication to the formula.  This increases
the effectiveness of the communication.  The person will become aware of the
existence of another being; he will become aware of mass and of whether his
attention is easy or hard to shift.  His awareness will increase and his
attention will become freer.  In essence, those are your CCH's.  It is the
non-significance of directed attention.  The CCH's present different ways of
directing the PC's attention with minimal significance.  Your worst-off PC
does well on these, because he discovers that there is matter, energy, space,
time, and another being in the universe.  This can be a great shock to him.
How does the great criminal live with himself? By knowing that he is the only
one, that there is no one else in the universe.

     You can't tell someone in that condition to think of the significance of
this or that, because the significance would never arrive.  He can't duplicate
it.  He can duplicate the fairly non-significant action of simply directed
attention.  This is a new idea in the communication cycle: a communication
without significance, beyond the significance of what the PC's attention is
directed to.  [Linguistic analysts refer to the "performance" aspect of
language, apart from the mere significance of the words.]  Many an activity
has directed attention, but has not done so duplicatively.  That is one of the
secrets of scientology processing, and why it works.  This was not discovered
before scientology because earlier practitioners couldn't duplicate.

     You could run a duplicative process on one object, but two is better
because it makes space and adds duplication.  You need to have two things to
use.  You need two to make space.  We live in a two-pole universe.  You can't
make space with just one spot.  You also need two things to have duplication.
This applies to Op Pro by Dup.  The two points, book and bottle, give you
space.  "I don't care how you run [Op Pro by Dup].  Run it."

     "You could direct attention repetitively, in a duplicative fashion [or]
in almost any fashion, and achieve a renewed awareness on the part of another
being [of] yourself and ... the world around him....  There's no further
significance than that," and that is the whole result of the process.  This
increased awareness improves I.Q., alertness, etc.

     Wherever you have a communication line set up, you have some kind of
response system on this line, and it will go through some kind of cycle.
Knowing that different cycles of action exist, you will see that the auditing
comm cycle is unique, and you will realize that the question or command
directs the PC's attention by pulling his bank up around his ears.  The
auditing comm cycle operates independent of the intention of the PC.  It is
more responsive to the practitioner than it is to the PC. "Any outsider has
more control over the person's reactive bank than the person himself.  It's on
that fact that auditing is based....  The common denominator of the reactive
bank is other-determinism." So auditing requires an auditor separate from the
PC to be very effective.  And when the auditor isn't following through the
cycle of action of auditing, then nobody else will adjust the bank for the
PC.  An auditor who won't help the PC out by adjusting the bank for him is
leaving him in the soup.  The auditor must control the PC's attention, if the
PC is to be able to as-is anything in the bank.  Otherwise the PC obeys the
bank, and auditing is not occurring.

     There are no good PC's and bad PC's.  There are only good and bad
auditors.  The good ones know and keep in the cycle of auditing.  If the
auditing cycle isn't followed, auditing doesn't occur.  A PC whose attention
cannot be controlled, cannot be directed into areas of significance that
reactively don't want any attention directed there.  Say the PC has a goal,
"Never to look." If you can't control the PC's attention, you will never find
it, because the bank has more authority over the PC than the auditor does.
All goals lists contain goals of this character.  If you look over the goals
list of a PC whose goal is being easily found, you will find an absence of
those goals that command the PC's attention to go the other way.  You will
find no "Never to look" or "To be silent".  These goals cause trouble until
they are located.  The PC whose attention can be directed by the auditor, on
the other hand, will have a great many of these.

     There are no good or bad PCs, only auditors who do or don't use the
auditing comm cycle and get it executed.  Sometimes an auditor has to work
harder than at other times, that's all.  You should look over your auditing
with the question, "Is the PC's attention being directed by me, and can I
count upon the fact that it is?" If you do this, you will learn a lot about
your auditing and what is going on with that PC, and the relationship between
your auditing and what is going on with the PC.

