A Freezone Bible Supporter

Here is a complete Level 0 Academy pack from the 1970s
being posted in 11 parts.  Contents below following the
FZ Bible mission statement.

Much Love,

Tech Lover


**************************************************

FREEZONE BIBLE MISSION STATEMENT

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians, 
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.  

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************


******** LEVEL ZERO ACADEMY COURSE PACK ********

Level 0 Academy Course Packs (2) circa 1974 and 1976,
Almost identical [Ed Note: differences noted like this]

Dark blue soft cardboard cover 
8 1/2 by 14 inch 4 hole punched & held together by 
double retainer clips. As issued by Pubs US.

This is complete including book excerpts but does not include
the complete book "Self Analysis" which is also part of the
level (it was posted to the internet last year).

This does not include transcripts of the level 0 tapes, but
we are working on those and will post them eventually.

Note that in the 1970s, HCOBs not written by Ron were converted
to BTBs (Board Technical Bulletins), resulting in the freequent
"reissued as BTB" designation.

Note that bulletins have a "distribution" near the top stating
where they are to be used.  A common distribution is "remimeo"
which means that the orgs may run copies on their mimeo machines.
Another, older, designation is "CenOcon" which means "Central
Orgs Continental".  Others such as "D of T" (director of training)
refer to posts in the Scientology organization.


********

CONTENTS:

part 1

01. BPL   26 JAN 72R  SCIENTOLOGY LEVEL 0 STANDARD ACADEMY CHECKSHEET
02. HCOPL  7 FEB 65 reiss. 15 JUN 70 Keeping Scientology Working
03. HCOPL 17 JUN 70 Technical Degrades
04. HCOB  11 JUN 64 New Student Data
05. HCOB  25 JUN 71R rev. 25 NOV 74 Barriers To Study
06. HCOPL 31 MAY 68 Auditors
07. BPL   17 MAY 71RA r.13 NOV 72 r.10 JUN 74 Study Points and Conditions
08. HCOPL 27 MAY 65 Processing

part 2

09. HCOPL 15 DEC 65 Student's Guide To Acceptable Behavior
10. HCOPL 14 FEB 65 Safeguarding Technology
11. HCOB  27 SEP 66 The Anti-Social Personality
12. HCOPL 22 NOV 67 Rev. 18 JUL 70 Out Tech
13. HCOPL  8 JUN 70 Student Auditing
14. BPL   25 JUN 70RA Expanded Lower Grades
15. HCOB  25 SEP 71RA rev 4 APR 74 Tone Scale In Full
16. BTB   20 JUL 74 Basic Auditing Drills
17. HCOPL 14 OCT 68R rev 1 JAN 76 The Auditor's Code

part 3

18. BTB    6 NOV 72R rev 25 JUL 74 Admin 14R The Worksheets
19. BTB    6 NOV 72R rev 27 AUG 74 Admin 13R The Auditor Report Form
20. BTB    6 NOV 72R rev 28 JUL 74 Admin 12R The Summary Report Form
21. BTB   20 JUN 70 reiss 21 JUL 74 Summary Report
22. BTB    6 NOV 72RA rev 20 NOV 74 Admin 11RA The Exam Report
23. HCOPL  8 MAR 71 Examiner's Form
24. BTB    5 NOV 72R rev 9 SEP 74 Admin 7R The Folder Summary
25. BTB   24 APR 69R rev 8 SEP 74 Preclear Assessment Sheet
26. HCOPL 23 APR 68 Parent or Guardian Assent Forms
27. HCOB  16 AUG 71 Training Drills Modernized

part 4

28. HCOB  24 OCT 71 False TA
29. HCOB  24 OCT 71 False TA Addition 
30. HCOB  15 FEB 72 False TA Addition 2
31. HCOB  18 FEB 72 False TA Addition 3
32. HCOB  29 FEB 72R rev 23 NOV 73 False TA Checklist
33. HCOB  23 NOV 73 Dry and Wet Hands Make False TA
34. HCOB  21 OCT 68 Floating Needle
35. HCOB  11 FEB 66 Free Needles, How To Get Them On a PC
36. HCOB  21 SEP 66 ARC Break Needle
37. HCOB  20 FEB 70 Floating Needles and End Phenomena
38. HCOB   8 OCT 70 C/S Ser 20 Persistent F/N
39. HCOB  21 MAR 74 End Phenomena
40. HCOB  14 MAR 71R r. 25 JUL 73 F/N Everything
41. HCOB  14 OCT 68 Meter Position
42. BTB   14 JAN 63 Rings Causing "Rock Slams"
43. HCOB  18 MAR 74 E-Meter Sensitivity Errors
44. BTB   16 JUN 71R r. 22 JUL 74 Advanced E-Meter Drills
45. HCOB  11 MAY 69 Meter Trim Check
46. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 11 Metering
47. HCOB  10 DEC 65 E-Meter Drill Coaching

part 5

48. HCOB   7 APR 64 Q And A
49. HCOB   3 AUG 65 Auditing Goofs Blowdown Interruption
50. HCOB   5 FEB 66 Letting The PC Itsa
51. HCOB   7 MAY 69 The Five GAEs
52. HCOB  17 MAY 69 TRs and Dirty Needles
53. BTB    4 JUL 69 r. 6 JUL 74 Auditing of OT 3 Preclears
54. BTB   17 JUL 69 r. 28 JUN 74 Flagrant Auditing Errors
55. HCOB  29 JUL 64 Good Indicators At Lower Levels
56. BTB   26 APR 69 r. 7 JUL 64 Bad Indicators
57. HCOPL  4 APR 72 rev. 7 APR 72 Ethics And Study Tech
58. HCOB  14 NOV 65 Clearing Commands
59. BTB    2 MAY 72R r. 10 JUN 74 Clearing Commands
60. BTB   18 NOV 68R r. 9 JUN 74 Model Session
61. HCOB  12 AUG 69 Flying Ruds
62. HCOB  23 AUG 71 (24 May 70 rev) Auditors Rights
63. HCOB   6 NOV 64 Styles of Auditing

part 6

64. HCOB  30 APR 71 Auditing Comm Cycle
65. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 2R The Two Parts Of Auditing
66. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 3 Three Important Comm Lines
67. HCOB  23 MAY 71R aud ser 4R Comm Cycles Within the Auditing Cycle
68. HCOB  23 MAY 71R aud ser 5R The Comm Cycles In Auditing

part 7

69. HCOB  12 JAN 59 Tone of Voice - Acknowledgement
70. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 6 Auditor Failure To Understand
71. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 7 Premature Acknowledgements
72. HCOPL  1 JUL 65 Comm Cycle Additives
73. HCOB  29 SEP 65 Cyclical and Non-Cyclical Processes
74. HCOB  17 MAR 74 TWC, Using Wrong Questions
75. BOOK  Dianetics 55 Chapter 12 The 6 Basic Processes

part 8

76. HCOB  16 FEB 59 Staff Auditor's Conference

part 9

77. HCOB  20 OCT 59 An Experimental Process
78. HCOB  16 FEB 59 HGC Processes for those trained in Engram Running
79. HCOB   8 APR 58 A Pair Of Processes
80. HCOB   9 MAR 60 Expansion of OT-3A Procedure, Step Two
81. HCOB  20 APR 60 Processes
82. HCOB  27 SEP 68 ARC Straight Wire
83. BTB    9 OCT 71RA r. 28 JUN 74 ARC Straightwire Drills
84. BTB   15 NOV 76 ARC Straightwire Quads
85. BOOK  Creation of Human Ability R2-31
86. PAB    8 JUL 55 PAB 56 Axiom 51 and Comm Processing

part 10

87. PAB   18 JUN 55 PAB 54 Reality Level of Preclear
88. HCOB  17 MAR 60 Standardized Sessions
89. HCOB   4 MAY 59 An Affinity Process
90. HCOB   2 MAR 61 New Pre-Hav Command
91. HCOB  25 SEP 59 HAS Co-Audit
92. HCOB  21 JUL 59 HGC Allowed Processes
93. BOOK   Creation of Human Ability R2-60
94. HCOB  13 OCT 59 D.E.I. Expanded Scale
95. HCOB   7 MAY 59 New Process Theory
96. BOOK   Scn 8-8008 6 Levels of Processing Issue 5
97. HCOB  11 DEC 64 Scientology 0 Processes
98. HCOB  26 DEC 64 Routine 0-A Expanded

part 11

99. BTB    9 OCT 71RA r. 29 JUL 74 Level 0 Drills
100. BTB  15 NOV 76 Grade Zero Processes - Quads

********

63. HCOB   6 NOV 64 Styles of Auditing


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER AD14

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students


STYLES OF AUDITING

Note 1: Most old-time auditors, particularly Saint Hill Graduates,
have been trained at one time or another in these auditing
styles. Here they are given names and assigned to Levels so that 
they can be taught more easily and so that general auditing can 
be improved.

(Note 2: These have not been written before because I had not
determined the results vital to each Level.)

There is a Style of auditing for each class. By Style is
meant a method or custom of performing actions.

A Style is not really determined by the process being run
so much. A Style is how the auditor addresses his task.

Different processes carry different style requirements
perhaps, but that is not the point.

Clay Table Healing at Level III can be run with Level I
style and still have some gains. But an auditor trained up
to the style required at Level III would do a better job
not only of CT Healing but of any repetitive process.

Style is how the auditor audits. The real expert can do
them all, but only after he can do each one. Style is a
mark of Class. It is not individual. In our meaning, it is
a distinct way to handle the tools of auditing.


LEVEL ZERO

LISTEN STYLE

At Level 0 the Style is Listen Style Auditing. Here the
auditor is expected to listen to the pc. The only skill
necessary is listening to another. As soon as it is
ascertained that the auditor is listening (not just
confronting or ignoring) the auditor can be checked out.
The length of time an auditor can listen without tension or
strain showing could be a factor. What the pc does is not a
factor considered in judging this style. Pcs, however, talk
to an auditor who is really listening.

Here we have the highest point that old-time mental
therapies reached (when they did reach it), such as
psychoanalysis, when they helped anyone. Mostly they were
well below this, evaluating, invalidating, interrupting.
These three things are what the instructor in this style
should try to put across to the HAS student.

Listen Style should not be complicated by expecting more of
the auditor than just this: Listen to the pc without
evaluating, invalidating or interrupting.

Adding on higher skills like "Is the pc talking
interestingly?" or even "Is the pc talking?" is no part of
this style. When this auditor gets in trouble and the pc
won't talk or isn't interested, a higher classed auditor is
called in, a new question given by the supervisor, etc.

It really isn't "Itsa" to be very technical. Itsa is the
action of the pc saying, "It's a this" or "It's a that."
Getting the pc to Itsa is quite beyond Listen Style
auditors where the pc won't. It's the supervisor or the
question on the blackboard that gets the pc to Itsa.

The ability to listen, learned well, stays with the auditor
up through the grades. One doesn't cease to use it even at
Level VI. But one has to learn it somewhere and that's at
Level Zero. So Listen Style Auditing is just listening. It
thereafter adds into the other styles.


LEVEL ONE

MUZZLED AUDITING

This could also be called rote style auditing.

Muzzled Auditing has been with us many years. It is the
stark total of TRs 0 to 4 and not anything else added.

It is called so because auditors too often added in
comments, Qed and Aed, deviated, discussed and otherwise
messed up a session. Muzzle meant a "muzzle was put on
them", figuratively speaking, so they would only state the
auditing command and ack.

Repetitive Command Auditing, using TRs 0 to 4, at Level One
is done completely muzzled.

This could be called Muzzled Repetitive Auditing Style but
will be called "Muzzled Style" for the sake of brevity.

It has been a matter of long experience that pcs who didn't
make gains with the partially trained auditor permitted to
two-way comm, did make gains the instant the auditor was
muzzled: to wit, not permitted to do a thing but run the
process, permitted to say nothing but the commands and
acknowledge them and handle pc originations by simple
acknowledgment without any other question or comment.

At Level One we don't expect the auditor to do anything but
state the command (or ask the question) with no variation,
acknowledge the pc's answer and handle the pc origins by
understanding and acknowledging what the pc said.

Those processes used at Level One actually respond best to
muzzled auditing and worst to misguided efforts to "Two-Way
Comm".

Listen Style combines with Muzzled Style easily. But watch
out that Level One sessions don't disintegrate to Level Zero.

Crisp, clean repetitive commands, muzzled, given and
answered often, are the road out not pc wanderings.

A pc at this Level is instructed in exactly what is
expected of him, exactly what the auditor will do. The pc
is even put through a few "do birds fly?" cycles until the
pc gets the idea. Then the processing works.

An auditor trying to do Muzzled Repetitive Auditing on a pc
who, through past "therapy experience", is rambling on and
on is a sad sight. It means that control is out (or that
the pc never got above Level Zero).

It's the number of commands given and answered in a unit of
auditing time that gets gains.

To that add the correctly chosen repetitive process and you
have a release in short order, using the processes of this
Level.

To follow limp Listen Style with crisp, controlled Muzzled
Style may be a shock. But they are each the lowest of the
two families of auditing stylesTotally Permissive and
Totally Controlled. And they are so different each is easy
to learn with no confusion. It's been the lack
of difference amongst styles that confuses the student into
slopping about. Well, these two are different enoughListen
Style and Muzzled Styleto set anybody straight.


LEVEL TWO

GUIDING STYLE AUDITING

An old-time auditor would have recognized this style under
two separate names: (a) Two-Way Comm and (b) Formal Auditing.

We condense these two old styles under one new name:
Guiding Style Auditing.

One first guides the pc by "two-way comm" into some subject
that has to be handled or into revealing what should be
handled and then the auditor handles it with formal
repetitive commands.

Guiding Style Auditing becomes feasible only when a student
can do Listen Style and Muzzled Style Auditing well.

Formerly the student who couldn't confront or duplicate a
command took refuge in sloppy discussions with the pc and
called it auditing or "Two-Way Comm".

The first thing to know about Guiding Style is that one
lets the pc talk and Itsa without chop, but also gets the
pc steered into the proper subject and gets the job done
with repetitive commands.

We presuppose the auditor at this Level has had enough case
gain to be able to occupy the viewpoint of the auditor and
therefore to be able to observe the pc. We also presuppose
at this Level that the auditor, being able to occupy a
viewpoint, is therefore more self-determined, the two
things being related. (One can only be self-determined when
one can observe the actual situation before one: otherwise
a being is delusion-determined or other-determined.) Thus
in Guiding Style Auditing, the auditor is there to find out
what's what from the pc and then apply the needful remedy.

Most of the processes in the Book of Remedies are included
in this Level (II). To use those, one has to observe the
pc, discover what the pc is doing, and remedy the pc's case
accordingly.

The result for the pc is a far-reaching re-orientation in Life.

Thus the essentials of Guiding Style Auditing consist of
Two-Way Comm that steers the pc into revealing a difficulty
followed by a repetitive process to handle what has been
revealed.

One does expert TRs but one may discuss things with the pc,
let the pc talk and in general one audits the pc before
one, establishing what that pc needs and then doing it with
crisp repetitive auditing, but all the while alert to
changes in the pc.

One runs at this Level against Tone Arm Action, paying
little or no heed to the needle except as a centering
device for TA position. One even establishes what's to be
done by the action of the Tone Arm. (The process of storing
up things to run on the pc by seeing what fell when he was
running what's being run, now belongs at this Level (II)
and will be re-numbered accordingly.)

At II one expects to handle a lot of chronic PTPs, overts,
ARC Breaks with Life (but not session ARC Breaks, that
being a needle action, session ARC Breaks being sorted out
by a higher classed auditor if they occur).

To get such things done (PTPs, overts and other remedies)
in the session the auditor must have a pc "willing to talk
to the auditor about his difficulties". That presupposes we
have an auditor at this Level who can ask questions, not
repetitive, that guide the pc into talking about the
difficulty that needs to be handled.

Great command of TR 4 is the primary difference in TRs from
Level I. One understands, when one doesn't, by asking more
questions, and by really acknowledging only when one has
really understood it.

Guided comm is the clue to control at this Level. One
should easily guide the pc's comm in and out and around
without chopping the pc or wasting session time. As soon as
an auditor gets the idea of finite result or, that is to
say, a specific and definite result expected, all this is
easy. Pc has a PTP. Example: Auditor has to have the idea
he is to locate and destimulate the PTP so pc is not
bothered about it (and isn't being driven to do something
about it) as the finite result.

The auditor at II is trained to audit the pc before him,
get the pc into comm, guide the pc toward data needful to
choose a process and then to run the process necessary to
resolve that thing found, usually by repetitive command and
always by TA.

The Book of Remedies is the key to this Level and this
auditing style.

One listens but only to what one has guided the pc into.
One runs repetitive commands with good TR 4. And one may
search around for quite a while before one is satisfied he
has the answer from the pc needful to resolve a certain
aspect of the pc's case.

O/W can be run at Level I. But at Level II one may guide
the pc into divulging what the pc considers a real overt
act and, having that, then guide the pc through all the
reasons it wasn't an overt and so eventually blow it.

Half-acknowledgment is also taught at Level IIthe ways of
keeping a pc talking by giving the pc the feeling he is
being heard and yet not chopping with overdone TR 2.

Big or multiple acknowledgment is also taught to shut the
pc off when the pc is going off the subject.


LEVEL III

ABRIDGED STYLE AUDITING

By Abridged is meant "abbreviated", shorn of extras. Any
not actually needful auditing command is deleted.

For instance, at Level I the auditor always says, when the
pc wanders off the subject, "I will repeat the auditing
command" and does so. In Abridged Style the auditor omits
this when it isn't necessary and just asks the command
again if the pc has forgotten it.

In this style we have shifted from pure rote to a sensible
use or omission as needful. We still use repetitive
commands expertly, but we don't use rote that is
unnecessary to the situation.

Two-Way Comm comes into its own at Level III. But with
heavy use of repetitive commands.

At this Level we have as the primary process, Clay Table
Healing. In this an auditor must make sure the commands are
followed exactly. No auditing command is ever let go of
until that actual command is answered by the pc.

But at the same time, one doesn't necessarily give every
auditing command the process has in its rundown.

In Clay Table Healing one is supposed to make sure the pc
is satisfied each time. This is done more often by
observation than command. Yet it is done.

We suppose at III that we have an auditor who is in pretty
fine shape and can observe.

Thus we see the pc is satisfied and don't mention it. Thus
we see when the pc is not certain and so we get something
the pc is certain of in answering the question.

On the other hand, one gives all the necessary commands
crisply and definitely and gets them executed.

Prepchecking and needle usage is taught at Level III as
well as Clay Table Healing.

Auditing by List is also taught. In Abridged Style Auditing
one may find the pc (being cleaned up on a list question)
giving half a dozen answers in a rush. One doesn't stop the
pc from doing so, one half acknowledges, and lets the pc go
on. One is in actual fact handling a bigger auditing comm
cycle, that is all. The question elicits more than one
answer which is really only one answer. And when that
answer is given, it is acknowledged.

One sees when a needle is clean without some formula set of
questions that invalidate all the pc's relief. And one sees
it isn't clean by the continued puzzle on the pc's face.

There are tricks involved here. One asks a question of the
pc with the key word in it and notes that the needle
doesn't tremble, and so concludes the question about the
word is flat. And so doesn't check it again. Example: "Has
anything else been suppressed?" One eye on pc, one on
needle, needle didn't quiver. Pc looks noncommittal.
Auditor says, "All right, on " and goes on to next
question, eliminating a pc's possible protest read that can
be mistaken for another "suppress".

In Abridged Style Auditing one sticks to the essentials and
drops rote where it impedes case advance. But that doesn't
mean one wanders about. One is even more crisp and thorough
with Abridged Style Auditing than in rote.

One is watching what happens and doing exactly enough to
achieve the expected result.

By "Abridged" is meant getting the exact job donethe
shortest way between two pointswith no waste questions.

By now the student should know that he runs a process to
achieve an exact result and he gets the process run in a
way to achieve that result in the smallest amount of time.

The student is taught to guide rapidly, to have no time for
wide excursions.

The processes at this Level are all rat-a-tat-tat
processesCT Healing, Prepchecking, Auditing by List.

Again it's the number of times the question is answered per
unit of auditing time that makes for speed of result.


LEVEL IV

DIRECT STYLE AUDITING

By direct we mean straight, concentrated, intense, applied
in a direct manner.

We do not mean direct in the sense of to direct somebody or
to guide. We mean it is direct.

By direct, we don't mean frank or choppy. On the contrary,
we put the pc's attention on his bank and anything we do is
calculated only to make that attention more direct.

It could also mean that we are not auditing by vias. We are
auditing straight at the things that need to be reached to
make somebody clear.

Other than this the auditing attitude is very easy and relaxed.

At Level IV we have Clay Table Clearing and we have
Assessment type processes.

These two types of process are both astonishingly direct.
They are aimed directly at the Reactive Mind. They are done
in a direct manner.

In CT Clearing we have almost total work and Itsa from pcs.
From one end of a session to another, we may have only a
few auditing commands. For a pc on CT Clearing does almost
all the work if he is in session at all.

Thus we have another implication in the word "direct". The
pc is talking directly to the auditor about what he is
making and why in CT Clearing. The auditor hardly ever
talks at all.

In assessment the auditor is aiming directly at the pc's
bank and wants no pc in front of it thinking, speculating,
maundering or Itsaing. Thus this assessment is a very
direct action.

All this requires easy, smooth,
steel-hand-in-a-velvet-glove control of the pc. It looks
easy and relaxed as a style, it is straight as a Toledo blade.

The trick is to be direct in what's wanted and not deviate.
The auditor settles what's to be done, gives the command
and then the pc may work for a long time, the auditor
alert, attentive, completely relaxed.

In assessment the auditor often pays no attention to the pc
at all, as in ARC Breaks or assessing lists. Indeed, a pc
at this level is trained to be quiet during the assessment
of a list.

And in CT Clearing an auditor may be quiet for an hour at a
stretch.

The tests are: Can the auditor keep the pc quiet while
assessing without ARC Breaking the pc? Can the auditor
order the pc to do something and then, the pc working on
it, can the auditor remain quiet and attentive for an hour,
understanding everything and interrupt alertly only when he
doesn't understand and get the pc to make it clearer to
him? Again without ARC Breaking the pc.

You could confuse this Direct Style with Listen Style if
you merely glanced at a session of CT Clearing. But what a
difference. In Listen Style the pc is blundering on and on
and on.

In Direct Style the pc wanders off the line an inch and
starts to Itsa, let us say, with no clay work and after it
was obvious to the auditor that this pc had forgotten the
clay, you'd see the auditor, quick as a foil, look at the
pc, very interestedly and say, "Let's see that in Clay." Or
the pc doesn't really give an ability he wants to improve
and you'd hear a quiet persuasive auditor voice, "Are you
quite certain you want to improve that? Sounds like a goal
to me. Just something, some ability you know, you'd like to
improve."

You could call this style One-Way Auditing. When the pc is
given his orders, after that it's all from the pc to the
auditor, and all involved with carrying out that auditing
instruction.

When the auditor is assessing it is all from the auditor to
the pc. Only when the assessment action hits a snag like a
PTP is there any other auditing style used.

This is a very extreme auditing style. It is
straightforwarddirect.

But when needful, as in any Level, the styles learned below
it are often also employed, but never in the actual actions
of getting CT Clearing and Assessment done.

(Note: Level V would be the same style as VI below.)


LEVEL VI

ALL STYLE

So far, we have dealt with simple actions.

Now we have an auditor handling a meter and a pc who Itsa's
and Cognites and gets PTPs and ARC Breaks and Line Charges
and Cognites and who finds Items and lists and who must be
handled, handled, handled all the way.

As auditing TA for a 2l/2 hour session can go to 79 or 125
divisions (compared to 10 or 15 for the lowest level), the
pace of the session is greater. It is this pace that makes
perfect ability at each lower level vital when they combine
into All Style. For each is now faster.

So, we learn All Style by learning each of the lower styles
well, and then observe and apply the style needed every
time it is needed, shifting styles as often as once every
minute! The best way to learn All Style is to become expert
at each lower style so that one does the style correct for
the situation each time the situation requiring that style
occurs.

It is less rough than it looks. But it is also very demanding.

Use the wrong style on a situation and you've had it. ARC
Break! No progress! Example: Right in the middle of an
assessment the needle gets dirty. The auditor can't
continueor shouldn't. The auditor, in Direct Style, looks
up to see a-puzzled frown. The auditor has to shift to
Guiding Style to find out what ails the pc (who probably
doesn't really know), then to Listen Style while the pc
cognites on a chronic PTP that just emerged and bothered
the pc, then to Direct Style to finish the Assessment that
was in progress.

The only way an auditor can get confused by All Style is by
not being good at one of the lower level styles.

Careful inspection will show where the student using All
Style is slipping. One then gets the student to review that
style that was not well learned and practice it a bit.

So All Style, when poorly done, is very easy to remedy for
it will be in error on one or more of the lower level
styles. And as all these can be independently taught, the
whole can be co-ordinated. All Style is hard to do only
when one hasn't mastered one of the lower level styles.

SUMMARY

These are the important Styles of Auditing. There have been
others but they are only variations of those given in this
HCO Bulletin. Tone 40 Style is the most notable one missing.

It remains as a practice style at Level One to teach
fearless body handling and to teach one to get his command
obeyed. It is no longer used in practice.

As it was necessary to have every result and every process
for each Level to finalize Styles of Auditing, I left this
until last and here it is.

Please note that none of these Styles violate the auditing
comm cycle or the TRs.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.rd 
Copyright c 1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


********

64. HCOB  30 APR 71 Auditing Comm Cycle


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 APRIL 1971

Remimeo
HDC Checksht
Cse Sup Checksht
Class 0 Checksht


AUDITING COMM CYCLE

(Reference HCO B 26 Apr 71, "TRs AND COGNITIONS")

The following AUDITING comm cycle is taken from SHSBC tapes.

An auditor runs the session. He gives the pc the session
action without pulling the pc's attention heavily on the
auditor. He does not leave the pc inactive or floundering
without anything to do. He does not leave the pc to make a
session out of it. The auditor makes the session. He
doesn't wait for the pc to run down like a clock or just
sit there while the TA soars after an F/N.

The auditor runs the session. He knows what to do for
everything that can happen.

And this is the Auditing Comm cycle that is always in use.

1. Is the pc ready to receive the command? (appearance, presence)

2. Auditor gives command/question to pc (cause, distance, effect).

3. Pc looks to bank for answer (Itsa maker line).

4. Pc receives answer from bank.

5. Pc gives answer to auditor (cause, distance, effect).

6. Auditor acknowledges pc.

7. Auditor sees that pc received ack (attention).

8. New cycle beginning with (1).

       attention
AUD. ---------------------> PC
     ---------------------> 
       command

AUD. <--------------------- PC --->
       <--- BANK

        ack
AUD. ---------------------> PC
     - - - - - - - - - - ->
        attention


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:mes.rd 
Copyright c 1971 
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

********

65. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 2R The Two Parts Of Auditing


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971R
Issue II
REVISED 6 DECEMBER 1974

Remimeo 
Auditors 
Supervisors 
Students
Tech & Qual

Basic Auditing Series 2R

THE TWO PARTS OF AUDITING

From the LRH Tape 2 July 1964,
"O/W Modernised and Revised"

In order to do something for somebody you have to have a
communication line to that person.

Communication lines depend upon reality and communication
and affinity and where an individual is too demanding the
affinity tends to break down slightly.

Processing goes in two stages.

1. To get into communication with that which you are trying
to process.

2. Do something for him.

There is many a pc who will go around raving about his
auditor, whose auditor has not done anything for the pc.
All that has happened is that a tremendous communication
line has been established with the pc and this is so novel
and so strange to the pc that he then considers that
something miraculous has occurred.

Something miraculous has occurred but in this particular
instance the auditor has totally neglected why he formed
that communication line in the first place. He formed it in
the first place to do something for the pc.

He very often mistakes the fact that he has formed a
communication line, and the reaction on the pc for his
having formed one, with having done something for the pc.

There are two stages.

1. Form a communication line.

2. Do something for the pc.

Those are the two distinct stages. It is something like (I)
Walking up to the bus, and (2) Driving off. If you don't
drive off you never go anyplace.

It is a very tricky and no small thing to be able to
communicate to a human being who has never been
communicated to before. This is quite remarkable, and is
such a remarkable feat that it appears to be an end-all of
Scientology to some.

But you see that's just walking up to the bus. Now you have
got to go someplace.

Any upset that the individual has is so poised, it is so
delicately balanced, that it is difficult to maintain. It
is not difficult to get well. It is very hard to remain
batty. A fellow has to work at it.

If your communication line is very good and very smooth and
if your auditing discipline is perfect so you don't upset
this communication line and if you just made a foray of no
more importance than saying something likeWhat are you
doing that's sensible and why is it sensible?and kept your
communication line up all the while and kept your affinity
up with the pc all the while, did it with perfect
discipline, you would see more aberration fall to pieces
per square inch than you ever thought could exist.

Now that's what I mean when I say do something for the pc.

You must audit well, get perfect discipline and get your
communication cycle in. Don't ARC Break the pc, let your
cycles of action complete.

All of that is simply an entrance. You see, the discipline
of Scientology makes it possible to do this, and one of the
reasons why other fields of the mind never got anyplace and
could never get near anybody was because they couldn't
communicate to anybody.

So that discipline is important.

That is the ladder that goes up to the door and if you
can't get to the door you can't do anything.

The perfect discipline of which we speak, the perfect
communication cycle, the perfect auditor presence, perfect
meter readingall of these things are just to get you in a
state where you can do something for somebody.

So when you're real slow picking up the discipline, real
slow picking up keeping in the communication cycle, when
you're pokey on the subject you are still 9 miles from the
ball.

You're not even attending yet.

What you want to be able to do is audit perfectly. By that
we mean keep in a communication cycle, be able to approach
the pc, be able to talk to the pc, and be able to maintain
the ARC. Get the pc to give you answers to your questions.
Be able to read a meter and get the reactions.

All of those things have to be awfully good because it's
very difficult to get a communication line in to somebody
anyway. They all have to be present and they all have to be
perfect. If they are all present and they are all perfect,
then we can start to process somebody.

THEN we can start to process somebody.

I'm giving you an entrance point here of, if all your
cycles were perfect, if you were able to sit there and
confront the pc and meter that pc and keep your auditing
report and do all these multiple various things, and keep a
pleasant smile on your face and not chop his communication,
well then there is something you do with these things. It
takes a process now.

We used to have it all backwards. We used to try and teach
people what they could do for somebody. But they could
never get in communication with him to do it, so therefore
you had failures in processing.

The most elementary procedure would be "What do you think
is sensible?" or anything of that sort. The pc says,
"Well, I think horses sleep in beds. That's sensible. 
The auditor says, "Alright Now why is that sensible?"
The pc says, "Well ... ah .... Hey! ... That's not 
sensible. That's nuts!" You actually wouldn't have 
to do anything more than that. He's cognited. You've
flattened it. It's so easy to do, but you keep looking for
some magic.

Well, your magic is in getting into communication with the
person. The rest is very easy to do, all you have to do is
remain in communication with the person while you are doing
this, and realize that these huge aberrations he's got are
poised with the most fantastically delicate balance on
little pinheads. All you have to do is to phooph and these
things crash.

Now if you're not in communication with this person he
doesn't cognite. He takes it as an accusative action. He
tries to justify thinking that way. He tries to make
himself look good to you and tries to put on a public front
of some kind or another. He tries to hold up his status.

Anytime I see a bunch of pcs around who want to jump
happily to something else because sane people run on that
and crazy people run on something else, and they never have
to be run on the crazy one, I right away know their
auditors are not in communication with them and that
auditing discipline itself has broken down because the pc
is trying to justify himself and trying to uphold his own
status. So he must be defending himself against the auditor.

The auditor couldn't possibly be in communication with him.

So we are right back to the fundamental of why didn't the
auditor get into comm with the pc in the first place.

You get into communication with the pc in the first place
by doing proper Scientology discipline. That is not any
trick. It goes off 1, 2, 3, 4

You sit down and you start the session and you start
handling the pc and his problems and that sort of thing and
you DO IT BY COMPLETING YOUR COMMUNICATION CYCLES AND 
NOT CUTTING HIS COMMUNICATION. THE VERY THINGS YOU
ARE TAUGHT IN THE TRs, and you find you are in
communication with the person. Now you've got to do
something for the person.

Unless, having gotten into communication, you do something
for the person, you lose your communication line because
the R-Factor of why you're in communication with the pc
breaks down. He doesn't think you're so good, and you go
out of communication with him.

That having happened, the person will be in a sort of
status defensive and wonder why he is being processed.

On the other hand, if you have done something for the pc
and he has had his cognition, and you try and go on and get
more TA action out of the fact that "all horses sleep in
beds" you don't get there as you've already flattened the
process.

You can over-audit and you can under-audit.

If you don't notice that one answer come your way, that
indicates you have done something for the pc and if you
keep him working on that same thing, your TA action will
disappear, your pc will get resentful and you'll lose your
communication line.

He's already had the cognition you see. You are now
restimulating the pc. You have gotten your key-out
destimulation factorit has occurred right before your
eyes. You have done something for the pc. One more mention
of the subject and you've had it.

There are a lot of things you could do with the pc, without
doing anything for him. You can turn on some very very
handsome somatics on a pc at one time or another without
turning them off either. You've got to do something for the
pc, not to him.

Now you can be doing something (A), and the pc is doing
(B), and you go on doing (A), while the pc is doing (B)
then somewhere on down the line you wind up in a hell of a
mess and you wonder what happened.

Well the pc never did what you said so you didn't do
anything for the pc. There was in actual fact no barrier to
your willingness to do something for the pc but there must
have been a tremendous barrier to your understanding of
what was going on.

That you could ask (A), while the pc answered (B), in
itself showed the auditor observation was very poor so
therefore the auditor wasn't in communication with the pc.

So again the communication factor was out and once more we
weren't doing anything for the pc.

It requires of the auditor discipline to keep in his
communication line. He has got to stay in communication
with his pc. Those cycles have got to be perfect. He can't
be distracting the pc's attention onto the TA, e.g. "I'm
not getting any TA action now." That's not staying in
communication with the pchas nothing to do with it. You're
distracting the pc from his own zones and areas.

Don't put the pc's attention out of session. Keep him going
and keep that communication line i n . And the next
requirement is to do something productive for the pc using
the communication line.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:nt:jh 
Copyright c 1971, 1974 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[Ed. Note: The 1974 pack contains the original version,
basic aud ser 2 instead of 2R. The paragraph begining
"Well your magic is in getting into communication" 
and a few other sentences were added in version 2R
above, presumably from the original tape.  The first
version is by "Personnel Enhancing Cheif Flag".]


********

66. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 3 Three Important Comm Lines


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971
Issue III
Reissued 1 December 1974

CANCELS
BTB OF 23 MAY 1971
SAME TITLE

Remimeo
Auditors 
Supervisors 
Students Issue III
Tech & Qual 

Basic Auditing Series 3

THE THREE IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION LINES

From the LRH Tape 15 Oct 63, "Essentials of Auditing"

When you are sitting in an auditing session what are the 3
important communication lines and what is their order of
importance?

1. The first is the Pc's line to his bank. The Itsa Maker line.

2. The second is the Pc's line to the Auditor. The Itsa line.

3. The third is the Auditor's line to the Pc. The What's-it line.

Now the definition, "Willing to talk to the Auditor", is
very easy to interpret as "Talking to the Auditor". So the
Auditor cuts the line the Pc has to the bank in order to
get the Pc to talk, because "It's the Itsa line that blows
the charge," he says.

So the Auditor cuts the Pc's communication line with his
bank in order to bring about an Itsa lineand then he
wonders why he gets no TA action and why the Pc ARC Breaks.

This cut communication line is not perceivable to the naked
eye. It's hidden because it's from the Pca Thetan unseen
by the Auditorto the Pc's bankunseen by the Auditor.

The Auditor is simply there to use the What's-it line in
order to get the Pc to confront his bank. The charge blows
off it to the degree that it's confronted and this is
represented by the Itsa line.

The Itsa line is a report on what has been as-ised, that
gives it its flow.

The sequence of use of these lines in an auditing cycle is
3, 1, and then 2.

Where the Auditor neglects this hidden line from the Pc to
the Pc's bank, where he doesn't understand that hidden line
and can't integrate it or do anything with it he is going
to fail.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.ts.rd

Copyright c 1971, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

********

67. HCOB  23 MAY 71R aud ser 4R Comm Cycles Within the Auditing Cycle


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971R
Issue IV
REVISED 4 DECEMBER 1974

Remimeo 
Auditors 
Supervisors 
Students
Tech & Qual


Basic Auditing Series 4R

COMMUNICATION CYCLES WITHIN THE

AUDITING CYCLE

(Taken from the LRH Tape, "Comm Cycles
in Auditing", 25 July 1963)

The difficulty that an Auditor gets into is normally found
in his own auditing cycle.

There are basically two communication cycles between the
Auditor and the Pc that make up the auditing cycle.

They 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.

        Cause------------Distance---------->Effect
Auditor                                             Pc
        Effect<----------Distance------------Cause

These are completely distinct one from the other. The only
thing that connects them and makes an auditing cycle, is
the fact that the Auditor, on his communication cycle, has
calculatingly restimulated something in the Pc which is
then discharged by the Pc's communication cycle.

What the Auditor has said has caused a restimulation and
then the Pc needs to answer the question to get rid of the
restimulation.

If the Pc does not answer the question he doesn't get rid
of the restimulation. That is the game that is being played
in an auditing cycle and that is the entirety of the game.
(Some auditing breaks down because the Auditor is unwilling
to restimulate the Pc.) There is a little extra
communication cycle on here. The Auditor says, "Thank you"
and you have this as the acknowledgement cycle.

        C ------------ Command --------------> E

Auditor E <----------- Answer ---------------- C   Pc

        C ------------ Acknowledgement ------> E

Now there are some little inner cycles that can throw you
off and make you think that there are some other things to
the auditing cycle. There is another little shadow cycle:
it is the observation of "Has the Pc received the auditing
command?" This 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 this one. "Does he
receive it?" Actually there is another cause in here and
you're missing that one when you're not perceiving the Pc.

You can tell by looking at the Pc that he didn't hear or
understand what you'd said or that he was doing something
peculiar with the command he was receiving. Whatever that
message is in response, it rides on this line.

                    Did Pc receive,
        e <-------- understand and --------- c
                    answer command?

        C ----------- Command -------------> E

Auditor E <---------- Answer  -------------- C   Pc

        C -------- Acknowledgement --------> E

An Auditor who isn't watching a Pc at all never notices a
Pc who isn't receiving or understanding the auditing
command. Then all of a sudden somewhere along the line
there is an ARC Break and then we do assessments and 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 if this line had been in.

What is the Pc doing completely aside from answering? Well,
what he is doing is this other little sub-cause, distance,
effect line.

Another of these tiny lines is the cause, distance, effect
line of"Is the Pc ready to receive an auditing command?"

This is the Pc causing and it rides up the line across
distance, is received at the Auditor and the Auditor
perceives that the Pc is doing something else.

It is an important one and you find that Auditors goof that
one very often; the Pc's attention is still on a prior action.

Now here's another one"Has the Pc received the
acknowledgement?" Sometimes you violate this one. You have
been acknowledging but you've never seen that he didn't
receive the acknowledgement. That perception has another
little tiny one in it that actually comes on this line; it
is''Has the Pc answered everything?''

The Auditor is watching the Pc and the Auditor sees that
the Pc has not said all that the Pc is going to say. You
sometimes get into trouble with Pcs that way. Everything at
"cause" hasn't moved on down the line to effect and you
haven't perceived all of the "effect" and you go into the
acknowledgement one before this line has completed itself.

That's chopping the Pc's communication. You didn't let the
communication cycle flow to its complete end. The
acknowledgement takes place and of course it can't go
through as it's an inflowing line and it jams right there
on the Pc's incomplete outflowing answer line.

                  Is the Pc ready
        e <------ for the command? -------- c

                  Did Pc receive,
        c ------- understand and ---------- c
                  answer command

        C --------- Command --------------> E

Auditor E <--------- Answer --------------- C    Pc

        C ------- Acknowledgement --------> E

                 Did Pc complete the
        e <----- answer and receive ------- c
                 acknowledgement?


So if you want to break it all down, there are six
communication cycles which make up one auditing cycle. Six,
not more than six unless you start running into trouble. If
you violate one of these six communication lines you of
course are going to get into trouble which causes a
mish-mash of one kind or another.

There is another communication cycle inside the auditing
cycle and that is at the point of the Pc. It's a little
additional one and it's between the Pc and himself. This is
him talking to him. You're listening to the inside of his
skull when you're examining it. /t actually can be multiple
as it depends upon the complications of the mind.

This happens to be the least important of all the actions
except when it isn't being done.

And of course it's the hardest to detect when it isn't
being done. Pc says: "Yes. " Now what has the Pc said yes
to? And sometimes you are insufficiently curious. And that
in essence is this internal perception of line. It includes
this cause, distance, effect backflash here"Is the Pc
answering the command I gave him?"

So with this, there are seven communication cycles involved
in an auditing cycle. It is a multiple cycle.

A communication cycle consists of just cause, distance,
effect with intention, attention, duplication and
understanding. How many of these are there in one auditing
cycle? You'd have to answer that with how many principal
ones there are because some auditing cycles contain a few
more. If a Pc indicates that he didn't get the command
(cause, distance, effect), the Auditor would give a repeat
of it (cause, distance, effect) and that would add 2 more
communication cycles to the auditing cycle, so you've got
9because there was a flub. So anything unusual that
happens in a session adds to the number of communication
cycles in the auditing cycle, but they are still all part
of the auditing cycle.

Repetitive commands as an auditing cycle, is doing the same
cycle over and over again.

Now there is a completely different cycle inside the same
pattern. The Pc is going to originate and it's got nothing
to do with the auditing cycle. The only thing they have in
common is that they both use communication cycles. But this
is brand new. The Pc says something that is not germane to
what the Auditor is saying or doing and you actually have
to be alert for this happening at any time and the way to
prepare for it is just to realize that it can happen at any
time and just go into the drill that handles it. Don't get
it confused with the drill that you have as an auditing
cycle. Consider it 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. It has nothing to do with the auditing cycle. Maybe
the auditing cycle went to pieces and this origination
cycle came in. Well, the auditing cycle can't complete
because this origin cycle is now here. That doesn't mean
that this origin has precedence or dominance but it can
start and take place and have to be finished off before the
auditing cycle can resume.

So this is an interruptive cycle and it is cause, distance,
effect. The Pc causes something.

The Auditor now has to originate as the Auditor has to
understand what the Pc is talking aboutand then
acknowledge. And to the degree that it is hard to
understand, you have the cause, distance, effect of the
Auditor trying to clarify this thing; and every time he
asks a question, he's got a new communication cycle.



You can't put a machine action at that point because the
thing has to be understood. And this must be done in such a
way that the Pc isn't merely repeating his same origination
or the Pc will go frantic. He'll go frantic because he
can't get off that linehe's stuck in time and it really
upsets him. So the Auditor has to be able to understand
what the devil the Pc is talking about. And there's really
no substitute for simply trying to understand it.

There is a little line where the Pc indicates he is going
to say something. This is a line (cause, distance, effect)
that comes before the origination takes place so you don't
run into a jam and you don't give the auditing command. The
effect at the Auditor's point is to shut up and let him.
There can be another little line (cause, distance, effect)
where the Auditor indicates he is listening. Then there is
the origination, the Auditor's acknowledgement of it and
then there is the perception of the fact that the Pc
received the acknowledgement.

That's your origination cycle.

An Auditor should draw all these communication cycles out
on a scrap of paper. Just take a look at all these things;
mock up a session and all of a sudden it will become very
straight how these things are and you won't have a couple
of them jammed up. What's mainly wrong with your auditing
cycle is that 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.

You know whether the Pc has answered the question or not.
How did you know? Even if it's telepathy it's cause,
distance, effect. It doesn't matter how that communication
took place, you know whether he's answered the command by a
communication cycle. I don't care how you sense this.

If you are nervy on the subject of handling the basic tool
of auditing and if that's giving you trouble (and if you
get into trouble by suddenly breaking it down and analyzing
it) then it should be broken down and analyzed at a time
when you're auditing something nice and simple.

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 are all there
and if you made someone go through each one painstakingly,
you would find out where his auditing cycle is jammed up.
It isn't necessarily jammed up on his ability to say "Thank
you". It may very well be jammed up in another quarter.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.jh
Copyright c 1971, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


********

68. HCOB  23 MAY 71R aud ser 5R The Comm Cycles In Auditing


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971 R
Issue V
REVISED 29 NOVEMBER 1974
(Revision in this type style)

Remimeo 
Auditors 
Supervisors 
Students

Basic Auditing Series 5R

THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING

From the LRH tape 6 Feb 64, "Comm Cycle in Auditing"

The ease with which you can handle a communication cycle
depends on your ability to observe what the pc is doing.

We have to add to the simplicity of the communication cycle
OBNOSIS (observation of the obvious).

Your inspection of what you are doing should have ended
with your training. Thereafter it should be taken up
exclusively with the observation of what the pc is doing or
is not doing.

Your handling of a communication cycle ought to be so
instinctive and so good that you're never worried about
what you do now.

The time for you to get all this fixed up is in training.
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.

You know yours is good, so you don't worry about it any more.

In actual auditing, the communication cycle that you watch
is the pc's. Your business is the communication cycle and
responses of the pc.

This is what makes the auditor who can crack any case and
when absent you have an auditor who couldn't crack an egg
if he stepped on it.

This is the difference, it's whether or not this auditor
can observe the communication cycle of the pc and repair
its various lapses.

It'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 and is through answering it. Then give him
the acknowledgement. Then give him something else to do.
You can ask the same question or you can ask another question.

Asking the pc a question he can answer involves clearing
the auditing command. You also ask it of the pc so that the
pc can hear it and knows what he's being asked.

When the pc answers the question be bright enough to know
that the pc is answering that question and not some other
question.

You have to develop a sensitivitywhen did the pc finish
answering what you've asked.

You can tell when the pc has finished. It's a piece of
knowingness. He looks like he's finished and he feels 
like he's finished. It's part sense; it's part
his vocal intonation; but it's an instinct that you
develop. You know he's finished.

Then knowing he's finished answering you tell him he's
finished with an acknowledgement, OK, Good, etc. It's 
like pointing out the by-passed charge to the pc. Like -
"You have now found and located the by-passed charge in 
answer to the question and you have said it." That's the 
magic of acknowledgement.

If you don't have that sensitivity for when the pc is
finished answeringhe answers, gets nothing from you, you
sit there and look at him, his social machinery goes into
action, he gets onto self auditing and you get no TA action.

The degree of stop you put on your acknowledgement is also
your good sense because you can acknowledge a pc so hard
that you finish the session right there.

It's all very well to do this sort of thing in training and
it's forgivable, but NOT in an auditing session.

Get your own communication cycle sufficiently well repaired
that you don't have to worry about it after training.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.rd jh
Copyright c 1971, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

********


