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 styles—Totally 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 enough—Listen

Style and Muzzled Style—to 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 II—the 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 done—the

shortest way between two points—with 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

processes—CT 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

straightforward—direct.



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

continue—or 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 like—What 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 reading—all 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 factor—it 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 pc—has 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 line—and 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 Pc—a Thetan unseen

by the Auditor—to the Pc's bank—unseen 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

9—because 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 about—and 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 line—he'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 sensitivity—when 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 answering—he 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



********





