



 

Click here for affordable and dependable long distance! 

 

 





 Message 801 of 56350 for search alt.clearing.technology

   » Return to search results help 

 

FZ Tech Lover 7/7 Level 0 Tapes  

Author:   Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net> 

Date:   1999/03/25 

Forum:   alt.religion.scientology  

      

 

more headers  author posting history   

  







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



7.   5 366 Feb  6,1964 THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING



A Freezone Bible Supporter



Here is a complete set of Level 0 Academy tapes as a

companion piece to the level 0 pack posted earlier this

year.



Much Love,



Tech Lover





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





LEVEL 0 CASSETTES - CONTENTS



SHSBC Lectures - (old & new lecture numbers shown)



   Old New DAte



1. 148 162 May 24,1962 E METER DATA: INSTANT READS PART I

2. 149 163 May 24,1962 E METER DATA: INSTANT READS PART II

3. 290 319 Jul 25,1963 COMM CYCLES IN AUDITING

4. 291 320 Aug  6,1963 AUDITING COMM CYCLES 

5. 296 325 Aug 20,1963 THE ITSA LINE

6. 297 326 Aug 21,1963 THE ITSA LINE (CONT.)

7.   5 366 Feb  6,1964 THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING





These are the 7 tapes that are in the modern clearsound

version of the Level 0 academy lectures.  The first two

(on the E Meter) were not in the old level zero academy

cassettes, the remaining 5 were checked against the old

tapes and omissions are marked ">".



There was also one case (marked "#") where a paragraph on

translating line plots was omitted from the old cassettes

(probably because of confidentiality) but is included in the 

new clearsound versions. (SHSBC-319)



There was also one case (SHSBC-320) where some material was

edited out of the clearsound academy version but was left

in the clearsound SHSBC version, so that even the modern

clearsound tapes do not quite match in the two versions

that are currently being sold.



Since even the old versions of these tapes have omissions,

it would be of great help if somebody could check these

transcripts against an early set of SHSBC Reels.





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



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



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







THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING



SH-Spec 5 renumbered 366



A lecture given on 6 February 1964



[checked against the old level 0 cassettes, omissions marked

with ">"]





[applause]



Thank you.



> I got everything here today but an easle.



Thank you very much.



> Roger, go over and help him bring in that easle.

>

> We have the agencies of the American Press with us today

> and their taking pictures for the Saturday Evening Post,

> so if you're subject to light shock or sleep lights or

> something of this particular character, go listen to it 

> over in the pavillion. [laughter]



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



Audience: 6th of February.



February what?



Audience: 6.



6 - 6th of February. What year?



Audience: A.D. 14.



Thank you. Thank you. February 6, A.D. 14, Saint Hill

Special Briefing Course. I'm going to talk to you about a

very arduous subject. The subject is the communication

cycle, and I think you might like to know something about

the communication cycle as used in auditing. It's a new

subject - new to many. [laughter]



If you look over communication, you'll find out that the

magic of communication is about the only thing that makes

auditing work. And if you could sit down to a meter—a

one-hand electrode - all by yourself and run some process on

yourself, it'd make a citizen out of you.



And the reason it'd make a citizen out of you, is you would

see a little bit of tone arm action at first, or if you

tripped across something like an active, loud, large GPM,

why, you might get yourself a quarter or a half a tone arm

division, or a couple of needle flashes. Now, you can

always get a needle flash. You can always get something of

that sort.



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

> an easel.



Now, the amount of tone arm action you would get doing this

would make you blink, because it's none. And you could run

some hot process on you that had been run by some auditor

and which gave him good TA - this process that has been run,

give you good TA, you see, when the auditor was auditing

it - then you sit down there with a one-hand electrode while

the process is still hot and run the commands on yourself,

you're going to get for a moment the residual of the

auditing. That is to say, the auditor will have stirred up

enough so that you'll see a little bit of charge go off,

and then your tone arm is going to go dead - and it's going

to stay dead.



Now, the reason for this has to do with the thetan in this

universe. Now, he has begun to consider himself MEST, and

he's begun to consider himself mass. And the being who

considers himself mass, of course, responds to the laws of

electronics and the laws of Newton, and is actually

incapable of generating very much, you see, or - which is

what we're interested in - asising very much. There's not

very much going to disappear there in the way of mass.



And this is a very discouraging sort of an activity.



Now, I have had to explore this particular field of

auditing - self-auditing, because most anybody does it, and

so forth—and what was this all about. And I have even

gotten ambitious enough to run an actual GPM,

bangity-bangity, bangity-bang, on a one-hand electrode.

That makes your hair stand on end. Well, it made my hair

stand on end. And my auditor fished me out. It didn't kill

me, I was able to breathe afterwards - that is, if I didn't

move much. But the same GPM, run with the same items and so

forth, would produce upwards to 175 TA divisions, down. And

the GPM, self-audited, produced 2.



Now, what was this all about? What was this all about? It

tells us (now, it isn't that experiment; other experiments

were made in this particular line) and it tells us that an

individual considers himself MESTy, or massy, if you see,

and therefore he has to have a second terminal. And a

second terminal is required to discharge the energy.



Now, a lot of auditors go further than this, and they go

downhill to a point where they think they're being the

second terminal to the degree that they think they pick up

the somatics and illnesses of the person they're auditing.

Well, get that.



Actually, there is no backflow of any kind hits the

auditor. There is no backflow hits the auditor of any kind.

But if he is so convinced that he himself is MEST, why, of

course, he will turn on somatics and everything else in

echo to the pc, because he's simply doing a matched

terminal with the pc, don't you see? Actually, nothing hits

the auditor. It has to be mocked up or envisioned by him. I

think you find that's quite amusing, because there are

whole schools of healing, back in the early days of Greece

particularly, where they picked up the pain out of

somebody's head, or off somebody's arm, and they got the

somatic very nicely and took it away and dumped it in the

trash bin. Spiritual healing has this in its textbooks, and

so forth.



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



Now, you don't have to know anything about electricity or

electronics in order to go into this very deeply, but it's

obvious to you that for a motor to run or for something to

occur, like a light go on, that two poles have to be

involved. And energy passing between two terminals, or two

poles, makes an interchange, and it gives you what you call

electric light.



Now, of course, that is the burning of energy. In this

particular case you don't have the burning of energy, you

have the as-ising of energy where the auditor and the pc is

concerned.



Now, the ability to hold a position, or the ability to hold

two terminals apart, is a definition of power. Not how much

energy can be thrown by a unit, but the base, the strain

that is put on the base. The ability to hold these two

positions. That's a little bit outside of what we're

talking about. But here we have two poles. We have an

auditor and a pc, and as long as the auditor audits and the

pc replies, we get an apparent exchange of energy from the

pc's point of view, which doesn't hit the auditor; but

because they think of themselves, don't you see, at this

low, subvolitional level, as terminals, why, you get these

exchanges of energy going on, you see? And nothing hits the

auditor, and it asises as far as the pc is concerned.



But you have set up, in essence, a two-pole system, and

that will bring about an as-ising of mass. It isn't burning

the mass, it is as-ising the mass. And that's why there is

nothing hitting the auditor. Now, that is the essence of

the situation, and the magic involved in auditing is

contained in the communication cycle of auditing. You see,

now you are handling the smooth interchange between these

two poles. Eventually, the individual will get up to a

point where he does not consider himself to be matter, and

this no longer occurs. When you've got half of a pc's

actual GPMs run out, you start running into trouble. I'm

running into that trouble right now.



Unless the pc makes up her mind, or recognizes the truth of

the situation, I can't knock any energy off. I can ask the

question, and the meter is the deadest-looking meter you

ever saw in your life. Yet there's a red-hot GPM sitting

under this sort of thing. See, there'll be a red-hot item

or a red-hot this or a red-hot that. But I have to ask the

pc whether or not that is it. And when the pc looks at it

and decides that that is it, or that isn't it, only then do

I get an active meter.



And this is most amazing. This is most amazing. The GPM can

be sitting right there ready to read, and unless the pc has

looked at it and has thought it over, why, nothing happens

on the meter. Yet this same pc, before those - half of the

bank was run out, don't you see; all I had to do was sneeze

at the meter and I got rocket reads on anything, and the pc

didn't know anything about what was rocket-reading and what

wasn't rocket-reading. You get the advance? The advance is

upwards toward knowing one is one, see? And you get out of

these automatic physical-energy manifestations of the physical 

universe. And getting out of these things, you then get to a 

point where you've got intention.



Now, what is one of these GPMs, anyway, but a method of

limiting the pc's ability to intend? And that is the whole

idea behind implanting or any thing of that nature. The

whole idea is that if he intends positive, he gets

negative. If he intends negative, he gets positive. So,

therefore, he cannot decide.



Now, if you take somebody and every time he says yes you

say no, he eventually will get into an indecisional state

of mind. He can no longer intend yes, completely, see? So

this is how you could wear somebody down, break his spirit,

or make him a private in the army. Get the idea? Every time

he has a thought, you deny it. You see? There's where you

get your original power of choice. The ideas of power of

choice - and all such other ideas. The ideas of

self-determinism versus other-determinism. All these other

various ideas stem out of this alone. It is the ability to

intend something.



Now, somebody cannot write. He intends to write, and he'll

go around talking about writing, but he doesn't write.

Well, what is happening there, he is intending to write,

but something is intending that he not write. And that is

his mind kicking back at him, which is simply a

positive-negative proposition there, of two poles. Do you

see this?



All right. He intends to talk Arabic, but the mind says

that he can't talk Arabic. See, there's your

positive-negative. He intends not to talk Arabic and finds

himself chattering strange phrases, and you get these

speakings in foreign tongues that the hysterical

religionist very often is found to have, and so forth. In

other words, you get the positive and the negative

proposition. Well, a person has to be very MESTy indeed

before they are subject to these particular phenomena. And

the more MESTy that they consider themselves, the more

enmeshed in matter that they consider themselves, and the

more energied up they are, why, the more trouble they have

with this particular action. And, of course, as you go

upscale this phenomena drops away as progress is made in

this particular direction.



Now, what value is the auditor? Well, the auditor, of

course, is at his greatest value at the lowest level of the

case, is necessary all the way up through to step six - end

of actual GPMs— is necessary all the way. But the auditor

at very low levels can produce some of the most interesting

phenomena. And it was in the Dianetic days that they were

able to absolutely break their hearts, because you could

say to somebody so-so-so-and-so and so-and-so, and you

could handle engrams, you could handle matters associated

with the bank, and the pc would lose his or her arthritis,

would lose psychosomatic ills of one kind or another, and

never find out about it.



In other words, the auditor could sit there and as-is bits

of the thing, just by the automatic mechanical process of a

two-way communication with the pc. But the pc was so

snarled up and so sunk in, and considered themselves so

much a brick or a piece of rock or a wooden slab, that they

would never find out about it. And after the auditor had

cured up somebody's lumbosis completely, why, the person

would say, "Well, yes, but you haven't done anything about

my worries about my wife." Well, yes, he was incurable, he

was bedridden, he had to go around - the most he could look

forward to was a wheelchair. And the auditor would fix him

all up and he's walking around now, and he complains

because he hasn't had his wife straightened out.



In other words, he was actually influenced without his

knowledge. Do you understand this, now, from a two-pole

arrangement? Wherever an individual, wherever an

individual, then, thinks of himself as an animal, as

matter, as a bit of mud, as algae which has coadulated

[coadunated] into the difficulties of manhood, when you get

these various things, what do you eventually see? You see a

whole scientific world indulging in the philosophy of "man

is matter." So the spiritual values and natures of man are,

of course, lost completely. Only auditing can restore

these. Nothing else is going to restore them.



But when you look over the difficulties of auditing,

realize that you are handling simply the difficulties of a

communication cycle. And when you, yourself, as the

auditor, do not permit a smooth flow between you as a

terminal and the pc as a terminal, and the pc as a terminal

back to you, you get a no as-ising of matter: So you don't

get tone arm action.



Now, part of the trick of course is what has to be as-ised,

and how do you go about it? But that we call technique. And

if you remove technique, if you remove technique from the

area - let's not worry about the particulars, what button has

to be pressed or stepped on. We're not going to wonder

about this - what button. We're going to wonder only about

the communication cycle. We find, oddly enough, if the

auditor is actually capable of making the pc willing to

talk to him, he wouldn't have to hit a button to get tone

arm action. Do you see this? Now, the person who is

insisting continuously upon a new technique, a new

technique, or a very fancy technique, or that sort of

thing, is neglecting the basic tool of his auditing, which

is the communication cycle of auditing. He cannot make the

pc get tone arm action. Well, he can't make the pc get tone

arm action, basically, because the communication cycle

doesn't exist. And when the communication cycle does not

exist in an auditing session, we get this horrible

compounding of the felony of trying to get a technique, but

the technique cannot be administered to the pc because

there's no communication cycle to administer it.



So basic auditing is called basic auditing because it goes

prior to the technique. The communication cycle must exist

before the technique can exist. And, therefore, any case

supervisor is very, very well advised to merely heal up the

various points and portions that are missing as far as that

communication cycle is, and hit it as buttons. And in view

of the fact that the auditor is trying and the auditor is

doing something, to actually neglect whether or not the

auditing is good or bad - that's up to an auditing

instructor, isn't it? - just neglect that. But just look at

the case from the basis of "What parts of this

communication cycle are awry?" and "What isn't here in the

form of a response to the auditing question?" And simply

heal those points up.



Now, if you had a man lying unconscious in the street, you

certainly wouldn't be thinking up what technique to run on

him. If you wanted to bring him back to life and

livingness, what you would want to do is get him to talk to

you, or breathe, or flutter an eyelid. That would be

something. Oddly enough, the communication cycle all by

itself will cause him to flutter that eyelid.



You can take an unconscious person who has been in a coma

for some time, and by picking up their hand and making them

touch the pillow, and even touch your arm - you know, picking

up the hand (they have no volition here) - picking up the

hand, touching the shoulder, picking up the hand, touching

the pillow (giving them the command at the same time,

talking), and so forth, that person will come back to life.

This is the greatest magic that anybody ever saw. It's very

startling, but look, you're just trying to get this man

into communication with the auditor and communication with

his surroundings. And he'll come back to battery. And

there's no technique.



So, that should demonstrate to you that the fundamental

entrance to the case is not on a level of technique, but on

a level of the communication cycle. Now, all you have to do

is mark out how many branches of this communication cycle

can there be. There can be a communication cycle between

the pc and the auditor, and the pc and the auditing room.

And that's about it.



Now you can get particular, and you can have parts of the

auditing room, or you can have specific portions of the

auditor or the auditor's beingness - you can mark down to

that. And then you can maybe go afield from this particular

zone or area - if the person is already in a communication

cycle with the auditor—you can go afield and start to

address his present time problems. Now you can address

whether or not his wife fixes the tea properly or puts

arsenic in the coffee, as he is worried about. Now you can

address that sort of thing.



But this, of course, because it is distant from where you

are sitting, requires a technique. First you have to know

what he is worried about out there because it is not

present and visible for you to see, or for him to see. So

the technique selects out what he is worried about - a little

form of assessment, don't you see? And now you're into

techniques and processing, having left the field of the

communication cycle. If the field of the communication

cycle with the auditing room and with the auditor is all

solid ground, and if all of that is squared away, you can

now worry about technique.



Now, the auditor who comes tearing down to you sometime

as - when you're D-of-Ping someplace - and the auditor who

comes down and says to you, "Ho-ha-hai, I ... I just

can't get anyplace on Mrs. Hepsibah. Can't get anyplace on

Mrs. Hepsibah," and you say, "Well, why don't you run

so-and-so and so-and-so," will inevitably come back (you

give him a technique, you see) - will inevitably come back a

half an hour or so later and say, "That doesn't work

either." And you can keep up this silly cycle for a long,

long time. Because of course there is no technique being

delivered to the pc because there is no communication cycle

present.



Now, what needs to be repaired is the communication cycle,

and when you've got a communication cycle repaired, then

you can audit a technique. It's as elementary as that. Now,

there are many parts of this communication cycle that can

be addressed, because you have the pc there and you have

the auditor there. And, of course, the first part of it

that has to be addressed is the fact that the person is

having a session and is in a room and is being faced by an

auditor.



Now, if you take all those and write down the

categories - you write down all the categories, all the

different little bits that can be written down that are

part of this (it's best for you as an auditor to imagine

them rather than for me to give you a long catalog of them,

you see) - and then figure out how you're going to get him

into communication on each one of these points, realizing

that communication is simply a familiarization process

based on reach and withdraw.



Even when you speak to a pc, even when you speak to a

person, you are reaching; when you cease to speak you are

withdrawing. When he hears you, he has something

withdrawn - and at that moment he's a bit withdrawn, don't

you see? - but then he reaches toward you with the answer.

And you'll see him go into a withdraw while he thinks it

all over. See, he gets back and, well, he's - "Which ...

why did my grandfather have to marry the girl?" See? And he

thinks over this, and you'll see him think this over, and

he thinks that cycle through on a withdrawal, don't you

see? And then he will reach back to the auditor.



Now, he's already reached this reason. Now he will reach

the auditor with the reason, and he will say that was it.

Now you have made an exchange from the pc to the auditor,

and will see it reflect on a meter. Because that exchange,

now, is giving an as-ising of energy.



In the absence of that communication, you do not get meter

action. So the fundamental of auditing - the fundamental of

auditing - is the communication cycle! That's the fundamental

of auditing! And that is really the great discovery of

Dianetics and Scientology. It is such a simple discovery

that - and everybody does it. But you realize that nobody

knew anything about communication when it came along. The

number of chaps in communication companies and that sort of

thing, who fall around our neck saying "Really!" you know?



You say, "Well, communication, it consists of cause,

distance, effect," you know? "I ... yeah! By golly, it

does, you know!"



Well, it's just this sort of thing. It's a fundamental that

everybody knew was there. They've been watching apples fall

off trees for a very long time and Newton had to come along

and see an apple fall off a tree, see? And he said, "Hey,

apples fall off trees, and when they leave the tree they

hit the ground!" See? Everybody says, "Wow!" you know?

"Terrific!" you know? And his name has gone singing down

through the ages, because he noticed that apples fell off

trees.



It's always this sort of a thing. It's always this sort of

a thing which escapes the attention of people. Because MEST

is basically very complex stuff. And being very complex

(composed as it is out of electrons and molecules and

minerals and gee-whizzes of all kinds or another,

wavelengths and all this sort of thing), because of its

tremendous complexity - so complex that nobody can understand

it, they can only ... You know? Therefore, people who are

very plowed in, you might say, into matter, and who are

themselves thinking as matter, think very complexly. And

they cannot observe the simplest things with which they are

confronted. And they observe none of these things.



Now, you look over this. I call this to your attention. The

ease with which you can handle a communication cycle

depends on your ability to observe what the pc is doing.

Now, we have to add to the simplicity of the communication

cycle, the obnosis - the observation of the obvious. If the

pc hasn't been talking to you, and if the pc hasn't said

anything to you for a very long time, it is no time for you

to be thinking on the subject of "What do I say to the pc?"

You say, "What do I say to the pc?"



Please! I invite your attention that your inspection of

what you are doing should have ended with your training,

and thereafter is taken up exclusively with the observation

of what the pc is doing or is not doing. And your handling

of a communication cycle ought to be so instinctive, and so

good, that you are never worried over here about what you

do now. "Let's see, am I doing it right or am I not doing

it right? Let's see. I wonder how my acknowledgment was

that time. Did I say 'Okay' in an artificial frame of voice

or should I say it naturally, like 'O-kay.' No, that wasn't

right." No. The time for you to get this all fixed up is in

training. And in actual auditing, the communication cycle

that you watch is the pc's. That's the communication cycle

you watch. You know yours is good. So you don't worry about

it anymore.



Now, if you know your communication cycle is good, you

haven't any longer got to be upset about whether you're

doing it right or not. And you ought to be well enough

trained that when somebody says "catfish" to you, you look

at them and recognize they are no longer saying "catfish"

and have finished saying "catfish." And having finished

saying "catfish," it is time for you to acknowledge. But

you only acknowledge because they have finished the

communication. And your observation is simply limited to

the fact that they have completed their communication, and

that is your observation. Your observation is the

observation of the communication cycle of the pc. And you

get good enough so that you just lay in mothballs your

worry about your communication cycle when you're finished

training. That's the time it goes into mothballs. You

understand? You know how to do it now. Your business is the

communication responses and cycles of the pc. Do you see that?



This PC: You ask me, "What technique shall we run on this

pc?" Technique! What are you doing with a technique? Let's

look at the pc for a few minutes. "Oh yes, but," we say,

"well, the pc has got to have something to talk about." Oh,

come, come, come! You've been in Scientology or Dianetics

all this time, and you can't dream up something for him to

talk about? It's as corny as this: "You had any problems

lately?" See? Or it's corny as this: "How are you doing?"

Let's get this pc to talk so we can see what the score is.

Now this is the true - the true - touch of genius on a case.

This is what makes that auditor who can crack any case, and

when it's absent, has an auditor who couldn't crack an egg

if he stepped on it. This is the difference. This is the

difference. It's whether or not this auditor can observe

the communication cycle of the pc and repair its various lacks.



Now, I'm now talking to you - when I talk to you about the

auditor's communication cycle— I'm talking to you about

something that's so simple. It simply consists of asking a

question that the pc can answer, and then observing that

the pc answers it. And when the pc has answered it,

observing that the pc has completed the answer to it - that

the pc has answered it and has completed his answer to it

and is through answering it. And then saying "Cheerios" -

giving him the acknowledgment - bang! like that. Say, "All

right. You finished that," and then giving him something

else to do. That's all. You can ask the same question. Or

you can ask another question. It doesn't matter. But the

communication cycle is simply asking something that the pc

can answer. There's a lot of little trickery involved in

this, because that includes clearing the auditing command. 

See?



You don't say to somebody who's got a—you got a

five-year-old kid. And you say to him, "Have you had any

marital troubles lately?" and I don't think you're going to

get much of an answer. See, it requires that much good

sense: Ask a question that can be answered, and then ask it

of the pc so the pc can hear it and knows what he's being

asked, and then the pc answers the question; and being

bright enough to know that the pc is answering that

question, not some other question, and then knowing - and

this, by the way, is a very interestingly developed

instinct—you can tell when the pc is finished. And if you

don't develop that instinct, you're very often lost. You'll

say, "Well, did he end, or didn't he end?" and so on. Well,

some auditors try to make it up, making another technique

inside a technique, like, "Have you finished answering that

auditing question?" of course this is so much balderdash.

You should be able to know. It is a piece of knowingness.

See, you just know he's finished. He looks like he's

finished, he feels like he's finished, your telepathy tells

you he's finished, you get the idea? It's that esoteric.



He said, "Well, I ... I didn't have a grandfather." And

you now know that he is not going to say any more. See?

It's part sense. It's part his vocal intonation. But it's

an instinct that you develop. You know he's finished. So,

knowing he's finished, then you tell him he's finished.



It's like pointing out the bypassed charge, don't you see?

"You've answered it," you say. "You answered it." Actually,

if you said "Okay. Good," you might as well say "You've

answered it."



You have now found and located the bypassed charge in

answer to the question, and there it is, and you have said

it." See? That's the magic of acknowledgment, don't you

see? But, naturally, you say, "Good," "Very good," you

know, "All right," "Okay."



But if you got a long continuing thing, you don't want to

stop him too hard. So the degree of stop you put on your

acknowledgment is also your good sense. Because you can

acknowledge a pc so hard - and if your impingement on pcs 

is way up in the stars - that you finish the session right

there. You just end the session. You waste all that

remaining two hours that you had to go.



So he's talking on a consecutive line of thought and you

acknowledge as though you're not going to ask it anymore,

ever. And he won't think of it anymore, ever, either. So

frankly, now, when you've acknowledged it, you knew he was

finished and you said he was finished by acknowledging it,

and then you gave him something else to answer! Now,

that - aho-hu-rrrrrr-mmm! Second we got into itsa, we got

into trouble, man! Because we dropped out giving him

something else to answer. And an auditor will sit there

without giving the pc anything to do. And you've got to

develop a sensitivity. When did that pc finish answering

what you asked? At that point you say "Cheers," and give

him the next question.



But when you don't have that sensitivity, the pc answers

it, gets nothing from you, you sit there and look at him;

his social machinery goes into response that "We must not

be sitting here quietly doing nothing." Some pcs take up

humming, I hear - because the auditor hasn't acknowledged 

and given him a new question! The auditor just is not there,

that's all.



Now, it's a11 very well to do that sort of thing in

training, and it's forgivable, but not in an auditing

session, really. Now, after all. Pc has finished answering

the question, "Cheers! Thank you. Good. All right." Now you

know you've acknowledged something. You finished off that

cycle, so you better ask him, "Do fish swim?" man! "Are

there any other problems you've been worried about?" See,

he's finished that one. "Anything else upset you between

sessions?" See? But be in there, man! Don't stand there

tangle-footed saying "What do I do now? Oh!" Because at

this point the pc is going to overrun. He's going to start

making a session out of it, he's going to go onto auto. And

what did I just tell you about self-auditing? It gives no

tone arm action. So the degree that the pc hasn't any

communication cycle with the auditor, he doesn't get tone

arm action. So then the degree that the pc is sitting there

all by himself, self-auditing, gives you no tone arm

action. And that's actually - the absence of tone arm action

is the degree of self-audit the pc is indulging in. You

understand this cycle?



All right, well, that's all there is to that cycle. That's

all there is to that cycle. Now, for heaven's sakes, get

yours sufficiently well repaired that you don't have to

worry about it after training. And after that, spend your

basic auditing doing nothing but repair the communication

inabilities of the pc, and you will be a genius, man! You

crack 99 percent of the cases that walk in. A screaming

genius! People will look at you, "Wow!" you know? Well,

this fellow is awful worried because his wife's waffling

and ran off with a "waff-waf, and so forth,

waf-waf-waf-waf- waf-waf-waf..." and you say "Thank you,"

and he goes " Waf-waf-waf... "Thank you." "...

waf-waf-waf-waf..." "thank you! Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, I heard ... I heard about your wife running off

with the chauffeur. Tha ... thank you. I got that. I ... 

I got that! I heard it. Yeah, yeah. Good! Thank you!

All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks. All right."



Guy will be looking at you like a snake that has just been

faced with a shotgun, see? "What has entered into my

perimeter? Is there something else around here? I could

have sworn I heard somebody speak."



A lot of you take over the case, and the guy is going,

"yip-yip-yap-yap-yap." And he says, "waffle, waffle, waf

and so forth and so on, and so on and I really don't have

any and so on and all these lollipops, they keep coming out

of the wah-blah-blah ..." You say, "Thank you."



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



You say, "Thank you."



And " Wa-wa. And then the - all the lollipops and the wife

ran away with the chauffeur, and so on. And it's all very

terrible ..."



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



"And it's all very terrible and the wife ran away with the

lollipops and, oh, the chauffeur came out, and ..."



Oh, don't be an idiot and sit there and let this go on

forever. He isn't talking to anybody. Now, that's what

you've got to recognize. Let's get down to some of these

problems here. Let's get down. What is this guy doing with

his communication cycle? You want to know how to bust

cases, that's how you bust them.



What's he doing? I'll give you an idea. Let me give you a

very, very high-school, way-upstairs analysis of this

situation, show you how far this can go - way up in the

clouds. Bang! Pc takes twenty minutes to answer the

auditing question. Now, the auditor, see, in this

particular case, he knows Scientology. He knows it

backwards, forwards and upside down, see? Guy takes twenty

minutes to answer the auditing question, and in that answer

of the auditing question, doesn't answer it. Now, the very

smart auditor, the very, very, very smart auditor, in

repairing this communication cycle from the pc, would look

at that, and he'd have three processes just like that.

Three processes he'd know he'd have to do on this pc. Pang,

pang, pang! This, I told you is very high school, see? It's

very up. Very upstairs.



(1) Pc cannot have an auditing question. It's pretty

obvious, isn't it? Didn't answer the question, so he

couldn't have gotten it. So your first process would be

"What auditing question wouldn't you mind being asked?" or

"What auditing question should you be asked?" or "What

question could you answer?" This is getting very

elementary, isn't it? "What question wouldn't you mind

answering?" You say that's running him at effect. No, it

isn't, because you're asking him to have the power of

choice over what question. You'd be surprised. You could

probably run that as a repetitive process for an hour or

two, and everything would get much brighter to this person.

Person would say, "Terrific process! Absolutely terrific

process. Never heard of such a process before! When did 

you dream that process up?" I mean, dream a process up, 

be damned. You just start processing him on a part of the 

communication cycle.



Now let's get more esoteric. Let's get much more esoteric.

If he says he hasn't had any auditing, we obviously would

adjudicate that he can't have any auditing. But we'd have

to repair something of the communication cycle of "What

question wouldn't he mind answering?" before we could ask

him a question that he would answer. Quite obvious, isn't

it? So you'd have to take first things first. And then we

would have to find out about this auditing thing, and I

think you'd find out, as your second process, it'd be

necessary for you to get him to get the concept of wasting

auditing, and others wasting auditing. Well, if he can't

have it, he's wasting it, because it's sitting in front of

him. Can't have auditing.



Well, if you got him to waste it in concept for a few

minutes or a half an hour or a session or something like

this, "Get the idea of you wasting auditing. Get the idea

of someone ..." - not have him pick up anything on recall,

man, because if you're auditing a case like that, you're

obviously auditing somebody who doesn't dare go back on the

backtrack. So don't say "What auditing have you had that

you wouldn't mind?" you see, because you're asking him to

go into the past. Well, obviously, that is like going out

into the outer perimeter. The past is not in the session.

That's going abroad, isn't it? Memory processes, and that

sort of thing, are out of the session and out of the

communication cycle. That's something you repair after

you've got somebody in session.



So your next process would be, as I said, waste auditing.

"Get the idea of wasting auditing."



"What could you do here that would waste auditing?" That's

very good, you see? "What could an auditor do here that

would waste auditing?" Because a person can't have

something, they must waste ii. If he isn't getting

auditing, he must not be able to have it. I mean, let's get

elementary. Let's go way back to 1952, get Elementary Have.

The ability to do. You could also get him to waste

communication or anything else, but I'm just dreaming up

three processes in a row here. Your first one is what

question could he answer, see, wouldn't he mind answering;

your next one is "Get the idea of wasting auditing"; and

the third one, "Who would I have to be to audit you?"



Now you've done a subvert, here. You've gone below the

session. See, you've brought him up to a point where he

could hear the fact that you're going to ask him a very

significant question. After I did that, I'd maybe work on

his memory. Because those three points would really be

healed. You'd see that whole case change. You'd see that

whole case change. And yet you're worried because he keeps

talking about his lollipops running out with - away with his

wife, or something of the sort. And you just get fixated on

the fact. You say, "This guy can't be audited because he

talks all the time, all the time, all the time, about

lollipops and the chauffeur, and it goes on and on and on

and on and on. And, therefore, if we don't remedy this

button about the lollipops, the chau ..." Why, hell's

bells, he doesn't even know what he's talking about.



It's whether or not he can receive an acknowledgment,

whether or not he can receive an auditing question, whether

or not he can have an auditing session, whether or not he

can sit in an auditing room, whether or not he can have an

acknowledgment, whether or not, you see, he can say

something to the auditor, whether or not - so forth. You get

all the little processes that go with this, see? Now, the

person took twenty minutes to answer an auditing question

and didn't answer it for those twenty minutes. Three

processes. Based on what? Just your knowledge of

Scientology and what the pc is doing in front of you.

Simple, huh? All right, we got a pc who's sitting there,

and he doesn't say anything. Let's take another case, let's

just do all this off the cuff. Pc isn't saying anything.



"Yeah."



"All right. Do birds fly?" (You're running some process,

you know?) "Do birds fly? I'll repeat the question...."



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



Well, let's dream up a process. We obviously can't have

"What question wouldn't you mind my asking you?" because

he's sitting there silent, man. Probably not a question of

being asked a question, it's a question of not being able

to respond to a question. Let's take it apart, let's find

out what the pc is doing, dream up something accordingly, 

see?



So we say, "What could you say to me?" Elementary. Long

comm lag, and he finally says something he can say to you.

You get this question over somehow to him. What could he

say to you?



And he finally says, "I ... I could say hello." Good, big

win, see? All right, let's build this up on a gradient.

Next thing you know, you've got him talking to you. But you

see, if you don't have the auditing cycle going from the pc

to the auditor, if you have tremendous communication

disabilities on the part of the pc, you actually don't have

any auditing cycle going that will discharge energy, and so

you don't have tone arm action. That simple? That's all

there is to it, actually. So, as soon as he can talk to the

auditor, don't get so overjoyed about this wonderful change

in him that you cease, now, to inspect his communication cycle.



Because if you've cured that, you will now find another

piece of it that's missing. In other words, you can go the

whole way. Do you see?



After he's gotten so that he can say something to you, well

now, now you might have to figure out what would he answer,

don't you see? And now you might have to figure out if he

could have an auditor. Now you might even go so far as to

find out what constituted getting better. I don't think you

have to invent a process as complicated as "What would be

worse than getting better?" But what the pc isn't doing is

where ... Well, let me put it this way. There's a little

formula involved: It's what the pc isn't doing that it

might be possible for the auditor to get him to do, see?

That's the formula. It isn't what isn't the pc doing that

we're going to get him to do - what is the missing ability?

Because obviously he's not OT, so you say, "All right, be

OT." You're going to have a lose here. I'm afraid that's

going to be a lose. Do you see? So, it's what can you get

the pc to do that the pc can regain the ability in doing?

See, that's the formula on which you're operating.



And, operating on that formula, you can find all sorts of

things. You can thresh around in the environment of the pc,

one way or the other, and if you're an alert auditor,

you'll see these little disabilities showing up here and

there, and so forth. A stammerer is about the easiest

diagnosis anybody ever had anything to do with. But how

many stammerers have I seen being audited on processes and

techniques? Well, it's absolutely foolish to audit a

stammerer on a technique. He obviously is having difficulty

communicating. What are you doing in an auditing session,

doing anything but to improve his ability to communicate to

the auditor? Now, you might find something silly like this

happen if you were auditing somebody who stammered: that he

would talk to the auditor eventually with complete

clarity - still stammered to other people. Well, this is

quite obvious. This is extremely obvious what you would now

do. You don't now instantly extend it to other people,

because there are other pieces of the communication

abilities right there in the session to be straightened up

before you go out into the outer perimeter of the society.

And usually where the auditor gets his lose is he repairs

something, gets a big win, and then there's thirty other

things to be repaired, sitting right in front of his

face - right in front of him - and he doesn't. He does some

kind of a jump into memory, or engram running, or

something. My God, just because the pc is now perfectly

willing to talk to you is no reason that the pc - who a few

minutes ago could not remember anything - it's no reason he

now can remember something. That's another ability.



Let's say somebody is trying to improve their memory. Well,

you improve somebody's memory after you've got somebody who

can receive an auditing question and answer it, and then

receive the acknowledgment resulting therefrom, and who can

sit there in an auditing session and be a pc and be

audited. Now you can go about improving memory, but oddly

enough, memory improvement starts with being able to

remember something in the auditing room, not something that

happened to him eight trillion years ago. It begins just a

minute ago.



I've seen a pc absolutely ruined, become unauditable, by

repetitively being asked questions having to do with memory

that the pc couldn't answer. So another rule in observing

the communication cycle, and so forth, is don't ask the pc

to do things the pc can't do. And if you've inadvertently

asked the pc to do something the pc now can't do, well, for

heaven's sakes, be enough on the ball, be sharp enough, be

really bright on this and recognize that you've asked the

pc something the pc can't do, and therefore you've given a

lose, and you better not compound the lose. Don't ask them

to do the same thing again that they now can't do.



This goes very elementary. You talk about flattening

processes. Very often you're asking a pc a process, you

see? "From where could you view catfish?" see? "From where

could you view catfish?" "From where could you view catfish?"



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



And you know, the process had better be flattened. So you

say, "Well, from where could you view catfish?"



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



And you say, "From where could you view catfish?" And now

he has to invent an answer, and you're running a create

process. Your pc, if he doesn't ARC break, snarls up right

there.



I always respect a pc saying "There aren't any more

answers." I bail out of there in a hurry.



And when I ask the pc "From where could you view catfish?'

and we just took off into the blue here - "From where could

you view catfish?" See? That's the question I want you to

answer now. Answer the question" - and the pc says, "I'm

sorry, I ... I never viewed any catfish," I know right

away have been guilty of giving the pc an auditing question

which the pc couldn't answer, and I am guilty of not having

cleared the auditing question. I've gives the pc a lose.



Let's have a pc who is very deathly afraid of touching

mantels - mantel pieces. Just invent a nuttiness, see? All

right, we'll say! "All right, walk over there and touch

that mantelpiece." (We already knew he was this way, see or

we don't know he's this way.) We say, "Walk over there and

touch that mantelpiece."



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



Soon as you've gotten into that situation, you got yourself

a lose. Let find out if the pc could do these things. Let's

discuss this process a little bit with the pc. Like, "How's

about ..." I don't care how grammatical or esoteric or

patterned you are about this, you see, because sometimes

you have to be very communicative. And you say, "How's about

if I ask you to walk around here and touch parts of this

room? What would you think about that? What if I ask you to

do something like that?"



And the pc says, "Oh, my God, I couldn't do that!

Ho-ho-ho-ho, no oh-oh! Particularly a mantelpi - Oh-oh-oh,

no! Don't ask me to do anything like that."



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



See, swift recovery. Now, you haven't given the pc any

lose. In fact you might have given him a little win. This

caused him a spooky feeling "You know, I'm really - I don't

really want to walk around here and tour the room."



Ah, he's interested now. "Well, is there anything around

here you wouldn't be too upset about touching? How's that?

How about some question like that?"



"Oh, I could ... I wouldn't be too scared of touching

that ... that spot on the floor." "What else wouldn't you

mind looking around here and ... ?"



Smooth as glass, you see? See? You cleared it, he said he

couldn't do this intrigued him, now you can hit a gradient

that he can do and build it back up, and you've got it made.



Every once in a while you see something like this. But if

you're not observing what the communication cycle of the pc

is, why, you're adrift all the time. Pc isn't answering the

question. Well, that's obvious. Maybe there's a hundred

thousand remedies could be dreamed up for this particular

activity, all within the perimeter of the auditing room. Pc

is this way, pc is that way, pc... Every time they sit down

in the chair they dust the chair off very carefully and

take some Kleenex and wipe the arms of the chair, and then

they sit down very gingerly into the chair. You've observed

this a couple of times. Well, there's no point in bringing

it sharply to their attention, but you must realize, it

must be borne home to you - with that much exaggeration,

certainly it'd bring it home—that this pc doesn't want to

touch very much around an auditing session. I mean, that

would be an elementary observation, don't you see? It might

have to do with chairs, it might be a GPM, but you can't

run all of that. Let's just chalk this up. Let's chalk this

up. Pc gingery on this subject. Obviously, somewhere up the

line you're going to run some objective process on this

pc - somewhere up the line. But ahead of that there might be

some much more attainable, but much less obvious thing,

such as the pc never looks at the auditor. That might be

touchable. "If you looked over here, what would you see?"

Doesn't really require him to look over there. He only need

guess at it. "What might you see?" You could even soften it

up to that, don't you see?



There's all kinds of things here that depend on auditor

observation. Where the pc breaks down in his communication

cycle with the auditor and where the pc breaks down in his

communication cycle with the environment is your entrance

point to the case. Those are the entrance points to the

case. If you haven't got him squared around so that he can

respond to the auditor, he of course can't answer any

auditing question, so what's this technique worry? Why are

you worried about a technique? No technique you ever

dreamed up is going to arrive.



Well, you have some fortuitous feeling that an automaticity

will turn on in the pc and answer you. Well, that's how

you're going to get the pc getting well and never finding

out about it.



They ran into that in Dianetics. They could actually run

'em through an engram. The engram was so easy to trigger,

and the bank responds to the auditor so beautifully, that

practically the whole session could be carried on without

the presence or benefit of a pc. Pc didn't have to enter

into it - and case loses occurred resultingly.



But these are the ways you crack cases. And the best way to

study it is just walk around it and take a look at all

possible ramifications that could be done about it, get

some acquaintance with old processes from '52, '53, '55, 

wonder which one of these processes are applicable to what, 

don't you see? There's all kinds of these processes. First 

Saint Hill, "Who would I have to be to audit you?" see? That's 

a nice process, see? But there's tons of these processes you

can ...



> [ The word "old" ("with old processes") in the above

> paragraph has been removed from the clearsound versions

> of this tape]



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

But they're honeys. They're honeys.



Sometimes you find a pc can't, absolutely cannot run some

process because one leg of it is wrong. Let's say SCS, and

yet the pc can't stand still. And it's required in the

process to stand still, and yet you're running Start,

Change and Stop on the pc.



Well, the pc's disability is the pc can't stand still. The

pc can start, the pc can change and the pc can stop, as

long as they don't have to stop much. So you say, well, we

can flatten stop - this will be all right. Oh, no, there must

be a leg underlying this. See, a pc disability - the pc

cannot stand still.



Well, what would you do about something like this? Well,

I'll tell you what not to do about it: neglect it. Don't

keep on running SCS, SCS, SCS, and the pc is going on, and

they go on, because what are they doing? They're running

with a prior consideration of the process.



Therefore, they never really take on any of the auditing 

commands.



They are running each auditing command, ("When I say

'Start,' you start that body" and so forth), "All right, I

just - that ... that'll give me a chance not to stand

still," see? The pc always amends it. Always amends the

auditing question, always amends the auditing question.



Don't you see? "I'll stop it, but I'll stop it quick enough

and get off of it so at no point during the stop have I

stood still." See? You get this idea? Well, a little

discussion with the pc will show up these various things.



Now, you can take a process and you can walk parallel with

SCS, and you can repair that point and run SCS afterwards.

Well, how would you go about standing still? Well, the

crudest way to go about it is just say "Stand still. All

right." "Don't stand still. Thank you." "Stand still.

Thank you." "Don't stand still. Thank you." That's the

crudest thing I know of, see? This is obviously right out

of the textbooks and technology of Scientology, you see?



"Stand still. Thank you." "Don't stand still. Thank you." 

"Stand still. Thank you." "Don't stand..." Automaticity is 

going to go away; this must be some kind of an automaticity 

that's all ready to trigger there. So if we get the person 

into any familiarity with it - because the person already 

realizes they can't do it. That recognition tells you that 

it's within the range of itsa.



But if you get somebody walking in on crutches that don't

know they're walking on crutches, you wouldn't say "Throw

away your crutches. Now walk." See, too high a gradient.

And they don't even worry about it. You get somebody

walking in and saying, "I got to get rid of these crutches,

man" - worry, worry, worry, present time problem, see?



Well, the thing to do is inspect their communication cycle

and their communication cycle with the auditor,

communication cycle with their mind, the communication

cycle with the environment - see, there's many of these

little communication cycles - let's inspect these various

things. Let's find out he's all right before we say "All

right. Throw away your crutches. Thank you." You got the

idea? See?



Normally, what the person is worried about is in actual

fact not what the person is bugged with. You very often

will get somebody running off on a total automaticity of

what's wrong with them, and they're not even listening to

themself talk. Actually, they will run off a total

automaticity of what's wrong with them, and they're not

even listening to themselves talk.



Sometimes they listen to themselves talk to find out what's

wrong with them. When you get into that situation, why,

it's elementary to repair the existing livingness of the

pc, but only after you've repaired their auditingness.



An auditing session is a highly artificial action. Highly

artificial. It's dreamed up, invented from scratch. Nothing

like it has really ever existed before. That's why a

psychoanalyst would lay an egg a minute - in a minute - if 

he cracked a textbook on Scientology and took it back to the

office to run it on one of his patients. Aughhh! And boy,

do they lay eggs! Why? Well, they're running Scientology

with a psychoanalytic auditing cycle. And, of course,

that's a wild auditing cycle if you've ever inspected it.



One psychoanalyst said, "I don't see how you can stand to

listen hour after hour after hour," and the other one says,

"Who listens?" But that's their appreciation of the

auditing cycle, and it's too bad to produce any great

effect, which is probably fortunate - because the theory

which goes back of it, and so forth, is highly artificial.

They don't produce any impingement, the auditing cycle

isn't there, and so on.



But this artificiality of an auditing session approximates - 

it's only artificial because it approximates in such harsh, 

staggering, visible reality, the exact precise points of 

contact with existence. And what it is, is a hopped-up, 

gunned-up contact with beings in existence, don't you see? 

Way up! It's something like putting [taking] a Model-T Ford 

and putting a Lycoming aircraft engine in it, see? And 

bzzzz-zzzz!



Well, all of communication always has consisted of cause,

distance, effect. Well, you jam it up into an auditing

communication cycle and it's full of bombs, man. See, bang!

Things are going to happen, because it's highlighted the

exact important points. For instance, you ask somebody on

the street out here, "What's important about communication?"



They say, "Well, being polite."



"Good. What are the parts of communication?"



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

present participles and uh ... there's grammar and ..."



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



All right, you gun in there, with cause, distance, effect,

you see? Ask a question, get it answered, acknowledge it,

see? Porowww! See? Wrooof! You're handling raw meat. And

you rehabilitate any part of this, and so forth, and then

something wakes up. Thetan can't help but wake up. The

ability to communicate is always terribly visible to a

reporter, or somebody doing work in this particular field.

They get around Scientologists, it knocks them flat. And

this photographer that was here today from the Saturday

Evening Post, and so forth - who has gone now, I imagine -

this boy's first remark to me is "They're all so uninhibited!"

after he got through taking pictures of you, you see?

"You're all so uninhibited."



He sees communication happening. He's very impressed with

you, you see? You're walking straighter, and you aren't all

tightened up, and you're not a bundle of nerves, don't you

see, and all this sort of thing. And he can't quite express

this thing, but he's already in a state of shock because

he's been hit, you see, with too much life, livingness, you

know - just hit him in the face. And yet, none of you really

probably said anything to him. It's that apparent.



Well now, you take this up and gun this up into an auditing

cycle, and the auditor is saying, "Do birds fly?" and the

pc is supposed to listen to this, and he is supposed to

understand this and he is supposed to sort out the answer

to this, and he is supposed to deliver it up now. And he's

going to get for that, "Thank you" straight into his skull.

And it isn't the parts of grammar, and it isn't this, and

it isn't that and it isn't the other thing, and ... If he

can stand up to this, he'll start getting the idea that he

can communicate. And he goes out of session, and he'll

start communicating with the environment. And the only

thing really wrong with people is, is they've withdrawn

from contact.



If you wanted to capsulize the entirety of difficulty with

the mind, take somebody who is no longer looking. The last

time he looked, there were three saber-toothed tigers ready

to bite him.



Now he is no longer looking. of course, he believes that

there are three saber-toothed tigers there. He'll sometimes

put up screens between himself and the tigers. And then, of

course, he never dares take down the screens, so he never

finds out if the tigers have gone. And he does this

throughout enough trillenia, he's got an awful stack of

tigers - all of which have left! But he doesn't know it. He

can't be sure they've left.



And so he's in a condition of total withdrawal - from his

environment, from himself. He's safeguarded himself with an

automatic bank; he's safeguarded himself with an automatic

beingness; he's got a valence standing where he ought to

be, and he knows that he came straight from mud and that he

is mud and that he'd better not be anything else, because

mud is relatively unpalatable when eaten by saber-toothed

tigers.



And a capsulization of all aberration is just a total

withdrawal. I don't care - that's a psychiatric term, of

course. They have some condition; they say "total

withdrawal." The psychiatrist is standing there totally

withdrawn, telling you about somebody who has gone into a

withdrawal, which I always considered very interesting.

This is not an apt term. It's one point where we're

crossing terms. But we're not talking about the psychiatric

withdrawal, we're just talking about the fact the guy has

retreated, that's all. He no longer dares put out a beam a

mile away. First he could put one out a light-year, then he

put one out a year, you see, and then he put one out a

hundred yards, and - pardon me, a mile. And then he got down

to a hundred yards. And each time he got enough "being

bitten," don't you see, that he no longer puts out to

distance, his remedy is always shorten the reach. And the

thetan has, as his standard remedy for safety, shorten the

reach. And what does he do when he gets into zero reach?



He actually can figure out how to invert a withdrawal into

an inverted withdrawal, and you get the cycle of the

dynamics coming on down, which is - he comes away from actual

reach, don't you see, and he comes down to zero actual

reach. Well, he's got to reach somehow, so he figures some

other way to reach, don't you see? He reads travel books or

something, you know? And he goes into these various cycles.

And there's always a zero of what he is doing, which then

has a remedy which is lower than that, and he gets down

into not just a total withdraw, he gets down to an

inversion of the inversion of the inversion of the

inversion withdrawal. Of course, the first point this shows

up is in an auditing session, and his ability to talk to

the auditor - about pertinencies.



The sensibility of his communication is also in point here.

You've asked him, "Do you have a car?" And he has explained

to you that General Motors stock has gone down for the last

year or so, and drops it at this point. So pertinencies - he

didn't answer the question, did he? So you get him into

some condition where he can answer the question, he can

speak up, where he can hear what you're saying, where he

can therefore receive the auditor. Because you've got

somebody on total withdrawal, one of your best remedies is

to see that he gets reached, don't you see? And you reach

him in order to get him to reach, don't you see? And these

are the conditions which you're trying to remedy with an

auditing cycle.



Now, if you want to be an absolute gee-whizzer to end all

gee-whizzers on cracking cases, don't you ever go around

drooling about this fellow sitting there, and he's saying,

"And my wife lollipopped with the chauffeur, and ... and

it's just all too tough, so on and so forth, and so on and

so on."



And you're trying to say to him, "This is - you know, the

session has ended." And he says, " ... and so and so on

and came down the chute, and there were eight sides of it,

and so forth; they were all hexagonal, you see, and so forth."



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

time ago."



And he says, " ... and so on and so on. So I've always

said to chauffeurs since that particular time, I've said it

lollipopped the chauffeur!"



Don't now go to somebody, or try to crack a textbook to

find out what technique to run on this case. It isn't a

case of technique. He hasn't got anybody there to talk to.

He isn't talking to anybody. If he is, it's somebody else.

He isn't talking about a problem he could have, see? He

isn't even talking about a problem he's got! He probably

isn't even listening to himself anymore. He has no

familiarity with the environment, he is disoriented as to

where he is and so forth. And you want a technique?



He's got a paw. Well, you could say, "Now pick up your hand

and put it on the side of the chair and feel the side of

the chair."



He might go right on talking for some time without noticing

you're doing this. Then eventually say, "Hey, there's a

chair here." Big win.



But if you're going to deal in pcs at all who have

disabilities of any kind whatsoever, you've got to have a

session before you can have Class IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX,

X. You get the idea nose? You've got to have A session

before you can have a technique operating. This is the

value of the auditing cycle, this is its use, and this is

how to become one of the wildest case crackers anybody

ever had anything to do with. You get to be a screaming

genius on this subject, and something.



Oh, you make errors, you'll get too accusative, you'll all

of a sudden find you overcut - you've overestimated the pc's

ability here and there, and so forth, and you have to cut

it back.



But remember that it always requires adjustment.



The only other thing I would teach you, and like to teach

you about this, and I really wish I could, is that after

you've remedied it, it's been remedied. And don't keep on;

because this pc had a lot of tone arm action on what

question he could receive from the auditor, and so forth,

don't make that a lifetime profession. Because this is just

another method of non-observation.



Now that he can do this and is doing it, note that he is

doing it. See? He feels all right about it and he is doing

it. Note that, and now notice - notice, in other words, that

he's changed - and then notice what else you can put together.



So there's two more things to notice, don't you see? Is

when has that condition been remedied? - when has that little

ability been regained? - so that you can pull foot out of there.



And the other thing is observe now, newly and freshly, for

something else to do for the pc.



The reason I give you those other two is that sometimes it

happens so rapidly that you're just rocked back on your

heels. Pc has never talked to anybody before in their life,

and you all of a sudden have them talking to you

pertinently, in a blue streak. Well, let's not go on

remedying their ability to talk to the auditor. See, ability

regained. So you want to be able to notice that, and that's

all part of the observation.

And the real hot - the real hot auditor, the real guy that

gets case wins all over the place, is sitting in there

observing what is going on in the session, and if things

are going all right, doesn't remedy them, and if things are

going all wrong, picks up that point that can be remedied

and remedies it, until they are all remedied, and then

carries on. Those are the magic ways to go about this sort

of thing.



Well, you take over the technical aspect of some

Scientology organization. You're sitting in there doing

nothing but coaching up cases, doing nothing but coaching

up cases. Don't pay any attention to the auditing of the

cases - consider that's sincere and it's being done as best

it possibly can be. Ignore that aspect. Don't keep picking

on the auditors; that's a training job.



But just keeping watching - watching those communication

cycles. Note the communication abilities and so forth, the

appearance and that sort of thing, of a pc. Don't depend on

large tests having been made every fifteen minutes and

fourteen pounds of auditor reports to tell you whether or

not the pc's had a change. Let's look at this pc. Let's

listen to this pc in session. Is this pc talking better,

answering more pertinently, and so forth? If so, fine!

We're winning, and so forth. Let's not worry about that pc

until we get a bog, and there's a no-change condition

begins to take place with that pc. And the pc looking

brighter and got more spark in the eye than they had: Well,

their eye was - remember that this is a gradient - their eye

was absolutely complete pebble, stone, flat, lightless. And

now you can see a trace of color through the fog. That's an

improvement. See? Note the improvements. Don't just be

cynical about it the whole way, you see? Note the

improvements, because they sometimes take place rather 

slowly.



And just keep them moving up, and only pay attention

to - only pay attention to the communication cycle and the

ability of the person to handle the environment in his

immediate vicinity, particularly an auditing session. And

only pay attention to those things.



Never pay any attention to the person's problems, never pay

any attention to their goals in session, never pay

attention to any of these other things because obviously,

any auditor they got would take care of these things if the

pc was in session.



[on the old tape, the phrase above from "because obviously ..."

on to the end of the paragraph has a completely different

sound quality from the rest of the lecture and seems like a 

dubbed overlay]



See? Auditors are good at that. What they're not good at is

having somebody there fully in session. Because, of course,

that's the hardest trick. That's the roughest trick. But

there lie the biggest gains. And it looks so easy, looks so

kindergartenish, that you very often neglect it.



So you see that somebody is all straightened out, he can

talk to an auditor, an auditor can talk to him, that an

auditing cycle can take place, the person can receive an

acknowledgment, the person can have an auditing room, the

person can have an auditing session - all of these things are

possible everything is fine, and so forth: Well, aside from

occasionally catching somebody with a tremendous goof on

the subject of - they're running the service facsimile on the

person, and when it got [to] a service facsimile, the

auditor in this particular case couldn't find any service

facsimile because the person had been raised in a poor

family and didn't have any maids.



Then the thing to do is to get hold of the D of T and say,

"That auditor needs some training on service facsimiles."

Not to go into it. But the only trouble you're going to run

into from there on, don't you see, is going to be the

application of technique.



And that is never the trouble in Scientology, and it is not

the trouble, it is not the trouble with your pc that you're

having any trouble with at all. The techniques work like

mad, but all of them have the dependency of the pc fully in

session. The pc is fully in session, you can run almost

anything on them and they'll sail, don't you see? Pc not in

session, won't. The big bog is people do not get the pc

into session before they start running something. And

therefore they expect a technique will remedy something

that's sitting right in front of their faces, which is the

pc is not at all in session. Do you see?



All right. That's actually how to undercut cases left,

right and center, make a wide swath in all directions. And 

I think you can do it.



Thank you.





******** TAPE END







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

view for bookmarking

text only  mail this message to a friend

Sponsored by Fatbrain.com {*}  post reply    << prev · next >>  

subscribeto alt.religion.scientology 

return to search results 



 

 





SHOPPING ·  Yellow Pages ·  5¢ Long Distance 

Free Stuff  ·  Trade with Datek  ·  GET IT NOW @ NECX 

FREE downloads! ·  Auctions & Classifieds  

  

 

Home  ·  Communities  ·  My Deja News  ·  Power Search  ·  Post  

 





About Deja News  ·  Ad Info  ·  Our Advertisers 







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 1995-99 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved. 

Conditions of use  ·  Site privacy statement reviewed by TRUSTe  



