FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST LEVEL 0 COURSEPACK: Part 4 of 10 ******************************** I am the Tech Lion. Studying the Academy Levels gave me the ability to handle life. I would like others to have the same knowledge that I now have. Here is the Academy Level 0 Coursepack from 1988, in 10 parts. There was an earlier FZBA post of the Level 0 coursepack from 1974, but due to extensive CofS revision, little remains the same in both packs. The full table of contents is in Part 1 only. To see the proper formatting, use a fixed-pitch font such as Courier to view this file. Enjoy, -The Tech Lion ******************** STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heretics. 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 Judaism 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 ************************ PART 4 (this file) 18. HCOB 5 Apr. 1973 Axiom 28 Amended 19. HCOB 23 May 1971R I The Magic of the Communication Cycle Basic Auditing Series 1R 20. HCOB 23 May 1971R II The Two Parts of Auditing Basic Auditing Series 2R 21. HCOB 30 Apr. 1971 Auditing Comm Cycle 22. HCOB 23 May 1971 III The Three Important Communication Lines Basic Auditing Series 3 23. HCOB 14 Aug. 1963 Lecture Graphs 24. HCOB 23 May 1971R IV Communication Cycles Within the Auditing Cycle Basic Auditing Series 4R 25. HCOB 23 May 1971R V The Communication Cycle in Auditing Basic Auditing Series 5R 26. HCOB 23 May 1971 VI Auditor Failure to Understand Basic Auditing Series 6 27. HCOB 23 May 1971 VII Premature Acknowledgments Basic Auditing Series 7 28. HCOB 5 Feb. 1966 II "Letting the PC Itsa" The Properly Trained Auditor Basic Auditing Series 8 29. HCOB 23 May 1971 X Comm Cycle Additives Basic Auditing Series 9 ****************************************************************** 18. HCOB 5 Apr. 1973 Axiom 28 Amended HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1973 REINSTATED 25 MAY 1986 Remimeo HAS Course (Also issued as an HCO PL, same date and title) AXIOM 28 AMENDED AXIOM 28. COMMUNICATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE-POINT ACROSS A DISTANCE TO RECEIPT-POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT-POINT A DUPLICATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE-POINT. The formula of Communication is Cause, Distance, Effect, with Intention, Attention and Duplication WITH UNDERSTANDING. The component parts of Communication are Consideration, Intention, Attention, Cause, Source-point, Distance, Effect, Receipt-point, Duplication, Understanding, the Velocity of the impulse or particle, Nothingness or Somethingness. A noncommunication consists of Barriers. Barriers consist of Space, Interpositions (such as walls and screens of fast-moving particles) and Time. A communication, by definition, does not need to be two-way. When a communication is returned, the formula is repeated, with the receipt-point now becoming a source-point and the former source-point now becoming a receipt-point. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.fa.sep.gm _ ****************************************************************** 19. HCOB 23 May 1971R I The Magic of the Communication Cycle Basic Auditing Series 1R HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971R Issue I REVISED 4 DECEMBER 1974 Remimeo Auditors Supervisors Students Tech/Qual Basic Auditing Series 1R THE MAGIC OF THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE (From the LRH tape 6 Feb. 64, "The Communication Cycle in Auditing") If you look over communication, you will find that the magic of communication is about the only thing that makes auditing work. The thetan in this universe has begun to consider himself mest and has begun to consider himself mass, and the being that considers himself mass of course responds to the laws of electronics and the laws of Newton. He is actually incapable of generating very much or as-ising very much. An individual considers himself mesty or massy and therefore he has to have a second terminal. A second terminal is required to discharge the energy. 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 exchange of energy from the pc's point of view. Many auditors think they are being a second terminal to the degree that they pick up the somatics and illnesses of the pc. Actually, there is no backflow of any kind that hits the auditor, but if he is so convinced that he is mest, he will turn on somatics in echo of the pc. Actually, nothing hits the auditor; it has to be mocked up or envisioned by him. 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. 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. When you look over the difficulties of auditing, realize that you are handling simply the difficulties of the 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 mass. So you don't get TA action. 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 -- what button has to be pressed. 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. (He cannot make the pc get tone arm action basically because a communication cycle doesn't exist.) The person who is insisting continuously upon a new technique is neglecting the basic tool of his auditing which is the communication cycle of auditing. When the communication cycle does not exist in an auditing session, we get this horrible compounding of a felony of trying to get a technique to work but the technique cannot be administered because there is no communication cycle to administer it. Basic auditing is called basic auditing because it goes PRIOR to the technique. A communication cycle must exist before the technique can exist. The fundamental entrance to the case is not on a level of the technique but is on a level of the communication cycle. Communication is simply a familiarization process based on reach and withdraw. When you speak to a pc, you are reaching. When you cease to speak, you are withdrawing. When he hears you, he's at that moment a bit withdrawn but then he reaches toward you with the answer. You'll see him go into a withdraw while he thinks it all over. Then he reaches the reason. Now he will reach the auditor with the reason and he will say that was it. You have made an exchange from the pc to the auditor and will see it reflect on the 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 IS THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE. That's the fundamental of auditing and that is really the great discovery of Dianetics and Scientology. It's such a simple discovery but you realize that nobody knew anything about it. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.rd.gm _ ****************************************************************** 20. HCOB 23 May 1971R II The Two Parts of Auditing Basic Auditing Series 2R 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 64, "O/W Modernized and Reviewed") 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 (1) 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 nine 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, "All right. 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 one, two, three, four. 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 in. And the next requirement is to do something productive for the pc using the communication line. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.jh.gm _ ****************************************************************** 21. HCOB 30 Apr. 1971 Auditing Comm Cycle HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 30 APRIL 1971 Remimeo HDC Checksheet Course Supervisor Checksheet Class 0 Checksheet Cramming AUDITING COMM CYCLE Ref: HCOB 26 Apr. 71 I 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 -------------------------------> Auditor Pc -------------------------------> Command ---> Auditor <------------------------------- Pc Bank <--- Ack -------------------------------> Auditor Pc - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> Attention L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nies.rd.gm _ ****************************************************************** 22. HCOB 23 May 1971 III The Three Important Communication Lines Basic Auditing Series 3 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971 Issue III Remimeo Auditors Supervisors Students 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 whatsit 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 whatsit 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.gm _ ****************************************************************** 23. HCOB 14 Aug. 1963 Lecture Graphs HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 14 AUGUST 1963 Central Orgs LECTURE GRAPHS The following graphs accompany Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Lectures of 25 July 63 7 Aug. 63 8 Aug. 63 [FZBA editor's note: The next 5 pages are impossible to reproduce in text format. They have been scanned and saved on the CD as the following JPEG picture files.] [Graph0-1A.JPG Graph0-1B.JPG Graph0-1C.JPG Graph0-1D.JPG Graph0-1E.JPG] L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:dr.cden.gm _ ****************************************************************** 24. HCOB 23 May 1971R IV Communication Cycles Within the Auditing Cycle Basic Auditing Series 4R 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 63) 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 acknowledgment cycle. C --------- Command ---------> E Auditor E <--------- Answer ---------- C Pc C ------ Acknowledgment ------>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? Auditor C ----------- Command ----------> E Pc E <----------- Answer ----------- C C -------- Acknowledgment ------> 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 subcause, 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 acknowledgment?" Sometimes you violate this one. You have been acknowledging but you've never seen that he didn't receive the acknowledgment. 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 acknowledgment 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 acknowledgment 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. e <------- Is the pc ready ------- c for the command? Did pc receive, e <------- understand and -------- c answer the command? Auditor C ---------- Command ------------> E Pc E <---------- Answer ------------- C C -------- Acknowledgment -------> E Did pc complete the e <------ answer and receive ----- c acknowledgment? 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. It 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 two more communication cycles to the auditing cycle, so you've got nine -- 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 acknowledgment of it and then there is the perception of the fact that the pc received the acknowledgment. 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.gm _ ****************************************************************** 25. HCOB 23 May 1971R V The Communication Cycle in Auditing Basic Auditing Series 5R HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971R Issue V REVISED 29 NOVEMBER 1974 Remimeo Auditors Supervisors Tech/Qual Students Basic Auditing Series 5R THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING (From the LRH tape 6 Feb. 64, "The Communication 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 acknowledgment. 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 acknowledgment -- "Okay," "Good," etc. It's like pointing out the bypassed charge to the pc. Like, "You have now found and located the bypassed charge in answer to the question and you have said it." That's the magic of acknowledgment. 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 acknowledgment 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.gm _ ****************************************************************** 26. HCOB 23 May 1971 VI Auditor Failure to Understand Basic Auditing Series 6 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971 Issue VI Remimeo Auditors Supervisors Students Tech/Qual Basic Auditing Series 6 AUDITOR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND If a pc says something and the auditor fails to understand what the pc said or meant, the correct response is "I did not (hear you) (understand what was said) (get that last)." To do anything else is not only bad form, it can amount to a heavy ARC break. INVALIDATION To say "You did not speak loud enough..." or any other use of "you" is an invalidation. The pc is also thrown out of session by having responsibility hung on him or her. The auditor is responsible for the session. Therefore, the auditor has to assume responsibility for all comm breakdowns in it. EVALUATION Far more serious than invalidation, above, is the accidental evaluation which may occur when the auditor repeats what the pc said. NEVER repeat anything a pc says after him, no matter why. Repeating not only does not show the pc you heard but makes him feel you're a circuit. The highest advance of 19th century psychology was a machine to drive people crazy. All it did was repeat after the person everything the person said. Children also do this to annoy. But that isn't the main reason you do not repeat what the pc said after the pc. If you say it wrong, the pc is thrown into heavy protest. The pc must correct the wrongness and hangs up right there. It may take an hour to dig the pc out of it. Further, don't gesture to find out. To say, pointing, "You mean this item, then," is not only an evaluation but a nearly hypnotic command, and the pc feels he must reject very strongly. Don't tell the pc what the pc said and don't gesture to find what the pc meant. Just get the pc to say it again or get the pc to point it out again. That's the correct action. DRIVING IN ANCHOR POINTS Also, do not shove things at a pc or throw things to a pc. Don't gesture toward a pc. It drives in anchor points and makes the pc reject the auditor. ROCK SLAMMER The reason a person who rock slams on Scientology or auditors or the like can't audit well is that they are wary of a pc and feel they must repeat after the pc, correct the pc or gesture toward the pc. But rock slammer or not, any new auditor may fall into these bad habits and they should be broken fast. SUMMARY A very high percentage of ARC breaks occur because of a failure to understand the pc. Don't prove you didn't with gestures or erroneous repeats. Just audit, please. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.rd.gm _ ****************************************************************** 27. HCOB 23 May 1971 VII Premature Acknowledgments Basic Auditing Series 7 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971 Issue VII Remimeo Auditors Supervisors Students Tech/Qual Basic Auditing Series 7 PREMATURE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Here's a new discovery. Imagine my making one on the comm formula after all these years. Do people ever explain to you long after you have understood? Do people get cross with you when they are trying to tell you something? If so, you are suffering from premature acknowledgment. Like body odor and bad breath, it is not conducive to social happiness. But you don't use Lifebuoy soap or Listerine to cure it; you use a proper comm formula. When you "coax" a person to talk after he has begun, with a nod or a low "yes," you ack, make him forget, then make him believe you haven't got it and then make him tell you at GREAT length. He feels bad and doesn't cognite and may ARC break. Try it out. Have somebody tell you about something and then encourage before he has completely told you all. THAT'S why pcs itsa on and on and on and on with no gain. The auditor prematurely acknowledged. THAT'S why pcs get cross "for no reason." The auditor has prematurely and unwittingly acknowledged. THAT'S why one feels dull when talking to certain people. They prematurely acknowledge. That's why one thinks another is stupid -- that person prematurely acknowledges. The quickest way to become a social pariah (dog) is to prematurely acknowledge. One can do it in many ways. The quickest way to start the longest conversation is to prematurely acknowledge, for the person believes he has not been understood and so begins to explain at greater and greater length. So this was the hidden ARC break maker, the cognition wrecker, the stupidifier, the itsa prolonger in sessions. And why some people believe others are stupid or don't understand. Any habit of agreeable noises and nods can be mistaken for acknowledgment, ends cycle on the speaker, causes him to forget, feel dull, believe the listener is stupid, get cross, get exhausted explaining and ARC break. The missed withhold is inadvertent. One didn't get a chance to say what one was going to say because one was stopped by premature acknowledgment. Result, missed W/H in the speaker, with all its consequences. This can be counted on to make you feel frightened of being "agreeable with noises or gestures" for a bit and then you'll get it straight. What a piece of tech to remain incompletely explained. Fair scares one it does. And in the comm formula too! L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.rd.gm _ ****************************************************************** 28. HCOB 5 Feb. 1966 II "Letting the PC Itsa" The Properly Trained Auditor Basic Auditing Series 8 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 5 FEBRUARY 1966 Issue II Remimeo Auditors Supervisors Students Tech Qual Basic Auditing Series 8 "LETTING THE PC ITSA" THE PROPERLY TRAINED AUDITOR The most painful thing I ever hope to see is an auditor "letting a pc itsa." I have seen auditors let a pc talk and talk and talk and talk and run down and talk and run down and talk again until one wondered where if anywhere that auditor had been trained. In the first place, such an auditor could not know the meaning of the word ITSA. The word means "It is a ..." Now, how an auditor letting a pc talk believes he is getting a pc to spot what IT is, is quite beyond me. This pc has been talking all his life. He isn't well. Analysts had people talk for five years and they seldom got well. So how is it supposed to happen today that a pc, let talk enough, will get well. It won't. The auditor does not know the very basics of auditing skills. That's all. These are the TRs. An auditor who can't do his TRs can't audit. Period. Instead he says he is "letting the pc itsa." If by this he means he is letting the pc drive all over the road and in both ditches, then this isn't auditing. In auditing, an auditor guides. He gives the pc something to answer. When the pc answers, the pc has said "IT IS A ..." and that's itsa. If the pc answers and the auditor acknowledges too soon, the pc tends to go into an anxiety -- he has been chopped. So he talks more than he wanted. If the pc answers and the auditor does not acknowledge, then the pc talks on and on, hoping for an acknowledgment that doesn't come, "runs dry," tries again, etc. So premature or late-or-never acks result in the same thing -- the pc running on and on and on. And they call it "letting the pc itsa." Bah! If a pc talks too much in session, he either is getting cut off too fast by the auditor or hasn't got an auditor at all. It isn't "itsa." It's lousy TRs. (The one single exception is the pc who had years in analysis, but even he begins to get better with proper TRs used on him.) The proper cure is to drill the auditor until the auditor realizes 1. The auditor asks the questions. 2. The pc says what is the answer, "It's a ... 3. The auditor acks when the pc has said it to the pc's satisfaction and 4. The auditor acks when the pc has finished saying "It's a ... And that's itsa. Scientology auditing is a precision skill, not a gag blop goo slup guck blah. 1. The auditor wants to know ... 2. The pc says it is ... (1), (2), (1), (2), (1), (2), etc. TECH SAVVY Now, an auditor who doesn't know his technology about the mind and his processes of course never knows what to ask. So he or she simply sits like a lump of sacking hoping the pc will say something that makes the pc feel better. A sure sign that an auditor doesn't know an engram from a cow about processes is seeing a pc "itsa" on and on and on. In Scientology we do know what the mind is, what a being is, what goes wrong in the mind and how to correct it. We aren't psychoanalysts or psychiatrists or Harley Street witch doctors. We do know. The data about beings and life is there in Scientology to be learned. It isn't "our idea" of how things are or "our opinion of ..." Scientology is a precision subject. It has axioms. Like geometry. Two equilateral triangles aren't similar because Euclid said so. They're similar because they are. If you don't believe it, look at them. There isn't a single datum in Scientology that can't be proven as precisely as teacups are teacups and not saucepans. Now, if we get a person fresh out of the study of "the mystical metaphysics of Cuffbah," he's going to have trouble. His pcs are going to "itsa" their heads off and never get well or better or anything. Because that person doesn't know Scientology but thinks it's all imprecise opinion. The news about Scientology is that it put the study of the mind into the precise exact sciences. If one doesn't know that, one's pcs "itsa" by the hour, for one doesn't know what he is handling that he is calling "a pc." By my definition, an auditor is a real auditor when his or her pcs DON'T overtalk or undertalk but answer the auditing question and happily now and then originate. So how to tell an auditor, how to determine if you have trained one at last, is DO HIS PCs ANSWER UP OR DO THEY TALK ON AND ON. If I had an auditor in an HGC whose pcs yapped and yapped and ran dry and yapped while the auditor just sat there like a Chinese pilot frozen on the controls, I would do the following to that "auditor": 1. Remedy A, Book of Case Remedies. 2. Remedy B, Book of Case Remedies. 3. Disagreements with Scientology, technology and orgs and Scientology personalities all found and traced to basic and blown. 4. A grind study assignment of the Scientology Axioms until the "auditor" could DO THEM IN CLAY. 5. A memorization of the Logics, Qs (Prelogics) and Axioms of Dianetics and Scientology. 6. TRs 0 to 4 until they ran out of his or her ears. 7. TRs 5 to 9. 8. Op Pro by Dup until FLAT. 9. A hard, long study of the meter. 10. The ARC triangle and other scales. 11. The processes of Level 0. 12. Some wins. And I'd have an auditor. I'd have one that could make a Grade Zero Release every time. And it's lack of the above that causes an "auditor" to say "I let the pc itsa" with the pc talking on and on and on. Scientology is the breakthrough that made the indefinite subject of philosophy into a precision tool. And pcs get well and go Release when it is applied. L RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.jh.gm _ ****************************************************************** 29. HCOB 23 May 1971 X Comm Cycle Additives Basic Auditing Series 9 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971 Issue X Remimeo Auditors Supervisors Students Tech/Qual Basic Auditing Series 9 COMM CYCLE ADDITIVES There are no additives permitted on the auditing comm cycle. Example: Getting the pc to state the problem after the pc has said what the problem is. Example: Asking a pc if that is the answer. Example: Telling pc "it didn't react" on the meter. Example: Querying the answer. This is the WORST kind of auditing. Processes run best MUZZLED. By muzzled is meant using ONLY TR 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 by the text. A pc's results will go to HELL on an additive comm cycle. There are a hundred thousand tricks that could be added to the auditing comm cycle. EVERY ONE of them is a GOOF. The ONLY time you ever ask for a repeat is when you couldn't hear it. Since 1950, I've known that all auditors talk too much in a session. The maximum talk is the standard Model Session and the TR 0 to 4 auditing comm cycle ONLY. It is a serious matter to get a pc to "clarify his answer." It is in fact an ethics matter and if done habitually is a suppressive act, for it will wipe out all gains. There are mannerism additives also. Example: Waiting for the pc to look at you before you give the next command. (Pcs who won't look at you are ARC broken. You don't then twist this to mean the pc has to look at you before you give the next command.) Example: A lifted eyebrow at an answer. Example: A questioning sort of ack. The whole message is GOOD AUDITING OCCURS WHEN THE COMM CYCLE ALONE IS USED AND IS MUZZLED. Additives on the auditing comm cycle are ANY ACTION, STATEMENT, QUESTION OR EXPRESSION GIVEN IN ADDITION TO TRs 0-4. They are gross auditing errors. And should be regarded as such. Auditors who add to the auditing comm cycle never make Releases. So, that's suppressive. Don't do it! L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.rd.gm