COMM CYCLES IN AUDITING
A lecture given on 25 July 1963

All right. Beautiful, sunshiny day here; cherish it. Go out and make a facsimile of it.
This is what?
Audience: Twenty‑five July.
Twenty‑five July. What do you know about that? AD 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.
The auditing cycle.‑ Once upon a time there was an auditor and he knew he could audit; he knew he could audit. But pcs, they just wouldn't pc worth a nickel. And the auditor said, "Well, I'll have to get out of Scientology because pcs are no good."
You'd be surprised how often this line of logic‑ha‑gets in the road. Most auditors, early on, have a definite idea that there's tremendous variation in pcs, and that pcs ‑ some pcs can be audited and some pcs can't be audited, and that there are good pcs and bad pcs, and all different kinds of pcs.
Well, there are worrisome pcs, but just to the degree that you can't get them to get tone arm action. And some pcs are closer to a quiver on the subject of a communication breakdown than others; they're more nervy. Those things are true. But practically no pc can stand up against a good auditing cycle, you know, and say, "Well, I'm going on being aberrated for the rest of my days because that makes everybody wrong and makes me right."
The difficulty that an auditor gets into is normally found in his own auditing cycle and his own impatience. His disabilities in this particular line are last detected by himself In other words, he's really the last to find this out.
If an auditor wants to polish up his auditing, I recommend putting a piece of session on a tape, at least a piece of a session, and then listening to that tape back, and not listening to the ramifications or the flubs. Anybody is liable to make a duplicative‑type flub, you know. Like, you've had to change your auditing command‑you heard me make one the other day on that tape. I had to change the command, because I was getting so much bang out of "mainly" that I had to put "mostly." And then I was grooved into saying "mainly," and my concentration, of course, was for the pc, and I was slipping up and I was occasionally saying "mainly" again when I was trying to say "mostly."
Well, you're liable to pick on that kind of thing as being a very important error. Actually, it isn't very important. What's important is: Did you complete your auditing cycle? See, it really isn't how gracefully you completed it, but did you complete it?
There are two communication cycles that make up the auditing cycles, and those 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. Those are completely distinct, one from the other.
Now, the only place they impinge on each other at all ‑and this is the only thing that connects them and makes an auditing cycle‑is the fact that the auditor, on his cycle, has calculatingly restimulated something in the pc, which is then discharged by the pc's auditing cycle.
So you see, you've kind of got a V lying on its side. You see, you've got the upper V here with the auditor at the top of the wing, you see, and he's cause distance, effect; and here at the point of the V, you customarily think of that as just one turn. Actually, there's a complication right there: It's what the auditor has said has caused a restimulation at that point, and then the pc is honorbound to start an auditing cycle to get rid of the restimulation. Can you see that? And that is the game that is being played in an auditing cycle, and that's the entirety of the game. There's nothing else esoteric about it at all.
Don't think otherwise than that the auditor is restimulating the pc. Now, some auditing‑some auditing‑breaks down because the auditor is unwilling to restimulate the pc. Now, you'll see this on a gross level when somebody said, "I had to stop auditing him because the somatics were so great." You see? I've actually heard somebody say that‑seriously.
And I think to myself, "The poor pc, man." At that point of the V where those two come together and where effect turns into cause, where the pc is there; at that point, you have a restimulation and then the necessity of answering the question to get rid of the restimulation.
Now, if the pc doesn't answer the question, the pc does not get rid of the restimulation. If he alter‑ises at that point, then every restimulation is going to become an alter‑is. And all pcs who are having any trouble alter‑is at that point of the V.
Here, I'll draw you a picture. Here is your V. And this is cause and this is distance and this is effect. Now, here's your auditor, see? And here's the pc. Now, at this point here is where you get your restimulation factor. And this point is again, now, cause‑distance‑effect, see? So we get cause‑distance‑effect, see? And that's what an auditing cycle in actual fact looks like.
Now, there are some little inner cycles‑there are some little inner cycles that throw you off and make you think that there are some other things to the auditing cycle. And these little inner cycles are when you get cause‑distance‑effect, and he has answered the question, the auditor then says, "Thank you." Well, actually, that's a shadow. And this now starts the shadow back, you see? You understand?
See, there's a little extra communication cycle on here; it's an extra cycle, see? And you have this as the acknowledgment cycle. So you have here an ack, and of course that goes this way, you understand, and is received over here; and that's all there is to it. That's a little fade‑out, don't you see?
Well, I very often berate you for being not perceptive, and not auditing the pc and not seeing what's happening to the pc, or what's going on there, don't you see? So I get this kind of a‑of an action here: there is another one of these little shadow cycles. The pc has received the auditing command. And that 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 that one.
You say, "Do birds fly?" and then you fail to perceive that the pc received the auditing command. Now, that's because he doesn't say anything. See, here's your main cycle: cause‑distance‑effect; "Do birds fly?" See?
And the pc says, "No."
Well, actually, there's another cause in here; there's another little tiny one, and it's right here and it's a little "c," see? And you're missing that one where you're not perceiving the pc. Does he receive it?
You say, "Do birds fly?
And he says ... That's all the cause that is emanated at this point, by the pc. See, he just ... See, that would be exaggerating it.
But you can tell by looking at him that he didn't understand what you'd said, or that he was doing something peculiar with the command he was receiving, you see? Doing something peculiar with this command.
Well, it's actually‑ whatever that message is that is in response here, whatever message that is, does ride on this line. And an auditor who isn't watching the pc at all then never ‑notices a pc who isn't receiving or understanding the auditing command; and all of a sudden, somewhere along the line, there's an ARC break, and then we do assessments and then 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.
What is the pc doing, completely aside from answering? Well, that what‑he‑is‑doing is this other little sub‑cause‑distance‑effect line. So a complete auditing cycle consists of no less than six communication cycles, if you really want to get it down to the last ramifications. But the important ones are four. You've got four communication cycles.
Well, where are the other two? Where's the other two? They're so tiny that you wouldn't really notice them, but they are there. Cause‑distance‑effect of "Is the pc ready to receive an auditing command?" See, is he ready to receive an auditing command? He's going, "Oh, rum‑ rum‑rum‑rum‑rum. " Well, that action is actually pc causing, isn't it? And it has to ride up the line across distance and be received at the auditor; and the auditor perceives that the pc is doing something else.
You say, "That's not very important," you see? But it is; it is. You'll find auditors goof that one very often. And the pc is going‑and the auditor says‑he's nulling, let us say‑and he says, "catfish," "cat fur," and so forth. And the pc is going‑going like this, you see? See, he's not noticed this first one.
That causes this kind of trouble: You've got the item "fur" on a list that you're nulling, and you hit the item "fur" and it goes through, actually, a complete auditing cycle, one way or the other, because you very often say, "Thank you," after you've done so. It's a very jammed‑up auditing cycle, but it's there, you see?
And then you go on to "catfish" on the next one, without performing this top cycle: Is the pc ready to have "catfish" read to him? No, he's hung up on "fur," and the only time you ever get into real catastrophe is when the pc is really hung up on "fur." God, when you said, "fur," the pc went, "Ew‑w‑w‑w." Dong! and there he is, see?
"What's happened? Where is it? Ho! What's happened?" See? You ever have that happen to you? Somebody goes over a line‑bong! it goes. And the next thing you know, in the far‑off distance you hear "catfish," "cat whiskers . . ."
And you say, "What's that? Where's this? Who's what?" This one becomes terribly important when you run into a situation like that. You don't really pay too much attention to it. But it exists. Got it? It exists.
And there's another one down here. There's another little one down here: Pc received the acknowledgment. And sometimes you violate that sixth one. You say, "Thank you!" and the pc goes like this. Or that you say, "Thank you," and the pc‑. If you were to do an end of‑old‑time Model Session end‑of‑session mid ruds at that point, you'd find out the pc asked you why you never acknowledged him. See? You have been acknowledging him, but you've never seen that he didn't receive the acknowledgment, don't you see?
That perception has another little tiny one in it, is: Has the pc said everything? But that actually comes on this line here: Has the pc answered everything, see? And it becomes‑the auditor is watching the pc, see? And the auditor sees that the pc has not said all he was going to say. Sometimes get in trouble with pcs that way.
Pc says, "Oh, yeah, it was sometime in the later days of the Roman Empire..." You know he's going to say something else, see? Well, this one ‑isn't complete. So everything at cause hasn't moved down the line here to you, effect. And you haven't perceived all of the effect. So you go into the acknowledgment one before this line has completed itself, don't you see?
"Well, it was in the early days of the Roman Empire. Um . . ."
"Thank you! Now, we will..." Duh‑uh‑uh‑uh. You've seen that happen. That's chopping a pc's comm, see?
They didn't let this line‑this line here, which is the fourth communication cycle, flow to its complete end. And then this one, the acknowledgment, takes place. And of course it can't go through because this, the fifth communication cycle, is sitting up here on the fourth communication cycle.
So you say, "Thank you," and of course you're right back against‑and it's an inflowing line and they jam right there.
So there's six‑if you really want to break it all down‑there's six communication cycles that make up one auditing cycle. Six‑not more than six, unless you start running into trouble. And when you violate that‑one of those six‑when you violate one of those six‑you of course are going to get into trouble, then, which causes a mishmash of one kind or another.
Now, I'll go over these again. I think you would care to have me do that, wouldn't you?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Up here we have number one: The pc. His emanation at that point is simply his appearance and presence. That's number one. Is he ready to have an auditing command given to him? See, are we all set here for the auditing command? That's number one. That's a communication cycle consistence of cause, distance, effect.
Your next communication cycle on the thing‑we had better go into number three‑is your auditor's communication straight down to the pc. That is the auditing command and that you normally consider the communication cycle. Got it? That's what you normally say: "Do birds fly?" That's cause‑distance‑effect received at the pc's‑here.
Now he has to take care of and handle the charge at this point (and I'll cover this in a minute), he'll have to handle the charge at this point which has been restimulated by the auditor. And now he originates (although we use another designation; I've used origination otherwise, and so forth): He has his answer, which is what you normally call it. His answer, however, is a .cause. And that's a cause, a distance and an effect. You understand?
Now, your next one is an acknowledgment by the auditor which goes over cause, distance, effect‑is received by the pc; and this is the perception of whether or not the pc receives the acknowledgment. Got that?
But you can go over this, work this thing out, you'll find out that it's a very complicated arrangement. And you can count on anybody studying this, promptly and immediately afterwards not being able to audit at all. It's something like taking a golf pro and say, "How do you handle your club?"
But this is your‑this is your main, your main show.
Now, what you've considered ordinarily the auditing cycle has been this first V which I drew, which is cause‑distance‑effect, with the pc at effect, the auditor at cause. And then, at that V, the restimulation takes place and you get cause‑ distance‑ effect.
Now, I'm not going to go into the rest of the auditing cycle till I show you the center of this thing, okay?
There is another communication cycle inside the auditing cycle‑another communication cycle. And that is at the point of the V Here's your pc and here's your auditor, and here was your cause, your distance, effect; here is your cause, your distance, effect and here was a C and here was an E. Don't you see? Cause‑distance‑effect at the pc. That's the auditing command. And then you've got cause‑distance‑effect which is the auditing response.
Well, we've opened up the point of the V. And here is your little additional one, and that's between the pc and himself. Here, see? See what this is? Now, this actually can be multiple, and it depends upon the complications of the mind. But because there has been an effect there, that causes a cause. See? Because you have an effect at this point of impact, you get a restimulation. Now, that stimulation brings about charge, which then causes the pc to emanate to get rid of that charge. So you have an internal one, here, of cause‑distance‑effect inside the pc's skull.
Well, that gives us seven communication cycles.
Now, I said this could be multiple. This is him talking to him, see? And you say, "Do birds fly?" and this causes a picture of birds. He receives the effect of the picture of birds, and he causes a query of the picture. "Are they flying?" And as a result, the answer comes back of the flapping of the wings and he says, "Yes, they're flying." And so with his thought he transmits, then, the causative action to the auditor‑now directed at the auditor‑ "Yes." You see how that can be multiple?
Now, you're listening to the inside of his skull when you're examining that V down there. Now, if you think that the inside of the skull is more important than the rest of the cycles, you're going to be very, very disabused. This happens to be the least important of all of the actions, except when it isn't being done. And of course it's the hardest to detect when it isn't being done. It's the hardest to detect.
Pc says, "Yes." Well now, what has the pc said yes to? And you sometimes are "insufficiently incurious." You've said, "Do birds fly?" and the pc receives this, and he gets a picture of a dinosaur who is eating, and perceives that dinosaurs eat and says, "Yes." And carrying out the remaining part of the sentence, it would be, "Yes, dinosaurs eat."
So this is actually what it sounds like to the auditor: "Do birds fly?"
"Yes."
"Thank you."
See, that's what it sounds like to the auditor‑that's the big V.
Actually, this is what happened: "Do birds fly?"
And the point of the V is haywire; we get a dub‑in, see? Picture of a dinosaur flies up, because that's safer to look at than birds, for some reason, or more interesting or different. It's an alter‑is of some kind or another happens on an automaticity.
The pc thinks he understands the question now on the basis of "Do dinosaurs eat?" and says, "Yes." And the auditor says, "Thank you."
Hey, wait a minute. What's going to happen to this pc? What's going to happen to the pc?
And that, in essence, is this internal perception of line, which I showed you on the other side. This cause‑distance‑effect backflash here, and so forth, happens to include "Is the pc answering the command I gave him?" question.
Now, all of this is very complicated, isn't it? And it's sufficiently complicated that any auditor ought to sit down with a piece of paper and work it all out‑and not expect me to tell them. I think there are very few auditors ever really inspected that to the degree that it's a multiple cycle. There are seven or more communication cycles involved in an auditing cycle. Now, it's actually weighty enough that standing up here giving you a lecture on the subject, off the cuff, see, it's very easy to get mixed up on which cycle is which, because it requires a little bit of concentration. You have to actually mock up a complete session, see‑complete auditing cycle‑and pick out every communication cycle in the auditing cycle.
Now, a communication cycle consists of just cause‑distance‑effect, with intention and duplication. That's all‑that's a communication cycle. How many of these are there in one auditing cycle? And that would include every nuance of the auditing session. So you have to answer with how many principal ones are there? Because some auditing cycles could contain a couple of more.
The pc says, "Huh?" You see, that's a cause. That goes over distance, effect.
And the auditor says, "Do birds fly?" He says, "I will repeat the auditing question. Do birds fly?" And that goes cause‑ distance‑effect. But you immediately have added two more cycles and so you've got nine‑because there was a flub, see? You got that?
So anything unusual that happens in the session adds to the number of communication cycles to the auditing cycle, but they're still all part of the auditing cycle.
Now, we've got repetitive commands as an auditing cycle, and that's doing this same cycle over and over and over.
Now, I'll give you some homework here; this is for your own good. You draw out all these communication cycles on a scrap of paper for yourself. Just take a look at all these things and mock up a session, like you do this and the pc does that, and so forth. And all of a sudden it'll come very straight in your skull how many of these things there are, and you won't have a couple of them jammed up. Because actually, what's mainly wrong with your auditing cycle is 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, see?
You know whether he has answered the question or not.
Well, how did you know if he has answered the question or not? By esoterics? New subject matter: esoterics. If you're very skilled at esoterics, you could probably manage it. But there are no esoterics involved. Even if it's telepathy, it's cause‑distance‑effect. Doesn't matter how that communication took place; you know whether he's answered the auditing command by a communication cycle. I don't care if the distance was zero. It was permeation from same location in space; you were in the pc's head. I don't care how you sense this or if you know that ordinarily this pc is green when he answers an auditing command and he turns pale white this particular time. You realize he's not answered the auditing command. Well, how did you know that? Well, obviously, it's a communication cycle inside the auditing cycle.
So, I'll give you a little assignment there. You work that thing out. How many of these things are there? And then expect to drop the mashie and the niblick and hook one into the woods for a day or two. So that's perfectly all right to do that, see?
I myself occasionally take apart a piece of auditing and find myself gaping briefly in a session, because I've been trying to put together a very flexible R2H, because R2H is a very‑the way it was originally released‑is a very skilled activity. It's too much for me. That's right! It's just too confoundedly skilled. I know you can't do it. Impossible! It's too prone to error. Good training; man, if you can do that, you can do anything! I mean it. If you can do that, you can do anything.
But, boy, by the time you get some pc who's got an insignificant ARC break that doesn't have the punch of an engram or anything like that behind it, and you're trying to date that confounded thing on a meter‑it's just smooth as glass, and so forth‑you practically have to ARC break the pc again to get the meter to read! Terrific training.
But inherent in that process ‑inherent in that process there are a great many processes which go pretty well south and which will, actually, practically go one shot to OT, see? It's masked, however, in the exact mechanics that you're handling.
I found out that you have to use ten‑a minimum of ten steps to get the terrific therapeutic result of which it's capable. At least ten steps. In fact, I got one version of it on the drawing table right now, which I've been working with: I don't know, I think it must have about eighteen separate steps. I'm just trying to milk this thing down for maximum tone arm action, minimal error and maximal ease of auditing. You're doing a training version now. It won't be changed. Go right ahead with it.
But this is really putting that process up to make it get its most results, see? And, by the way, there are only nine levels of assessment in this newest version I'm working out‑just nine lines, takes care of the lot. But that's all progress.
But I'm running all this on a pc. You get the idea? It's all brand‑new, and it's impossible to audit the original version of it anyway. And I'm handling something that has fifteen steps in it, all of which are strange and different, and the pc has done something incredible in the session that I haven't yet suspected. And boy! You talk about the mashie and the niblick, man! You know? That golf ball goes straight through the trees, hits a tree trunk, caroms off a rock, goes straight up into the sky and vanishes forever.
All right. Well, if you're nervy on the subject of handling the basic tool of auditing, if that's giving you trouble and if you can get yourself into trouble by suddenly breaking it down and analyzing it, then it should be broken down and analyzed at the time you're auditing something nice and simple. That's the time it should be broken down‑not until you have three woods in your right hand and four irons in your left hand and you're going to putt with the heel of your golf shoe, see? I mean, this is not the time to practice this auditing cycle.
So you go ahead and break it down. 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're all there, and if you made somebody go through each one painstakingly and painfully, you would find out where his auditing cycle was jammed up. And it isn't necessarily jammed up on his ability to say, "Thank you!" It may very well be jammed up in another quarter. Got that?
Now, there's a completely different auditing cycle inside the same pattern.
Just wanted to make you comfortable and make you feel relaxed.
Let's work this one out. Here's the pc. This pc, "he gonna originate." This has got nothing to do with the auditing cycle. Scrub that other one! This now has nothing to do with it. The only thing they have in common is that they both use communication cycles. That they have in common. But this is brand‑new. This is the bolt from Mars. It comes out of the blue, and an auditor who is already concentrating‑ he's auditing, you know‑there are people, they used to read‑they'd move their lips while they read, you know? And everybody would make a lot of fun of them, you know, for‑you know?
Well, an auditor who's handling his communication cycles and his main auditing cycle on a lip‑moving level, see‑he's brand‑new at this sort of thing: the pc says something, see, that is not germane to what the auditor is saying or doing. And there is just‑well, just trucks go over the cliff, jet ships crash, see? All goes to hell, man!
So you actually have to be alert for this thing happening at any time. And the way to prepare for it is just to realize that it can happen any time; and just go into the drill that handles it, and don't get it confused with the drill which you have as an auditing cycle; and consider it as its own drill. It's 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, see? That had nothing to do with the auditing cycle. The auditing cycle went to pieces, maybe, and this cycle came in. Well, the other auditing cycle can't complete because this cycle is now here. Well, that doesn't mean that this cycle has precedence or dominance, but this cycle can start and take place and have to be finished off before the other one can resume.
So this is an interruptive cycle. And it is cause and distance and effect. And here's your auditor. The pc causes something. Now your auditor has to originate, and your V is inverted.
Now let's investigate here. Let's investigate that point. Let's expand the point, just as we did in the auditing cycle. What's this going to be, a mad spate of question marks or rockets flying off at oblique angles, or what's going to happen at this point?
Well, frankly, you can't put a machine at that point. You can't put a machine action at that point, because this thing has to be understood‑has to be understood. So, to the degree that it is hard to understand, you have cause‑ distance‑effect, cause‑distance‑effect. You understand? This is the auditor trying to clarify this thing. And every time he asks a question, he's got a new communication cycle.
Well, the trick that happens at the open V must not be such as to merely get the original line, cause‑distance‑effect, repeating itself. You mustn't have the pc continuing to repeat that line, because the pc is now going to go frantic. Because he can't get off of that line, he's stuck in time, and it really upsets him.
So the auditor, when this V is expanded here, has to be able to understand what the devil the pc is talking about. Now, there's really no substitute for simply trying to understand it.
The pc all of a sudden says, "But the Roman Empire didn't have any legs!"
"Tell me a little more about that, please." That's a good response.
And the pc immediately goes off into canned gesticulations like mad and explains how because of North Africa being in its situation, you see, Egypt being in its situation, and that sort of thing, the Roman Empire didn't run on legs. It didn't‑it didn't run on legs at all; it ran on rivers. We're now getting in deeper.
"All right. Good enough; good enough. I hear what you're saying, now. Give me a little more dope on this so I can get a good grasp of it."
Oh, and the pc will go on and he'll expostulate and understand it. And he'll understand it better through telling you. And all of a sudden, you'll find out that he is telling you‑he's telling you it didn't have any legs, and it didn't have any legs to stand on‑that is what he really meant, and so forth. And he's got it all doped out, and all of a sudden you see what the hell he's talking about. And at that point, you can resolve this point at the open V, you see? And "Oh, that's what the hell he's talking about" is the name of that expanded little V. "Oh, that's what the hell he's talking about" is the name of that cause ‑distance ‑ effect, see?
And then you say ‑ cause‑ distance‑effect ‑ "Thank you."
How many more lines can you put in there? Well, you have to have another little line up here, which is another little cause‑ distance‑effect, before that origination takes place so that you don't run into a jam and you don't give the auditing command. You got to say‑he's originated that he's going to say something. He says‑see, whatever it is‑and that's not the time for you to say "Do fish swim?" See? You suddenly notice there's a flicker across the table and the pc is saying. . . See, that's another little communication cycle. So it's cause‑distance‑effect. And effect at your point is to shut up. See?
And then, you actually can have another little one, here, that's a cause‑distance‑effect, of "I'm listening." Get the idea? And then, of course, there's your extra ones down here‑when you've said, "Thank you," then it's your perception of the fact that he has received the thank‑you. And there's your origin.
Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
The building brick out of which all of these things are made are communication cycles. That's just cause, distance, effect, with intention and duplication, see? That's the lot, see?
But when you say "duplication" ‑when you say this‑you are carrying, then, the communication cycle over into the A and the R, because there must be understanding.
Now, this is peculiar: There is a difference between an auditing cycle and a military communication cycle. "Theirs is not to question why; theirs is but to do and die" is definitely the military attitude toward the whole thing. And whereas this, too, can get into auditing‑and actually is not disallowed and is sometimes used, and not without benefit. The guy is not going to touch that wall. "Thou shalt touch that wall," you see? This kind of an action very often takes place. He's not going to give up the withhold. "Well, you goddamn well are going to give up the withhold," you know? Bow! see? That sort of thing is very often better than not doing anything about it. There are more adroit ways to do it but this is real crude auditing. But that's the only time it gets over into the military cycle.
Now, the military cycle is simply cause, distance, effect, compliance. And the auditing cycle is cause, distance, effect, understand. So there is an A and an R at the effect point. And therefore, there has to be an A and an R at the cause point, so as to make "understand" acceptable at the effect point. There doesn't have to be, but there had better be. You see that?
So there's where A and R fit in on the communication cycle where auditing are concerned. They are very carefully designed.
Now, a very syrupy affinity is very often highly detrimental to auditing. But too snarly or abrupt an affinity is also detrimental to auditing.
We haven't completed talking about the auditing cycle by a long ways. The auditing cycle, you would say, then, is TR 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and so forth. Well, the auditing cycle has very little to do with TR 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, just as such, and only as such. The TRs have to do with the communication cycle. And you have to put one all the way together at about TR 5 or TR 6 to take in all of these communication cycles. You understand?
What the lower TRs do is teach you to handle one communication cycle see, from one side or the other‑in varying degrees of complication. Now, of course you've got to have TR 0, because all of these things have to do with confront. All of them have to do with confront, so you'd say TR 0 is native to all of them. TR 1: well, that's an emanation. And TR 2 is a receipt. So of course, those just handle what? They just handle nothing but the communication cycle. Do you see that?
Now, you can go on and build this up from this point on, but you will find that a complete auditing cycle would require a full‑dress‑parade TR that covered, maybe, at least six. And then you could have another TR that covered it up to nine, ten or twelve. And you could have another TR that handled an origin through all of its cycles‑but that's supposed to be, right now, TR 4.
See, TR 4 ‑you've always had trouble with TR 4. Maybe I've shown you why today. Look at TR 4. See, that's a picture of TR 4. The V is the other way around. This thing is all upside down, you see?
But that isn't all there is to the A and the R in connection with the communication cycle. TR 1: How good is somebody's TR 1? Well, let me tell you that the ability to say "Do fish swim?" might serve, but how about being comprehensible? How about being comprehensible? Enunciatively comprehensible: you can understand the syllables. How about that? We can get over that point. But how about giving it an understandable communication? Now, let's look at this in its widest ramifications. The R‑factor has to be present there so that it can be duplicatable.
You very often, when you leave some auditors loose on making up a command, or asking something, or there's a hole in the routine and it doesn't give them those words, will do a put‑together of the statement to be said to the pc which, at the arrival at the pc, is incomprehensible. And yet an auditor is very often called upon to do this. I've noticed this. I'm not being condemnatory of auditors in general, but I've noticed here and there. When an auditor ‑ some auditors are left completely on their own ‑ well, something like this: "Well, get me a list. Get me a list of the stuff he's worried about." And you expect them to put together a question something like "What are you worried about?" See? And you get some entirely different, incomprehensible version, like "What are the worst part of your worries sometimes?" And‑something like this. Now, that's almost sensible compared to some of them I've seen. They're just absolutely incomprehensible. Absolutely incomprehensible.
I don't know how anybody‑and I have actually seen somebody run a level fitted into one of these five‑to‑fifteen‑command brackets, which didn't make any sense at all, and suddenly found to my horror that some pc had actually been running on this for hours and hours and hours; and every time they arrive at it, says, "I don't have a clue what you're talking about at this point."
And the auditor just says, "I will repeat the auditing question."
So there's this factor in this communication cycle, that the TR 1 aspect must be (1) enunciated in such a way as to arrive in an understandable form, but very often, when the auditor is formulating something, has to be formulated so that it can be duplicated. So these two other factors are involved, besides simply being at cause, is: Is the cause going out with any R? In other words, can you understand any part of this thing? Is this an understandable statement?
"Do fish someti‑ I'll repeat the auditing question: Do fish somet‑ Naturally, no auditing can proceed.
You start dropping off of everything; or get somebody with a Japanese curve; you get somebody doing something that is a little bit offbeat in pronunciation‑ somebody from Boston. Let's go worse‑somebody from Maine. You ever hear a "Maine‑iac" talk?
I was up there finding the Canadian border. The United States government lost it. (They'd lose their heads, you know, if you didn't watch them.) Anyway, they lost the Canadian border and went up and found it again. Found a tree had fallen on it and buried the marker. They have little pyramids that look like the Washington Monument that mark the border.
It was very necessary, because the Prohibition agents didn't know where their authority started and ended, see? It caused terrible things. We took the problem off, because what we were doing when we were surveying is we would stop the rumrunners and tell them we were Prohibition agents, relieve them of their cargo, and we always had a lot to drink!
Anyway, we solved this problem practically. The US government could've taken a lot of leaves from, I think, most of us on practical solutions to these problems.
But I spent the most delighted summer trying to learn to speak "Maine‑iac." Gorgeous. And the French that had been living up along the St. Lawrence didn't speak French and they didn't speak English. They spoke something else. But it was sure interesting. Got so I could speak the thing, you know? I'd talk about Bar Harbor with the best of them. But it wouldn't go in an auditing session.
And very often, some pc gets saddled with an auditor that he can't quite comprehend along some corner or another. Now, you should recognize what's out. The only thing that is out is the R‑factor in the TR 1. And an auditor should actually take great care to keep that one smoothed out. If he knows he's doing something weird that the pc can't comprehend, it doesn't matter how clumsily he sets it right so long as he sets it right.
Supposing you can't tell the difference between the way he pronounces five and the way he pronounces six. You can imagine these two getting jammed. The pc, for some reason or other, always thinks the auditor is saying five when he's saying six, and six when he's saying five. What do you think's going to happen in R3R, see?
So therefore, therefore it is up to the auditor to be comprehensible. That's where the R‑factor comes in. Be comprehensible. Not only from standpoint of accent, but sense: the comprehensibility. Diction enters into this. I can see some university in the future teaching "auditing English," you see, or "auditing speech." Actually, it'd be a big department, because you'd have to have the translation of all this stuff into German; you have a translation and then its enunciation in German‑same factor would apply, don't you see? The same factor in Swedish, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, all of this stuff. How do you audit these guys, you see? Well, all right. So you're going to have auditors perhaps from that country, but remember, they will have the same frailties of pronunciation.
How about translation of line plots, what line plots actually sum up into. Some of these countries don't have good terminology to follow through on a line plot. And yet the line plot will only fire on the right terminology. Don't you see, there's a lot of stuff to be worked out on this particular factor. But there's stuff to be worked out on it right now.
An auditor who is not comprehended by the pc isn't doing his TR I right. And therefore the R‑factor is very germane to whether the communication cycle can take place at all. And if you say "Do fish a ‑?" You can't do that. Do you see that nothing happens and no communication cycle takes place at all? So the R‑factor can do a complete wipeout. Interesting, isn't it?
Then you have the pc who doesn't want to be audited. He doesn't want to be audited at all. Well, how on earth can you start that one going? Because you've got to have a communication cycle before you can even put an R‑factor in. See, that's worse end to. He just won't listen to any part of Scientology. This is not a speech defect, but actually requires a lower‑level process which gets him to talk about Scientology anyhow.
We used to have one, "Well, why‑tell me why you shouldn't be audited." Tricky kind of an approach of this particular character.
This is all very feasible. But this comes under the heading of getting a communication cycle started, and the auditor is very often confronted by that. So there is something which actually is prior to the communication cycle, see, and that you are very often happy to see, exists. And when it goes out the window, you very often are sitting there with your eyes popped‑you don't know quite what to do. Well, the thing is, you can't get the communication cycle going.
Now, very often the R‑factor is out‑wildly. Or the affinity factor is out. The affinity factor is out because the pc is being very misemotional. Well, oddly enough, you can do an ARC break assessment today, and find the bypassed charge and use that to complete the communication cycle which you started and which wouldn't complete, because it is the generated charge. And that was why I showed you, particularly, the expanded point of the V.
What has happened there is inadvertently, one way or the other, the point of the V has gone awry. The auditor somehow or another, or the pc somehow or another, has restimulated a charge which has then not been originated either to the auditor or the pc. See, an overrestimulation has taken place there. It's quite easy to do. It's quite easy, though, to pick up these days. So, these ARC break assessments is a pilot of completing the communication cycle and getting the auditing cycle going again. See how that fits in?
All right. Now, that's all very well to talk about the auditing cycle and say that's just all there is to the auditing cycle, but there's, I mentioned a moment ago, the repetitive auditing cycle. This cycle going over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, is a specialized activity. There's an auditing cycle of one cycle and then there is the auditing cycle of the next cycle and the next cycle and the next cycle and the next cycle, see? That's a different thing‑ doing it many times. You get your repetitive process, and this is where that gets you in trouble. There is a point where this over‑and‑over‑again gets you in trouble.
You must, you absolutely must, complete a communication‑ all communication cycles of an auditing cycle. Therefore, you must complete an auditing cycle. But you must also differentiate the difference between one auditing cycle and the repetitive auditing cycle. And why must you generate this difference? Is because one auditing cycle must be completed, and a repetitive auditing cycles are very often overdone, and don't need to be completed in some cases. There's a difference.
Ooohh, where am I leading you now? You will say, "What's this? What's this? You mean you don't flatten a process?" Yes, you always flatten a process. But some auditor can get so eager beaver with his series‑which is flatten the process, see‑that he forgets why he is flattening the process. And that is your dominant cycle‑is ability regained.
Why are you auditing the person in the first place? To do an auditing cycle? To do a series of auditing cycles, known as repetitive cycles, so that you can get a flattened process?
Now, you say, "Well, you're doing that to flatten the tone arm action." No, that's right there with repetitive auditing cycle; that belongs right there with repetitive auditing cycle, don't you see? There is something that dominates all of this; there's a greater domination.
I'll show you what these points are. This will intrigue you; I don't think perhaps many of you have ever looked at this before. Here's your big cycle, which is major cycle. See, that's a major auditing cycle. And its proper name is ability regained.
I can see some of you now. You're auditing engrams like mad and you hit this key engram and you hit the thing and you all of a sudden got an OT on your hands; and the fellow gets up and stretches and that sort of thing, and he's getting all ready to square away, and he's wondering what he should do with the body, and‑you know? He's all set and you're going on: "All right. What is the duration of this engram?" Well, that's just too much dedication to this next cycle, see?
And this you can call the process cycle‑process auditing cycle. This, of course, is just your single auditing cycle. Your progress of case is up, like this, see? Now, if you‑if you don't have your single cycle down, then of course you can't do a repetitive cycle. Can't do a repetitive auditing cycle, you can't flatten the process, in other words, you see?
Now, a process is flattened by tone arm action out, no comm lag left, or cognition‑I'll draw you a picture of these things‑or ability regained. Now, you understand, we're going here from the process cycle to this ability regained cycle, you understand? We're going just between those two. You understand here, that if you can't do a single cycle, then it's certain that you're not going to be very successful in completing any process auditing cycle‑which is the repetitive cycles‑and if you can't do this, then you certainly are not going to produce the upper one of ability regained. See? That's obvious.
But what is a flat process cycle? You sometimes come a cropper on this and don't realize what you're coming up against.
Now, three equal commands‑this is the lousiest one, see? Three equal commands. That's smelly, but you say the process is flat, see? Safe to leave it. Well, you'd better leave it at the CCHs, otherwise your pc is going to start being unhappy. But remember that they must be confidently done, or something like that. You can't have "He screamed three times," you see?
You very often‑you'd be surprised‑you very often have this question asked of you. You have some HPA student sometime saying, "Well, but he was angry the same way for three different commands; so therefore the process was flat."
Now, your next level up here‑your next level‑is a more interesting level from a standpoint of that, but it's perfectly safe to flatten it on a cognition. Guy gets a cognition: "Oh, yes!" see? Even a minor cognition, do you understand? That's not a major cognition; that's, you know, minor cognition‑he had a win. "Hey, well, what do you know! That's why elephants fly." You know, that's all set. Hasn't too much to do with the process, but you sort of stop the process at that point. The pc is not going to suffer.
You understand that these first two levels that I'm talking to you about, of "How do you flatten a process?" are just‑oh, that's awful shabby sort of a way to look at the thing, but that's just the minimum. That's the minimum security.
Now let's get to the real one, which is TA flat‑flat by TA. That's your auditing cycles, repetitive auditing cycles, and you no longer have TA action on it here, don't you see?
And up above this‑and there are two levels of this, to make it better‑is a major cognition. You'll see that sometimes. You'll see that sometimes. That takes precedence. You haven't got the TA flat, but all of a sudden he cognites all of the level is' flat you're running. You'll see him go pow! pow! pow! ‑off the meter. You've got‑"failure to scream" was the level you were running, "about cats." And he says, "Oh! Oh, yeah! Yeah, yeah, yeah! We used to mock up these forty‑mile‑high cats and yeah‑oh, well, what the hell! Yeah!" And you see the meter blow down and bang and everything goes to hell. You try to run this process again. He hasn't got any level there left to run. In fact, continuing the process after one of those things is invalidation of the pc.
Now, this is Ability Regained and that takes precedence over all of these. This guy couldn't walk and you're halfway through this and you haven't got the TA flat and so forth and he hasn't had any cognition you're thinking about and your processing cycle's a repetitive cycle, and all of a sudden the pc says, "Hey, what do you know!" You know? And he throws the electrodes down sideways and he gets up and starts walking, you know? "Eh! Yeah, I can do it!" Good, are you going to flatten the process now?
You may think I'm pointing out something ridiculous, but you do this quite often. You spoil it. You've got to know when to cut and run. See what I mean? What you got coming right up is you're all of a sudden going to make an OT‑and continue to flatten the process.
Now, let's look at this, then. This single cycle‑you got to have that one down cold, and there's no doubt about that! Got to be able to complete that. You got to be able to complete it repetitively, time after time again, and that's for flattening out a process. And the thing which takes dominance over that, of course, is you flatten out the process until you run into the ability regained.
Now, sometimes you don't run into an ability regained and you go on and flatten the process, and have to do another process before you regain the ability, don't you see? Sometimes you have to flatten a lot of these before you get up to that. Sometimes you halfway flatten one and you're suddenly up to it. You see, but I'm just talking about auditing cycles ‑repetitive auditing cycles‑and where they're aiming toward. You're aiming toward always getting this one completed, but the only thing that interrupts it, in any single cycle, is a cognition. Similar to repetitive cycles, ability regained‑a single auditing cycle that you are doing runs into a cognition. What do you do in a case like that? Well, you don't spoil the cognition by completing the auditing cycle. You can start another auditing cycle, if it is necessary to do so.
To that degree, to those modifications, these other things must be pushed through to the bitter end.
All right. Well, I've given you the dope on this. I imagine that you find this somewhat intriguing. It's a better look, perhaps, than we have had at it. I've been meaning to get around to it for some time, actually, and I've been breaking it down myself so that it could be talked about better. And you're seeing here a bit of gain; this isn't something which I've known all the time and so forth and so on. But I have been studying this ability regained in relationship to finishing a whole series of auditing cycles, and then I started breaking down the single auditing cycle in its communication cycles and got it into a more communicable form. And I think you'll find this very useful, both in teaching people and in auditing, yourself
I wish you luck. Just go on and audit. Don't try to make me guilty by suddenly knocking the ball into the rough because you've lost the grip.
Okay. Thank you very much.