6402C06 SHSpec-5 Comm Cycle in Auditing

The magic of communication is all that makes auditing work. If you sat
down at a one-hand electrode E-meter, You would be amazed at this fact: You
would get no tone arm motion beyond, perhaps, a brief residual flurry at the
very start. With another auditor, you would get 175 TA divisions; with
yourself, you would get two. It works this way because the thetan in this
universe has begun to consider himself mass, so he is subject to the laws of
physics. Consequently, he can't as-is much mass. He has to have a second
terminal to discharge the mass, or energy, against. If an auditor thinks he
is MEST, he is apt to get the condition of the PC, because he mocks up or
envisions the PC's charge in himself, making himself a matched terminal. But
that is not what makes auditing work. It is all consideration. No backflow
actually hits the auditor.

The ability to hold a position in space or to hold two terminals apart,
is a definition of power. In the auditing situation, there is an apparent
exchange of energy, from the PC's point of view, which doesn't hit the
auditor, but because thetans think of themselves as terminals, you get an
exchange of energy going on. Nothing hits the auditor, and it as-ises, as far
as the PC is concerned. But you have set up 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. That is why there is nothing hitting the auditor. The magic of
auditing is contained in the comm cycle of auditing. You are concerned with
the smooth interchange between these two poles, which is necessary for as long
as the PC considers himself to be matter and therefore considers that he must
discharge against something. Eventually, the PC will get up to a point where
he no longer considers himself matter. When a lot (half) of the bank is gone,
the meter will no longer "read on a sneeze". When a PC cognites that he is
not MEST, the auditor can't knock any energy off, and the meter goes dead.
Running R6, the meter only reacts when the PC decides what something is. You
have to ask the PC if that is it. When the PC looks and decides if that is it
or not, only then does the meter read. The PC is advancing away from the
automatic physical energy manifestations of the physical universe. You get to
a point where you have intention.

A GPM is just "a method of limiting the person's ability to intend." That
is the whole idea behind implanting: to foul up intention by fixing it so that
every time a thetan intends positive, he gets negative, and vice versa, so he
can't decide. If you talk to a person, and every time he says, "Yes," you
say, "No," he will get to an indecisional state of mind, where he can no
longer intend, "Yes," fully. This wears him down; it breaks his spirit. This
is the whole idea behind implanting: to get a being unable to effectively
intend or determine anything successfully. "He intends to write, but
something is intending that he not write." Therefore, he can't write. All
ideas of power of choice, self-determinism, etc., stem from the ability to
intend something. The more enMESTed someone is, the more trouble they have
with intention.

(With the two-pole arrangement, a person can be influenced without his
knowledge.)

The difficulties of auditing are just the difficulties of the comm
cycle. You can hit the parts of the comm cycle as buttons. The auditor must
permit a smooth flow between himself and the PC, if matter is to be as-ised by
the PC, using the comm cycle. When you don't permit a smooth flow between
yourself and the PC as terminals, you get a no-as-ising of matter. Part of
the trick is knowing what has to be as-ised, but that is a matter of
technique. If the auditor is capable of getting the PC to be willing to talk
to him, he wouldn't have to hit a particular button in order to get TA
action. Basic auditing and the comm cycle is senior to the technique. The
fundamental entrance to the case is not in tech, but in the comm cycle. In
case supervision, you can look at the points of the comm cycle that are
missing in the PC's case and heal those points up. There can be the comm
cycle between the PC and the auditor, and between the PC and the auditing
room. You can address the PC's comm between himself and the environment by
looking at what he is worried about. With an unconscious person, pick up his
hand and have him touch the pillow, your arm, etc., giving the command at the
same time. You are just getting him in comm with the auditor and his
surroundings. But now you are into technique.

"Communication is simply a familiarization process based on reach and
withdraw." When the auditor speaks to the PC, he is reaching; when he ceases
to speak, he is withdrawing. When the PC hears you, he is a bit withdrawn.
He reaches towards you with the answer. He is in a withdraw, as he looks for
the answer. He reaches the answer and reaches the auditor. It is a
communication exchange that as-ises energy and registers on the E-meter. No
meter action occurs in the absence of that exchange, namely the comm cycle.
If the comm cycle isn't in, the PC self-audits, and you get no case gain and
no TA.

That is the fundamental discovery of dianetics and scientology. It is so
simple that everyone has overlooked it, because MEST is very complex stuff,
being composed of atoms, molecules, wavelengths, etc. It is so complex that
nobody can understand it. People who are ploughed into matter, who think as
matter, think very complexly. "They cannot observe the simplest things with
which they are confronted. They observe none of this."

"The ease with which you can handle a comm cycle depends on your ability
to observe what the PC is doing." Your inspection of what you are doing should
have ended with your training. Now all observation should focus on the PC."
The comm cycle you watch is the PC's." The true touch of genius, that makes an
auditor that can crack any case, is the auditor's ability to observe the comm
cycle of the PC and repair its various lacks. This consists of asking a
question that the PC can answer, observing that the PC has completed the
answer to it, acknowledging the PC, and then giving the PC something else to
do. That is the auditing comm cycle. [See also p. 450, above, for an
illustration.] This includes clearing the auditing command, so that the PC can
answer the question. Ask the question in such a way that the PC can hear it.
And know whether the PC is answering that question. "You can tell when the PC
is finished....[It is] a piece of knowingness, ... an instinct." You should
know, without having to ask the PC if he is finished. Then, knowing that he
is finished, you use the acknowledgment to tell him that he has said it,
using only the right amount of stop to stop that cycle, not the whole
session. Then you give him something else to answer. When you don't see when
he is finished and therefore fail to acknowledge, he thinks he is not done and
looks for more. He even takes up humming! If you don't give him something
else to answer, he will go on automatic. He will self-audit, with no TA
action. The degree of lack of TA action measures the degree of self-audit
that the PC is indulging in. Get your comm cycle good enough so that you
don't have to pay attention to it, and give your attention to the comm cycles
of the PC. Spend your basic auditing doing nothing but repairing the basic
communication inabilities of the PC, and you will be a genius: You will crack
99% of the cases that walk in. For instance, the case that goes on and on
with his comm. You may think that you are acknowledging him, but he never
gets it. It is up to you to get that communication acknowledged, so he knows
that it is heard. Or take the PC who takes twenty minutes to answer the
auditing question, and then, in that answering, doesn't answer it. The very
smart auditor knows that he would have to do three processes, because:

1. The PC cannot have an auditing question. He didn't answer it, so he
never got it. This gives you the first process: "What auditing
question wouldn't you mind being/should you be asked?"

2. Since he can't have auditing, he is wasting it, so after you have a
comm line going, you can run wasting auditing. Run it as a concept,
since you can't expect such a case to recall anything. You could
use:

"Get the idea of you wasting auditing,"or

"What could you do here that would waste auditing?", or

"What could an auditor do here that would waste auditing?"

and maybe get him to waste communication. Elementary havingness is
the ability to do.

3. Run, "Who would I have to be to audit you?"

4. After that, perhaps you could work on his memory.

You would see the whole case change.

Take a PC who is sitting there not saying anything. Find what the PC is
doing and dream up something accordingly, e.g., "What could you say to me?"
You get a long comm lag, then he says something. Build it up until you've got
him in communication with you. Then inspect the rest of his comm cycle for
other wrongnesses. Maybe now you have to find out whether he can have an
auditor. It is what the PC isn't doing that the auditor might be able to get
him to do that determines the auditing question. If you are alert, you will
see these little disabilities showing up. For instance, someone stammers.
Obviously, he is having trouble communicating.

"Don't ask the PC to do things the PC can't do." For instance, the
auditor asks, "From where could you view catfish?" The PC says, "Uh ... I'm
sorry, I've never viewed any catfish." The auditor has asked the PC a question
he couldn't answer. He is guilty of not having cleared the question. Clear
questions beforehand to make sure the PC can do it, before asking it. Always
respect the PC's saying that there aren't any more answers. Otherwise, you
give the PC loses. Your entrance point to the case is where the PC breaks
down in his comm cycle with the auditor and with the environment. For
instance, if the PC can't look at the auditor, you could run, "If you looked
over here, what would (or might) you see?" These are the ways you crack
cases. There are tons of processes that you could use.

Suppose you are running SCS on a PC who, you find, can't stand still.
Don't ignore the disability. Take something else to remedy it, e.g. "Stand
still/Don't stand still," which gets rid of automaticities. If the PC knows
that he has the disability, he can itsa about it, because it is real to him.
But often what the person is worried about is not what he is bugged with. You
could still trigger the bank and run it out on an automaticity, as in
dianetics, but then you would get a PC who gets better and doesn't know about
it. PCs will run off a total automaticity of what is wrong with them, and
they won't even listen to themselves talk.

An auditing session is highly artificial. But it is only artificial
because it approximates, to such harsh, staggering reality, the exact points
of contact with beings and existence, like a Lycoming engine in a Model T
Ford. Auditing highlights the exact important points of communication.

Here is a capsule version of what is wrong with the mind: The only thing
really wrong with people is that they have withdrawn from communicating. The
individual has gone out of contact. He has stopped looking. The last time he
looked, there were three sabre-tooth tigers ready to bite him. Of course, he
believes that there are still three sabre-tooth tigers there. He does this
throughout enough trilennia, and he's got an awful big stack of tigers, all of
which have left. But he doesn't know this fact. He can't be sure that they
have left. A person who withdraws from contact with tigers all the time and
refuses to contact the area doesn't see whether the tiger is still there or
not, but keeps mocking it up just to be sure. The tigers, actually, are
gone. But this individual is in a condition of total withdrawal. He is
"safeguarded" with automatic bank, with automatic beingness. A valence stands
where he ought to be. Total withdrawal is a capsule summary of aberration. A
thetan has, as his remedy for safety, shortening his reach. When he gets to
the point of zero reach, he inverts it, into an inverted withdrawal, and you
get the cycle of the dynamics, coming on down. He comes away from actual
reach to zero reach, but he still has to reach, so he figures out some other
way to reach. A zero of what he is doing always has a remedy that is lower.
So you can get an inversion of an inversion of an inversion of withdrawal.

This shows up in an auditing session right away, in the PC's inability to
talk to the auditor about pertinencies. So you must remedy his communication
by reaching him, in order to get him to reach. With a person who is on a
compulsive outflow, you have to get him there, before you can run anything,
e.g. by "Touch that chair." You have to have a session before you can have a
technique. This is how to get one: you use, observe, and remedy the
communication cycle. And after you have remedied it, notice that it has been
remedied. Note that the PC is now able to communicate with the auditor, and
notice what else needs to be done. Sometimes the remedy of the outpoint
happens so fast that you are astonished. Don't overrun it. If things are
going all right, don't remedy them. If things are going all wrong, find what
you can fix up and fix it up. "If the PC is fully in session, you can run
almost anything, and [he will] sail." But no technique by itself will put the
PC in session. The auditor has to do it.