In order to do something for somebody you have to have a communication line to that person.

The difficulty that an Auditor gets into is normally found in his own auditing cycle.

Communication lines depend upon reality and communication and affinity and where an individual is too demanding the affinity tends to break down slightly.

There are basically two communication cycles between the Auditor and the Pc that make up the auditing cycle.

Processing goes in two stages.

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.

1. To get into communication with that which you are trying to process.

2. Do something for him.

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.

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.

What the Auditor has said has caused a restimulation and then the Pc needs to answer the question to get rid of the restimulation.

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.

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.)

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 is a little extra communication cycle on here. The Auditor says, "Thank you" and you have this as the acknowledgement cycle.

There are two stages.

1. Form a communication line.

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.

2. Do something for 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.

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.

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.

But you see that's just walking up to the bus. Now you have got to go someplace.

Well, they actually needn't ever have gone wrong in the first place if this line had been in. What is the Pc doing completely aside from answering? Well, what he is doing is this other little sub-cause, distance, effect line.

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.

Another of these tiny lines is the cause, distance, effect line of – "Is the Pc ready to receive an auditing command?"

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.

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.

Now that's what I mean when I say do something for the pc.

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.

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.

Now here's another one – "Has the Pc received the acknowledgement?" Sometimes you violate this one. You have been acknowledging but you've never seen that he didn't receive the acknowledgement. That perception has another little tiny one in it that actually comes on this line; it is – Has the Pc answered everything?

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.

The Auditor is watching the Pc and the Auditor sees that the Pc has not said all that the Pc is going to say. You sometimes get into trouble with Pcs that way. Everything at "cause" hasn't moved on down the line to effect and you haven't perceived all of the "effect" and you go into the acknowledgement one before this line has completed itself.

So that discipline is important.

That's chopping the Pc's communication. You didn't let the communication cycle flow to its complete end. The acknowledgement takes place and of course it can't go through as it's an inflowing line and it jams right there on the Pc's incomplete outflowing answer line.

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 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.

So when you're real slow picking up the discipline, real slow picking up keeping in the communication cycle, when you're pokey on the subject you are still 9 miles from the ball. You're not even attending yet.

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.

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.

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?''

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.

So with this, there are seven communication cycles involved in an auditing cycle. It is a multiple cycle.

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.

A communication cycle consists of just cause, distance, effect with intention, attention, duplication and understanding. How many of these are there in one auditing cycle? You'd have to answer that with how many principal ones there are because some auditing cycles contain a few more. If a Pc indicates that he didn't get the command (cause, distance, effect), the Auditor would give a repeat of it (cause, distance, effect) and that would add 2 more communication cycles to the auditing cycle, so you've got 9 – because there was a flub. So anything unusual that happens in a session adds to the number of communication cycles in the auditing cycle, but they are still all part of the auditing cycle.

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.

Repetitive commands as an auditing cycle, is doing the same cycle over and over again.

The most elementary procedure would be – What do you think is sensible? – or anything of that sort. The pc says, "Well, I think horses sleep in beds. That's sensible. The auditor says, Alright. Now why is that sensible?'' The pc says, "Well... ah.... Hey! … That's not sensible. That's nuts!" You actually wouldn't have to do anything more than that. He's cognited. You've flattened it. It's so easy to do, but you keep looking for some magic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The auditor couldn't possibly be in communication with him.

There is a little line where the Pc indicates he is going to say something. This is a line (cause, distance, effect) that comes before the origination takes place so you don't run into a jam and you don't give the auditing command. The effect at the Auditor's point is to shut up and let him. There can be another little line (cause, distance, effect) where the Auditor indicates he is listening. Then there is the origination, the Auditor's acknowledgement of it and then there is the perception of the fact that the Pc received the acknowledgement.

So we are right back to the fundamental of why didn't the auditor get into comm with the pc in the first place.

That's your origination cycle.

You get into communication with the pc in the first place by doing proper Scientology discipline. That is not any trick. It goes off 1, 2, 3, 4.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.