An auditor’s tendency is to look for wrongnesses. He is always trying to find something wrong with the pc. That’s the nature of Scientology; we assume that there is something wrong with somebody otherwise he wouldn’t be here and be dead in his head, and he would be capable of doing a great deal more than he is doing at the particular moment.

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

An individual is basically and routinely good, capable of many actions and considerable power.

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

In the state of a Free Thetan or Native State he is a far more powerful individual than when he’s been complicated up.

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.

It’s the idea of the additive data to the Thetan. Try to give somebody something he doesn’t want and you are going to overthrow his power of choice. His power of choice is the only thing that he had to begin with, which gave him power, capability and anything else and that power of choice has been consistently and continuously overthrown by giving him things he didn’t want and taking away from him things he didn’t want to get rid of back and forth. You get the individual pretty overwhelmed and he goes down in power.

What happened to him actually is he solved something that didn’t need solving. There was something he couldn’t confront so he solved it and he fixed the solution.

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.

Anytime you fix these solutions, for ever and ever you put the individual down grade. An individual becomes aberrated by additives. His experiences in this universe are usually calculated to degrade and depower him. Now all you have to do is pick up all of these criss-crosses and you return him to power.

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

Man is an added-to being and everything that has been added to him has decreased his ability to cope. When you add something to the Being he gets worse.

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.)

We are in the business of deleting wrongnesses from the individual.

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

Even the Freudian Analyst realized that some additive had been added that should be de­leted. So the idea of deleting something to bring about a recovery is not new with us.

Because we are in the business of deleting wrongnesses from the individual we seldom look at rightnesses and that’s what’s wrong with most auditors. They are so anxious to find the wrongness – and quite properly – and they never really look at the rightness. If they don’t look at the rightnesses that are present, then they aren’t appreciating the degrees of truth that are present that can be promoted into more truth.

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.

In other words they are starting at a level of no truth present all the time so of course they never make any forward progress.

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.

You must realize that there must be truth present and that this truth must be recognized and that this is hand-in-glove a part of auditing – the recognition of the fact that truth is present.

If you only look for wrongnesses and only recognize wrongnesses then you will never be able to pull anything up a gradient because you won’t think you have any rightnesses to work with. It just all looks wrong to you.

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.

You have to be able to look at the wrongnesses in order to right them but we also have to be able to look at the rightnesses in order to increase them.

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.

We are only trying to find wrongnesses in order to increase rightnesses, and that’s very important. If you have no rightnesses present in a session you will never be able to make any progress of any kind. Progress is built on a gradient scale of rightnesses by which you delete wrongnesses and they drop and fall away.

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

Therefore, Processing is an action by which wrongnesses can be deleted from the case to the degree that rightnesses are present in the session. You cannot take a case that doesn’t have any rightness present and delete a wrongness. So you have to realize that there are right­nesses present and then you increase those rightnesses That makes it possible for you to pick up the wrongnesses and that’s what auditing consists of.

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.

Auditing is a contest of maintaining rightnesses so that we can delete wrongnesses. If you keep on deleting wrongnesses, all the while maintaining and increasing the rightnesses you even­tually wind up with a very right being. You are trying to get a right being, therefore if you don’t continually encourage right beingness you never wind up with a right being.

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 learn to observe an auditing session. You want your pc to wind up in a right state – in a more native, more capable, less overwhelmed, higher power of choice sort of state. You want him to wind up with more rightnesses.

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?

Therefore, if you audit so that you do not encourage and increase rightnesses then you won’t wind up with a right pc.

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.

The degree of rightness you have present must exceed the wrongness you are going to pick up. It’s a proportional action. If you’ve got as much wrongness in a session as you’ve got right­ness you’re not riding on any cushion. It makes a very difficult job of auditing. If you want to pick up this little wrongness, you have to have rightnesses present which are big enough to engulf it. That makes easy auditing.

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.

If the rightnesses in the session are very minor and the problem is a tiny one, there isn’t enough rightness in the session to handle the problem and the pc cannot erase it.

The pc’s ability to as-is or erase in a session is directly propor­tional to the number of good indicators present in the session.

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.

And his inability to cope in a session rises proportionally to the number of bad indicators present in a session.

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.

Any process has its own series of bad indicators. And the bad indicator moves in when the good indicator moves out So you have to have a primary knowledge of good indicators.

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?''

Don’t look for bad indicators on and on and on; you’ll drive the pc around the bend and suppress the good indicators What you want to do is know your good indicators for the level you are running so well that when one of them disappears out of the session, your ears go up and you instantly look for the bad indicator. Don’t look for the bad indicator until you see the vanishment of the good indicator. Otherwise you’re continually prowling around looking for wrongnesses in a session and you keep a pc very upset and you get no auditing done of any kind whatsoever.

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

Remember this next time you see a pc start to bog and drag and flounder one way or the other. You’ve got to get the pc’s good indicators back in before you can get the pc to handle what you want him to handle.

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.

What influences the attitude of the pc is an ARC Break (that of course is influenced earlier by the auditor’s behavior), or the pc has an overt on the auditor or the pc has a missed withhold.

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

An auditor who never gets in and finds out what is wrong in the session – the reasonable auditor – messes up pcs like mad.

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.

If all the good indicators are present the auditor knows he is doing a good job of auditing.

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 acknowledgement of it and then there is the perception of the fact that the Pc received the acknowledgement.

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.