The following data was compiled at my request by the Auditing Section Supervisor of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, Herbie Parkhouse [LRH]:
An acknowledgement is simply the ending or completion of a cycle of action for one person by another, and has therefore a criteria of whether or not it was an acknowledgement. The criteria being did it or did it not end or complete the cycle for that person as observed by the person delivering the acknowledgement.
Let me amplify the above with examples in an auditing session.
Aud: How are you doing?
pc: Oh alright.
Aud: Good!
pc: Except for my leg and……
Aud: Point out something.
pc: That.
Aud: Good.
pc: Silent but continuing to look at that.
Aud: Point out something.
Aud: Point out something.
pc: That.
Aud: I didn’t see that, what was it?
pc: That fly crawling up the wall over there.
Aud: OK.
pc: Still looking at fly.
Aud: Good I got that.
pc: Still looking at fly.
Aud: Thank you!
pc: Turned to face auditor no longer thinking of fly.
If you had seen the above correct session or just listened to it, it would have sounded like this:
Aud: Point out something.
pc: That.
Aud: I didn’t see that, what was it?
pc: That fly crawling up the wall over there.
Aud: OK. Good I got that. Thank you.
The difference as regards acknowledgements in the examples given are that in the first two examples the Auditor was concerned with putting on a good show, not doing anything wrong and auditing an imagined Case. The 3rd example was an auditor who was not concerned with anything other than auditing the preclear in front of him and doing that which was necessary to get that pc winning.
So how do you acknowledge-why, you acknowledge. You achieve the result of ending or completing a cycle of action for another person with you who are giving the acknowledgement as the sole adjudicator of whether or not you have succeeded.
A special point that needs to be mentioned is Double Acknowledgement.
A Double Acknowledgement is the circumstance where an Auditor acknowledges a pc but by not obnosing correctly or auditing an imagined case then finds out he did not acknowledge the pc by virtue of the pc continuing on the same cycle of action and being forced into giving more acknowledgements.
Aud: How are you doing?
pc: Oh alright.
Aud: Good.
pc: Except for my leg and eyes which hurt like the devil.
Aud: Good.
Double acknowledgement is not, repeat not the giving of more than one good or thank you. Double acknowledgement only occurs when the Auditor assumes the Cycle has ended but the Preclear then draws the Auditor’s attention to the fact that it didn’t end and the auditor has to acknowledge again in order to end that cycle.
In some cases that are continuously comm-lagging,
Aud: How are you?
pc: Fine…… Fine…… though I do have some trouble with my tongue…… and my ears ……
it may be advisable to ask „Is that all there is to that?“ before acknowledging in order to avoid chopping your pc and putting them on an unintentional withhold. For if you really acknowledge the pc and the pc has not finished answering you, you will find that the pc will have great difficulty in recalling what it was they wanted to say.
As you can see from the foregoing an acknowledgement to be an acknowledgement has to do a specific job of work and the criteria of has it done it or not is the pc in front of you.
You can under-acknowledge — see first two examples.
You can over-acknowledge — which is giving an unnecessary number of Goods, Thank yous, etc, which will have the same effect as under-acknowledging.
Or you can acknowledge.
I hope you will only acknowledge, and thus win.