While Book One has a place close to the top in scientology, the most fundamental fundamental was invented later. It appears on page 23 of the Ability issue called The HCA Manual:

Here are the reasons why the human mind has not been solved:

The rudiments:

1. I don't know.

1. Awareness of the auditor, that an auditing room is present, and that a session is in progress.

2. No idea.

2. Two way comm on a casual basis.

To know about something, is is necessary to not-know it first. This was an incomprehensibility to philosophers of all ages. To understand the source of ideas, you had to understand "no idea". One has to be able to not-know something in order to know something about it. Dialectical Materialism is a dramatization of "no idea". "No idea" is a workable concept, but as long as the Dialectical Materialists are only dramatizing it and don't know it, it is unworkable. Dialectical Materialism says that all new ideas are the result of two old forces. Hence no idea can bs really new. So there is no possibility of getting a new idea. If someone dramatizes something, as with the Dialectical Materialists, it must have existed earlier as a postulate that went solid. Things begin with a consideration and end with a solidity, e.g. a dramatization or a solid reality. So an idea is senior to all matter and conditions. Above that is the thetan in his native state. If a thetan wishes to return to his native state, he often bungles it by assuming that hs is in native state, when he is actually in very bad shape. This leads to the idiocy that everything that is true of a thetan's native state is what continues to be dramatized, clear down to the bottom of the barrel, and that every aberration is a reflection of native state and the first and second postulate theory [Axioms 36 and 37].

3. Delivery of the question

Native state is having no idea. The thetan knows all about all. He has no ideas, because he has all the ideas there are. Now he says that he will have an idea. Here, we get Axiom 36: the first postulate gives the second postulate power. So the thetan in native state knows all. He then makes a first postulate: that he has no idea. From here, as per Axiom 36, he can make the second postulate: that he can have an idea. This is an harmonic on native state, but it is alter-ised, so it persists and we get time. The force of having an idea is the statement that he didn't have an idea before. An idea is a barrier, a stop on the track. Even a manic idea or a win can be a stop. So we get:

4. The comm lag

0. Native State: The thetan knows all but has no specific idea.

5. The acknowledgement

1. First Postulate: No idea. I don't know.

6. Duplication of the exact question by the auditor.

2. Second postulate: A specific idea. This is an harmonic on Native State: "I know something."

In order to make any auditing work, these fundamentals must be observed. If the session is not precisely conducted, the processes can fail to work. This even explains why one might not have a practice: if the public couldn't find the auditor, there would be no practice. This also explains one difficulty in auditing one's parents: you need awareness of an auditor, not a child. To start the session, the PC must first find out he's a PC, and he must find the auditor. In the auditing situation, students must learn to assume the beingness of auditors and pcs, not students. If you exist as a auditor, there will be PC's; this depends upon an ability to be. The relationship between auditor and PC is not so much one of altitude as one of ARC; you must keep the R in. When you are auditing an auditor, for instance, it doesn't inspire confidence to have to stop and look up the process.

3. Third Postulate: Forget.

(There's a process that makes a PC into a PC: "What are you doing?" run until he cognites he's being audited.)

4. Fourth Postulate: Remember.

A PC goes out of comm with an auditor before he observes that there's something wrong with the session, like a code break. An auditor's code break only occurs when the PC thinks the auditor has bad intentions, and where the auditor does not repair the out comm with a little two way comm. The auditor may, if the out ARC is severe, have to use another process on a lower gradient until ARC is restored.

For the first time in the history of mankind it has become safe for man to know something. It was not safe before because you'd stick to it, because every mystery could then pull you into it. The more you knew about it, the more you were enveloped by it. This gives the manifestations of a thetan's blackness, dropped havingness, illness, etc. Things known on a second postulate basis are solid and persist. Studying anything will produce this phenomenon. Scientology has been a safe subject because it has progressed toward simplicity and has never pretended to contain all knowledge. There's a limited amount of knowingness and unknowingness available. What gets scarce is unknowingness. We let "unknow" go on an automatic basis; we don't take responsibility for it [so it gets pulled in on an unknowing basis.] You'd never get into trouble in processing if you kept on supplying lots of no-idea instead of using old no-ideas. When you keep on using old no-ideas to get new ideas, [eventually] the new ideas jam into the existing no-ideas which have become so precious that we interiorize into them. Here, we've ignored the first postulate which provided the power for the second postulate. One gets stuck in dramatizing no-idea and loses the volitional ability to postulate an idea into existence. People who get stuck in "know about" are in the second postulate. If they exteriorize, it's into the blackness of the third postulate, which is the harmonic of the first, not-is-ing the knowingness; thus: "I've forgotten it. " The fourth postulate is "remember": an alter-isness of a not-isness. This is getting to be very persistent stuff. From this sequence, we get most solidities and spaces, except for directly postulated solids and spaces. [Perhaps the fifth postulate would be "occlude".]

A gradient scale in auditing need not take a long time for each type of processing. For instance, to get the PC to remedy havingness need not take 5 hours; if you stay in two way comm and see what is really happening when the PC throws away mockups so as to really get rid of them, this could take only 6 to 8 minutes, if you've actually got an auditor and a PC.

All you need to get space is lookingness, which is a dramatization of knowing. In lookingness, space is on an automaticity. That's why space continues to exist. This automatic space, because it's automatic, tends to fold up on people, producing condensed spaces and figure-figure at lower levels.

You must continually be aware of these rudiments, since the PC can stop being a PC at any time. Then two way comm gives out. Whenever two way comm gives out, the session stops, as far as the PC is concerned. What starts this is too little two way comm and too little acknowledgement in the first place. The PC will get stuck on the time track at the point where he has not been acknowledged, and the session at that point is in fact over; it's all now in the past for the PC. When he gets restuck later on in session, he'll blow, or threaten to. Sometimes this can be handled merely by the auditor's starting all over with the session, thus subtly calling the PC's attention to the fact that he's in a session. A PC may blow 28 minutes after failure to ack.

The above was discovered by the fact of the relative effectiveness of running "something you wouldn't mind forgetting" compared with the bogginess of "Something you wouldn't mind remembering." Not-knowingness evidently is the only solution to prevent interiorization into bodies of knowledge or solid objects. Per Axiom 36, if you take out the first postulate, you can knock out the second one. For instance, "You realize that over there there's a bus running." It doesn't affect you, does it? Until you knew there was a bus over there, and then you probably got a picture of it or something. Get the trick? Probably a counter-trick would be saying, "I don't know what's standing right here," inventing something to stand here, then remembering you said you didn't know what was there. So there's automatic "I don't know" before the knowingness. Running an "I don't know" process for two hours gives more gain than 50 hours of "I know".

The auditor must learn to differentiate between a PC's dropped willingness and an increased comm lag. Where willingness is not there, no auditing can occur. The only thing there in the first place is a willingness to play the game. Nations topple if they forget this fact. Willingness to work, if taxed too heavily, can become a willingness to succumb. A whip extracts the last atoms of willingness, but this can easily be turned around.

The unworkability of "remember" processes shows that psychoanalysis never gave stable gains. It gives solid ridges if you keep remembering. You can as-is it by having him recall all the times he remembered, or better still, use forgetting to dissolve the ridge.

"The only thing that any nation can tax, that any group can exist on, is the willingness to play the game: to do, to survive, to continue."

Take any troublesome engram, ask the PC what he doesn't know about it, and it will blow in minutes. It upsets the PC to have him make a perfect duplicate. But this way only causes fogginess if you don't acknowledge well and stay in two way comm. This also solves the case with the stuck picture. It's also safe to use "What don't you know about it?" on chronic somatics.

If you decrease a PC's willingness to play the game of auditing, you can hardly expect to increase his willingness to play the game of life. He must always audit better than he can live, or he'll never live better than he can be audited. In session he should observably be getting brighter and more alert. Pc's always sag a bit when session is over, so don't be disappointed when life seems harder than the session.

Not-knowingness is not the goal of humanity or scientology; it's just the barrier that has to be crossed.

Helpful hints: You must duplicate the question time and time again, without killing the PC's willingness to answer it. This can be done by adding some dunnage, but don't vary the question. The dunnage consists of casual two-way communication before and after the question.

"Two-way comm is light, ... airy.... It has life in it and can be terribly casual and fantastically therapeutic."

"To remedy havingness is to remedy the need to have."

Regret is running the time track backwards.