1983-0806-August-Chautauqua-from-Html

Return to list of all Recordings     See all Categories    Spreadsheet: Recordings-Source-List

Metadata repository: https://data.direct-mind.org/

Data Template

Page created Mar 27, 2024. Was copied from 1983-0806-August-Chautauqua-from-DME and then the old information on that page was deleted. Reason: This is a paste of the html version, not of the book scan.

Title	1983-0806-August-Chautauqua-from-Html
Recorded date	August 6, 1983
Location	Farm
Number of tapes	Have transcription but no audio file. Update: AUDIO is from Esoteric Library, vol 4
Other recorders audible?
Alternate versions exist?
Source
No. of MP3 files
Total time
Transcription status	Is in D-M Exper but this is the html version -- Need to compare the html version (pasted below) with the book as published
Link to distribution copy	http://distribution.direct-mind.org/ (need password)
Link to PDF	http://distribution.direct-mind.org/ Or try http://selfdefinition.org/rose/
Published in what book?	Direct-Mind Experience (same version? complete?)
Published on which website?
Remarks	Subheaders are very rough - inserted just to facilitate editing. Need to make them follow the logic
Audio quality
Identifiable voices	Many - identified by name in this transcription -- so this might not be from the book
URL at direct-mind.org	https://www.direct-mind.org/index.php/1983-0806-August-Chautauqua-from-Html
	For access to this wiki or the audio files please send an email to: editors@direct-mind.org
Revision timestamp	20250216211802

Notes

Subheaders are very rough - inserted just to facilitate editing.

Is in D-M Experience but this is the html version -- need to compare.

People are identified by name in this transcription -- so this might not be from the book.

Have transcription but no audio file. Update: AUDIO is from Esoteric Library, vol 4.

SIDE 1 = Esoteric Library Vol 4 side A

Transcription is pretty much verbatim until about min 35 through min 40 - story about sister in law (se notes placed below

SIDE 2 = Esoteric Library Vol 4 side B

From the section header "Setup for questioning" - many questions are omitted from "Esoteric Library" but do appear in the text (below).

Newspaper announcement: Article-1983-0801, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Aug-6-7 "Direct-Mind-Science"

Transcription

Title, etc

AUGUST CHAUTAUQUA

West Virginia August 6, 1983

Side A of Esoteric Library vol 4

I got a call from Pittsburgh, and I was so impressed by this call and the man that made it, -- the man didn't impress me but what impressed me was the possibilities that I had been overlooking. You are inclined to talk along a certain line and you talk to a certain group of people, and you develop a little paradigm, if you aren't careful, or if you are careful, -- maybe it is necessary to have a paradigm, or at least an understanding, but that in turn becomes an alien language to people coming in off of the street. Most of the people who are here for this August Chautauqua are people who have heard about the system. We must differentiate between myself and the TAT enterprise. In other words the mam TAT function is to bring people together, not to bring them to hear Richard Rose.

A lot of people in the group have philosophic problems, and you can solve a philosophic problem, and as soon as it is solved you embark upon another problem which was waiting in the wings, which you couldn't approach until you had solved the first problem. My idea of wisdom is a corrosion of ignorance. And you don't see the mountain that you have to corrode or eat away, you only see it by nibbling a chunk out of it, by solving a question or a problem, then you see that there are still other things that have to be transcended.

Interview by Pittsburgh reporter

Anyhow, this fellow called me -- his name was Sharp, from Pittsburgh -- and he called me about an interview for the paper. And it was a good thing that it happened to me because I saw a chance, of meeting different people's approach to life and religion, -- he was a religion editor for the Pittsburgh Press. And he threw some questions at me and I realized that these aren't answered by me, I don't approach them here, I don't explain because to explain all of the things that I feel, that I have discovered, would take up a lot of time, and if I don't explain them, then you are going to see a hint of discrepancy with your own previous thinking, your own previous convictions, -- and you will be at a loss to blend the two together. And occasionally we get somebody who gets real upset until they find out that we are in basic agreement, but verbally we haven't used the same words. One of the first things that he asked me, (he had got ahold of The Albigen Papers and in the back of it, a fellow, Mike Treanor, wrote an article about an experience that I had had) ... and he wanted me to explain it in 25 words or less. So I said, "forget it." I said that it would take 2500 just to get you confused, and then even more to try to approach the explanation of that confusion. Because... I said that I would state terms that would take explanations and definitions. And we had the word Enlightenment in front of us, and I said that is not the proper word, -- I think that maybe Mike had referred to this in the article that I had had an enlightenment-experience. I said that is a poor choice of words but that is the best that we can do with the language that we have. The word that I come closest to after years of reading other literature was the word samadhi. And they have two samadhi's. Well, these are Hindu terms and I don't like foreign words and phrases -- I think that we can say it in English, which I have done throughout my life and in the book -- I've dodged Hindu words. Yet there are words that we get that we misuse, -- one of them is God. He said of course everybody knows that there is a God, but I say stop where you are, I said nobody knows anything and everybody believes, or everybody hopes that there is a God. Or everybody repeats it to themselves hoping that that will make it real. If, they reaffirm enough times in their own head they hope to create one. But he wanted to know if I could identify, he said when you had this experience did you find the equivalent of a Christian God. I said, "No, I didn't." And consequently, I don't talk from the position of.... I said I am sick of hearing people get up on a pulpit and say "God told me to tell you this." I have been in churches where somebody would get up and say "God told me to tell you that you were supposed to do this." I said, "These people are phoney."

You know, he is getting ready to print something in the paper, well I could care less. If he wants to go for definitions, -- then let's go for real definitions. What do people really know, about anything? How much of it did they borrow from their parents? Or how much of it did they read from a book that agreed with their desires? This is the catch, hi other words, -- I did it myself for years. I would get ahold of a movement, I would read of a movement, and I would think: this fellow is speaking from the heart. It wasn't just a question of it being logically true, I intuitively picked up that the fellow was speaking from the heart. But the thing that I didn't realize was that very possibly this fellow didn't know either. He had read a book from a man who spoke from the heart. So this becomes very complex after awhile. And when you start to go back and say: where am I going when I die?... or where did I come from?... we conduct a whole lifetime of very frenzied activity in the process of trying to do all things at once, meaning make money, get wise or raise some super children, and we basically find out that we don't do any of them too well because we don't bother to define our basic original premises, our original reasons for being -- and reasons for living -- and we hope....

St. John of the Cross

One of the great diseases of all time is religious democracy. We are going where everybody else is going, and he dropped this too. He said everybody has an experience, has the same type of experience, -- I said that is not true. All you have to do is read enough of their accounts, it is not my opinion that counts, -- you get the necessary amount of books or data, and you read enough accounts, you will find out the description of them ... for instance the Zen satori, -- a good account of a Zen satori, -- a good account of a salvation experience, (somebody found Jesus), -- also the cosmic consciousness experience like Bucke, -- or like the experience of John of the Cross. I have dug up some of those books, and have copies of them, and keep them around in case people want them. Because, if you want to do research -- if people don't believe -- they should go to the bother to do the research and get the accounts of people who have had the experiences and find out what they found.

And at no place in John of the Cross -- he may speak devotedly of God -- does he speak of speaking to Him, whereas people who have a salvation experience often say they spoke to Jesus, or that Jesus spoke to them. What I am getting at is the basic difference. To analyze those differences and find out where they sit on a ladder, especially when an experience happens after a previous, lesser experience, meaning when one supersedes the experience that they thought was the only one on earth, -- and then later in life they go through this altogether new experience.

So, if you get the data on this you begin to realize that the hardest people to deal with are those that have had some type of religious experience, because they have the conviction that they are the only ones. I know that I was down in Charleston, West Virginia a while back and I met a group of Rosicrucians, -- and we weren't talking about anything in particular but they finally got around to reincarnation, and some of the things that they believed in.

And I think that it is bad to believe. To give you an example, and I quote the Bible on this, a lot of good Christians say: "You've got to have faith." But Christ also said "seek and you shall find, knock and it will be opened to you." When he said knock he meant put your head against the door and rap with your head. Not just knock with your knuckles. If a person searches he has to doubt. There has to be an element of doubt, in his searching, or he wouldn't search, he would accept. Which brings us back to the Rosicrucians. I started to tell you about them. They sat around and kind of listened to me very patiently and then said: "Well Mr. Rose, someday in some future incarnation, you will join us."

So I thought that there is no use for me to try to communicate here, they have cemented themselves in. Not only the Rosicrucians, but almost any religious or philosophic group of people. You'll run into little esoteric groups throughout the cities, where they will get together, because the group basically answers to a desire. Don't get me wrong, I am not negating reincarnation, I just kind of hope that it doesn't happen. Once in this hogpen is enough. Reincarnation came out of Asia primarily, because (I think) of overpopulation. You had almost a billion people on a continent in which there was no hope for more than four or five percent. There wasn't enough money to go around, so those nine hundred million people embraced a religion that gave them hope of someday being the head raja in some future incarnation. And I think that that desire may have motivated their belief in it. Again, don't get me wrong, I maintain that of all of the theological projections -- of stuff that has been projected upon humanity -- reincarnation is the most just theory.

It is just a concept. And because it is just a concept, I don't think that a person should say we are going to go for that, because this is the kind of religion that we want, or that is the kind of a God that we want. We will pick a God that is human in form. God didn't make man in his own image and likeness as much as man is making God in his own image and desire. And if we don't like him we will cancel him out.

We have got to search for this thing is it is, -- and for whatever it is. As a scientist. In making these statements, lots of times I'll use a word, or words in which it will seem that I am being nebulous, or that I am speaking from a personal experience that I can't prove. I say no. I generally speak from a basis of my own life which was scientific all of the way through. I rejected things because they were garbage in comparison to something else that was less garbage. When you start out you know nothing. You know nothing. You know nothing about what is true. You know nothing about where you came from or where you are going after you die or who is up in the sky. So you get the data to date. You get the good books. And you compare them. I rejected some when I was quite young, I got fed up with the Bible, -- I think in looking backward it was not so much the Bible that I got fed up with but rather it was the hypocrites who were expounding it. So I just put it aside, I went and looked into oriental philosophy and yoga and whatnot and studied under masters -- different ones in fact -- to get their opinion. And when these little revelations came to me, I invariably found a correlation or corroboration in the Bible. It would pop up. It was maybe in a different translation. Of course I don't like to get into fundamentalism because, incidentally, the Bible is a translation, and I found that a lot of the errors that people are subjected to are in the translations. When you get some of the real translations of some of the words, you realize that this God creature is not as severe as He sounds.

But getting back to this interview with the reporter, a thing that he throwed at me was "what benefit is this system of yours going to have for humanity?" And I said, "Oh you want to know whether I am going to heal somebody, or whether this will give you greater potential in your sex escapades. Or maybe if you are really tortured, it might give you peace of mind. I am not interested in being a utility. You are talking about a utility. I am interested once and forever in solving a problem which will solve all other problems."

He said, "You have some people that are good people and some people that are bad people, you know, that don't help humanity, like Gary Gilmore, -- they hurt humanity."

And I said, "Gary Gilmore is a chessman on the board, we are all chessmen on the board until we find out that you can get the chessmen to think. We are basically pawns that are moved about by an engineer. Life is like one of these machines, these electronic games that kids play. You have a man that creates a machine and rigs it so that an idiot can fight battles on it. And this is pretty much what the earth is. The earth is engineered so that different idiots can wage wars or kill people or do things all according to mechanisms programmed inside of that whole composite machine, that whole machine called earth. And humanity. So it is not for us to criticize somebody who does something that offends us. He is the left hand of God. That's all. I am now using the word God as synonymous with the word engineer. I think that if a person makes an evaluation as to utility-value, -- it is putting a nickel and dollar value on truth. It's saying, 'we will espouse your cause if it can be defined in terms of dollar value, -- we will put hi the newspaper what a wonderful group you are.'"

I told him that I was sick and tired of every time I read a newspaper or turn on a television, hearing about the new organization that is set up for the carrying of meals for old people, or for helping old ladies across the street, or counseling weeping women, -- who have tempted people and got too close to being raped. Now they have a place to call and complain about being nearly raped. Or an organization for husbands that have been abused.

Now parents are going to form an organization. Abused parents. And we have got all of these sick things springing up to cover up -- possibly -- a sicker political government. If they can get us all chewing away at each other, we will not notice what goes on behind the big scene. So it occurred to me, what I am talking about, in regard to the remarks that I made to this fellow, was that some psychiatrists could have picked up that same statement he had made about me and he could have had somebody waiting for me outside with a wagon.

Because, what is sanity? Being basically harmless, as the fellow -- who claimed that he was Jesus Christ -- told me years ago. He had been in an insane asylum, and he always insisted that he was Jesus Christ. Well, I thought that he was joking, and I thought that it was a harmless joke, but people took him seriously and they locked him up. But he said to be sane, one must be harmless. And convince the populace that you are harmless, and industrious. In other words, if you are working everyday, you won't be worrying about how to tunnel into the bank. Get a steady job and you won't worry about getting the money out of the bank or cashing credit cards that don't belong to you. So, in regard to the stuff that I have, -- in my particular paradigm... I think this stuff, I live it, and I talk it. And when I get before a group of people, I find people that are coming in from a very pragmatic daily life -- of bucking heads with the wife or husband -- of bucking heads with the employer -- and maybe even of trying to play some of these games to survive or to get along -- which I refuse to do.

So I am a bit freer. So I can speak freer because nobody can fire me. They can shoot me, but they can't fire me. I realize though that people -- everybody in the world is looking for the truth. And my job is basically to find people who are looking for the truth. I have to find their language, in order to talk to them. Then, with their language, you come into a meeting like this, and you retranslate all of these foreign languages and get common denominators, common representations for terms.

For instance, when we got through talking, the reporter said, "you know, you and I are pretty much in agreement." For instance, he said "do you hope to convert a lot of people by this mtense type of life that you are leading you know, trying to talk to people and going around giving lectures at different cities and universities?"

I said "No. I will be lucky if I meet a handful of people in my entire life."

I said that I am not out to save the masses. It is impossible for me to do it and I am smart enough to know it. If I get a handful of people that have reached a few plateaus above their own state of confusion, I'll be lucky. And in that respect, I don't pretend to be an evangelist. I am not disappointed if I don't have thousands of people beneath a tent while I am exhorting them to change their lifestyle."

And he said "I think that you and I have a good bit in common, in the final analysis." He said, "I believe too." He said, "I use the word 'God,' where you don't."

I use the word Absolute because the word God has been misused so much. As I said, if we accept everybody's word, -- if you go into church they immediately start talking about God.

I don't believe that they know anything about God, I believe that all that they know is what they have read. I studied to be a priest back up here above Pittsburgh quite a few years back, and I talked to the elders, the older men, and I thought that if anybody would know anything, -- these old fellows would. I was just a kid at the time, I went in there when I was 12 years of age. They got you when you were young because you were plastic ... you were more plastic at that age. And I came to the conclusion that they were captured. First of all they got into something because they believed that the older people knew something, that there was something in the books and that there was a promise that there would be a revelation if you hung around long enough. Then after you hung around long enough, you were not fit for the lay society any longer, so you just tried to learn and repeat, lets say, -- explain better, the things that you were supposed to preach, as a priest or a minister.

Patanjali

So of course, naturally, that is the reason that I left. Because I thought that that was the end of the road because I was not going to get into this endless and undefined effort, -- and as I said I went into Indian philosophy, and Asian philosophy. I pretty much found that nearly all of the stuff that is taught that comes out of Asia is stuff that even the Asians have reread, -- it can all be traced back to certain sacred writings that were written by people a thousand years ago or more. For instance the whole system of yoga, mental yoga, is traceable back to a fellow by the name of Patanjali. His descriptions of experiences and that sort of thing were very profound and very accurate. And there are other ancient authors besides him. They ate well known in India and very authoritative. So you get peoplewho write a little book or booklet, and they describe an experience that they have had, and it will correspond very closely to the descriptions that you pick up in these books that are a thousand years old. So you never know, unless you meet the person, face tcface, and talk to them, and have some ability to pick their knowledge up intuitively, -- since there is no way to logically analyze it. You have to be intuitive enough to pick up whether they have something on the ball. So that this business of an entire world population of people, people who have read books and they write books about books that they have read, they teach, and they teach what somebody else taught them, who in turn were taught by somebody else. But the people who tad the genuine experiences aren't available, that's all. It is to easy to create one. It is too easy to create miracles. We thought that we were wise when we fooled the American Indian with our little miracles of gunpowder or glass beads.

We have been pretty much spoofed on apretty large scale by some of the ancient tricks that came out of India. For instance, the concentration on nerve centers. And this practice has important results on the human mind. I mean that if you concentrate on a nerve center long enough you will build a feeling. It may be of well being. You repeat a resonant sound if you are troubled. That's TM. If you repeat that enough, you will become peaceful. If you sing to a baby, tie baby will go to sleep, if the song is resonant and peaceful. If you sing to an adult, or to yourself, you will get peaceful and goto sleep. And if you wish, you can associate that mantra with a so-called "representative of God," -- and it gives you more of an excuse for paying out a couple hundred dollars. This is what I am opposed to- And I do not, in the final analysis, miice words. I am opposed to selling counterfeit merchandise.

But for this exercise that we are going to work here today, I will step aside from all of that and go directly to questioning your heads. Because, again, I don't know if you believe it or not but it is the only way I have of demonstrating that anything that you wish to find is in yourself. Now, unfortunately, you can't all get it out. You can't all get in there. So we struggle to try to find ways to get the person to get inside themselves.

I wrote a book, the formula is in this little book over there, it is called The Psychology of the Observer. And this is the way in. You don't find any truth by believing. You find it by doubting everything. Including myself. Now you can work with me, but I don't say take anything that I say as truth and make a religion out of it. Don't come here because you think that I am capable of putting in a good word to the man upstairs. Believe me, I have no standing. Anymore than you have. And I have no more God inside of me than anyone of you have, -- if you want to look for It. Of course, there is no way of making that statement until you find out. But this is the whole thing. We are externalizing that which is inside and that is where people are misled. We build external tabernacles when we have one. We go into all sorts of noisemaking, incense burning, and sensory nonsense, to distract, to take our mind into dream-world. Rather than to get into the basic secret that is not that much of a secret. The secret has been expressed in the words Atman and Brahman. It's the one expression and concept that I think is a very good product of Asian philosophy, this concept of the Atman and the Brahman. The Christian concept is basically that we are a creature separate from an external outside God. And the Brahman concept leaps over this and says that we are the extension of a divinity. We are the finger of God drawn back in at death.

Samadhi

Let me qualify this a little bit. I find that we are both. In regard to the description of sahaja samadhi, or the finding of sahaja samadhi -- sahaja they say -- it is a very simple thing. The Indian words sound complex, -- we have to determine between kevala samadhi and sahaja samadhi and I'll translate that into English. We have to determine the difference between cosmic consciousness and enlightenment. When you get into talking about enlightenment, you get into talking about the final realization of the absolute. That is the only definition in English that comes near it. Cosmic consciousness is pretty much defined by Richard Bucke, in his book called Cosmic Consciousness. Now you have another experience before that. Nearly everyone who goes through to the higher experience will always relate having been through these other lower expediences. One of them is the equivalent of the salvation experience or the finding of the miracles of the emotional self. The magit behind it is where it takes man from an instinctive man and makes him a selfless man. And he falls in love. He falls in love with Jesus, or he falls hi love with his guru, or he falls in love with a woman. This is a transcendence of the instinctive self, the animal man. And after languishing in that for twenty years, he realizes that he is still fooling around on a relative dimension with a relative emotion, a relative feeling. And a relative being. His pd is a relative being. Whether it is his wife, a guru or Jesus. Sche begins to doubt it and if he looks further his tendency is 10 adopt nothing but scientific methods of finding. So he goes into the Kabballa for instance, which is mathematical, -- he gets into astrology which seems to be scientific, he gets into numerology or he may get into anything, -- there must be other systems that are methodical and employ the mind, -- but you can do it with simple algebra. You can have a wow experience studying algebra.

This happened to me one time. When I was in college I labored with algebra for six months or so until the light popped on in my head and, I was able to continue and catch up with the class. Previously there was no sense to it A plus B equals C means nothing to me. But yet the mathematician can give it meaning. And eventually the meaning will dawn on you, and when it dawns the light comes on and you say, "wow, I know what this is and I know where it can take us in the making of airplanes and battleships."

Before that it had no value at all except as a mental exercise, -- or something to keep the kids occupied in math class.

So there are stages which you seem to go through. And not all go through all the stages that were outlined by Gurdjieff. I find it necessary to talk abcut these things, first because they are so seldom talked about, ad secondly there is a chance that a person can accelerate his transitions from one state to another. We witness that people take years on one level or state. It seems that some people never get out of the instinctive state. Most people who transcend the instinctive state, spend the rest of their lives in the emotional level. I believe that trying to expedite this mental growth is really being scientific. Man must develop a vector of urgency in order to achieve anything in a short lifetime. But unfortunately the science of esotericism has not developed a method of increasing the number of people who could see the existence of a state of being higher than their own. And religion seems to be designed to keep its people on the emotional level.

Mr. Sharp, in his interview with me, was concerned about the extent to which I had carried my ideas to a large audience.

He said, "How many people do you think would be interested in your system?"

And I had to reply, "Very few."

[side 1, minute 35:50 ]

note - from here, transcription is not verbatim

I realized that no one wants to write up an article for a newspaper that will appeal to only a few. I reminded him that I was aware of this. He works for a newspaper that has a circulation of five hundred thousand, perhaps. Less than one tenth of one percent will be interested in states of mind or levels of mental capacity. Most people are satisfied with themselves and with that which they have.

And so I am using his newspaper, and my honesty with him on the matter should not be the only reason for publishing information about my convictions, -- or Gurdjieffs. But I believe no effort is wasted and I believe that putting a little weight on the wheel, will add to its momentum.

I believe that all human effort is pyramid in form. There is a large gap, in numbers, between the amount of people who have no money and those who have a hundred thousand dollars. There is another large gap in the number of people who have a hundred thousand dollars and the number who are millionaires. This is the financial pyramid, which gets narrower as we take note of superior and more superior amounts of wealth. So that above the billionaire we are up in thin air.

And so with mental potential. There is a broad base of average mentalities. At one tune very few went on from grade school or "grammar school." We can presume that they didn't see any hope, or felt inadequate mentally to tackle higher education. And I am sure that the increase in per capita percentages on education have increased because of the efforts of a persistent group of better educated people, reaching down reminding the uneducated masses that mental progress is not hopeless.

Throughout history, rarely were great milestones of progress brought about by actions which originated in the masses... that is to say spontaneous recognition of things by the masses. We have bloody wars fought by the masses, but they were manipulated by a few people. If the great mass of humanity cannot get the facts straight... and cannot retain their individual integrity while taking collective action... what chance do they have to sift the philosophies and theologies wisely -- things of a subjective nature now -- and find a way to act with maximum intuition?

Most people just roll with the herd. They play the field, they eat, drink, conceive certain things as fun, and develop a detachment from the public and the public's welfare.

So getting the attention of the public is an uphill fight. And it seems almost impossible for a sincere student to find a teacher, meaning a teacher in his particular field of search, and at the same tune be certain that the teacher is sincere, and that there will be a possibility of communication.

So we put a note in the paper, or a blurb on a poster, and hope that the right searcher will see it, and take a chance on hearing something that will answer some questions for him.

And when the people, such as yourselves, do read the short blurb, and come, I recognize that each of you is possibly very sincere. And sometimes I am afraid of blowing you out the door with an expression that might seem less than gentle, -- due to some ineptness in my choice of words.

All people respond to the language of their paradigm... their social and spiritual paradigm. It does me no good to remind them that there is a possibility that they might evolve from their paradigm, and move to another level. No one will willingly move out of his or her paradigm without some trauma or traumatic revelation. Part of their paradigm must be eroded away, or blasted away before they realize it.

This does not mean that a teacher will blast it away. Most mental maturity and spiritual evolution comes about by the lessons of life itself. These changes often are the result of shocks such as the death of a friend, or the rejection by a friend or lover, or the loss of position or wealth.

A teacher can blast unnecessary complacency.... and he may chip away misconceptions... or incomplete conceptions. But as for myself I do not like to offend anyone with a sincere belief. For instance, I might drop a remark that we have no proof that Jesus was divine. This might deeply offend someone who has graduated from the instinctive level, and has found deep peace and certitude in losing their lower self in the love Jesus. Of course it might have been just as well if they had lost their lower self in the love of their children or spouse.... but that is another remark which might offend someone who is sincere.

For this reason I do not get involved too deeply in the June Chautauquas. The June meetings have to do with scientific progress in psychology and health, and while true spiritual growth leads to wisdom and health also, the attendees may not appreciate being splashed with a koan.

And it is good for us to remember that the pursuit of health is adducive to spiritual progress and discovery. We have to be healthy to live long enough to crack the cosmic egg. We cannot have a realization in five minutes, and even if you could, you would need to take care of your health to survive the shock of realization, and to readjust to the rat-race.

[ side 1 min approx 40 ]

transcription resumes verbatim here

Doors

Question: Some of what you are talking about -- different levels, functional, intellectual -- are those really... could those be considered just different doors that this information is coming through to this person?

Rose: I would say that they are different doors, but it is like one is at the head of the steps and another one is up another flight of steps. When you talk of levels you talk of vertical effort or vertical achievement, and it isn't all on the same level. In other words I don't think that a person is going to go clear through to the fifth level from an instinctive level just by falling in love. If he falls in love with Jesus, see what I mean, or a guru. Now, again, don't get me wrong, I hope that I am not offending anybody here that is presently in love with Jesus because I am one hundred percent in favor of that... for that person. The thing is is that they are not thinking, they are not in the thinking department yet and they might be offended. And I don't like to offend anybody. So consequently they would be wasting their time here. That's the whole thing. Because my path, the path that I am laying out is one of doubting and thinking, not accepting and loving. And so consequently, I think that, these are very necessary steps or levels for the people who are in it. Now I am going to give you an example of where I saw a tremendous value in it. When you transcend something, you are apt to be somewhat scornful of those on a lower level. It's like saying I am out of the second grade and now I am in the third grade, -- and I don't want to talk to those people any longer. And this is no good because these are friends. Everybody who has the capacity for friendship deserves a fair shake. And I will try to give it. I don't criticize, I calibrate. It isn't the idea that I want to criticize anybody. In fact I think that if a person who loved Jesus only and was trying to get everybody to love Jesus came here it would be disruptive. Now it sounds like I am working for the devil, -- that's what I would be accused of, because of the simple fact that we are hammering away at this thing with a system of doubting to try to find something inside us. We are trying to find, through a hole in the paradigm, that which will open the head up to Reality, -- capital "R" Reality. But these people have achieved something too. And we need not separate them from ourselves, or criticize them. I am saying that we might hurt their feelings but at the same time we have to go on with what we are doing. I think of the case of my sister-in-law. She was into dope, into booze, into cigarettes, and she was a real hell raiser, carried a gun, was afraid of non-believers. They were down in Texas, --

[Esoteric Library vol 4 side A ends at 45:22]

Side B of Esoteric Library vol 4

but one day, -- I don't know if somebody confronted her or what happened, -- don't know the details, but she said to my brother, I am going to church, and see if I can't change this life of mine. And she put her cigarette out, ground it out on the steps of the church, and went in and begged an objective God, -- not an internal God necessarily. But at the same time an internal God awoke a fragment, the door cracked and the God inside of her answered. I always say that if you pray loud enough, You may hear yourself, You may answer and inquire. Capital "Y," Yourself. But she never drank after that, I'd say for about ten years, she became an unbearable Nazarene but that is wonderful. She was a wonderful person, a wonderful wife, for ten years at least. But she dropped the dope and the cigarettes and the booze all at one sweep. By going into church and humiliating herself you might say, before her God. So I don't ever want you to sell anybody like that short. They have transcended. They have transcended the instinctive person.

And yet you will run into thousands of men who will say "Hey this salvation experience is all malarkey. Don't tell me, everything is baloney, and a con game, and these are basically instinctive people pleading for the right to remain instinctive, that's all."

But in tune they may fall in love or they may take a step so we have to leave the door open to them. We should never criticize them.

Question: Do you think that some people are born as emotional or intellectual people without having to pass through the instinctive stage of their lives?

Rose: No, I think that everybody goes through it and they pass through it rather quickly. Some pass through it very quickly, in childhood. Yes, I think that there are a few people, I think that there are people that are wise to the nonsense of life when they are very young and they are called autistic children. They are the unusual. Some children are far wiser than adults. But like I said, -- we seduce them and stupify them with our robot-like civilization.

 Gurdjieff remarks are not verbatim

Incidentally, I pick these words up, these categories of mental evolvement, they are not necessarily mine. There is a writer by the name of Gurdjieff, that laid out the different types or levels of mankind, or their mentality, and I thought that he was very accurate. I think that he was the greatest psychologist that ever came out of the western world. And he laid those four categories out. He said that there were seven levels of man. But I never found where he identified properly man five and six. Because man number seven was the Absolute man, the man that had reached an absolute nature, but the first level was the instinctive man, that is the animal man, the second level was the emotional man, and the third level was the intellectual man, and of course the intellectual man is delivered from that when he recognizes the vanity of logic. He doesn't prove anything with logic, and he begins searching again and then he becomes the philosopher. And man number four is the philosophic man, the man that is trying to take bits and shreds of everything imaginable to try to find common denominators, correspondences or something to get a new pattern of thinking because all of the other -- (as Chilton Pearce says) -- all of the other paradigms have failed or are confused. Have confused us.

Aprox min 4 - next XX minutes are omitted from transcription

Setup for questioning

questions are Omitted from "Esoteric Library" but are included in this transcription

Now if anybody is unhappy with the idea of questioning, I suggest that they locate in a certain place, maybe on one side or the other. Let's put it this way, -- is there anybody here now that does not care to be questioned. The idea behind this is that you are supposed to answer if you are asked a question. And if you don't answer, the whole procedure is a flop, In other words, try not to hedge. Nobody is going to ask you tow many wives that you have had or anything like that. For instance, the first question that I would like you to answer is "What is thought?" What you think thought is. See, this is the type of questioning, I am trying to get you down to self-observation, this is not going to get personal. But if you think that any of these questions might kind of go against your grain, you could pit your hand up now and I could leave you alone. I can probably remember you. But if not, I will try to get around to everybody here, with a question or two. And by the same token, if you want to volunteer, that is much better if I don't have to direct a question to somebody. If each one of you wish to volunteer your reaction to this, it will run much smoother that way. So, I am going to start with this question of what is thought? Before I start picking on somebody -- how many of you have a concept of thought -- belief in it, understanding of it?

Steve H.: It's like a, -- something inside of you which I can't put a chemical definition on, -- any of my definitions would also be thought, so I have no idea what it is, but, -- it is a very, almost impressive thing, -- having a straight jacket on me and I can't, -- normally I am accustomed to it so I don't feel the pain of it because I am not conscious but when I become aware of it, it is almost disturbing. It is the process that goes on inside me all of the tune. But that's because I can't define thought. But it is something that has to do with my awareness. I would say more or less. At the times when, I think that it is most helpful of my awareness, yet is sometimes the most blinding of my awareness.

Rose: You are more or less describing what thought causes in you rather than what it is. See, I am trying to get to a non-personal evaluation of it.

Steve H.: Well then I would say that it is more like a reaction to or an interpretation to things that happen outside of me, -- cause a certain, almost a chemical change in me. Rose: Are you leaning at this point to this current concept that it is a reflex? That you are just reflexive?

Steve H.: Well I wouldn't say that so much but I notice that when I am in a different environment I have different thoughts. Or I feel differently inside. But I don't consider it to be part of myself.

Rose: Well, let's go to Richard.

Richard B.: It seems like a, -- it seems like it is a function of a part of you. In other words it seems like what you are is a big thing, okay, and you are living out of a small part of that and one aspect of the way that small part functions is thought. I mean I could say... it's raw, there is a rawness to it. That is about the best that I can do.

Rose: But again, you gave me a personal reaction to it, like Steve did. I was trying to get an anatomical definition of it. Bob C.: This might sound glib, to put it this way. I think that thought is memories reacting upon other memories because if suppose, there is some point in time where the first thought occurs, like in a baby, the baby is born, and they are simply aware, but they are existing in this perpetual machine. So if something happens to them, something impinges on them, and then that experience is recorded, and then the next time another experience is recorded, then there can be an interaction between those two memories, and that is what happens to us, -- when you walk through the woods, all of these sense-perceptions are coming in your mind, and they are evoking reactions of an enormous body of memories that you have in your mind.

Rose: But again, it is along the reflexive, reaction, it is pretty much of a reflex.

X: It seems to be pretty much a phenomenon that is observed that doesn't include the senses.

Rose: Richard came in pretty close there, on this that, -- you say that, -- it is a phenomenon that cannot be observed by the senses.

X: I say that it is a phenomenon that is observed, but not with the senses.

Rose: Yes, I begin to get a picture of the tail of the animal. You know, for the first tune, see. But, what he brought out was very interesting. It was that, -- it seemed to sound the same, -- there is a time when you are part of the world and then there is a time when you are locked in a particular narrow thing called a thought. This isn't really us but we are taken away from the whole picture and isolated or narrowed down to a single experience.

Zones

Richard B.: And there are zones though, like I mean if you, -- I mean if you want to gear into, say a professional thought zone, like in my work, and I will do that with my head, I will sit down and I will use these stimuli, like desks and stuff, to do that, and I will get into those words and those things and then they will start. It doesn't seem like reflexes but it seems like there is this zone that is a small part of the larger thing and it is like ping pong balls going back and forth, I mean like this comes over here and, -- I don't know how to say it, it is like going back and forth, a little part of you over here and something is going back and forth and that is thought, it is reflexive, but it is not reflecting anything, except that it thinks it is.

Rose: It is self-aware of accomplishment on that small.... Were you finished, did I interrupt you? Okay, how about the lady with you?

Y: Well, when, what I am aware of thought tends to be the more what I experience as thoughts inside my head. As thought with a capital "T." Part of my mental content, so to speak.

Rose: We will go on to the next one but I want you to give a little thought to the possibility that this doesn't occur inside your head.

Y: That's where it seems to occur.

Rod: Seems to be one of the functions of the machine. Like the other functions, the emotional function, the instinctive function, the moving function. It's varying degrees of energy, though under some circumstances, can be very.... Most thought is just the computer churning around the information that it already has from the past, trying to make sense out of that.

Dan M,: If it were up to me, I think that you would have to go for a mechanical definition, I would say this, thought is that storage of our sensory, our sensory memories or receptors, you know the brain or the mind calling them back out of storage. That is about the closest that I can come to using a computer type analogy.

Rose: The word that you used there had a slight inference that you might be doing this. How much of this thought do you do? See you say calling back out of... and Richard said something about employing symbols or desks or pens and pencils in order to get yourself to think. It seems as though that that implies that there is an ability to cause thinking in a certain direction but how much of it do you think a person actually does when he goes back in his memory of such...?

Dan M.: Probably ten percent.

It might have already been said but I see a sort of a pivotal point between experience -- between perception and reaction -- sort of like a center or a... I think that it has already been said before, -- I see it as something that can be very restricting and also something that can be very open... you know.

Rose: Between what and action?

Dan M.: Between perception and action. It's like it is almost a filtering system within the human...

Rose: Yes, but can't we do a lot of thinking without moving a muscle? For hours, see.

DanM-: I guess that I am thinking in a limited sense.

Paul M.: I guess that we would have to make a distinction, between the awareness and the process of thought. As far as the process of thought is concerned, I would consider that to be something like the, remember the state of before, from the earliest impressions and the earliest experiences, when a problem of some kind comes up or a decision has to be made, the computer-like operation where different criteria and items are sifted forth, in order to come up with an answer, for it. But again, I think that we run into the problem of... this is a description, of the process of thought. But thought, a priori, I guess I can't define....

Z: It is an objective focus and is the evaluation of the subject under consideration.

Rose: Yes, but what you are saying is, -- an amoeba might have a piece of food that is its object of consideration, witnesses it and we would ascribe thought to the process. Set, what we are really getting into is a picture that possibly there is a faculty that... may witness this focusing and evaluation. Tou are describing a mechanistic view of the whole individual as opposed to the thing that he does while he is observing. If he is observing. In other words, there is a... it is an instrument with which he does that, it is like the chicken looking at the worm. Bulhow much thinking does he do and how much muscular or protoplasmic reaction can we cancel out? I mean, genetic reaction. See, and this is the thing in all thought. How much of all of on thought is genetic reaction even from putting in four years of college so that we can get a job with a slide rule. See, the whole tiling may be nothing but genetic reaction. And all of those thoughts that went into working those problems would be a product of complicated and more complicated genetic reaction. What I itn getting at is that there is a certain process in there which we nay own or not own, and I am trying to get to the, -- what basically is this? In other words, there are some oversimplified answeis, I am glad that we haven't got some of the really oversimplified ones so far, which is Just a man's reaction to the environment, which is what the behavioristic psychologist may throw at you real quick and say that it is just man's reaction to the environment, and refuse to classify it as an element of an inner being. In other words, let's take this, is it possible that thought is an entity in itself? We sort of have this little concept that we have thoughts, meaning pluralities, meaning there is more than one of them, that they are identifiable singular type things. Or, another definition implies that there is possibly a creative faculty, -- well you hear that people claim that we can create with our thoughts. Now I am going to stretch that into occultism there a little bit on the idea that thoughts create entities. Paracelsus, for instance, used to say, -- be careful of your thoughts, they will create entities. And so, we are trying to get into something else here. Sure the first glance at it seems just a little bit more than a reaction, but then we find that an airplane is a consolidated or solidified thought or thoughts. See, a battleship is a solidified thought. So just what is this creature?

W: Thought is energy. It is an ongoing thing. You can't really turn it off. You can't even quiet yourself, you are still thinking when you are sleeping or dreaming, you are still thinking.

Rose: But when you say energy now, we have kinetic energy, too, and I think that very possibly we may have mental energy besides thought. Do you figure that is possible? So we would distinguish, there is no doubt that energy is involved in it, there is no doubt about that, I mean biochemically, it is almost proven. But see, but I was just wondering, about the possible forms of energy in thought.

W: A question that occurs is does thought exist outside of us. You know, it's like if the tree falls in the forest and no-one is there, would there be any sound? If there were no people in the world or no essential beings, would there be thought?

Rose: If a deaf dog barked in the woods, yes. But you are right, see. The question that you pose is accurate. We must examine to see if that does or does not occur. This all goes into the examination of it.

Jackie: I just consider it to be a collection of various impressions of the senses that are gathered together -- ah -- into coherent ideas.

Fitz: It seems that thinking is sort of some sort of continuum which all of these different definitions fit on. Between just the constant rambling or the chatter and the most controlled type of thinking where you create something by taking all of that information and putting it together in a new way and coming up with a faster airplane or something. Maybe there is at some point, if you really, if you're accurate enough, you can get to the verge of making something really new, or getting somewhere different.

Rose: New combinations of old memories. I think that is pretty much what new invention is. New combinations of old memories, of old experiences.

Sue: That is what I was thinking along the same lines, because when you look at an object and you think about it, all you are doing is recalling your past experiences, and relating them to the new object.

FrankM.: I am getting more confused as we go along. That is part of the training. The thing that always strikes me about it is that I am having a hard time about the definition, but I always come up with the other definition, I am not trying to change it. Let me know, -- but is it whether I really control my thoughts, whether I have a direction to thinking. Because it just seems like that the thinking process is almost continuous. Somebody already said, I almost feel that when I get up in the morning there has been a process of these memories or feelings or reactions going on in my mind all night but at the same time, I wonder whether it is possibly to direct them to it, -- to direct this process for discovery. But as far as for a technical definition of it, I can't really come up with one right now, I am not sure what the process actually is. Then responses and reactions.... Are we a part of the mind, is the process, like a computer? I always think that it is more of a mechanical thing, -- that real information doesn't come into thinking, -- but on the other hand something else, awareness, or something I sense does also occur, -- there is a difference between the two. That thinking is more of a mechanical process in the brain, -- and secondly that it is a form of awareness.

Voltage

Alan: I don't know about the definition but it seems that, at least in my experience that it seems that it just happens, sometimes it is a reaction to the environment, like sometimes I get a thought that it seems like it just comes out of the thin air. Where did I come up with that from? I don't know whether that comes from inside the computer or what.

Rose: There is a message behind what you just said. In other words, I think we all know that there is a brain, that the brain carries voltage, and carries the messages with the voltage, but what you just said is very true. There are thoughts that are not caused by the action or thought before them. Most thoughts come like on a string... related to or caused by the thought before it. There is no doubt about that, -- we can observe our thoughts and see that.

For instance, you may think of an automobile. The color blue will come to your mind because you saw a blue car recently. The blue car brought up from memory was owned by a friend... you will now think of the friend, etc.

But there are thoughts or mental visions which have no immediate mental correlation. One instance would be the people that you meet in your dreams that have no counterpart in daylight consciousness. The strange thing about some dreams is their lack of connection with the concerns of the previous day, or with relationship to current problems or conversations.

For instance, just about all the events that have been mentioned here, including the stuff that seems to come out of the blue, can be traced to a previous memory. But some of the stuff that "comes out of the blue" cannot be traced to previous memories.

Crookes

I am going to reach away out to give you an example. You are sitting in the dark thinking, and a voice speaks to you. At first you think that it is in your head meaning in the imagination. But then a form appears in front of you, and this form or person is totally new to you. Psychiatric history is full of instances of this type of encounter. Religious history is full of such. Veteran truck drivers tell about nearly wrecking their trucks because of such encounters. Swerving a truck is accompanied by thinking. Katie King was seen by William Crookes. And photographed.

It is unlikely that William Crookes formulated her as a composite of previous memories of women he had known. What about the visions of prophets who were able to predict events actually, because they saw them ahead of time? What do these things imply? Does anybody pick up what this implies about the human mind?

Tom G.: That it is not contained? (In the skull alone.)

Rose: Yes. It implies that. But there is something else.

Tom G.: You mean that it is like a receiver?

Rose: Yes, that part too.

Larry J.: There is no central location?

Rose: You can be with your mind, thinking, fifty feet away (from your body), or a thousand miles avay. For instance to give you an example, we have the expetiments or accounts of telepathy, where people have communicated from more than a thousand miles away. At a precise moment. We have a lot of these cases if we wish to accept them as data. And I know I have cases close at hand where I would be tlinking of something and somebody else would speak it. Or you hive cases where you have a person under certain conditions who will suddenly exclaim that Joe has died. Joe just died. Well how do you know. Well I just felt it. And in an hour or so the telephone rings, and somebody calls you and tells you that your friend Joe just died. Well the only way that could have come in vith a person maybe a thousand miles away was through a mental faculty. As for phenomena, -- when a suficient numberof them occur it becomes almost of legislative value. There are laws that form when data piles up.

small amount of material omitted here

Well, I guess that the implication would be that it really is not ours personally except for the types of thought that Behavioral psychologists talk about, you know the memory-reaction type, but there are other types of thought that really don't belong to the individual they may belong to a race or a nation or whatever.

Vince L.: Well, all I can say is that thought is the organized sense of images, they could be reactions, they could be projections, or they could come out from beyond. Rose: Well, he has brought up something that nobody has mentioned before, did you catch it? He ran through it rather rapidly. Receptions are projections! In other words this is very important. It shows that -- I don't know how much he knows but he is implying that we are capable of projecting -- that which we believe we see, or what we want to see. In other words, like a man on a desert island with an ugly woman, she becomes more and more beautiful. That is projection, that's what I am talking about. And we project in our philosophy. We project idyllic heavens and terrible hells for the other guy. But that is what it implies. But this is something, a new addition to the general definitions of thought. It is the ability, not only to perceive, but the ability to project even to the point where you see it, you know, the thirsty man and the mirage.

Thought is a projection

Keith M.: I was just curious at this point as to whether you are defining the contents of thought or the actual process behind thought.

Rose: Well, you can take your choice, we would be glad to have some content.

Keith M.: If thoughts are projected, like we were talking about, would that make any difference as towards a thought itself? Rose: A thought itself? Do you mean to define a thought as to its qualitative essence?

Keith M.: The definition that I was going to say is that thoughts are a parade of information that seem to be built from the most part from sensory information. And I am aware of it but it seems to organize itself in patterns that I make sense of but that are not necessarily correct. Like my thoughts may make sense to you but they may not make sense to somebody else. Each person seems to have their own belief in their own particular thoughts.

Dana C.: Well, I think that thoughts at times are things that we do not create ourselves.

Lou K.: Thoughts are mental images that can either be verbal or pictorial. It seems that when I think aboutit, those are the only two types of thoughts that I can have, either I can visualize something as if I am seeing it, or I think in words. It seems like it could be either one. I can't really thinkof any other way to think.

Eric: Well, it is something that is observable, but I was thinking of now, that it is a force, it can move, it can move you one way or another, if you are not aware of it, it can move you one way or another, but it can be observable. There is some kind of a choice.

Doron F.: Well, I pretty much think that thought is a projection, I agree with that pretty strongly and that maybe it is on two levels, that there is possibly a universal or absolute projection which is thought in its purest form but our individual interpretation of that is our own relative thoights.

Rose: Of course you say "our own."

Rich: I think that when I think about thought it seems to be a movement of thoughts. I don't know where they come from or come to but they pass by you and you take temporary ownership of these thoughts and you can either play with them, think about them, you can apply them to your environment or you can let them go. And then they are gone.

Rose: In other words you are more or less defining them as property.

Rich: Oh, they come by and you take temporary ownership and you either use it, observe it or do something with it, and then let it go, something with movement, it is not static.

Rose: Oh yes, I see where you are coming from, I see what you are saying that is like the idea, it is like the inability if you are concentrating to hold on to the thought, it is like an eel, it slips out of your.... You keep trying to bring it tack and it slips out, that sort of thing, from intentional thought, But then you have ^oughts that you cannot shake, addictive thoughts, and they are just the opposite.

Dave G.: I was just listening to different definitions and I missed the front part of it but the one common denominator that everybody is talking about is that thoughts and thought processes are something separate, that is a process going on that is something that can be observed, which is easy to do when you are sitting here and putting thought out, but I am sure that every one of us when we walk out of here, even while we were thinking about what we were going to say about thought we're totally identified with them. So you almost need a contrived situation or some type of shock to recognize that or maybe we all go through with the knowledge that our thoughts are separate, but living with it 24 hours a day, we don't live that knowledge. GaryH.: Well, my definition is that thought is coexistent with just everyday living. It's something that can't be separated from observations of the senses.

Rose: But isn't it possible that there are times when you do not observe with the senses as with a case of a mirage? What sense sees the observation of things in the memory?

Gary H.: I think that what I am trying to say is that possibly everything exists as thought at one point or another and you can't separate the two.

Rose: Oh, I see what you mean, of course, I would like you to prove that if you could, that would be really good. Not that I disbelieve you or conflict. This is a new angle or new approach, but I would say that it is as valid as any other definition. Because it is coming in from another perspective.

Pat S.: Yes, I was thinking about when we were talking about ideas, sometimes to young people, I think of thought sometimes as a way of hooking into ideas or they hooking into us, because a lot of times kids will say where do I get my ideas, if I tell anybody my ideas then I won't have any ideas, they will be gone. And we talk of ideas like there are millions of ideas circling the earth, and that is how people invent things simultaneously, and then you follow in or hook in wherever you want, or it hooks you, I am not sure, anyhow, the ideas are endless. Rose: You talk of them as though they are separate entities. Pat S.: Well, that could be, then thought would be some kind of vehicle or tool to hook onto.

Rose: I heard another explanation of that one time, and I am not saying that it could really be validated as well as yours or any better than yours. And that was this business of oxygen being discovered simultaneously in two different places in the world, at the same time. And some of the spiritualists claim that that was .the whole thing was planned by spirits and that they chose the moment, more than the location, they chose the moment for that to be delivered to the earth. All of these advancements in science and stuff are, chosen, the spiritualists claim that they are ordained on the other side of the fence, and then they find the right person to be the mouthpiece for it. That's just a thought that went by.

John T.: I think that, it seems to me that it is some sort of language or conversation or mental language or mental conversation that I have with myself, I have heard of people talk about it being projected and stuff like that. But I tend to agree with Dave. I know that I identify with my thoughts, I don't think that I can deny that I identify with my thoughts, and I believe that I can cause things, and in that sense I believe that I can cause thoughts, and in turn I think that the thoughts can cause things to happen. And in the same hand, I think that there are effects too, I believe that you react to certain circumstances, and I imagine it would be a result of a cause or an effect.

Bill K.: Yes, I guess it is similar in that it is an -- the language -- an abbreviated order, but it seems to be enforced upon us at times, it is being forced upon the mind.

Rose: We can't help thinking.

BillK.: It is not done by you, but all of the activities. It seems to be some abbreviated language.

John K.: I find thinking to be a perversion of crippled consciousness-----

Rose: I like this new angle.

John K.: In other words, I think that if a person's experience and perception and awareness are direct and complete and up to the moment, then there would not be very much thinking. Thinking is a reaction to not experiencing life directly, and fully, so thinking is a shadow or unnecessary excretion of the inner experience. I take Krishnamurti's idea that once you are fully here you can slow down the thinking process, you don't have the chatter and all of the concept juggling and all of the rest of it, but thinking is more of a mechanical thing, whether to make a right turn or a left turn. Rose: I believe that you are right. John K: The sicker a person is the more confusion... Rose: That's the reason you saw the vacuum, I can blame it on that, if you quit thinking the world goes on anyhow. Larry L.: Well, I don't think that I have anything totally new to add, it seems to me that it is a function that is totally automatic. At times I can be aware of most of the time that I am not. People talk of identification, most of the time. I think that I am totally identified with my thoughts until I am able to step back and realize that there is a flow that goes past the screen that maybe I can be aware of somewhat, and the fact that I react to them, and there is something that generally controls the direction of my life. I just emphasize the automatic nature of it.

Suzanne J.: It seems like it is some form of energy but it has a life of its own. There are properties about its direction and motion but it also seems that there is some sort of location, however that's not right but, as though we tap into... I mean that it's not just something that is going on here, and our head taps into one level of it, and there are different levels of thought, whatever it is, that maybe we can get into, but it seems to be all pervasive.

Linda K.: Well, I think, like you said, that thoughts are individual entities, and I don't think that any... maybe sometimes you have a thought that is yours, but I don't think that any of it is really you, I think that you are being used by I don't know what, entities or whatever it is. Rose: Now, what I wanted to point out was, does anybody have a comment on what happened here now. We may all be able to learn something at once, it started with Alan's answer or comment, it was a little bit different than the ones previous. But did you notice the trend of the people that answered the questions, there was something common in all of it, what was; it?

X: Well, what I noticed was that when you first asked the question of what was a thought, I had a certain thought about what it was and as it went around it was altered and adjust-ted, using a little bit of everything as I saw it applied to my thought, until by the time that it got to me it was --

Rose: If you could get people to write them down, and not see each other's writing, you would be able to get a purer result. In that regard, this is true. Because not onlythat tangent... what I saw was a tangent that just varied a little bit too, what was the principle thing?... It was everything exists as a thought. What was he implying?

Bob C.: That physical reality is a thought

Rose: Okay, but what does that imply?

BobC.: Nothing is real.

Physical basis of thought

Rose: Possibly, but it does imply that there is a dimension. . It implies a dimension, In other words, if the things that he sees are unreal, or, directed from someplace else... now there we're a few people that mentioned flowing past, veil Pat said something flowing past and you reach out and grab a hold on it, and you mentioned something external to the self, and this is a phase that none of us got into here, none of us, none of the definitions really came out as clearly as Suzanne's, but she was way towards the end so she was able to maybe get some words from perhaps others as she went. But her original feelings were there, and when you ask for a definition for something, not for the purpose of being clever with each other, but for the purpose of better understanding, we go down sincerely to the source, let's say for the first time. I will find out what thought is. Well, there are two approaches, maybe there are three or four, I don't know. But I conceived immediately of two approaches that we would have to take. One of them is our reaction to the process. In other words there is a process happening ailed thinking. And so we react to that. One person said that it is not me or that it is outside of me. But the reaction is the tiling. Nearly all of the definitions given were reactions to the process. There is another one of course and that is the definition of the thing itself, staging from the chemical occurrence which is simultaneous with thought, I am not saying that the chemical occurrence is thought, I am saying the chemical at the time of thought. Going back to the synaptic function, going back to the neural transmitters, etc., and how does this tie in. Strangely enough all of this ties in with things mentioned here. They didn't say it, because not everybody reads on neural transmitters, but everybody had a feeling, and that feeling is what you have to go by, if you want to give the thing some evaluation without biochemical training, does anybody pick that up?

Steve H.: If you are talking about a dimension of thought, we don't have a chemistry or physics that deals with mental dimensions.

Rose: Yes we do. Right here. That is what we are trying to do. Right here. See, the idea is that we are not going to have new terms or new words or anything, but we can explore it. And if you want to know yourself, you are going to have to explore it. Everything possible that you can throw into your computer to solve that problem of who's thinking, and what's the essence or the nature of the product thought. Or is it a product, or is it caused?

Steve H.: To me, it's like you can't... it's like when you first start looking at it you don't know where it is coming from. You can't really put your finger out and touch it because that in itself would be thought.

Rose: Well, I don't know whether that in itself would be thought or that in itself would be hunger. People get hungry to define themselves. People get eager to learn who is thinking. In other words, you can observe yourself thinking, this is what I maintain. This is what we have been doing. Everybody here has been observing themselves thinking, and I could even get little pictures of themselves watching themselves thinking while they were talking to me, and they would say... or they would do it with their hands. And what are they doing? This is the thing going by. That is the thought process to them being observed. And this is the process of the observer. This is what I talk about in the book. So we have all been doing it. We have all been watching thought. Now I maintain that we can carry this a little further, and see the possibilities, even if we are not going to get any proof.

Steve H.: One thing about that though, is that you can ask a question which would cause me to think, and I could give, say, an immediate answer, or somebody else might say that one of the words that I said might be inaccurate. So they can look at my thought and refine a word or two or something like that. So in other words, there is a faculty of awareness or ability to compare the thought that is seen or is spoken to a truth which is not talked about. In other words, if you recognize the thought to be untrue, then you must be able to compare it to something else that is more true.

Rose: What you are hitting upon there is something that, course again, -- that we must be aware of, and that is awareness. In other words, awareness is not thought. We have to distinguish whether we think awareness is thought or not. We are aware of thoughts. We are also aware of when we don't have thoughts. There are circumstances when you can be aware and not think and not know. So you understand me?

Steve H.: Sure. It is just like this thought is like a... or film that covers your awareness.

Rose: Right, it films it, it's like the camera analogy. You know, the picture taking camera. The stuff going by the lens. But I remember one time I went unconscious, my back came apart and I fell over. And when I woke up, I looked up -- I remember looking up at the sky -- and I could see just so much vision of the periphery. And I saw the green hills beside me, which -was my own farm that I didn't recognize, and the only thing that I thought of at the time was what a wonderful... it was wonderful, really amazing. I didn't put it into words, but I just thought what a beautiful place -- you know -- something like that. The next thought that I had was, I wonder where I am at, and the third one was I wonder who I am? I had forgotten who I was. None of those were decided. I tell you, I described therm in words, as word thoughts, but they weren't, I was enchanted by the beauty... maybe I was glad to be alive. It wasn't words, but I saw, I remember seeing and even having this perception of amazement. But I didn't know who I was. That thought, that door had to be opened later. The first thing was basically awareness, awareness of myself and the environment, but no definitions, no definitions of myself. I had even forgotten the name. So I think that when little things like that happen, you can realize the difference between being engrossed or trapped in thought and being totally free from it. With this, we are now approaching the definition of what some of the Raja Yogis call samadhi which isn't really samadhi, it is the liberation from thought, in which they don't think.

Richard B.: It seemed like as the definitions went along that we were confusing the process with the product, the end product. Rose: Right, this is what I was saying. I said that right at the beginning, that you were describing the process. Or you were describing your reaction to the process. The cause of it, the cause of it very few people touched on except for the ones that said it is something that nails you from outer space or something that you grab as it goes by. Now those implications are strong and I wonder if you can pick up, actually, if it is only a concept, what the concept is, what the mental state is, the person and the thought, the awareness and the thought. And I think, and I don't think I heard anybody name it any closer than Gary or Suzanne, or any more plainly. But I think that in the implication, the next thing is a dimension. Now there are certain writers that are pretty certain. It is still a concept, of course nothing like that is proven. It is the concept that there is a higher dimension that impinges upon our dimension here and our lower mind. We have a lower mind which is the domain of the behavioristic psychologists. Meaning we have a reactive mechanism which is what I call the mundane type mind, the protoplasmic mind.

MikeF.: It almost seems like thoughts are a distraction on your awareness by forcing you to focus your attention on the thought as it is going by.

Rose: They are a distraction, but without them you wouldn't have any growth. The whole idea I think is to filter... I wanted to continue on this other thing. It is the possibility that thought is a dimension. I think that the more that you meditate on this the more that you get the... I get the picture that, in other words... I look upon thought itself and mind, as a tangible solid mass and dimension, much more solid than this. This is the impression that I get.

Q: Is this what Buddha meant when he said, all is one?

Rose: Yes. Now somebody said something along this line here. And I deliberately passed it by. Somebody said... the implication was that it was greater thai the receiver. In other words, it was something acting upon this dimension. This is a concept of course of Mary Baker Eddy. This is the concept of the Oversoul of Brunton. What did Mary Baker Eddy call it? The universal mind. Well, when I first heard those theories I thought, -- Oh that is another concept that somebody has dreamed up to fill up some pages. But I really believe that it comes from a profound inspiration. There is a reason behind it. And so if this is true, what does this imply as far as our domain is concerned. Where does our domain, in this physical brain-domain, you might say, human consciousness domain, and the human awareness, -- where is our fence or our perimeter, and where does this other dimension touch us if this is true. In other words I am saying now, when we are talking about something flowing by, either we are flowing by it or it is flowing by us, but let's presume that that might be possible. But where do we pick it up at?

Awareness

Gary H.: Just in our awareness of the thoughts coming through.

Rose: I don't know. When you use the word or term awareness, this is one faculty that I have no organ for. See what I mean. Where are we aware?

Gary H.: I think awareness, or if you are aware of your thoughts, it adds more power to them, they become more powerful or convincing. And the thoughts are where you are, you identify with them. But I understand what you are saying as far as a definition for awareness. I tlink that it is more of a result of certain convictions put together, that yes, this dimension is real, and I think...

Rose: I think that you might deielop a conviction that awareness is there, but I don't think that it is a product of convictions or structure. I think that awareness is basically something behind the mind. Because of the simple fact -- now I am giving my beliefs and I don't particularly want to give them at this time -- but I would rather have you evolve them or went into this thing yourself. In other words, if you are aware of thought, then thought is secondary to awareness. If thought is a subtle essence, then awareness is a subtler essence or a more real essence, a much more real essence. But it is subtle to us. It is invisible like thought. But it is more real in the final analysis and superior to thought because it watches thought, it is aware of thought as well as thinking, aware of the body processes. The thing that I noticed, there were two things that it would be good to think about. One of them that we didn't touch on is the relation to body processes. I think that it is very important that we pay some attention to the function of the synapses. Much needed data has never come out of the psychology books yet because the present psychology is interested only hi somatic reactions, in other words how to make taxpayers out of the loafing robots, or robots pretending to be sick, or whatever, and it doesn't get into the essence of thinking. Or the nature of thought. But I think that an answer lies in the structure of the synapse, and I liken it to the gap in a sparkplug. Like a gap in a sparkplug in an automobile, there is a metaphysical experience that occurs. Which couldn't occur inside the cast-iron, or inside the copper wire, there would have to be a place where a subtle essence, electricity reacts upon a denser essence which is gas. From which there is an explosion that drives the pistons and makes the car run. Okay. We have an analogy in the function of the synapses in the head. And we also have perpetual voltage, voltage until we fall asleep, leaping across there. And I believe that it would be good to do some thinking about the relationship between that spot and our contact with the mind dimension. I don't think that that is only a spot that we take perceptions in and have them recorded in the grey matter. There is evidence that most of the things that we see and remember with the brain, -- are also seen and remembered with the post-mortem awareness.* So this has to be recorded elsewhere than the protoplasm of the brain. I see that some of you don't understand what I am saying, so I will expand on it a little further. People who have researched like Dr. Moody did, on out of the body travel, found that when people do this out of the body thing, or after death experiences, -- the evidence is pretty much the same. They experience people familiar to their daytime experience. Or lifetime experience. They are there, they see them, with eyes, that are lying hi a morgue, perhaps, or in a doctor's office. They come back and describe the person, and say I just saw John, and John was crossing the street at 12th and Market. Somebody checks and sure enough John was crossing the street at 12th and Market. How did he see him from his bed in the hospital or someplace of that sort? I tlink Moody travelled from Atlanta all the way up through the southern states and saw people on the street that he recognized. This means that this consciousness and memory is no longer limited... we are no longer just this ball of soap that these impressions and sensory perceptions just make marks in. It is recorded also elsewhere. It is recorded so it can be transferred elsewhere.

   * NOTE: This also refers to the phenomena of resuscitated people who witnessed details in an operating room although their eyes were closed -- also the correct data given by incidents of astral projection -- wherein the physical eyes could not have seen events miles from the body, as well as the testimony given by resuscitated people who were pronounced clinically dead. 

To learn of these phenomena, . .you have to get out sometimes and read a few books and get human and varying mental experiences that are not in the newspaper, or that are not in your own self-meditations or observations, and it will provide some more questions at least. Some more questions to answer. But I am eager to see a little examination of this business of chemical thinking. I think that it is very good. I think that the chemical biology, biological chemistry is going to prove a lot of old church concepts. They are proving it, not disproving it. They are very close now to proving the existence of an inner man, which is a soul. I am going to run through some questions here in order for you to have something to tlink about.

Thought & brain chemistry

I started off here with, -- what is a thought? And I have a few other questions, and I am not going to discuss them one by one, -- I just want you to hear them. Do you think, or are you a thought? When we go into studying terms, we take a word and study it. We contact a few angles here. We came at it from a different angle and I got a persoial observation angle, or whatever. If you are a thought, who is thinking it? In other words, there is a concept that the entire universe as we see it is only a projected thought. This is called Maya.

If thought travels beyond the head, such as we have witnessed almost scientifically in ESP, what is the vehicle for this travel? See, electricity doesn't travel without a medium, without a copper wire or something. But, it has been determined, scientifically, as far as the value of our science, our scientific methods are concerned, by J.B. Rhine with his dice, and other people experimenting individually, that ESP is a valid human capability.

Now again, does the body manufacture subtle essences called thought? I think that the body manufactures subtle essences capable of transmitting them over the wiring (nerves), or through the ether or however they go. That chemistry exists. The body does manufacture that and enables it to have a unique mobility.

Do chemicals such as serotonin, which is a neurotrans-mitter, create thought? Or do they merely facilitate the penetration into our consciousness of particular sensory data? The latter is what I think is generally agreed upon. Can sanity be gauged by logic? Of course we are getting into what thought is permissible and what is not permissible. Whose thoughts are erratic and whose thoughts are correct? Now, if we look into erratic thinking, we may very well get a better insight into the thing that we think is sane thinking. I think sometimes the people with the erratic thinking may inspire us to go nuts. Because, as I said, I have seen autistic children, I have been around autistic children and have read some articles by people who have been around them and worked with them, and I am convinced that autistic children are superior. And we have to somehow learn, we have to educate ourselves to deal with a people that are not hooked on to the same set of values as we are (hooked on.)

Is behavior considered normal by virtue of percentages of incidence? The normal curve in other words. This was the beginning of behavioristic psychology. This has also been the way that we have measured our psychological advances, -- by voting. Legislating what the most people like to hear.

What is the relation between sanity and reality? In other words, human-defined sanity and reality. And of course, we could get into this business of questioning what is reality and how do we find it? How do we determine it? For instance, let's say the sanity of a deep depression. Are we sane when we have a deep depression? Or are we really just starting to think? Maybe the house of cards is collapsing and it should collapse because it is erratic, erroneous. Yet we think that we are going crazy because of the deep depression. This in turn we have to replace by something that will cause us to appreciate the sDly games of life.

Should we question the games of life? You know, the values of so called... We were talking about projections here a little while ago, and I think that what has happened recently, and it is good to think about it or good to comment on it, and of course to find out what you think about it yourself, this business of society as a whole making a projection. A group of people, for instance, presumably, society goes along and develops according to nature, in other words we become a more intelligent animal, as the generations go by, and we put on clothes, we come out of the woods and put on clothes, and then, at a certain stage of this game we decide that we are divine, thai the human being can do anything that he wishes with the human being, and this is a projection. Again, this is not observingsomething.

This is saying that a person is going to... change nature, it's like the young man modifying his car. It comes from the factory looking a certain way and he says that he has the power to put five wheels on that thing or three wheels, whichever I want, or higher springs, or bigger tires. But it can be modified. So by projecting, we become creators, and that becomes a very infectuous idea that we can change the whole plight of the human race by projecting and reinforcing. And the word projecting may not be insisted upon as much as reinforcing, we are supposed to continue to reinforce each other. And I am wondering if that is wise? The idea of reinforcing a person in their lifegame. Even creating games for them to play and reinforcing them. And if a person is out of tune with the rest of society or maybe can't make their grades in school or a simple thing like that, and instead of saying, "Hey you had better get on the ball, the train is going by and you are going to miss the train," instead of that you say, "Oh you are doing very well, doing much better than you did yesterday..."

I presume that talk is caused from different perspectives. In other words, you have different perspectives and conversation is necessary to, again, compare our words and definitions with the other people's so that we will have some understanding. And these different perspectives emanate from what I call different states of mind. And a state of mind is something that you hatch out over the process of a lifetime, part of which you inherit from your parents -- your family state of mind -- and part of which you inherit from maybe a trade or a profession, or an institution, and each institution, if it has residents that live there very long, develops a state of mind.

So consequently, the media is able to convey conversations and ideas back and forth through T.V., the newspaper and radio... where we still have a tremendous lot of trouble with states of mind. One of the reasons is that a lot of the communication is deliberately falsifying. I mean that it is somebody trying to sell you something. So in going back to the fellow in the newspaper that was interviewing me, the fellow said, "Well, we do have unimpeachable authorities, don't we?"

And I said I don't know where they are. I said that all of your professional people are crooked. Including the minister ... he is up there telling you that he has a hotline to God, you know, all you have to do is put the money in his hand and he will put in the phone call for you and forgive your sins and get you on the road to everlasting pleasures. And you go to the doctor and he will give you an operation that you don't need, because there is a couple of thousand bucks in it. I am talking from personal experience. I know that this goes on all of the time, -- you have crooked politicians from the ward-leader all the way up to the president of the United States that are spoofing the people for private selfish reasons. So I don't see this idea of authority.

[end of side B of Esoteric Library Volume 4]

[side ends at 45:55]

Side A of Esoteric Library vol 5

Authority

This fellow, he was a religion editor, editor for the religious articles that appeared in the Pittsburgh Press, and so he liked to consider himself an authority -- that was what he was getting at -- and he felt that as an authority, he should know something about religion. And he should have some authority, which consequently that put him in with the theologians. Well, of course I maintain that the theologians were massive excuse makers. They were people who read other people's books, and in turn, the books were written by people who had read other people's books, on infinitum. There was nothing really discovered. There has been nothing really discovered for ages. They just take some old concepts, throw them together, make them attractive and maybe the public will buy them. Out on the west coast there is a thing going on there about the spiral staircase. The spiral staircase is the most recent metaphysical scam that is being perpetrated. On the spiral staircase there is a whole assembly of ascended masters in different states of ascension. Well, it is amazing that adults can be so much like children that they love these metaphorical stories, but this is what you get. But why, why do people fall for this? It goes back to their state of mind. I think that a tremendous lot of people love the fairy tale. "Can you make the fairy tale come true? -- It's a carryover from childhood. Is there a rock candy mountain? Can we dream one up?" And, if we wish long enough -- (we hear songs written about this) -- if you wish long enough, strong enough, things that you wish will come true. And this is a popular theme, and adults sing these songs, not just children. So you dream up the big spiral staircase, or the ascended masters, or some avatar that is supposed to reincarnate every time Halley's comet comes over -- every eighty years you get a good look at him if you are out in Tibet -- on a lonely mountain. What I am approaching is the idea of states of mind. Why are people dissembled. Why are people so hard to find? Every human being in the world is a searcher. Everybody is a seeker. Some get tired quicker than others. Some settle for fairy tales. Some settle for brave manifestations of futilism. "Ahh there is nothing out there so why waste your time looking for it" and as the reporter said you might drive yourself crazy. And a lot of people evidently go crazy or become so fanatical that they appear crazy. From mixing things, but not from pure study. Anymore than you would go crazy from studying psychology although they say that a lot of psychologists make the suicide trip. But I don't think that there is any need for a person going crazy studying psychology any more than it would be studying chemistry or anything else.

States of Mind

What is a state of mind? Have you ever conceived of the possible consequences of states of mind? If you don't, I maintain that when I speak of a state of mind I am talking about an attitude that develops as a result of an experience in life, maybe suffering, maybe pleasure, in which that state of mind begins to dominate all of your decisions in the future. Colors your decisions. For instance, when I was in Denver years ago, I heard a fellow tell me that, he came there to get treated for his tuberculosis, which infected his lung after he was shot down over Afghanistan... when the English were invading Afghanistan.

And I said, "How did you get here in Denver from Afghanistan?" He said the English could not treat it. And I said, "How did you get into the British army in the first place?"

And he said "The blasted bagpipes." He said that they came down the street with the bagpipes and he fell in right behind them and walked right down to the recruiting office. "A shilling a day, that is what I got for listening to the bagpipes." The thing is is that the bagpipes create a state of mind. This whole incident was intended to convey something to you. That there is something about some forms of music that will put you in a mood. But there has to be a conviction that goes along with it or else you wouldn't go and sign up for your life.

So we find this in all walks of life where people have developed states of mind in which they believe certain things. And if you read in the paper where a man goes out and kills four or five people or kills his wife and kids, or something of that sort, this is because of a state of mind. It isn't a momentary impulse, this is a result of a conviction that has built up in him for years, and he made up his mind that if this ever happened to him again he would have to act accordingly. Because this was his philosophy. I don't believe that very many of these cases of violence occur from spontaneity, I believe that they are basically results of states of mind. And you can get a picture from this that this is a state of conviction... it is a state of conviction. It permeates the biggest part of the population so that... and lots of times it is brought on by years of work by the media. For instance, right before World War II, I was a young fellow, every picture show that I went to... I had to quit going to the shows because they began and ended and were interrupted by patriotic songs and the U.S. flag waving across the screen. And all of the shows were tear-jerkers about somebody losing all of their kids to the Nazis, and we were being rapidly manipulated into thinking that something terrible was going on and that we were such pure people that we had to right the wrong. And the young fellows eagerly went out -- when the Japanese sunk some ships over in Pearl Harbor -- they went by the hundreds of thousands and signed up. That is a state of mind. That is a state of mind backed by conviction, it may have been a childish conviction but it was a conviction. So I am wondering how much, how strong this is, how much part this plays in everyone's life.

Now before, we were talking about the mind, about what a thought was, and the definition was linked, like I said from anything from a chemical definition of how thought occurs, what the chemical operation of it is, down to the possibility of thought being from another dimension. Of it being our contact with another dimension called a mind dimension. That the thoughts that we have are possibly the little fringes that we pick up with whatever our antennae are able to pick up of this other dimension. Now I am saying that this is a possibility. You can prove it for yourself. Or disprove it. Now we go back to this thing that no longer deals with brain chemistry or anything, it is a state of mind. Because we don't have to know brain chemistry to understand the self. All that you have to do is watch the actions, watch the conduct or the happenings of the mind. I say brain chemistry helps you and corroborates the findings or your conclusions, but one of the real keys of understanding yourself is understanding states of mind. And I am wondering what your individual reactions are?

Following is excluded from Esoteric Library

Have you witnessed in yourself any states of mind or anything that seemed to you to be profoundly influencing your life? Some people have the state of mind that they are doomed, that they are victims of bad luck, that they will never have any good luck. I have seen people live their life that way and die rather young, as a result of it. And other people have the conviction that they are born for greatness, wealth and great destiny. Now these are states of mind and are caused. There is something that leads up to a state of mind, -- in my estimation. There is a conviction that leads up to that. So would you mind commenting? What is your concept of a state of mind?

M. W.: I understand now what a state of mind is. When I was sixteen I left home because I got mad at my mother, I left my husband and I am now about to leave a job, you know because that must just be my state of mind, just solve my problems that way just by leaving. So that is my state of mind.

Rose: Would you say that your state of mind was one of independence or one of just curing an ill?

M.W.: Curing an ill.

Rose: Yes, -- well let's go to somebody else, we can go back over these if you want to.

Paul M.: Well, I think that a state of mind is just like a pair of glasses, it just distorts one way or another all of the information coming in to you so that you see it differently than perhaps somebody else. The same experiences have different meaning for you than they do for somebody else. Because you have different glasses on.

Composite factors

Steve H.: It seems to me that they are made up of their compositive factors that are well, let's say if you leave high school and enter college, right about at that time your whole way of looking at yourself, your whole spirit, I mean not your spirit but your motive, your attitudes change, but I think that it is a number of composite factors that could cause that due to your environment, your expectations, you know, in your period of transition.

Esoteric Library resumes here

Rose: Yes. Here is another thing for those that are maybe having a little trouble trying to pick up where we are at here. If you can ever remember when you were young and single, and the opposite sex had no meaning at all to you, and you had a state of mind then, which could have been anything from a belief in Santa Claus to the Horatio Alger belief that you were going to tear the world apart with your bare hands. Then you fell in love. And that is the first time that you are able to witness your state of mind, -- the one that went by, the one that you lost. And of course you should be able to realize it at the time, but now your state of mind has changed, to the point where the entire world and every aspect of it is different, -- you follow me? Okay, this is what I am trying to illustrate. This state of mind that I am talking about is something that is very solid, very real and psychologically most important. You are not going to find this in psychology books, I don't think... they just go by... I think that if Gestalt psychology had kept on going the way that it was supposed to, we would have approached this understanding of a state of mind, but it went from a pattern thinking, (which is what Gestalt psychology should be) to a do-as-you-please sexualism. Under Fritz Perls. But anyhow, this is the clearest example that I can give at the moment. You must remember... you don't know that you have a state of mind, we are all in a state of mind right now, you are all in a state of tentative conviction, which can lead to violent action, right now it is tentative, but given the proper stimulus it can lead to violent action. For instance, I don't think that anyone is more susceptible to changes of states of mind than people who have tremendous convictions without proper introspection. You get the example that there are a lot of people that are very violent, they get jobs where they are allowed to carry guns or heavy equipment and they wind up killing somebody. I read in the paper every so often where a policeman shoots another policeman in a beer-joint. They get drunk and shoot each other because of their egos, they have gotten into a state of mind where nobody had better ever speak loudly to them. Police don't like to be spoken loudly to, so this makes them a rather deified sort of creature. Well, they get a little half drunk and if another off duty policeman happens to talk loudly, the latter may get shot. Now this has happened several times in the last couple of months. What happens after the fellow shoots the other fellow? Regardless of whether he is a policeman or who he is. In other words, suddenly his state of mind becomes blatantly clear to him, as to what it was and what a mistake he made. His state of mind was wrong, and he knows it is wrong now. He knows it is wrong because it is going to interfere with his liberty. Even if he doesn't mind killing people. It is going to interfere with his liberty. So the thing that I am getting at here is the ability to check the state of mind and know that the state of mind exists by virtue of the tremendous letdown that comes when the state of mind is challenged, or when it leaves.

So now, there is a reason for all of this. What value is there to it?

Following questions are eliminated from Esoteric Library

A. T.: It seems to me, and somebody said this earlier, that there is a constant problem of identifying thought, and you are the thought, and I think your state of mind is even more personal than that, it is like the collection of all of your conditions and experiences that has caused you to form all of these opinions which is your outlook on the world and is how you interpret these events through this outlook. And that is even more personal, because you can think a thought, and it might come and go, but this is things that stay with you, and so when something occurs, or some sort of paradox occurs where your state of mind is... no longer... it causes you to act and the act creates a conflict which is resolved in a way that points out too that your state of mind was wrong. It's like an attack... because you identify with this or don't see clearly the distinction, it is like a personal attack, it's like it is very devastating.

Keith M.: I was going to raise a question about states of mind. In the example that you gave of the policeman that shoots somebody else and then realizes that he was wrong -- or his state of mind was wrong -- is it possible to recognize the facets of a state of mind, or an overall state of mind without feedback, or can it be recognized through introspection? Rose: Yes, but you see the problem, we are going through a little exercise here in which you are supposed to word that differently. You are not supposed to ask questions. In other words, we are supposed to try to give answers, we want to hold it to a format because I don't want it to become just a loose discussion, I want to produce thought, I want to produce thinking on an understanding on what a state of mind is, and what you think the value of it is, or how you can profit from it or lose from it. Or avoid the loss from it and that sort of thing.

Frank M.: I just wanted to say that in retrospect I think that a state of mind, you were asking for personal examples, when I first got into philosophy, I got in through yoga, and I had a background in sports -- an impressive type of thing -- and when I got into yoga it was the extreme opposite, reading the philosophy I got into vegetarianism, I think that as I look back, I think that it affected my whole physical body because I went from 175 pounds to 143 pounds, and that affected my attitude towards people, and I thought that that was the way to go, the way, it was like I developed the conviction that I had to become peaceful, not just peaceful but serene, remove stress, that this was my path to finding God. I was interested in philosophy, there had to be no stress, all of the meditation that I did was not conflictive, I didn't want to get into arguments. And as I look back on it, I was really caught up in that perspective. Like a state of mind, that this was the way to be. I sort of let myself change into that state of mind. And of course, it was things that happened that changed my perspective that I was barking up the wrong tree. That I wasn't beautiful, that I wasn't going to get the answer that way, I changed, I saw it as more of a battle.

Positive Thinking

Esoteric Library resumes here

Rose: I watched a neighbor that has this optimistic, positive thinking obsession, or state of mind, which as I said, some people identify with doing good works for celestial gain. In other words you be kind to your neighbor, you feed the little kitty next door, or you help somebody across the street, or you give somebody five dollars once in a while, and that all adds up on your score. And this lady was one of the sweetest. And everybody would have said, "Yeah, she is a very sweet lady." But she acted it out very perfectly, and behind it was the conviction that she would be rewarded. I had two people give me this, one was a man running a lumber yard in Wheeling, and the other was this lady. And she worked in ... and they owned a hotel there. But I should tell you ahead of time, but when you went into the hotel you noticed that with everyone that she waited on she had a smile for them. She was friendly, she never said anything bad about anyone, and she was just perfect in other words. Cheerful, always, she never had a bad day. She was never crabby and she knew it, she knew that she was perfect.

But when she was about forty-five she went to the doctor and he told her that she had cancer and that she would probably live a year. And she started screaming, and she screamed until she died. She didn't live a year, she only lived a couple of weeks, because her state of mind, what you were talking about, she had developed this state of mind that was not equipped for surprises. She thought it would work, and she had attuned her whole being to that. She had put up with a tremendous lot of abuse and had worked herself twice as hard as she needed to, to make herself look good when perhaps she didn't feel good.

And the other fellow was a fellow that got cancer and he was about sixty years of age, and he had gone to church all of his life, and he was taking cobalt treatment.... He had cancer of the throat and his neck looked like they had cooked him in a pot.

And he said "Rosie, what went wrong? I never did anything wrong. I never let a kid go past my place if he needed a haircut," and he said, "now this happens to me."

And I said, "This has nothing to do with giving kids money to go to the barber."

In other words he thought that there was somebody up there keeping tabs on him and that he would have an easy exit. Funny thing was... that his partner, he was in a partnership and his partner took the whole business after he died, and I think that he sensed that that was going to come too. So here is the importance. I think that it is very important in our psychological analysis of ourselves and other people, to study this thing which we call a state of mind, and how you get locked into it. It is not just a reflex now. Now we are dealing with conviction and things that trap us into ten years or twenty years of a life-style, then it lets us hit the pavement.

Sue: This is like a couple of days ago. For some reason I just got really frustrated. My state of mind was really frustrated and I was just really... I was watching myself... but being frustrated I couldn't get anything done anyway, like there was nothing that I could do about it, and I tried not to be frustrated. I think that the only way to get out of that state is to try to forget about it and say I am not going to get frustrated, because the more I try the more I get frustrated.

Rose: Did you ever try having a baby? This is another example of a state of mind. Nietzsche is a good psychologist in this regard. If you ever get time to read him. One of the things that settle upon a tremendous lot of women, especially younger women, is a state of mind that they are not aware of, and it is a dissatisfaction with not being pregnant. And it comes and goes. It comes and goes. But when it settles, you will blame everyone around you but that is not what...

Sue: I wasn't blaming myself, I wasn't getting my work done, things were not working out right.

Rose: But this is true. This is the most prevalent thing with a young man, his state of mind is, well, he is dissatisfied until he can become a perfect rooster, see, he wants to be the perfect rooster, and as soon as he becomes a rooster, it changes abruptly, you know, he becomes a sick chicken then.

Question edited out

Frank: There was one tune where there was something read where a girl, where I don't exactly remember but you said what do you think her problem is, she was describing not only a frustration but also an emptiness like nothing means anything to me anymore. It was funny because it happened to my wife. What she described at twenty-nine with no kids and a job was she felt that nothing meant anything to her anymore. Her job was boring, her life was boring, our relationship was boring, everything, it was like an emptiness. And I remember reading, we were all sitting around and somebody read a description, and somebody in the room said what is wrong with this person, she was going to a psychologist and describing to the psychologist, you know she didn't have cancer, she had a good job, you couldn't put your finger on... but she was just so frustrated, it wasn't so much frustration but it was more emptiness, like and this emptiness was... and somebody brought up the idea that she wasn't complete, she didn't really know it but the incomple-tion was that nature hadn't been served yet. That she hadn't had a baby yet, and really, after she had had a baby, that feeling of course was gone.

Female mind

Rose: Yes, I remember a question like that coming up once over in Columbus, I was talking and we, I asked a lot of people what they thought the diagnosis of the case was, and finally some young girl said, "I think that she wants to be pregnant and don't know it."

E.L. resumes here

That was the whole thing. The funny thing is is that there is a difference in the... I will get in conflict here with those political psychologists who claim that the female mind is the same as the man's. It isn't. The female mind does not admit its moods, and states of mind. And it is so constructed, because I think that if it knew what was happening to it, it would, or might go, for a sex change or suicide. Because it is a rough life to live. You know. The prospects. Unless you think that it is really a wonderful experience to raise kids and put up with them for twenty years, because that is what you have to nail yourself down to. Just because you have a compulsion or a state of mind, -- that does not mean that you cooked it up yourself. You didn't cook it up yourself. It is imposed on you. And of course the male is likewise a victim. But I think that the male, -- the male is a little bit more aware. We had, one time, when the group first started, we had about five women that stayed in the house. When I lived in Benwood. And they were always fighting, but they fought in a different way. Men once in a blue moon will punch each other and that is the end of it but women have a way of fighting with attrition. They just grind on each other's nerves. So there was always a bit of hell going on in the house, and so I would get the party that I thought was responsible and get them aside and say, "Hey, what happened?"

And invariably, they would say to me, "I forgot to look at the calendar."

Because this stuff is imposed on them like clockwork. You could predict it. I used to tell them, the 31-day calendar is no good for women. Get a 28-day calendar. And of course, some people don't work by that (by a 28-day cycle), they have longer calendars and shorter ones. But get yourself a proper calendar and the symptoms will repeat themselves. The moods will repeat themselves, the frustration, the anger, and everything that comes. And if it comes on the twelfth day of the cycle, it will come on the next twelfth day of the cycle. And the thing with the female also is that the moods change. The man's mood can last for a year. But a woman's mood may change every twenty-eight days. And it will repeat itself.

And you can sit down and reason this thing out, and notice that there is no basis for depression or frustration.

And they will say yes, I wonder how I came up with it. How did I come to get into this bottle-neck so to speak, this emotional frustration. But if you check it out once in a while, you will find that something has happened periodically before that. And one other amazing thing about just ordinary life, -- we marry people and don't know who or what we are marrying. In other words, there are people that live for 50 years with each other and don't realize the difference in male and female psychology. And I have talked to a lot of men for instance, and they say, -- oh, you just have to learn to put up with certain things, that's all. And you talk to women about men and they say, -- oh you just have to put up with them, they are crazy. They raise hell over this and that and it doesn't mean a thing. And after 50 years of living together they don't understand each other. The only thing is, the graceful part of it is, when you get old and weak, you quit fighting because you are tired, not because you are wise, you just get too tired to fight. That's all. So hurry up and get old.

Following eliminated from recording

What is your observations on the state of mind, have you picked up any in yourself, or do you understand what they are?

John K.: Looking at it, it is a, maybe a whole philosophy of life, is just the way that you see everything, in terms of, not just a day or a couple of hours, it is harder, maybe impossible to live not knowing -- just admit that I don't know what the hell this is all about, and that just living is a question mark -- so I think that all of us at some point just develop a set of assumptions or probabilities of what this is or what the likely rules are, and I think that life just teaches that. I think people suffer a lot if they get raped or beaten or live in poverty and I think that after a while of that is going to create a certain philosophy of life, that colors everything, and when somebody comes up and says that Jesus loves you, -- that will be alien to them. Because I think all of us start out fairly neutral, or as neutral as you can be, when you are five years old, and then bit by bit, your viewpoint solidifies and then maybe you adopt a probably idea of what life is and how you are supposed to do this thing. Unless a big shock happens, that will be your state of mind for life.

Frank: Wouldn't that go that if one guy gets bit by a bee, then all of the reactions... do you want us to say that bee stings create your state of mind? In other words, you are saying that life creates your state of mind, wherever you were at in a certain situation, is that correct?

John K.: Well, maybe in a bigger sense, but I was thinking of my father's example of when he was in a concentration camp and that fixed his state of mind for the rest of his life.

Rose: Sure, that would.

John K.: He just has an idea of what God is, of what God isn't, and what this is all about, of what people are and how he sees everything, that one experience affected the next fifty years. And I think that everybody has something equivalent to that.

Rose: Do you think it changed, do you think that there was any great change from before he was arrested or locked up. Were you aware of any other type of state of mind that he had before? John: Well I am sure that he had lesser ones when he was a younger man he probably had a much greater sense of optimism, or pollyanna that you always talk about, or beliefs of what life could possibly be, or God might be if you ever find him, you know, his philosophy changed after a short period of time. Or just the same using the example of the woman, a person that gets raped at the age of fifteen, or something, that is going to color everything after that, it has to. I think that everybody has something, maybe on a lesser scale, it doesn't have to be that traumatic.

Frank: How about the individual reaction. Do you think that everybody that was in prison camp... do you think that they have the same reaction or state of mind, right after that or... John: There are a million factors that everybody has. It can't be predicted that clearly.

mind of the child

Rose: You brought up a point there though, about the state of mind of the child, where do you think it comes from.

John: The initial one?

Rose: Yes, why would a child have a state of mind that when they got raped that they would be so traumatically changed. Does anybody have an answer to that?

Madeline: It must be because they were taught everything is real nice and sweet and then the first bad thing that happens they think, then they don't know what to think anymore, they can't believe what their mother told them.

Ron: States of mind seem to be part of our insufficient knowledge based on our program and part of our personality, our false personality. The gentleman said earlier that when we are born we are mostly an essence... we don't have these comparative stimuli -- intellectual stimuli -- troubling us. We can learn through experiences. And as we continue we are told this, we are told this when we are very young, and when that does not correspond with what we experience, it is hard to alter states of mind, still, on very insufficient knowledge, that is all that we have to compare with.

Rose: What if this state of mind... say that which the little child has is insufficient knowledge, what is wisdom? In other words, how would that child behave if it was wise. In other words, we say that the child's reaction to rape is that she goes berserk. And you say that this is from insufficient knowledge. You say that it was a state of mind, and a state of mind is born from insufficient knowledge. If she had sufficient knowledge, how would she react?

Ron: Well, she might have been able to avoid the situation, but glandular processes take place too, the adrenal excretes the material for fear long before the computer can rationalize it in logical thoughts. They were told not to walk through the woods and things like that, but there are other attractions that make them walk through the woods. We are all under the strain of circumstances.

Rose: Yes, but what I am curious about is the... if these things are erroneous, what is the correct way, what is the correct way to live? What is the correct way to suffer or let's say tolerate things that people go bananas over when they happen?

Ron: Well society does not embrace such ways that are more correct. They panic and emit revenge and hate. The correct way that would happen would be to accept it. And try to go from that point on and try to...

Rose: I get what you are talking about now. But basically, let's go back to this thing on the root of the state of mind though, does the thing come from, when a child has a fear of rape? Does that come strictly from what its parents teach it?

Ron: No, there is violence connected with it.

Rose: No, no. I mean just the child now (after the rape.) Why does the child have that reaction?

Ron: Because of the violence that accompanies it probably. Mostly. If it were just a sexual act, the child if not conditioned to think that it was wrong, maybe it wouldn't be as traumatic.

Rose: See, I am wondering if there is another opinion on this.

Bob: Well, I think this relates to John's definition of thought before. I think that it was something like... it was a perversion of consciousness, perversion of crippled consciousness. Along, the same line, maybe there is a pure state of mind, a correct state of mind that maybe becomes crippled because it is immersed in this brew of ideas, and that corrupts it. That there might be a correct state of mind.

Rose: This is what I am trying to get at is that. Is it possible for a child, because it has not had a lot of garbage thrown into its head, to have a clear perspective? And sense that up ahead there is a hell of a lot of trouble once you get into this thing. Let's stay away from it.

Ron: The child might even enjoy....

Rose: Now we are talking now about a child that goes berserk. I think that maybe a child that was raised in a whorehouse would enjoy it. You know, bad atmosphere. But let's just stick to the premise that the child didn't appreciate the fact, that it was raped. And then why did it have this let's say prudish state of mind?

Ron: Well, it probably didn't appreciate it more from the physical discomforts than any type of prudish thing.

Rose: Now you see what you are talking about is a state of mind in which you appreciate. Why should you appreciate sex?

Ron: I am not saying... could the child appreciate...

Rose: No, no. I am asking you why should a person appreciate sex. You see, you inferred that the child could, maybe should appreciate it. See, as possibly a favorable characteristic for the child.

Ron: If it did not have all of the pre-programming in, yes.

Rose: Now you are saying that it is bad if it is not programmed to appreciate sex.

Ron: I am saying that all pre-programming is less than your full information...

Rose: Well, let's presume that a person had full information about sex, they might not want to partake in it at all. Now let's suppose that that is the child. Let's supposing that the child... what we are going at is a factor. In other words, it is all right for all of us to give an opinion. Let's have those opinions. But then let's also say let's have some other opinions and see if it is possible that there is a factor that we have not touched on. That's what I am after. That possible factor that we haven't touched on. What do you think?

Doron: .... and surroundings because you haven't gone through all of this programming and conditioning, and I know that there were times, when it seemed like I really, it seemed like a really strong question in me, and it happened more frequently than it does now, what is this all about, what is this world about, why do people die... what... my father died when I was young and it really shocked me, and these kind of questions were very prevalent and I think that there is an intuition about this thing but we haven't really refined it to a...

Rose: We haven't decided what is behind it. We haven't got the factors.

Doron: Yeah, I think that that intuition is a very valuable thing and I think that what we are talking about with the traumatic experiences negative to the child like rape or something like that, -- I think it would have a negative effect in the sense that it would impair the advance of intuition. If you can retain that intuition from childhood or develop it in adulthood, somehow and can get back into that intuition, -- I think that you are ahead of the game if you can.

E.L. resumes here

Rose: Yes, I am always reminded of the thing that is in the Bible. Like I said before, I more or less pushed the Bible aside when I was a young fellow. The more I studied the more I found little corroborations coming from the Bible to things that I had discovered. And what had happened was that if I could have had the intuition to have read them in the Bible, maybe, and didn't have a prejudice that it was just an instrument for somebody to use to take up a collection, -- I might have saved a lot of time. But there is a statement in the Bible about that little incident there, that indicates very little about the old Jewish laws. They don't mention very much about the laws that occurred or existed in the time of Christ. The methods of execution, the reasons for executions and that sort of thing. But the Bible does say that if anybody does bother a child they should be drowned with a stone around their neck, and it is a rather emphatic thing.

So I am just saying, let's take that line for a minute. Do we suppose that the guy was off his nut that wrote this or inspired this writing, or was there a message? Is there a message behind that? I don't take the message lightly. If I had taken it lightly, I would not have remembered it, let's put it that way. I think that it is an important thing too. There is something behind it. And of course I could tell you what I think it is but I don't want to. I want the answers to come from you, if possible what you think it is.

Bob: When I look at a baby or an infant, I get the feeling that they are not entirely here. It seems like they are in touch with... you know, we live in a physical world, and it seems like they are only partly in this physical world. They are also in touch with something else. Children have such a capacity for imagination and make believe, and sex on the other hand is such a physically intense experience, it just roots the attention in the physical world. It may be that this child has this intuition that even after it happens, gone through this experience they realize that they have lost something, their awareness has become incredibly tied to a physical realm, they weren't so exclusively chained here before.

Rose: There is another little saying that they have. That unless you become like a little child you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Does that include little children that are raped? Do you have to become raped as a little child to get into the kingdom of heaven? Does that exclude little children that are raped?

Following eliminated from E.L.

Larry: If little kids are more in touch with who they are, in something like rape, it doesn't fit in at all with the previous totally non-traumatic form. Same thing with things that should be traumatic with us but we always push it down under until all of that stuff just builds up. But with a little kid you have to, he has to react traumatically because it just doesn't fit.

E.L resumes here

States of Mind

[min 277:10 BM version Esoteric Library]

[E.L. tape b.m. version changes to higher volume level, compensated for in mp3]

Dave G.: You were talking about states of mind before.

Rose: Even a child has states of mind. Even the little child. And they play with them. In other words, they go into little games of imagination. And they integrate their whole room, like if they are playing with dolls or something of that sort, they realistically believe that the dolls are living, the way that they talk to them, and that sort of thing, that is a real deep state of mind. But this is the whole thing. It is that they know. Underneath, underneath their real self knows what that is. Unless they decide to use that as a game. If they want to use that as a game against adults or something.

But still -- with the fact that they have those states of mind -- I think that there is an automatic objection. There is an objection. Of course you can say that when a child is raped, the public has a resentment to it because the parents are angry because the parents are angry because they couldn't rape the child. That is one of the arguments... that somebody else moved in, and did it, and then the parents are angry. I don't buy this at all. I don't buy this argument at all. I think that there is something that we haven't touched on though. That gives us the answer to this. I think that there is a basic factor, and it is from Nature. I think that rape bears upon or affects the spiritual potential of the person in the future, but the reason that the child is opposed to it are natural. I think that the child is programmed to protect itself. That's all. I don't think that it is natural for a child to endorse or tolerate rape, or to tolerate approach. Unless they are being tinkered with. Now if they are tinkered with on a gradual scale and get used to it by their family or somebody, babysitters, something of that sort, then they will not respond to rape in the same way that a child would that was protected by its parents. I am just wondering if you have any idea what that factor is? What I am trying to get at is, there is evidence in the human family, that came down from biblical days, putting the accent on the innocence of children and protecting them. And there must be a reason for it. There must be a reason also for the opposition in the child. Now I maintain that most children will resent... now it could be that they resent the danger of the unknown. That could be one explanation. Bob: You know when you hear about some of the incredibly detailed phenomena in nature, it is hard to believe other than that, that there is a set plan for the way things are supposed to be, that deviation from that causes reaction in nature. One example is that they recently proved that with trees, when one tree that is attacked by worms it gives off a chemical that a tree next to it picks up which then releases a chemical that offers a resistance to the worms, from getting on that tree. Things like that, and some of the new diseases that come up, like this AIDS thing, now it may sound like a fundamentalist's curse or something, but to me it is very possible that a certain lifestyle makes these people susceptible. Well it is obvious that it does. Like homosexuals are more susceptible to this disease. So obviously it is a result of their lifestyle. Without imposing any judgment on it, just the bare fact of it.

Rose: Well, I will tell you the thing that I go by, my greatest complaint with the behavior of human beings is that they flaunt a lot of stuff in the face of the public, you know, like the rapists, etc., such as rape being perfectly natural. And it isn't. This isn't natural. We can get a better psychology from watching the barnyard. You don't see the male bull bother a cow, if the cow shows her horns. Or if the female is a calf he walks away. I mean that he is intimidated. If nature didn't have that programmed that way, your species would become extinct. And this happens occasionally when farmers will start to breed heifers too young. They will wind up with a diminutive breed of cattle and they will have to get rid of them. Because they won't sell on the market. But that is generally because of the farmer allowing them to breed too soon, or encouraging them to breed too soon. I found that if you watch animals, it is just like the males fighting. We have two bulls here and a steer, and we have a little bull, and he is a baby you might say but he weighs 500 pounds, but the other bull doesn't bother him, because he is a baby. But when he becomes mature and has the smell of a bull, he will get attacked, that is all there is to it, but see, these are little things that nature puts in to indicate that, you can do it under certain conditions, when a certain odor occurs, you know that that is the signal to charge, or whatever. But we are ignoring nature, and this goes back to the business of saying that we can remake the human being- I am trying to get you to understand too the possible things that are programmed into the being, our being, for our own protection. In other words if a thirteen year old girl gets raped, it sure isn't going to do the human race any good if she has a baby. And that baby gets raped at the age of thirteen, we got evidence of this in South America. And in a lot of the underdeveloped countries, they have four foot people. Whole races of people that are only four feet tall live in the jungle because they breed early, and in South America, I remember years back one account of a girl five years of age, having a baby. Five years old and somebody gave her a baby. This didn't do her any good, her children or her grandchildren. The whole line is loused up because of somebody who was older and knew what they were doing, -- went ahead. And of course I will say too, that in that environment too, you may have indiscriminate tinkering with kids, by adults, so that the child doesn't resist. What we were concerned with earlier was, the reason for this reaction from the innocent child, what causes it? And that the child that is raised under a protective type of environment and with parents that are considerate of their safety, their sexual safety and that sort of thing, the reason for that child going into trauma? Now, do you have any more comments on that?

Keith: Yeah, I was going to say in relation to the talk that we were having before, on what are our definitions of thoughts, I was thinking of Jung's term, the collective unconscious, that it may be, just like hi a computer, there is an area in the computer where the program is put in, and you can't change that, you can't alter that, but you can go in and look at it and see what it is, and it may be, like the idea of the collective unconscious, is there, somewhere in the human mind, the same for all people, and perhaps a child, who is more in contact with it, and senses that area of the programming, and that is what would make them have that reaction. They just feel, they know that thought.

Mind of the child

Rose: That is one thing that I agree with you on is that I think that the child is smarter than the adult. I have always believed that. I believe that... the psychologists know it... that the learning ability decreases with age. Of course, when you are first born, maybe you don't learn very much. We don't know, we can't calibrate it, because although their eyes are open and they are studying the universe, -- they can't tell us what they are seeing, so they may be very observant then. The child, when it is five years of age, reaches the peak of its intelligence, and then diminishes from then on out. In its ability to perceive and to coordinate all of this data that comes in. Because the data is coming in... it can see clearly now. It can hear good and is maybe able to get up and toddle around a little bit, so its perceptibility is at its greatest peak, so its intellect is functioning at its highest rate. And from then on it gets taken in by, influenced by, and I call seduced by the lights, the lullabys of the parents, the affection of the parents, and that sort of thing to try to get it to respond and become a nice functioning robot. The child becomes a trained robot, by virtue of the training of the parents. But I also think that some things are born in the child. Let me put it this way, I think that this fear, this programming that you talk about is right in the child, and I think that the intellect is something that perhaps brings the message out front so that the child is frightened visibly. This is the question. Does anybody else have anything on that message?

Gary: I kind of feel that that is a protection of the child's mind. That that instinct is to protect the mind, from outside influences coming in, and when the child is raped, the state of mind is abruptly changed, and the close contact with that other person, that other person's state of mind is brought into the child now, and the child realizes that it will never be the same as it was.

Tape starts jamming here, minute 36:30 BM version

Rose: I think that you are very close. I don't think that there are any great theological dissertations going on inside the child's head, but it basically operates from an intuition, and like I said, I was raised in a religious atmosphere, but I rejected nearly all of the religion but retained the superstition of moral integrity (if you want to call it a superstition.) There was no real proof for it, there was more proof for some of the other tenets of the church law, church rulings, but I believe that there was a formula there. I think that there is basically a formula there. If you want to follow it, this is one of the best places to pick up the formula of success for a spiritual level. And I believe that -the reason that it was written into the books, or the book, was because the person that didn't have the formula failed to function spiritually, later in life. So you deprive the child not only of its physical characteristic of being a virgin, and its mental tranquility, but you also deprive the child of any spiritual pursuit in the future. So consequently it was worth putting in the book. Then you go back to the other saying that says, that unless you become like a child you will not be able to enter into the kingdom of heaven. This is the other biblical corroboration. But it doesn't say just any child. Not to become as any child. They are talking about the child that they didn't have to throw the guy in the lake with a rope around his neck. It just doesn't mean just any child. First of all, to be a psychologist, you have to develop your intuition. The pseudo-science of the psychology books means nothing ... unless you can sense....

We are trying to work a therapy today presuming that a man's chemistry is out of whack. Okay, so he shows a certain state of mind or a mood or something. So you give him a hypodermic to change his state of mind, and basically, a lot of your so-called insanity that they are treating -today is nothing more than states of mind. I classify insanity as a brain lesion or a material deterioration, of the nerve sheath -- or something of that sort -- not just moods, complexes, or hangaps, that develop into fanatical directions. Behavior directions. I don't consider that insanity at all. And I don't think that you meed medicine or chemicals to cure that. And I think that that is another form of rape incidently. Mental rape. In other words , you poison the guy with the cure. But I think that the true intTiition belongs to the child and we have to copy it. Okay, I said a minute ago that I thought that the five year old child had probably reached its peak. Okay, here is a ten year old girl that is getting raped, and she hasn't reached her peak? Of wisdom? I think that she has. I think that she knows. But she knows more than we do. She knows on an intuitive level and her view is not cluttered with words and phrases. She has a direct tap, she has a direct tap into more of the reason for her being, and the potentials more for her continued being, than she will ever have again in her life, whether she gets into sex later or not. She does have a tremendous computerization there. But she can't verbalize it. All she can do is scream. She can't talk, she can't argue with the guy and say, "Hey, do you realize what you are doing to the human race?" No, she just screams.

Pleasure

Oh, here is that... we came very close to that and the word is pleasure. What is pleasure? And what is the necessity for it?

Madeline: Desire is the necessity for pleasure. Rose: You are talking about the trigger, I am talking about the analysis of it and the reason for it. The reason for having it. The reason for indulging in it.

Ron: One angle is is that it sustains life, what is pleasurable is usually good for the continuation of life and what is unpleasur-ableisnot. In many cases. Rose: How about the guy that likes to drink blood. Ron: It sounds like somebody programmed him to a different state of mind.

Some questions eliminated - resumes

Rose: That isn't the thing that I am trying to get at. I am trying to get at the basic... yeah, you are right, in this in that it takes us into pleasure. Pleasure is the cause of procreation. Now, is that necessarily good? Ron: Not just procreation but just existing.

Rose: Yes, but is that good?

Ron: But we have to.

Rose: Okay, let's get some ideas on the importance of pleasure.

Dave A.: It is a reward by nature for reproducing, keeping your body by eating and so on... by reproduction.

Rose: But, see the thing is, now I think that we all agree on that, does anybody disagree on that? That pleasure is a bait. A bait basically for reproduction. Even eating, even the idea to eat, to eat you build up energy and that goes to producing the next generation.

Dave A.: I think that that is true to a large extent, but I think that it has almost gotten reversed, pleasure creating life. Life has become the pursuit of pleasure. Far more than we need to sustain life and we copulate far more than we need to have children, and our sort of co-existence...

Rose: I agree with you 100 percent. That there is a tremendous, and I don't think that anybody would deny that either, that there is a tremendous desire for the human race to perpetuate the pleasure in spite of nature. You know, to not pay the price. See what I mean. To get the pleasure and not pay for it. And of course, I wonder about this seemingly consciousness in nature that somehow gets even with people. He was talking about AIDS here a little while ago, there are a tremendous lot of people that die from birth control pills as well. I went in to see an old lady that died a few years back and there was a woman about thirty-five years of age lying there in a casket in the next room, and I said what happened there, and the undertaker said, -- birth control pills. That's what killed her. She took something that caused a clot in her heart or elsewhere but that is what happened. And I hear that there is a percentage of them that die -- medical doctors for instance know -- but they say "Oh the fatality chance is one percent, two percent." But the ones that die are no percent. They can't speak. The ones that are going to die are only two percent. I agree with this but the thing is that if we accept this risk, we must understand that pleasure is the bait. Of course, I don't say that all pleasure is. For instance, I liked to travel. I used to, but I get tired of riding now. When I was younger, really, the greatest pleasure on earth was to see what was around the next bend. I would get completely away from the home scene and the headaches that went with it.

[end of side 3]

Side B of Esoteric Library vol 5

I think that music is... I think that some music is non-sexual, I think that a lot of European music was orgastic, but it doesn't necessarily need to arouse you, I think that the nut that wrote it was orgastic, that was the only way that he knew how to express it. A lot of your oriental music I think is non-sexual. And it is very beautiful music. Okay, so this is a form of pleasure.

And so I differentiate. I say that on certain pleasures, -- there is no price. There are certain pleasures that have no penalty. I think that there are certain relationships that are very beautiful, there is no price on them. But once you take a certain step, it is like the woman that ate the apple in the garden, then of course, you are on the payroll. You are hooked in the business. But, what I am curious about is your reaction to this business of pleasure, and what our need for it is, or what our reaction to it should be? In other words should we just say oh well, that is the only way out, or that is what we are supposed to do, or that is God's will, or whatever, I am curious about... Rich: It seems to me that highly pleasurable situations tend to make you blinded. It puts you into a state of mind where the troubles, or something that you could be thinking about, or should be thinking about is temporarily erased. And sometimes it has a function that narrows your focus and blocks out other things.

Question(s) here were eliminated from transcript as well as from Esoteric Library

Rose: I think that Reagan is a great spiritual philosopher. He decided that we were too happy, (laughter) So we are not going to think until we have misery. But this is true. You have, if a person is too fat, they will not go to war, if you are content, you do not function. Philosophy only comes out of adversity. And a lot of these yogis that sat, they didn't have anything to worry about, they were fairly peaceful, but they had to tie themselves up in the lotus position so that they would get cramps in their legs so that it would keep them awake. That is the only thing that I can see for the lotus position. But you have to keep irritating yourself in order to think, that part is true. And pleasure isn't conducive... it isn't even conducive to peace of mind. Pleasure seeks more pleasure and more pleasure causes the opposite of peace of mind.

Next question eliminated

Bob: I guess that a lot of times pleasure is just a name on something that is just a release of tension. You can take two different people going through traumatic situations and one guy will indulge in some type of activity that is normally identified as pleasurable and the other guy won't. And generally the people that... say somebody gets to drinking, they are going through trauma, and they don't want to think about it, so they indulge in something, it releases the tension, so that they can forget about it.

Esoteric Library resumes here

Challenging the mind

Rose: This is the reason that we are doing just what we are doing here today. In other words, a person can give a lecture and fill it full of little wisecracks and humorous things and take up a few hours of a person's time and maybe get a certain point across. I think that in the long run... the only way that you can actually get a person to produce themselves is by challenging the mind. You have to challenge it continually. And I know that is the reason why we try to do a certain amount here in August, on this meeting. But I think that you can do this yourself. I always say that you can start up little groups in any town, and they don't have to be highly spiritual people. All they have to do is to be people that want to know the answers. And be tolerant of a little bit of confrontation. That's all, and get together and irritate each other a bit with the questions. That's all. You have to shake your heads up because you are like the cows with their noses in the grass. You get to ruminating, that's all, just eating and ruminating. And life goes by. Unless you take a certain amount of time out each week, to shake your head up and start asking yourself how or why this is happening. See, this thing of pleasure is a very important key in esoteric diggings. There is a tremendous lot of people that think that you can have all of the pleasures that you want and still pursue an esoteric path. This is nonsense. And some of them carry it, so far as to embody sexual pleasure in it and they call it witchcraft. See, they are going to get their goodies right there on the altar. And they are not going to learn anything. They are just going to deplete their energy and fog up their head with confused symbols and symbology and that sort of thing. So I believe that one of the keys, one of the keys lies there. I am not saying...

I told the reporter, -- the Pittsburgh Press man, when he was talking to me about sin, I said, "Hey, I don't believe in sin. I believe that there are certain things that are unwise, to do, that's all. I don't believe that there is a hell waiting for people, for instance, or for those who rape little children or kill people, like Gary Gilmore. That doesn't say that we have to hop on this guy's bandwagon. But, I don't believe in standing judgement over somebody. But at the same time I think that there are correct things to do and highly incorrect things to do."

And these questions, they haven't been answered, a lot of the questions today, for instance the question on thought, I don't think that they should be answered here. I think that they should all be answered hi your individual heads. I think that the worst thing that could happen is that if I gave you answers that I have discovered. That doesn't do you any good. And there is nothing that can be proven from one man to another, on this. You are getting into a realm somewhat beyond logic. You are getting into a realm where a person has an experience and the man with the proof comes along and meets a man with the desire for proof. And the latter asks, what happened to you? And you say, well this happened to me. And you describe it. How do you know that you didn't cook that up. You don't. Nobody does. But if it happens to you, you will know. So consequently, there is no point in endorsing something merely because somebody else told you to. But there is no point in not searching inside your own head. You can't go wrong there. You are your own judge there. You are the fellow that reaps the benefits too. But again the thing is, we didn't answer this, is pleasure necessary? Madeline: I wanted to give up pain and pleasure, I decided that I want to give both of those up, I have no pleasure, all I have left is pain...

Rose: So, you are halfway home. We will get you some pills and that will take care of the other half.

Dave G.: Early in January I went out for a couple of weeks and led a very spartan life. And there was nothing seemingly pleasurable that I would associate with pleasure. But still, you would eat, and I noticed that it would be the exact same mind, no matter how much you deprived yourself of it. It would still set up this same relative game where you would sacrifice and then you would get rewarded, -- no matter what it was that you were worried about. It might be a peanut. The whole program would still go in there and hold that out as the big prize that you should be entitled to. And I wondered if there was ever any way that you could condition yourself to less and less absurd things. But it seems like the body would always be putting out some type of gold in front of you, that you would interpret as being pleasurable.

Rose: Yeah, well, I think that this is true. I think, I believe that the whole secret of the path is the trading of the absurd for the less absurd. There is no way... I don't believe in expounding a system and saying this is a perfect system. It may have been perfect for me, but it may not be perfect for you. The thing is that it is perfect in this regard, in that it doesn't postulate before proof. You have a hunch, and you work with that hunch, and if something happens that proves that you are right, then that is a real pleasure. And with that type of pleasure, there is nothing wrong. See what I mean... you trade the old barter system for a replacement system that works for no reward except the Truth. We compare it with a physical achievement, like if a guy can lift 50 lbs., then he can lift 100 lbs., there is a pleasure in that too, but that is an egotistic pleasure. The other is slightly higher, it is sort of a spiritual pleasure, which is also an ego. After so many of those hurdles you realize that none of those spiritual pleasures are important either except as a means to a very important end.

Richard B.: One form of pleasure seems to be there, if it is connected with ego, sort of like you said.... It is the same problem as the problem of thought, it (achievement) keeps the sense of pleasure like thought, -- keeps giving you this illusion of separateness, of individuality. I don't know how you want to put ft. You know, they seem to contribute to that somehow, to perpetuate that false state of consciousness.

Rose: This guy is gathering some honey for himself. Richard B.: What he thinks of himself. Yeah.

Rose: Yeah, -- something that I think that a lot of people should think about is the idea of possessing pleasure. Or possessing the object of pleasure. This is real crazy. In other words, the man says I got a wife. Of course we do not have any better way of talking, but the inference, the inference is "I dated a real good looking babe." "That's my girl." Of course, the female is also saying "My man." "Don't touch my man." There is a certain achievement role, which incidently, occurs in the primitives as well, the idea that the chief of the tribe has ten women, the other guy, he only has a half of one. Which he shares with his neighbor.

Richard B.: Well, you were talking about those songs and so on that those adults sing, like those songs that "I own you, body and soul."

Rose: But, if you go on down the line, just like somebody mentioned... you will, on a spiritual path, you'll trade physical pleasures sometimes for mental pleasures or mental conceits. Which is the second disease, that you get. You have to get rid of that later on. But basically I think again that we can pretty much agree that there is a pleasure that is a bait and then there is a pleasure that is not a bait. And I don't see anything wrong with a person enjoying certain pleasures. Certain things that are pleasures. As for me, I don't think that it is a good idea to get wrapped up in anything too much.

Richard B.: You know, one thing that sometimes is useful when you talk about pleasures, in animal studies they talk about ... well this is jargon but, they call it concentric excitatory mechanisms, or CEM's. For example, a certain bird will be programmed to sit on a certain blue egg, it will sit on that egg rather than on a speckled egg. What will happen is that you can fake the bird out by getting an egg, even a phony egg, and make it even more blue, and the bird will sit on the wrong egg, I mean that it is something like that where we are programmed to like sit on the eggs, and then we will decorate, or somebody will do it, they will decorate the wrong egg and sit on that all of the time. See what I am trying to say, -- we will go the wrong way. And we keep doing that with pleasures I think. Then we end up living for those, -- for the wrong things. It is naturally in us but we end up pursuing, not the natural pleasure, but the artificial pleasure.

Programming

Rose: I think that it goes along the lines with the thing that I wrote in front of the Psychology of the Observer book, the animals are all pretty much programmed. You know, they live according to code, but the human somehow was able to change the transistors -- or he flipped a switch -- and he got himself loose to a degree. But since then of course, he doesn't have the protection. He doesn't have the protection that the animal has. And consequently, he is able ultimately, by virtue of his game playing, to destroy himself. On a large scale, or destroy his children or whatever. But I think that the trouble.... what I am afraid of today, is that this obsession with pleasure just permeates everything, and I run into an increasing number of people who are hooked, that are not kids.

During the Sixties a lot of people got into witchcraft and they were into orgastic pleasures at the same time thinking that they were doing spiritual work. And this is the tremendous contrast with the unwritten or interlineary things that we get from sacred writings... or from the histories of all of the major religions. There is a warning in it. And I think that, I do not believe that people shouldn't get married. I believe that they should. You know, that is part of the natural programming which I don't believe in violating. Don't think that you are better than nature. But I also think that everybody has the right to solve the mystery of life too. The fact of who they are. I think that that is your prerogative. I think your sacred trust also.

As I said earlier, when we were sitting here talking, I thought that there were two programmings. There are two programmings that the individual goes through, one of them is natural programming. In other words, he is programmed to perceive and project. He perceives stuff and he projects in unison. The whole human race projects the color scheme. The whole human race projects and changes the inverted retina so to speak. The images that hit the retina, or eyeball. So we all carry out this projection together and it works seemingly as part of this world that we live in. It is our projected world. But there is another blueprint. There is another blueprint. And that says that inside this other very complex web, there is a blueprint whereby each and every man has a chance for ultimate survival. Ultimate definition. And he doesn't have to violate nature to do it. When I say this I imply that a totally ascetic life or monastic life is not necessary. I think that sometimes we may get a lot of sages and saints out of monasteries, but we may also get a few who are mentally limited. Monks and ascetics are isolated to the point where they can't communicate to the human race, so that if there is anything good that comes from that life they would have a hard time communicating it. They have to go according to the rules of the monastery, and there aren't very many laymen there... to hear what they found out.

Rose: What do you mean by dimension? Mind?

Steve: (Lost on the tape.)

Rose: Oh, I think that this too, runs through almost every major religious system of thinking. There are different levels or dimensions that a person enters and transcends perhaps, and some of these are relative. This mind is also a relative dimension. If you remember, I used the word manifested mind. This stage play that we are here, with the stage, is a projection from another dimension. This is the only way that I can explain it. And there is a mind behind that that isn't manifested. Only some of it is manifested in this one.... It is like in the cabalistic interpretation of God, in Genesis, the God is listed as plural, the Elohim. The word lonely. God became lonely is the interpretation of it, and he searched for a trough for his pleasure. It is rather a crude way to say it but they had rather crude words in those days.

But the explanation is that the Absolute becomes lonesome. And it is great and alone, -- singular but incorporates everything, that is the description of the Absolute. Everything emanates from it. Now I am not saying that that massive thing that projects this dream world that we live in might also be a creature in another dimension, I have no way of knowing all the capacities of the Absolute. But in order for the unmanifested mind to project this stuff to us, that dimension that it is in, must be a living thing. It is more alive than this. This existence is more of the movie projection on the wall.

So I think that we can tap it, and if you are persistent, you can enter it. I think that this is one of the steps that happens when you go through the formula of the observer, -- the process observer. You realize that everything except your individual awareness is a subjective dimension. I started to talk about this in the description of the drop of water and sahaja samadhi. We are the drop of water that falls into a river that enters the ocean. It joins a river of other drops and the river enters the ocean, then the drop of water and the river is lost in the ocean. And the immediate reaction that we have when we hear that is, to say, "Oh boy, there went me into nothing." No, that drop of water is still a unique individual awareness that is never lost. And it is of so great of magnitude that any time that it wants to locate itself back in our history, it does. If it so desires. If it desired to go back up the river, it could, because it has the ability to do so. To me, this ocean is almost a living... a dimension... a much more living dimension than this world. And I presume that in that dimension are creatures who are more vital than us.

Richard B.: Is that the same thing as "Lokas" (?) that the Hindus talk about... I mean dimensions.

Rose: No, there is no place, when they talk about "Lokas" they are talking about dimensions or planes... the first four they claim are planes of a relative nature. And one of those would be the manifested mind dimension or different levels of that dimension. There are parallel terms in Spiritualism. I sometimes think that the spiritualists copiecl from them, in their description of the astral realm, causal realm, the etheric realm, etc. The seven planes that the Radha Soami sect describes, and I think that they are the same throughout India. The first four of them are basically relative dimensions, from which the only escape is to go from one to another. You know, -- to progress through reincarnation. And they admit -that you have to try to transcend those realms -- one of them is lis.ted as a desire realm -- immediately after death. The astral body seems to have to be... more or less like a waiting room, whereaothing great happens, and then a person enters into a desire reatan, where they can wish to get things and they are immediately t here. And they claim that it is an equivalence of a Christian hell. And they live in that sort of pleasure until they get fed up with it, -- until they come back. Now this is all unproven. The only significance is that you do know that you go through a mind dimension. That is definite. I was never ever conscious of going through a half a dozen of them, I was conscious of going through a mind dimension, and after that it was strictly an absolute totality, in which there was only Self-consciousness- In it there was only Self-consciousness, and each person that enters it is a total Self.

The following is eliminated from Esoteric Library

Jane Slater's experience

Frank: You think that when Jane Slater- had the experience of seeing people in a room being non-existexit, seeing the world as being nothing, is that sort of, did she sort of step into that dimension?

Rose: She was in the mind dimension, the Unmanifested Mind.

Frank: In other words, she expressed it as an individual but it was a conviction from the mind dimension- rather than...

Rose: Yes, she saw the entire world in those hours that she was there. She had -- I call it the mountain experience -- but she saw it from the place that was the manufactory, where all of this stuff is manufactured or projected. And she looked across the room at her husband and said, I see too that you don't exist. Of course that disturbed him quite a bit because I was a little doubtful myself about how alive he was.

Frank: And then she said that nobody was there. I mean that none of us were there, or something like that. Was that a sensitivity on her part that permits, I mean a readiness or something on her part that permitted her, besides the influence of the room and your state of mind, that permitted her to get on to that perspective at that moment.

Rose: She had a high degree of sensitivity but she walked into a strong field of energy which, I consider to be very similar to what they used to talk about in the Bible. You know, the apostles meeting together and the Holy Ghost being in their presence. That sort of thing. Because I could see it in the room but it had no human form, but when it hit her and she went down, it settled right on her and she went right down on the floor, and of course I knew where she was, and I was hoping that she could go on through, but she hadn't been prepared. It is better if you don't go through the experience and then make the trip back, if you are not prepared. So there is a... everybody has their little protector, I believe. I believe that everybody is protected that has good will -- if they mean well -- and nothing will happen to you. You'll think you are going to die forever. In a way that is good too, that they think that because that kills the ego.

In other words, the person starts to die and if they feel that they are dying, they will drop all of their egos immediately. It is necessary to drop all of the egos in order to have a realization that isn't colored by relative idealistic thinking. So I don't know if she thought that she was dying, but I do know that she had an experience. But what she got was... whatever that force was -- it was right close to you -- it would have hit you but the door opened and she came into the room. But I think that it was caused basically by her ability at that time. She was a very sensitive person, it was her ability to pick up my state of mind. That was the whole thing. Then there was a catalytical reaction.

Frank: That force that you were talking about in the room, I remember that when we used to sit in rapport, in the younger days of the group, even when you were not around, there were things that you describe in the Psychology of the Observer, you talk about a force, some type of energy, well, you talked about it before, that it just "happened," but it would affect people, into tears, into change, -- all types of things.

Rose: It is a very quick psychological transmission exercise, very quick. People change in half an hour and if they are wise enough to witness the change, it can be permanent. You know, if they don't just think that this is something that their mundane body is experiencing.

Frank: Is that a result of the energy that is in the room, the lifestyles of the people...

Rose: The energy in the room, I don't think it does anything but destroy the opposition in the egotist. I think that it takes a lot of energy sometimes to surmount the energy of the egos. And then once they are surmounted, -- the evidence of it being surmounted is that they break down and weep, for no reason at all. You just point at them and they would start weeping. Well, in that condition they are capable of taking in anything that is around. I mean any intelligence that is around, they may be capable of perceiving. They are capable of getting inside of your head. As I say, there are people that struggle all of their life, to achieve this, -- and this is an incident of a girl, a young wife, who cared less. She didn't want any parts of what we were doing, so she stayed out in the kitchen, as we were sitting in a rapport meeting. We would have these rapport sessions, and they were very fruitful, I mean things were happening to people, I could see changes in their personality, people were growing, coming out of shells and that sort of thing. We had had it happen on an individual basis where there would be maybe only two or three people there, too -- where somebody would come down and get hit -- something would hit them. One case was with Frank, I think that it was with your wife, and Mike was sitting behind her... and she started crying and he looked around her head, you know, to see what she was crying about and he got in line and it hit him, and he described it, that it was just like electrical voltage. But he was very sensitive, -- he is a very sensitive man, and that facilitated it. I always regretted that he later got tied up with psychiatrists. They got to pumping him full of drugs. I am sure that they were able to destroy his sensitivity, and I remember one time in Pittsburgh, we were sitting in there with a fellow by the name of Rich Hughes, and I pointed at B., and Rich leaned forward, into the line of fire, and shook uncontrollably for quite a while. Rich never came back, it frightened him. He thought that that was enough of that. But there is a tremendous amount of energy there, for people will follow rules and try to be harmonious. By harmonious I mean that you cannot come in off of the street drunk or full of dope and expect a good rapport sitting. That's all, -- it won't happen. You have to keep your nose clean. But this particular case that Frank was talking about, -- she didn't care, she was not harmonious, -- she thought that I was a fathead, -- you know. Maybe I am. That may be one side of me. But she still wandered into the room where we were sitting and this energy had just collected and it hit her, and she was transformed in two hours time. She was just radiant, and she kept declaring what all that she was going to do. But unfortunately that was the last that I saw of her for a year. If it isn't in the cards, you can have an accident, but that doesn't say that you can continue.

Esoteric Library resumes here

But some people, their physical mechanism is such that they can perceive or apprehend rather quickly. I blame it on nerve ends. I see people with sensitive nerve ends. Your learning power is in the nerve ends.

And in some respects women are superior, in this respect women are superior to men, in that they have more sensitive nerve ends. And my excuse for it is that a woman has to be able to instantaneously pick up danger, and you know, apprehend what is going on quickly... you know, learn to run and jump without any logical debate within the self. But regardless of where it comes from, I find that the women have much more sensitive nerve ends and if they are around any forces, things will happen to them quicker.

Vince: Is that different from being nervous?

Rose: Yes. The path of the male is one of attacking the brain until it explodes, the mind, I shouldn't say the brain. You attack the mind until it explodes, you fatten up the head until you chop it off, and then you reach your ultimate wisdom, you reach the answer. But the female doesn't approach it in that manner. The male is geared more towards hard logic, if he can develop a sensitivity, an intuition, he is more capable mentally.

Because of their sensitive nerve ends, women are more intuitive in my book. You have to have common sense, but you have to also have intuition. Because we are running on a terrain where there are no railroad tracks, and we get into subjective matters. You get into philosophical matters and matters of self-improvement, you are out in space, there is no objective place to put your feet, so to speak, so you have to be able to think intuitively.

This is minute 23:20 on Esoteric Library vol 5 side B

Transcription (book) end here but Esoteric Library continues another X minutes

There is a tape splice here, possible volume adjustment

Pro force and Contrary force

Talks about early days of ashram, guy got show.

Why am I doiing this?

Undesireables, came to smoke dope. So we had trouble.

Forget about playing God.

Bur I'm stubbor. So I'll defend the farm.

Case never went to trial.

Holy rollers for 10,000 years.

Question eliminated

Marriage generally starts as blissful arrangement.

Immediately a battle starts.

I've seen guys who locked their wives i the house. The bugs got him.

I've seen cases where the guy was stepping out and the wives went nuts. They didn't know why.

They don't know it consciously

Six months celibacy before marriage. Gt the other women's bugs offf.

After marriage, repulsion. From unsatisfied entity.

Women have to keep occupied.

Watch TV and get aroused by Rock Hudson

Idiosexual rate among married women is very high.

Keep the guy in debt so he won't leave.

"I have a child every year."

Developing Intuitio

Bob Martin.

Pete Pankush. worked with Martin.

This man's living with a lesbian.

"You're taking a lot on yourself. You never met my wife."

"Yes, I'm a lesbian."

They were both engineers.

Psychiatrist advised him to swing partners.

Mechanical diagnosis for intuitional thing.

Made pass at other woman.

Your friend's wife is a lesbian, and she's your wife's lover.

Never marry for sex.

What time is it?

We're in bad shape for raising kids.

Break, then resumes new session

Psychology is abusing the people

I have a complete indifference for humanity

min 44

The money is all being moped up

== Esoteric Library Vol VI side A

This meeting continues (Aug. 1983)

When you live in the mountains you become independent.

Some goofs walk i now and then and dont know the code. They get hurt.

I don't intend to be involved in politics.

Peasants in Europ so impressed, the would

 Question eliminated

The tendency isnot toward conservation of energy, it's toward degeneracy.

Human race doesn't know when to stop.

Judges get shot.

Souhern WV, Couple of hillbillys shot up the court

You're going to save your child only for a few moments; after that you'llbe injail.

Waves of propaganda sweeping across the country.

Question eliminated

People do not appreciate attempt to protect your family.

Et.

Some of the most intelligent people in the country are sitting right here.

Footnotes

END