1979-0403-Psychology-of-the-Observer-Synod-Hall

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

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

Data Template

Title	1979-0403-Psychology-of-the-Observer-Synod-Hall
Recorded date	April 3, 1979
Location	University of Pittsburgh
Number of tapes	DM = 4 @ 60 out of order (see notes) ; MJ == 10 files
Other recorders audible?
Alternate versions exist?
Source	DM, MJ (mj was "undated")
No. of MP3 files
Total time
Transcription status	Pramod 121 pages sent Jan 20, 2016
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?	Psychology of the Observer. See note.
Published on which website?
Remarks	See extensive notes for reconciliation of versions here: 1977-1004-Psychology-of-Zen-Science-of-Knowing-OSU
Audio quality
Identifiable voices
URL at direct-mind.org	https://www.direct-mind.org/index.php/1979-0403-Psychology-of-the-Observer-Synod-Hall
	For access to this wiki or the audio files please send an email to: editors@direct-mind.org
Revision timestamp	20160709205848

Notes

Dave Mettle and Mark Jaqua have versions

DM version – Undated-Psychology-of-the-Observer

In DM there are 9 files – 7 are approx 30 min and one (#8) is 7 minutes (intro excluded).

File numbering-Jake’s files: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This is in Pittsburgh but not at U. Pitt. (file mj1 at 03:22)

At start Rose says the book is typeset and coming out soon.

Tape 1 = sides 1 & 6

Tape 2 = sides 2, 3

Tape 3 = sides 4, 5

Tape 4 = sides 7, 8

Check other versions: Category:Psychology_of_the_Observer

1977-1004-Psychology-of-Zen-Science-of-Knowing-OSU

1977-1012-Psychology-of-the-Observer-Kent-State

1977-Psychology-of-the-Observer-commercial-recording

Psychology-of-the-Observer-book-text

File 0 - Introduction

Total time: 1 min 32 secs.

This is a separate file

Intro by Mike Whitely:

dm0-00:00

Many of you, I’m sure are familiar with Richard Rose already but some of you may not so I’ll try to fill in a little bit.

He’s kind of a hard man to define in a little of ways.

I could say maybe that he’s a writer, or maybe a researcher, or maybe a philosopher and those things would be true.

And I could say he’s a father, he raised a family and he was a contractor – he did that for years or that he was a teacher – that’s what he’s interested in now.

And those things would be true but I think they all would be pretty much off the mark a little bit.

I could say he spent a lot of time seeking himself and studying eastern philosophy, western philosophy, joining a lot of movements and evaluating them because he was curious and he had answers and he wanted questions that he would really like answers to.

And that would be true too but I think all of those things even though they are true, all of them miss the mark a little bit. So that kind of leaves me in a quandary and the only thing I have left to do now is to ….

R. Don’t tell them about the time I spent in jail.

(Laughter)

M. I was just getting to that. But now that he’s filled you in on that little tidbit, the only thing I can do now is to present Richard Rose, who’s coming to share his insights on psychology and whatever.

R. Thank you Mike.

dm0-01:32

File 0 intro ends at 01:32

File 1

Total time: 29:32

dm1-00:00

(Rose) We’re going to talk tonight about the psychology of the observer. That might sound, well, it doesn’t sound too complicated, but I think it is a new direction, a new psychological direction. Possibly a new way of wording an old direction. I have a, I’ve still got the, the book on this is coming out (Wikipedia says published 1979 – check Al’s book) and I have the typeset duplicate here and I just want to read to you the thing that will go on the front page. I consider everyone to be robots, incidentally. (Don’t know what happened to my voice)

In the robot, the Designer placed a little curiosity, to keep the robot moving once it was assembled and born, so that the Designer would not have to perform every motion for every robot.

But the robot became curious about his origin, and immediately the Designer became a direction of the curiosity.

In the robot the Designer placed an ability to recreate, so that, that which was created creates, not only by reproducing but also by projecting mental creations.

In other words, we create with our head as well as our body.

And all of this was designed to transform the robot into a self-sustaining unit.

And thereupon the original creation with its orderly intentions was placed in jeopardy. And the robot forgot his curiosity about his Designer, and projected phantoms of false hope and monsters of desire. And darkness was projected as light.

dm1-01:53

(Silence)

dm1-01:59

I maintain that man does not observe; he thinks he observes. So consequently, this little treatise was written on the basis of the erratic observation. And out of this erratic observation comes, let’s say, a tremendous lot of man’s difficulties, including his misconceptions on philosophy and religion.

Man in his present mind is expressed by his personality and beliefs. That is, the man that we see on the street does not observe. He is part of an observation process. Man, as we know ourselves, does not experience – he is experienced. In other words, we get the idea that we’re doing things. In other words, we do not always catch the fish. Sometimes the fish catches us. The thing that we go out and seize for our, seemingly we’re doing something, is actually – we become the victim of the doing, in other words.

dm1-03:07

Now the basis of a lot of this self-study is the understanding of the self. And I remember a couple years ago I gave a talk over at the University of Pittsburgh [so this is where? Duquesne?] and we were talking about the definition of self. And a man put up his hand and he said, “I know who I am.” And I said, “Who are you?” And he says, “I’m the fellow who’s sitting in front of you.” But he was identifying a voice, and a body – which wasn’t his Self. And this is what I’m going to try to demonstrate.

dm1-03:46

When you ask yourself, “Who are you?” – and this is the old question that was asked by sages , they say, “First know thyself” and then when you know yourself, everything else will be answered. But it’s said glibly and it’s taken easily, and nobody gives it any serious thought, this thing of questioning who you are. And of course the first impression, for the materialist, is to say, “You’re looking at it.” Well, maybe that’s all there is. But again, I’m saying behind that, there’s something looking.

There’s something looking which we fail to take into account. Even the fellow who says, “I’m the fellow sitting in front of you,” sees himself sitting in front of you. He hears himself talking to you and telling you that he’s in front of you. So he observes this process. And my point is, that if we are going to define ourselves, that which is us, from the very beginning, it’s going to be that which observes, not that which is seen.

dm1-04:46

Now, I distinctly separate the view from the viewer. This is the analogy. In other words, the view is never the viewer. The man who looks out on the landscape is the observer. The landscape is external. The man who looks at his own body – that which observes the body is the true self; the body is not the true self.

Now, I know we’ve got a lot of people who think the body’s all we’ve got. We’ve got a whole system of psychology that would like to say that all you’ve got is a body with a bunch of conditioned reflexes and all sorts of little wires and genes and DNA molecules running around to compose and to stimulate thought and that sort of thing. But this body – we can cut the biggest part of it away and we can still think, and we can still observe. We can even cut parts of the brain out. We can have people pronounced dead, that the body’s totally gone, and when the person revives, his senses should have been extinct, and he remembers things distinctly. He comes back and he lives again. This seems to imply that the body isn’t – the eyeballs to this person who was seemingly dead were closed, yet he saw things in the room. I’m going to refer you now to works like Kübler-Ross and Raymond Moody.

dm1-06:15 But the body necessarily is not us. So again we way, “What is ‘us’?” Well, we don’t know. If we knew, we’d have the answer immediately. But it’s evident that the most substantial part of us is not that which seems material and substantial, but that which observes, that which witnesses.

dm1-06:35

Okay. So – I don’t doubt that there are other attitudes that can be taken on that. But I carry this through for a specific reason – because this is the way I did. To me, the whole process of meditation, the most, I consider the most sensible and fruitful form of meditation, is not on accepting what I consider, and what Chilton Pearce might have considered the projected plan, that humanity projects in front of it and says, “This is the world and this is life.”

I think the most important thing is to find out more about the looker; find out that which is conscious, that which is aware. And as you start to get into this thing, there’s a very simple psychological system of self-observation that we get into which points the way. And I think it does it rather quickly. And I of course, if we do it quickly here, but if you try it yourself it may take years. The system may take years.

dm1-07:39

And I start with a very simple thing. I say you look at your toes, and that’s not you, basically. If you get diabetes you’ll lose them and you’ll go on living, clear up beyond your knees you’ll lose them. Your arms likewise, and a lot of your..a lot of the thing can go.

Okay, then we go back and a person says, “I am my thoughts.” And of course this is a, seemingly at the time a revelation to the person. They think, “Well, if there’s any part of me that is constant or able to escape from the corruption of death, it must be the mental part. But after a while you realize that you’ve had a wrong idea about your own thinking. That your thoughts were not necessarily ‘you’ as much as they were imposed upon you. That’s what I meant when I said that man does not experience, he is an experience.

dm1-08:36

Our whole thinking processes are programmed upon us. So that we’re, if we’re looking at the DNA molecules or genes or that sort of thing, we’re merely the continuation of some life strand that goes back to our ancestors who thought similarly to us, had the same drives and that sort of thing. So that the individual – we’re looking for an individual identification, an identification of some part of us that has, is an individual essence.

Now I’ve got a little drawing here, and this flat line at the bottom where it says Negative and Positive represents the realm of human experience.

We are relative creatures, and everything is defined in terms of something at the other end of the spectrum. So that there’s no such thing in the relative world as a cold, clear definition. It’s only defined in terms of the opposite. So that if you pick up a dictionary and you define “good”, you’ll find that the definition rests upon the definition of “bad”, and the definition of “bad” rests upon the definition of “good.” And you never really have anything except the opposite of something else. When you look up the definition of a cat or a dog, the cat is defined as a certain type of animal, it goes down through the genus and species, but you find out that you’re defining everything else in the dictionary but the cat, and the cat is that which is not what’s in the rest of the dictionary, see.

dm1-10:06

So consequently, we’re, in our whole thinking mechanism, we’re tied up in this wobble, or this thrashing about between the positive and negative, between existence, the concept of existence and nonexistence, of thought and thoughtlessness, of up and down, or well, good and bad – anything that you think of. So we’re trying to define ourselves with this type of mind. We’re trying to look for a spark of particularized essence or whatever, that we will say is us. And we’re trying to do it with a mind that is continually – well, in other words, at each end of that little line could be a philosophy. You could have a philosophy for libertarianism and one for determinism, at two ends of the line and they argue for eternity. And this is what goes on through religions and everything else is that you’ve got opposite concepts which seem to be just as sound as anything else, because they’re defined with the same dictionary.

dm1-11:08

Okay. So there was a writer called Benoit, Hubert Benoit who wrote on Zen. And he was the first fellow to come up, as I ever read (I don’t have, I haven’t read them all, there might have been somebody before him) with what he calls the conciliatory principle. And I remember when I first came to Pittsburgh [first lecture, Theosophical Society. This would be George Blazer] there was a man who was in the audience, and we were talking about Zen and a few other subjects, and [afterwards] we went down to a little restaurant. And he put his finger on the table and he says, “There’s this,” [to the left] “and there’s this,” [to the right] – he put his finger over here, but he said, he hesitated, he said [whispering] “but there’s this also.” [in the middle] And we all thought, “Boy, what a joke is that?” Everybody laughed at him and thought he was an idiot.

But this was the thing: it isn’t the extremities, it isn’t the polarity. It’s this conciliatory principle that gives us our definition.

In other words, to go back to human action now, to go back to the individual things that happen to you in your life - we say, we want to strike a moral code; we don’t know what a soul is, we don’t know what the mind is, but somehow we want to strike a moral code, hoping that that moral code will take us by some religious means or some scientific means into a better state of mind.

dm1-12:29

And immediately we get – because we haven’t defined ourselves we get into trouble trying to define the moral code. But we think the moral code will take us to our self-definition. Now this is the supreme paradox that we’re always wallowing with. So what happens is, we take a certain act. And we say, “Well, I want to follow a certain path.” Let’s say it’s a macrobiotic path; we want to purify ourselves and take nothing but macrobiotics. And we form a whole philosophy that eating the poor little animals is wrong. And so we tune to that, build a philosophy around it, and we decide that killing is wrong. And then we encounter somewhere along the line the need to kill - maybe to survive. We have to inject some serum into the children’s bloodstream to keep them from getting a disease, or we have to kill the rats that are trying to get into the house, if you have babies around, or something of that sort.

dm1-13:35

So we start to come up with thing of the ridiculousness. All of a sudden we see in some instances, this concept that we’re clinging so tightly to seems to be ridiculous. It’s like the – I often think of the Christian Scientist, for instance, who believes that he doesn’t need medicine, or some religious person who believes he doesn’t need medicine. And then you find them going through agony – they can face it themself, but when their children get sick the crisis comes about: have they been kidding themselves? This is what goes through their head. Have they been kidding themselves? Okay.

dm1-14:08

So the point is, what I’m getting at is, everybody has gone through this to some degree or another. And we – by self-observing these patterns, this wrestling with the two extremes of our thinking in the relative dimension – we come to the conclusion that something is guiding it. We have a judge inside of us. And some of the old religious writers called it the conscience. I call it the Umpire.

Now the Umpire, I maintain, makes decisions for every act that we do. In other words, if you have two things to do tonight – one of them might have been to go out and get drunk, the other was to come here. And one of them was cheaper than the other one. [laughter] So you came here. But regardless, there was a decision made. Everything that you do has an alternative. There’s an alternative thing you can do. And so constantly, thousands of decisions are made a day: to step here or to step over there. Everything. This is the Umpire.

dm1-15:14

When we notice that this thing going on inside of us, we decide that we’ve, well, we discovered the real self now; we’ve discovered the fellow that’s running the body. We’ve discovered the observer, so to speak, the observer of the actions, the thing that weighs them.

Now I contend that this is the somatic mind. [points to chart, point C] When you start observing the Umpire, this is something that works almost automatically from the time a person is a baby. There are decisions made because of resistance, pain, pleasure, whatever. And so that it starts to gauge itself, and it expresses itself through the Umpire, or through the decision maker, or through the conscience. And we think we’ve got a complete picture.

dm1-15:58

But after you watch the Umpire and you start to see some of these decisions, say that were made last year – and this year you don’t approve of them. In other words, supposing you were a devout Quaker or something of that sort, but you got drafted into the Army and you fall into the state of mind, and you go out and see the need for maybe, killing people, or doing the opposite.

Anyhow, there are times that we see that these Umpire decisions are not always the best for us. They’re good for a certain period of time, and maybe a new rationale comes up and we find out that out that wasn’t us either; that was imposed upon us.

Now I’m going to give you an example of – it’s more blatant or commonly understood than the average set of things that go on. For instance, we have appetites that we respond to – like of eating – and the Umpire may say, “Don’t eat too much.” You know, in other words, you get hungry, so the impulse is to eat. But – the impulse to eat too much too, perhaps. But if you get sick the next day, then your Umpire failed you the day before. That’s what I’m trying to get at.

dm1-17:18

So there’s a new decision made by the Umpire. You start to inhibit yourself. Then another thing that happens is sex. A person gets a few years on them and they decide they’re capable of sex. So they go out the same as the food – they may fall in love or fall into a situation where sex seems to be the only important thing to them in their life and they go for ... they lose their job over the love affair and they stay in the motel for two or three weeks and get hungry because they lost their job.

dm1-17:49

So another set of dissatisfactions that are in the individual. The Umpire has to balance things now and says,”hey you got to stop this and go out and get a job so that you can continue to support the person you love etc.” So that all the time this is going on, this we see, this Umpire is nothing more than an Umpire between appetites and an Umpire between different directions. But it doesn’t always follow through for the best of the individual because we set up things according to the social patterns that exist in your particular country. So that the, for instance, the sexual decision to be made by our Umpire would not be the same decision that would be made in Iran from what I hear (Laughter) – they got dead people around. Consequently their Umpire is going to be of different decision making.

Now why isn’t this universal? The reason it’s not universal is because it’s a somatic mind. It’s only interested in the survival of this individual, this body. When we get into that we discover that something else says to us occasionally, “Sex is bad. Period. Boom.Slavery. It doesn’t do any good for it. Sure it’s necessary but it’s a trap. It can get your head cut off in certain places” or something of that sort. Regardless, even if you’re not in Iran, certain decisions are going to come through your mind sooner or later. And I generally hear the very old men making jokes about how stupid the young people are while the young people are looking at the old man and saying how stupid he is because he hasn’t come up to the modern forms of degeneracy. (Laughter)

dm1-19:47

Regardless what I’m talking about now is another plane of thinking develops and the man become aware that he has an intuition and the human mind doesn’t work by logic alone unless the human mind, the logical somatic mind, which is very reasonable - seems to be at least - is not balanced and supported by an intuition, it isn’t complete. Much of our lives are guided by intuition down to the point if you’re a salesman and you meet someone down the street , in five minutes time or five seconds time you know who you’re talking to because you’ve developed this faculty that’s not logical. It may be direct mind experience and it will lead – the development of an intuition will lead to direct mind experience. So what happens then is you begin to apply, almost consciously, both a logical thing – if you pick up a book of philosophy you start to apply the logical or somatic mind to it, of what you’d like to believe but your intuition may tell you that’s what you like to believe.

dm1-20:53

What really is – what really is the truth? Are you picking something that you like to believe? Are you picking something that doesn’t have any relationship to blah-di talk. [??]

Okay now, what I’m saying is that what we have all the time all time we’re talking here is somebody observing processes. That’s what we’ve been doing - we’ve been observing mental processes. I maintain that the observer is the person. So that we are not the somatic mind, we are not the Umpire because that’s in the scenery, that’s the view. We are not the body, we are not the body-mind, we are not the intuition because we can observe it, analyse it, talk about it, watch its manipulations.

dm1-21:38

What is this that’s going on then? We’ve got a process observer, we’ve got a person observing processes. You go into meditation and you think about thinking and you’re thinking about ten thousand different ways of thinking, hundreds of tracks that you’re thinking it’s into, directions it takes, attempts to control thinking. And this becomes very intricate and this incidentally, when you get as far as the process observer in this sort of contemplation, you have progressed more than the average person. The average person does not bother to think about processes of thinking. He may sense that he’s got an intuition and he’ll give it a little word like an instinct or he may even claim to be intuitive.

But to sit back and watch this thing going on and when you watch that you get a very perfect picture. When you watch your intuition and your somatic mind, you start to get a very perfect picture of all the traps that you’re falling in - you see the traps as you go along. So you think that’s the end of the line. Ordinarily you’d say, “I am that which watches.” But this isn’t true.

dm1-22:48

There is another. Again we’re still a relative creature and we’ve only hit one corner of the line. Now if you’ve noticed that these things interlock, these triangles interlock because the conciliatory principle of one becomes only the corner of another triangle. And by continuing this process of attacking thought – and I’m getting now into experience and history not into logic. I don’t know that there’s too much logic in anything I’m saying and I wouldn’t expect you to take it from a logical viewpoint; I’m expecting you to take it from an intuitional viewpoint and some of this stuff may ring a bell.

But the mystic, the philosopher who sits and watches his processes and struggles with them, trying to analyse them to find out who is having the process thinking. This is what he will merely become aware of - that somebody is watching these processes and he becomes aware of himself. When he becomes aware of himself as a process observer then something peculiar happens. He becomes aware of the awareness of consciousness by accident. And when he reaches this point – so the movement goes in this direction – it actually comes up here but it goes over there because as soon as you’re aware of one thing you immediately have to be aware of the opposite in a relative plane. So he becomes aware of consciousness and when he’s aware of consciousness, he’s reached a stage similar to cosmic consciousness or what Ramana Maharishi might call ‘Kevala Samadhi’ .

dm1-24:33

He’s aware ... it’s a ‘Mountain Experience’ so to speak and again, though, he returns. He’s still a relative creature and he returns and continues to, let’s say, fluctuate back between these, still puzzling because he doesn’t know for sure the final answer. All he knows is that he’s aware of awareness. He’s basically aware of awareness and the only result to this is an endless attack on this line brings you to another conciliatory principle which is the total answer.

dm1-25:12

Now, there’s a whole lot being said there, I mean a whole lot implied, let’s put it that way. And all I can say is this the … if you take the life experience of anyone who has claimed to have reached total consciousness and you analyse it, you will find that it’s pretty much the same thing told in other words, in other terminology. I remember that when I wrote the book, that was before I had heard of Ramana Maharishi and I …

(break in tape)

dm1-25:45

….in the mind. The mind is like a roll of film which is continuously photographing things and throwing it away and almost simultaneously projecting it out. In other words we are almost creating our universe from our mind as we go. We’re seeing something that is stimulated but at the same time we are projecting it out. And I tried to describe that in the book [unclear] I think and I ran into Ramana Maharishi’s book and he had done this almost thirty years before and he had used the same thing, almost the same terminology – using the camera analogy. Of course the wording is ... I recommend this. If anybody wants to get into this thing, the terminology and some of the examples he uses are very clear, they’re very simple and come right to the point. I want to get away from that for a while. I want to open up for questions. This is the most important thing. I don’t think this is clear to you and I find that there’s a tape written on it ... made on it and the tape wasn’t … I don’t think it was sufficient because you have to identify this, you have to relay this to yourself. Now, I just have some notes here but again we were talking about the self, what the self was.

dm1-27:17

When man discovers the Umpire he realizes that previously the self that part of his functioning was not the more real self. All of one’s actions are recognised as automatic reflexes or as pre-natal programming. For instance all this work from the Umpire down could be very automatic. In other words it’s more or less imposed upon the individual. I draw the analogy of the new-born child. There’s no one speaks to a calf or a colt of a horse and says, “Hey, there’s a breast and you’ve got to find this breast and get fed.” It gets up off it’s feet and staggers around with just a few hours of life and if the horse’s young don’t find a breast within a couple of hours, it dies – there’s no hope for it. But that animal get up, muddles around and goes right to where it’s supposed to get its food and it eats. Now we think we’re very smart but we do the same thing. We do a lot for the baby than the baby would do for itself but all I’m saying is that all of our decisions no matter how much philosophy we put behind them on the relative plane with the human body are nearly all programmed.

And it’s only when you get considerably beyond that the…the thoughts themselves may not be programmed. Meditative thoughts and philosophic thoughts don’t resolve all the time in action. But all thoughts that come to our head and resolve in action are generally programmed and I’m going to every little bit of dream and reverie that a person gets into. The biggest part of our reverie thoughts originate in the glands. That may sound hard to you but I maintain that the glands cause thoughts and the thoughts cause the glands to function. There is a tremendous physical relationship there. In other words we are tremendously programmed. And you discover that only when you get watching from a superior position which has…

dm1-29:35

File 1 ends at 29:36

File 2

Total time: 31:10

dm2-00:00

R: We’re going to tape this naturally so I’m going to straight through it and after I’m through then we’ll go back to questions and answers. So make a mental note of anything. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t interrupt me until the paper is read. The reason for reading it is I’ve tried to give this off the top of my head and it doesn’t work because there’s a structure to where this is going and it has to be taken more or less, paragraph by paragraph. It’s called the psychology of the observer. And it has to do with knowing and when you talk about knowing we presume a lot. We presume that we know what knowing is. I think after you do a little introspection you’ll find out that people don’t know as much about knowing as they just presume.

dm2-01:05

(This section is slightly modified from the book)

There’s two forms of knowing or two directions of knowing – the outside and the inside. In other words you have an external system of knowing and an internal system of knowing. The outside knowing is or involves the physical world and it also involves the body and observable products of the body. One of the products of the body that is observable is thought, thought patterns and dreams. With this statement I immediately have to get into the business of defining the lines between inside and outside experience. The designation depends on the interpretation of the word ‘observer’.

This must not be an arbitrary designation used merely to expedite some argument that I wish to use. We must at least attempt to be scientific and methodical in our handling of any complex problem. Yet these things should be expressed simply. We should be able to express them as simply as possible.

dm2-02:14

(This section is not in the book)

First let’s look at the observer ourself. The word observed is chosen to indicate not that that which is seen but that which is apprehended by any means – by the senses or by internal mental observation. Psychology, especially psychology of the modern utilitarian type wants to be scientific and in order to follow this pretense with the least amount of responsibility, takes a very materialistic pose. It pretends further and declares that the body is all that we have. But it does not say who ‘we’ is. It talks of behaviour as though behaviour was something which the body did neglecting the reservoir of thoughts and thought data that goes to make up the impetus for behaviour.

Behaviourists would pretend that we do not think, that is we don’t have little entities called thoughts, that we just have reactions and that we’re somewhat conscious of these reactions. That which reacts is the observer.

dm2-03:17

(This section is not in the book)

Let’s take a look now at the ability of the psychologist to be scientific. Being scientific does not mean that we have to have things in a test tube in order to examine them. Being scientific means that we think in an orderly manner and being scientific also implies that we are able to make predictions according to our findings.

In chemical procedure, chemistry proves itself by predicting how water can be created from hydrogen and oxygen. Physics predicts by various means of studying physical properties the amount of weights that can be lifted by a string, a rope or a steel cable. And modern psychology pretends to know how to predict behaviour and to create a social relationship that will avoid social trauma. However, modern psychiatrists usually piddle around allowing the healing of the patients to come by group therapy, meaning group accidents.

(This section is in the book)

Socio-psychologists are uttering advice on all levels of social authority and social authorities are implementing the prescriptions of the former, the socio-psychologists. And what is the result? Our social climate is becoming increasingly more muddled. Our morality is declining under the pretense that morality is only a subjective attitude. And in the wholesale acceptance of B.F.Skinner we have decided to make morality a sacrifice deemed necessary for the peace of the herd.

dm2-04:49

(This section is slightly modified from the book)

But the herd is becoming daily more hateful because it is rankled by the idea of shotgun-love. When confronted with the hate-trends in society, the socio-psychological authorities, reinforced by specially vested groups, (which may be minorities of special interest), or by lone individuals who think they can become famous or funded by accurately representing a trend or a zeitgeist .

This modern approach is failing because the wants of the individual cannot be granted to that individual until we know more about the real nature of that individual. A man who pretends to know what is best for humanity, or a socio-psychological dynasty, or a group that thinks it knows best for humanity, and knows how to force upon humanity (like we force castor-oil on a constipated child) – the prescriptions of spiritual leeching through physical masturbation in order to render everyone placid, helpless and harmless – they do not take into account the nature of the individual let alone the nature of that which drew the blueprint for humanity.

dm2-06:01

(This section is slightly modified from the book)

In other words, even discounting the force that we might call God, it is manifest that there is an order in the universe, not just among the inhabitants of this terrestrial, natural aquarium. This natural plan must be known, not guessed at - and it may go deeper than we think. It may go beyond the fertility of the soil.

Now I am making these remarks for a point because I am talking about objective psychological efforts as opposed to interior work. The material scientist would like to ignore all that is not seen with the eye. However, you can take one eye out and look at it with the other one. We can discover that nerves run to the brain but upon examining the brain, we cannot decide "that which sees."

We look at an apple on the table, close our eyes and we can see the apple in our mind. Where is the second picture? Call it imagination. We might say that we imagine an apple. But we see an apple by this visualization, and we do not see it in the physical eyeball. We do not see the apple when the eyeballs are removed except by visualization and we do not see things except with the whole sense, nerve, the brain and visualization.

dm2-07:24

Now it is important to catch this, if you are thinking about thinking. Or thinking about perception.

(This section is slightly modified from the book)

Visualization occurs not only in dreams or deliberate recall but with every perception at the time of perception. Do a little thinking on this and you’ll see what I mean. You see something and then you visualize what you see. Scientifically or chemically sometimes it is exactly the same as what you project.

Somewhere behind the brain, part of the combination, there is a part that visualizes. The word ‘visualizes’ means create because we’re able to create that picture of the apple at any later time when the apple itself is no longer there. With the ability to create, comes the ability to delude yourself. If we are creating a picture of an apple, we can create a picture of most anything.

We have all experienced this self-delusion, but neglect to note that we have just dichotomized ourselves by finding one self is doing something to another self. If you delude yourself, that means that there is recognized as true, one self, and there is recognized as being untrue, certain faculties which are part of an erroneous self, or certain faculties of an outside self, that lack ability for reacting properly to environmental thoughts and reactions, and various stimuli. In other words we are all getting the same stimuli, but people are capable of reacting differently and people are capable of deluding themselves.

dm2-09:08

(This section does not exist in the book)

Of course we can say this in a different way and say that the inside self is at times incapable of true apprehension and is capable of making distorted creations. An entire separate set of instructions on the intuition is necessary at this point to try to correct this delusion and distorted creative ability. This creative ability is projection.

I don’t know how many of you are acquainted with the word projection but man … some men see or think they see and others know that they project.

(This section does not exist in the book)

We must return to the point at hand and the point is that behavioural psychology is a science of behavior observed, we cannot neglect these internal observations. Which may well correct for us … (break in tape)

dm2-10:02

(Silence)

dm2-10:18

(This section is slightly modified from the book)

… which up until the present mention of it may never have occurred to us as being in existence at all. The point to determine is that when something is observed we must admit that there is an observer. This brings us to the admission first of all that we can observe our own behaviour. And we can observe not only our own thoughts, but we can observe thought processes such as visualization and introspection. It brings us to the admission also that either the observer and the observed are one and the same thing, or the ‘we’ that we refer to when we say we think or behave a certain way, is separate from that which is observed.

(This section does not exist in the book)

In other words, the seer is not what is seen. The viewer is not the view. This means the true self is always that anterior observer and the observation of the anterior observer brings us to an ultimate or absolute observer. This sounds like a simple formula but it is in reality, the true method of reaching a realization of the absolute state of mind pointed to by writers on enlightenment.

(This section is slightly modified from the book)

We go back to the beginning of our simple search for inside and outside knowledge. We usually want to know that which is ‘out there’ first. The external world attracts us from the moment of our birth. We build an orderly explanation of that which we, mankind, collectively see. Our external world is largely one of agreement, and material science is really just a system of getting along.

dm2-12:06

(This section is slightly modified from the book)

I picked up a book just yesterday by Ornstein. Ornstein is the man that talks about the two sides of the brain and he quotes Kuhn, saying each science has its assumptions, and he includes psychology in this. He calls it a ‘paradigm’. And this is basically what we have to live with in each of these sciences is that paradigm. Just an agreement that a certain collective vocabulary means something to all of us jointly not that there is any proof to any of it.

We develop systems of measurement and cataloguing according to genus and species and later on we discovere that we have failed somewhat in our methods of cataloguing and calculating. Forty years ago we agreed that all matter consisted of atomic limited in exact number – ninety two. We now agree that there are considerably over a hundred elements.

I was majoring in Chemistry at the time and they told us flatly that this is what the universe is composed of – ninety two parts. And now we have discovered that that was just an agreement at that time. Valence is another sort of an agreement on how things work.

dm2-13:18

(This section is slightly modified from the book)

This habit of agreeing upon things not fully understood has not caused very great mishap to humanity as a whole when such agreements were limited to the materialistic sciences. Many of us believed that penicillin would cure everybody of a certain virus infection, but when deaths were reported of allergic reactions to penicillin there were no great lamentations, because the findings for penicillin were orderly and they worked on the average person.

However, when psychic or psychological determinations are made it seems they are not made from an orderly examination of the field or phenomena involved, but are determined rather by a propaganda campaign upon the public's mind by a fragment of humanity, who are always interested in perpetuating their individual ambitions, or the ambition of their church or trade.

Now we have this from psychologists from Freud down on. Freud tried to start a chain-store of therapy healing places all over Europe. And he issued a bunch of talk or propaganda on behalf of his theory.

There is an understandable fault that causes our reliance upon agreement rather than exact knowledge. To begin with, exact knowledge is the same as absolute knowledge.

We would like to say that we have exact knowledge but it would be absolute and absolute knowledge carries a lot of implication.

dm2-14:45

(This section is slightly modified from the book)

We cannot delay the preparation of all the medicines until we know exactly all the side-effects upon all the people. This is where the word reasonable comes in. And we use the term as a euphemism instead of the word "orderly.” We hang a man when he is guilty by virtue of circumstantial evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt as to his guilt. It is true that we are going to be hanging or gassing a certain percentage of the population, and the lethal lottery must bear with it, explanations for the sake of conscience, that depict our actions as being rational.

What we are getting into here is this business of, as I said, inside knowledge. We are drifting in the direction of the need for inside knowledge and psychology is the province of inside knowledge. So consequently we have to talk a bit about the direction of psychology and if it is possible to add to this, if Zen or any type of thinking, any type of interior type thinking leads closer to it.

While exact knowledge is, for practical purposes, impossible, there are methods that can be used that might eliminate some of the bungling, trepanning and hanging. We soon learn that our inadequate understanding of the outside world is the result of defective observation-mechanisms. This points to the direction of not only our senses, but also in the direction of mental habits of visualization, dreaming, creating and projecting.

dm2-16:18

In other words, we may not understand the external world properly, until we understand our self.

(This section is modified from the book)

This is especially true in the psycho-therapy departments and the attempts of individuals to get along with their fellow-man. The psychiatrist who can no longer prescribe for a patient In terms of medicine or behavioural analysis, turns the patient over to group-therapy, in the hopes that an accident will do for the patient that which therapy or theory-agreement failed to do.

The other people in the therapy-group serve as a mirror for the individual. He begins to see himself in a new light and realizes that he may be taking an erratic or selfish pose that alienated him from the mainstream of agreement. Now he goes back inside of himself and realizes that he has been fooling himself. When he recognizes this, instead of becoming a social misfit, he may immediately become a budding psychologist. When one part of a man fools another part, the part that has been fooled is the essential or anterior self. With an ability to create visions and states of mind so powerful, that the anterior self accepts as valid all of its creations.

We might dramatize this idea a bit by mentioning a practice of some Tibetans who are very adept at creating a tulpa . I don’t know how many of you have heard of a tulpa but a tulpa is a humanoid figure that’s created by certain Tibetans. It seems to be a human being in all forms. Some Tibetan priests are supposed to be so skillful mentally that they can actually create an entity in human form from their will and imagination. This tulpa becomes their companion and often their master. One Tibetan priest commented that it took him six months to create his tulpa, and six years to get rid of her.

This is an example of projection. That’s the reason I brought that up.

(This section is heavily modified from the book)

We get into habits which seem to be socially acceptable and later find that our peace of mind has been permanently impaired. We may have acquired the habits, such as drinking, because we thought the habit was harmless and then afforded us and humanity an easy medium for communicating and getting along. After we find that it has made us miserable, we also find that all the other people in AA are likewise miserable. And all of them had the same idea – that they did it to get along. It was a social thing and that people had to do certain things that dropped them a little bit by just to get along with the rest of the herd.

dm2-19:08

(This section is heavily modified from the book)

Let us get down to the business of studying the inside of ourself. It is not as easy as it sounds. Most people think that they know themselves. One time in Pittsburgh I was giving a lecture and I mentioned this that people didn’t know themselves and a fellow spoke up and said, “I know who I am.” And I said, “Who are you?” and he said, "I am the fellow sitting in front of you." And he was referring to a physical presence and of course I could have mentioned to him he didn’t. He probably could have been clever had he followed the Descartes’ line and said, “I think therefore I am. That’s proof of my existence.”

But if a man states he thinks he should immediately ask himself who’s doing the thinking. Is it the mouth and the body talking or is there something behind the body that is trying to communicate. For instance if a Tibetan priest talks to his tulpa, is he the one who is talking or is the desire for the tulpa talking? It’s the equivalent you’ve got with a girl or a boyfriend. Are you talking or is your desire for that person talking?

We can see in this latter case that the tulpa is a creation of the mind of the priest. But the tulpa is also a materialised embodiment of the desires of the priest. So the desires may be talking to the tulpa which in turn is the desires of the priest. That’s quite a circle.

dm2-20:32

(This section is heavily modified from the book)

We can see that a man could quickly lose track of himself if he were this priest. But there may not be too much difference between the tulpa of Tibet and the Galatea Pygmalion or between any sexual voyeur and the objects it caused in response to his desires. If desires are observable, then desires are objective and "outside." When the subjective considerations are viewed, they immediately become knowable considerations and they become objective. Whether the desires are recognized by us as Gestalts or entities, they are external afflictions or assets. They are not us.

I was just thinking Andy, if we could kind of watch that door when somebody comes in, stand there and keep it from banging because we’re going to have this on the tape.

(This section is modified from the book)

Desires may try to involve us, try to identify themselves as being us but if we go to jail or to the hospital because of our desires, we will become quickly identified with another set of desires. Which are the desires for health and survival or the desire for equanimity. When this happens we divorce ourselves from our desires normally by identifying the dangerous ones as being not us. We continue to deify ourselves by saying that we desire to love and be loved. We use this as a bond with the cosmos and with God by announcing that God is love.

Many of us identify ourselves very closely with a desire for love. We are little, harmless, fluffy balls of love. But this becomes apparent to us – we are really not as loving and as lovable as we project ourselves to be. And it is then that we view our fluffiness and our loveableness as being external ideas more acceptable to our fellow man than the possibly manifest desires for lust and blood.

dm2-22:49

(This section is modified from the book)

And we still recognize that our love is a projection born out of a desire for love. As we choose to order it.

Everybody wants ... they protest love, protest that they want to be loved, but they basically want to be loved as they want to be loved.

(This section is modified from the book)

We are able to recognize our desires and fears as being external better when they conflict with one another. You don’t see them until there’s a fight inside yourself. The desire to get drunk will be countered by the desire to be delivered from the consequences. The fear of death will temper our desire for body pleasures enjoined with a desire for the prolongation of life.

Now we watch this contest for human energy and then we notice that we are acting. We are taking steps to conserve our energy and this step-taking is witnessed by us as a process. I would like to give a name to this anterior self and call it the Umpire.

The Umpire has a motive, and this motive is the preservation of the body, or the self, -- the small `s' self. I will get into this later why we say small `s' self, because it’s the mundane self. The Umpire may be extremely intricate because in the contests between desires it is necessary to study the thought processes so that we can identify and forestall any destructive trends before they get too strong. We can’t protect the body, in other words, without knowing something about the mind.

We now find another anterior observer – that which observes the Umpire. The Umpire seems to be very real, meaning very objective. The new anterior observer is still hypothetical until we see it. And when we see it, it will become something observed. It will not be us. And of course we do not see the Umpire with the physical eye, nor does it have an image that might be visualized.

dm2-24:56

(This section is modified from the book)

We witness a process and this witnessing is scientific because we define science as an orderly thinking process that carries with it predictionability. We observe our own reactions for instance, in regard to the senses and our fears and desires. We observe these things not directly but as forces and factors which impinge upon the body itself. And when they impinge upon the body, the effects are observable, with the senses. I am not saying that all reactions are perfect, or bring ideal results, nor that the Umpire knows how to protect the body in all cases – the Umpire makes mistakes. But reactions of the Umpire are predictable.

This where we get into the basic science of behavior which is the prediction of human reactions or Umpire reactions – decisions that are made by the self. We can witness adjustment in the body as a result of this Umpire. If we have been in jail from getting drunk, the promptings of the Umpire, with an appeal to the survival ego, may create conditions for the body in which the body may be free from jail and legal complications.

Everyone who goes through these changes is aware of the processes of thinking mentioned and they will never will deny that these thinking processes are extremely logical and valid for the new self. But the individual rarely watches the complexity of the inner struggle nor does he see all the factors involved. Nor does he name these factors the same as others name them in similar experiences. We have a wide category of psychological terms as a result. Trying to name Umpire reactions.

dm2-26:40

(This section is modified from the book)

Some say they’re delivered from alcohol and say that God was the agent. Others will say that they just made up their minds. And others received help from clinic or a special group of people. However, they had to make a decision to search out their God, their inner strength or human assistance. And the Umpire was behind that decision, and a lot of thinking and reasoning went on that is never talked about.

We get a picture now of an Umpire being observed by a newly discovered more anterior observer. This second observer is distinct or unique in that it is totally a process observer. The Umpire watches over the body or the small `s' self, and while being interested in preserving the body life, cannot help get into planning for ultimate survival or immortality. The aim of all survival has to be a hope and plan for eternal survival.

Because the Umpire has somatic values at stake, it cannot get into the problems of ultimate survival as much as it would like to. Since it identifies with the physical survival first, it takes up all its time. Just getting by today you might say.

The Process Observer retreats from material observation and contemplates patterns and thinking. And this, I think, is somehow parallels Ornstein's division of the brain into two parts. I’m not saying that the Umpire is in the left side of the brain and that the anterior observer to the Umpire is in the right side of the brain but there is a parallel there that one of them deals in very objective matter and the other deals in very subjective matter or processes.

dm2-28:24

(This section is modified from the book)

This may well be called higher meditation. Where you’re thinking about mental processes – this is what higher meditation is. And it is this observer that watches the mind and comes up with the results that are like mathematical functional curves instead of exact demonstrable answers that we like to get in scientific work.

For instance, it is this Process Observer that sees the physical universe may well exist and may well not exist at the same time. At the same time we will see that the physical universe may exist as an illusion only to people able to reach certain abilities for observation.

Likewise it takes an abstraction such as ‘good’ and again realizes that the definition depends upon the position of the observer who takes the value ‘good’ into consideration. He may see that ‘good’ is God and everything is final destiny. Or he may at the same time see ‘good’ as a polar point of ‘evil’ and he may, by observing the previous two conclusions come to the further conclusion that ‘good is defined from the position of the observer and has no real meaning as a thing in itself.

You take your choice. The amazing thing is that all of the different conclusions are valid in relation to the accepted validity standards of each position of the observer. For instance according to material standards, material exists. If we identify ourselves as being strictly material bodies in a physical universe, we are valid and we are being consistent.

(This section is heavily modified from the book)

But it is like saying that material defines material and on this hinges a very important point for the rest of this talk. Definition requires comparison. Knowing may be direct and absolute in understanding the nature of things and we know that we are not absolute creatures. Or in the event that we know that we are absolute creatures we have not found a means of communicating that finding except with things that are words. The words relate to bodies and that includes our own body or body-mind or mundane consciousness. So that regardless we have come back to definition unless we have found a state of being that satisfies us and which we don’t care to promote it among our fellow-man.

When the man who has become enlightened says that the universe does not exist, he means that it does not exist as permanently as does another dimension.

dm2-31:09

File dm2 ends at 31:10.

File 3

Total time: 31:10

dm3-00:00

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

... he means that it does not exist as permanently as does another dimension. He looks from this other dimension, and uses words on us that have been used to explain the validity of the material universe. From this practice results an endless explaining of limitations of language, and of the limitation of the listeners’ minds, that is explained itself best in the word ‘paradox’.

The paradox seems to permeate all of this talk of esoteric phenomena and enlightenment.

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

We take a stand on good and evil, for instance. We say that life is good and death is evil. For the pig about to be butchered, death is bad. But for the man about to eat the pig, the pig’s death is good, as it extends the life of the man. However, for the man who has become afflicted with trichinosis from eating the pork, the situation may change, and death as evil for the pig once more becomes evil for the man. However, there is still another point of observation. The man may sometime later view the whole scene from another dimension and decide that neither pig nor man held the same values as before, and that death, good and evil were simply positions of observation, or the results of man’s position at the time.

Most of us do not like to accept the possibility that we might view the physical universe from a dimension of any validity, other than this. We cannot accept this possibility until we realize that we are demanding that a non-material dimension make itself material so that we can measure it with material standards.

dm3-01:46

In other words, as soon as a claim is made by a psychic or a mystic, the pseudoscientific psychologist or materialist hops up and says, “Prove that.” And of course he means, “Prove it by my standards.”

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

And of course this cannot be done except by ineffective word-imagery, if that new dimension is more real than the physical universe.

Up until now I’ve only hinted that these new dimensions are possibilities that might be surmised by pattern observation, and by taking note of pattern thinking that results from inadequate physical senses.

dm3-02:23

In other words, we’re getting these patterns from senses that are manifestly – we know that – they’re inadequate.

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

That which happens to the process observer is that this consideration of possibility of alternate natures for things apparent, brings the observer to a point of high confusion – once you realize this is a possibility – that puts all physical evidence in jeopardy for him. The world starts to melt – and then puts all mental processes and mental observation in jeopardy too.

Which is what it should be.

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

The process observer is the mind in its deepest potentials. This becomes with relentless meditation upon pattern possibilities, and observing-the-observer processes, a dynamic study of the mind with the mind. And the results are an explosive quandary.

Disaster.

dm3-03:23

(This section is possibly heavily modified from the book)

This is the first time that we really realize, that we have been studying the mind itself. When we talk of an anterior observer to another objective observer, it looks like we are either chasing our own tail, or that man has an infinite number of observers.

That’s the first thought that comes to your head: “Oh well, there’s an observer observing an observer indefinitely.” This is not true.

(This section is possibly heavily modified from the book)

However if we take another look we will remember that we are really thinking about a purification of the definition of Ultimate Observer, as the Real observer, capital R ‘Real observer’, unfolds or is simply known more clearly. There is only one observer.

When the Umpire is known and the correlative functioning of the Umpire is seen then it immediately is an observation not an observer. We have then become mental in centre which we only know later because we are watching our thinking patterns and reactions and the patterns of all sorts of possibilities as well. We take this process observer alias mind consciousness as being us, once more, never dreaming in the beginning that it too will become an observation. And when it truly becomes an observation, not just the possibility of being an externality or observation, I mean it really becomes an observation it happens by reaching a deeper or more anterior position of observing.

dm3-04:57

We have to have that point of comparison.

(This section is possibly heavily modified from the book)

We are now approaching our Real Self (capital ‘R’ Real, capital ‘S’ Self) by divorcing all our thinking from imposed patterns of thinking. As in Zen we begin to see the mind as a bridge to cross or an erroneous area to transcend. We come across an awareness of correlation in watching these patterns.

(This section is almost the same as 1977-1004)

In the initial stages of observing patterns, we look deliberately for patterns. And one method of looking for patterns is to examine a field of data for common denominators. This does not always bring us mathematical revelations unless we can throw into the computer all the factors that cause common denominators. To give an example, one justifying argument for the God theory in theology would be the common-denominator type of evidence of the God theory in nearly every religious system. Many are eager to seize this type of evidence as they are hungry to believe and too tired to do further thinking. The factor that is missed is that things are not proven by belief. A belief is only a postulation. Another factor that affects the conclusion is that the beliefs may have sprung from a desire to believe a certain dogma, rather than to try to find things out for whatever they are.

dm3-06:24

We should not try to prove or summon evidence for that which we would like to hear.

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

Still, correlation may be of some use. In esoteric writings we come across the correlation, “As above, so below.” This is no more absurd than Einstein’s theory of relativity. Checking patterns of thinking with patterns of thinking – common denominators, for example – may be the only tools we have for mental observations. We just have to keep an eye on our slipping into projections through desires or as a result of desires. We hit a snag in our studies of the material world by using material to check material.

I mentioned that point before. That was the end of the true analysation of the material world – we had no other vantage point for comparison. We were looking at the thing with the thing.

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

We found a happy synchronicity or harmony of material measurements from material things. But we missed a very important point. Definition, which applies to the material world alone, demands that we have comparison.

The thing under scrutiny must be viewed in terms of something else – something outside itself – in order to determine its uniqueness.

Which means its is-ness.

dm3-07:44

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

So that a man is defined as an animal but a unique type of animal, and the difference becomes his definition. However, when we lump the entire material picture together and attempt to define the visible, material universe we can only do it adequately from another dimension. We cannot do it properly from another universe if that universe is of similar material and operates under the same patterns.

The relative mind demands a similar comparison with that which a thing is not. The mind cannot adequately know the mind with the mind.

These are little evidences that have been overlooked for years in psychology.

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

And yet so many of our relative minds reject the idea than man can, from some anterior mental dimension, really perceive the material universe in a valid, if not really real, appreciation of this world.

In trying to be reasonable, we might say that we will accept the above findings if we could be sure that the exponent of the new theory or the describer of the new dimension, is not creating the new dimension out of whole cloth.

And we run into a lot of people who are describing things from another dimension. But we find that there’s a lot of confusion there because everyone has a different story it seems.

dm3-09:11

(Does not appear in the book)

The validity of the describer and the description depends upon our acceptance of his honesty or upon his possible perpetration of a concept rather than actual knowledge or knowing. There is only one answer to this complaint.

And the complaint is just and even more, it is necessary because all of us should doubt.

(Does not appear in the book)

We cannot, by relative mentation, know that which another man knows by direct mind action alone. We cannot know by contemplation know what a man knows by direct mentation. We have to learn to view things directly. We must start by directly viewing the inside in the manner described above.

Returning to the use of the correlation ‘as above so below’ we look back at the fallacy of trying to study material with material, we notice now that we are trying to study the mind with the mind. And we are doing it still, right now, with our relative mind.

The fact that we have become more intricate in our thinking and possibly much more clear in our appraisals does not alter the fact that it is all being done with the mundane mind. The fact that we may have contemplated a different type of mind from toying with infinite possibilities of that which the mind, or the anterior mind to the relative mind-observing mind, might be, does not immediately make these possibilities real.

Just because you can think about this thing doesn’t make it existent. You have to actually witness, you have to actually be there.

dm3-10:38

(Does not appear in the book)

We will be cursed with confusion until we are able to look at the mind from outside the mind. It might be said that the absolute self or the ultimate observer is that which knows itself but cannot define itself. No mirror is available with which to compare it. Nothing is beyond it and the only thing you can do is try it.

This idea of looking at the mind as I said, you can look at it and it will just cause you an infinite tangle, an increasing tangle. And of course we have to go through it. Yet strangely enough, this tangle we get into eventually leads to what I said was an explosion and the explosion becomes a revelation.

Now I want to get a little bit into method. What I’ve been trying to do with this whole talk is to show you how to get inside by starting and looking at the person who’s looking. And this is what we’ve been talking about and it’s been a little bit complicated – we can’t talk about things without being somewhat complicated. I’d like to make some comments on the methods for searching an anterior observer.

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

There is no sense in looking for anything but the observer or he who is looking. We should not try to define something and then try to find it.

In other words lots of people will eagerly say, “Yeah I understand what you’re saying and I agree with you a 100%. Take me to the next step in this discipline or whatever.” No, the first step is that you go there yourself. Can’t let anybody take you. You’ve got to make up your mind to make the trip yourself. Nobody can take you. You can’t agree. A lot of people will say, “Yeah I agree, give me the word.”

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

The anterior observer must be discovered; not just substantiated by evidence. We begin the adventure of inside investigation from a basis of no conviction. The average psychologist does not take this stand. He accepts with conviction, testimony of predecessors in the field of psychology or he accepts the definitions or mental attributes as laid out by fellow psychologists. Very few scientists go back to the roots of their scientific field and prove to themselves, step by step, the postulations that are the backbone of their own consequent work or experimentation.

dm3-13:00

In other words, if you’ve been in any research into Chemistry or Physics, you’ll find this out. Somebody says a certain chemical has a valence of 6,2,or 3 or something, nobody says, “Why?” – they memorise it and they write it down, they accept it.

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

In other words, much of scientific work is the acceptance of previous groundwork, even though the groundwork is admittedly only conceptual.

We have to take into consideration just that which we know for sure when we are looking at ourselves. We mentioned previously that there are three major explanations for the existence of the physical universe: One is that material is the real substance of our possible experiential field.

See only thing we can experience is material.

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004) Another is that all is an illusion. And still another is that any definition of the physical universe must and will be qualified by the position of our understanding and observation.

In other words it depends on a point of relativity - where we’re standing.

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

In other words, to an ant, the universe might be an acre of ground. To an insane person the universe might be something found in the core of an apple. So we must get a clear idea of he who is looking.

From outside, the mind is getting inside the Self – when we get outside of the mind, we get inside the Self (that’s the capital S ‘Self’, at least approaching the capital S ‘Self’).

dm3-14:43

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

We do not know who is looking, and we are not too sure of that which we see, especially after we have been hallucinated, or have seen a hologram or a mirage. So we start with nothing (this is important - we have to start with nothing, no postulations) deciding to look inside. We know nothing for sure. Descartes had an urgency for self-definition not based upon simple internal observations. Much of our thinking is forced upon us.

We don’t think because we are free agents. We think because we can’t help it, we can’t stop it.

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

We have little choice in picking or claiming a thought as being our property. If it is caused by previous thought, previous determinations which are caused by previous situations forced upon us and by present environmental influences that afflict us before we can prevent them. Many of these environmental influences exist in the body, or they affect body area reactions that we do not completely understand and endorse.

We cannot start by negating our presence. That would be absurd.

We can say we start with nothing but we can’t start with a personal negation.

dm3-16:03

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

And in this reverse searching we must always retreat from the absurd, in favor of things or ideas that are manifestly less absurd or are more orderly or reasonable.

And I’ve said repeatedly in my different talks that this whole thing is a retreat from error, not a postulation and then a charging and a trying to prove the postulation. It’s taking zero and building on zero.

(Parts of this section almost the same as 1977-1004)

When we ask ourselves, “Who am I?” we take an initial step. We do not begin by saying, “I am this or that.” We then explore the fields of possibility. We may be only a body. We may be a soul or spirit housed in a body. We may be a body with a mind separate from a body and still separate from the spirit. Or we may decide that we are something that we really can’t identify properly. But we may conclude that we are an awareness that witnesses a mind and body functioning in some relation to our individual point of awareness.

So we are aware of our mind. We are also aware of our body.

(Neither in the book nor in 1977-1004)

We may think we are that which asks but it may be that we are not that which we think is doing the asking.

Like the fellow says, “I’m the guy that just asked you the question.” Well, that might be a phase of you, may be a desire that’s talking – not you, not the real capital ‘You’.

dm3-17:43

(Neither in the book nor in 1977-1004)

The mind may be asking the question because it identifies with the body. And the result is a spontaneous evolving question, an outburst which starts with the examination of the fingers or toes as as an infant. Eventually the question comes to any child, ”What is all this about?”

In this manner we locate our awareness by changing things or trying to change things or observing things that we thought we were. First we see them and then if we don’t like them, we try to alter them. But all this comes from basic observation.

(Neither in the book nor in 1977-1004)

We are not our fingers and not our toes and we are not our body. We are aware of them. We are not our senses but we are aware of them. We are aware of thinking and we describe it as observing our thoughts.

But even the Umpire knows that some thoughts are more harm than good. And consequently are not only representative of the anterior eye or observer but they can bring more harm to the whole combination of body and mind.

In other words, a lot of thoughts come to us and we think, “Well they come from God or some good force or some excellent intuitional computer.” But when we examine them over a period of time we find that they didn’t come from that source at all. They may have come from a physical appetite or something.

dm3-19:22

(Modified from the book)

And the thoughts are basically not us. Thoughts are obsessions in that we are unable to control them. To control them we must first understand them. And to understand them we must make an obsession of understanding our thoughts.

Determination must be summoned, reinforced and be reminded as to direction, ways and means and goals for the adventurer’s obsession.

When we are attracted to things about us, too many hours of the day, we should retreat and deliberately look at ourselves by looking at our previous actions. We must observe our thoughts and then ask ourselves, "Why did I think that?" Or, "Where did this thought originate?" Or, "What is thought?"

However, the most important thing to ask ourself in this business of introspection concerns the source and direction of thought. There are two directions of thought, and both are projections. Certain thoughts are projected upon us and others are projected by us.

This is not too complex. You get thoughts that didn’t originate inside yourself and everyone who has experienced ESP knows that you can project thoughts. That they can be sent out just like a radio sends out a message.

(Neither in the book nor in 1977-1004)

Van der Leeuw gives an explanation or description of this process especially the process of projecting by the individual.

We only know things about the physical universe that are interpreted by the senses. It is evident that the senses are not infallible nor are they exact. We have a limited colour range as well as a limitation on the vibrations that we’re able to perceive with our ears. A radio picks up things and amplifies them which a human ear cannot pick up etc.

So it’s manifest that sounds are there – we just don’t get them.

(Heavily modified from the book)

To give an example of it - a person views a certain object, which means he receives certain sensory impressions or stimuli. But this is not always what he sees. We have an example in the mirage or hologram. In the case of the mirage, the phenomenon is witnessed by the eyes but in reality it proves not to exist as part of the material world. This results from inadequate seeing ability.

Your eyes are not infallible. We do not see it for what it is. I saw a cylindrical hologram in Pittsburgh. It was a floating wagon and I looked at it from all sides and I could see the underside of the wagon and everything but inside the cylinder there was nothing. It was a projection. I projected the vision.

dm3-22:16

(Heavily modified from the book)

To some degree or other when we receive a percept, we immediately project a vision upon the object that takes our attention.

This is important – what I said before is every time we think, our every thought is a projection. It’s inspired by the senses. In other words, the senses hammer something into the central mind and we project what we think is out there. This is basically what it is.

blockquote> (Heavily modified from the book)

We rarely see an object as it really is. We see our own projected vision.

As I mentioned before, the human eye has a limited colour range and limited hearing range. There is no way to know of colours other than those we see. So these walls may be of an entirely different colour had we more rods in our eyeballs, in the retina to pick them up.

(Heavily modified from the book)

Sometimes it is claimed that lower animals have less colour possibility than we do.

They claim that some of them see black and white only. I don’t know how they determine this but if so, it’s an entirely different vision that they see than is seen by us. And they see it by agreement – in other words, they all see the same thing.

dm3-23:27

(Heavily modified from the book)

These are all examples of projection and more than the senses alone are responsible for projecting this type of vision. There is a pervasive agreement on meaning by collective mankind that becomes a factor in the projection of meaning upon an object.

We are not trained – this comes with our childhood, with our infancy. When we are born we learn to interpret the same as the parent and the grandparents and everybody around us. But we don’t learn to see.

(Heavily modified from the book)

One of these is the projection of beauty upon an object which requires a universal agreement on that which beauty is. Much of our study of ourselves comes about by comparing ourselves with others.

Again, another viewpoint.

dm3-24:11

(Heavily modified from the book)

Sometimes we use other people for mirrors so that by their attitudes and comments we can better gauge consistency in our own reactions. We may be using this type of mirror for quite a few years without success in knowing our self any better until we realize that we were projecting characteristics upon these people that did not exist.

This is the reason for the social incompatibility that I maintain the whole field of psychology is missing. You’ve got to go inside that person. I said this before and it bounces off I think. You’ve got to walk in another man’s moccasins; you’ve got to think with his thoughts. And then there’s no arguments.

Instead of that we project all sorts of things and we accuse him of not being compatible with the modern psychological dogmas or the modern psychological religion, morality. It’s like a child walking to the zoo after watching a Disney picture and having his arm torn off by an animal because stuff had been projected on the animals through the Disney cartoons.

I want to summarise now and open this up for questions later on. A few things and if you can remember them it may be good. Because this summary is a result of my lifetime of investigation of psychology and you’ll find that this has very little bearing on other systems of psychology.

(Heavily modified from the book)

I find that the qualities of the mind are basically three:

1. Perception

2. Retention

3. Reaction

Now, I say five and I’ll read them to you.

dm3-25:52

(Heavily modified from the book)

Sensory perception, retention and reaction; mental perception; and projection.

There’s still three but there’s two types of perception, there’s two types of reaction.

Basically we perceive, remember and react. But this projection is a type of reaction that is mentally unique because it’s like a mental extrusion. Like an arm to the mind, so to speak.

(Heavily modified from the book)

Perception is largely ignored.

Many tests and systems relating to memory and reaction exist in psychology and … IQ tests that sort of thing. Testing your co-ordinative ability – that’s reaction ability. Or memory ability -remember the set of symbols that they gave you at the beginning of the problem

dm3-26:44

(Heavily modified from the book)

Perception – self observing is one type of perception, perceiving yourself – has many directions and qualifications.

In other words, there’s a sensory perception which sees, feels, hears and so on in the external world. But then there’s a mental perception. This mental perception has a wide range of possibility. Because the mind, if you take case histories of phenomena (that you haven’t had and if you’ve had some yourself, not everyone’s had them) of where you saw something in your mind that did not exist in your past. It wasn’t taken from memory.

For instance, you’re sitting in your chair and you see a man falling in front of a bullet – the bullet hits him and he falls. You jump up and you say, “Jack’s been shot.” Now this is a memory – I’m reciting something that can’t be proven of course, there’s always criticism. But we get a lot of stuff directly into our mind that doesn’t come to our senses. We call that ESP or Psi phenomena. So there is an ability of the mind to see without the senses. Consequently it’s necessary to mark a different type of perception not just sensory perception. The mind perceives.

Now reaction – all of our qualities are perception we automatically remember. It’s just like it’s branded as it goes through as the memory, retention I would call it, the permanence of our experience, and the reaction is automatic. It’s just like a reflex – we automatically react. And the reaction becomes very complex. A child, a new-born child has a very limited set of reactions. It picks up a tremendous lot – millions and millions of possibilities. And then it gets complicated – it may have thousands of reaction Gestalts, meaning patterns of reaction. Such as driving an automobile automatically, that sort of thing.

But your mental perceptions and projections – these are the ones that we are little aware of. We don’t talk too much about them. And I mentioned before that perception is ignored and I want to point out some of these types of perceptions. And I call them visions. I say that everything a man sees is a vision. Even a thought. A man gets an impression which is chemical. There’s a chemical reaction – the light on the rod, or the eardrum or whatever. But this is translated into a vision. So that what I’m seeing here now is a vision and what you’re seeing is a vision. An interpretation too but nevertheless a projected vision.

dm3-29:54

There’s five main types of visions and nearly all the visions you have are the phenomena that come out of these five types.

First is sensory perception – this is objects apprehended by whatever sense. Smell, touch, taste etc.

Then there’s such a thing as memory perception. Visualisation. Which we see from the mind internally. We sit and dream of things that happened. We relive, so to speak. Or we make new combinations even. Like I said you can imagine an apple, you remember a green apple that you ate. Okay, how about putting some purple stars on it. You can see that in your mind’s eye. A green apple with purple stars. Right around the middle. This is not something we saw – it doesn’t exist – but we can visualise this, this is mental perception. The mind projecting upon the mind. And the sensory perception is the external world projecting upon the person. And the internal projecting back on the external world. But in memory perception it’s strictly the mind projecting upon…

dm3-31:09

File dm3 ends at 31:09

File 4

Total time: 31:03

[This seems to be the continuation of dm1]

dm4-00:00

R: [muffled audio]

... that a person gets into. The biggest part of our reverie thoughts are originated in the glands. That might sound hard to you but I maintain that the glands can cause thoughts and the thoughts can cause glands to function. There’s a tremendous physical relationship there. So that we’re tremendously programmed. And you discover that only when you get to watching from a superior position, which as I said, Benoit called a conciliatory position.

It’s only when you get clear above that Umpire, that somatic mind that you’re able to see it for what it is. You can’t see it while you’re in it. When you’re in it, you think it’s God. You think you’re the God, you’re the big shot, you’re doing everything. People do nothing.

dm04-00:44

Either long pause or inaudible [18 seconds]

dm4-01:01

R. Now of course, what we’re trying to do, one of the things that everyone’s trying to do, is pull the strings of life before they find out what’s going on. And I think somewhere there’s an instinct that people have, that think as soon as you find the answer if there’s any – we’ll be able to do that. I think that to do anything really, that hasn’t been programmed by some other force, could require a tremendous amount of knowledge, to begin with. Almost the knowledge of the why.

In other words, I can see where every railroad accident, every automobile accident, every marriage, every divorce and all this stuff, is planned ahead of time. In other words, we just experience it. But because there doesn’t seem to be much way of avoiding this, we’re thinking of a highly complex culture that everything’s happening is really chance or accident. Maybe so. But I think a lot of this, after you get a few years on you and you look back and you see that things seem to happen almost magically, in retrospect. And they went the right direction. And lots of times the direction at the moment was one that we opposed without our choice directing.

dm4-02:29

So that, what I’m trying to say is that there is an over, a master plan, and in order for us to affect that, to cause one action of our own, we would have to upset that whole master plan, so to speak. It’s almost like the molecule, the electrons in a molecule – if we’re able to find the science to disrupt one of those electrons, we’ll upset the field, the tremendous electronic field in the process. And I think that this would happen with us.

And I maintain that what we fail to pick up in the analysis here, is that the human being lives in a dimension that he thinks is the only one. And there’s a parent dimension. And this dimension is projected from that parent dimension, that being, mind. I think that this entire picture that we see is an emanation, a mental emanation, which is somehow projected into the human consciousness. And he in turn projects it with common agreement: agreed-upon definitions, agreed-upon landscapes, in anything that we see.

dm4-03:51

Now this is brought out, it might sound weird but I’ll give you a reference, in Chilton Pearce . Chilton Pearce came to the conclusion that – I’m going to mention a few words about him because you may not have read his books. But his wife was dying of cancer, and he came to the conclusion that the reason his wife was dying of cancer was because everybody had agreed upon cancer. And having agreed upon cancer – you know – and we see that in individuals - a person will tell you, “I’m going to die of cancer. I’m smoking too many cigarettes,” or something. And the next thing you know we find out that he gets cancer.

dm4-04:25

But beyond that, even beyond that, there’s the mere fact that we accept it. The mere fact that we say there is cancer - cancer is. That’s the old fact if you’ve read anything in the Kabbalah , the Kabbalah speaks of the laws of creation. The law of creation was the will plus the imagination plus the Theos. And when you spoke it, God help you, you had it. And this is what happens – we talk and then we say it is and then it is.

Okay, I can’t prove that and neither did Chilton Pearce. He said , he came up with this concept that if he could divorce himself entirely of this whole paradigm that humanity had created, the verbal paradigm – ‘In the beginning was the Word’ and after that there was nothing but chaos because words created words. Now that maybe a vulgar analysation or translation of the Genesis - of a statement in Genesis.

But regardless we are … our biggest enemy are words perhaps. And the idea was that if we could create a new paradigm in which there were no diseases, even the Christian Scientists would agree with this, that we believe that they’re there so they’re there. And if that could happen he could cure his wife. Well, he never cured his wife, she died, but he did get a couple of books off. (Laughter)

dm4-06:00

And I think he opened us up to something. And there were others beside him that felt the same way. Now what happens is … we are just now beginning to get a breath of knowledge about the mind. Before it was, ”I have a mind” , then the second mistake was, “I am a mind” - so I say here, somatic mind. And this is neither.

We come from the mind. The mind is a dimension and in order to change this life of ours, we have to know all the causes. In other words, if you get down and you’ve got a disease, the doctor may say to you, “What is your current .[inaudible]” because you emanate from something and that has a relationship to whatever affects you. And we emanate from a mind dimension.

Mary Baker Eddy way back there, said this. That if you were able to change the mind, affect the universal mind then miracles might happen. At least miracles would… [inaudible]. I think it’s a basic failure. I think the idea of Christian Science is, the failure in this respect is faith will not move mountains. No one put a leg back on.

I remember an argument I had with a man when I used to work at the Alliance atomic Submarine and a Christian Scientist worked there and he was very touchy about everything we said to him – he said was made flesh. He said don’t curse people because it becomes real and all that sort of thing. You joke but we got into some interesting discussions and arguments. And I said to him one day, “Hey, knock it off. Do you really think that the massive belief will change this world?” and he said, “Sure.” I said, “Why can’t, you take these [inaudible] healers, they’re running around all over the place that are pretending to heal people but they can’t put a leg back on?” Did you ever hear of one putting a leg back on when somebody chopped it off. You can possibly heal a person of a mental syndrome or something of that sort or convince them that they didn’t have it in the first place or something like that. But there’s a [inaudible] deny that maybe you can change.

dm4-08:32

My belief is there are certain limitations on that you can change. There’s a limitation to all of this. There’s a limitation to our knowledge of this mind dimension. You can’t put a leg back on and faith will not move the mountain because two hundred billion people don’t believe it will move. There’s nothing else. You’re not going to move that mountain over on top of the city and smash it on all the people. The people just refuse to believe it and this negative form of belief is what Chilton Pearson was up against and he couldn’t do it himself.

Now there are and they have discovered down through time, people have discovered ways of affecting this mind dimension. [inaudible]. And through intense application – I maintain that if you concentrate long enough on anything you will get an answer. You might be crazy when you get it but you’ll get an answer. I believe that if you desire to be a millionaire and you push hard enough, apply total energy, throw enough mud at the ceiling, you’ll be a millionaire. But you’ve got to sell out everything else and put that energy into it.

dm4-09:47

I maintain that if you want to find yourself you can apply the same principles and you’ll find yourself. I think if you want to know something about the mind, I think you can do that by applying the same amount of energy. Now I don’t say that in some cases people will not quit short of the goal by virtue of rationalizing that they’ve found the answer. This is the thing we can’t say – there’s no yardstick for that.

What it comes to is this whole thing has a bearing on what I consider the errors in psychology today. I think that there are errors in sociology. For instance the theme [inaudible] out, “We’re going to change the world.” I talked to a sociology teacher one time and she said,”Well we’re going to create a culture.” I said, “What you’re teaching is lies.” And she said, “Yes. But if people believe those lies, we’ll create a culture.”

dm4-10:49

And this is the drive. I see that this has been happening a tremendous lot recently. Get in and brainwash the public en masse. You’re getting it right now on the price of gas. I think everyone’s getting brainwashed on the price of gas. Because a tremendous educational campaign is going out to convince people so that they will believe eagerly that they must sacrifice. I remember World War 2 - everybody was getting into the big self-sacrifice thing and we were short on everything imaginable. But this all has a … these are mood impellers, these are experts at impelling moods and they go unchallenged because people want to believe.

I found out something else about the human being in relation to religion. The majority of the people want to believe the most impossible things. Alice in Wonderland. They don’t want a simple, basic psychological analysis to human nature or to the next dimension or to where they’re going when the die. No. It has to have pearls, it has to look like a Christmas tree, you have to have categories and deities, you have to have indulgences and bluffings, you have to have favoured sons and bastards that are going to hell. You have to really be elaborate and then you have to run between the raindrops and pay every step of the way. (Laughter)

dm4-12:15

I don’t know – I sometimes think all of this is programmed in. I think all of this is programmed in. I one time was initiated into a sect out of India called the Radha Soami sect. Some of you may be acquainted with it. Kirpal Singh made a tour of the country recently. He was branch of [inaudible] of the Radha Soami sect. Their headquarters is in Beas, one of them is in Beas and Kashmir. But they have something that caught my ear, something about it caught my ear. They maintain that there were seven planes of existence and this was the lowest plane, possibly. And there were three low planes in which we kept reincarnating – we’d run up three steps and down three steps, up three steps, down three steps. There was a creature in charge of this, it was a God, the head of it called Radha Soami. And he had made a deal with a character that was running a … he had the concession on the lower three levels. And this was the Devil, what we call the Devil but they call it Kal –K-a-l.

dm4-13:44

Kal had priorities. He had the right to keep these people from escaping. Only the very shrewd and few escaped from the third plane and got up into the fourth plane. There are Indian names for them – I’ve forgotten them. I went through the initiation – I’m sharing something with you – it didn’t cost me any money. It was supposed to be for people who were ready but I don’t know of anybody who’s ready. But the thing I noticed about it was they said Kal penetrates everything. In other words, you’re going to try to escape from these dimensions. So you start a religion and soon as it starts some thief just steals the treasury and runs off with it. Or he sells the leader out for a few nickels. Or he becomes this maddy. Before Christ died, or right after he died I think, Peter was arguing with one of the other apostles and he says, “Already we have begun to dissemble.” In other words the man is hardly dead in his grave and they’re chewing at each other and starting to … and one of them is going this way, this dogma, and the other is going this way.

dm4-14:49

And this was the work of Kal. It may have been true or false but to see the analogy, if that’s all it was, was very good to me. There’s something that wrecks the progressive efforts of man on a spiritual level or psychological level - it maybe nothing but his head. Maybe the endless variations that occur when anything is brought up - that he’s got to face the endless variations and the result will be confusion. So that he never really finds his way out with a dogmatic or mundane religion.

Now there’s another fellow came along, just in passing, before I stop, that had a theory about ... he also knew that we were robots. [inaudible] Gurdjieff , Gurdjieff … and he formed a kind of a team. But I thought Gurdjieff was the greatest psychologist to ever hit the western world and I still do. I think the majority of psychologists today are behaviourists. In other words, I say it’s like taking soil samples to discover what’s at the core of the earth – that is behaviouristic psychology. Taking nerve reflexes to discover the soul of a man, or the [inaudible] to be a man, or the ideas of the designer. Who wrote the blueprint? This guy knows the score.

dm4-16:14

This guy is sitting down there taking pinpricks or testing reflex or inkblots or something of this sort or conceptualizing does not know from whence the man came. And yet he’s going to legislate for the purpose of keeping himself in office. This is my belief. Psychologists are not pure psychologists. They want to be funded. And I believe that Freud – the only one I had much respect for was Jung, I rather respect Carl Jung because I think he is an honest man – but Freud was a merchant basically. And owned a string of clinics strung through Europe and possibly America, because he lived long enough, selling one product. And packaging it with the nicest word possible, confusing word that is, challenging – psychoanalysis.

Another guy comes along, his word - he’s packaging it - is psychotherapy. And Viktor Frankl comes along ... and each one of them comes up with a word. Kubler-Ross - she wants to be the chief merchant of death and dying. Before you die you have to consult her or some of her disciples who will worry the hell out of you while you’re dying, not let you die in peace. (Laughter).

dm4-17:36

To me the whole field of psychology today is backing up the establishment paradigm. The establishment paradigm teach degeneracy so that there will be no riots on the streets. We have adopted a degenerate psychology and you can find reasons for any psychology that you wish. As I said the dictionary is a big book. It’s like the same way with the bible. You can get the bible to back you up if you search hard enough on almost anything you want.

But I don’t believe that they’re going to the thing of looking at the source of thought. In other words, what are the tools of a bricklayer, an engineer? He has a calculus book that he can refer to and he’ll give you reasons for his actions. But the domain of the psychologists, the domain of the medical doctors [inaudible], the domain of the psychiatrists and psychologists is the psyche, not the body. That’s biology. That’s veterinarianism. We’ve got veterinarians making fifty dollars an hour. To me the domain of the psychologist goes back to the very soul of man. In other words to find out why a man thinks he’s got to find out why this machine was created to think.

dm4-19:02

Now, that sounds impossible. Then they say, “Well, we can’t do that. We’ve just to patch these guys up and get them back into the field and have them pay taxes. If they don’t pay taxes they won’t hold a job and if they don’t hold a job they can’t pay us fifty dollars an hour and the government is not going to fund us and they’re not going to hire psychology professors in colleges. So the whole thing will collapse. We’ve got to keep this paradigm going.”

Now I don’t know why we got into that [inaudible]. (Laughter) What we’re trying to do is pull strings in other words. This whole idea behind discovering yourself is probably to affect that from which you came. And Gurdjieff had this idea of a sly man approach. There are little things that you can do to awaken another person if you can’t awaken yourself. Now we are, as I said, robots – sound asleep. Grooved in [?] to a point where try to stop, try to change your course, try to set yourself a thinking pattern and see how quickly it’s interfered with. Everybody here, I imagine is tied to a routine that takes them from daylight to dark. And try to break that routine. Try to set up a different self-analysis. It may take you a couple of weeks, or a couple of months or a couple of years – maybe an hour a day or a half hour a day – and you’ll go along maybe for a week or so. But supposing that in that hour a day or half hour a day you’re provoked to try to do something else. Now you’re not just going to sit around and think about thinking or think about ways and means. No, you’re going to find the ways and means – you’re going to experiment. So if you try to set yourself up an experimental pattern, you’ll find that it’s almost impossible in [inaudible – cough].

dm4-20:53

So, consequently … then why is it impossible? It’s impossible because your head is set on something – you’ve got to have those cigarettes, or you’ve got to have that dough or you’ve got to have that security, you’ve got have to that mansion up at Mt.Leaven [?] or some place to pay for those bricks. (Laughter) And you’re not going to stop working until you drop dead so that your wife can entertain some lover in the bricks. (Laughter)

But regardless we can’t let go. We just can’t let go of this squirrel cage – it takes somebody outside. And this has been the theme behind pure religion. In fact there have been a lot of religions where they started out were pure and then a guy says, “Hey, take a day off. Make Sunday holy or something to stop so that these dummies can do some thinking.” But the guy in charge of the religion finds that it’s profitable if he starts selling candles and you’re back where you started from – you have to work an extra day of the week to pay for the candles.

dm4-21:52

I’d like to stop for a minute. There’s another information I want to give you about what I consider the examples of man’s ability to see. But what time is it ? Oh it’s 6 o’clock.

I’d like to clarify, I rambled a little bit more at the end, but I’d like to clarify anything about this diagram that you’d like to hear. And … I didn’t want to get in too deep into this business. You can [inaudible] if you wish. I think there are ways, I think there is a good psychotherapy system if a person wants to get into it and people are honest with each other, they could help each other. Prod each other to wake up and that sort of thing. But those are the only two ways that I know that you can affect your life.

One of them is if you can find somebody that you can trust, that won’t pick your pockets while he’s helping you. And the other one is to study the laws of the mind. I think there are some laws that were discovered. And these laws as they are discovered, you’ll see them in operation and the average person refuses to believe them when they them – it’s like hypnosis. When hypnosis first came out everybody said that’s maybe the work of the Devil. That’s one nice solution for it. Or it’s a trick. We agreed, everybody agrees and it’s just a little game they play. I used to give demonstrations and people chuckled to themselves – “He’s clever. These hypnotists can put on a pretty good act.”

dm4-23:32

This is one of the minor laws and that’s just of the somatic mind. I know there are people living who can touch people’s minds at a distance without all the routine and we have been visited by a few of these people from India. They study for years to learn to zap and they can knock you off your feet by looking at you and concentrating. And people say, after they lose their children to these systems for maybe ten years they begin to realize that they were zapped. But prior to that they say, “Oh that can’t happen here. Not under Old Glory. Nothing like that happens here.”

But there are people who know some of the workings of – this isn’t the individual mind, this is some matrix that is pervasive, goes from mind to mind. When you enter this, when you’re able to enter it is when you have your direct mind experience. That’s when you can read another person’s mind. That’s when you can contact your thoughts to … and it happens, everybody experiences it sometime or another. Or you’ll be driving – I remember driving with my wife in the car one time. Neither one of us had mentioned this family for, I guess, five or ten years and both of us said it at the same time, “Let’s get down to Joan’s house. Joan so-and-so.” I said, “That’s amazing. That’s what I was going to say”, you know.

So what happens is … this seems to be about coincidence, that there was something transmitted. So there is a connection to some sort of field which I like to say is a universal mind.

dm4-25:20

Q: Do you think this is the same thing that Paul Young [?] was talking about incidentally?

R: These are words. It’s just like I maintain that Chilton Pearce sensed something. Colin Wilson sensed it. Colin Wilson, well he writes it as fiction - nice way to write - you can never get criticized, you don’t have to to prove anything. But he put out this and you’ve got get a hold of this book – it’s ‘Mind Parasites’. And when I read it I was utterly amazed that he had this knowledge and he had the way to put it out. He had the idea that fifty people discovered the secret they would be able to move the planet because the world is nothing more than illusion, the moon is nothing more than illusion but fifty minds held in a certain position would affect the planet. Of course it sounds like science fiction.

But what he was saying was what I refer to in one of the papers I’ve written – The Law of Betweenness – where things happen in a peculiar in-between state. All the wisdom of man and all the great things happen in a state of ‘betweenness’. This is, I maintain, is part of the sustained universe is that there is a … each planet exists in a particular field of gravity, anti-gravity and in between those planets, it extends out so far. In other words, like a big planet has more of a field of gravity, the moon has a smaller one. But somewhere in between there’s a point of no-gravity.

dm4-26:57

This what I mean by the state of ‘betweenness’. When the head is in that same thing in relation to the heads of others then a new type of motion can be created. So that if you had a, my theory is if you had a spaceship you could function in I call that …

dm4-27:11

(break in tape)

dm4-27:14

(commence tape but no longer muffled)

… and I maintain that some people in India ve discovered it and they use it. And there’s transformation of material and that sort of thing is caused as a result of it. On a very small scale of course. They don’t move any planets. They could have also made it dramatic by citing that you could move the moon or something.

Has anybody read Colin Wilson’s ‘Mind Parasites’? You can understand what I’m talking about. It’s just fiction but I think it’s well worth reading because it gives a hint of it.

Yes.

Q 1: What was the kind of initiation you had with Sant Kirpal Singh that you were talking about?

R: Uh, what did you want to know?

Q 1: What is it? [?]

R: Well, it was the naming and the identification of the seven planes so that when I died I would know by the sound of certain musical instruments, the names of the deities that presided over them.

dm4-28:14

Q 1: Did you experience anything?

R: No. No, no. Don’t get me wrong – I don’t take issue with them because they were good people. There was no racket connected with it, didn’t cost a cent. I reject everything that costs money, especially if it’s fantastic sums of money. But these people didn’t … now maybe they may have operated on donations or something. Agra. They had a temple at Agra too.

But there was an old guru that initiated me and I said to him, “You ever run into anybody that ….” Another concept they had was that the guru appeared at the point of death, would take you over the threshold. You were tied to the guru through Darshan . You establish this bond and then when you died, you automatically, he’d pick you up.

And so I said, “Oh that’s interesting. All you have to do is be around one of them that’s dying and you can see what goes on.” So I said to him, “Were you ever around when any of the members of the religion died?.” He said, “I missed my wife just by a half hour.” She died while he was out of the house. Hoping that she would say, “Here he is. Here’s Charan Singh .” They were all Singhs, they were Sikhs.

But my belief is that somebody appears for you anyhow. There’s a common denominator that runs through a lot of movements and -isms. The HGA – Holy Guardian Angel – the Rosicrucians, I think believe, that the master appears. But also many of them believe that you have a guardian angel, like a protector spirit that follows you all through your life. And when you wear out, why he picks you up and put you in another system of trouble. (Laughter)

dm4-30:17

But people on the battlefield also seem to reach for their mother. I’ve seen people dying that called for their mother. Old people. I’ve seen them in hospitals dying and in their last breath they’d shout, “Mother, Mother, Mother.” Looks like they’re seeing them. Who knows? That’s the evidence, that’s the type of evidence that Kubler-Ross bases their book on.

And incidentally getting back to the idea of evidence of life after death, both Raymond Moody and Kubler-Ross missed the categorization of these phenomena - these death phenomena. There’s some people ... I maintain, that your death scene will measure for you where you’re going.

dm4-31:02

File dm4 ends at 31:03

File 5

Total time: 31:10

[This seems to be the continuation of dm4]

dm5-00:00

(Good audio quality)

R: That’s the evidence, that’s the type of evidence that Kubler-Ross bases their book on.

And incidentally getting back to the idea of evidence of life after death, both Raymond Moody and Kubler-Ross missed the categorization of these phenomena - these death phenomena. There’s some people ... I maintain, that your death scene will measure for you where you’re going. Because this is like LSD – you only get out of life what you put in it. The trip you get is going to be what type of character went into the trip.

And people that seem to find people, even though it’s loved ones, are on what I call the emotional level. I classify – I borrow this from Gurdjieff, incidentally: the instinctive, emotional, intellectual, and philosophic. And occasionally you hear of people that have the nonhuman [experience] – there are no human beings there, but they witness beautiful vistas and sometimes, mathematical designs and stuff. Yet they seem to feel when they come back that they’ve witnessed a heaven that they’re going to enter. Still others find that they enter something that they can’t describe.

dm5-01:21

I always refer to the … 1974, I think it was – the October issue of 1974 of Reader’s Digest. There was a man died in an automobile . His wife was there, she called an emergency unit and they came. I think it took a couple of hours getting him into the hospital. Pronounced dead - he came back. And he described his experience which he was quite convinced was what would have happened to him if he hadn’t come back – he would have still been in that experience. And he didn’t see any relatives. He was a man that personally didn’t believe in life after death. But he became one with something enormous. He realized that he was … his was … the Atman and the Brahman is the best way he could put it. But he didn’t have that vocabulary. His nationality was Jewish - I get that from his name. But he made the remark that he felt that there’s no need to fear death – he had experiences.

Well, I’ve had different accounts and I notice they fall into these categories. The business of spatial travel at the end of which is a vista. Somebody takes off and they look down and see the body on the bed. Or maybe they’re not aware of the bed but they just see somebody coming and they reach out their hand and that person picks them up and takes them away. And then somebody else says, “Oh you’ve got to get back. We can’t take you, you know. You didn’t pay all your taxes so you have to return.” (Laughter)

dm5-03:11

I think they correspond to the different levels of the man’s potential and the one where the person merges with unity was something that he really doesn’t understand but realizes beyond the shadow of a doubt that he exists and he’s one with God. Sometimes I use the word God and sometimes I use some other terminology. But you pick up the same pattern. They’re naming it according to their, maybe, religious training order, atheistic training. And I thought it was amazing that Moody and Kubler-Ross both … all you have to do is talk to enough doctors and nurses in hospitals and you can get a tremendous encyclopedia of death experiences. And not only that but of experiences like I mentioned before – people who are pronounced dead and they witness what’s going on.

dm5-04:11

My own brother for one was in an automobile wreck and [inaudible]. He was dying and couldn’t possibly get there in time. He lived but he watched from the ceiling – remembered everything that was taken. My wife was a nurse – she used to come back and tell me about people that were supposedly … the other nurses were throwing them around and mistreating them because they thought they were unconscious. When this one party woke up, she said, “You treated me alright. I can tell by your voice (she couldn’t see her, she knew her voice). The rest of these people were dogs”, you know because they treated her bad. So the unconscious body, there’s still an awareness there of some sort.

Yes.

Q: You spoke earlier of a master plan. Would you comment or can we know anything of the nature of a master plan and does that pre-suppose a master plan or..?

R: Well, I think that there’s … I have no proof of it, I have a feeling that’s all. I have a feeling and it surely isn’t all nonsense. It seems like it. But I have a feeling that there’s … because things work in a kind of an orderly manner despite our desires and our ambitions and everything, things seem to work out. And so my conclusion is that I think it would be folly – I’m not lapsing into religious superstition – but I think it would be folly to presume that We are forming Our civilization and we are creators of the earth and that we should go any further or too far or too fast without knowing why.

That’s my belief and with that in mind, I’m of the opinion that it’s very possible that looking back on our history we haven’t been too long inside our clothes even, much less in the business of creating planets. So I have a feeling that there is a plan to it. Of course, my idea of creation is not the creation of matter – I don’t believe that matter exists as we, you know, as we believe it. And I don’t believe that it’s strictly create-able either as a Christian Scientist would believe it. That you can just by, a few half a dozen people getting together, you know, remove a tumour or something of that sort.

dm5-06:39

But I believe that what we have to do to get a true apprehension of anything is to go back into the source of where we came from which is the mind dimension. I mean, if anything, we emanate from mind stuff. And the reason I say that is because this was the best way that I can draw the picture that I travelled. There again somebody else might be able to … you get all kinds of pictures. You get analyses of experience but the experience I had was one of … resulted from an incessant application of concentration and observation on mind processes. In other words you’d go within. This is the true way to go within. You don’t go within by just concentrating on your navel or your toes.

Yeah.

Q 2: Tonight you’ve been painting a very bleak picture for humanity, let’s say, sort of following this programming, caught in a prison camp, say. Now I know you claim to have escaped from this prison camp somewhat. For the people like us that are prisoners following this around, I wouldn’t put much value in that kind of life. I don’t know if you do. Now that you’ve escaped, that you’re free what value do …

R: I’m not free. I’ve momentarily seen or feels or seen the score. But you know, I still have to eat and I still have the pay the price for it. And I have to believe or leave.

Female Voice: Cave dwellers. Are you familiar with the cave dwellers?

R: Who wrote it? Oh, Plato ? Plato yeah. This is described by Plato in Plato’s ‘Republic ’ – the cave of the shadows . Man’s comprehension of reality. He says man is tied. I thought it was amazing that Plato … modern thinking, we deify modern thinking. They don’t come up to Plato. If they had the insight of Plato they’d have a different insight into psychology. He maintained that men are chained with their back to the mouth of the cave and they see the shadows of the things passing outside. They see the shadows on the wall of the cave and they interpret that as reality.

And the only way they can find the real reality is to break their chains and get up and turn around and go out in the daylight. This is an analogy of course. But it’s very, very true I think.

dm5-09:16

Q 2: So, so all you’ve done [inaudible] seen the prison and you’re still stuck in it like everybody else?

R: I think I’m here. Sometimes I wake up and I think that, you know, I’m going through some motions and one day I’ll find out I’m dead. (Laughter) I’ve got an idea I’m still here.

Q 3: Why don’t you give us enough credit for our abilities to change, to change our realities?

R: Let me give you all the credit you need. I’d like to see you do it. Where are your implements? It would be more difficult than Archimedes with his fulcrum and lever moving the earth. How can you change if you’re programmed?

Q 3: I don’t believe in the finality of that program.

R: See that’s your privilege. I don’t want to upset your belief. In fact I think hope springs eternal. And only because hope springs eternal do the little ones keep the wheels turning. It’s necessary, necessary for you to have that hope. I can live without it. I can live without it.

Yeah.

dm5-10:30

Q 4: I wonder if you can give me a couple of more examples about how to spot the Umpire at work.

R: Oh there’s a very simple one. When you hear an argument inside yourself. You ever hear an argument when you say, “Hey I want to get over the cigarettes” and someone says ,”One more won’t hurt.” See that’s the quibble that’s going on and whatever decision is made, is made by the Umpire. That’s my point. Regardless, it’s very plain and very evident in the basic appetites. Now, there are other decisions that are made when you start watching yourself, meditating upon your actions, it’ll become more evident. But it’s very evident to watch a person making decisions about, ”Which pleasure shall we have? Shall we have vanilla ice cream or raspberry?.” You know, shall you have a big fat woman or a skinny one? All night? Two weeks? You want to drop dead? Or do you want to get back to work? See? That’s the Umpire.

I maintain that everything …it’s just like … I’ve known people, for instance, they sit in a house, I’ve seen people get into a house. I don’t know why they … how it starts, but they can’t get up and go out. They can’t make a decision, they’ll sit there. I knew a man one time who was 20 years of age and he stayed 20 years in bed. His Umpire just failed. And he couldn’t make that decision to move. He made a decision – it was to stay in bed.

dm5-12:05

Q 5: In your dealings with other people, when you’re running on automatic, how do you spot the Umpire?

R: Well, the thing is of course to improve the Umpire and I think you do. And in your dealings with other people, they’re functioning … this is the reason, I think, psychology is so hard to come up with is the factors. The factors are changing. For instance, your Umpire decision may be different next month if you make enough mistakes. And we’re always trying to predict our relationships with other people, we’re always trying predict this and I think one of the mistakes that’s made today is that … it’s imperfect Umpires even. We can’t get … these geniuses that are going to change the earth are all located down here and they think that they can take dope and grow in experience, have weird sex acts and grow in experience and they make the decisions in that direction. And the result is, well, we get millions of them that are .. we’ve ploughed them under already because their Umpires were faulty. They wind up in the nut houses and in suicide, overdoses and that sort of thing. These are classic examples of faulty Umpires and a faulty system of psychology. It says, “Hey you go right ahead. Don’t let anybody tell you that what you’re doing is wrong.”

dm5-13:36

And I’m talking about a psychologist who’s interested only in the body, survival of the body perhaps. They don’t know anything about the mind but they could help the body to survive a little longer. No, they believe that experience is broadening and people are capable.

I find that the more you learn about the things that go in the head, the things that go to make up a decision, the more you’re convinced that you’re ignorant. The more you realize the vast scope of possibility, the factors that go into … it’s just like a person sets out to make a million dollars. And maybe he has a heck of a time just saving the first thousand. But after a while he learns to play the stock market or something and he becomes rather proficient and he thinks he’s got all the factors but some wise guy gets in there and tampers with the gears someplace. Maybe he tampers with a computer in the bank like in LA and the stock market collapses. So then he loses his life. He may have a stroke as a result of it. Because he didn’t take into all the factors in a simple thing like making money and there are millions of factors, millions and billions of factors just connected with the stock market see.

So figure abstract sciences, figure the abstract science of the human mind – thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking ad infinitum, see. So you have to get into it.

Yeah.

dm5-15:06

Q 6: I’d like to have your opinion about this incident. The incidents happen not on an established, regular basis but erratically. A person walks into the bathroom and looks in the mirror. And whatever it is … I have not, it’s unexplainable. But you look at this face in the mirror and it looks familiar to you and you force that form to say a word and the voice is familiar. And yet whatever it is that is watching all of this in the bathroom mirror finds this face and this voice alien and removed from whatever is watching this whole incident.

R: Well, I would have to possibly hear in more detail depth although … I think this is quite, a lot of people have this feeling that there’s somebody else looking back if that’s what you’re talking about. Now you may be talking about a person that’s obsessed or possessed. I’ve seen people that had a lot of insight into the mirror when they were drunk. They’d have quite an argument going, you know. The one party would be calling one an SOB and the other would be arguing because he was insulted. I think it’s an ideal place for, like a split, schizoid thing to take effect where you can identify with two halves of yourself and put one on the other side of the looking glass so to speak.

Q 6: I’m not speaking of myself [inaudible] (Laughter)

R: Well, you could have something, I believe you could have something actually interposing itself between you and the mirror too. See one of the mistakes we make, this is another mistake in modern psychology, is we don’t … modern psychology should explain everything in its domain. Or when a better explanation comes up , it should re-examine its textbooks.

In this business of The Exorcist , I maintain The Exorcist story is very real. But the psychiatrists and psychologists presume to say this is superstition and this didn’t happen. Ten thousand years of science, wisdom about exorcising things and dealing with things has to go down the drain because it’s easier to pretend it doesn’t exist than to face it.

dm5-17:51

Now I maintain that the foolishness has to do with the fact that this is a projection, there are many projections. This is a dimension, there are many dimensions. And it isn’t logical to say they don’t exist because you can’t see them because you can’t see a virus and you can’t see an electron but we accept the scientist. We say, “There is an electron.” We accept the diagnosis that comes from the guy that says there’s a virus doing this. We can’t see it but it happens because it’s predictable. You know, the disease is predictable and, of course so are the symptoms. And I maintain that there are such things as other dimensional creatures co-inhabiting this stage.

And people know that. I’ve had a lady come down to my place from right here in Pittsburgh years ago. I have one in each town I think. Every place I lecture, I have … somebody comes up to me and says I got one. And this one lady said she had five, five people there with her all the time. I saw the one, I saw the one, so I’m equally nuts if she was nuts. I was standing behind her and so I said to her … there’s a couple of boys present here, I think, was with me when she came down. In fact they were supposed to bring her and they brought her by mistake (laughs).

I’m not a healer. I don’t want to become involved in the … but I don’t believe you can disperse them by therapy. In fact, I think the reason we have a high percentage of suicides among our psychiatrists is the fact that they become smitten with diseases that they never dreamed existed. And that’s the reason they got to go – the only cure is suicide. They can’t handle it.

Yeah.

dm5-19:39

Q 7: You speak of mind as dimension and you say there are many dimensions. Are you inferring that all the other dimensions come from this same mind or the mind is simply one of the [inaudible]

R: I presume, I presume. I don’t say that the last thing is the mind. See, there’s a saying that before … what happens here is that there is an incessant observation of man’s potential – his highest potential of being a process observer and being aware of his consciousness. Aware of awareness. When this is observed with relentless observation, you blow your head - thoughts, the relative mind, the relative world disappears. Reality enters for the first time – reality.

Now, to the observer you may be a nut. But in that state of reality you have transcended the human mind and the mind dimension. And you realize it’s only something that you pass through. And nearly everyone has these experiences speaks of it. Of killing the mind. They speak of it in Zen – you have to kill the mind. It’s (mind) false – in other words it’s like a crazy house in the circus, you know the house of mirrors, illusions and that sort of thing.

dm5-21:10

Q 7: [Then the mind?] is possibly a false dimension like all the other dimensions.

R: Well, it’s the same as this in my estimation. If you take it seriously , it’ll worry you.

Q 8: You were talking about out of the body experiences. And I worked with a woman, for a woman – I was a bedside nurse for her and she had multiple sclerosis. She had been in bed for ten years unable to move, unable to talk. She was able to hear and able to see. And I worked for her for several months and she weighed about 70 pounds and she was 54 years old. When I first saw her, in my heart I said, “Oh my God, how can I do this, how can I work with this woman?” But my intuition said, “Yes, go for it. There’s something to learn.”

So through the weeks I learnt something about someone who had their mind controlled. I mean who had the power of their own mind. Can you imagine being in bed and unable to move for 10 years and having the will to live and having the will to give and to experience life. She experienced her grandchild – they brought the grandchild to her and put the grandchild on her chest and the baby kissed her. And it was all very moving to me.

What I wanted to bring out was a certain look in her eyes, that she would get in her eyes when I would go in the kitchen and cook for her. There was a mirror in the room in front of me and there was a glass window from the kitchen to her room, which was actually the porch. And I kept an eye on that mirror because there was no other way of communicating to me in case she needed her suction machine. In case she was dying because she was dying. They told she should have been dead about 10 years ago but she’s still very much alive.

dm5-23:15

R: Is she still living now you mean?

Q 8: Oh yes, she’s very much alive. So I would check the mirror occasionally and there was a strange feeling that I had when I saw her eyes. Because her eyes would go up and there was a definite glaze around her face. And I noticed this and I talked to the other nurses about it. She had seen a program on television about out of the body experiences and somehow she had communicated with the angel, that’s what she said to her nurse. She didn’t want anybody else to know.

R: Oh yeah this is quite common.

Q 8: And, yeah there was something going on. I could feel it. And to a nurse she said that the angel comes. And she’s very calm and very peaceful, you know, and very contented in that situation. She said the angel comes and the the nurse asked her, “Well, what do you say to the angel?” and Corkie [?] would say, “I’m not ready yet.” And the angel would say ,”Okay, we’ll leave it be.”

R: Yes I’ve had … I was in the contracting business years back and I had a partner. When he was 60 years of age he got cancer, cancer of the lungs. And I’d had some peculiar things happen to me and I don’t consider to tell them and I couldn’t duplicate it if I tried. The just happened when they happened – they’re there. But he was living in a house trailer, he was broke – he had spent all his money on doctors and stuff and he had this house trailer. And two daughters came up from Florida and the house was about 40 feet long, as long as this – they’re called 40 foot trailers they’re really about 35. Wide as this … long as this room and wide. They had little children, the daughters had little kids about two years old. Two daughters, I think there were maybe three children there, and his wife and him in this 40 foot trailer.

dm5-25:26

When I went over to see him and he was asking me questions about … we never discussed religion or anything else. We just worked together and more or less it was hard work and we kept that out of the conversation so we’d get something done. We had enough to fight about. Anyhow he seemed to sense that he should ask me a question, you know and he said to me, “Where do you go when you die?” Now this is just a couple of days before he died. Well I said, ‘I don’t know where you’re going (tape break and restarts) but I know what I feel happens to people after death” , and I told him.

Couple of days later I went over and it was the night before Easter, day before Easter- Saturday night. And the women were putting on their coats and they were going to the Eagles to play Bingo. And the wife had kind of … he was on a studio couch. She kind of knelt down on one knee and she was talking to him and saying, “I’ll be back at 10’oclock”, and so on. And I saw his hand reaching out real slow and he was patting her on the back. Like this, you know, real slow.

So when she got I up I said, “What’s wrong with Frank?’. And she says, “Oh he’s in a coma.” Coma? Now whenever somebody tells me somebody’s in a coma I presume they’re unconscious but he knew she was there. So I said, ”I think he knows you’re there.” She said, “Oh yeah but he’s in a coma. He gets into those and slips in and out of them.”

And I know you’ll think this is a damn big lie but this man actually told me he was dying. And how I translated it I don’t know. There were no words spoken. But it was just a slight pressure and I stood up and I said, “Don’t go.” I said to the woman, “Don’t go.” She said, “Why not?”, I said, “He’s dying.” She said, “How do you know?.” I said, “Because he told me so.” She said, ”He didn’t say a word.” I said, “Don’t kid yourself. He’s dying.”

dm5-27:38

I was that convinced, you know. It could have been superstition or you’d have thought it could just have been [inaudible] or something. And I often look back upon it and think what an ass I might have made out of myself if he had lived another day. The things I did. They took their clothes off, they stayed there. I said, “We’ve got to get him to the hospital.” She says, ”Why?” I said, “You have these little children here. And when you have cancer of the lungs sometimes, it’s not pretty when they go”, you know. That’s what happened to him. When he died, his lungs seemed to come up out of his mouth. But she said, “We have no money to take him to the hospital.” I said, ”You don’t have to have any money when a man’s dying.” And when I picked up the telephone and called up the volunteer fire department, this little community and said, “We need an ambulance over here” ,I took this all on myself. And that’s why I said, you know, it would have really been foolish, imposing on somebody else’s domestic situation. They got him into the hospital that night, he died on Easter morning. And he coughed up his lungs.

dm5-28:45

I think that you can communicate. There’s … you run into these incidents all the time of people that are … that’s what I call a direct mind experience. I don’t think it was the hand. I don’t think he talked to me through his hand. I think the contact was made and I think this happens – it happens with a lot of people that you can communicate. My brother, when he was in the automobile wreck, he saw and heard what was going on but he couldn’t communicate with anybody. Maybe if somebody had touched him he could.

Q 9: I just had the same question I asked you before because I’m trying to get … what good is it for a prisoner now he’s in a prison, if he could never get out?

R: Well, that was the decision I made when I was 21 years of age. I realized I was facing that and maybe I would find out something I couldn’t change and I found out something I couldn’t change. But I prefer to know than to die in ignorance. And I preferred it then and I think that decision was worthwhile. Because there is a certain equanimity – I’ve been in some tight places and when I get into those tight places it’s then that it returns to me and I say, “Hey, you know, there’s nothing happening here of any importance.” Then all that importance vanishes. Whereas if I hadn’t gone through that, I would have still been taking things very seriously.

Q 9 : Can you, as a teacher can you offer us anything in life has value, any joy, any of these things..

R: There is no such thing as enjoyment. There is no such thing as enjoyment.

Q 9 : Is there anything [inaudible] …

R: This is the icing that we’ve put on ourselves, that’s the icing we put on the cake. Nobody enjoys – people are enjoyed. That’s bait. That’s bait. Let’s say the most intense, the most wonderful pleasure there is, is sex. Hell, that’s animal. If you didn’t have that you wouldn’t take on the burden. The animals are brought together under the bait of pleasure and they sign up for twenty years of slavery. You talk about slavery, see. You could be free as a bird if you weren’t hooked on the idea of pleasure. Then you realize, sooner or later every body realizes, I think, that the…..

dm5-31:09

File dm5 ends at 31:10

File 6

Total time: 31:02

[This seems to be the continuation of dm3]

dm6-00:00

R: … perception is strictly the mind projecting upon the mind with the external world shut off.

(Heavily modified from the book)

Reaction Visions: ghosts, visitation. The mind projects these visions from unknown source or sources upon the physical world. And these type of visions besides ghosts are the hologram and hallucinations.

These are reaction things. In other words, there’s something there. But the mind projects them upon the physical world now, not upon the mind itself. It projects them out there and then witnesses it again – and then wonders, and projects again, what it saw. But the first thing is, it projects them. It is aware of seeing it before it’s aware of projecting it. If you got startled by a ghost, in other words.

(Heavily modified from the book)

Mental perception : Now mental perceptions involve true revelations from an unknown environment acting upon the mind. And introspection is another one, it’s mental perception where you’re seeing inside the mind. And it’s mind reacting upon the mind again. But not projecting. It’s mind reacting upon the mind. And perceiving itself doing it.

Deliberate perception: Now we have another thing such as deliberate perception. This is the fifth category. Deliberate – the creation, the deliberate creation of visions. The deliberate creation of visions is ESP, astral projection, mind-zapping, and the creation of tulpas or anything else that you can create and cause it to materialize.

So it’s a powerful element of the mind that is deliberately overlooked. But there is no way – the thing is, that, I maintain that modern psychology does not properly identify the source of these phenomena. And scientifically, in any scientific field where phenomena exist, and the field fails to explain its own phenomena, its own field of phenomena, then that science is lacking. The science of psychology should know the cause and root of everything that happens to the mind. It should also define the mind.

dm6-02:19

Now we have a little time and I think I’d like to, since I’ve read so much, I’d like to talk a little in the form of questions and answering. You can ask some questions if you wish.

Yeah.

(Q 1 is heavily edited in the book)

Q 1: In some of my self-explorations, the anterior self you’re talking about beyond the Umpire, would come very close to destroying the Umpire, and the Umpire would throw me out of the game, throw me right out of the ball park. I was not allowed to continue.

R: Right, right.

Q 1: Is that a phenomenon that has occurred in your experience?

R: You’re right. See what happens is, you either kill the Umpire or he kills you.

Q 1: He kills you.

R: Right, right. See because, see basically what happens is that the Umpire can be taken over by any of the constituents. The Umpire has to do with the balance of the desires, the balance of the fears and the appetites, the ambitions. The ambitions are desires. But all these things have a power, and they’re reinforced at certain times. So in the event that the Umpire isn’t wise enough, that momentarily, meaning for maybe twenty years, a person can be taken over by one of the constituents, one of the desires, mainly the desire to reproduce.

dm6-03:42

A person can submit to the desire to reproduce and for twenty years pay the penalty, until the kid’s twenty years old. Maybe later - if he’s an idiot. (Laughter) So consequently it’s the … the Umpire is not infallible. And this is the reason - the need to study this Umpire. And as you study him, this is one of the first things that happens, is that the Umpire becomes more balanced, more capable over actually preserving the life of the individual. He doesn’t have too much sex, he doesn’t have too much dope, he doesn’t drink too much booze. He doesn’t work too hard either, or get too ambitious and kill himself with a stroke trying to make a million bucks. He starts to live.

dm6-04:26

And this is what I maintain about the spiritual path that nearly everyone overlooks, and even people that I’ve been associated with in the group for three and four years, is that they think that they can immediately hop past all physical adjustment, all Umpire adjustment, and go directly into this pipe dream called enlightenment by studying the symptoms and saying, “Pop! There I am. I’m no mind,” or something. “I’m just going to act like I’ve got no mind.” And of course ...

Tim Calhoun: [inaudible] therefore I am.

R: Yeah, Tim, what do you say?

(Tim’s question is not in the book – the answer might exist in heavily edited form)

Tim: It sounds to me, when you get to “the paradoxical immanence in all things relative” and I was wondering … we think about, we often think in terms of our environment and survival, and I was wondering whether, even though survival appears illusory, whether it is the most accurate base to keep doing our research. Or should we gravitate toward subtracting things further

dm6-05:28

R: What do you mean by attractive things?

Tim: Subtractive.

R: Oh, absolutely. I mentioned that when I was talking, is that the vector that we take out our campaign is one of a reverse vector, of retreating from the absurd, not postulating ...

Tim: You said that it may – to some it seems as if the absurd is more sharp in terms of its quality than our own postulization [postulating] ...

R: No, no. It isn’t postulization. You don’t postulate. In other words, if you get gonorrhea, you’ll know you’ve got to retreat from that. See. That’s one of the appetites.

Tim: I understand.

R: And if you wind up in a sanitarium because of too much booze, you have to be dried out or something, then you realize that you’ve got to retreat from that, that’s all. This is just the somatic Umpire, see. This is the thing. But what I said before was that we’ve got to straighten out – you can’t start, in other words, we like to … it’s an ego, it’s an ego to think, “Oh, I’m a divine creature. I’ve got a soul.” I say, “Prove you’ve got a soul.”

dm6-06:35

All we know for sure is that we got senses and fears, and we respond to these things. We start with that. Now I started with a process of thinking, which I called observing the observer. And I didn’t bother to identify who we were. Because I, manifestly indicated right off the bat - we are not the body. But yet the body has a tremendous influence on ‘we’, on us. And as long as we’re living in this body, we’re going to have to understand it. That doesn’t mean that we’ve got to say we are the body. Just that we’ve got to understand it, and the effects it has upon the anterior mind.

dm6-07:17

And when you reach a certain point, as I said, when you reach a point where you’re able to see the Umpire clearly, he disappears as being us. He is the only “us” we know until we transcend him. He is the only center that we know. And when we discover him we think for a long time – for instance in the exaltation called salvation, where a guy gets saved – this is where he finally finds liberation through a perfect umpiring. If he’s been on booze, he becomes saved from booze. And he’s got a new grasp. He sees things from a different viewpoint. And the liberation from having a better Umpire exalts him. But it doesn’t exalt him from his other egos, of course. There’s other hang-ups that he has – he thinks that he thinks. That’s an ego too.

Yeah.

dm6-08:14

(Q 2 isn’t in the book)

Q 2: To continue that, that same tone of thought, is the Umpire, is the one that’s watching him go through that change, that change in perspective?

R. No, no. The Umpire doesn’t - the Umpire is not that which watches the Umpire. This is exactly the reason that I maintain that there’s an anterior self – an anterior self that seems to be getting away from us and becoming more and more anterior, which it isn’t. We are becoming closer to it by this process. In other words, I outlined a process of … as I said, once the Umpire is even spoken about, that we know that it’s something that works, it’s an observation. It is not an observer any longer. It is an observation. And its force becomes neutralized.

dm6-08:58

Up until that time we’re inclined to say, “Hey, I’m going to marry this girl,” or, “Hey, I’m going to make a million. And if I can’t have these things I want to be dead.” When he says ‘I’ he’s talking about, not even the Umpire. He’s got an incorrect Umpire. He’s talking about one of his appetites.

Q 2: An ego.

R: Yeah, right, which is an ego, that’s all.

Yeah.

dm6-09:19

(Q 3 is not in the book)

Q 3: It seems to me that your Umpire is concerned with your well being so to speak. You know, if you’re doing too many drugs, you’re going to eventually taper down and even quit. What is it that stops people from doing too much thinking? Is there a … its seems like a lot of people have an Umpire that tells them, “Hey, I better not think about this stuff, it’s too heavy for me or it may involve me retreating from too much my bullshit and I like my bullshit.”

R: Yeah. You see, this is one of the voices that I speak of – this is one of the appetites. The appetites have various languages. In other words, it you want to quit smoking, you’re going to hear a lot of little voices that will give you reasons for not quitting. This is a particularly troublesome day, this voice might say, “Let’s get through this with a cigarette, tomorrow we’ll quit smoking.” See that’s that same type of thinking. There’s a cleverness. This is another reason why there’s a duality. Whenever you hear that interior type of talking it means that there is two people. There are two forces involved – we can only be one of them. I hope. (Laughter)

Yeah.

dm6-10:41

(Q 4 is not in the book)

Q 4: In your processes to describe [inaudible] different Umpire, the Umpire. Of those five types of thought processes what would you call that?

R: That’s your internal observation – that’s your mind watching the mind. That’s the fourth category - of mental perception, of mental phenomena.

(Q 5 is not in the book)

Q 5: Who’s watching the rest of it?

R: Well, behind … basically there’s a point, if you’ve noticed, there’s a point where I said everything degenerates into confusion. After you watch this and know there’s an anterior observer observing the Umpire, then you’re aware of this process. Then you reach a high state of confusion but you continue to try to watch it and what happens is your head explodes. This is the Satori message or the enlightenment message.

dm6-11:44

(Q 6 is not in the book)

Q 6: A little ambiguity?

R: Well, you might call it that. You might call it a sort of …

Q 6: [inaudible] ?

R: Well, it isn’t that so much – it’s that they’re both. There’s a difference – there’s no longer definition. We try to define them when we come back from that state. If the journey winds up like it ... what you know … with what you become is nothing and simultaneously everything.

Q 6: All the stages in between.

R: Yes. Yes. All the possibilities thereof.

Yeah.

Q 6: Are you saying … I’m still not quite sure of what you mean about this Umpire or how it’s defined. You’re saying that when you realize this Umpire, the internal schism disappears, the duality of [inaudible] against this appetite or [inaudible]

R: Well, what happens is that the witnessing of what goes on. For instance as long as we believe we are that which reproduces or we are that which drinks then we continue to drink because we think we are doing something. But when you transcend this, when you get behind it and watch this process, you realize that you’re the person that’s watching it and you’re not that which drinks. And then it becomes indifferent – you become indifferent as to whether you drink or eat or anything. In other words you might say it’s a mini-enlightenment. A lot people view this, as I said, as a form of salvation. That when they’re able to see that – they may identify it as the Devil or something, but regardless of how they identify it - they rise above it or they go beyond it. They watch this and it immediately takes the strength out of it.

dm6-13:20

That means also that there’s a chance then for the Umpire to even work better. Because it’s not going to be overpowered by any desire. You’re still going to live, you’re still going to eat, you’re still going to drink, you’re still going to reproduce but you aren’t going to give a darn about any sensational monuments you’re going to leave by any of these processes. (Laughter)

(Q 7 is not in the book)

Q 7: Should we be afraid of the explosion? Were you afraid of it?

R: Well, it depends on whether you want to gamble or not. If you think that’s … when I started out in this thing, I saw the possibility – I wouldn’t say I was afraid – I saw the possibility that I might go insane. And I’ve come to the conclusion that I would take the insanity rather than not knowing. If I knew, or if I didn’t know or if I never found out, it’s better to take the risk of insanity than to not know anything in a lot of fear. And strangely enough, and I’ve repeated this and I mean it very sincerely, I think that when you start and embark on a path like this and make the necessary commitment, the interior/anterior self – whatever you want to call it – somehow sets up protection. Now how that’s done – there’s a lot of names for it, you know, such as guardian angel or whatever, automatic interior computations, awareness of all the factors that the conscious mind can be aware of, you’re guided through the raindrops, I can’t put it in words for you – but I’m quite convinced that every man that makes a commitment is protected.

But regardless I don’t want you to go into it without a certain amount of despair. Because the despair will help to pop your head. (Laughter)

Yeah.

dm6-15:26

(Q 8 is heavily edited in the book)

Q 8: It seems to me though that this waiting for the explosion is something that doesn’t [inaudible] what scares people and I tried to kill [inaudible] the ego, I find sometimes I feel as though I’m looking into an abyss and I feel like at the same time kicking and screaming, “Oh let me do this”, (Rose Interjects, “Sure Sure”) and it seems that you know, I can’t trust myself. I’m afraid of leaving my inhibitions, you know and fantasies would crop up and [inaudible]

R: You know what you’re afraid of there – you’re afraid of losing a coward. (Laughter). Let him die – ain’t worth living. There may be something magical result from the loss of that coward. See this is what I thought. I saw this myself. I said, “Hey yeah. You look at everybody and they look upon themselves and cherish themselves as if” … you know especially when you’re young. I got into this when I was 21 years of age, intensely, that is not ... you can look in the mirror and say, “Hey this guy could cause a lot of trouble. You know why get into an ascetic path if he could trade his looks for money or his wit and wisdom for money or a career or Cadillacs or whatever. Then why fool around with this junk”, see.

But you realize too if you’re introspective that this is talking yourself out of real action. And when you realize that you are afraid you have no other course except to face that fear.

dm6-17:01

Q 8: But isn’t there also a state of preparation that requires [inaudible]. In other words some people can blast their heads [? inaudible]

R: Well, I think the preparation … I think almost everybody that sat through this is prepared. There are a few who got up and left because they aren’t prepared. But you’re protected by Nature. If you are a paper bag that’s incapable of holding too much junk, you’ll bust and run. And that protects you.

Only the people that have an intuition – if they hear something along this line and they pick up an intuition and say, “Hey, that is what I want.” Now I’m talking about what you want. Some people want to know God – they forget about themselves, they externalize and they say, “I want to know God.” Okay this is pretty much the same thing. The desire to know the self and the desire to know the God are almost synonymous.

So basically, there are people of course that are protected by strong conditions of the Umpire. Or a voice says, "Hey, don’t listen to that nut any longer. You could get involved. You are liable to start doing these things, this introspection." (Laughter) Fortunately there are enough people doing it that you can see they’re not too unhappy.

Yes.

dm6-18:32

(Q 9 is heavily edited in the book)

Q 9: You briefly mentioned dreaming and I was wondering you could just go into that a little. What you consider it to be, I guess.

R: Dreaming is basically mental … this is the same as visualization except that we don’t do it deliberately. Dreaming is the bouncing around inside the memory bank. The awareness … you become somewhat aware in your sleep - incidentally we are aware all the time. But there is a shut-off because of the pain, the weariness and occasionally it fires back up but since there’s no external stimuli, it just bounces around inside there, picks up random memories and you see those. So it’s mental visualization of the memory – the mind watching the memory bank in various combinations of things that have actually been witnessed.

Yes.

Q 9: Do you say then by agreeing to just [?] … there’d be no reason to analyse, they’re just garbage?

R: Oh no, no. There is reason to analyse them because they do come from the memory bank and they’re generally summoned by an anxiety. They’re often summoned by an anxiety. So that when a person is trying to talk to himself … there’s voices, for instance, that the Umpire will not tolerate. The Umpire keeps them squelched. And you get people who have a pattern of dreaming and this is always another voice trying to get in.

And these vary. There are precognitive dreams of great philosophic importance that may stay with you your entire life. Or there is a simple dream if you’ve been without sex too long – that voice may insert itself and say, “Hey, you’ve been neglecting me”, by getting into the dream world. The awareness pops in on that anxiety as well. There’s a tension existing, a body tension purely, glandular tension in that case. But I think that the dreams are very … in fact I knew a Yogi years ago and this one of the first things he started doing in his early life is recording his dreams and studying them. Incidentally some of the dreams are prophetic as well because they’re able to see – the mind is able to see and it summons things from memory.

dm6-20:56

To give you an example, if you were to get a direct mental message from an entity that was dead, or let’s say from something that you thought was Jesus Christ – no one knows what Jesus Christ looks like – but in your memory was the face on a calendar. And that’s what will come – this face on the calendar will become activated and walk into your room and talk to you. Because that’s an intelligence, it stimulates … only thing it can stimulate, the impression coming in can only stimulate some previous memory pattern so that a relative will come to you in the same light – perhaps as you saw it last, as you saw that relative last, before he died or something. It’ll come to you in a dream but it has to come through previous existing memories. It can’t come with any new thing because we just don’t pick it up. We pick up the presence, we don’t pick up the picture because there is no picture to pick up really.

dm6-21:57

(Q 10 is not in the book)

Q 10: Sounds to me like, when you talk about dreaming, you’re getting down to a mythological level in terms of the environment. For instance, a person would not remember … a person would have a propensity if he was going to enter a spiritual path to remember Christ or some saint and that would somehow the fabric or the cloth [?] seems useful for him to visualize that rather on focus on why people drink Coca-Cola. So maybe there’s … is is the fabric itself that some kind of significance or do people who study Zen engage in any kind of mythological explanation?

R: Well, you’re talking about two different religious paths. Zen does negate whereas a person who is, say, devoted to the adoration of Christ – that’s his level. And he may be provoked to return to that by dreams whereas a student of Zen would not be provoked by dreams except to say, “Yeah there’s a dream – so what?”, - like a toenail.

dm6-23:01

Q 10: What if the objective environment … what if the subjective environment and physical world was reaching a state of tension where it was felt that it needed some other basis to continue its survival?

R: I don’t know. I don’t know when you got to blast off.

Q 10: Leaving tomorrow night at [inaudible] (Laughter) You want to come?

R: (Laughs) I’ll linger a while I think. (Laughter)

(Q 11 is not in the book)

Q 11: I’ve always thought of dreams in a different light, quite often like movies. Sometimes it’s a [inaudible] adventure you know. It seems just to have basically an entertainment value and they don’t usually include anything that I haven’t seen before consciously (R interjects, “Yeah yes they will sometimes”) [inaudible] horses things like that. And there’s other times where there will be something in a dream that I’ve never encountered. And I have to think about what it is and the next day [inaudible] amazed sometimes. The other day I thought I saw a death in my dream and there was a black shadow that went behind my [inaudible] head and it was real frightening. It was a dream and and it woke me up.

dm6-24:29

R: Right. I think the only way that we can recognize visitations – I think a certain spirit or entity might visit you – the entity itself, would have, if you saw its form … (Q 11 interjects, “It might be somebody leaving too”), it might be formless, it could well be formless as well as we view form but it has to assume some form in order to come to our consciousness. We can’t view Uncle Jake as being formless, we have to see him with a derby hat on so the memory will fetch the derby hat out of memory and put it on a form and that’s Uncle Jake.

As far as the dreams – the dreams are worth studying because I wrote mine down for years intermittently and I remember going … I dug them out here a few years ago and I had listed them according to the day, the night – like the night would be the … if it had to go on the night of the 25th I would put 25 to 26 (thanks) between the 25th and 26th. So we’d get a precision on, in case something happened.

Well, there have been a lot of precognitive dreams where people have dreamed of crashes and delayed taking an airplane flight. The only thing that ever happened of significance in my life, I think, was – the one that comes off my mind - was I dreamt of a man planting a flag on the moon in 1957 , I saw it very clear. He planted an American flag on the moon and I just casually marked it down in this little secretarial spiral notebook…

dm6-25:58

Q 11: Did you create that or did it look something like what the photograph looked like?

R: I didn’t see any spaceships or anything. All I saw was a man sticking a flag in the dirt of the moon. So yeah that’s just what I wrote down - dreamed of a man putting an American flag on the moon. And of course what happened in 1957? I don’t know if they were working on rockets then or not - they could have been. Or it could have been just a natural …

(Q 12 is not in the book)

Q 12: Could you speak a little more about time because time … a mundane understanding of time has the premise that there are so many incidents that have been happening during [inaudible] and a more correct definition [inaudible] manifestation of your own will. For instance these people would not be in this room right now if they had not willed to come here. So they eliminated certain factors of time by a certain amount. [?]

R: I don’t agree with your first premise so I shoot your whole argument.

Q 12: That’s okay. (Laughter)

R: I don’t believe anybody willed to come here (Laughter)

Yeah.

dm6-27:17

(Q 13 is edited in the book)

Q 13: I know that you were studying to be a priest at one time. Well, I’m a Catholic and I sort of fitted this all in within the Catholic philosophy that, you know where you’re searching for the ultimate reality which is God. It’s just a different way of putting it but you know … yeah

R: Right, right. You see the thing is in previous times, I think that the Asiatic was a thousand years ahead of us because he had a direct mind system and they called it Zen and that’s the reason I talk a lot about Zen. But I didn’t reach my realization through Zen. I have repeated this in almost every lecture I give.

I’ve reached it as a result of a tremendous determination, regardless of the odds, to find the Truth, whatever it was, about myself - who I was and if possible, anything I could find out about myself as in where I came from and where I was going. These are the three main questions and they are the province of religion as well as psychology.

But we live in a generation where people are reluctant to accept anything from religion and it's a good idea because religion has been too full of politics, and greed and empire building and everything else. They’ve lost the purity of purpose. (Are we done?)

But we have cases in Christian mysticism or Christian history, religious history where there have been men who have reached this. But the sad thing is that the church itself, no Christian church itself advises the finding of God. It advises belief in the pastor – that’s all. If you want to go to church you will find this out. There is none of them that can tell you, there’s none of them that can point you in this direction.

dm6-29:02

John of the Cross was a mystic and he found enlightenment. And they put him in jail – well, the put him jail for looking for it. It was in jail that he found it. And he was an early Christian. St. Teresa of Avila , I presume, from reading some of the things she wrote, that she was enlightened person. But they had to be very careful and almost be clever in concealing it. The result was that Western civilization didn’t know of the values that could be obtained because it was more important to keep the herd peaceful than it was to try to free people.

(Q 14 is edited in the book)

Q 14: Is this important now in America, to sort of …

R: No. No, this is not important for America. (Laughter). I don’t really know what’s important …

Q 14: They can land you in a mental hospital real easily.

R: Or jail yeah. See I have the advantage that I don’t even discuss this with my neighbours. I’d be [inaudible] coming up here and at home they think I’m a dangerous hillbilly. (Laughter) No, this doesn’t relate to the good of the world. This is one thing we have to get away from is to play … playing God, thinking we’re going to, with our lifetime, do something for the world. How can you aid and abet a [meenorpal?]. (Laughter) It will take care of itself see.

dm6-30:37

(Q 15 is not in the book)

Q 15: I mean you were speaking about God. [inaudible] eat and breathe [inaudible] you really don’t care anymore. Were you supporting that? [inaudible]

R: No, no. I think it’s ideal.

Dm6-31:00

File dm6 ends at 31:02

File 7

Total time: 31:00

(This might be the continuation of dm5 given reference to glands)

dm7-00:00

Q 1: How about in a person’s relation [inaudible – chair dragged?]. Is there anything of value in there?

R: Sure, sure. Everybody and me are the same. That’s the way I look at it. I’d like to be able to treat everybody as myself, but I don’t always do it.

Q 2 (lady): Could you talk more about, you were mentioning the connection between your thoughts and your glands.

R: Yes. Didn’t you ever have that happen?

Q 2: Could you explain a little more? I don’t really understand what you mean.

R: Sure, sure. I maintain for instance, that a woman, her thoughts change with every day of her 28 day cycle. And she has no control over this. And I have had women go through, put the calendar up on the wall and write down their mood, their desire, whether they would be in a sexual mood or in an indifferent or an angry mood – they repeat, almost exactly the same day in that 28 day period. This is because the glands provoke thought.

dm7-01:06

The cow that runs and jumps over the fence doesn’t do it because she logically decides that there’s a bull ten miles away. She does it because the hormones key in - it’s just like a clock, they’ve got a clock wound up inside themselves and they move.

Q 2: Okay, what about an [inaudible] an erratic sense or erratic system of hormones and [inaudible] of the wrong hormones?

R: It will still be an erratic regularity. She will be erratic in a regular pattern.

Q 2: Do you think other things could be achieved in that? Let’s say ...

R: Children.

Q 2: Pardon?

R: Children.

Q 2: No, no that’s not what I’m talking about ...

R: Well, that’s what’s achieved. What are you talking about?

Q 2: Well, you talk about a normal pattern, there’s certain…

R: Well, I don’t talk about a normal, I don’t know what normal is. You have to define it when you say normal.

dm7-01:57

Q 2: Okay, balanced.

R: Okay.

Q 2: I’m talking about a system of balance as opposed to an erratic system, okay. One is a level of estrogen and other hormones, and there’s testosterone. If that level of testosterone is interfering, is at an exaggerated level that the other levels of the hormones do not function properly (?). How does that affect …

R: Well, I don’t know anything about that. I’m not an endocrinologist. I just know that everything works, and the people that are crazy and go out and they stick their heads under street cars, it’s all part of the plan. In other words if somebody’s glands are unbalanced, it may be because of, as the Bible says, the sins of the parents and the grandparents. Or it may be that the kid fouled herself up when she was little, see, by playing games. I don’t know what causes it. I’m just saying that regardless of what it is, she’s – the individual, she or he – will have a regular pattern that they’ll follow, and they can’t control it.

dm7-02:58

They can’t control it. I was watching them even trying to write it on the calendar and they’d still say, “It happened [inaudible], see.

Yeah.

Q 3: What do you think about the present state of physics or any of the physical sciences? I mean do you think they’re getting at something? Or are they still stuck in the paradigm?

R: Well, they produce material for meditation. I think it helps. I’ve learned a lot from the laws of physics. I think the laws of physics are reflected in psychological laws and spiritual laws. I’ve written a few of them down, like the law of proportional returns - that’s a law of physics. In other words, we find that there is a non-destruction of matter. Of course that is, I think that’s going to be disproved later. They found already, I heard a guy somebody was … in other words, there’s a concept that matter has only so much energy, and it’s indestructible. You can change the form but the energy’s still there.

dm7-04:03

What I read the other day was that somebody was experimenting down in Florida with hydrogen, light, and one other chemical. Did you guys read that?

Audience member: Chlorine, wasn’t it?

R: Chlorine. Hydrogen, chlorine and light. And they claimed that the extra energy seemed to come from the light. And they got six times or seven times as much - like you’d say, that you calculate exactly the Btu in a ton of coal, and say we’re going to … that will move a ten ton locomotive exactly so many feet - you know, the prediction of science. Well, if somebody threw a lump of coal or a ton of coal in there and it took it seven times further, do we destroy that law of chemistry or physics? So evidently that’s coming about. They say the atomic energy did it. This atomic energy overbalanced that law or outmoded it.

dm7-05:03

Q 4: If, when you meditate, you do not find solutions to some [inaudible] problem [inaudible] feel that you wouldn’t have found that solution if it hadn’t come though meditation?

R. Well, you see, I think, when you talk about meditation, you’re talking about stopping a little bit, that’s all. We’ve become so … the hours of the day are taken up, so that you’re always running from one exigency to another. And the meditation is the deliberate setting aside of some time in order to, you know, look at the situation, that’s all. And when you do that, why, automatically you’re going to get solutions. And this has happened … I think a lot of the little problems, let’s say, maybe nothing great, but little problems like domestic difficulties and that sort of thing could be solved with a little bit of meditation where you sit down and just look at it.

dm7-06:05

I don’t know if you have it or not, but I’ve got a little paper I wrote on meditation and I advise the running through the reel. Cold history – don’t meditate on the present, because you’re still angry or excited about it. But if you want to understand yourself, look back about two or three months, or two or three years or so. And then you can kind of … the things that made you angry, you can laugh at now. So you can get a better perspective and see what’s wrong.

I believe in traumatic meditation. I don’t believe in peaceful meditation. I believe peace belongs in the cemetery. You’re going to have plenty of peace when they plant you. So if you want to discover something, cause some turmoil in your head and get to the root of things.

Yeah, over here [Dave?],.

dm7-06:52

Q 5: You mentioned, going back to [inaudible] again, you mentioned jumping up and taking steps. You talk about that being a function of perhaps determination, of awareness of your thinking, your energy level and those types of things. Would you think any one factor is more important than the others - in your ability to ...

R: Well, I think that determination is the most important factor. If you want to say, put your energy or your chips on a certain direction, or a certain aspect of the search, I think the determination is important because if you’re determined enough, you’ll find ways and means. If you just wait and study – some people spend their entire life speculating and buying enormous libraries of books, and the latest thing on this and the latest thing on that. My point is you can throw away most of the books and just go direct into your head. And if you got enough determination to pursue it then results are proportional to energy applied.

dm7-07:55

Q 6: Is there any way of giving up those beliefs – you were talking about before of how people cling to beliefs – without being traumatized?

R: I don’t believe you give up anything. I believe they’re taken away. See what happens - I can remember one time that I had a certain belief about love. I didn’t realize I was being hypnotized. And once I realized it - that this girl had not done anything evil to me, I had done it to myself – then my belief in love as such vanished immediately. Then I could look at it dispassionately, and say, you know ...

dm7-08:40

Q 7: Was it like something that you allowed to happen to you?

R: Yes, yeah, well you allow everything pretty much to happen to you. That’s the proper attitude unless it’s something that’s going to hurt you - you don’t allow that to happen. It’s just like indulgence in a religion, say. Suppose you get into a religion and … nobody’s going to ... you’re not going to change your belief, you’ll never change your belief - but you may outgrow it. You may after … as I said, like a Christian Scientist refuses to … he’s a staunch Christian Scientist but his kid’s dying now, see, and he says, “Oh oh oh, I could be wrong.” And then a new frame of mind comes over and for the first time he has a clear perspective.

Sometimes it happens by accident, that’s what I say. A tremendous lot … we don’t deliberately educate ourselves. I think the best thing we can do is make a declaration that we’re open for learning. Admit to ourselves that we want to learn, admit to ourselves that we hope something gets a hold of us and teaches us something. And then ride with it, see. If we start saying, ”Well, I believe this and I’m going to enforce it”, you’re done – you’ve cemented yourself in.

dm7-10:03

And I can remember when I was a younger, I had a belief that men were thinkers and women were zero, that they had no capacity for thinking. And with that in mind, I got married. And you know, I was fortunate. I met somebody that wasn’t too particular but I survived it (laughs) and I learnt, I learnt a hell of a lot about the human mind on both sides of the fence. And they’re different, believe me, they’re different. But I couldn’t have forced myself - if somebody had said, “Rose you’ve got to learn female psychology and understand the uniqueness of this person and the importance of this person”, my first reaction … I wouldn’t have done it that’s all. It had to be that it happened in the path of living. Having children and that kind of stuff and the result is I think that I have one of the best marriage relationships that there is – we’re divorced. (Laughter)

dm7-11:11

But we’re friends thankfully, we’re good friends, always will be. But we don’t have to live together to be friends. That’s more important than being nuts about each other.

Okay.

Q 8: Did you learn a lot from raising kids?

R: Oh yes. Oh yes, I think so. I began to see myself, some of the mistakes I’d made – I’d forgotten about them. I saw my kid going through them and I said, “ Ye Gods, I’m … that happened to me and I overlooked it.”

Q 9: Only a noted person would know this that speaking of sex – that is the one point where a potentially intelligent person becomes a total idiot. (Laughter). All thought, all cerebration is wrong as you are highly sexed. (R. interjects, “Sure”). You are going to be an idiot. You’ve got to get past that space before you can start even thinking.

R: I believe you’re entirely right, you’re entirely right, you know. (Laughter) A classic example is the billy goat - it drops dead doing it. (Laughter)

Yeah.

Q 10: Are we obliged by something or someone to make this climb? (R. interjects, “No”). And if so for what purpose – is it more comfortable there? Is it …

R: See, you’re talking in utilitarian terms. There’s no … you can’t view it, see. Everybody says, “Will that help my business?” (Laughter) No, no, no. Just what is, is. Do you want to know what is or do you want to be comfortable? And you think when you’re comfortable, you’re really comfortable? No, nobody’s comfortable. So I say, you know, you dig, again you go up to the top of the mountain and see what’s up there for no other reason.

dm7-13:06

Q 11: There’s one experience that I’d like to throw in. There was a man in this physical therapy class that we worked with and he’d been in a car accident and lost his wife and his child. [inaudible] young, 23, red hair, bright red hair, strong body – he’d been lifting weights for a long time.

R: You must have been attracted to him if you remember all that stuff. (Laughter) Go ahead, I didn’t mean to interrupt you.

Q 11: I was working as a physical therapist. He was good looking. (More laughter). So … (R. interjects, “Those were the days, huh.”) so I would watch him work out and it was inspiring to see he had a lot of will. I could see - I mean, as a physical therapist assistant, you got to see a lot of will. People would come in - all kinds of conditions and they had been through a different experience than I had been through. And I thought well, there’s something to learn about will here and there’s something to learn because these people don’t play games like a lot of normal people do who have all their facilities.

So got in a class and I spoke with him and he’d been in a car accident. They told him he’d never walk or talk and he was in a coma for three months. Now he probably weighs about close to 200 pounds – he’s tall – he weighed about a 120 then. So he’s in a coma for three months and when he’s coming out of the coma, the first thing is he saw was himself and he was in heaven and he was in the clouds – this is how he described it to me – he was in the clouds. And actually he was standing on a cloud and there was a podium in front of him and there was a man there with a black … no the man there had a white robe on and he had a long white beard and this Kal he was talking to, he was dressed in white. (Laughter) And the boy I was talking to was dressed in black. And he was looking up - the podium was maybe three feet up … the cloud, I guess the cloud was higher on the other side. So the boy was looking at God – he said it was like a God or something like this and he said, “Hello”, and God said, “Well, hello.” He said, “It’s not your time to come with us now. You’ll have to wait, you still have more work to do.”

dm7-15:50

So he said okay and then he signed off and he came back into his body and then he woke up and he got out of bed. And you know how you wake up in the morning and you get out of bed and you start moving around. Well, he woke up and he got up to start walking, well he landed flat on the floor like an infant and he said, “Hey what’s going on”, you know. And so he taught himself to crawl and he taught himself to talk and he said, “Damned if I’m going to be in bed the rest of my life as an invalid not walking and talking.” So now he’s walking and he’s talking and he’s doing quite well. Anyway I thought that was interesting experience.

R:I think this just an example … I think you’ll run into them every once in a while where people have … they’re doomed, you know, according to science, they were doomed to a [inaudible] somehow persistent and [inaudible]

Q 11: He was pronounced dead three times. The doctors pronounced him dead three times and he kept coming back.

R: In fact, I think you can keep other people alive. I’ve seen instances of this not only [inaudible] idea, just for sheer willpower you know. You can keep them alive but I don’t think they appreciate it.

dm7:17:09

(Silence)

dm7:17:38

Audience member: Good enough[?]

R: No, no. See that was alright. You’re having a rapport but you didn’t know it. You were having a rapport. It’s really pleasant to know that everything’s plain and no explanations are necessary now we know. That happens quite often when I’m talking as I said … if you just leave it quiet [inaudible]. Everybody’s getting an insight, right? Can you confirm it anybody, insights when that quiet is there?

dm7:18:32

I’ve got a little thing here that I’ll leave with you before I go for what it’s worth. I have to read it because it’s a … we’re talking about this business of observation and this is a little angle that many of you may not have thought about. [inaudible] And I maintain that there’s about … I maintain that you don’t see. People do not see, they have visions. In other words, you have incoming stuff that hits your eyeballs and your ears and this gets together inside the head and you have an accepted projection then. You project.

There’s a little book on it, I think there’s one of them here maybe, ‘Conquest of Illusion’? van der Leeuw, JJ van der Leeuw, see it? Yeah right up front there. van der Leeuw brings it out very well and that is that he says, “ We may well be a point of light, that’s all and all the rest is interpreted.” By that I mean we just project things out because there’s an agreement in the paradigm. But anyhow it can be … we know this that we project what we see and we have, for instance, a colour spectrum – the animal doesn’t have it, he doesn’t project the same thing, he can’t project the same thing so that we don’t exactly live in the same world. Although the animals accept our interpretation of the life and what’s around us but I think, when we run through these, you’ll get an idea of what I call the different visions that people have.

See, in other words when you see something, that’s a perception. But a vision is something that is created, concocted so to speak. We have six types of visions – a human being has six types of visions.

dm7:20:51

(The book sections here below are almost verbatim from the book) And the first is normal sensory perception. This is ordinary seeing or perceiving. As a result of a sensory stimulus, the mind coordinates the stimulus with previous stimuli, and projects back upon the physical environment, that which it wants to see. Only this projection is seen by the individual's awareness.

In other words whatever you project out is what your awareness will see. Now the reason we know this happens is because occasionally people project the wrong thing and they find they walk out and touch something that isn’t there like a hologram.

To say the same thing more precisely, man visualizes everything that he perceives (thinks he perceives) through the physical senses. It is a "normal" percept followed by a "normal" projection.

The second one is abnormal sensory perception.

This is the reason we have to go through these if you want to study yourself and your thinking processes and that gives you a better idea who’s in behind it.

The second one is illusory or non-validated phenomena {same as abnormal sensory perception}. These are visions which apparently are seen by the eyes, (or percepts connected with the other senses – it could be heard by the ears) which later will be found to be invalid or illusory in nature. Included in this category are ghosts that cannot be checked out, hallucinations, holograms, mirages, and hypnotic phenomena that involve the imposition of illusions on the mind of the subject.

We consider those abnormal because in this unreal world they are even more unreal. Now the next four categories have to do with mental perception. In other words I maintain that you can see with your eyeballs to a certain extent but you can also see with the mind. I’m going to demonstrate that these next four.

dm7:22:49

A while back I discussed the ability of the mind to see or perceive. The examples given showed clearly that such perceiving resulted from initial sensory stimuli. There are, however instances where the mind "sees" independently of the senses. I call this ability visualization-projection not warranted by percepts.

The others are warranted by physical perceptions. So we get into the third class which is mental visions.

Here the mind watches synthetic projections from its memory bank. (We conjure up an apple with diamonds embedded in the sides).

I gave this idea, in the book earlier, I gave this idea of conjuring up pictures. We do it all the time. Kids will sit around and dream up whole fantasylands. And that’s a mental vision – it doesn’t come from something they’ve seen outside, it comes from inside their own heads or from inside the memory bank or a combination. And you can see things that never existed, the same way.

For instance, we can take an example right here now and you imagine a green apple. Everybody’s seen a green apple and soon as I say it a picture of a green apple flashes in front of your eye. And then I say, “Put a string of swastikas around it. Or diamonds. Purple diamonds.” And you see that in your mind’s eye. So therefore the mind is seeing something that was never seen with the physical eye. You see it in your head but it was never seen with the physical eye – an apple with diamonds on it. dm7-24:27

(Tape break)

dm7-24:29

… seeing something that was never seen with the physical eye. You see it in your head but it was never seen with the physical eye – an apple with diamonds on it.

This is memory revisited and rearranged. This is commonly called imagination.

It’s mental vision. Now the fourth category is visions without projection by the perceiver. In other words this is not something projected.

Non-physical visions, valid according to some means of corroboration, or laws of reference. Their general corroboration lies in the fact that they often are found later to have been revelations of some sort. They are ghosts that substantiate their presence by warnings or prophecies.

In other words we can say these things didn’t exist but he says, “Hey don’t take the car today because you’ll have a wreck.” And the neighbor takes the car instead and gets killed. You realize that something was trying to tell you something. So this is a vision of something that was not … you didn’t project.

They are dreams, articulate voices from non-visible sources, and instances of deja-vu …

This lady was talking here – this is the category I think, that you were talking about. Some articulate voices or sights that you can’t tell where they come from but they seem to prove their existence by some means.

… and instances of deja-vu which are found to be more than a hallucination.

Proven deja-vu experiences. If you don’t know what that is I’ll explain to you later - deja-vu.

It may be that some of these visions are contacts with the Manifested Mind, …

I’m talking about an Overmind now – a dimensional mind.

… or with emanations from the Manifested Mind.

They seem to come from a very orderly source but they’re not from our individual mind. The fifth category … well, I’ll continue there on that fourth category.

Also in this category are direct mind communication which we pick up accurately from another person, such as in mind-reading. In the past many phenomena which we now ..

dm7-26:37

(Break in tape)

dm7-26:39

… can be discovered and developed. It amounts to a sort of sensitive feeler which the mind extends to the mind of another, using in the beginning all manner of clues from the countenance of the other person and even items of posture and tone of voice, to guess, (at first) that which the other person may be thinking. But after a while, success will breed accuracy, and later still, we will be able to possess a feeling of knowing instead of uncertainty. This feeling of knowing results from persistent checking over a long period of time with the person that we are reading.

J.B.Rhine in that [inaudible] anyway

Group sessions for the purpose of attempting to have rapport and picking up information are good.

That’s the reason I don’t disturb the rapports when they go on. Now the fifth category is visions of mental processes. This is where the process observer … this is the vision, that man’s … this person as a process observer is watching an abstract function which has no … he can’t symbolize it with any physical symbol at all – you’re just watching the mind working.

dm7-27:39

This is not the same as the third category which is reverie or imagination. This is that which we shall later call the Process-Observer. This is the mind which is anterior to the Umpire and its phenomena. It is a part of us that sees. It sees the mind, the somatic or umpire mind. It is, in turn unable to watch itself, or any processes peculiar to itself. This is a genuine mental awareness by the Real Self, or Ultimate Self.

The sixth, the last category is that which is caused by someone’s mind.

Projection by them which has an impact upon other minds, to a point where the recipient may have the conviction that he physically sees the projections.

In other words this is a vision projected caused by another person. They are deliberate mental projections.

Visions projected upon the world scene, or upon our consciousness by another. Under this heading we have tulpas …

dm7-28:38

I don’t know how many of you are acquainted with tulpas? There were people in Tibet that were able to project and create a living being. Alexandra David-Neel wasn’t it, is that who writes about it? Evans-Wentz .

Audience member : Evans-Wentz

R: Evans –Wentz? These monks would get lonely up in the mountains. They create a woman. They’d have intercourse with her and she was tangible, she was real. This is a deliberate mental projection. This Evans-Wentz writes a book – I thought it was Alexandra David-Neil {Rose is right – it was AD-N}. But the author of the book anyhow questioned this one monk on one of these tulpas and he said that it took him six months, I think, to create her and six years to get rid of her. (Laughter) Didn’t want to leave. (Laughter)

… and the Indian rope trick.

The Indian rope trick is another case of when something is projected upon your mentality.

dm7-29:37

Other instances are cases of bi-location (people being in two places at once), healing at a distance, psycho kinesis, transubstantiation (water into wine, etc.), and possession

Now possession is a case where somebody actually projects something into you.

I would like to devote an entire book to this subject, and to the methods of attaining expertise in this type of projection.

Not that I want to but I’d like to do that – clear it up for [inaudible].

Q 12: There was one word that you were going to bring out …

R: Deja-vu ? Oh, deja-vu is the ability to … you go into a place and you feel as though you’ve been there, you recognize things. And this has been corroborated by … in order for it to be accurate or to be a real phenomenon it has to be corroborated. They talk of a person in England, to give you an example, going to a certain place along the shore, and say there was a convent here or a castle. And he would go and [inaudible] in reference to a little ravine and they would dig down and find it. They would dig down and find the thing. This person would …

dm7-31:00

File dm7 ends at 31:00

File 8

Total time: 07:18

[This seems to be the continuation of dm7]

dm8-00:00

R: … a boat, you know he had a deja-vu because he’d seen it before. Now the psychologists of course say, “This guy”, unless they find a foundation or something like that, it’s written off as being, like a fellow says … it’s like the train wreck fellow – predicts the train wreck after it happens. “Oh I saw that train wreck.” And they say, “Well he got there and then he imagined that he was there.”

But this is common to a lot of people. You read a lot of accounts in literature of people that went places and were quite convinced they’d been there before. (Whispers) That’s what deja-vu means.

dm8-00:40

(Silence)

dm8-00:55

Yeah.

Q 1: How do you know you’re not fooling yourself? With this answer.

R: With what answer?

Q 1: With the way that you see things that’s what they [inaudible]

R: I don’t feel as though I’m fooling myself at all with what I know. In other words (whispers) of course I could be crazy by your definition. But I may be fooling myself a lot with the verbalization. What happens is you experience nothingness and try to put in words of something-ness and there’s where the difficulty lies. As far as what I experienced, I’m not fooling myself about that, because well, again it’s something I can’t prove.

Let’s see … it’s a poor way of … it happens all the time in this type of thing. It’s like me describing Cairo, Egypt if you’ve never been there. I could describe it but you could say I was lying. I could prove that I wasn’t lying. So it’s just one of those things. If your intuition picks it up, you pick it up and if you pick up the fact that I’m nuts, well, that’s what you got to live with (laughs) – a nut. (Laughter)

dm8-02:09

(Silence)

dm8-02:28

Yes.

Q 2: You said that a real person is one who observes. [inaudible] there’s a higher point of reality you have this capacity to observe. But observation implies that you’re at a distance from the thing that you’re observing. Therefore you’re not part of it. And all the mystics tell us that we are supposed to be at one with everything and that is the highest point of reality. How would you resolve that paradox?

R: Well, in the first place I don’t believe that you would take, let’s say, advice or just a sentence from a mystic and make it a rule of life. You’ve got to go there yourself. This is the answer. And I don’t think I quibble with that, I don’t think I quibble with that. In the final analysis you are one, you reach one-ness but I’m talking about the relative. This is … one of them is not you. You know, in the relative dimension, you’re not the cat, you’re not the dog and many mystics even make the mistake of thinking they’re the cat or the dog or the horse or the other man. But it isn’t a mistake – it’s strictly the way the paradigm is forced upon us.

dm8-03:53

Okay but you may reach a point by this analysis of the observer looking at the view to where you blend. If you notice at the top, there’s nothing. There is no more relative adventure. You are the view and the viewer. The only way to learn is not to study with symbology but to become. Now you can’t just become by saying, “I’m going to become”, no, you have to belabor yourself with relativity and symbology. And you don’t confuse the idea of this battle of relative thing with the idea of unity at the end. You don’t presume there’s unity in the end - you don’t know that. And me telling you that isn’t going to make it for you.

dm8-04:40

Don’t pay attention to what the mystics say or what I say. I say there’s a problem to be solved – solve the problem. And if something I say, sort of stimulates you or makes it a little easier for you or accelerates you, good. But I cannot convey … I think it’s foolishness to take any book by any mystic or anything that I say and act upon it, put your life’s actions on it. I think it would be bad. I think you have to fight this thing for yourself. That’s the reason I don’t believe in paying into cults and rackets and religions.

Q 3: Didn’t you write that in your book? Don’t follow the mystics, find it yourself [inaudible]

R: Oh yes. God is within. If you want to call it God, it’s within.

Q 3: You can’t do it through another person.

R: Well, they can help. They can help.

Q 3: By inspiration.

R: Yeah. My wife taught me. She put me through hell and I found heaven. (Laughter) I refuse to be serious. (laughs) That’s one thing I believe in – I’ve given up everything but laughing. I think a lot of this so-called creation is a joke so why not laugh? I just don’t take you seriously – why should you take it seriously? The least you can do is laugh a little in return. (Laughter) Laugh back.

dm8-06:01

(Silence)

dm8-06:10

Q 4: Raymond Moody, who wrote ‘Life After Life’ has now written a book called ‘Laugh After Laugh’.

R: Good. (Laughter) You finally got on something you know something about there.

Q 4: He’s a Southern boy and he pronounced them both the same too.

R: Yeah, that’s right they do. Life. Laugh.

I’ll never forget the first time … my sister loved pronouncing the word ‘ice’. I was shocked. (Laughter)

dm8-06:39

(Silence/Laughter)

dm8-06:53

Well it’s been a nice evening.

(Applause)

That is hilarious. I’ll come back the next time for that. I’ll be reincarnated just for you. (Laughter)

dm8-07:17

File dm8 ends at 07:19

Footnotes

 Url: http://www.direct-mind.org/index.php?title=1979-0403-Psychology-of-the-Observer-Pittsburgh 

For access, send email to editors@direct-mind.org

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Kubler-Ross 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Moody 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Chilton_Pearce 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Benoit_(psychotherapist) 
 The Supreme Doctrine (1952 French, 1955 English). Full text here: http://selfdefinition.org/zen/benoit/  with link to the PDF. Benoit also translated works by D. T. Suzuki into French in 1952.
 Popular in the 1960s-1970s associated with Japanese Zen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobiotic_diet "Zen Macrobiotic Diets", Journal of the American Medical Association, 1971.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi 
 There are distinctions amongst various kinds of Samadhis. A brief summary of Ramana’s teachings on this topic are here: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/samadhi_ramana.htm
 According to Rose the Mountain Experience is the viewing of the Unmanifested Mind. Projecting ourselves back through the mind ray, we come to the universal, or Unmanifested Mind-Matrix. Here is experienced the truth of our own insignificance in relation to values once assumed by the Individual Mind. 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_and_Galatea
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasensory_perception
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_van_der_Leeuw
 http://www.parapsych.org/what_is_psi_varvoglis.htm
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Chilton_Pearce
 https://www.kabbalah.com/what-kabbalah
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis
 http://christianscience.com/what-is-christian-science
 http://www.marybakereddylibrary.org/mary-baker-eddy/the-life-of-mary-baker-eddy/
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radha_Soami
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpal_Singh
 http://www.gurdjieff.com/about.php
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_K%C3%BCbler-Ross
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Wilson
 From -1974-1023-Laws-Columbus - And in the law of the pyramid, this compromising point is also expressed in the Albigen System in the law of betweenness – that there’s a whole science in this business of betweenness. It can be said very simply – I’ve heard fellows talk about “running between the raindrops” – this is saying it rather crudely but it’s true: it is neither right nor left; it is neither good nor bad; it is neither here nor there. It is neither nothing nor everything. It is both, but it’s neither.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpal_Singh
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar%C5%9Bana
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charan_Singh_(guru)
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Moody
 See 1977-11-Method-of-Going-Inside – a reference to the early years of the farm: “I remember talking ... with some people who had LSD and psilocybin and some other drugs. And I said, ‘What does this do for you?’  One girl ... was pretty much of an authority on it – she had ruined both her kidneys with it. I don’t know whether the LSD did it or the needles or what, but her kidneys were shot, and she was pretty much of a philosopher in her last days. But she said to me, ‘You get out of LSD what you put into it.’ And I find that this is very true.”  
 See Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, Chapter 4, “Seven gradations of the concept ‘man’." PDF is here: http://selfdefinition.org/gurdjieff/ 
 http://tatfoundation.org/forum2003-12.htm#5
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism)
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070047/
 See also 1978-1023-Nostalgia-and-Dreams-Case-Western
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_the_Cross
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_%C3%81vila
 “A Law of Physics Repealed?” Solar Reactor Corp of Miami, invented by Robert L. Scragg of West Virginia,. Spotlignt, April 18, 1979. http://www.rexresearch.com/scragg/scragg.htm#spotlite
 http://tatfoundation.org/meditate.htm 
 See 1975-1119-Lecture-at-Boston-College-from-DME. Extracts below.

“But if you sit for awhile in groups until you develop what we call "rapport," you can develop an ability to go inside another person's head. Almost anyone can do this with enough practice in sitting.”

“But then we have another thing which we call rapport sessions, in which we are trying to develop the intuition, and to sort of get the head in a position where transmission can be effected; where direct mind-to-mind can be experienced. To where you can sit and look at another man and say, "You're thinking this .... "and be right. This comes about slowly but surely, and this is where your head is ready for transmission.”

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_David-N%C3%A9el
 W.Y.Evans-Wentz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Evans-Wentz
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_vu

end