1977-1012-Psychology-of-the-Observer-commercial-recording

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

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

To Do

Compare the Auto-AI transcript of this recording (commercial CD) with the book, and with other Psychology of the Observer recordings.

Some of this lecture was included in the book, along with as other lectures and other notes by R.

Available from Richard Rose Teachings: https://richardroseteachings.com/audio-video/

See Category: Psychology of the Observer:

Notes

Auto-AI Rev.Com July 3, 2025, both this CD and the DW version.

This recording is the same as Kent State: 1977-1012-Psychology-of-the-Observer-Kent-State

http://www.direct-mind.org/index.php?title=1977-1012-Psychology-of-the-Observer-Kent-State

This page was renamed Feb 1, 2024.

Former name: 1977-Psychology-of-the-Observer-commercial-recording

Transcription

CD1-1

CD1-1-00:03

We're going to tape this naturally, so I'm going to go 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 appreciate if you didn't interrupt me until the paper is read and the reason for reading it, of course I've tried to give this, just say 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.

CD1-1-00:50

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. There's two forms of knowing or two directions of knowing the outside and the inside. In other words, we 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 upon the interpretation of the word observer.

CD1-1-01:41

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. First, let us look at the observer ourself. The word observed is chosen to indicate not only 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 behavior as though behavior was something which the body did neglecting the reservoir of thoughts and thought data that goes to make up the impetus for behavior. Behaviorists would pretend that we do not think that is that 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.

CD1-1-02:55

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 it can be lifted by a string, a rope or a steel cable and modern psychology pretends to know how to predict behavior 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, socio psychologists are uttering advice on all levels of social authority and social.

CD1-1-03:52

A authorities are implementing the prescriptions of the former, the social psychologist, 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 a wholesale acceptance of BF Skinner, we have decided to make morality a sacrifice deemed necessary for the peace of the herd, but the herd is getting daily more hateful because it is rankled with 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 interests or by lone individuals who think that 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 the individual.

CD1-1-04:47

A man who pretends to know what is best for humanity or a socio-psychological dynasty or a group that thinks it knows what is best for humanity and knows how to force upon humanity like we'd force cast royal on a constipated child, the prescriptions of spiritual leaching 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. 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 gassed at, and it may go deeper than we think. It may go beyond the fertility of the soil. I'm making these remarks for a point because I'm talking about objective psychological efforts as opposed to interior work the material scientists 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 sees. We look at an apple on the table, close our eyes and we can see the apple in our mind.

CD1-1-06:04

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. That's important to catch this. If you're thinking about thinking, if you're thinking about perception, visualization occurs not only in dreams or deliberate recall, but with every perception at the time of perception. Do a little thinking on it and you'll see what I mean. You see something and then you visualize what you see scientifically or chemically. Sometimes it isn't 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 the self.

CD1-1-07:15

If we're 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 that one self is doing something to another self. If you delude yourself, that means that there is recognized as true oneself 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're all getting the same stimuli, but people are capable of reacting differently and people are capable of diluting themselves.

CD1-1-08:01

Of course, we can say that. 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're acquainted with the word projected and a man. Some men see or think they see and others know that they project we must return to the point at hand. The point is that if behavioral psychology is a science of behavior observed, we cannot neglect these internal observations which may well correct for us many external reactions. By determining a few basic things, we must determine first of all, who is observing. Is it the eyeball or the sensory arrangement or an entirely separate creative mental self, which up until the present mention of it may never have occurred to us as being in existence at all.

CD1-1-09:05

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 behavior 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 in the same thing or we that we refer to when we say we think or behave a certain way is separate from that which is observed. In other words, that the seer is not what is seen, the viewer is not the view. This means that 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 the realization of the absolute state of mind pointed to by writers. On enlightenment, 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.

CD1-1-10:25

Our external world is largely one of agreement and material science is really just a system of getting along. I picked up a book just yesterday by Einstein's the man that talks about the two sides of the brain. 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's any proof to any of it. We develop systems of measurement and cataloging according to genus and specie and later on we discovered that we have failed somewhat in our methods of cataloging and calculating. 40 years ago, we agreed that all matter consisted of atomic elements limited to an exact number 92. We now agree that there are considerably over a hundred elements.

CD1-1-11:23

I was majoring in chemistry at the time and they told us flatly, this is what the universe is composed of 92 parts, and now we have discovered that that was just an agreement at the time. Valence is another sort of an agreement on how things work. This habit of agreeing upon things not fully understood has not caused very great mishap to humanities 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 and when deaths were reported from 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 that they are not made from 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.

CD1-1-12:20

Now, we have this with a psychologist from Freud down on Freud, tried to start 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 like to say we have exact knowledge, but it would be absolute and absolute knowledge carries a lot of implication. We cannot delay the preparation of all the medicines until we know exactly all the possible side effects upon all 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, but now what we're getting into here is this business of, as I said, inside knowledge, we're 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's 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 tree panning and hanging.

CD1-1-13:55

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. In other words, we may not understand the external world properly until we understand ourself. This is especially true in the psychotherapy departments, in 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 behavioral 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.

CD1-1-14:41

The other people in a 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 any erratic or selfish pose that alienated him from the mainstream of agreement. Now he goes back inside of himself and realizes that he's 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.

CD1-2

CD1-2-00:01

We might dramatize this idea a bit by mentioning a practice of some Tibetans who are very adept at creating a tulpa. I dunno how many of you have heard of a tulpa, but a tulpa is a humanoid figure that there's created by certain Tibetans, it looks like it seems to be a human being in all forms. Some Tibetan priests are supposed to be so skillful mentally that they could 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.

CD1-2-00:41

We get into the habit. This is an example of projection is the reason I brought that up. We get into the habits, 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, that it was a social thing and that people had to do certain things That dropped them a little bit in value just to get along with the rest of the herd. But let us get down to the business of studying the inside of ourself is not as easy as it sounds.

CD1-2-01:25

Most people think that they know themselves. One time in Pittsburgh giving a lecture, and I mentioned this, that people didn't know themselves and I fell, spoke up and said, I know who I am, and I said, who are you? And he said, I'm the fellow sitting in front of you, and he was referring to a physical presence and of course I could have mentioned to him I didn't. He probably would've been more clever had he said, 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?

CD1-2-01:58

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? The equivalent is if you go out 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 the creation of the mind of the priest, but the tulpa is also a materialized 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. Is it a circle? 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 gala of chameleon or between any sexual voyeur and the objects that cause response to his desires. If desires are observable, then desires are and outside.

CD1-2-03:02

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 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 a little harmless, fluffy balls of love, but this becomes apparent to us. We are really not as loving and lovable as we project ourselves to be and it is then that we view our fluffiness and lovableness as being external ideas more acceptable to our fellow man than the possibly manifest desires for lust and blood and we still eventually recognize that our love is a projection born out of a desire for love as we choose to order it.

CD1-2-04:40

Everybody wants they protest love, they protest that they love, but they basically want to be loved as they want to be loved. 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 and join with a desire for 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 small s self.

CD1-2-05:36

I'll 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 contest 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. This new anterior observer is still hypothetical until we see it and when we see it, it'll become something observed. It will not be us and of course we do not see the umpire with a physical eye or does it have an image that might be visualized. We witness a process and this witnessing is scientific because we define science as an orderly thinking process that carries with it prediction ability.

CD1-2-06:37

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 that 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 and this is where we get into the basic science of behavior 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.

CD1-2-07:30

Everyone goes through these changes or who goes through these changes is aware of the processes of thinking mentioned and they 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. Now, does he see all the factors involved nor does he name these factors the same as others, name them in similar experiences. In other words, we have a wide category of psychological terms as a result of trying to name umpire reactions. 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 a 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.

CD1-2-08:28

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 self that is a small-s and while being interested in preserving the body, life cannot help getting 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 some somatic values at stake, it cannot get into the problems of ultimate survival as much as it would like to since it identifies with a physical survival at first and it takes up all its time just getting by each day you might say the process observer retreats from material observation and contemplates patterns and thinking, and this is where I think it just somehow parallels stein's division of the brain into two parts.

CD1-2-09:22

I'm not saying one of these 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 there's a parallel there that one of them deals in very objective matter and the other deals in very subjective matter processes. This may well be called higher meditation When 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 results that are like mathematical functional curves and stick instead of exact demonstrable answers that we'd like to get in scientific work. For instance, it is this process observer that sees that the physical universe may well exist and may well not exist at the same time. At the same time, it 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's 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.

CD1-2-10:51

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, but it is like saying that material defines material and on this hinge is a very important point of the rest is 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 to communicate that finding except with things that are words.

CD1-2-11:44

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 in 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. 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 listener's minds that is explained itself best by the word paradox. The paradox seems to permeate all of this talk of esoteric phenomena and enlightenment. We take the stand on good and evil. For instance, we say that the 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, the man who becomes afflicted with trichinosis from eating the pork, the situation might change in death as evil for the pig once more becomes evil for the man. However, there's still another point of observation.

CD1-2-13:07

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

CD1-2-14:06

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, whereas we're getting these patterns from senses that are manifestly, we know that they're inadequate. 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. 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.

CD1-2-15:14

This is the first time that we really realized that we have been studying the mind itself. When we talk of an interior 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 comes to your head, oh, well, there's an observer observing an observer indefinitely. This is not true. 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 scene, then it immediately is an observation, not an observer. We have then become mental and center, which we only know later because we are watching our thinking patterns and reactions and the patterns of all sorts of possibilities as well.

CD1-2-16:14

We take this process observer, alias mind, consciousness as being us once more, never dreaming in the beginnings 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. We have to have that point of comparison. We're now approaching our real self 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.

CD1-2-17:04

We come across an awareness of correlation watching these patterns 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. If they're hungry to believe in 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 beliefs may have sprung from a desire to believe a certain dogma rather than to try to find things out for whatever they are.

CD1-2-18:00

We should not try to prove or summon evidence for that which we'd like to hear. 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. Now 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 analyzation of the material world. We had no other vantage point for comparison. We were looking at the thing with the thing. We found a happy synchronicity or harmony of material measurements from material things, but we missed a very important point.

CD1-2-18:58

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 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.

CD1-2-19:49

These are little evidences that have been overlooked for years in psychology and yet so many of our relative minds project the reject the idea that 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 this is what we run. Again, 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 the validity of the describer in the description depends upon our acceptance of his honest year upon his possible perpetration of a concept rather than actual knowledge or knowing.

CD1-3

CD1-3-00:00

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. We cannot by relative mentation know that which another man knows by direct mind action alone. We cannot by contemplation know what a man knows by 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 noticed now that we are trying to study the mind of 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 a mundane mind.

CD1-3-00:57

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 the thing existent, you have to actually witness, you have to actually be there. We will be cursed with confusion until we're 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.

CD1-3-01:43

This idea of looking at the mind, as I said, you can look at it and it'll just cause you an infinite tangle, an increasing tangle, and of course we have to go through it. There's strangely enough, this tangle that you 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. It's been a little bit complicated, but you can't talk about things without being somewhat complicated. I'd like to make some comment on the methods for searching an anterior observer. There is no sense in looking for anything but the observer or he who is looking.

CD1-3-02:35

We should not try to define something and then try to find it. In other words, a lot of people will eagerly say, yeah, I understand what you're saying and I agree with you a hundred percent. Take me to the next step in this discipline or whatever. No, the first step is that you go there yourself, 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 want to say, yeah, I agree. The word, the anterior observer must be discovered, not 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.

CD1-3-03:27

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 worker experimentation. In other words, have you been in any research chemistry or physics? You'll find this out that somebody says, well, a certain chemical has a valence of six or two or three or something and nobody says Why? Oh, they memorize it, they write it down, they accept it. In other words, much of scientific work is accepted 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, the only thing we can experience is material. 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.

CD1-3-04:45

In other words, it depends on where the point of relativity, where we're standing. 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. Outside. The mind is getting inside the self from when we get outside of the mind, we get inside the self. That's the capital S self or at least approaching the capital S self. We do not know who is looking and we're not too sure of that which we see, especially after we've been hallucinated or have seen a hologram or a mirage, so we start with nothing. This is important. We have to start with nothing, not with 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. 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.

CD1-3-06:12

Many of these environmental influences exist in the body or they affect body area reactions that we do not completely understand or endorse. We cannot start by negating our presence that would be observed. In other words, we can say we start with nothing, but we can't start with a personal negation 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 said repeatedly in my different talks that this whole thing is a retreat from error, not a postulation and then a charging and trying to prove that postulation it's taking zero and building on zero. When we ask ourself who am I, we take an initial step. We do not begin by saying, I am this or that. We then explore the field 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're something that we really can 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.

CD1-3-07:43

In other words, we're aware of our mind, we're also aware of our body. We may think we are that which asks, but it may be that we are not that which we think is doing the asking. In other words, like the fellow says, I'm the guy that's asking you the question. Well, that might be a phase of you. That may be a desire that's talking, not you, not the real capital U. The mind may be asking the question because it identifies with the body and the result is a spontaneous evolving question and outburst, which starts with the examination of the fingers or toes 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 if we don't like them, then we try to alter them, but all this comes from basic observation.

CD1-3-08:54

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 the thoughts come to us and we think, well, they come from God or some good force or some excellent intuition computer, but when we examine them over a period of time, we find out they didn't come from that source at all. They may have come from a physical appetite or something. The thoughts are basically not us.

CD1-3-09:55

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 adventurous 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 action. 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 is this business in this business of introspection concerns the source and direction of thought. There are two directions of thoughts and both are projections. Certain thoughts are projected upon us and others are projected by us. Now, this is not too complex.

CD1-3-11:08

You'll get thoughts that didn't originate inside yourself, and everyone who's done experiments with ESP knows that you can project thoughts that they can be sent out. Just like a radio sends out a message, van der Leeuw gives an explanation or description of this process, especially the process of projections by the individual. We only know things about the physical universe that are interpreted by the sense it is evident that the senses are not infallible, nor are they exact. We have a limited color range as well as a limitation on the vibrations that we are able to perceive for their ears. Our radio picks up things and amplifies them, which the human ear cannot pick up etcetera, so it manifests. The sounds are there. We just don't get them to give an example of a person views a certain object, which means that 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 a mirage, the phenomena 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. The eyes are not infallible. We do not see it for what it is. I saw a cylindrical hologram in Pittsburgh and it a floating wagon, and I looked at it from all sides. I can see the underside of the wagon and everything, but inside that cylinder there was nothing.

CD1-3-12:40

It was a projection. I projected. I projected the vision to some degree or other. When we received a percept, we immediately project a vision upon the object that takes our attention. Now, 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 hammers something into the central mind and we project what we think is out there. This is basically what it is. 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 color range and limited hearing range. There is no way to know of colors other than those we see so that these walls may be an entirely different color. Had we more rods in our eyeballs or in our retina to pick them up.

CD1-3-13:33

Some scientists claim that lower animals have less color possibility than we do. They claim that some of 'em 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 the seen by us and they see it by agreement. In other words, they all see the same thing. These are all examples of projection and more than the census 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're born, we learn to interpret the same as the parents and grandparents and everybody around us, but we don't learn to see. 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 ourself with others.

CD1-3-14:38

Again, another viewpoint. 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 in knowing ourself any better, until we realized that we were projecting characteristics upon these people that did not exist. This is the reason for the social incompatibility that I maintained. 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 got to walk in another man's moccasins. You got to think with his thoughts and then there's no arguments, but instead of that why 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 going to the zoo after watching a Disney picture and having his arm torn off by an animal because he had stuff had been projected on the animals through the Disney cartoons.

CD1-3-15:44

I want to summarize now, and of course you're going to open this up for questions later on, a few things, and if you can remember 'em, it may be good because this is a summary as a result of my lifetime of investigation of psychology, and you'll find that this has very little bearing on other systems of psychology. I find that the qualities of the mind are basically three. Perception, retention, reaction now. Now I say five, I'll read them to you. Sensory perception, retention reaction, mental perception and projection. There's still three, but there's two types of perception. There's two types of reaction.

CD1-3-16:34

Basically, we perceive, remember, and react, but this projection is a type of reaction that is mentally unique because it is like a mental extrusion. It's like an arm to the mind, so to speak. Perception is largely ignored. Many tests and systems relating to memory and reaction exist. The psychology and IQ test, that sort of thing. Testing your coordinative ability, that's reaction ability or memory ability. Remember the set of symbols that they gave you at the beginning of the problem perception. Self-serving is one type as 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 the external world, but then there's a mental perception. Now, 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, 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.

CD1-3-18:02

For instance, you're sitting in a chair and you see a man falling in front of a bullet. A bullet hits him and he falls, and you jump up and you say, Jack's been shot. Now this is a memory. I'm rec citing something. I can't be proven, of course, because 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 ES, P or SI phenomenon so that there is an ability of the mind to see without the senses, so consequently, it's necessary to mark a different type of perception, not just sensory perception. The mind perceives now reaction. All of our qualities, our perception, we automatically remember. It's just like it's branded as it goes through, as a memory, as the retention. I call the permanence of our experience, and the reaction is automatic. It's just like a reflex.

CD1-3-19:06

We automatically react and the reaction becomes very complex. A child, a newborn child, has a very limited set of reactions. It picks up a tremendous lot, millions and millions of possibilities, and then even it gets complicated and it may have thousands of gals reaction, gals meaning patterns of reaction such as driving an automobile automatically, that sort of thing, but your mental perception and projection. These are the ones that we are a little aware of. We don't talk too much about them, and I mentioned before the projection perception rather is ignored, and I want to point out some of these types of projections or I'm saying the wrong thing, 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. In other words, there's a chemical reaction. Again, the light on the rods see on 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 are seeing is a vision, an interpretation too, but nevertheless, a projected vision.

CD1-3-20:23

There's five main types of visions, and nearly all of the visions that you have are the phenomena come under these five types. First is sensory perception. This is objects apprehended by whatever sense, felt, touched, smelt, tastes, et cetera. Then there's such a thing as memory perception, visualization, 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? And you can see that in your mind's eye, a green apple with purple stars right around the middle. See, so this is not something we saw. It doesn't exist, but we can visualize this. This is mental perception.

CD1-3-21:18

The mind projecting upon the mind, the sensory perception is the external world projecting upon the person, and then he in turn projecting back on the external world, but in memory perception, it's strictly the mind projecting upon the mind. The external world shut off. Reaction, visions goes, ghosts, visitation, the mind projects, these visions from unknown source or sources upon the physical world, and these type of visions besides ghosts of the hologram and the 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, then witnesses it again and then wonders and projects again what it saw. But the first thing is it projects them. It's aware of seeing it before. It's aware of projecting it if you're startled by a ghost. In other words, mental perception.

CD1-3-22:30

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. Now we have another thing such as deliberate perception. This is the fifth category, the creation, the deliberate creation of visions. The deliberate creation of visions is ESP, astral projection, mind zapping, and the creation of tulpa or anything else that you can create cause 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, when in any scientific field where phenomenally exists 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. I.

CD1-4

CD1-4-00:00

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

CD1-4-00:18

Some of my personal self explorations, the anterior yourself you're talking about beyond the umpire, would come very close to destroying the umpire. The umpire would throw me out of the game, throw me right out of the ballpark. I was not allowed to continue.

CD1-4-00:37

Right, right. Is

CD1-4-00:37

That a phenomenon that has occurred in your,

CD1-4-00:40

You're right. See what happens is you either kill the umpire or he kills you. He kills me. Right, right. 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. See, the ambitions are desires, but all these things have a power and they're reinforced at certain times in the event that the umpire isn't wise enough. That momentarily meaning for maybe 20 years a person could be taken over by one of the constituents. One of the desires meaning the desire to reproduce. See, a person can submit to the desire to reproduce and for 20 years pay the penalty until the kid's 20 years old see maybe later if he's an idiot. See, so consequently 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 of actually preserving the life of the individual.

CD1-4-01:52

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. See, he starts to live, 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. See, I'm just going to act like I got no mind. Yeah. Tim, what do you say?

CD1-4-02:37

It sounds to me that we get into a paradoxical eminence of all things relevant, and I was wondering, we think about, we often think in terms of our environment and survival. I was wondering whether even though survival appears loose, whether it is the most accurate base to keep doing our research or should we gravitate towards subtracted things further?

CD1-4-03:05

What do you mean by attractive things?

CD1-4-03:07

Subtract?

CD1-4-03:08

Oh, absolutely. I mentioned that when I was talking. The vector that we take out our campaign is one of a reverse vector of retreating from the observed, not postulating what?

CD1-4-03:22

To some, it seems as if the absurd is more sharp in terms of its quality than our own.

CD1-4-03:30

No, no, it isn't postulation. You don't postulate. In other words, if you get gonorrhea, you'll know that you got a retreat from that. See, that's one of the appetites.

CD1-4-03:41

I understand. See, 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 got a retreat from that. That's all. This is just a somatic, see, like 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. 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're not the body, but yet the body has a tremendous influence on we, on us.

CD1-4-04:39

See, and as long as we're living in this body, we're going to have to understand it. That doesn't mean we got to say that we are the body. I just say we got to understand it and the effects that it has upon the anterior mind, 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 hangups that he has. He thinks that he thinks that's what they do

CD1-4-05:52

To continue that same of thought. Is the umpire the one that's watching him go through that change? That change in perspective?

CD1-4-06:00

No, no. 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 it. 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. 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. Right, which is an ego. That's all. Yeah. It

CD1-4-06:54

Seems to me that if your umpire is concerned with your well being, so to speak, if you're doing too many drugs, you're going to eventually taper down or even quit. What is it that stops people from doing too much thinking? It seems like a lot of people have an umpire that tells 'em, Hey, I better not think about this stuff is too heavy for me, or it may involve me retreating from too much of my bullshit and I like my bullshit.

CD1-4-07:30

You see, this is one of the voices that I speak of. This is one of the appetites. The appetites have various language. In other words, if 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 boys might say, now, let's get through this with a cigarette. Tomorrow we'll get smoking. See, that's that same type of thinking. There's a cleverness. This is another reason why there is a duality. Whenever you hear that type of interior talking, it means that there's two people. There are two forces involved. We can only be one of them, I hope. Yeah.

CD1-4-08:17

The process that you described about when you see the different umpire, the umpire, are those five types of thought processes. What would you call that?

CD1-4-08:29

That's your internal observation. That's your mind watching the mind. That's the fourth category of mental perception, of mental phenomena.

CD1-4-08:40

Who's watching the rest of it though? Who's watching the rest of it?

CD1-4-08:45

Well, behind you. See, basically there's a point, as I said, if you notice that there's a point where I said, everything degenerates into confusion after you watch this that know there's an anterior observer watching the umpire, and 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.

CD1-4-09:16

Good ambiguity.

CD1-4-09:20

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

CD1-4-09:23

What they're not.

CD1-4-09:24

Well, it isn't that so much. It's that they're both, there's a difference. There's no longer definition except we try to define them when we come back from that state, but it generally winds up with something like what you become is nothing and simultaneously everything,

CD1-4-09:42

All the space in between.

CD1-4-09:44

Yes, yes, yes. All the possibilities thereof. Yeah.

CD1-4-09:50

Are you saying, I'm still not quite sure what you mean about this umpire, how it's defined. You're saying that when you realize this umpire, that the internal schism disappears, the duality of this appetite against this appetite?

CD1-4-10:11

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're 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 of 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 how they identify it, they rise above it or they go beyond it and they watch this, and immediately it takes the strength out of it. 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.

CD2-1

CD2-1-00:04

Well, should we be afraid of the explosion? Should we be afraid of

CD2-1-00:12

The Well, it depends on whether you want to gamble or not. If you think that it's, when I start 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 come to the conclusion that I would take the insanity rather than not knowing if I knew or if I didn't know, if I never found out. It's better to take the risk of insanity than to not know anything out of fear. And strangely enough, and I've repeated this and I mean it very sincerely, I think that when you start and embark upon 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, such as guardian, angel or whatever, automatic interior computations, awareness of all the factors that the conscious mind couldn't be aware of. And 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. Yeah.

CD2-1-01:41

It seems to me that this waiting for the exclusion is something scare people. When I try to kill the judge or ego, I sometimes feel that I'm slip into an abyss and I feel like I'm at the same time kicking and screaming, don't let me do this.

CD2-1-02:06

Sure, sure, sure.

CD2-1-02:07

And it seems that I'm can't trust myself. I'm afraid of leaving my in inhibits the fantasies that prop up.

CD2-1-02:17

You know what you're afraid of there? You're afraid of losing a coward. 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, everybody looks upon themselves. They cherish themselves as, 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. Why get into an aesthetic path? He could trade these looks for money, or his wit and wisdom for money or 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.

CD2-1-03:19

But isn't there also a state of preparation for that requires dreams in other, some people kind

CD2-1-03:24

Blast their heads.

CD2-1-03:26

Well, I think, yes. I think that the preparation, I think that almost everybody that sat through this is prepared if you get 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. See, 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 when 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. They desire to know the self and the desire to know that God are almost anonymous, synonymous. So basically, there are people, of course, that are protected by strong, let's say, conditions of the umpire where a voice says, Hey, don't listen to that nut any longer. You could get involved. See, you're allowed to start doing these things, this introspection. Fortunately, there's enough people doing it that you can see that they're not too unhappy. Yes.

CD2-1-04:49

You briefly mentioned dreaming, and I was wondering if you could just go into that a little, what you consider it to be?

CD2-1-04:58

Well, 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're aware all the time, but there's a shutoff 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. It 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. Would

CD2-1-05:45

You say dreams are just, there'd be no reason to analyze

CD2-1-05:49

Them, they're just garbage. Oh, no, no. There is reason to analyze 'em because they do come from the member bank, and they're generally summoned by an anxiety. They're often summoned by an anxiety so that when a person's trying to talk to himself there, there's voices, for instance, that the umpire will not tolerate. The umpire keeps them squelched, and you'll get people who have a pattern of dreaming. And this is always another voice trying to get in. And these vary. I mean, there are precognitive dreams of great philosophic importance that may stay with you or your entire life, or there's a simple dream of, if you've been without sex too long, you, that voice may insert itself and say, Hey, you've been neglecting me by getting into the dream world. See, and the awareness pops in on that anxiety as well. There's a tension existing, a body tension, generally glandular tension.

CD2-1-06:47

But in that case, but I think the dreams are very, in fact, I knew a yogi years ago, and this is one of the first things he started doing in his early life, was 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 and things from memory. 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 a face on a calendar, and that's come, this face on the calendar will become activated and walk into your room and talk to you. See, 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. See, 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 presents. We don't pick up the picture. There is no picture to pick up. Really.

CD2-1-08:15

It sounds to me like you're getting down to, when you talk about dream, you're getting down to a mythological level in terms of the environment. For instance, a person would not remember, a person would've a propensity if he was going to enter his spiritual path to remember Christ or some saint, and that somehow the fabric of the cloth seems useful for him to visualize that rather than focus on why people drink Coca-Cola. And so maybe there is the fabric itself as some kind of significance, or do people who study zen negate any kind of mythological explanation?

CD2-1-08:51

Well, yeah. You're talking about two different religious paths. Of course, zen does negate, whereas a person who is, let's 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 say, yeah, there's a dream. So what a toenail,

CD2-1-09:19

If this objective environment in the physical world was reaching a state of tension where it was felt that it needed some other basis to continue and survive.

CD2-1-09:31

I don't know. I don't know. When you going to blast off?

CD2-1-09:37

I'm leaving tomorrow night. Delicate. Testin coming. You want to

CD2-1-09:46

Come?

CD2-1-09:48

I'll linger a while. I think

CD2-1-09:58

I've always thought of dreams and different lights quite often, like movies, sometimes it's a John way adventure,

CD2-1-10:05

And

CD2-1-10:07

It seems just to have basically an entertainment value. And they don't usually include anything that I haven't seen before consciously.

CD2-1-10:15

Yeah. Yes, they will sometimes

CD2-1-10:17

Road forces, things like that,

CD2-1-10:19

But they will.

CD2-1-10:19

There's other times where there will be something in a dream that I've never encountered,

CD2-1-10:27

And

CD2-1-10:27

I have to think about what it is the next day, days and days, sometimes. The other day I thought I saw death in my dream, and

CD2-1-10:37

It

CD2-1-10:38

Was just sort of a black shadow that went behind my illusory head, and it was real frightening in the dream. It woke me up.

CD2-1-10:45

Right, right. Well, I think this is 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, it might be

CD2-1-10:59

Somebody leaving.

CD2-1-11:00

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. See. But as far as the dreams, the dreams are worth studying because I wrote mine down for years intermittently, and I remember I dug them out here a few years ago, and I had listed them according to the day, the night. The night would be the, if it would've happened on the night of the 25th, I'd put 25 to 26th between things, between the 25th and the 26th. So we get a precision in case something happened. While there's been a lot of pre-cognitive 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 to my mind was I dreamt of a man planting a flag on the moon.

CD2-1-12:03

In 1957. He 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. Did

CD2-1-12:13

You create that or did it look something like what?

CD2-1-12:16

I didn't see any spray ships or anything. All I saw was a man sticking a flag in the dirt of the moon. See, and that's just what I wrote down, dreamed of a man putting an American flag in the moon. And of course, what happened in 1957, I don't know if they were working on rocket then or not. They could have been. It could have been just a natural.

CD2-1-12:35

You should speak a little bit about time, because time, a mundane understanding of time as the premise that there are so many incidents that could happen in the given moment, and a more correct definition is the incident or a manifestation of your own will. For instance, these people would not be in this room right now if they had not will to come here. So they eliminated certain factors of time or a certain amount.

CD2-1-13:08

I don't agree with your first premise, so I shoot your whole argument. That's okay. I don't believe anybody will to come here.

CD2-1-13:32

Yeah.

CD2-1-13:33

I know that you were studying to be a priest at one time and Well, I'm a Catholic, and I've sort of fitted this all in within the Catholic philosophy that we were searching for the ultimate reality, which is good. It's just a different way of putting it, but

CD2-1-13:47

Right, right.

CD2-1-13:49

Well, you see, the thing is of course, that in previous times, I think that the Asiatic was a thousand years ahead of us because he had a direct mind system. He called it Zen. And that's the reason I talk a lot about Zen, but I didn't reach my realization through Zen. I've repeated this to almost every lecture I give. I 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 is where I came from and where I was going. These are the three main questions. And they're 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 umpire building and everything else they lost to purity of purpose.

CD2-1-14:46

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'll find this out. None of them can tell you there's none of them can poison you in this direction. John of the cross was a mystic, and he found enlightenment and they put him in jail. Well, they put him in jail for looking for it, and it was in jail that he found it. See, and he was an early Christian, St. Teresa of Avila, I presume from her reading some of the things she wrote, that she was an enlightened person, but they had to be very careful and almost be clever in concealing it. And the result was the 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. Is

CD2-1-15:49

It important now in America to sort of,

CD2-1-15:53

No, no. This is not important for America. I don't know what's important. I don't really know. Huh?

CD2-1-16:01

They could. They can land you in a mental hospital real easily.

CD2-1-16:05

Or jail. Yeah, or, yeah. In fact, see, I have the advantage that I don't even discuss this with my neighbors. I have the advantage of coming up here and at home. They think I'm a dangerous hillbilly. No, I don't. This doesn't relate to the good of the world. This is one thing we have to get away from is to plain God thinking that we're going to, with our lifetime, do something for the world. How can you aid in Abbe a manure pile? It'll take care of itself. See.

CD2-2

CD2-2-00:00

No, I believe that foolish for a person to be a slave on any scale because it isn't the idea that if there's a time in your life when you think that you're doing, but when you realize later there's no time where you're doing it, then it's too late to find yourself is the trouble. What I'm saying is you're basically just reacting like an animal. Somebody puts a bale of hay in front of you and eat it, or somebody puts an opportunity from in front of you and you have intercourse or something and you think you're doing it, but you're not just the program machine is doing it. The computerized machine, the response like a pea responds to Poland or something, a fragrance little flower. We respond, the body responds. In other words, and then we back here very proudly say, we did this. We had kids. We don't have kids. They use this for a door. You can test intuition. You can test intuition to see if you're injecting yourself into it because you'll be aware of this. This is intuition has to know intuition, true intuition. This is what it picks up. True intuition discards itself as an element or the appetites as an element. This is where it's value lies. You might say intuition is an instant computerization. That's all it's, but it takes all the factors into concern, whereas the umpire listens to the strongest one.

CD2-2-01:32

The umpire is swayed by the strongest one until he is corrected or it is corrected, but intuition is more or less impartial. In other words, you sense the umpire can't sense immortality. It longs for it. It would like to have an indefinite fund machine, but the intuition senses things that lead to immortality. When you're reading a book, something will pop in your head and it has nothing to do with you and you'll say, well, boy, this stuff I was doing yesterday was wrong. I can see now, but this intuition view, and tomorrow you'll come back and do the wrong thing again because the umpire is still pretty strong. But that's what I mean is that you will on the third day again, view it as wrong for your survival or for your spiritual survival, right? The umpire becomes automatically educated by being seen when you see him.

CD2-2-02:37

Then you can immediately correct inhibit the effects of it and that sort of thing, and the thing that's just like modern psychology, does that have this down pretty good, and that is that we reinforce negativity. Like when a man believes in fear, it really hurts him. When a man believes in hate or love, it really hurts him. He must be above, and then of course his decisions are, in other words, it's just a matter of watching a certain process but not allowing the process to destroy the inner vision, the vision of, let's say metal position of equanimity, peace, serenity, so they can see itself more clearly. You can't see into yourself as long as there's firecrackers going off in the head. In other words, long as there's an annoyance and a challenge and desires, fatigue, if a person sits down to all sorts of things that disrupt your ability to think, until you get ahold of that umpire, I find myself eating crackers and stuff and I should be typing. Know your appetite's. Go to work immediately when you start to compose something or start to meditate, follow a certain process.

CD2-2-04:00

Yeah, one of your favorites. You say process, involve watching spiritual post and not change. See how you can watch them not it's automatic. There's a lot of things. If you put on an effort to do 'em, you identify and support them. See, in other words, lots of times by an attempt to change something negative, you reinforce the negativity and make it very powerful, but by observing it, it changes. It becomes neutralized. The thing is, as soon as you say This is bad, you deify deified. In other words, it's just, but when you watch it, when you watch the thing playing, the different forces playing inside your head, then it just melts. It just melts away. And in other words, the more a person says, I'm going to break this cigarette habit, how am I going to break this cigarette habit? Because I'm going to be conscious 24 hours a day and 60 minutes out of the hour that I'm going to stop cigarettes, and what's he going to do? He's going to build a hell of a faith in nicotine.

CD2-2-05:07

This is a human quality. Anything gets put in front of the head. Too much becomes part of it. The unfortunate part, well, it overcomes the umpire pretty much shortly after. It's the season, shortly after. You are aware of this going on, if there's a neutralization of it. Now, it depends of course on how, I'm not saying that in every case or in every event, because sometimes there are residual chemical effects. For instance, if you're an alcoholic, your recognition of that, first of all, it's a tremendous job because very few alcoholics will say they're alcoholics. If you're acquainted with the psychology behind it, before a man can be cured of alcoholism, who first has to admit he's an alcoholic, he can't say, oh, I just want to fix me up so that I can drink less or I won't have a hangover or something. That's it.

CD2-2-06:24

He has to know. He has to realize that something has grabbed him, and as soon as he does that, he's completely made a step toward understanding the umpire. He's able to get behind it then and watch it happening, and of course, he sets in if he makes a commitment. See, the second thing is you have to make a commitment in anything, whether it's just getting over alcohol or whether it's projecting yourself on an ultimate spiritual path, the philosophical path, you have to make a commitment. You can't say, I'll play with that idea, but we'll get around to it next week. No, you have to say, Hey, regardless of what it is, I want this. I mean, it must not be a desire. I mean, it must be an ultimate answer or it must be freedom. It can't be something negative. If you want something that's going to negate some other quality of yourself, then that's not the right type of desire, but the desire to be free or the desire to know this type of commitment is what frees you.

CD2-2-07:23

The desire to have is that which finds you, because anytime you want to have something, it has you, but the desire to be free from it eventually frees you, and I think you can have a complete conviction that alcohol is negative to you, but it'll take you say, months in order to get it out. Your system, a chemical need for the chemical pitch, whatever you want to call it, they made nicotine, and that's the reason a lot of people have gone in for hypnosis to have somebody work on their head until the body catches up with the head.

CD2-2-08:28

Yeah, well, I don't know that it's ever conscious of that. I just think it establishes a chance. I don't think it establishes an immortality, prolonged life or energy. It does allow you to transmute more energy in a given mental direction than what was running out this picket. In other words, most of the habits are energy wasted and we have to have energy in order to do these tremendous cerebral acrobatics observing the observer, so with the inefficient of the wasted energy comes a transmutation of energy called yoga. See, and with this comes an increased mental ability, and as this increased mental ability, we have an increased intuition, and we can test this. I've said this four years ago in Pittsburgh, and you can all try it.

CD2-2-09:32

I've got a book there. I don't know how many of you read it, but before you read it, well read it. The thing is, you have to read it. You don't have to be this book. You could take, I don't know any of those reasons. I'm just saying my book because I know that it's on this subject, but you could take fan or lose conquest, believe carry. They're also take van der Leeuw's Conquest of illusion and read it and make notes as you go about things that revealed to you. Just revelation, boom, pop of your head, remain celibate for 30 days and read it once more.

CD2-2-10:12

This is the test of intuition, and by, I mean, don't take any booze and don't get yourself in a burnt dope or anything. Keep a clear head, and since your energy accumulate, and as this energy accumulates the intuition, the mind becomes clarified, the meditation becomes clearer. You're able to see yourself much clearer. You can't see yourself as long as there's some monkey jumping around in there saying, Hey, don't look. Don't look, don't look anything. It takes the energy. Yeah. Well, I think one leads to the other. I think a lot of people drink because they like to drink, and then they get into, it becomes a handy, I remember years ago I did it with cigarettes.

CD2-2-11:21

No, it was just, I could get away from the argument I was trying to live with some woman. The only thing that only way I could live with a cigarette getting pumped myself full of narcotics or something. Still the pain. Yes, sure it is. Well, it seems like it's microscopic, but it's still taps. See, there's kind of a law that associates with pleasure. That law says there's pavement in the form of energy, generally neural energy. The first, you're getting into a subject now that I've lectured on before, that there's ladder of energy coming from food into somatic energy, fat, the fat, the glands and that sort of thing where energy is stored, and then this in turn is the muscles as well, and then there's a transmutation of fat into mental energy, which we're aware of by intense concentration holding the body still in the classroom or in a study period and forcing our head to think while all the other appetites and raising hell.

CD2-2-12:40

This is also a mild form of kundalini, and the result is we solve algebra problems with us. That's a transmutation into mental energy. Now, there's still another step that can only come from the neuro energy sources is what I call spiritual energy, and this is scientifically demonstrated in healing that there are people who are able to actually project mental energy into another person's body, which is downgraded into the physical characteristics. This is the basement of the energy aspect to heal people because it's a quantum that's thrown back down into the physical body to heal it, but it can be projected, and this is demonstrated.

CD2-2-13:28

Are you growing? The more you able to generate, the more you do, the more you can, right? Yes. No, it is an infinite. It goes up to the point where your head pops, huh? No, no, no. In other words, first of all, you see the healing as an ego and you quit. That's one of the things you do, and then you apply this energy to the solution of the problem at hand, not helping somebody who's going to waste it. It's always wasted. People get sick because they do something wrong, and you go in and you use your spiritual energy to heal them. This is always a waste. So then you say, Hey, I'm going to use this energy now for the maximum purpose, not for other people. You became elite, selfish, just between you and God, not the other bumps, right? Right. This is basically what happens to every individual. Every individual is used through his ego to exhaust every ounce of his energy that he creates from food and the oxygen breathing food, and he uses it and it becomes fertilizer.

CD2-2-15:24

It becomes fertilizer, and it led philosophers like Gurdjieff to presume that the whole end result of the human race was sewage, that we were just fertilizing a planet. So the result is that the ecologists now are going to wash out, make us put it all through a sewage disposal plant, so we can't fertilize the streams any longer, burn it or something, but nevertheless, they're destroying our only form of immortality. Perhaps they should you back on the field. Yeah. I know if you're queen with Bucke called cosmic consciousness, but he did a lot of research into the percentages of people who become enlightened, people who become coly conscious, and he said, there's something like one in a million. Those one in a million are the chosen. They do not choose themselves. You cannot choose your parents, and unless you had the parents you had, you wouldn't have the mentality that you had. In other words, people do not get into this with a basic instinctive mentality.

CD2-2-16:36

It doesn't appeal to it's sheer nonsense. So consequently, in one respect, you're chosen, but that you should say, well, if these people are lead, I want to get in because they're chosen people. No, no, we don't choose ourselves. We don't choose ourselves. I think one of the age egos that you'll have to have, we have to have this, the ego, ego, spiritual survival. You'll ultimately drop the age of physical survival because you know everybody's going to die, but then everybody says, oh, well, I'm important. That's the ego that you have to hold onto, that you have a chance for spiritual survival. You cannot drop that. If you do, then you become an animal and you quit looking, so you hang on to one ego, and then ultimately it's taken off of you or from you at the moment at which you realize everything.

CD2-2-17:30

That's what it goes. One thing I like to distinguish here is that there are certain things that, like I talked about the observer, and this to me is purely scientific. I've tried to pick a purely scientific presentation that will say it's almost difficult to argue with, but then there are other things like when I say that, be protected, this I can't prove. These are the little things that I pick up. Just like a prick. Bear knows how to lay brick basket because you got a little trick. There's little things that you learn along the way that you're not disputable to me, and this is one of them, I can't prove it to you, but I say by virtue of statistics, the number of people who get interested in this thing, there are very few and far between, so consequently you can call it whatever you wish. You call it an elite group or something of that sort, or you can say that, but the reason I say you're chosen is because I felt this at the time I was a child.

CD2-2-18:29

I focused at the time I was a kid. Five years of age. Different people, huh? Different. Oh, yes. Oh yes. I felt bad about it. I felt that I was a freak. In fact, I felt that I had to possibly, this is a mistake that people make, that people have a spiritual inclination as they get into people who are playing whorehouse games or something and you think, oh boy, I should be a human and join in with these people, but a sissy or something like that say, and your attention. My attention was always going back to who was up there on the altar. Did the priest know the God that he was talking about or what part of God was I, or was it true that he was watching me? These things were always on my mind, say to the time I debate and I had that obsession, if you want to call it, this is what you, as I said, you have to make the search an obsession.

CD2-2-19:28

Until I was, well, I got into it really heavy when I was 21 years of age, between the ages of 21 and 28, I was totally celibate. I didn't even recall. I had no habits whatsoever. I projecting all my energy into trying to find this, and there was times when I'd get so disgusted I wanted to go out drunk and pick myself up a woman and just say, half a half a dozen kids in trouble or whatever. It's to get my head away from this stagnated. I'm not getting any place. I didn't seem to be getting any place. There's just no hope. And not only that, but the whole human race ridiculed saying, Hey, you're out of step. You're joining the millionaires club. How old?

CD2-2-20:13

I dunno what you mean by that. If you asked me when I found out anywhere, oh, that's different intervals between say 21 and 28. I can't remember the, there's several times. Fortunately, when I get in that mood, when I approach a girl, when he'd reject me, I went back to thank him all later. That's a good point. That's a very good point. Another ways too, in any time, if you're on a spiritual path and you have difficulty, do that. Do just that. Don't move, don't act, take care of any flo around. I just make it work. That's the truth. You'll be taken care of. What about? Yes, A little bit. A little bit. Yeah, sure. But you can make, it's just as bad to eat too much as it is to get drunk. Sometimes worse. Sometimes worse. Hard on the Paul Bears. Well, let's get a cookie.

Footnotes

End