|Recorded date||April 6, 1976|
|Number of tapes|
|Other recorders audible?|
|Alternate versions exist?|
|Source||MJ, DM, BM, GH, RC|
|No. of MP3 files||6|
|Total time||About 2 hours. Jake's collection is longer but has repeats.|
|Transcription status||First pass. Published transcription is 1st hour only|
|Link to distribution copy||http://distribution.direct-mind.org/|
|Link to PDF||http://distribution.direct-mind.org/ Or try http://selfdefinition.org/rose/|
|Published in what book?|
|Published on which website?||On SearchWithin.org and TAT - 5 parts: Part 1 here: http://tatfoundation.org/forum2002-11.htm#1|
|URL at direct-mind.org||https://www.direct-mind.org/index.php?title=1976-0409-The-Path-Columbus|
|For access, send email to: firstname.lastname@example.org|
The published transcription on the TAT site the 1st hour only. There's a lot of good material towards end such as on the death experience in the second half. Versions: DM is 2 hrs ; BM is 31 + 31 + 28 + 28 = 2 hrs.
GH is 93 min. MJ version is 2 hrs 15 min but contains repeats. RC (dup of MJ) is 2 hrs 24 min ;
TAT Foundation website: << First hour only. Part 1: http://tatfoundation.org/forum2002-11.htm#1
(Transcription from SearchWithin.Org is file 1 and 2 only)
I’m going to offer two postulates tonight. One is that I believe – and this is the motivation for my coming to the different schools and talking – that all people are interested in the truth. The second is that there is a method of finding the truth.
The reason I bring this up right away, as the original generalization you might say, is that too often I talk for an hour or so and leave behind the impression that perhaps I don’t give a blueprint or a system. That I do a lot of talking about what is true or untrue, but I don’t leave behind a method. Well, the method is there. And I begin with that premise or promise, that there is a method of finding the truth.
Now of course as soon as you start talking about the truth, you have your own definitions. And I maintain that it all goes back to the same thing: It’s just an enlargement upon the simple definition of truth in any field. If we didn't have truth in science, our civilization wouldn't occur, our blueprints would be faulty. We demand accuracy in science, and that accuracy is truth. We try to make a science of our abstract things as well, like psychology, sociology, and such, and we try to find some truth in that. Not that we always do wind up with the truth, but still we try to make it as truthful as possible and as scientific as possible. The same thing occurs with religion.
I believe that everybody is curious. A lot of people just give up, but everybody is curious about where they come from. You hear people saying rather bravely (that’s the idea, pretending to be brave): "Well, nobody knows. We're all going to die like rats and that's going to be the end of us. And the people who preach religion are basically hucksters who are just going to make a living out of it." And with such bravery they turn aside the necessary effort that’s needed to find something.
But regardless, no matter what station of life a man is in, whether you find him in the lodge hall, the church or the beer-joint, he'll break his conversation occasionally to say, "What do you think about this thing of life after death? Where do you think we’re going?" He’s hoping of course to get it in between beers. And everybody's hoping to get this in between beers. Or, "Here, I’ve saved a few thousand bucks, let’s go to this guru and give him a thousand or so, and he'll zap us, and we’ll go back to work and pleasure." Presuming that life will be exactly the same afterwards, and you’ll have the same desires afterwards.
Somewhere there’s an enormous gap between this idea of everybody wanting the truth and so very few looking for it. And there’s a still smaller percentage of people looking for let’s say the final truth. Some people, when they get to looking for it, stop at that which they’d like to hear, and they label that the truth.
Many a time I’ve talked to a group of students – and of course students like to presume that they're much more broad-minded than older people. But believe me, today the older people are more broad-minded. You get a group of young people today, they're more addicted to what they think should be heaven and hell. When you violate their concepts of what is beautiful and flowing and nice, or the current fanciful thoughts of the time, they get downright angry. But they don’t stop to think that this may be a block. This may be a block from letting something in. It also may be a significance of their capacity. And, consequently, in most of my talks I speak in generalities, because I see no purpose in talking too plainly and giving out too much information – when you’re only going to give them an inspiration perhaps at the best, to the best, while fifty percent of them may be indignant because you tramped on some sacred cow. So, in the past I’ve always said let’s talk about the iniquities, the foolishness, the lies that are prevalent in everyday life, and hope by talking about these lies you see that somewhere there might be the opposite of lies. Give hints.
So I came to the conclusion that I’ll spend this evening talking straight to you. And if it hurts – well then, you can brush it off as being strictly my opinion, forget about it, and go back to whatever line of thinking you wish to indulge in. But there’s not much chance of you changing, then.
I’ve got to go back to my own youth to explain what I want to tell you. I started off quite young believing that the most important thing in life was to know what life was. And I’m talking about my early teens and before my teens. I could not see the point about living if you didn't know who was living. Now that might sound like foolishness to you, because you'll say, "Oh, I know who's living – I’m living." Okay, I can't argue and I can't explain further. Because you'll have to figure that one out yourself, if you think you’re living.
Regardless – I went out searching. And as a young fellow, I grabbed onto the parental religion and went away to the seminary and spent some time trying to be a priest. I was seventeen when I had enough of that – because I came to the conclusion that you can't scientifically investigate something ?? [that’s inside?] your head. That is, if somebody's saying, "Shut up and do what we tell you, believe what we tell you, follow this dogma, say these prayers – and you will go there." And my answer is, "Where?" "Say your prayers to God." And I say, "Who is that?" So when I asked too many of this type of question, they said, "Bud, you’d better leave."
Of course I felt bad at first, but I left. And I started looking into everything. This is going back and digging up a dead horse, but the reason I'm mentioning this is that it might be of some value to you today. Because the same things I stumbled over then, you people are stumbling over today. We have the same number of phony gurus, the same number of hucksters, people selling spiritual values for sex or money.
So you wade through a tremendous lot of these until a point where you actually give up, perhaps. And I think that fifty percent of the people who really are sincere give up. They just run into so many hucksters that they say, "I've had it. There's no truth, there's nothing but lies and chicanery; and I might as well get into the rat race and make my bundle and lead a vegetating existence."
Well, in my investigations I found that there were two systems of looking at things if you’re looking for self-definition. First, looking at who we are. That is, who we are now, where did we come from, and where are we going. Well, strangely enough, it’s important to know who we are now. And to find out who we are now, it doesn’t do any good to ask the priest. You've got to ask yourself. This is psychology. Everybody has to study psychology – pure psychology, not the garbage that's given out today to make the robots behave a little better. I'm talking about genuine psychology in which a man knows himself. And sometimes through that knowledge he's able to step into another man's shoes and also know that man. This type of psychology is necessary in this type of search.
The second thing of course is the science of "paths." Finding ways and means to do it. You go talk to somebody who knows something. And of course every time you go out to talk to people you have to run the gamut of phonies. You have to run the gamut of organized religions which have long since lost any great intrinsic value and are just preaching for that religious entity's survival.
Then of course you brush them all aside, as a lot of the young people are doing today, and you say, "Well, let's go find a man. This looks as though it's not a prevalent knowledge; it's probably just in the minds of a few. Let's go find these few people that know it." And again if you hunt all over the place, you find that some of these individual people who are supposed to be sages and wise men have ulterior motives. Sometimes that ulterior motive is money and sometimes it's something else.
I went through quite a bit of things, and ended up pretty much in despair. The things that you have today were marketed in those days too. One of the things that you have to look out for are what I call gimmicks. Or you look out for the "appeal" that appeals to what you want to believe. You have to first of all know that you can outwit yourself. You have to know that a person will choose a spiritual path because of libido. A man might join a church because it says you can have ten wives. Or a man may join a church because it promises eternity, or life after death. It promises what he wants to hear.
And I say that if you want to go out and look for the truth, you don't postulate ahead of time what you're going to find. You don't use words. You don't say, "I'm going out to search for God." It's alright to say that, for want of a better word let me use that. But it basically amounts to self-definition as that-which-is-the-answer. If there is something in control of the universe, that which that is, is what you search for. You don't name it and postulate it, then get books that have been written about it and try to imitate formulae for placating that God. This is going back to primitive religion when you do that. Taking somebody else's word for it and then offering some sort of sacrifice or money in a collection basket or whatnot.
There is so much of this that even when we get out we rebel against our parental religion, and we go across the water and find somebody – I've often said where you were buying beer for the local padre you're now buying hashish for the guru. Or maybe something else. Because the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, we look – despising our parental religion and everything of that sort – and we look for the magical. The man in the diaper as opposed to the man in the evening suit. And we embrace this sort of thing.
After ten or twenty years of it you come full tilt again, realizing that the truth is not in the organized, established religion of your ancestors perhaps, and it's not in the gurus of some Asian country. It's basically back in this thing called psychology. And basically you find it by looking inside of yourself.
I was 21 years of age when I came to the conclusion that man would not learn. People spend years – I started off in a theological department with a twelve-year course of study of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, German, astronomy even – for the purpose of being better able at the end of that course to preach to people. So I would have spent twelve years acquiring wisdom. But not any real knowledge. Just what somebody else told me was true. Just the material in the book.
When I was 21 years of age I realized that man never learns anything. You do not learn. There's an old theological premise – I think Thomas Aquinas said it – that the finite mind never perceives the infinite. This is very true. And this is a stopper. When you see this, that the mind is finite, that the brain is so constructed that it's dazzled and turned. Every time you start to think of something you forget it five minutes later. You try to hold a philosophic concept in your head, and within a half-hour it's gone. You pledge yourself to a certain type of life and in a couple of days' time the heat gets on you, your passions overwhelm you – and you're down in the whorehouse or someplace and you forgot all about it. This is the type of mind we're dealing with.
So you say, "How can this type of mind, this finite mind, ever do anything about the cosmos?" How can it ever come up with the knowledge of an abstraction that can't be blueprinted or recorded with information brought through a telescope or rockets or something of that sort? And eventually it dawns on you that this saying is true. The finite mind will never perceive the infinite. So what do we do? We have to find a system of changing. A system of becoming less finite. This was not mentioned by the Thomistic theologians. They just said, "Believe and shut up. Trust in God. And die without making too much of a racket."
But there is a chance. And the amazing thing about it – the people who brought this first to me were the "pagans" which we despised for centuries. And all the time that we were wrestling with these Thomistic syllogisms there was a movement in Asia that went directly to the mind of man with a simple and direct psychology. And that's Zen.
Now I'm not saying that's the only way, because many of the Christians also – the Christian saints – went directly into themselves and found the truth. You go back and read their literature and you'll find it's there. We just read over the top of it, more or less. And when I reached my realization I went back and read certain things in the Bible that now had a meaning to me. So Christ said, "Seek and ye shall find." Before, that was just so many words, which we read so often we pay no attention to. But now I realized he didn't say, "Believe." He said, "Trust me, I'm telling you straight stuff." But I don't believe that he said to just believe blindly, or he wouldn't have said, "Seek and ye shall find."
And this is the formula. There are other formulas also. There's a formula laid down in the New Testament that is also laid down by Buddha. That's the three-fold path. You have to work three things at once.
Regardless, this business of "becoming" was never given to the lay people among the Christian nations. Only the concept of blind belief, of following and doing what you're told. But when you get into the lives of people who did rebel – and they were prominent people in the Christian history, like St. John of the Cross – he rebelled, and went into himself and found things out. It's possible many others did too. Christ himself is supposed to have spent forty days up on the mountain somewhere meditating. So possibly a good many of them did. St. Theresa is supposed to have found a revelation from going into herself and finding her God.
Of course she labeled it and named it. The Asiatic doesn't name it; the students of Zen don't find any name in it. As soon as you name it, you're postulating, and that's the danger. You're postulating something, you're imagining it, you're creating it.
A lot of people have realized this, either consciously or subconsciously. A lot of young people have realized this by reading books by Alan Watts or something of that sort. They give up on the idea of finding or having any security in just blind belief. And consequently they turn to some of these movements which imply that there's a change possible, whereby a teacher can "zap" a student, the student will be changed, their eyes will be opened, etc. The sound currents, and so on.
I went through a lot of these yogic concepts. Kirpal Singh, which was the Radha Soami sect – they believe in listening to the sound currents. I think that the Guru Maharaj movement is also connected with the sound currents. And various physical phenomena, incidentally.
Although when you get to thinking about it, you'll find that the mind and the physical body have little relation – that a noise in the ear or straining your eyes to see a certain point out ahead of you has no significance in the essence of man. A little thinking will tell you that. Although it may put you in the mood, a contemplative mood, by which the mind may eventually do something – but it seems like a long way around.
But so will prayer. You get down and you pray every day, and that prayer will be a reminder. I used to say, "When you pray and hear yourself, if you can hear yourself, you can answer and acquire." Because everything's inside. And you have to summon that which is inside to answer the external plea, and you satisfy your own prayers. In other words, you become.
With this knowledge, in that we have had a lot of movements hinting at the ability to change people, hinting that there's going to be a miraculous change with the application of a certain mantra and a little bit of money and perhaps a little bit of devotion – once again humanity seems to be approaching closer to this idea of movements that promise a change of being – but moving equally distant from it by virtue of being destroyed by the gimmick or game or the money involved in it. [sentence] In other words the teacher too often is interested in carrying a healthy bank account back to India more so than he is in bringing information to people.
So we go through a new process now of sorting. And you can't sort if you don't have an intuition. This is the reason that what I'm saying right now some of you may reject just one sentence after another – "I don't like what that guy's saying" – and somebody sitting next to you may be saying, "Hey, that rings a bell." Well why do these two different people have these two different opinions? I maintain it's different layers or levels of intuition.
We are dealing with an abstract thing, and if you do a little thinking on it you'll realize that this is not mathematics, where you take your slide rule out and add pluses and minuses and come up with my veracity or anybody else's veracity. There's only one gauge for my veracity, and that's the little meter within your head called intuition. And this has to function very rapidly. It has to take in a tremendous number of factors, mainly words, gestures, books you've read, comparisons from other data that's in your computer. And you have to come up very quickly with an answer, or you might get zapped. Or you might get angry, if your verdict goes the other way.
It's impossible to go beyond this step – it's impossible for people, even though they realize they have to become – it's impossible for them to go beyond that unless they have an intuition that is developed. Because they'll reject things that their appetites reject and embrace things their appetites embrace. And consequently we have fallen victim in this country to a lot of garbage. And it's purely and simply that.
There are some simple yardsticks that can be applied. And if you get into enough books on it you'll find these yardsticks exist in the literature. Down through the ages it's always been written or said that money does not make truth, and you can't buy truth with money. But everybody's trying. Everybody's trying to put a little money ahead in the bank and say, "Well, I'll get what I want. If I want zapped, I'll give the guy a thousand dollars or so. If I want the Truth – why, I'll go over there. "
I remember reading Kapleau's book. He said, "Well, when I got to be fifty years of age, I decided to get zapped. So we caught an airplane for Japan and we decided to stay over there until we got it – it was that simple." Well, it isn't that simple. Because he's not going to go to Japan at the age of fifty and get enlightened. He might get zapped, but he won't get enlightened at the age of fifty – unless he has spent his whole life straining in that direction. That's my belief. And number two, he's not going to get it just by paying off money.
But this is the thing that we have to look for, the development of intuition within ourselves, as you go down the path. So that you know which to pick. Because how many years in your life do you have? I spent seven years in yoga, from age 21 to 28. And one of the high points or features of this yoga was "Om." That was my mantra. It doesn't cost a thing – and it’s just as powerful and just as valuable as angh or ingh or bang or bong. It will take you to the same place. It'll give you quiescence, it quiets the mind, and you can get it out of any book of yoga.
But I went into this for seven years, pleading for that magical door to open. I followed all the rules: vegetarian diet, non-indulgence in alcohol, sex, tea, coffee. They said it and I did it. Because I was going whole hog. At the end of seven years nothing happened. I was twenty-eight years of age and a lot of life had passed by, and the only thing that happened was my hair was falling out.
So I came to the conclusion that there was something wrong with my judgment of a system. I had peace of mind. Peace of mind doesn't lead to greater and greater peace of mind, to greater and greater bliss, where all at once you blow through the top of your head and you're in some previously-idealized heaven. It was only at the age of twenty-eight that I started to fight, and when I started to fight tooth and nail is when things started to happen. Not by sitting on my haunches chanting to myself.
Consequently, I'm hoping to save [you] time. And of course, I know there are people who are going down the same road - they're going to be addicted for eight or ten years to some movement or another – without the knowledge that basically no movement is really necessary. All that's necessary is that you look inside yourself honestly and sincerely.
And of course I say it's good to associate with people who are doing the same thing. In that respect, it's like Alcoholics Anonymous. When the brain gets fuzzy or when you forget or you get fatigued or you drift out and get drunk or something – somebody says, "Hey, maybe you'd better come back and do some thinking; you're getting too far from the center."
So in this respect – this is one of the Laws of Three that Christ spoke about: the Way, the Truth, and the Life – the "Life" is the association with people on the same spiritual direction. Buddha called it the "Sangha." They're pretty much the same. The Way is basically the discipline. The way can be a Christian discipline or a Buddhistic discipline, or it can be a self-invented, self-created discipline, whatever you promise yourself to do.
And the Truth, of course – it goes back to this thing of everybody desires. Everybody wants it, so live it. Don't lie to yourself. When I say don't lie to yourself, don't let your stomach dictate what your head does. Don't let your gonads dictate what your head does. That's only part of you. And when you do that, you're lying to yourself. You're splitting your energy, you're making of yourself more or less a vegetating being rather than a searching, sentient being.
This brings us up to the investigation of Zen. I got into Zen after I had my experience. I found that Zen was the purest psychoanalytic system you can encounter. And I still think today that modern psychology is wallowing in wishful thinking in a vain struggle to predict herd compatibility. Whereas Zen goes to the truth of the human being.
And once I had reached the point where I had something to communicate to somebody else, Zen was the method by which I was able to communicate. Because Zen is a direct, mind-to-mind method. The business of transmission from a teacher to a student is direct, mind-to-mind transmission. No words. That's the reason you find so little writing, except foolishness, in Zen.
Again, the reason I'm getting into the different authors on Zen – ninety percent of all the writing that has come out from Asia, i.e., Japan and China, on Zen – is also garbage. Because – some of it is history – okay, the history is good, but who is interested in history? I don't care if Christ had two pair of shoes, I want to know what he said. What formulas did he leave behind?
And you pick up books like D.T. Suzuki, and there's very little formula. So there are sutras, so there is poetry, so there are the Psalms of David – are they inspiring or will they tell you something? And I maintain that the real books that lead you into a knowledge of how to function in Zen are practically nonexistent. Zen is a person. Zen is represented by people, not books – people who are able to transmit. And this is where the proof is, not in the fact that they belonged to a certain thing.
For instance, I knew two Zen teachers in my time. (I knew more than two, but I didn't stick around them very long.) One of them was Sokei-an, and the other was Alfred Pulyan. And my belief – here's a man, Sokei-an, who had a rubber stamp from Japan, who could not transmit, who had very little to give to anybody, lived his life out as a monk – and Pulyan, a man from New York City, practically unknown, was a man who could transmit and refused to advertise; the only way you could find him was by accident. Because he didn't believe in blowing a horn.
We're getting a tremendous lot of esoteric literature, and in some respects this is nice. But are you going to be able to wade through all of it? This is the point. We have a group that meets here, and this is one of the complaints I'm always handing to the groups - I go out to these groups and they've all got a library. They've got a hundred books. This is no good. Too many books are no good; action is what counts. You read a book and you read a reference in that book to somebody else, and you go running to grab that book and say, "Hey, did you read this?" And they're neglecting the action.
You can read books from now on. And believe me, as fast as you read them, somebody will write them, and they'll be in the bookstore over here. And that means procrastination. You’ll use that as a rationalization to stop working. It isn't that impossible to start working on yourself tomorrow. Right now. That's all that's necessary. And as you start working, your ways and means will be part of your meditation. As you meditate, you'll find ways and means to follow-up your meditation.
Now, I'd like to pause here and possibly see what you people think. I'm going to open it up for questions, and this way I can have more direct communication with you. If there's something you're puzzled about that I said, maybe an elaboration. There's only one thing I ask – that you don't put me on the witness stand. In other words, that you don't start preaching, using the room as a podium for some other belief. ?? ??
[ file dm1 ends at 29:30 -- file mj 1 ends at 30:13 ]
That’s all I ask, that your questions be sincere and honest.
Q. You talked about different formulas, different systems. What is your formula? What is your system?
R. Well, I could try to give it to you in a few words, but I've written a book, and it's in the book. If you contact some of the people in the group, the book is available. Basically, I'd say that it corresponds pretty much with what I went through, with the hope that it can be abbreviated in someone else's life. It amounts to conservation of energy. It employs certain physical laws – that your results are proportional to energy applied. So that if you want to become a serious student of physics, psychology, anything, you can't just study one hour a day or one hour a week. You'll be twenty years getting through college. And the same with this. If you want to be a serious philosopher or esoteric student, you're going to have to put some time in that.
And there's terminology used in the system, used in the book, which might be confusing if I get into too much of it now. Some of them are engineering terms. I use the word vector. Man must build a vector. He builds a vector, and then he finds that he is the vector. He makes a direction, and then he finds that he is the direction.
And that's the reason – of course, I'm hopping way ahead now, and this may not be intelligible to you, it may seem far-fetched – but Christ made a remark that he was the Truth. But we don't pay any attention to this. I didn't pay any attention to it. But this is the whole secret there. That means that Christ did not learn the Truth. He was the Truth. But he didn't just overnight be the Truth. He had to become the Truth. So this is the vector. A lifetime it takes, or ten or twenty years, before you to become something.
So this system basically says, at first, to start. If you have a system of your own, then do it – if you have a sincere path, and you think it's good. I don't say just do what I tell you. In fact, I say doubt. Everything – doubt. Everything you read, including what I write. Find out for yourself. But if you see anything functional in it, something that's operable, take it. Take it tentatively, and say, "Well, we'll try that. We'll try this exercise."
Some people in the group, for instance, eat meat. Other people don't eat meat. And they come to me and say, "Should I eat meat?" I don't care if you eat meat. I don't care if you kill people. Because I don't know what's good for your development. Maybe you'll be enlightened when they sit you in the electric chair. Everybody's life is different. Everybody finds it through a different means. But do it sincerely and with great diligence, and I maintain that you'll arrive. And that's the formula. Results are proportional to energy applied.
The old salesmen used to say, "If you throw enough mud at the ceiling, some of it will stick." You go out, and you make so many door calls, you'll make so much business. And that is very true in this regard, also. You think like you're failing, that you're not accomplishing anything. But it's only when you look backward over a year's work, or two years' work, or consult some of the other people in the group, and they can start giving you details of the progress that you've made. But to yourself, you can't see it.
But I would like for you, if you're interested – you can come to the weekly meeting. It doesn't cost a cent, there's no charge for any of this, and it will abbreviate a lot of time spent here tonight – if you're interested in it.
Q. What happens when everybody sees the ultimate truth?
R. It would be a nice situation, I presume, but there’s no danger of it. Because the present statistics – Richard Bucke wrote a book called Cosmic Consciousness, and he predicted one in a million would see it. So if we can raise those odds a little, it would be nice, but we're not going to get too great a probability in that respect.
Q. When one reaches ultimate reality, he understands that human beings work against themselves.
R. They work for their natural selves, but against their spiritual unfolding, let's put it that way.
Q. We're smart enough to invent atomic bombs to destroy the world, but we don't seem to be smart enough to eliminate starvation, to guarantee human beings' survival.
R. Did you ever stop to think, is it necessary for them to survive? Which is worse: starving babies or polluting their minds in our educational processes?
Q. It isn't sin that's the problem. It is money. It’s the fear of starvation that in turn creates sin.
R. No, I don't believe that there is such a thing as sin. I don't accept the idea of sin at all. We're too damn stupid to sin.
Q. In order to survive, we must work, and for every action that we do there is a reaction.
R. That's true. That part is true. I agree with you that there are reactions, and these reactions are looked upon as good and evil. But of course, I don't choose to judge. I don't know what's good and what's bad.
We had a talk up in Akron, Ohio one time, and that came up, and I said that sometimes I don't know which is worse, to bring a baby into this world to suffer and go through a tremendous amount of misery, or to give an old man who's dying of cancer a pill and let him end it very quickly, they call it "pulling the plug." One is considered murder. But I think sometimes the worse crime is to bring the baby in. Both of them are doing things we don't understand. We're manipulating nature in a way that we don't understand, and that's the crime. It isn't the idea of taking a life; you might put the man in heaven. You put the baby in hell. But the very concept that having babies is bad – nobody wants to hear that. So you can't tell what is good and what is evil. We do know that people react. We get reactions for doing certain things.
Q. Can you elaborate on what you were saying about the finite mind?
R. Well, for instance, when you get into meditation, the first thing you're going to realize is the fact that you have no control over your mind. The mere fact that a person sits down and studies for two hours on calculus or something like that doesn't mean you control your mind. You're pressed, you're forced by virtue of the economy. You realize you have to do a certain thing in order to get a certain job in order to eat. So you're pressed. But even then, it's hard to keep your mind on calculus. And there are times when your mind just rejects it.
We have a girl in the group, for instance, who had one little course, one little paper to do to graduate, to get her degree. And her mind shut off and said, "No." You probably know who I’m talking about; she lives there in Benwood. This is the finite mind. The mind that is unpredictable, willful, that wearies with fatigue. When the oxygen leaves it goes to sleep. When temptation goes by, it changes its direction. It builds a heaven to suit its appetites. So everything it does is colored by forces that it can't control.
So, in other words, it's finite. It's limited to the perceptions that come in and the voices that come in, to dictate the messages. The thing is colored. We see the world through rose-colored glasses too often.
Q. Do you think that once we find Truth or determine Truth that the mind is no longer finite?
Q. Okay, then if the Truth is always there and we have just to find it, then will ...
R. No. What I think and what you know are two different things. You must never dare to believe that the Truth is always there. See, the ultimate Truth from your vantage point does not exist.
Q. Then why do you bother, why does ...?
R. No, no. Now wait. I'm not saying it doesn't exist for me. I'm saying that the only truth that you can have is what you postulate. You can aim for it. But nobody can aim – we went through this before, some while back – you do not aim at the Truth. It's impossible to aim at the Truth, the final Truth. It's impossible to aim at God. It's impossible to aim at the knowledge of Everything. The only thing you can do is retreat from the opposite, the untruth. You cannot go toward Truth. We don't know where it is.
Q. Okay, we don't know where it is, but in order to retreat, we must know that we're going toward something.
R. No. We don't know that we're going toward anything. The only thing we know is that we're just avoiding garbage. I say that we avoid what is manifestly ludicrous or ridiculous. And accepting tentatively things less ridiculous. Rejecting from those. Accepting the plausible and rejecting the things that are less plausible. Until we narrow it down. Until we're dealing with one or two things or abstract concepts that are possibly, just tentatively, more real than the whole mess of stuff that we rejected. This is the only way to approach a philosophic truth. There's no such thing as saying, "Well, I'm going to presume that X equals 25 and then after I presume it, I'll prove it." No. We don't know what X is.
Q. So then "retreating from" means getting away from something ...
R. We become the Truth by simply – we quit lying. First of all, we do everything imaginable to be truthful. We quit lying. And then we find that we don't lie to other people – it's easy to quit lying to other people, it's hard to quit lying to yourself. And after a while you realize you lie to yourself, so you quit that.
Then you go into – if you've started to school your mind intuitively with this type of training – then you apply that to a book of philosophy or theology, or some method of finding yourself. And then you pick the garbage from that. You reject the isms or the cults or the religions or gimmicks by virtue of your view of them as being either plausible or not plausible. And then you pick again. The only thing you've got to work with is the choice of the absurd and the less absurd.
Q. But why is "God" used as "Truth" if you don't know that it exists?
R. Well, you've got to use something, and I say that we use the word "God" also, but as soon as you use it say you realize that you're postulating. And as long as you do that, as long as you recognize that you're postulating, it's just like saying "X." I might say I don't know what X is, and you could say, "Why use X until you know what it is?"
Q. Do you have your own definition for Truth?
R. Yes, I have a definition for Truth that I can't convey to you.
Q. Why can't you convey it?
R. Well, because the way I arrived at it was by a change of state of being, not by an adaptation of vocabulary.
Q. Does that change of state of being entail knowing what is right and wrong ...?
R. No, you don't know. The change of state of being involves not-knowing. Not-knowing. It's a process of being. Becoming one with. They don't say, "I know the Father" – they say, "I and the Father are one." And, "No man knows the Father unless he come unto Him." [see note ] These are little hints that signify that you have to become one with the Father, whatever that Father represents, God or the Truth, or whatever. I translate some of that stuff to mean a change of being.
Q. Have you read the book Zen and the Art of Archery? I understand the idea of the potter becoming one with the pot. But what is the lesson, what is the real value that I feel I'm missing?
R. I don't know. I never read it.
Q. Do you understand the idea of the potter becoming one with the pot?
R. Yes, I understand it, but I don't understand – see, what you have – and this is what's happened in a lot of Zen books – I believe that some people who have had realizations try to write it down. And these things they said were recognizable to other people, and even recognizable to the mundane mind. It's like the business that Alan Watts used to bring up in so many of his books, this idea of no-mind. No one knows what no-mind is until they reach no-mind. You can't put that in a book and convey it. And it was babbled about by authors and individuals who knew nothing about what no-mind really was. So it's not conveyable. Even I think some of the masters in Japan, because they chattered too much about it – people in the street were chattering, "This certain master has acquired no-mind." How did they know he had acquired it? The only way they would know he had acquired no-mind would be if they acquired no-mind.
The idea would be that this acquisition or this state that you arrive at is not what it sounds like. It sound like you lose your head. And in one sense you do – but not in the sense that people take it, that you go insane or that you'd be completely lost, or something of that sort.
But basically this idea of the potter being the same as the pot is the same as the Atman and the Brahman in the Brahmanistic concept. There's a relation in all the major religions. The experience is there; people have had experiences in the Brahmanistic or Krishna form of religion the same as they have in Zen. And they express that. The Atman finds himself one with the Brahman. He becomes the Brahman. And the Brahman expresses himself through him. But just saying that may not convey to you what really happens. Because those are words, and how can you conceive of Atman becoming Brahman?
Q. What do you mean by meditating on the sound currents?
R. The Radha Soami sect, and many of these sects that come out of India, have what I call a gimmick that they build their group around. For instance, Yogananda introduced the kriya yoga technique, concentration on the third eye. The Radha Soami doctrine centered mostly around what they call the Shabd, and you were supposed to listen with your right ear, and not with your left ear, and you would pick up noises. Now in the initiation ceremony they gave you corresponding noises, the conch shell, silver bells, and so on, which after you die you would be able to identify with the sound current. Consequently there was quite a little religion built up around that, straining all your life to learn to pick up certain sound currents. Well, the result was some people imagined they heard things. Some people imagined they heard voices.
Q. Okay, what about something they call a control, that would give you messages?
R. Well, I would check it out pretty thoroughly before I allowed it to influence my actions.
Q. How do you check it out?
R. Well, you can check things out.
Q. Do you know exactly where it comes from?
R. I have an idea that you've heard something, yes, and you're wanting to know if it's valid or if it's something that upsets you. First of all, there are formulas that you go by to keep yourself from being bothered. Then, if you're bothered, you pretty well rest assured that it's not harming you. [?] But there are a lot of things that have happened to people as a result of mixing sex and drugs that have resulted in voices – ??? in possession, actually. So consequently I don't know what category your things fall into.
Now lots of times there are premonitions that come to people who have never taken drugs or never been into anything, and sometimes these are very valid. For instance, a close relative dying at a distance - you'll hear their voice speak to you or call for help or something, and you check your clock, and later you find out they died at exactly that time. That may sound like a voice in your ear, and it may be valid. Whereas a lot of other things may be the business of some entity tormenting you for some purpose or other.
Q. How do you change your state of mind?
R. Well, you can't change it. There's no way you can change your state of mind. I think by recognizing it, it automatically changes itself. When you recognize something, it loses its ability to carry you off or force you in a certain direction. One of the very important things, I think, if you're interested in this auto-psychological system, is to realize that there are things called states of mind. We hear very little talk about this in modern psychology – that people get into what starts off to be a mood. And a state of mind is a prolonged mood.
There are things called states of perception. In other words, the reason you call these "states" is that they're not the same, they’re changeable. For instance, if you look through a kaleidoscope, whatever you see through that kaleidoscope has a different appearance. And even though you only pick up an image, it will look perhaps dramatic, romantic, lord knows what. And if you get up in the morning and look at the sunrise after you've smoked some pot – that's a state of perception. That's not a state of mind. You're looking at the sunrise through pot, just like you would through a kaleidoscope.
But when you develop a conviction as a result of moods upon you day after day after day – this is a state of mind. The state of mind can lead to murder, it can be to love, or anything that may influence your life for years to come.
There's so little emphasis placed on this, there's so little research done – I think some of the Gestalt psychologists have tried to get into this, they've tried to examine states of mind, but they've never had the hunch from the beginning what was going on, so they didn't know quite what to look for. They were just looking for behavioral patterns.
But we get into profound states of mind. For instance, when a man or a woman falls in love – that's a state of mind. It's not reality. And when we get battered about in life over a period of time, in half a dozen of these different states of mind, which may cause or drive us to anything from love to murder – and we have to stop and think, "Where are we?" We're talking about defining ourself. Where are we where all this is going on?
dm2-21:34 The man goes away later, he sobers up the next morning and says, "Hey, how did I ever get into that mess?" – which yesterday was a conviction. He was ready to lay his life down for this certain thing, or he may have while he was in that state of mind trotted out and gotten married, and tied himself up to a situation for twenty years or so that he regretted – because he hurried the situation along.
So you're bound to come back to this thing and say, "Where was I at that time? I'm not that. I'm not the drunk. I'm not the guy who takes dope. I'm not the guy who makes love. I'm not the guy who gets greedy and eats too much. Because something else in me says, ‘Hey, you're making a fool of yourself.’ ” So what is it then which says, "You're making a fool of yourself"? Analyze it. Which one of these observers is really you? One of them is you, and the other is a state of mind. You've got to be able to pick this up in this business of self-analysis – to be able to pick up when you are under the influence of a state of mind and when you are observing yourself.
Q. You talk about states of mind. Is this not just a portion of yourself? [inaudible]
R. No, no. I'm talking about dichotomy. See, now, there is a trend in modern psychology to think that all things are phases of "you." This is nonsense. You have bugs on you just like a dog has fleas. There are things upon you that take your energy that are not you. Now if you've taken enough dope, some of you will know. Some of you have met these things face to face. There are many things. There are states of mind that are not entities. But there are even entities which people try to pass off as "just a phase of me." But they're actually entities.
Q. So the state of mind actually has a physical existence [inaudible] ? [WAS: isn't real?] try: isn’t you
R. Well, no – it's still more you though than if I hypnotized you. If I hypnotized you, you couldn't say that that was just a phase of you, because I may have you out taking shots at somebody on a street corner while you were under hypnosis.
Q. But I would be the one who pulled the trigger.
R. Your body would have been the one who pulled the trigger. But which one are you identifying as you?
Q. Well, they're all parts of you ...
R. That's if you want to claim that. If you want to claim all these actions. But how would you want to claim that? If somebody hypnotized you and you went out and shot somebody, would you go into the courtroom and claim that?
Q. I might want to tell them that I didn't do it, but what I know that my finger pulled the trigger.
R. Well, you know the finger did it; but that’s the idea that this body, parts of this body do things all the time that it's not necessarily in favor of. By that I mean at the moment it might want to do it. But what you're telling me is that you would like to lay ownership to an irresolute being – that takes ownership for all of the confusing and contradicting impulses which may get it into trouble. My attitude is that the majority of people who commit crimes even, do not commit them. They are the victim of circumstances and strong, overpowering external impulses. Some of them are states of mind, and some of them are downright invasions.
Q. Would you say that you are separate from what your personality is?
R. Well, the personality is nothing more than something that you project that you want other people to accept. That isn't you. This is what you have to determine for yourself, what you are. Because after you do a little bit of meditation, you'll realize, number one, that you're not your personality; number two, you're not your state of mind; number three, you're not any of your desires – until you are [instead] the guy that's watching all this stuff that going on. [sentence]
Now when you find that, you're getting back to what I call the anterior observer. Not the ultimate or final observer, but the anterior observer – the umpire, so to speak. Down inside of you somewhere there's an umpire that says, "Hey, I don't approve of that part of myself."
Now if you want to own it, then you're creating a dichotomy. And a lot of people are living with this dichotomy today, wanting to lay ownership to all of this. No. It's much easier to say, "There are things I do that I don't approve of. I would reject that part of myself." Then you can keep your head clear. But when you try to rationalize all of that as being one big happy mess, it doesn't work.
Q. Are there spirits that can influence a human being?
R. Yes. It's absurd to presume that we are the only fish in the sea. We like to believe that we're top dog. That all of these chickens and cows and cats and dogs were put here for our happiness and all this sort of thing. This is nonsense. You take this little play The Exorcist – this is based upon fact. This gives a hint that there are things that have a powerful influence over human beings and all forms of life, which are invisible.
Now the psychologist says, "I don't believe in anything I can't see." This is their reaction to The Exorcist. "It doesn't exist if I can't see it, if I can't get it into a test tube." But you can't see a virus. You can't see oxygen. But we will accept a pill from a doctor under the basis of his idea that we have cancer, or something that he really maybe can't isolate. You'll accept that in his professional advice. But people will not respect the professional advice of the theologians who for centuries have dealt with these creatures. He had to keep his mouth shut, because people thought they were ...
Q. What about self-hypnosis? Do we constantly create conditions according to the nature of our own thought?
R. Well, we don't create them. We don't even create our thoughts. And this is a good little point to remember. If you think that you think, try to stop. If you think that you think, try to start. You don't start your day's thoughts. It's upon you before you know it. Nobody starts thinking; nobody stops thinking. It's caused.
Q. Is all thought conditioned?
R. All thought is the result of external environment. Until you reach a point where by some means – this is the whole trick of Zen – the robot's bid to find his transistor, to find his own crank in his back, and to move himself for the first time. Until that time, all people are robots.
And, incidentally, your conditional psychology is true in this respect. But the thing is – conditioned by what? There are multiple factors. One person gets up on television, has subliminal advertising or something, and he thinks he's conditioning the masses. A certain political arm will reach out and try to put out propaganda. But they in turn are conditioned. So that we don't ever know where all this conditioning starts. It just seems as though the human race always fits into the blueprint of the zeitgeist – that which is supposed to be.
In other words, we're in a sort of culture here. And no matter how magnificent our egos become, we still respond as the people did six or ten thousand years ago. Some die in battle, some work themselves to death, some become bums. The same thing. We just have a little fancier ways of dying, that's all.
Q. Do you think everybody is born with the same amount of conditioning?
R. Well, I don't know about the measurement. But beyond a doubt, as soon as you're born, as soon as you learn to talk – you have to talk with your parents – and you're going to learn their language, and you're going to get their hangups and their beliefs and their attitudes, even though they're not spoken.
TAT Forum 5 ends here
And of course we know that these attitudes …
[break in tape]
[file dm2 ends at 29:46 -- file mj2 ends at 30:20]
[File mj3 – first 16 min is a repeat of mj2, beginning here: Yes, I understand it, but I don't understand.... See, what you have – and this is what's happened in a lot of Zen books – I believe that some people who have had realizations try to write it down. And these things they said were recognizable to other people …]
[repeated section, 12 seconds] as soon as you're born, as soon as you learn to talk – you have to talk with your parents – and you're going to learn their language, and you're going to get their hangups and their beliefs and their attitudes, even though they're not spoken.
And of course we know that these attitudes are different from the family next door. But this thing amalgamates when the kid goes to school. And when he goes into the army, mass conditioning occurs and he gets the perspective of the herd he’s living in; he picks up that conditioning.
Q. I was trying to think of why we have to project such an erroneous picture of ourselves. Is it nature doing this, or is it learning?
R. Well, we have implanted – this is what I maintain, that each individual has what I call implants. And without these we wouldn’t function. Two of these implants are mentioned in the book: curiosity and desire. If people were not curious they wouldn’t study. If people didn’t have desire they wouldn’t reproduce. And the result would be the termination of the whole human race.
dm3-01:01 ---- mj3-16:48
Consequently, we’re programmed, we’re implanted with desire, and we tell ourselves that it’s our desire. We never stop to think that we’ve been implanted. We think we own it. And the next thing is, we’re implanted with ego, pure ego, the idea that we are important. It’s just like they say about World War 2 [ I was in the Navy then --- no, he worked for the Navy, later, in October, 1947, two years after the war]. They talk about the boys going out of the landing craft: everybody’s looking around the landing barge and feeling sorry for everybody else there, because all those people came out there to die except him. He was convinced that all these other people would die except him. And everybody who went on the beach was convinced that everybody would die but him. He was there for some great purpose
dm3-01:47 ---- mj3-17:32
And everybody who’s here in this room tonight thinks that they are here for some great purpose on this earth; that all those other poor fellows out there may catch up with them someday, but their great purpose will be recognized by humanity and they are really significant. And some, even though they’re not successful, they will be significant in their insignificance; they will be the biggest nuisance on earth or something. But everybody has that ego. And that’s what keeps them moving. And without that we wouldn’t function; we wouldn’t function at all
dm3-02:17 ---- mj3-18:03
Q. What is the purpose of all this anyway?
R. Well, you have to talk to the chief engineer; he drew the blueprint. This I don’t presume to interpret. Of course I, to be quite frank with you, I don’t believe we’re here. [laughter] In the sense – it’s a projected game, in my estimation. In other words, don’t take it too seriously, it doesn’t take you seriously. The idea is to find out who is being suckered into this deal. Then it doesn’t matter what kind of a game you’re in. No matter which, whether you play Shakespeare or George Bernard Shaw just playing on the stage of life. That’s all a lot of it is; it’s an act.
dm3-03:12 -- mj3-18:55
Q. What is real to Zen?
R. Real to Zen? The only thing that is real to Zen is that which is.
Q. And does that – do? you? experience? more?
R. No, no. No more than on? a? physical form. Maybe I’m interpreting wrong what you’re saying. But this physical form is transitory. We know that this act ends at 60 or 70 years of age, and the act goes into the cemetery and somebody else takes over. So it’s manifest that if there is any such thing like immortality, it’s not going to be this body. Now anything beyond that, some people label as a spirit world. But there are gradations. For instance, if you study the Tibetan Book of the Dead, , there are bardos that people that people manifestly [enter] – and in the Christian religion they talk of purgatories and limbos and this sort of thing. , But there are evidently gradations, there are peelings of the onion, so to speak; there are layers of consciousness and depths of consciousness, buried between dimensions or layers. So that the spirit itself, there’s a, the equivalent might be called the astral body, which is also mundane. This exists according to the Tibetans in a bardo.
dm3-04:31 -- mj3-20:14
But beyond all this there is an essence. And I never use the word spirit, I use the word essence. I call it the final essence of man. The final essence of man is the equivalent of Brahman. So that the spirit world itself is a physical thing. I’ll tell you the reason I say that: I identify as being physical anything that’s witnessable by the senses. The senses are highly erratic. Anybody who’s studied the eyeball and the ears, knows that we have a limited visual range, a very limited audio range and that sort of thing, and our feeling is adapted for what we need to get by in life. So there is a tremendous lot of stuff we don’t experience even in the physical realm.
But regardless, whenever it can be photographed, I don’t consider spiritual. Whenever anything can be communicated with, talked to, or anything of that sort. And you can communicate with spirits. So I consider them material. They can be calculated; there’s a quantum to the spirits.
dm3-05:27 -- mj3-21:12
Q. Does the conscious mind need a material body, something of a material nature be conscious of?
R. Well, I don’t know. I presume there must be some reason for us being stuck in this thing. But whether it needs it or not – again, there’s a strong hint behind all this that earth is a school, that the projection thing is a school. That while we go through a drama, the drama itself is educational. In other words, we must do it for some, there must be some reason.
dm3-06:07 – mj3-21:52
Although, in light of the infinite, we look out and see there are two or three billion people. What significance is any of these individual dramas in relation even to the rest of the world, much less to an absolute God or an absolute intelligence. So it seems so distant, so impossible, that the individual drama, the suffering, the love that we go through and all this sort of thing seems insignificant. But perhaps it has a meaning.
dm3-06:33 -- mj3-22:18
Q. And one more: is there good and bad, beyond?
R. No. There is no good and bad anyplace. There’s only that which is. The good and bad is – see, we have been cursed with the bicameral brain, the bi-focal senses. And everything comes in [opposites]. We talked about sin a little while ago. I don’t deny that there are things that will make you sick. Spirochetes will make you sick. But they’re not a sin. There are things that are detrimental; things that make you unhappy, things that shorten your life. And of course, a lot of these things, like years ago, eating pork would shorten your life because of trichinosis, so they made it a sin. But a lot of the things that are considered sinful were just methods of communicating to people that they’re not healthy. [sentence] It’s not healthy to punch your neighbor’s nose, because he may punch you back. So this is drawn up first as a behavioristic code or social code, and then it also becomes a moral code, because if carried to an extreme you might kill your neighbor by punching his nose. So there had to be an accent put on it, as something bad, which we call sin.
dm3-07:54 -- mj3-23:38
But in the final analysis there is nothing bad, there is nothing good, there’s nothing evil [except Obama]. How could there be? – by modern theological standards even. Because that would imply that – of course, I’m not endorsing the idea that God is, doesn’t [does?] do anything, [that] God does or does not create the heaven or earth. But it implies that a perfect God would do something imperfect, that he would create the possibility of evil or sin. This is one of the fallacies of Christian theology. We’re too stupid to do things, to commit sins. We’re too limited in our intelligence to know or to evaluate what’s good and what’s evil, that is, good and evil in itself. Now relatively good and evil – like they say swatting a fly on a baby’s head with a hammer is evil. That’s relative evil. But killing the baby might not be evil; you might save him from the electric chair twenty years later.
dm3-09:03 – mj3-24:50
Q. Can you find any justification in your experience for the concepts of reincarnation and karma?
R. Well, I believe that the concept of karma is – these things are not that mysterious. Karma is strictly the law of retribution, the law of proportional returns. If you strike an anvil with a hammer – that’s what physics says – the anvil will strike the hammer with the same force that the hammer strikes the anvil. [sentence] (Did I say it right?) But anyhow, that’s the law of proportional returns. If you slap enough people you get slapped back. That’s the whole thing behind karma. Now as far as reincarnation is concerned, I don’t say it’s not possible for people to reincarnate; what I says is don’t depend on it. All that you’ve got in front of you according to the odds that we can see is one life, whatever we learn we’ve got to learn at death.
dm3-09:59 -- mj3-25:43
Q. When you throw out the idea of life being a game, sort of half joking, but if not, [if so] why the need for psychoanalyzing yourself …
R. Well, you see, you don’t know that it’s a game. You don’t know. Of course, I’m not saying that it definitely is a game, but if it is a game, it’s the game of the gods. It’s the game of Brahman. But what I say is that we don’t know the blueprint. When a person has a final experience in which they know everything, they don’t know why the universe exists. Because for one thing, the universe will not exist in the same light that we would see it today. Another thing is, you say, “Well, if you know everything, you’ll know this answer.” No, I won’t even know how many hairs you’ve got on your head. But you can still know everything and not know how many hairs are on your head.
Mainly because what you have is an experience of is-ness, not particularities. When you go back down, this is what happens – this is one way of describing the descent into hell, the descent into chaos, is when the God that was one degenerated into particularities. When the one God became many. These many are the 3 or 4 billion people. [said 2 or 3 above] plus 10 billion animals [say billions of] or whatever else emanated from that Brahman. So this was the fall. The symbolical fall of Genesis was actually the unity falling into particularized experience.
dm3-11:41 -- mj3-27:25
Q. Wouldn’t you describe that as sin?
R. Sin? No. I didn’t fall. How could something sin? You would say that the Brahman sinned then. We don’t know what happened. Maybe it was a desire. The kabalistic [agreed spelling for Rose] interpretation of Genesis is that God desired a pleasure trough. Of course, who wrote Genesis? I don’t know why he said it, this idea that the infinite became lonesome. The absolute became lonesome in the infinity and desired an echo, and now it’s got 4 billion [2, 3, 4] echoes. We don’t know what happens; there’s no way of contemplating why this particularization occurs, and continues to occur.
dm3-12:29 -- mj3-28:12
But it seems – and this is the words of all the sages; you’ll hear this in all religions – that each particle has to find its way back to its master, it’s God. This is the course of all religions, the particles finding their way back.
Q. What about temptation? If there’s evil, is temptation ?? spiritual dysfunctional? And if so, ?? .
R. It’s stuff that inhibits your thinking.
dm3-12:57 -- file mj3 ends at 28:44 << there is overlap – no missing words] [file mj4 starts here -- length is only 18 minutes]
R. [overlap] It’s stuff that in inhibits your thinking. It’s just like – You can’t hear if you’ve got plugs in your ears. So you try to remove the plugs. Then you can’t hear [because] something’s buzzing in your ear, and that might be called temptation.
Q. Well, still, the demons, for lack of a better word and say, that? if? they’re? energy? interferes with spiritual growth aren’t they ?? [try “bad”]
R. Not necessarily, because there’s a function. Nearly all of these entities that function are symbiotic. Nearly everything is symbiotic.
Q. Like if ??
Q. Like if ?? somebody has to die for somebody else. [?]
R. Well, that’s part, not necessarily that, but it seems as though the blueprint only called for say 60 or 70 years, or 100 years in a long shot. But regardless, if you’re going to die, you’ve got to die with something. [?] And if you’re going to die, something has to take care of the carcass, or they’d start piling up. So in order to keep the stage clean, it’s written into the drama that something eats the body. And sometimes it starts before you’re dead. It gets a little running start. We’re speculating of course; we don’t know. They’re just speculations.
dm3-14:16 -- mj4-01:32
Q. What exactly do you mean by intuition?
R. Well, intuition is the automatic, instantaneous computerization by which, It’s brought about by shutting the computer down and getting the result from, in other words, as long as there’s material being fed into the computer it’s going to confuse the computer and change the verdict. Just like the parimutuel machine is always flickering and changing the odds.
dm3-14:42 -- mj4-01:58
Now, when you shut the computer’s intake down then you can have somewhat of a peaceful analyzation of material already received. But what confuses us, when we get into spiritual problems, or philosophic problems, is that we’re, just like somebody was saying, the boy who had the book, was reading a book on magic. And he laid the book down and he said, “Boy, that could be real. But maybe I’d better lay the book down because God doesn’t want me to read it. He might get angry.”
See what I mean? This person’s intuition wasn’t complete. He was just allowing anything that came in to stop him from reading the book, or causing him to pick up the book even. Everything was with an impulse. But if he stopped and applied his intuition to it, he would have realized that if God didn’t like the book he could have had them all burnt. In other words God, if he wants people to know that they shouldn’t do a thing, he can appear in a burning bush or something. The fact that he hasn’t appeared for 2,000 years should not be a cause for anybody to lay a book down.
dm3-15:49 -- mj4-03:05
Q. Do you think that intuition is a sort of mental? decision, or like common to all ?? ?? it’s something, is a manifestation of, something which is this ?? thing that we can action ??
R. Are you trying to tie it in with the essence of things? You mean it’s an appreciation of the essence of things?
Q. Well, it’s sort of like a a key to the? true? nature?
R. Well, I think it’s one of the keys. I think there are different keys that, as we encounter them. I call this the, this is the signs of betweenness. That you have to shut off the extremes, and your power comes from being halfway between the extremes. In other words, that you can’t analyze these things with cold logic. But we must be logical. And we can’t reject logic and say, “I’m going to just take hunches.” This is superstition and hallucination. If we feel blindly, that’s hallucination. So this is a common-sense type of – between absurd logic and absurd hallucination. Feeling, and yet having common sense with it.
dm3-17:17 -- mj4-04:32
Q. Okay, maybe I should ask whether you believe there is a common denominator, which is ?? ?? everything that we, you know, man, ?? ?? can imagine that ??
R. Well, I don’t know what you men by a common denominator.
Q. Well, perhaps ??
R. Well, I ...
Q. To me, there’s something that applies to everything in existence.
R. You mean like a law?
Q. Not a law, just a trait. Or an absolute state, which is ...
R. Well, it’s very possible that it might. Going along with the concept of the Atman and the Brahman, the common denominator would be the Brahman. That would be the central fountainhead or energy. But this is all supposition. We don’t know that there is a Brahman until we find one. So I wouldn’t know how to answer you.
dm3-18:16 -- mj4-05:34
Q. You put [touched on] some quotes of Christ. How do you reflect upon his words about final? Zen? and the separation of the good plants from the weeds, and the seeming separation of good and evil?
R. Well, I think that there’s a tremendous lot in the Bible that is significant, and there’s some that isn’t significant. I don’t understand a lot of things that are there, I don’t understand the motive for saying them, or the [Biblical] predictions. In fact, I’ve even been a little bit dismayed by the way he passed out. I kind of thought he lost his conviction. But this doesn’t mean that he wasn’t enlightened or he didn’t know something. And whether he was reiterating a previous prophecy, that seemed as though the mark of stature in those days, and maybe thousands of years preceding it was prophecy. So that he was compelled to appear on the scene in response to a prophecy, and possibly was compelled to make prophecies.
dm3-19:37 -- mj4-06:52
Now as far as Armageddon, the difference between the good and the bad, I don’t believe there is such a thing, that’s all. I don’t think he thought there was either. Two or three times he clashed with the old Talmudic law. They said, “Shouldn’t this man be condemned?” or something like that. And he said, “Where do you get this law from? Who’s going to be the first one to throw the stone? Who’s not guilty?” This sort of thing, like doing things on the Sabbath; he was condemned for that.
So I don’t know exactly the motivation for all these things. And the translations – if you get into the Bible, incidentally, a lot of things that are translated into English are not the correct translation. So consequently, this is one of the reasons that I didn’t try to find the truth from Biblical advice. Because I got into Greek and Hebrew words enough to realize that there was no hellfire as we understand it. These two words come from the Hebrew, Gehenna and Sheol, the different words that are translated into English as hell. And they don’t mean hell at all: One of them is the grave and the other is the city dump. But these were used by ambitious preachers or priests, whatever you want to call them, back in the middle ages, to scare hell out of people. But Christ never spoke of a hell.
dm3-21:12 -- mj4-08:28
Q. Who do you think Christ was?
R. Oh, I don’t know. The only thing I’m saying, the only reason I use these quotations is because we’re taking the core of two great religions on the face of the earth and drawing a parallel. And showing, first of all, that there are good things, there is advice, that the same advice can be found in the Christian religion, that’s all. But I don’t presume to – I wouldn’t like to get into this idea of the divinity of Christ or anything of that sort, because that’s not provable. In fact, Christ’s very existence is not provable, much less his divinity. And you can go back, if you’re interested in finding the existence of Christ, check out Josephus. He was almost a contemporary. And there is not enough – in all the history of Josephus there was only about two pages or less devoted to his comments on Christ. And he was a contemporary.
dm3-22:11 -- mj4-09:26
So it’s hard to tell. The only thing is we are in possession of a religion that emanated from him, and I think it’s good to, if you can find a clue – but basically, we find clues only by hindsight. You don’t find them by listening to somebody talk. We generally make a discovery and then go back and corroborate yourself in some book. It’s not necessary, I know this. I don’t believe you have to read the Bible or know about the existence of Christ at all to find yourself. But I think when you find yourself, then you go back and read the words of Christ you’ll find out that possibly Christ, if the translations are true, found himself. He found the truth and was the truth. That’s the idea. But I believe you understand it better by finding yourself, than by trying to read the books and finding formulas for salvation or something of that sort. The real religion is finding yourself, meaning that when you find yourself you find God inside yourself.
dm3-23:22 -- mj4-10:36
Q. I somehow concluded ?? exclusion ?? I remember very clearly, Zen and ??
R. No. No it isn’t.
Q. One of the masters said we eat and we excrete and we die. I think what he was saying was that ?? [rest is inaudible]
R. Well ...
Q. Again, they talk about spiritual ?? spiritual levels.
R. Well, this is one of my complaints against a lot of writings on Zen. That is, the things that they said to shock people. It’s just like, in my position, I should never write – the boys ask me questions here about what, and they ask me, and I will answer them honestly about what I have discovered myself. But prove them is something else. But a lot of teachers would not answer those questions. The students ask, “What about this or that?” and they say, “Find out for yourself.” That’s an Asian system of teaching. To me, I believe that the western mind demands more honesty, sincerity, an attempt to answer the person even though they’re not maybe as well experienced as yourself.
dm3-24:39 -- mj4-11:53
So a lot of those things are put out by Zen masters just to shock, to force a person to think, saying, “This is all [you are].” And this [the body] is apparently all you are. We put on a suit of clothes but we’re basically like the pigs in the pigpen: we eat, we excrete and we croak. And we drop a few piglets on the road. And we like to think we’re gods. But we’re basically just piglets, little animals, that’s all, until we prove we’re something else. This is the point. And that is what I set out to do, to either prove that I was something or find that it was oblivion; it was all right with me, but I was tired of the lack of answers.
dm3-25:15 -- mj4-12:31
Q. What did you find? What were you? What are you?
R. I’m a part of God.
Q. Is God conscious of himself?
R. Yes. I say God loosely now because I can’t prove this to you. But I don’t use the word, even in the book; I use the word absolute. Man is the Absolute. God is a bad word. In West Virginia they think his last name is Damn.
Q. ?? we can only ?? to the extent [inaudible. Try: We have to use words to communicate.
R. Right. But this is what you find. And when you read these books, like St. John of the Cross you find that these people found themselves not in any great ?? of wisdom; they found themselves in a realization that they were. They were the final answer. Of course, I’m giving you words, and I shouldn’t give you words because it’s not describable in words.
Q. I’m reminded of the explanation of matter, which never had a beginning nor will it ever end, as it changes from one form into another.
R. Yes, because it’s projected from mind; this is the reason. All of this that you see is projected from mind. There’s no matter that did not emanate from mind. So it’s an illusion. And if you loaf around the group long enough you’ll get into some of these books that demonstrate this. JJ van der Leeuw’s Conquest of Illusion, Paul Brunton’s book The Wisdom of the Overself, they bring this out. That we live in an illusory world. We live in a world of fantasy. And if I were to tell you that after you died it would be more real – you wouldn’t believe it.
dm3-27:12 -- mj4-14:25
Q. This world isn’t real [in comparison]?
R. This is fantasy, the other is much more real, yes. But we fight to hold onto it, because this is seemingly all we have. But these things, as I say, you have to prove them to yourself. To hear them means nothing. All I can be at this point is just another man’s opinion.
But I maintain it’s not that hard. A lot of people don’t look for it because they think, “Well, this problem is enormous, all the factors.” They take it as a mathematical problem, that the factors are enormous, the amount of stuff you have to study and that sort of thing. And I believed this too. In fact, several times in the 11 year period [9 yrs] between the age of 21 and 32  when the experience happened to me I would have liked to have gone out, got drunk and forget the whole thing. Because I thought I was just kidding myself
It was that absurd. It gets so absurd, and you think, “I’m never going to pop this thing,” – the solutions, the factors are too great and I’m too stupid, I’m too limited. The mind’s too fickle. All this sort of thing. But it happens. It happens by virtue of just continuing, if you apply the old computer long enough you’ll get an answer.
dm3-28:30 – mj4-15:44
Q. What about one f the philosophers who sayid, “I think, therefore I am.”
R. I’ve always said the opposite: “I think, therefore I’m less conscious.” Thinking can be confusing, you know. They have a saying in Zen that you never exist until you kill the mind. And this is what happens; when the experience occurs, the mind stops. This is what these writers talk about with no-mind. It isn’t a question of trying to imitate no-mind, it’s a fact that there’s an accident that occurs. When you enter the realization, thought stops and a gap occurs.
dm3-29:09 -- mj4-16:22
Q. You say it’s an accident? You said an accident occurs? [?]
R. No, I just say it’s an accident. [?]
[dm version tape slip nois]
dm3-29:25 -- mj4-16:38
[dm4 begins here – has overlap]
Q. I’ve read Yukio Mishima. He said you must kill the Buddha, essentially what you were just talking about,
[mj6 begins here]
R. Well, even, see, what he’s talking about is that you go down the path of renunciation. First of all you drop your petty egos. The idea that of wanting to be president of the United States, that you’re important enough for this girl to love you, or you’re important enough for this or that. All this is garbage. But then you cling to a certain pride; you keep your body in shape. Some people have done this [given up this ego] already. For instance people get into dope, some of them develop a proud idea that they’re going to give up all their egos, even the ego to take care of their health. They throw their health away. This is no good. You don’t give up your health until it’s taken from you. You don’t give up your consciousness until it’s taken from you. You can’t choose the moment. The moment has to be when you’re ripe.
But there is a time. We hold onto our physical health or our pride, pride in a – in other words, we keep ourself from getting disease and we just don’t wallow in any pigpen. Because you’ve got to keep your head clear. This is a problem you’re solving and you’re going to need your head.
dm4-01:12 -- dm3-30-35 –mj4-17:48
Now there’s also another ego. This ego is a spiritual ego: the ego that believes
[dm3 ends at 30:41]
that you’re capable of finding immortality and you’re worthy of it. And we have no proof of that; that’s just an ago. And that’s when you kill the Buddha; you kill the idea that you are God, or that you possibly are something important. And it’s only after all of that …
[mj4 ends at 18:12
[file mj6 begins here – out of order, has overlap – removed -- total time is only 6:25
And it’s only after all of that drops – and when that drops, you’re dead. Because your ego for living goes, and your ego for spiritual survival goes, and you’re completely in despair and completely without hope, because you’ve dropped everything. But you can only survive a short period of time in that condition.
dm4-01:50 -- mj6-01:40
So you have an experience. An experience occurs and you have to come back, pick up your egos, believe in yourself, flatter your body again if necessary, go out and get a nickel for Kroger’s, and start living again. Or even drinking. [laughs]
Q. ?? way out.
Q. I’m sorry, on this last, you said, we become enlightened, we can stay there so long and we have to come back?
R. Or die. Because you can’t stay in the state of death, and what you’re experiencing is death.
Q. This is what you’re teaching, to become enlightened?
Q. Only for a short time, is that all?
R. Oh, that’s all you can stand. Unless you want to stay. But basically, the whole thing, it’s a very common-sense thing in the final analysis. If you want to know what happens to you after you die, you have to die. Now some people have dome this synthetically. Some of them, this happened occasionally with drugs, but they were unprepared, and the experience only goes so far. People have experienced the death experience under drugs, but they have never experienced the total realization. They just blank out, and then they came back. Sometimes a nightmare, they call it a bad trip.
dm4-03:27 -- mj6-03:19
But if you go through the complete – in other words, it’s like drawing back an arrow. If you struggle long enough – I call it a vector or an arrow – you pull the arrow back from ten years of strain. And when you let it go, your energy vector carries you through death and back. And then you’re able to report.
I think quite a few people become enlightened on the death bed, but they can’t talk about it. And they don’t come back. Some of the motions they go through, some of the convictions that people watching them have, lead us to believe that quite a few people who die and had led spiritual lives, it occurs to them at the point of death. Because then their egos do drop. They know they’re dying. They give up everything. At that moment all their egos are gone and nothing can come in then but the truth. And the truth is upon them. Of course, the event is upon them also, finally.
dm4-04:22 -- mj6-04:15
Q. Then what you can tell [other people] is from what you have found out, and with the conditioned mind?
R. It’s difficult to verbalize it, yes.
Q. But it would be hard to put it into words.
Q. The experience, for example, like you telling us here, what we hear is words, but ?? taste? it? [dm4 tape jerks here]
R. Right. [dm4 and mj6 tape jerks, inaudible] well, I can give you, what I would tell you is [more jerk, inaudible] right after. But this stuff isn’t aloft? [reported] in most of our literature. I never encountered it anyplace. This man [Bucke?] did a lot of research to dig this up. But I don’t see much record of it myself.
Q. So how do you describe it when you come back?
R. [didn’t hear] Yes.
Q. How do you describe it? [repeats]
R. Well, I don’t try. There’s a short piece written in the back of the book; it was written down after I had the experience. This is the sum total of my attempt to describe it.
Q. Do you have a copy of that?
R. Not with me.
Lou: The group brought some along.
R. Louis here has some. There’s no obligation. You can, as I said before, you can come to the group meetings and, there’s a lot of time spent at the group meetings that probably would be better spent if it were, if people were coming to ask sincere questions. But there’s no obligation.
Q. And actually there is no intellectual reasoning that God does exist.
R. Or why.
Q. You must have the experience.
R. Right. There’s no way. Most reasoning, most logic, is nothing more than vanity. It’s an exercise, it’s a gymnastics, saying, “Look how smart I am. Look how I can pile words up, and confuse you or inspire you.” We don’t learn too much. Except as it applies in the physical sciences; it’s valuable there, mathematics, etc. But when it comes to philosophy, psychology or the abstract sciences, logic is just a vanity. It’s a pretense.
[file mj6 ends at 06:32]
dm4-06:48 to 07:23 talking in background, inaudible]
R. She’s still worried.
Q. [half inaudible, try this: ]How is your perspective on life changed as a result of your experience?
R. Well, it is changed, but I don’t think it’s quite so serious, that’s all. Although you have to become wrapped up in it, so to speak. You have to live. You can’t – it would be misery to have to [live in that]; it would be quite a nuisance. But you can’t completely become attached [any more]. You can’t get excited.
Q. Do you think that anything is worth changing? Like, do you think it’s worth it to try to help people ...
R. No, no. This is one thing that, I emphasize over and over again, don’t try to change the world.
Q. Then how do you think ...
R. It’s not worth it.
Q. I’m not saying that where we are now is the result of progress. But there are many people who are very sick in the hospital or that need help. Now, on that level are you saying it’s not worth helping them?
R. It’s not worth not helping anybody …
Q. But then why ...
R. … except those on the rung below you. I always say that our brotherhood is related to those we can help.
It’s like the case of my father-in-law, who was a very devout holy-roller preacher who went out and healed people. And he manifestly healed them. He projected his energy out and healed them. And he told me that he found one fellow who had been whoring around and got loused up to the point of death; he went into tuberculosis. He was dissipating to the point of death, over in Washington, Pennsylvania. He came into the church and everybody projected their energy onto him, prayed for him, and he got healed. And he was real happy. So about three years later my father-in-law went back into Washington, stumbled into him on the street, but he’s back into tuberculosis again. “What happened?” he said. “Well,” he said, “I went out and got to fooling around again.” He called it backsliding. So the point is, all that healing, what good did it do? The energy all went to the whorehouse.
Q. But if everybody didn’t help someone, what condition do you think the world would be in? Would you be able to live in the house that you live in ...
R. Oh yes.
Q. ... and drive the car that you do?
R. No, no. I might be dead. I might be bombed out of existence. I don’t know what would happen. But I do know that I’m not, nobody is influencing. This is all vanity. This is all playing God. When you think that you’re helping, by going to the hospital and taking care of the sick or something, that’s all vanity. But if you have children, then you help your children; or if your parents are sick you help your parents. That’s reasonable.
Or if you have somebody on a spiritual level who needs your advice, some little advice that you can give that they can understand, being close to your level and having ears that can understand your language, then you help them. But don’t reach for people who can’t hear. They’ll crucify you. They do it every time. That’s what happens when you try to help people.
This is all foolishness. This is a rationalization that one heck of a lot of young people are getting into today – because they are failing. They are failing themselves; they have nothing in their life and they want to pretend that they’re heroic, God-like, etc. They’re going out and [to] change the world. Nobody can change the world. The factors are too great.
Q. Okay, I’m not saying that you can change the world; I think that’s impossible anyway. But because we’re living in a relative world and this is all we know, this isn’t the absolute, ...
Q. ... then shouldn’t we, not shouldn’t we, but doesn’t it seem that because we’re in here that we would go along with the game so to speak?
R. You don’t know what’s good, see. You don’t know what’s good. Again, I can only cite you a case. Because I’ve lived through this. I had the same thing. I used to love people. I thought the world was beautiful when I was in my twenties. I thought everything was perfect and wonderful. But if it’s perfect and wonderful then God doesn’t need any help.
But I had a friend that I knew who went crazy, going into the Army, in World War II. So he finally convinced himself that he was crazy, I mean pretty nuts. But anyhow, I brought him over, I was working in Akron, Ohio. I brought him over, I gave him a clean shirt to go out and hunt work in, I gave him a dollar for bus fair, which was a good bit for a bus fare in those days. That was quite? a? few? years ago. He never got a job. He was supposed to be looking for a job. And after 30 days I had no more shirts left; he had worn 30 of my shirts. [?] And I knew there was plenty of employment down there. So I said to him, “What’s happening? Level with me. I’ve given you money and tried to put you on your feet, rehabilitate you so to speak.” And he said, “You and a dollar buys peanuts for the pigeons.” Every day he went down and fed peanuts to the pigeons a dollar’s worth of peanuts.
So this is what happens every time that you think you’re doing something to rehabilitate somebody or help somebody. The sick are sick because they’re sick, and they’re going to die because their time has come to die. And it’s nice to have compassion, and I don’t say to don’t have compassion. But don’t try to change things. It won’t work.
Now I’ve got something to drink and I’m afraid to drink it in front of you because I know you’re all dry too.
Q. ?? ?? Do you believe there’s sprits of ??igation and if you do, will the spirits know any more out of the flesh than they did in the flesh?
R. They’re in a bardo. That’s the reason Christ said, “The dead no know nothing.” [actually an Old Testament quote. ] See, the dead, they’re in another physical plane, by that I mean it’s a material plane. They call it, the Christians call it purgatory, or the spiritualists call it the world of desire, the realm of desire. The Tibetans call it a bardo. These are not complete spiritual experiences; they’re hung up, so to speak. And the Tibetans of course believe that they hang up in that bardo so long that they reincarnate. They can’t go on to the absolute. This is a curse: they have to come back and live again, presumably because of some karmic incident.
Now, I don’t presume that there are karmic incidents. But I do know that a lot of the spirit communications – and I have gone out of my way to see spirit communications. I was at a materialization incidentally in Delaware, Ohio. We came over from West Virginia to a little town up here called Delaware, and somewhere in that town there’s a chapel called White Lilly Chapel, a spiritualist church. A minister came down from Muskingum, Michigan for a materialization. Now a group came from Steubenville, Ohio and another group came with me from Wheeling. And we witnessed about 17-18 spirits materialize. We asked them all sorts of questions and all we got was double-talk.
You can get clairaudient messages from mediums and it’s never any great revelation. I have had what I consider bona-fide visits from spirit myself. My brother came to me, the one who was killed in the war. And he sat in the room and I said, “Well, I’m glad to see you. How is it where you’re at?” And he said, “It’s the same as where you’re at.” Meaning that he hadn’t progressed too far. He had no great realization. And he was still more or less in a space-time dimension of some sort. Whereas the absolute is a space-less, timeless dimension – a non-dimension, I should say.
Q. The people on the other side, the people who have died, do they have any means of getting energy?
R. Yes. I think they do. I think that, this is – a lot of the manifestation you have, where people lose energy is caused by the ones who hang pretty closely. A lot of this has been fairly well validated by exorcisms, rites and so forth. Sometimes the spirit identifies itself, and seems to be valid.
Q. After you die, where are you going to go?
R. Oh, I don’t know. I think I’ll stay in West Virginia. [laughs] Like WC Fields had on his tombstone: “On the other hand, I’d rather be in Philadelphia.”
Q. [MH?] Do these entities have direct access to our thought processes?
R. I think they cause – Not only have direct access, I think they cause. In other words, our thoughts – you’ll be surprised sometimes at your own thoughts. I maintain that for instance, what we call temptation is external, it’s not internal. This goes back of course to people blaming themselves for everything they do and think. We don’t think; we’re caused to think. And through those thoughts we’re caused to act.
And it’s only by an in intense self-analysis and self discipline do we ever get to the point where we can stop out thoughts, stop the influx. I think everybody here, if you’re curious in the least, get this book by Colin Wilson called The Mind Parasites. It’s not very easy to read, but it brings out very clearly a very sensational possibility about [that] the entire humanity could be taken over and used the same as cows in a dairy barn for the purpose of other entities or beings sapping their energy.
Whereas we do it – we like to think that we’re the last man on the totem pole. We have all the animals at our disposal; we take eggs from the chicken and milk from the cow, the flesh from the animals and eat them. We never dream that something might be doing the same to us. Except that it too could be picking up our most subtle energy for its benefit. And this is brought out in this book by Colin Wilson. The Mind Parasites.
Q. Being aware of that possibility can you guard against it? Build blockades against it?
R. Yes. You have to be able to control your thoughts. You can’t control your body. We think we have control of it, but no one has control of their body until they control their mind. And this is one of the most difficult things to get into.
Q. What about a yogi who can control his heartbeat and so on?
R. Well, he’s just, that’s a phenomena. He has a bowel movement too; how much he’s controlling it, I don’t know. But it’s another thing of course to be able to stop even thinking along a certain line. In other words when you’re obsessed, like you say, “I’ve got to have another shot,” or have another this or that. You start to build a whole philosophy to justify whatever you want to get, because that’s what your body wants. You want something that’s using your body wants. We don’t know that, necessarily; you may find out later.
But as I said before, we definitely don’t want it ourselves. No man can sensibly say he wants something that’s killing him. And basically this is the path of humanity. We become very fat and healthy creatures up to the age of about 20. And by that time, the absorption of this individual by the various energy-sappers takes him away piece by piece by piece, until there’s nothing left. A little? bit? of? energy at a time. You find out, you get the impression after awhile that you’ve been used, that’s all.
Of course, the sad part about it is, I think that 75% of the people who reach 70 years of age know this. But they can’t communicate it. Because nobody wants to hear it. And they know nobody wants to hear it, and the majority of them don’t talk about it.
Q. The states of mind do change very rapidly? i wonder if anybody can jump ?? the body or the mind or something, and jump into ?? [try: different state]
R. You can’t jump, but you can be thrown into another state of mind. I cite the example of a double shot of whisky. You can have a state of mind and drink a double shot of whisky, and you might be a peaceful philosopher or lover of humanity, and after a double shot of whisky hits your stomach you might be punching the cop on the corner. Your state of mind would change that rapidly; your state of conviction along with it. And of course, the worst thing is we’re the victims of these, we’re not the controllers. ?? [try: that we think we are – or delete]
Q. Are these states of mind projected into us?
R. Yes. The majority of them are projected in as moods. They ride in on a mood. The mood is projected and then the subject of the thinking changes.
Q. And through the meditative or chanting processes that we ?? encounter ?? there must be a way of removing yourself from these moods?
R. It does, yes. [sentence, or change question] This chanting will help some. I mean, but the thing is, it’s a form of stagnation. I really believe that you can find some freedom or some liberation from these forces that attack you, in the, finding peace of mind through, if chanting does it, or meditation does it or whatever. But this doesn’t make you move forward. Because you don’t become by becoming [being] passive or silent or a vacuum. You only become by being active. Man is an act, and the total act of his life is the fact state of immortality. He is that which he does in his lifespan. And if we sit and just think bland thoughts, we’re a bland sitter.
Q. Is it necessary to calm yourself, get in rapport with yourself in any path?
R. I think these are necessary steps. I think that everybody should go through that. I’m not advising to quit chanting or anything of that sort; just know what you’re doing. And you don’t have to pay to do it.
Q. If you’re not calm and together the actions are ??
R. Your mind is fragmented, yes. If you can bring yourself down to a point where you can shut the computer off with it and meditate, then okay. Then start fighting. Then start acting. But it’s hard for the person to reach that decision, because it’s very nice to be peaceful. It’s very nice to be peaceful, but it doesn’t take you anyplace. It will take you into peace. ?? When you get rest, then you have to come back and fight again.
Well, maybe we should sign off. Some sort of ?? or something. I don’t know when I’ll be up here again, but you can always get in touch with me through this local Pyramid Zen group.
Lou: We do have the information about our group if anybody wants to take a loot at it
File dm4 ends at 24:15.
End of Lecture
File mj5 - out of order - repeat
total time = 31:15
[this tape was made at a different volume level]
mj5-00:00 [ repeated from end of file 2, start of file 3 ] As soon as you’re born, as soon as you learn to talk, you have to learn to talk with your parents. And you’re going to talk their language, and you’re going to get their hangups and their beliefs, and their attitudes, even though they’re not spoken. And of course we know that these attitudes of course are different from the family next door. [end of repeat from file 2]
[the first 16 min of file 3 are a repeat of the end of file 2]
[repeat from start of file 3] But But there is a time. We hold onto our physical health or our pride, pride in a – in other words, we keep ourself from getting disease and we just don’t wallow in any pigpen. Because you’ve got to keep your head clear. This is a problem you’re solving and you’re going to need your head. mj3-16:00
And of course we know that these attitudes are different from the family next door. But this thing amalgamates when the kid goes to school. And when he goes into the army mass conditioning occurs and he gets the perspective of the herd he’s living in; he takes on that conditioning.
[continues repeat of file 3 from minute 16 until end.]
[begins repeat of file 4, to end. File 4 is only 18 min]
But there is a time. We hold onto our physical health or our pride, pride in a – in other words, we keep ourself from getting disease and we just don’t wallow in any pigpen. Because you’ve got to keep your head clear. This is a problem you’re solving and you’re going to need your head.
[time at mj4 is 17:48]
Now there’s also another ego. This ego is a spiritual ego: the ego that believes
[break in tape]
[file mj5 ends at 31:15]
For access, send email to email@example.com
Philip Kapleau, Three Pillars of Zen. Pdf here: http://selfdefinition.org/zen/ These are TM mantras. A scholar, not a Zen teacher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._T._Suzuki Sokei-an died in Arkansas in 1945. He had been interned as a wartime enemy in 1942 in Maryland, where he became very ill. Rose mentions in several places that he knew Sokei-an, but documentation has not been found to substantiate this. Rose may have attended a Zen temple in either New York or California where he mistook the teacher for Sokei-an. Rose’s Zen teacher, Alfred Pulyan, did not know Sokei-an personally, although he had friends who studied under him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokei-an See correspondence between Rose and Pulyan here: http://selfdefinition.org/pulyan/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Maurice_Bucke Pdf here: http://selfdefinition.org/christian/ See Bucke’s chart: http://selfdefinition.org/christian/bucke-chart-p43-one-in-a-million.htm Probably 1975-Theosophical-Society-Akron-missing-tape John 10:30. Reference is unclear; some candidates follow. John 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by me.” John 6:44: “No man can come to me except that the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Mathew 11: 27 “No man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriya_Yoga See Rose, “Yoga: Hatha, Shabd, and Raja.” Pdf: http://www.searchwithin.org/download/yoga.pdf Rose is inconsistent in his use of the term “anterior observer”. In the spectrum of “selves” he has defined elsewhere: body, umpire, process observer, final observer – here he explicitly refers to the umpire. In general he uses the term for an observer that is “further behind”. From 1977-1004-Psychology-of-Zen-Science-of-Knowing-OSU: “This means that the true self is always that anterior observer. ... The observation of the anterior observer brings us to an ultimate or absolute observer.” Also, “When one part of a man fools another part, the part that has been fooled is the essential or anterior self.” (I.e., a desire approved by the umpire can fool the real self.) He discusses the topic at length in that lecture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist Pdf here, Evan-Wentz version (huge file): http://selfdefinition.org/tibetan/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardo_Thodol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo “The unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_photography Reference to syphilis. Source unknown, possibly Blavatsky. For a contemporary interpretation see “Seven Days of Creation” by Michael Laitman of Bnei Baruch Kabbalah. http://www.kabbalah.info/eng/content/view/frame/4751 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna (A place outside of Jerusalem.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol (A place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus “We eat, excrete, sleep, and get up; This is our world. All we have to do after that–Is to die.” Ikkyû Sojun, The Way of Zen, 162. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukio_Mishima In his novel, he is quoting from another text, the Rinzairoku: “"When you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha." “Three Books of the Absolute”, in the Albigen Papers. 1947, B&W plant. Ecclesiastes 9:5: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward and even their name is forgotten.” Kama-Loka. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama#Theosophy:_kama.2C_kamarupa_and_kamaloka Now located 10 miles north of Delaware in Ashley, Ohio. http://www.whitelilychapel.org/ Documented in Rose’s letter of September 3, 1958, four pages typed, and his follow-up letters to the minister, Rev. Aldred, and to a Mrs. Fling of the Chapel. Pdf here: http://selfdefinition.org/colin-wilson/ “Free your mind and your ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within.” – Funkadelic