From Direct-Mind.Org
Jump to: navigation, search

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


Two versions:

1. DM - version - has 9 min of side A and 30 min on Side B

2. SHdm -- orange cassette purch from DM. Have 9 min, the rest of Side A of WCUE only. Side B is blank.

Has to be about 1974-1975 due to subject matter and reference to chart, early version of Jacob's Ladder, points A and B on bottom: Faith and Logic. Then mentally objective, mentally subjective, etc., going up.

Note: MJ's version of WCUE is only the 22 min interview. (have no tape, just the mp3)

Side 1 is the last 8 minutes on side 1 of the WCUE tape (which was 22 min). Audio quality poor, both versions.


Other possible fragments to match:

Cannot be 1974-Fall-Public-Meeting-Kent-State-Q-and-A << Currently have just the end. See notes there for references.

That was an informal talk, not a formal lecture as this appears to be.

Side A, 8 min. 8 min fragment, File 1

…cosmic consciousness. ?? And going from the idea of sleep ?? number. Number one in sleep, the mind is alive. Number one in kevala samadhi, the mind is alive. Number one in sahaja samadhi, the mind is dead. So now it’s different. ?? ?? everything.

Number two in sleep, the mind is sunk in oblivion. ?? out, oblivion. In kevala it’s sunk in light. ?? light ?? In sahaja samadhi there is no light. Resolved into the Self, capital-S Self.

Now we leave the sleep category, going to number three, characterized kevala samadhi, like a bucket tied to a rope, lying in water at the bottom of a well. The mind is down there ?? In sahaja samadhi the mind is like a river discharged into the ocean and its identity lost. It’s rather frightening? to realize that ?? Take the chance.

Number four the bucket at the bottom of the well can be drawn out by the other end of the rope, and come back. You may witness it several times in your life. Number four in sahaja samadhi, a river cannot be redirected from the ocean. So that all that remains is the memory of the experience.

Now you can keep those in mind when you ?? discover ?? enlightenment, you will see, And whenever you’re reading a book on Zen apply it. Also the experience ?? experience ?? very, very hard to come by. I haven’t read too many personal accounts. The teacher that I encountered, he went through a bit himself. He was on the point of suicide and murder. ?? account ??

The same occurred to me. And Paul Wood spent ten days in the hospital. There’s no such thing as a “wow” ?? ?? just another drag on the ?? and try it again.


So I have this other category here, in which I, I drew it up. There is no path except up. Once you set your vector, once you start functioning at all, there’s nowhere to go but up. And if you don’t go up you will, at some time in your life be very despondent. Because [noise] We can always go broke and still live with ourselves. But we can’t live with ourselves as being fools.

And as I said, we start off in life with two poses, generally; one of two poses. And I have it marked A and B. A being logic; this is the real fathead. He thinks he can prove everything. Extremely objective category of thought? One of these extremes in this objective category that belabors the minds of our young people today is modern psychology and? science? endeavor?

And B – the reason I say modern psychology ?? ?? meant to be an objective science ?? They’re ruining a lot of people’s heads with their political ??


B is faith. And faith is extremely subjective and fanatical. But – now – the thing is we use these two together. We say we can do without both, but this isn’t true; we can’t do without either one of them, that’s all we have. We either have the feeling, or we have the attempt to try to build things up like ?? blocks ?? logic. But we join the two, or we temper one with the other. And this is the beginning of the search. The gray? box? line? And I have, I’ll hold it up so you can see it here at the bottom. ??


Again we go back to this science of what I call betweenness. You don’t pursue 60 years of strictly logical before you wind up – you function between the two. When you develop something like intuition, or you go for – you temper your logic with feeling; you temper your feeling with common sense.


And you immediately merge with a new approach, which is what I call the mental-subjective and the mental-objective. It’s a mental approach, but it’s, we are tempted to still remain objective in our mental search. This objective part of the mental search is the phenomenal study, the wisdom schools, the mind expansion programs; they give you an enormous head by taking these exercises. Magic: we’re going to change the physical world by mental manipulation. Numerology ?? ?? going to have to ?? mental observation.


And again we have another category, which is the mentally subjective department: the introspection, developing the intuition, and rapport psychology, the psychology of rapport. And I don’t necessarily mean rapport with everyone who comes along; but I mean rapport with that which you are ?? ?? If you are interested in studying a dog, you go into the dog’s head. If you’re interested in studying human beings you go into a human’s head. This is the whole field of – this is the only true psychology.


So these two [also] are somewhat extreme. But again, by joining them together, or going between them, and taking the best of both, we emerge into category D, ?? for instance. These are the change of mind – by mind expansion, where a person says, “Hey, I realize that I’m doing this in my head [but] my head is not adequate. So I want to expand it; I want to expand my potential. This generally degenerates into an objective, again, an objective mind expansion deal. We ?? or raja yoga. And we have a lot of cults running around today that are trying to – well, I don’t know how hard they’re trying – but they’re pretending at least that they’re going to expand your head by certain techniques: chanting, shouting, ??


Then on the subjective side of that picture, we have the change of being system. We are getting ever closer now to this idea of not getting into the why’s that? we’ll? know, in an objective manner. And these change of being systems are the first – this is Zen and some of the raja yoga … [end of side 1 of WCUE tape] File 1 ends at 07:52

Side B, File 2

DM file 2 length = 29:58 --- sh version side 2 blank


Q. … mental hangups?

R. When you deify them. ?? We deify sex; we say, “Well, the good psychology books, which is the modern Bible, say not only eat, drink and be merry, but do anything else that makes you merry. And any religion that interferes with that is no good.” Well, when you start to rationalize in that manner, and put other things above your search for your own definition, then youll find pleasure; that’s all you’ll find. You may find systems of pleasure. but when you accept the fact that these are doors, these are things that interfere with your seeing more clearly – just simply seeing more clearly – then you’ll shut those avenues or those running spigots or whatever they are that take your energy and prevent you from seeing more clearly.


You’ll use this method to, if nothing else, ball up your energy and get something accomplished. And not only that, but you’ll be free then of the hangups, and you’ll think more clearly. And as you progress and think more clearly, this conversion – and this is where the pyramid occurs. All this spiritual path is pyramidal in form. And that’s for? you? to? determine? You start off from a tremendous base of ignorance and a tremendous ?? of possible religions that you could join, movements that seem very appetizing for what you ?? You keep narrowing them down. But this is the one good thing about it, is that you – not going any ?? like that, you’ll narrow them down to one point eventually.


So, about myself, I wanted to say a few words about myself. When I run out of things, you can ask me questions. I started off when I was a kid – with the idea of God, that’s all. I had heard the word from my parents. I thought that it would be nice to dedicate my life to loafing? with this fellow ?? time. And he was a personal being at the time. An I went to church, I was raised a Catholic, and I saw this magnificent-looking creatures with their enormous bellies and their enormous vestments on their enormous bellies. And I thought, “Boy, that’s what I want to be. I want to be up there directing this show.”


Well, I joined the seminary and I studied for awhile to be a priest, and eventually? disgusted.  ?? ?? the apparent needs? of a child. ?? in those days – I was 12 years old when I went, out of grade school, to study to be a priest. I became sour. I imagine ordinarily I would have ?? go out, eat, drink and be merry. But I kept on digging. I even went back – I left when I was 14 and went back, and finally left completely when I was 17. And I went into spiritualism, and that became? the objective – I went into the objective search. ?? ?? I saturated myself enough with the faith that I couldn’t stand – I had to have some common sense answers.


For instance the one thing that always stuck with me was the continual imperative to man to shut up and believe. And I could never bring the two together. So I had to vocalize my doubts. Since then I have come to deify doubt ?? faith. And I say this quite openly and frequently, that that which is sacred is doubt, and that which is ?? is faith. Because it’s like an ostrich putting its head in the sand: you cannot explore, you cannot search. No God, by any standard of justice would demand that you bow your head and accept the first sky pilot that came by your door and say I believe you, because you uttered the holy word.


So I got into the objective science, well, not the objective science but the objective aspects of – (But I got [did get] into the objective sciences, I majored in chemistry; I was going to analyze matter? atoms?) But I looked for materializations, spiritualistic phenomena, ESP. I studied the structure of the brain ?? ?? And with my limited financial ?? the depression was on, and ?? But I became aware too that, as I said, at the age of 21 that I would never by logical means or by objective research, I would never discover. It was more and more vanity ?? ??


And I did witness genuine materializations, in my diggings in spiritualism. I was in a room in which there were 18 materialized spirits. And they were spirits; it wasn’t phony, we checked it, put flour on the floor and that sort of thing, watched them go through concrete?? And I’d think this was an excellent opportunity to find out what happens to you after you die: you just ask a few dead people. But these people wouldn’t give any answers, they gave you double talk. they sounded like idiots. And I came to the conclusion that, one thing I knew, the voice tone of all these people were very similar to the tone of the medium. Now I don’t think he was a ventriloquist, because the voices, these spirits would walk around the room and they’d talk to you, and the voice would be right there. It wouldn’t be back in the corner where the cabinet was.


But it wasn’t ventriloquism. And some of them would be ?? ?? overtones. It was a familiar guide, ?? guide. In the Bible they call it a familiar spirit.  ?? ?? people were coming out. People saw these spirits, recognized parents that were dead for ten years, talked with parents who had been dead for ten years. But nothing, there was never any substantial information ?? They didn’t seem to know where they were. You’d say, “Where are you at?” “Well, we’re fine.” In the book I mentioned this experience ?? “Well, is Uncle Jake there?” Well if you mentioned Uncle Jake, you’d get a yes. But if you said, “Are any of the relatives there?” the answer would be, “I suppose so.” Or, “Yes, but they’d never – if you said, “Name them,” they wouldn’t give you names.


So after not only experiencing this personally, but then going back to some other people, like William Crookes and Blavatsky and those kind of people, you could corroborate it with these, like Christ said, [actually Ecclesiastes 9:5] “The dead know nothing.” Especially those ?? at the ?? And when the question was put to them, “Have you seen Jesus Christ?” ?? ?? , “We have heard he’s here.” And another one said, “We have seen his light.” But that’s as much as we ever got from them as far as the idea of seeing Jesus Christ.


So I saw where a person could get into – it becomes kind of a fever ?? necromancy or mediumship. Mediumship, incidentally, is a danger ?? you can get, to become a medium. You can actually become possessed. Become possessed. Because a lot of these spirits are not human. What we presume them to be is – the masks – they are the, they’re shells, like a false face that is dropped at death, an astral body, ?? some of ?? These entities pick them up and revitalize them, they walk around in a masquerade. But they have enough of the DNA molecule stuff with them or something, that they can even pick up a little memory, a little bit of life pattern, ??  ??


And incidentally, through this, these years from 21 to about 30, I went through a tremendous lot of cults, isms. They had about as many as you have today. They’re still in existence ?? they’re in the background, because the gurus of today are very dramatic and they make a splash In those days, why, you had to hunt to get membership into a lot of the real heavy ?? I was a member of the Radha Soami sect, of which Kirpal Singh [was a schismatic]. I was initiated into two different Radha Soami sects, just to find out if [they knew anything]. And they had [no?] an esoteric value as far as ?? take you all the way. And the Universal Brotherhood – it sounds like two empty words, but there is an organization ?? called the Universal Brotherhood, which is dedicated, it’s a group of people dedicated to preserving and compiling all the esoteric knowledge and gimmicks that they could possibly get, and synthesize, synthesize them and bringing them together and using them, if a person wants to use it, to have that knowledge available.


And this was one of the comments in their writings, that they had ?? they figured that all these would appear to you are? spirits? of? the? dead? séances were shells, called astral shells, activated by entities. So in other words, instead of your learning something, you’re being taken.


 Url: place url here

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

 Rose’s witnessing of this particular event occurred out of the timeline as presented. The White Lily Chapel materialization took place on Labor Day, 1958, according to Rose’s correspondence. Rose was then 41 years of age. http://documents.direct-mind.org/rr-letters-scanned/rose-papers-catalog.htm 
 Reverend Aldred, of Michigan.
 Interesting aspect of the origins of ventriloquism, the ancient Greeks saying voices were from the dead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventriloquism 
 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.
 Identity theft!
 In Wikipedia, Universal Brotherhood redirects to Theosophy. See Communications from “Spirits”, Their Sources and methods, by W.Q. Judge, The Path, October, 1894: http://selfdefinition.org/blavatsky/wq-judge-communications-from-spirits-their-sources-and-methods.htm