=pvk83as2 PVK, 1982, Abode, Summer Camp, Tape #2 [That is the only tape from that Camp which I now have; and the only one which have started to transcribe) This transcription made from my realtime G2 of my Camp copy (highspeed dub, I assume) of the Camp master. Camp master presumably held at the Abode. Pass 1 completed. My G2 copy is also marked, mistakenly I think, as Abode 1984. ================================================================= ============================================================== COUNTER: Ohayo Genuine El Cheapo MCR-924 Cassette Recorder From the Top of the Midrahov Shop Counter - Minutes from Start Ohayo MCR-924 Counter seems reliable for Pass 2 work (start_and_stop_and_back_and_start_and_stop_and_D.C._ad_lib) but now I'm not sure how reliable it is. (See {199) below)} 000 0 000 100 -- 8 -- 100 200 -- 15 200 300 -- 22 300 400 -- 28 400 500 -- 34 500 600 -- 39 600 700 43 700 750 45 750 765: 46 760 -- END ================================================================ START TAPE #2 SIDE A START PASS 2 IT'S CLEARLY ABODE, SUMMER. START PASS 2 TO #*** I hope you are agreed with me in making this summer camp as much as possible into a retreat. I've come to understand that that is what most people are really looking for. It has become clearer and clearer to me, as time goes on, that in order to unfold the way we could unfold, we have to create circumstances that are favorable to that unfoldment; and [[it seems -- ]] the impression that I have more and more -- is that the support system that we have created in order to keep our head above the water in the world, [light laughter] tends to takes over. {83as2-N1} It takes so much of our attention, and our time, and -- strivings -- that -- we're drawn to the surface -- inn life -- and we experience a real need to get in touch with our deeper self. And even -- you see, the way I see it is like this: There's in each one of us a butterfly that is lying in waiting, waiting to unfurl its wings. And it will always remain a caterpillar, if we go on living the way we are living, unless we give it a chance of coming through. And that will only be able to [[unfold -- ]] unfurl its wings -- if we create circumstances that are favorable to its unfoldment. And that means that we would have to -- instead of just being the victims of life -- of the circumstances outside us -- we should be acting on the environment to make it favorable to our enfoldment, instead of adapting ourselves to the environment. And perhaps you know that the more advanced animals will not simply adapt themselves to the environment, they will adapt the environment to their own sense of purpose. And of course there IS some balance between these two: the environment acts upon us, and we act upon the environment -- that's true -- whatever 'we' is -- There's a kind of balance, I think, between the two extremes, which would be -- dependence, and independence. And I think that we are never totally independent, and we're never totally dependent. There's a balance between the two. And it is true that the sanyasin, or the rishi, seeks for independence -- we call it VAHIRAGIA [elsewhere translated by PVK as 'detatchment' -- sa] from the environment, because that is the only way in which a kind of inner resourcefulness will ever be able to unfold in one. And perhaps the best example of it would be, if I were to say that -- we have a kind of a psychological DNA -- or let's say, the DNA of the soul -- that the DNA of the soul is not just like a template that codes for the way we become; it is sensitive to the impressions from the universe, but it is also true that it is -- it's just like a plant. The DNA itself of the soul -- the DNA of the body -- is also -- of the whole universe -- is like a plant that is unfurling, and needs favorable circumstances [[to unfurl - ]] - to unfold. And in unfolding it -- or unfurling -- it -- finds new ways of being; it explores new ways of being. So this is what I mean by a kind of inner resourcefulness in us. You know that the DNA in the body which people -- the biologists used to think was created once and for all -- you know that, for one now it's accepted that it's reverse transcription; that means that the information from the outside is -- accrues to the DNA through the RNA. But what is more, the DNA does follow [an] evolutionary course in the process of life -- and it does not have to simply -- it doesn't remain constant in a human being -- doesn't have to -- you know, it doesn't have to be xxx ?a quick to know? of a human being, so that people may evolve. But that -- well, it's more than a template, as you know; it's a living code that is continually evolving -- In the human being at least, it is our awareness of it that enables it to unfurl. So -- there's an aspect of our being that is enriched by -- I wouldn't say by the environment; I would say by -- the information that we gather from the environment -- so we process the perceptions and things, and so somehow we are enriched from outside, from the universe -- outside, that means -- you see, there's no real frontier between us and the universe -- but there is a -- one could say that -- the psychic membrane that is more or less permeable -- and so we -- we're not watertight [SOUND OF RAIN ON THE TENT ROOF] that we are giving ?in? to the environment; we are drawing the environment into ourselves -- but the environment does get processed; and what we're really drawing in is not so much the environment, as the information, as the understanding, that we gain in our relationship with the environment. {101} So that's one process. And the other process is the -- maybe you could call it 'know-how' -- that draws from within. And that is not in any way a reaction to the environment, but truly enough, when our attention is turned towards the environment, this 'know-how', or whatever it is, this -- I call it 'resourcefulness' in our being {83as2-N2} has no chance of -- of growing. Hmm? {sic; 'Hmm?'; like the Canadian 'Eh'?} {83as2-N3} There are two things here, of course you know that we have (?)all our(?) genes in every cell, but certain genes are turned on in certain cells, and certain genes are turned off in other -- in certain cells. And so it is with the -- what I call 'the DNA of the soul' -- that we have a lot of faculties that are [THE RAIN COMES DOWN HARD ON THE TENT ROOF; PVK RAISES HIS VOICE ENOUGH TO RIDE ABOVE IT, AND NOT MORE THAN THAT] in the process of formation, in {83as2-N4} the process of growth. And so they can be turned on or turned off, like they're there, but we're not using them, so we don't even know that we have them. But not only that is true, but I even think that there are faculties that -- I don't know whether one can say that they're there; they're on their way, they're -- not yet manifest. Just, rather like -- the future is not just the conseqence of the past, there are possibilties in the future that are on their way, you can't say that they're -- already been provided for -- predictable -- no -- no, that's the whole beauty of it is -- there's the unknown, the unpredictable, in ourselves - - which is -- pure inventiveness -- and whiich is stilted by our -- adapting ourselves to the environment. That's what I'm saying. I don't say one mustn't adapt ourselves to the environment; there's a balance there; but if we -- ?the more we? adapt ourselves entirelly to the environment, the less we have access to this inner resourcefulness, which is -- what I call the butterfly that -- whose wings have not yet been unfurled. And on the other hand, it's true, ?but? that by ACTING on the environment, we have to call upon these resourcefulnesses, and that's how they come through. {83as2-N5} And that's what Hazrat Inayat Khan meant when he's speaking about 'Man, Master of his Destiny.' And that balance is a -- it's a balance; there's a very delicate balance; you can't ever say that -- you're totally master of your Destiny; and you can't say that you're totally the victims of your destiny; there's always some balance between these two things, you see. But one can shift the balance a little bit, towards having more impact upon -- the environment. The other aspect of this is that, in order to -- as I said, in order for these resourcefulnesses -- inner resourcefulneesses to devlop -- one has to create circumstances that are favorable -- I would say -- one -- it is easier if all one's attention is not directed towards dealing with the impact of the environment. So maybe, one might talk about -- psychological -- psychological environment -- which is favorable to our spiritual upliftment -- so even if the circumstances are unfavaorable, if we can at least create a psychological climate that is favorable, for the 'sprouting', as I say, of that inner resourcefulness, then that very beautiful being, that is in us, -- or is -- I don't think I should say, it's just in us; it is -- on its way in us -- we have a lot of -- initiative in making it what we would like to make it -- so it's not given to us -- but still -- it's on its way -- so - - right -- so one has to create the favorabble circumstances within one's way of thinking, and so on -- for example, one has to overcome resentment, and guilt, and things like our sense of inadequacy. But then also, one has to really be able to turn within, and listen in -- and again it's a -- you see, our terms are altogether wrong, I mean, they don't really -- !our conceptualizing, or our concepts, are totally inadequate, they're a very sort of -- ad hoc way of dealing with things -- but they lack, of course, all the refinement that one would need in order to understand things -- properly. {83as2-N6} Because 'listening in' is not quite the right word [mot juste] because it's listening to something that is being given to one, whereas one is being creative in the upsurgence of that very thing that one would be listening in to. It's like -- participating in one's creativity while at the same time manifesting the force of creativity in what one might call a customized way. I'll give you an example of this listening in, as a ?way to make it? more easy to understand. {199 on Pass 2} I don't know whether some of you know the 4th Piano Concerto of Beethoven. And perhaps you know the 2nd movement -- or I don't know, the slow movement anyway -- all of a sudden -- you know -- Beethoven captures a kind of -- like -- an attunement of -- Pure Spirit -- well, I have no words to say it of course, but it's although -- time and space were suspended -- {200 on recheck} and all of a sudden an impression of -- ineffable -- ah, I don't know what word to say; 'ecstacy', 'attunement'; I don't know what word to say -- something is comeing through his being -- into that music -- and comes right through into the public, of course, through the music, of course, the notes -- and he could have never done that, by -- except as you know, Beethoven just couldn't fit into the circumstances, he couldn't live a normal bourgeois life - - he just had to -- he would't have been abble to compose, he just had to just -- drop anything, and just listen in to anything that was coming through. {83as2-N7} And sometimes I see things that are trying to come through beings -- and how -- the circumstances in which wee are -- are totally destructive to what is trying to come through {83as2-N8} And also, it will never come through unless we get ourselves totally in synch with it, attuned to it, and are reallly aware of it -- and as I say, we can't jut be passive to it, we have to really -- contribute ourselves to that creativity that's coming through us. That requires a lot of our -- a lot of concern; it's like -- as I said, Betthoven -- well, ?I mean? I don't know why I chose Beethoven; I mean, it's true of all composers -- {83as2-N8} [actually this should have been numbered n9] can't be creative and at the same time fit into a pattern. And that's the great tragedy of our lives, because life has been so organized for us that -- if we don't adapt ourselves to it, well then we'll lose our job, or we can't -- we can't make a go of life. How we do we find room for the unadaptability of spontaneous creativity -- I think that when we -- the reason why you come here, for example, -- is because one has a kind of hunch thatt -- one isn't getting anywhere in life; and if one goes on like this, one will never get anywhere. And there's 20 years, 30 years gone, ?and on,? never getting anywhere -- and so maybe that's the meaning of a retreat; like there's time to call a halt and say, well, I've got to find something else; because this won't do. It's also -- it's a very strange realization that one can come to, like that one's relationship with events, situations, is not -- is very superficial; like -- one is touching upon the surface of things. And consequently one beomes superficial. Or one is a little bit like a cork on the surface of the water -- one lacks depth. There seems to be a deeper relationship than the one of perception and -- whatever it is, a kind of a mental communication that takes place between people -- you see, it was St. Francis of Assissi who described it when he said that -- "that which sees is that which is seen." ?You see,? it's a deeper relationship. It's a kind of self-discovery , where perception becomes self-discovery, instead of discovery of other than oneself. And we're used to thinking in terms of perception - like I'm the subject, and there's the object there, and I'm ?known? [or?: 'learning'] from the object -- I'm picking up information about the object -- and one stores that information in one's memory -- XX ?No? -- In one's relationship with an object, one is discovering onself. {83as2-N10} {83as2-N10} {Comment (sa): Cf. T.S. Eliot's notion of the 'objective correlative.'} And that perhaps may be a pointer towards that deeper relationship that goes beyond the superficial one. Perhaps one of the most -- the clearest example of this is -- for example, where you have -- you see, when we assume that [[we perceive light --]] that we perceive objects, right, in the environment -- but in fact -- what is really happening in the process of perception is that -- you know, that we -- our retina, for example -- flouresces, that is, it emits a certain ammount of light -- {83as2-N11} {83as2-N11} {Comment (sa): Well -- cats sure do it, so I suppose humans could too, vestigially } and what we perceive of the objects , is just the way that the objects -- like, when I say, the objects, like, for example, the leaf of a tree -- absorb certain light waves, and emits, transmit, certain other light rays -- other frequencies, let's say, within the physical field -- And so the light emanating from our eyes interferes with the light that is impinging -- that is being reflected, or refracted, or transmitted, or emitted by the object -- and so -- and they form a wave interference pattern -- that the mind -- that the brain extrapolates as being an object -- we think it's an object out there -- it's not at all; it's just -- that's just the way that the brain works. But the whole of existence is a communion of light upon light. The light of our eyes, and the light of the object. {300} And that is what is meant in the Koran, by "A light upon a light". And so that's just an example of -- Our way of thinking -- that {added 'that' on Pass 2} the object is different to us -- keeps our communication with the object at a very superficial level. {N.B.: The preceding sentence is ambiguous; I have brought out what may be its meaning by my choice of punctuation. But adding 'that' on Pass 2 makes it much less ambiguous.} And at the level of thinking, one becomes judgemental -- like -- one judges a person or an action -- the object of one's judgement, as Martin Buber says. {83as2-N12} Amd he calls it the 'I-It' relationship. Whereas of course what we mean by meditation is a deeper kind of relationship, which Martin Buber calls the 'I-Thou' relationship. That means that there's a self-discovery -- there's a sense of identity -- between the observer and the observed -- or the subject and the object. And of course, at a certain more advanced stage, one realizes it's all one. I don't know whether you've ever walked in the street of -- when - - well, I mean we're all walking in the strreet, but -- suddenly -- you know, at first you thought that you were seeing different people, and all of a sudden you see that really speaking, all these people are the cells of one body. And you're all of a sudden conscious of that kind of -- the reality of what -- what do we mean by G_d , you see -- it's all concepts in mind until we get down to what is actually happening -- it's like, then we could say, yes -- like, what I call physical reality is like the body of G_d , and it's -- just one Being -- you see, but of course -- if I change my perspective, then I see they're -- separate people -- in fact ?if I? switch -- if I flip my perspective back to the way it was, then I just see one -- one Being. You can do that with a microscope, you can just see the molecules in the electron microscope and then you switch it over -- and then you can't see them any more, you know; then you just see a mass. You know, you see a cell, you don't see the molecules. ?It's a question of? perspective. And so of course what we're doing in meditation is, we're changing, we're alteraing our perspective. ?That's so? But -- Well, I used to -- you know -- fight with(?) [or: frighten] myself with that -- but I realized -- that's not -- well, all that's happening -- What is happening is that -- by changing one's perspective -- one changes one's self-image {83as2-N13} -- one alters one's self-image -- until ulttimately -- one sees that one IS that which one is perceiving. I forget now what it was who said that -- the reason why we have some understanding of the physical processes in the universe is because the -- programming of these processes is of the same nature as our mind. And that's because -- they say -- let's say - - it is ISOMORPHIC to our mind -- and simplly the reason is because our mind is an indelible, unfractionable -- fraction [PVK acknowleges the paradox with a half-laugh] -- of the totality. I know, I'm using a contradiction there -- 'unfractionable fraction'. That's the extraordinary thing is -- that when you -- if you were to artificially create some kind of a -- as I say, a barrier, like a membrane -- that's ?what? -- happens in a cell, for example, or !the skin of the body is a membrane! -- !then you are artificially creating a division in something which is essentially indivisible -- but it makes for a certain -- how can I say -- identity within that membrane -- ! and the extraordinary thing is that, as soon as you do that, somehow or other, the totality of the universe is potentially within that membrane. That's the extraordinary thing. {83as2-N14} {83as2-N14} {Note (sa): Cf. Leibniz notion of 'monads' -- each mirrors the totality.} LIke, for example, the code of the universe is in every cell. Soon as you start having a cell with a membrance, then within it, you have access to that inner resourcefulness that I've talked about, which includes the whole code of the universe. So -- that's probably the reason why we have a need to turn within; because there's a programming that takes place from within; and if we fail to sense it, it will never happen; it will be -- we're losing the greatest potentials -- no ?good? [or? group] could ever -- come across. And that is of course, you could say, that the code of the universe, is welling up in the depth of our Being -- it's not set; you see, it's not -- a 'code' of course, you would think immediately of a -- like a -- you know, like a -- pattern -- or template -- no -- it's -- we have to -- perhaps we shouldn't -- I ?could? describe three things -- to simplify things -- {400} The simplest model would be like a vortex, or like a whirlpool, or whirlwind -- perhaps that's the simplest model of what we are -- there's no frontier -- in a whirlpool, there's no frontier between the whirlpool and the lake -- the same thing with us; there's no frontier between ourselves and the environment. It can only -- whatever it is; because there's no frontier, so it's very difficult to identify -- it can only maintain itself by continually diffusing, disintegrating, and continually rebuiding itself. So it's continutity is at the cost of change. And in the end, maybe it might be true to say the whole lake passes into [[that whirlwind -- ]] that whirlpool -- all the water of the lake will in turn have passed through that -- whatever it is, because as I say, there's no frontier -- but somehow the whole lake is kind of involved in that rotary force, which is -- what is it -- what is it -- what is a whirlpool -- well, it's an energy that has become structured - not quite a template but -- ?it's a? pole that has a [[a tactile effect upon - - I mean,]] a mechanical effect upon the ennvironment -- the environment is somehow drawn into it, and diffused out of it. That -- very simple model, but that's basically what we are, as humans, of course. We're continually drawing the environment in ourselves, and we are contniually diffusing the environment -- of course -- our bodies, minds -- at every level -- But of course it's an [[impac[t]]-- ] an imperfect model -- Maybe a more advanced concept would be a template, because -- in the whirlpool [ie, the whirlpool as conceptual model -- sa] that's not very clear just what -- what is the structure of it, except that there's a [an(?)] axis [or??: axes?]] -- like an axis , but - - there's certain ammounts [sic, I think, aammounts, nto 'an ammount'] of polarity there; but in [the model of (sa)] a template you've definitely got a structure -- and as you know, a template is like a mold, and you can -- whatever is exposed to it, will be structured by it -- if it's malleable enough, like water or some kind of pasty stuff will always just -- fit into the template. And so you could say that that is also -- that is perhaps a more advanced description of what we are -- we're not just drawing the environment in in -- in, you know, indiscriminantly, and diffusing ?it? indiscriminantly into the environment -- We do force the environment into a -- structure -- that's the code of the DNA of the body of course; but the same thing is true at the level of? the soul -- I remember one day I talked to David Bohm -- describing the seed - - you see -- which is the DNA, of course --- and he said -- it is - - two things -- an intelligence, and an eneergy -- which is transforming the environment -- that's what it is -- it's transforming the environment, like a plant -- the seed of the plant transforms the earth into a plant, and transforms the air into a plant, and water into a plant, and even the sunshine into a plant -- so it is an energy that is transforming the environment - - but not just energy, but it is an intelliigence -- there are two things, intelligence and an energy -- and its tranforming the environment -- in order to make it fit into its own sense of purpose. And it's very extraordinary that David Bohm should have said that, because -- I think the Darwidians [or?: Darwinians?] would have said -- well, to fit in with the -- you know, 'the pattern that is inherited', ane so on -- and then [in the Darwinian vieww -- sa] it would also adapt itself to the environment --- no, this is how -- instead of adapting to the environment, we impose our structure upon the environment. That's the template. But of course, the template is not a perfect metaphor -- perfect model -- because after all, it's a static [model -- sa] -- and so we'd say that the beauty of the human being is that that structure, which we impose upon the environment, is continually changing, evolving -- and that is the real creativity. {500} Now it's a little more complicated that that because, it is -- it even evolves -- well, let's say it evolves by [?our?] becoming conscious of it, right -- and to become conscious of it, one has to see that resourcefulness that is in one, in another oneself -- as you say [or?: see] , it's not another person, but another oneself -- because very other Being is like another oneself -- And that's the self-discovery that takes place. So that third model, I would call a 'matrix' -- a matrix is something that is not static, like a template, it is dynamic -- it can grow -- and -- as I say, I'll repeat this, I've already said it twice, I think -- it grows as -- in function of our awareness of it -- secondly, it requires favorable -- an environment that's favorable to its unfoldment -- a psychological environment -- and thirdly -- it will grow as a result of its resonance with similar features in other matrices because of -- because of [or?: it?] response to the Law of Resonance -- whereby !affinity recognizes affinity -- which is -- a universal law, as you know! And that is why it's so important for us to discover -- instead of just of be[ing] impacted indiscriminantly by the environment, to DISCOVER ourselves in the environment -- we're not just being open to the influences of the environment, but it's -- like -- [a] certain focussing of one's conciousness whereby one is continually on the alert to discover by dint of the laws of resonance, of affinity, -- to discover features of oneself -- or features that are pending in oneself -- in other beings. ?process of? self- discovery. Not perception. Self-discovery. What is extrordinary is that this birthing that takes place in depth, comes from a very silent -- peaceful -- place. And one is drawn towawds the surface -- as one gets drawn towards the surface, -- the energy gets -- more and more activated. And you remember, I spoke about the difference between dependence and independence -- well of course naturally the real -- I mean, between the two there's -- what they call interdependence, of course -- Well -- I don't know whether you've noticed that , perhaps some of you -- I'm giving you an example, some of you may have had -- been on retreat, and -- your meal was supposed to come at a certain time, and perhaps they forgot it, and it never came -- I don't know if that's ever happened to you -- but it's very -- it's a very good test -- because -- there one realizes that one's dependence upon the environment causes agitation. And supposing that one would say -- "Well, OK, it doesn't matter if it doesn't come, it's ok, I can go without a meal -- once -- " {600} -- it gives one -- the independence that rresults from this -- you can see the connection between that independence, and peacefullness in onself. !And I think we're all suffering from -- the agitation which comes from our dependence upon circumstances.! {Comment (sa): Well, that is the point of Buddhism.} And so you can understand now, the whole -- attunement of the rishi -- who follows - what they call VAYARAGIA, the path of Vayargia, which means -- detatchment. Means of course independence from the -- impact of the environment. So that is the attitude of the person on retreat. And that's -- I could say, the very definition of a retreat. And -- I suppose it does not mean that one is, as I often say when I'm quoting Buddha -- that one is "placing a sentinal at the doors of perception" -- so that one is unaware of the phenomena around one -- what it means is that one is not subjected to the emotional agitation accruing to one from the environment -- so one could play -- could practice Vayiragia, for example, walking in the streets of Paris, as Murshid did -- with the peace of a -- of a Rishi, totally undisturbed -- And, X you know, that when people laugh and -- people are hooting their horns, and all kinds of things -- absolutely, totally immune from -- from the -- I would say 'the emotional impact of the environment'. Now as I said before, one is not really -- imbibing the environment. I may have -- seemed to have meant that in the past -- 'one is drawing the universe into onesellf' {Comment (sa): PVK speaks with a high dimension of nuance; and often one needs to hear the tape (at least, I suppose) to catch that; as in the above example -- I put half-quotes about 'one is drawing the universe into oneself', to indicate that PVK is here alluding to a notion that he had previously presented but has now refined, -- based on the intonation from my (G3) tape. In identifying 'false starts' -- remarks that PVK makes but then seems to immediately withdraw, in favour of a more precise formulation -- I am entirely dependent upon intonation and pauses; one can in general identify 'false starts' from a transcript -- especially if I use dashes -- to set off pauses -- but one would want to confirm one's identification by listening to the tape. So in short: we've got to get these tapes onto CD PDQ.} -- no; it had been PROCESSED as one draws it in -- and as you know, memory is a very good example of the way that an event that happened in time and space is -- processed -- so that it is eternalized, and spaceless. So one has [or: 'is'] -- started in the -- with the perception of an event in time and space -- and it ended up by a pure NOETIC reality, as they call it {Note (sa): If I recall, PVK notes that the term 'noetic' is taken from works of Teilhard de Chardin.} -- which is -- XX ??deviated?? from causatiive information -- which is --- not subject anymore to -- the conditions in which it arose in the begining, which were -- time- and space- -like. And somehow the same thing happens in one's self-image. One realizes that one can continue to be, even though one's personality gets totally changed. {700} Or that one's being is not -- entirely dependent upon the -- upon one's personality. A marvelous sense of freedom from one's personality. Just like eventually one's -- as I say, the information that one derives from life, has freed itself from the circumstantial conditions in wihch it arose. Like -- sometimes you -- it happens to older people as you know -- that older people of course lose to some extent the factual memory of events -- but if they -- have really grown in their life, then -- it is replaced by wisdom, so hap \\ [END SOUND] [TAPE CONTINUES] [END BACKGROUND HISS] [TAPE CONTINUES] [END TAPE PVK83AS2 SIDE A] Pass 2 Side A Completed. =============================================================== [START TAPE PVK83AS2 SIDE B] [PRESUMABLY SOME TEXT-LOSS ON TAPE-FLIP; BUT APPARENTLY VERY LITTLE ] {NO SOUND AT START OF TAPE} PVK: // a ?clarity? that you had -- because of those events -- that -- but -- realization out of -- and you forget now the circumstances -- they're not really important any more -- what is important is -- the essence -- of what appeared at the time like - - phenomena -- And so in a certain sense you can say that we are disgesting the universe -- in that we're extracting the most essential aspect, which is information. And all the rest is not important. It can go; it doesn't matter. And consequently we are BUILDING up our being -- we become wiser, and integrate our understanding more and more -- at the cost of all those aspets of one's Being that are bound by time and space and which have to disintegrate. That's what they call neg_entropy, in science. Neg_entropy as opposed entropy. Everything is running down -- and at the same time, there's a buildup, which is in the opposite sense. And the extraordinary -- of course the great art of life is to be able to -- instead of resisting entropy, or even deploring entropy, to use entropy -- by turning the table on it; to use it as an energy, to build up. {83as2-N15} Imagine that there was a stone falling down the slope of a hill, and you were to -- ?use a? rope attatched to that stone, and with that stone you lift another stone on the other side. You're using entropy to overcome gravity. That's the principle of the lever. {83as2-N16} {83as2-N16a} So maybe we gain freedom by letting go of aspects of ourselves, which we are attatched to, and which are bound up in time and space. Just like dropping ballast from a ballon. {83as2-N17} It gains height by letting go of -- generally it's sand, but it could be like really important things that one has to let go of, if one is in a desperate condition and situation. And so -- one of the things that one lets go of -- is one's notion of one's personality. And one gains a thoroughly -- a sudden -- a totally new -- NOTION of one's Being. and one of the best examples of this is -- at one of our Omega meetings, we had a visit of Dr. Edgar Mitchell who was one of the -- American astonauts; I believe he walked on the moon. In fact it was rather strange, because I was talking to him in the moonlight. And -- the moon was right behind him -- and I thought isn't that extraordinary, this man, just a few years ago, he was walking on that -- bit of light there, suspended in -- in the heavens. And he led us into a meditation. He -- Dr. -- in Engineeering, I think -- led us into a meditation. And he was describing what he was he was experiencing as he was -- hurtling back on earth -- or at least his body was -- {83as2-N18} and he said, my body was really straining on the lead to get back to its home -- like, you know -- Home -- XX -- and somehow it gained a new identity that I had never -- had any idea about, before -- my space identity -- and I was realizing that my body identity was constricting me -- constricting my space identity -- it was -- ?as if I was? -- coming into terrible constraint on the planet earth -- like the 'gravity pull' {83as2-N19} was taking away my space identity -- that I'd discovered -- But -- exactly what we're experiencing in -- like all the -- [[transcendental]] -- transcendent dimension of meditation. One discovers a new identity, which is timeless and spaceless. And there's the other identity too; you know, they're all there; it's like several -- Chinese boxes; one inside the other. And what -- the difference here -- well, one does realize how one's birth-identity bogs one down {83as2-N20} {83as2-N20} {Note (sa): 'bogs one down' -- typical PVK subtlety of expression.} And how much more essential one is -- well, higher dimension of identity {83as2-Ne21} are -- like one's space identity, for example -- there are different ones -- like one's ?solar? [or?: soul X ?of?] identity, for example, or one is a Being of light, or -- there are different kinds of identities that we discover in meditation -- and realize how we had limited in -- ourselves in -- our conception of ourselves by thinking that we were the person we had thought we were. {83as2-N22} So there's where the butterfly, you see, is able to open its wings. You see, as long as it still thinks it's a caterpillar, it will never be able to unfurl its wings. Maybe I'm projecting, because I've never -- talked to a caterpillar; but -- {100} if you get into the consciousness of a caterpillar, you can see that -- that there's something in the evolution of the consciousness of a caterpillar that triggrs off the unfurling of its wings. {83as2-N23} Something that -- a sense of identity -- changing a sense of identity will unfurl its wings. {83as2-N24} And otherwise it will never unfurl its wings. And its part of the growth process. So you see that life IS really a process of self-discovery. #* You might say: Yes, well, it's right, you've been saying, 'we are the totality' and so on" -- well yes, but still, in a customized way, in a special way, in our own idiosyncracies, within -- well, -- and also, we are creative -- I think we're more part of the ongoing creativity of the world than just being a fraction of that universe, as seen as being static. ?Well? -- It is true that we -- you know, the classical way, I've been teaching meditation -- in my teaching meditation, I've been doing -- it tends to fall into a pattern, a sequuence, a routine, a system, and of course I'm always trying to break that system, so - - But -- of course, one -- when one goes on retreat, one has a feeling of being a pilgrim -- something is -- motivating one to -- get out of the circumstances in which one is, because one feels one isn't getting anywhere. And there is even some beauty in the unknown, one doesn't know where one is going, but as I say, that's the only way to enhance creativity. And creativity is so important to us, that -- you see, it was Prigorine, I think, who said that creativity belongs to the unpredictable; and what the scientist is doing is trying to pinpoint what can be predicted. Only on a large scale, of course, statistically. But the beauty is that within this XXX ?although? it applies to large numbers -- there's enough freedom within the parts for one element in the whole to act in an UNpredictable way -- {83as2-np2} That's one way of looking at it of course; one might say that it is the totality that is -- explores new ways in the fraction of the totality. The fraction of the totality is like an the -- an extention of the totality in which an experiment in innovation is being done -- being carried out -- and the whole totality gets itself invovled in that experiment. You know, that mutations take place -- in a species for example it takes just one animal sometimes, or perhaps a few, to -- trigger off a mutation in the whole species. Changes in the universe happen in individuals. Or rather, it is in the individual that the experiment of the whole universe is focussed -- is -- is converged; focussed. It's why our decisions are important -- because we involve -- G_d if you like to use that -- language -- we involve G_d in our decisions. It's like a computer that had to take into account the feedback it gets from -- its components. So -- when we go on retreat -- we don't know where we're going. And as I say, there's some beauty in the unpredictability. Because life has been so planned for us. And we suffer in our spontaneity, and inventiveness, by fitting into the patterns of life. So in a sense creativity is a rebellion against conformity -- conformism. But that would be just negative; it's more than that. It's that also. And of course we try to create circumstances which are favorable to our unfoldment. And -- perhaps we don't know to what extent people are aware of this, but -- one seeks a quiet place, and one seeks a place where there's -- one can have contact with the trees, and the flowers, and so on -- {83as2-N25} So, physiological -- physical circumstances that are more conducive to the unfoldment of one's being than -- sitting in a factory and working on a machine. And so it's true that one is communing with nature. What one is communing with is not nature -- it is the -- the thoughts of the trees, it is the emotions of the trees, it's much deeper than just what we understand by 'Nature'. One is communicating with the Beings, it's not objects -- in a process of self-discovery. {200} Of course one is withdrawing from the impact of the environment. And so one IS turning within. What does it mean, to turn within. Does it mean that one is -- like -- sitting there and sort of cogitating about one's problems, and things. Is that what it means. !Perhaps you realize that most of us are confusing our concepts of our problems with our problems.! {83as2-N26} {Note (sa): This is an important theme for PVK, and comes up repeatedly in the Zenith lectures.}} What we're trying to sort out is our concepts of our problems, not our problems. And our concepts are of course a very artificial notion -- it is very biased, and relative; it's not absolute. {83as2-N27} And perhaps we can understand this better when we realize that behind what we EXplain, there is very much that is IMplied. So the EXplanation, or the EXplicitation, of what we IMply, IS a way of focussing it, to make it more kind of -- discernable -- but in so doing, an impoverishment of it. An artificial reduction of the richness of the problem. {83as2-N28} It's a little bit like for example -- what the radio does to radio waves is simply to reduce the -- tremendous range of the interference pattern, where you would never be able to discern anything; it's all mixed up, you see, into select -- selectively to bring out certain frequencies that our brain is able to perceive, as sound. And so in the same way, we try to, with our concepts -- we try to figure out something that is -- makes sense to our mind. But its being reduced -- in comparison to the richness of the problem; we're not doing justice to the problem, of course, by conceptualizing. Amd of course the same is true of all perception; because what we -- we only perceive a very small slice of rreality. The eyes themselves have lenses in them -- you know what the lense does in a camera -- it makes it possible to represent what were -- cover?ing? [[an enormous distance -- ]] an enormous surface -- to represent that on a smaller surface. For example on your celluloid, or your cardborad, or whatever. That means, all that richness -- in order to be able to figure on a piece of cardboard. or celluloid -- it had to be terribly reduced. And that's what we're doing with our psychological problems. And of course perhaps one of the greatest drawbacks in the methods -- at least the old-fashioned methods that''s used in psychology -- fortunately spsychology is moving out of that now -- is -- well, there are two things. The first one is -- is very simple, and that is that they are -- trying to unleash -- images of the unconscious. Well, it's like, if you take a deep-sea fish, and bring it to the surface, it's all bloated, it doesn't function any more like a deep-sea fish, anymore. You can't assess it by the way you see it now. So you can't know your unconscious motives by bringing them to the surface. Totally distorted. Besides which, once you've brought them to the surface, it's very difficult to get them back in -- [class laughs] -- like the Jack- in-the-Box -- And the other thing is that much of these theories, of course, are based upon on the old Newtonian physics, of causality. Like -- this -- you have this problem, because you did this in the past. And of course it's true that there are very -- I mean, there are many cases where it's very clear that the reason why a person is the way they are is because they were abused as as child. XX ?n'est-ce pas?. And it's very extraordinarly that people don't -- some people don't even see the connection. For example, Dr. Kubler-Ross went -- she went to the prisons, she's working with prisoners now. There was the case of this man who -- he committed several murders-- theft and murders -- and he was a really tough type -- and then he took his turn to stand on the platform and beat that mattress -- and he just actually broke down -- and he was telling the story of his life, and of course everybody was very moved by it, because -- you know, he was being whipped to the -- well, to the -- in the very extreme by his father -- his step-father -- and he had bruises all over his body -- and then the stepfather used to put saltt in his wounds. And he used to kick him, and spit at him, and treat him [badly] -- say, You're no good, and so on and so forth. And of course at first he didn't know how he was able to make his way in life, but finally he escaped and -- well, ended like most young people would, in that condition, in the -- what one calls the netherland, or the underground. [The USA colloquial term is 'underworld'. 'underground' refers to a political resistance movement, usually in an approbative sense. (sa)] With the tough guys and druggies, and so on; and finally he just went from one crime to another. The curious thing is that he didn't see that what he was doing to people, in killing them, was getting out his -- his resentment that he had for his father-in- law. {83as2-N29} He hadn't seen that connection. So, as soon as he saw it, he was cured. {300} You know, that's true that there are cases where causality is -- there's no doubt about the causal relationship. Between events now and events in the past. {83as2-N30} {83as2-N30a} And that's true, that Newtonian physics has still some validity of course. {83as2-N31} But of course life is more complicated than that. For one thing, there's what one calls the 'concattentation of causes'. That are 'synchronistically' linked together. That means that they are not determined by one another -- in time seqeunce, but by some kind of co-ordinating programming that is beyond our understanding. {83as2-N32} (?)That's not(?) casuality -- at least in the sense of -- you know -- determinism in time. But in addition to that -- You see -- Explaining why we are as we have become is not good enough. Our problem is that we want to BECOME what we could be. So it's much important -- Like -- excusing ourselves for the way we are on the ground of the treatment we've got in the past -- is getting us out of our commitment to try to become what we could be. It's like finding an excuse for what I am, that ?way? you remain stuck in that excuse. And I think that most of suffer by the fact that we have a sense of not having become what we could have become. That's the -- the butterfly in the cocoon -- is what we could have become. Perhaps I shouldn't say 'could have', because we're still living - - so "what we could become" -- We could become. And that's not causality. That's looking to the future. That is creativity -- the ability -- to be inventive -- and that means, to free ourselves from the conformism of the past; or the determinism of the past. That's creativity. It is -- [PVK in an understated enthusiastic tone:] !discovering that one is free to be how one would like to be.! There's that saying of that Sufi, FARAD-DIN AL-ATTAR , who said, "Oh man, if only you knew that you're free; it's your ignorance of freedom that is your captivity." And I would say: Oh man, if you knew what you could be; and it's your ignorance of what you -- it's even your lack of belief in what you could be that is the reason why -- you're not what you could be. So it's like an anticipation, projection into the future, of the potentialities in the depth of one's Being. It's like the -- things growing -- the DNA, let's say, of the soul -- which are trying to come through; and if one -- -- they don't have a form of course; they'rre just -- if you look at the DNA, of course, it's true you can see there the structure of the -- conformation of the amino acids and so on -- but the -- you can't see by the [PVK: half-laugh] by the structure of the amino acids what -- how the form of the body is going to be as a consequence of the DNA. So -- creativity would be like -- how one passes from the -- an intuitive sense of the resourcefulness -- I call it 'the wings of the butterfly' right -- 'that is trying to come through' -- and how one transfers that into an image -- it is very clear -- like 'this is how it could be'. And that's not how you could be --or -- each one would be different, of course. How each one of us could be. But it's not like modeling oneself on a Master of the past. It is like finding that wasy that YOU could be; each one of you -- by being specifically yourself -- but not yourself as most of us think ourselves to be -- but as we could be. And the curious thing is that there's a kind of a conjuction there, between 'turning within' and 'projecting forward'. Because that which is within, is at least perceived, or let's say conceived as being within. It is not -- knoweable, unless it's projected. Just like I say, the wave -interference paattern of radios is not knoweable unless it's processed by the radio into a sound that we can -- hear. I mean, distinguish. And so I can say that when one turns within, one CAN'T see clearly, because of course its an interference-pattern, it's -- it's just that -- it becomes clear at the surface, but then it's reduced -- you can't win, either way. Either you've got that -- that sense of 'all-encompassing-ing--ness', in the depth, but then it's not -- it's not in focus. Or then you've got -- you focus yourself, of course -- and then it's reduced -- you -- one way or the other -- you can't have both. {400} Of course all of this is -- there's a model for all this in -- I suppose it's an experiment made by Dr. David Bohm, but I'm not sure now -- and it's not what they call a 'gedanken Experiment' -- where you put a drop a ink -- glycerine -- in a centrifuge, and of course it [[disappears]] -- I mean it gets all spread out, ?and? you can't see it anymore -- and then you reverse the centrifuge, in order to send the drop -- X ?then the ink? reappears -- If you -- after putting the drop of black ink in, you put a drop of red ink in, and then you reverse it, the red ink appears first, before the black. Well, you think: " well -- how did the particles of black ink know that they had to wait their turn for the red ones to come through first." {83as2-N33} So of course Dr. David Bohm said, it's like -- there's a sense of affinity -- so this -- the 'implicate order' that he's talking about -- you see, what we experience of the Universe is generally the 'explicate order', that is, where everything occupies a certain place. We'd call it the 'objective world'. But what we don't realize is that the same reality exists in 'the complementary mode', where everything is everywhere, like in radio waves -- everything is everywhere. So they don't -- radio waves just don't distinguish themselves by their location in space. {83as2-N34} They distinguish themselves by their frequency. So the red drops had a certain frequency, and the black ones another, so that the order of the universe -- the original order of the universe -- is the implicate one. Then that's probably what the Ancients meant by Chaos, where everything is everywhere. {83as2-N35} And then it breaks through here and there in what we think is reality, and its only the way it breaks through. And the same with our thinking. Now what we're doing in medition is reversng that conceptualization, whereby the implicate is reduced in a concept [or: in our], and getting far deeper into a -- in touch with one's real -- well, the word that is used by ?G(j)enethen? is -- 'Feldthought'. I would have used the word, 'Feld-thinking', because 'thought' is, again, a static word; and I would rather use dynanmic words, like 'thinking' instead of thought. {83as2-N35a} But the beauty here is that he sees that it's all one; that the feeling and the thinking at that level is all one. And that's why people are beginning to say, 'Can't you get in touch with your feelings' -- there's no use then -- Dr. Kubler- Ross says that at all times -- she says, 'we don't want to hear what you think about it; no; how do you FEEL about it'. That -- the concept about it -- that's reduction. {83as2-N36} And that's what we're doing in mediation. When we turn within, -- Well, you see -- How do you feel about your -- how do you feel about it, right. But the trouble is [PVK: half-laugh] -- what do you mean by 'you' -- or 'me'. When you turn within, your emootion [or?: 'notion']] of yourself gets into the 'implicate state'. So you don't think of yourself as an individual any more. Like a definite [[pinpont -- ]] pinpointed object, located in space --- you merge with the totality of all beings. And that's why you can experience all beings as yourself. But then you don't have -- it's not like -- thought-reading where you can earmark exactly the thoughts of a person -- no, it's more like -- getting into the attunement of that person. It's an intricate(?) [or?: 'implicate'?] mode of knowlege, which is quite different from (?)thought-reading(?) [or?: 'false-reading'] , XX when you -- no, thought-reading only uses that as a -- as a means of projecting a [or?: 'one's?] thought-form -- {83as2-N37} So that would be this 'turning within', which as I said, it's -- it's getting in touch with the ever-recurrent and resurgent source of creativity that one experiences when one turns one's attention away from the surface -- and it's a real -- like a network; you can't distinguish parts of it -- but then you see how it does break through at the surface in a -- singular way. Like for example -- {500} imagine for example lotus flowers, that have the whole -- at the surface you think they're seperate flowers, and in the depth it's all one -- one network of roots. {83as2-N38} So then, imagine that you're swimming now, under the water, and you see the lotuses from -- underneath, now {83as2-N39} {83as2-N39} {Note (sa): Well, more from the side maybe} -- and you see they're all linked together;; that they're all one reality -- and then of course you can get into the concsiousness of any lotus, because you're -- in touch with the depth, where they're all one -- and you are -- perhaps it's a little more -- the model is not as perfect as it could be because you are -- also one of the lotuses; and therefore [[your roots are -- ]] you have roots in common with the other lotuses that you're trying to get to know -- Now that would be like what I like to call 'turning within' -- and one becomes -- very calm, very peaceful -- and one sees just how life tends to disturb one, and get one agitated at the surface {83as2-N40} And consequently one lets -- gets -- one ?loses? touch with oneself. {83as2-N41} And one sees how people are right there at the surface -- and they don't realize it. And one sees also that thoughts are -- thought_emotion, that they're not just thoughts -- and that our concepts are all, like, of course, the explicicatation of a reality that is -- implicate. {83as2-N42} {83as2-N43} It's a very good way of looking at things. See things -- understand things differently to the usual way. And then of course the other dimension is of course what I call 'transcendent', which is like -- realizing that one can exist without a body -- isn't that strange -- like -- the substract [sic, I think, here: 'substract'; but subsequently, 'substrate'] of one's being, which might -- proliferate at the surface in different forms -- Perhaps a good example of it would be like : You have a tree, and you ut it down to its roots, and then it grows again {83as2-N44} {83as2-N44} {Note (sa): As one sees often with olive trees.} And then you cut it down again to its roots, and it grows again. And each time -- it gets a totally different form. And the question is, is it the same tree, or is it different trees, or what. So -- when you get to the substrate of your being, it's like the stump of that tree. And you know that your present personality is just a growth that took place, out of the stump. So while -- if one identifies oneself with that growth, one is conscious of being temporal and transient, ephemereal -- and if one discovers one's eternal substrate, one finds a wonderful freedom from -- let's say one's fragility, or one's vulnerability -- being transient, one is very vulnerable, one is XXX -- one gets a tremendous strength and stability -- a kind of access in one's being. That explains the -- when you get in touch with a great rishi -- the strength of his being comes from having -- touched upon the eternity of his being. Transiency makes one feel very precarious. And elusive. {83as2-N45} And also it's -- a great victory over -- fear, of course -- to become aware of one's eternity. So this was a kind of resume of -- different facets of the problem that we're going to be dealing much more in the nitty-gritty and practice during these few days -- {600} that was just a theory of it; but now we want to see how it works in practice. But you notice that: two things, I think. First of all: I try not to be dogmatic in my [or: the] teaching. It's not like -- you're [or?: we're] supposed to believe this -- there's no belief system in it -- And the other thing is that the accent is on -- transformation -- it's the real nitty-gritty -- on how we could become -- as Beings. And that we're overcoming this idea of 'G_d up there and man down here' -- ?you know, like? -- categories -- And that we're being very very cautious about our concepts. {83as2-N46} {83as2-N46} {N.B.: Being cautious in deploying concepts is a notion PVK often attributes to Buddhism.} And I think that if you read books on spirituality, most of those books are -- the wording in those books are like, concepts about spirituality. In fact, the very word 'spirituality' is a concept. Would you like to tell me what that is -- 'spirituality' -- I'd like to know. A person who says, 'I'm a spiritual Being' -- what does it mean, actually. I think at this moment there's a need to be -- very very honest in one's thinking. Especially about spiritual matters; it gets so very easily -- conceptualized, and distorted. And of course I have to be very careful not to 'lay my trip on' you. So of course I'm in a position where -- there's always a danger that I influence you and -- by my way of looking at things. And consequently of course I would be much happier if we could -- work with experience. And that's what I hope we shall be doing instead of -- listening to talks. And this is just the introduction. The only thing is that I must remind you that experience IS -- re_interpreted by the mind -- and often distorted by the mind. In fact, always distorted by the mind. And secondly that -- our preconceived ideas can -- pre-judge experience. One can miss an experience because of one's pre- conceived ideas about things. And , on the other hand, I also realize that -- people like to have [PVK: half-laugh] -- very nice sure guidelines. Like, you know, you're supposed to do this and -- you know, you're supposed to pray five times a day -- there are certain guidelines , you're not supposed to do this; you're not supposed to do that. (?)People like that (?)now(?) XX -- Because I suppose people -- a lot of people -- I would(?) say people, I mean, we're all people -- I think one doesn't like to take responsibilities -- it's nice to -- [eg] say, 'the Sufi Order will answer for that' and Catholic Church, or whatever -- not take responsibility oneself. And one would like to have some real nice simple guidelines, like, you know -- you know, 'this is the way it is'. Well, that's for simple minds, like -- in elementary school you learn -- like, simple things -- and later you see that things are not QUITE that gross -- ?and? they're much more subtle than taht. {700} I realize that, and -- that's probably the reason why -- quantitively I haven't been as successful as many of the -- superstar gurus of our time. [PVK and class laugh.] {83as2-N47} {83as2-N47} {N.B.(sa): This is almost the only time I recall PVK having made such a statement.} So you must know what you're really -- what looking for, of course, but -- I imagine if you came here it's because -- you felt that there was a real attempt at having -- genuine experience. And that I try at least to have a great respect for human freedom; not to exercise any kind of mental pressure, or any other kind of [[mental -- ]] pressure on people. But -- it's difficult to know just where the limits are, you see. You see, what we're facing is really the problem of authority. Perhaps you know the book of Stanley Milgram. {83as2-N48} He described an experimenet that was -- I don't suppose it would be allowed any more these ddays but -- it was a fake experiment, really. It was like -- on the one hand there were the pupils who were supposed to be learning, and then on the other hand there were those who were supposed to -- like the Zen masters, who were supposed to give them a little tap on the shoulder if they're not concentrating well -- instead of a stake [sic, but I think: stick; the Zen Master taps with his wand, I think -- tho hasidic Rebbes sometimes gave a zetzt, a slap -- ] it was an electric shock -- and actually they weren't receiving the electric shock, but it look as -- from one side of the scene it looked that they were receiving electric shocks. And they were reacting to this by saying, Oh, I can't stand it, I can't stand it -- and they said, well, you're not concentrating, give you more shock -- and the people -- there were a third category of people who were giving instructions to the people who were giving electric shock -- and [saying] "You've got to give him more shock, because, you know, he's not concentrating," -- and the extraordinary how people would -- just submit, to the authority -- knowing that they were causing pain, at least thinking that they were causing pain to the people. Typical of what hap\\ [END SOUND, SIDE B] [END TAPE, SIDE B] [end pass 1] [END PASS 2] ============================================================== NOTES ARE FILED OFF TO =pvn83s2 I WILL PREPARE A 'FLYING EDIT' =pvt83s2 =================================================================