The awareness that the Self is the source of an infinite series, of an
infinite series, of an infinite series of dimensions calibrates over what? “Calibrates over 1,000” (T rue); “1,100” (T rue); “1,200” (T rue); “1,250”
(True); “1,280” (T rue); “1,290” (Not true). That which is the source of
one’s Self is also the Source of all the dimensions; you’re not limited to just
this dimension. You are only expressing yourself as this dimension. That’ s
just a recent discovery . To understand, then, your relationship to God and karma—karma is
merely what one has become throughout the various lifetimes. At 600, you
see there’ s only one lifetime. You see that—they are not an infinite number ,
but quite a few incarnations. It’ s just a recall of one life. It’ s this life one
remembers—being a pickpocket in Paris and various things like that. It’ s
only just within memory; it’ s just who you are, or had been, and what was
learned there. Therefore, what you’ve become automatically goes as a continuum. It’ s
just one life you have. There’ s only one life. There are not multiple lives. There’ s no such thing as going from life to non-life, and then back to life,
and then incarnating, and all. There’ s only one life, and so long as you
identify with the body , you limit the memory to this body’ s life. As you no
longer identify “me” or the self as this physicality , then the memory of all
the other lifetimes comes back. Many people have memories of previous
lifetimes when they go out of the body . Once they escape this body , they
can see all the lives. So, karma, then, is merely the accumulated ener gy. So, every action
affects your calibrated level of consciousness. So the spirit body , which has
a classic name, is sort of like a little computer . It keeps track of where you
are in time and space and all your merits, demerits, et cetera. So, that brings us to a recalibration. This is a great moment in time. We
are going to change these calibrated levels of consciousness. You don’ t
want somebody in the 700s as president of the United States. It just won’ t
work. They wouldn’ t have any interest at all. We found that great leaders of
great religions should be around 570. You cannot run a huge or ganization,
like the Catholic Church, over 600. It wouldn’ t make any sense at all. And
you don’ t have enough power , spiritual power , in the 400s. At 570, we have
Pope John Paul II. 570 is Unconditional Love—he tries to bring everybodytogether and heal up the past as best he can. The Dalai Lama runs around
570. If you’re going to be the great leader of a great world church, you
ought to be around the ideal of 570. If you want to be the president of the
United States, you’d better be around 450. All the great presidents are really
around 450. The signers of the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence were more in the 500s. And the Constitution of the United
States calibrates at 700, higher than any country I know of. But, to be a
president, you’d better be smart and around 450. 450 is the intellect, the
capacity to really handle this world. If you’re going to be a great political
leader , you’d better be around 450, or you’re going to get your socks beat
off. At 500 and up, one isn’ t interested in that anymore. Worldly power is
uninteresting, and politics are only interesting to the degree that they reflect
a certain spiritual truth. What I wanted to do is to say is that one is not
better than the other . And many of my favorite people are in the 300s. They’re very willing. 310 is Willingness. “Y eah, let me do it, let me help;
let me . . .” They’re great people to be with; they’d build the whole world. The whole world is built by people in the 300s. We have a crew working for
us that has a little white dog. This little white dog, whom I never met before
—here’ s this workman, he’ s a one-dog contractor . You know , they come
with one dog, two dogs, et cetera. This little dog goes everywhere with him,
loyal as can be. So, here’ s this white dog, whom I’d never met before and
he’d never met me, and this dog comes right over , just instantly loving you
—instantly loving you; just glad to see you and, “Gosh, let’ s be friends.”
And boy , instantly , we are like intimate loving pals. Instant Love, huh? We
calibrated that dog. Let’ s do that dog. That dog, who is up in the audience
right now . “That dog, we have permission, right?” (T rue); “He’ s 500”
(True); “He’ s over 5” (T rue); “501” (T rue); “502” (T rue); “504” (T rue);
“505” (T rue); “506” (T rue); “507” (T rue); “508” (Not true). He’ s about 505
to 508. Pure Love, huh. The first time I calibrated a dog’ s wagging tail and got
500, I said, “Whoa, half the people on the planet don’ t.” We calibrated our
cat’s purr . Let’ s get Kitty’ s purr . Oh, I love that kitty . Kitty’ s purr is over
500: resist” (T rue); “502” (T rue); “504” (T rue); “505” (Not true). Kitty’ s
purr. Kitty just sits there, just radiating pure Love. So, here, Love comes
through the animal kingdom without intellect. People look down on the
animal because it doesn’ t have intellect. See, that’ s the ego. They say , “Theanimals don’ t have an ego.” Can’ t get screwed up like humans. This dog
just comes over and loves you, like that! Isn’ t that great? No wonder people
love their animals. People say , “Why , he’s sick. He thinks more about his
dog than he does other people.” Well, the people around him calibrate about
190, and his dog calibrates at 500. Isn’t that strange, huh? That Love comes up then—it is like two channels. One is a channel of that which is venomous, poisonous, hatred, and it brings
about death. Then there’ s that which is nurturing, benign, peaceful, and
serves as an avenue for Love. In my view , Love manifested within the
physical domain by motherhood. There was no Love—the dinosaur doesn’ t
love its eggs. It just lays an egg and goes of f, right? There’ s the maternal,
the mother who cares about the child. That’ s when Love began to shine on
the earth. There was no Love in the world of dinosaurs. Show me some
Love in the world of dinosaurs—it doesn’ t exist there. Everything eats
everything else. Levels of Consciousness Are Different, Not Better
I just got of f on that tangent because I didn’ t want people to think that
“this” is better than “that.” Somebody at 700 is not suitable as a carpenter ,
is not suitable to run a church, is not suitable as a president. You don’ t want
anybody at 700; most of them can’ t function at all. They just sit in their
ashram, and if they still survive, people come and say hello to them, and
they smile happily at them, and that’ s that. You don’ t want people down at
the bottom, either . There’ s one restaurant [where] I used to eat breakfast,
and I stopped going there because of the low calibration of the waitress. The
calibration of the waitress was so bad, I couldn’ t handle it. I would go there
all the time in Prescott, and every time I’d go there, she’d say , “Do you
want a menu?” Like she never saw me before. “Y ou want a menu?” Sort of
confrontational. “Y ou want cof fee?” I’d ordered tea the last 20 times. I’m
the only customer in the restaurant at that time—there’ s nobody else. Every
Tuesday morning for months, I’d ordered the same thing. “Y ou want
coffee?” No! She never stops talking. She’ s opinionated about everything. I
can’t stand the ener gy of this place. It was convenient, that’ s all. All right. She calibrates—I don’ t want to calibrate her . Then there’ s another restaurant I go to, and they say , “Oh, hi, I haven’ t
seen you all week. You want tea? You want your usual?” That’ s where I eatevery morning—Monday , Wednesday , and Friday morning. They know
what you want. Of course  they recognize you; you’ve been there every
freaking morning, you know what I’m saying? When we wrote the book Power vs. For ce, 85 percent of the world’ s
population calibrated below 200. That leaves us 15 percent here in the 200s,
who are the builders of the world, the construction workers, the
steelworkers, the people who go to work every day . They’re the backbone
of our society , and the 200s and the 300s. The 400s is the world of the
intellect and reason that dominates America; 500 is rare; 540 is extremely
rare, and from 540 and up, there’ s practically nobody . The thing is that their
power is so enormous that they counterbalance the rest of the whole
population. That which is over 200 is integrity . So, integrity means honesty , the
honesty of one’ s convictions, and, if in truth, you cannot find God through
the intellect, which is what I tried to do—you cannot find God through the
intellect. And you have to really warp logic a little bit to get there. And, going through God as “first cause”: if you go back through this—as
we were talking about “causality”—you’d say , well, “God is ‘first cause.’”
No, that can’ t be, because the sequence is not of “sameness.” You suddenly
come to “dif ferentness.” The quality of God is not the same as the quality of
the supposed ef fect, so you cannot find the original billiard ball behind all
the billiard balls. Because when you get past number one, there are no
billiard balls there. You will not find another billiard ball behind billiard
ball number one. If you can see through that conundrum, that’ s like a koan,
and you’ll become enlightened. All right. So, there’ s no “cause” for what happens, but there is a source. The source is the structure of the ego itself as it sits within the infinite
power of spiritual consciousness, and that automatically sequences—what
appears to be sequence—the fate of the spirit. And that is the absolute
perfection of the judgment of God. There is no error possible. Therefore,
there is no “God” to fear; there’ s only the consequences of one’ s own
actions to fear , which then gets projected onto a God figure, which has no
reality and no existence. So, to see through the illusion of causality , there’ s nothing causing
anything out there. Nothing is causing anything else. What you see are
conditions. For this flower to open up, it requires a certain temperature, a
certain humidity , a certain amount of sunlight, nurturance—and as you seeit opening up, the sunlight is not causing it to open, the nurturance is not
causing it to open; nothing is causing it to open, because everything fulfills
its own potential. So, within that which is created, that which comes into
existence, part and parcel of its existence is its innate capacity to manifest
as that which it is. The becoming of that which is witnessed as existence,
then, is merely the unfolding of the potentiality of that as it was created. It’ s
not being caused by anything over here; it’ s not being caused by anything
over there. Is that clear? There Are Different Dimensions
In New Age communities, channeling is very popular . Certain prophets—
Biblical prophets, scriptures—also were really channelers; they were
channeling another entity on the other side. All right. Channeling is, then, a
capacity to communicate with spiritual ener gies that are not within the
physical domain. They are based, however , within duality . There’ s a “this”
and a “that.” There’ s a “me,” the channeler , and there’ s a “that,” the spirit. There’ s a duality there which already sets a limit on the degree of erudition
that can come through that way . So if a person is going to dabble in
channeling—I don’ t recommend channeling—but if a person is going to
dabble in channeling, always get the calibration level of the entity on the
other side and the entity on this side, because the lower astral is a great
source of channeling and psychics. In a channeling, there is a “this” and a “that.” There’ s a “me” and a
“you.” There’ s an entity “there” and a “something” here. That’ s different
than the way to enlightenment, because enlightenment is merely the
progressive awareness of the Source of one’ s existence, which is neither
here nor there and has no positionalities. It has no personalities; it has no
“either/or–ness.” See, you’re either the channeler or the source, et cetera. There’ s no “either/or–ness” because that which prevails within all is
identical within all. I can’ t explain it other than that. All those sorts of New Age things, always calibrate the level of truth first
before you get involved with them, because a lot of them are quite
intriguing. The lower astral, that denies God, is in competition with that
which af firms God and is in competition for dominion of this planet. That’ s
a thesis I’m working out in the book I. There’ s competition. As you
remember in Power vs. For ce, the level of consciousness of mankind was at190 for many , many centuries. Mankind never got over—beginning with
Neanderthal man, who calibrates around 70; Cro-Magnon man also
calibrates only about 70. It’ s only very recently that Homo sapiens  even
appeared, and Homo sapiens  was also dominated by the lower astral realm. And it was only in the late ’80s that the consciousness level of mankind
went over 200. It’ s as though the lower astral held dominion over this globe,
and the spiritual ener gy came in, and another life came up through the
lambs and the herbivorous and reached full manifestation through maternal
love. And it’ s as though the lower astral held dominion over this plane—this
planet—until the late ’80s. The consciousness level then went over 200. The lower astral was no longer in total control. The Difference between Enlightenment and Salvation
What is the dif ference between enlightenment and salvation? That’ s a very
astute question. I myself went through a conflict: would Jesus be my main
guru, or the Buddha? It seemed like Jesus stood for salvation, and the
Buddha stood for enlightenment. Are they two dif ferent things? Yes, they
are, in a way . Jesus Christ taught salvation. Although He taught that the
Presence of God is within you, the mystic, usually through the pathway of
the heart, discovered that God, being Love, is innate within you. But
generally , what Jesus sort of agrees with is Lotus Land Buddhism. The
Buddha of infinite compassion—those of you who are Buddhists know the
name of it: Avalokiteśvara. There’ s all these dif ferent representations of
Buddha, dif ferent names. Anyway , Pure Land Buddhism is very much like
Christianity . It’s assumed that the negativity of this world is so severe that
the chances of reaching enlightenment are practically zero. It is not,
therefore, a practical goal. If you realize that the consciousness level of
mankind was at 190 until the late 1980s, it means that you’re trying to reach
the highest state from a severely negative gravity field, you might say . It
was not practical. And certainly , when you look at the population in which Jesus taught—
illiterate, nomadic, believing in gods that were sort of demonic—if you
calibrate the gods of the Old Testament, they come out about 70 or 90:
vengeful, angry , vain, egotistical, narcissistic; primitive gods, the same as
the gods of ancient Rome and other primitive societies, sort of demonic. “Projections of the unconscious”—that’ s the God that Freud said had noreality . The gods of the Old Testament are projections from the
unconscious, Freud said. And then he made a mistake; he said, “Therefore,
God doesn’ t exist,” when he should have said the negative gods are invalid. He didn’ t—he went beyond. He said, “Therefore, God doesn’ t exist.” Carl
Jung, who calibrates at 520, Jung went beyond that. He didn’ t say that
“because the false gods are false, therefore a true God doesn’ t exist.” On the
other hand, Carl Jung af firmed the validity of the spirit, the spirit world; so
Jung crossed over from 499, crossed that great barrier at 500. The purpose of Christ, then, is the same as Lotus Land Buddhism: that
without Divine help, the likelihood of getting to heaven is slim. One needs
the powerful ener gy, the Great Avatar , at 1,000. To merely af firm that that is
your teacher will carry you through. And we asked this question ourselves. The Buddha teaches the way to enlightenment. Jesus Christ teaches the way
to salvation. Let’ s see if that’ s correct. “That is correct: resist” (T rue). That
is correct. Now let’ s see who needs salvation. “Entities over 600 need a
savior: resist” (Not true). “Entities over 540 need a savior: resist” (T rue). All right, so less than 600, one needs a savior . Okay , let’s see. All right. Is
there another question on this subject? Jesus Christ teaches the way of
salvation. It is even taught within certain schools of Buddhism and the
Hindu that the way which I tend to teach, the way through consciousness
itself, is not suitable because of the extent of the negativity of the world. The one-pointedness of mind—we’ll get into that; how in a meditative
state, to absolutely transcend the ego, it happens in a snap. Suddenly , one is
the Source out of which all that—it’ s obvious—that one is the Source out of
which all of that manifests, but it’ s not obvious until it happens. The Buddha then taught a way which is suitable for the minority . The
Buddha said: “Once you hear of enlightenment, you will eventually reach it
because the spirit will now choose spiritual pathways, lifetime after
lifetime.” The Buddha did not say that by arduous spiritual commitment,
you’re likely to get enlightened in this time, although it did happen as such. The Buddha represents more what I write about, then—the realization of
the Self as the Source of all existence. One comes into that awareness at
600, as the presence of an infinite Love. In the 700s, which is the level of
the sage, one realizes the Self as Divinity . And that there is nothing but the
Self, and the rest is perceptual impressions projected by the mind. So, it is wise to have a Savior . And it is wise even if you’re beyond 600,
to value the great gift and the Divinity of the Savior . To realize the absolutetruth of that which you are, there is nothing to save. There’ s nothing that
needs salvation. Enlightenment and Salvation
Enlightenment and salvation—is that suf ficient? Is salvation necessary? And if so, what are you being saved from? Now , salvation, then, has to do
with the level one reaches as you leave the body . You see, Jesus says,
“Those who hold me in mind, to whom I am now bound by your
commitment to me, I will provide the ener gy you need to reach the
heavenly realm.” Lotus Land and Christianity are both very practical. Both
also were a teaching in a time of great ignorance. Don’ t forget, the Buddha
was born in 500 b.c. There was no printing press; nobody was educated;
nobody could read or write. The level of awareness was almost a primitive
level of the basics of life and nothing beyond that. So, Lotus Land
Buddhism, then, is also the same teaching that you, of your own, are not
likely going to reach enlightenment in this lifetime, because the negativity
of life here is so severe. And the commitment is so peculiar , and particular ,
that one in 10 million would actually even do that. We’ll go into what
techniques are involved to transcend the ego, and you will see that it’ s not
going to appeal to too many people. Not to mention, the burning wires are
going through your body , and—good God! But I’ll give you just a taste of
it. So, the Buddha is the way for one who achieves spiritual merit by
following the teachers, like the Buddha. So, the Buddha doesn’ t say
necessarily you will reach enlightenment by following the Eightfold Path
this instant, but he’ s saying that that commitment will automatically
guarantee that each lifetime you are on, so once you choose the direction of
the Light, the end is certain. And I believe that, that what the Buddha said—
is why the phenomenon happened within this lifetime. Allness vs. Nothingness
In that lifetime, I was a Hinayana Buddhist. I’ll tell you that. That’ s another
story . In a previous lifetime, I was a Hinayana Buddhist, and a very devout
one too. There are two types of Buddhism, in general: Mahayana and
Hinayana. Anyway , my belief system—and I meditated for many years—
was that the ultimate truth was Void. The Void is a very tricky concept. As Itold you before, there is no opposite to God. There is no such thing as
nothingness. But there is a variety of Buddhism which really confuses Void
with nothingness, as though there is an opposite to Allness. That’ s a duality
you don’ t have to transcend until you get up into the 900s, right? “The
infinite Reality as Allness versus Nothingness comes up over 900” (T rue);
“910” (Not true). About 900. By 900, you discern, once you pass that. All
right. Many of those schools of Buddhism were below 900, so they confuse
nothingness and Void. I was very intensely devout and devoted in those
lifetimes, and the ultimate reality was Void. When I went out of the body , I
went into the Void. There were a number of lifetimes where there was no
connection between the lifetimes. There was awareness—blank awareness. That happened right before this lifetime. The awareness of existence came
out of nothingness. From nothingness—existence. Well, then it all solved
itself. Each time I went out of body in that form of Buddhism where the
ultimate Reality was Void, I experienced that which my own mind created:
that the ultimate Reality is Void. There is no such thing as an ultimate
Reality of Void. But after many lifetimes with powerful meditations upon
that truth, I created Voidness as, and today there are mistranslations of the
teachings of the Buddha—not mistranslations—but it’ s not explained in a
way that would help you to avoid this error . My own profound belief about
the ultimate Reality and my devotion to Buddha was such that I went into
nothingness every time I went out of body . However , because that’ s not a
reality , you can’ t stay in Void, nothingness as Void. You can’ t stay there,
because it’ s not a reality . Consequently , you find yourself back in another
body—bang! It was a sudden explosion when I hit back into this body . This
little wagon and this body , called “me” in those days, age three or four ,
sitting in this wagon, and— wham ! Suddenly , a sudden confrontation with
existence was like, bang ! Out of nothingness—existence. It was a terrific
contrast. So, the ultimate Reality is not nothingness, but Allness. The totality , the
complete, all-inclusive Allness, which is “no thing.” It is no-thing. It is not
Void; it’ s All. The Buddha didn’ t speak about God, because everybody has belief
systems about God, and your belief system will create what you believe
God to be, and you’ll be pursuing a projection of your own imagination and
ignorance. So the Buddha didn’ t speak of God. He said just for get about
that and find the Source of your own consciousness. That is the “Buddhanature.” Well, unfortunately , he called it “Buddha nature.” Uh-oh. That was
a mistake too, so he called it “V oid.” That’ s “nothing,” right? Now people
believe that “nothingness” is a reality , and if you really pursue and become
an adept, you’re going to experience “nothingness” as the ultimate. It’ s very
powerful. I resolved that conflict one time. I was in the conflict between Jesus and Buddha, the way of the heart. I
had a teacher who had fallen from a higher level. This is something else,
which is a thing we’ll have to talk about. There are teachers who, when they
were teaching, they calibrated in the high 500s; but you calibrate them now ,
they’re in the 200s. There are quite a few of them, and they are all very
famous. So there was a conflict. I had a teacher who had at one time been in
a very high state; I had not realized he was not in a high state anymore. Anyway , he took all the attributes of God, such as Love, beauty , et cetera,
and said those were all attachments, and you should release on those
attachments. Okay . Those are all the attributes of God, right? Anyway , that
came out of that same Buddhist tradition. Love and the attachment to Love
are two dif ferent things. I didn’ t realize that. Anyway , at the time, I said,
“Yes, Love is an attachment.” He was telling me to let go of beauty , Love,
and all that stuf f. He was looking down on it as an attachment. I was in
conflict between Jesus and Buddha. So, I had the misunderstanding of
Buddha as representing the ultimate Reality as Void. And looking at Jesus
as Love as an attachment. I was in quite a conflict about it. Finally , I said no, Buddha’ s higher than Jesus. Love is an attachment. I
started releasing on Love. I went into the infinite Void. Huh. This time, not
unconsciously—consciously—went into the Void. Now , I tell you, the Void
is very , very impressive. It is very impressive. It is a dimension that is
beyond some puny little ego; I tell you—the absolute experience of
nothingness. Infinite nothingness. There was one thought left. In it, all
reality is revealed. You see everything moving of its own nature within the
infinite field of the Infinite Reality . So, it does reveal Reality , starkly . But
there was something wrong. Some innate spiritual intuition, of its own,
realized there was an error . It didn’ t speak; it was just a knowingness. And
to let go of that one thought would be like a spaceship takes you out into
infinite, unmapped space, lets you out, destroys all maps of where they
were, and returns to its base. There is no record of even your existence,
much less where; there’ s no way to return. So, it took enormous ener gy,
enormous power , all the power I could summon, to reinforce that thoughtand come back out of the infinite space of the Void. At that time, it was a
conscious experience. A less sophisticated or less lucky person would be
convinced that that is the ultimate reality and let go of the last thought and
become as nothingness, which is a paradox in itself, because there is
nothing that can become nothingness. But, that experience of nothingness,
you could probably hang out there for quite a few eons before you’d
discover the error . So, what was the intuitive knowingness coming out of? It was the
intuitive knowingness that the infinite Reality is the quintessence of Love;
that it was the absence of Love in that space that was the warning that
signaled that it was not the perfect space. It was not the ultimate Reality . As
a paperboy , when I’d almost frozen to death and I went into a Divine space
—and the most profound thing of it, beyond all time, beyond all—you
realize that you always existed: before all universes, I am; and after all
universes have gone, I will still prevail, that’ s for sure. Universes are just
nothing. You know that in that space, but the most profound thing is like an
enormous Love of such a quality that there is no ever mistaking it for
anything else again. And the vibration at that level was absent in that
infinite Void. So, that sort of answers the dif ference between salvation and
enlightenment. The infinite Reality as Allness, rather than Voidness. The Void means void of all form. Void of all form, because that which
you “Are” is void of all form—that is correct. So, there’ s a couple of little
misunderstandings of Buddhism that are important to understand. The
ultimate Void means void of dimension. It means it’ s nondualistic. Because
it is no thing ; that’ s why it is All—All. To be All, you can be no thing,
nothing, no thing : void of all form, void of all qualities, void of all
conditions, void of all descriptions. That’ s why it’ s all that is. To be
everywhere, you cannot be any particular place, because if you are in a
particular place, you can’ t be everywhere. That’ s my understanding of it. We’ll ask the Buddha if that’ s right! “That explanation is correct: resist”
(True). So, how does one move up the scale? You do it by choice, by
commitment, by attraction. It’ s really a matter of you choose the light rather
than the darkness; that’ s all it is. Choose light over darkness. You choose
light over darkness, and if you choose light over darkness, you can still
make great mistakes. I remember a mistake. You can make great mistakes,
see, because the calibrated level is intention.OceanofPDF .comCHAPTER 3
The Pathway of Radical Subjectivity
Another question I often get is, “What is radical subjectivity?” It’ s really the
core of that which I teach, or research, or whatever you want to say , to
convey to people. The Presence of God reaches awareness by virtue of the
fact that you are aware that you are. The dif ficulty with religion is, it leads
you elsewhere. The pathway , in fact, we might even call it the “pathway of
radical subjectivity .” The Presence of God is knowable as obvious via
radical subjectivity . In other words, consciousness devoid of content is only
aware that it’ s aware. All truth is subjective. There is no such thing as
“objective” truth. The radical materialist says, “Unless it can be measured
and weighed or defined, it’ s not real.” That’ s scientific materialism—sort
of, unfortunately , the direction that psychiatry is going. The most radical materialist can only say that only the material is real
because, subjectively , that seems so. Do you understand? In the end, you
always end up back with subjectivity . Who concludes that? And what is it
about you that is concluding that? Instantly he’ s thrown back into the fact
that every statement is purely subjective. You can weigh all the evidence,
but there has to be something there that agrees and says yes or no. So, the
inner condition that is necessary before anything can be said or known—
even your own existence—is radical subjectivity . The knowingness, all that
is here that you call yourself, is your presence. Your physicality happens to
be the baggage in this domain, but what makes you here is your presence. Let’s say you go to visit a friend, and you come back again, and your wife
says, “W ell, did you see Geor ge?” “No, he was asleep.” If he’ s asleep, you
didn’ t see Geor ge, even though his body’ s lying there. You didn’ t meet with
Geor ge. Why? Because he’ s not present. Well, if his body was who he was,
you’d say , “Yeah, I saw Geor ge.” “No, he was taking a nap.” The presence
that we appreciate in each other is the presence of your consciousness. So, the dif ference between the two waitresses is, the one waitress is
mechanical. The lady who always asked me, “Are you going to havecoffee”; she calibrates: “Over 200: resist” (T rue); “201: resist” (Not true). Yes, she’ s right at 200. She never looks you in the eye. You know , “Are you
going to have cof fee?” No, I haven’ t had cof fee the last 20 times I was in
here! She never looks at you. That which is unloving has a very hard time
being open and looking at you and revealing to you who they are. When
you look at them, they quickly look away . They cannot sustain a gaze, a
direct gaze; it’ s frightening. The subjectivity , then, is the “presence” of that which you are. The one
who comes and says, “Oh, hey , I haven’ t seen you all week, you going to
have your usual?” She’ s very “present,” you understand what I’m saying? She’s present. The other person is not present. It’ s hiding behind the
physicality of life and the bare-bones form of life, but that person, out of
fear, or lack of evolution of consciousness, probably , just isn’ t that much
“there.”
Radical truth, then, is a purely subjective state. There is no “this” that
experiences a “that.” The only dif ficulty I have with Hinduism is the
concept of union: yoga, as “union” of self with God. You see, a self with
God. Right away , you’ve got two, right? There’ s “you,” and there’ s “God.”
No, to realize that the Self, with a capital S, is the expression of God as your
existence, that is enlightenment. The Source and the manifestation of that
Source are one and the same thing, you understand? The way to reach enlightenment is very simple. First of all, one chooses
it. One tries to find a teacher that calibrates at a level that you can resonate
with. Just because a teacher calibrates very high doesn’ t mean you’re
necessarily going to resonate with him. Your best teacher may be somebody
who’ s just a great pal and makes you change your mind, that you’re not
going to do any more mugging. He’ s a great teacher . There was a famous
teacher of A Course in Miracles  who used to be a mugger . He died some
years ago. He was a mugger on the streets of New York City . He’d say ,
“We’d stand on the street corner , and we just knew who was ‘muggable.’
We just knew this one was easy .” He then later sort of converted and
became a teacher of A Course in Miracles . Anyway , we’re all interested in spirituality as a subject, as a direction to
go. So, most people are reasonably intelligent who choose this kind of a
pathway , and they may check it out. Some people go directly into a religion
and just follow that religion sort of rotely . Other people, there’ s a certain
period of searching, a sort of turning around and looking for greatermeaning in life; or they may read something that inspires them, and for
karmic reasons unknown. Or there may be a period of life. Your life may be
very unspiritual and then suddenly , wham ! You’re suddenly interested—it’ s
as though that cycle of life has come up now , and now this priority is
coming up. You find a teacher to whom you can relate. He needs to make
sense. It has to be a person that you can relate to. Then the next thing would
be to check that person out with kinesiology or get somebody that knows
how to do it. A thing like kinesiology is boring, but there’ s a lot of people
who do it. Or I’m going to try to list everyone I can think of in this next
book I’m going to come out with. You can just look him up in the “stand on your head and breathe through
your nose” group, because there are all kinds of strange teachings. Some of
them are so outlandish, I don’ t know how anybody could assume there’ s
any truth to them, but they do. So, the fact that it is in a spiritual library or
spiritual bookstore doesn’ t mean anything, and I’ve said many a time—
everybody’ s heard me say it—you can go through your spiritual bookstore
at home: all the books that make you go weak, throw them in one pile, and
all the books that make you strong, throw them in another pile, and you will
see right away what is sort of astral diversion and that which is truth. All the
books about the end times coming and all, you find they’ll end up on this
pile over here. A lot of channelings by “Baba this” and “Baba that.” The
word “Baba,” for some reason, itself is not so great. “The term ‘Baba’
calibrates over 200: resist” (T rue). “The term ‘Baba’  as used in modern
America is over 200: resist” (T rue); “202” (Not true). Baba’ s not such a
great title. So, you try to find somebody to whom you can resonate; it
makes sense. If there’ s a teacher around, great—find one who calibrates
reasonably high. See, enlightenment is dif ferent than salvation. It doesn’ t have anything to
do with good personhood. It has nothing to do with good personhood. It has
to do with a drive to realize the truth. The teachings of the Buddha are, of
course, the traditional. The ancient Vedas have profound truth. You try to
find something that there’ s enough information so as to be comprehensible. There are a number of teachers in the 700s who I respect and refer to. Their
teachings are cryptic. There’ s no explanation so that you can’ t make it work
for you. You just start to feel bad that you haven’ t reached the level where
you can understand what that means, but there isn’ t sufficient meat to the
bones. So, some teachings, to me, are just too bare-bones. So, anyway , youwant to calibrate the level of the teacher or the writing, or the book, the
mantra, whatever way you’re following. The direct path—the direct path—
is through consciousness itself. There is a teacher I hold in high esteem in Korea. If you ask her , “What
school do you represent?” She says, “None.” I said, “What do you do?” She
said, “W e just meditate.” So her way , then, is to discover the truth through
consciousness itself, which is what I wrote about in The Eye of the I . When you sit down to meditate, you notice that the mind is constantly
racing and running around. A lot of the teachings try to teach you how to
control it. You can’ t control it. You don’ t have any control over the mind. The mind exists of its own nature, and it just runs about and does its own
thing, just like the body does. There’ s no point to try to control it. What you
do is, you observe what it is that’ s witnessing and aware of the thoughts is. The first thing to do is to realize, “I am not the body .” The next thing to
realize is, “I am not the thoughts.” You know you’re not the thoughts, and
you know you’re not the mind, because if you told the mind, “Stop
thinking,” if you were the mind, it would stop. Try telling your mind, “Stop
thinking.” It couldn’ t care less what you said. It goes right on thinking. Now , if you were the mind, it would just obey you, and it would stop
thinking. The fact that it doesn’ t stop thinking is because you are not the
mind. The mind belongs to the world like the body does. You can tell the
body to go without oxygen, but it won’ t last too long. The body is a
manifestation of the world, and so is the mind. Its content is programmed
by society , and you don’ t have any control over that either . There is a substrate. What is it that God programmed there? So, the
innate nature of the mind is the hardware. The thoughts are the software. What happens is, the innocent mind comes in: consciousness with no
content. However , it has proclivities which are karmic; proclivities, but no
specific content. Then society starts to program it, and so the software
begins to pour in. So, when you start to meditate, what’ s happening is sort
of that your hardware is looking at your software. The innate innocence, the
capacity for awareness without any content, is still existent within you. The
only reason you realize that the mind is thinking is because the thinkingness
is happening against a background of non-thinkingness. The only reason
you can hear sound is because sound occurs against a background of
silence.There’ s a lot of noise, you can’ t hear what’ s being said. It’ s only because
the somethingness is only apparent, superimposed, within a field of
nothingness of no sound. The same with form: because of the emptiness of
space, you can witness form. If this room were full of cardboard boxes, we
couldn’ t even see each other . Right? It’ s because of the absence, because of
the void, that the form stands out. So it’ s against the background of silence
that I hear . It’s against the emptiness of space that I can witness, right? Similar with the mind—it’ s only because the screen upon which the mind is
playing is blank that you can know what the mind is thinking, correct? It’s the absence of form that allows you to witness this word, then this
word, or this picture, this memory . So the field, then, is blank. The only
reason you can see what’ s up there is because that’ s a blank screen, right? If
that was full up, if it was a Jackson Pollock picture, you wouldn’ t know
what’ s being said. Let’ s all be a Jackson Pollock picture. We just read a nice article on Jackson Pollock; it has to do with chaos
theory . The drippings on the canvas really can be traced through chaos
theory . There’ s a pattern you see—you know , chaos theory is that behind
what appears to be chance, there’ s actually an or ganizing field. So that the
content of consciousness, then, the content itself tends to come in, through
these few levels of consciousness, against the invisible background of the
absence of form, appears form in the form of thought. All right, so the first
thing to observe is that the only way you know what the mind is thinking is
by observation. So instead of identifying with the content of the movie, you
become aware that you are the witness, the observer of the movie. So you
get out of the melodrama. If you think you’re one of the figures in the
movie, you get sucked into the movie, right? You get sucked into the drama. And you start having feelings about these thoughts. All right; one step
removed from identifying with the thoughts is me, my thoughts, is to realize
that I am not the thoughts. I am the witness of the thoughts. I am the
witness. Next, step back, I am the observer . I am the observer , the witness. It isn’ t
the thoughts; it’ s the experience of the thoughts. So you’re the experiencer ,
witness-observer . What is it that’ s witnessing and observing? You’re still
going to call that odd, see. We’re trying to get back from identifying with
what’ s out there. First you think, “I’m the body”; then you think, “I’m the
mind.” I think, “I’m the thoughts.” As you pull back, yeah, it’ s obvious that
you’re the witness, the observer , the experiencer . Now , try telling your mindto stop witnessing, observing. And you’ll see that you can’ t, because that’ s
not you either . Witnessing and observing is a quality of consciousness. It’ s
not you. Everybody’ s consciousness witnesses and observes. It’ s an
impersonal. So you see, what we’re going to do is stop personalizing
everything, and see that this is happening of its own. There’ s no volition on
your part to be aware of what’ s going on. You don’ t have any choice in the
matter . These conditions are impersonal to witness, observe, experience; the
content of mind, to be aware of form, that’ s all impersonal. That goes with
the hardware. So you draw back from being a subject in the movie, in the
drama of what’ s happening out there, to being the witness of the subject
that’s experiencing it. In the void, you’re part of the observer . And how
does one know? How does the observer even know that it’ s observing? It’ s
because it’ s conscious. So, you let go the identifications with all of that, and
you see that consciousness is what is allowing all these phenomena. At this
point, one thinks one is the consciousness. So you see, you stopped
identifying with the movie; you’re the witness of the movie, the observer ,
the experiencer . You move back to the awareness: that is consciousness
itself that is doing this. Consciousness itself is impersonal. Awareness, then,
arises. The awareness that one is conscious—awareness is not something that
you have any control over; it is not you either . That out of which
consciousness arises is non-form, non-form. It arises out of a presence, it
arises out of the Source; one moves back from the manifest to the
Unmanifest—as a potentiality , the potentiality to be aware. In becoming
manifest, one goes from the Unmanifest into the potentiality to become
manifest, as the conscious awareness. The awareness is impersonal. It is the
source out of which all existence arises. The substrate of all that is, one
might say , that the allness of manifestation arises out of the Unmanifest,
that which is the infinite source of the potentiality for existence itself—not
even existence, but the potentiality for existence, is what Krishna calls the
Supreme. It is the source as being not dif ferent than that which you are. The
minute—as soon as this depersonalized one realizes, it is beyond all time,
beyond all existence. I realized that at age 12 in the snowbank. The presence came in with such
impact of Divine exquisiteness, and the knowingness arises out of that field. The knowingness arises out of the field. The knowingness is so absolute. Henceforth, one knows on a level of knowing which the ego cannotexperience. The ego can claim to know something. But it has no verification
of its knowingness. It’ s a presumption. The ego can only presume that it
knows; it doesn’ t really know that it knows. It has no confirmation. The
presence renders an absolute authority that is absolute. The presence is so
stunningly overwhelming, obvious, and it stops all thought; there is no
question left to question. There is no “this” to question about “that.” That
which “is” is all that is. Therefore, there’ s no question to ask, because it’ s
the absoluteness of self-identity . The absoluteness of self-identity is a little
hard to describe. One day the cat was sitting in the middle of the carpet, the absolute
perfection of its cat-ness, the absolute perfection to the degree to which the
cat was being that which it is, with no excuse, no explanation—just
stunningly revealed itself. It just is what it is. And each thing can only be
what it is. Except perfectly . So one sees instantly the perfection of all creation. Everything is
stunningly beautiful. There is no good tree or a bad tree. They are just
equally perfect. And in that perfection is the innate beauty of creation. Each thing becomes a living sculpture, each thing is a sculpture. And
after that condition prevailed, walking down an alley in New York City , I
saw, like an incredible painting by an impressionist, the garbage can all
crooked over like this. And the garbage all lying there. And you see, you
take an eggshell, it’ s an egg; you take an orange, and it’ s orange. You turn
them all up and put them together and put them in a can, and now it’ s called
garbage. It hasn’ t become dif ferent than what it is, but its appearance is
different. So then you see the perfection of all things, you know . And you see the
tissue coming out of the Kleenex box is gone. And you see that it’ s like a
Geor gia O’Keef fe painting. You look at the Kleenex as it stands out there—
incredible beauty as it stands there. You see its perfection, you understand? Its beauty is perfection. So beauty is, then, the perfection to which we can
see a thing as it has become. In a meditative state—the reason it is said that
this method is not necessarily suitable for the masses at this time is because
when you decide to walk the edge of the knife, there can be no deviation. There comes an accumulation of spiritual ener gy, I think, from the heart. It
is the inspiration of one’ s Love for God and for the truth—gives you the
profound commitment, the same as to walk into a hail of gunfire for your
country or be a kamikaze pilot, that level of commitment comes forth. Nowevery thought that arises, as it begins to arise, you surrender it to God. As
you watch the thoughts arise, you will see they’re like the waves of an
ocean. The thought arises, it crests in its most manifest, complete form and
dies away . You’ll notice that the content of your mind is like music. No
sooner has the note sounded than it is already fading, and the next note is
already fading. And the next note. As this note arises, it is already in the
process of fading, is it not? Which perception of the ego calls creation and
destruction, you see? But you can see that’ s just an illusion. If you’re on
this side of the wave, you say it’ s creation; if you’re on this side, you say
it’s destruction. Neither one. That’ s the dance of Shiva depending on which
way you see it. The dance of Shiva, destruction and construction, is only a
shift of perception, and on this side of the wave, it looks like it’ s creating,
and on this, it looks like it’ s destroying. That’ s only how you’re looking at
it. You’ll notice that the thought begins, the thought is arising. It’ s like a
drive to think. There is an addiction to thinkingness. The ego thrives on
thinkingness. The one thing the ego dreads is silence. And it’ s true, what the Buddha said: that reality is glimpsed between two
thoughts. That was very frustrating when I first heard that when I was
young. Good, geez—how can you get between two thoughts? I tried to get
between two thoughts. You can’ t get between two thoughts. I tried to stop the mind so I could get to see between the thoughts, you
know . I couldn’ t stop the mind. There, you’ll notice you let go being
interested in thriving of f the drama of your thinkingness. Your thoughts are
always creating a story—story about the past, what was, or a story about the
future. So the reality , the subjective reality about which we’re speaking, is
in the split instant of now; the split instant of now is the source of the joy of
your own existence. It arises out of the moment, you see. That’ s always there. I have to sit on
it, because—all right, one afternoon you say , “The hell with it, I’m gonna
do it now .” Okay . You sit down, you watch these thoughts. You see the
thoughts are creating a story , and you’re entranced with the story—the
melodrama sadness of your life and the horrible things that have happened
to you. And all the fears of tomorrow . And so you write a whole story , a
whole melodrama of your life, and you’re in love with it. Why are you in
love with it? Well, because you’re the star of the show , right? It’s your wonderful life. That it felt sad when your grandmother died and
you lost your job and your cat was run over—I mean, God, you can workthat one for a lot. And you got a terrible disease, and you only got three
years to live, and you’re getting old, you’re going to croak one of these
days. And now it’ s worrying you. You’re running out of money and the
rent’s due. So you have to catch yourself that you are getting of f on this
melodrama, you’re getting of f on it, and you get a payof f out of it. And you
have to be willing to surrender this to God. Therefore, the consciousness,
Advaita, the whole Zen Buddhist practice, is really based on tremendous
heart. You’ve got to have a lot of Love to be willing to let go the narcissism
of this self-infatuation. Would I be willing to let that go for the Love of
God? “Almighty God, I do ask thee thr ough thy Lor d Jesus Christ and the
Holy Spirit, to assist me in this endeavor .” And with great intensity , you
start surrendering these things: “W ould I be willing to let that go for God? Would I be willing to let that go? Would I be willing to let go of the
enjoyment I’m getting out of this story?” All right, the story gets less and
less. I think the real knife that cuts through it is the heart. People like to
separate the way of the head and the way of the heart, but it’ s only because
of your heart in this matter . It’s only because of the heart that you’re willing
to die for Jesus or die for truth or surrender your mind for truth; it’ s really
coming from the heart. All right, so you’re willing to surrender these
thoughts. As you do this, you stop chopping the story , cutting the story
short. You don’ t let yourself go all through your great-grandmother ’s
funeral and all; you stop first in the middle of the recall. You say , “I’m not
going to indulge in that.” And then a new story comes up. The constant
willingness to surrender it to God, surrender to God, to let it go, to let the
willingness to let it not evolve into form, to not let it evolve into a
heartrending drama—you’ve got to give up the heartrending dramas. So you’ll catch that: the mind is in the trick of juicing every story . It
juices it for the melodrama, for the grief. It juices for the grief, for the
anger , for the resentment, for the indignation, for the being right. It’ s the
great juicer , so you’ve got to be willing to let go—the great mental juicer
that tries to squeeze the story out. You either love God more than that or
you love that more than God, so that separates the goats from the sheep. The willingness to go further is the willingness to sacrifice all that and let it
go. So as the thought comes up, you let it go; as the thought comes up, you
let it go. You see, as it begins to crest, it begins to take form.There’ s two practices that would help you with this. You don’ t want to
get caught by the thoughts. See, they’ve all got hooks on them. They’ve all
got hooks on them, they’ve all got hooks on them. That’ s why the news
annoys me, because they purposely put hooks on it. They’re doing that to
you. And it’ s so apparent that they’re doing it too. It’ s not arising
spontaneously . They’re programming it, you know . There’ s two ways to
train. One is, you see when you’re riding in a car , you spot something along
the road, and as you go along, your eye attracts it, right? It reads and looks
at the billboard, it looks at the cow walking by , it’s looking at the scenery ,
it’s looking at the architecture—so your mind is tracking onto this and
following it through, okay? That’ s what your mind ordinarily does. When
you’re looking at your mind, it gets onto a story; it follows the story . The
way to train your mind—so, you’ll sort of see what it’ s like—when you’re
riding in the car as a passenger , you pick a slot in the window through
which you look, you understand? You look at the window right here; now
everything is passing. This way you’re not tracking it, see? This way your
vision is caught by the subject of your interest, correct? You constantly go
from this to that; that’ s how your mind is working all day . This catches it for
a while. This catches it for a while. All right. But now you’re going to
practice something when you look through the window , and your project is
to keep your eye at this place in the window no matter what goes through. Now stuf f goes passing by . The dif ference is, you’re not attached to it;
you’re detached. See? You can’ t pull back to the mind so long as you’re attached to its content
and its emotional payof f. You witness the thoughts going by in meditation,
you witness them going by , you don’ t allow them to take hold, you watch
how your emotions want to come up and milk them for a story , for a kick. No, you refuse that. So you refuse the emotional payof f—every thought has
a payof f, or you wouldn’ t have a thought. Every thought has a payof f.
Every thought is a positionality , and you have a positionality because every
positionality gives you a payof f—the payof f of being right, the payof f of
being a victim, right? Every thought has a payof f. All right, so what you’re
letting go is really the payof fs, the emotional attachment to these thoughts. The images come up. As you do this, the willingness to let this go, let this
go before the note even hits the crest, you’ve already let it go. You’re not
trying to hang on to it, because the new music is coming up, you
understand? So you’re staying on the edge of the knife, and as the thoughtscome up, there’ s a letting go of it. So a feeling of, like, dogginess begins to
arise, and you let it go before it even becomes good old Luke who got run
over by the tractor . Yeah, you don’ t let the story get that far , your
willingness to surrender . As you do this, you get more to the source of the
thinkingness itself, and you’ll notice the thinkingness is coming out of some
kind of a primordial ener gy that is prior to form. Out of the formless ener gy,
there’ s a desire and an addiction to thinkingness, which then begins to
express itself as form. So as you start this, you have long stories. Then, as
you keep letting the stories go, they become short paragraphs; then they
become sentences. Then you let the thought go before it’ s even a sentence,
before it’ s even a completed word or image, and you get that there is a
source out of which all thinkingness is coming—the primordial, out of
which thinkingness is arising like the lava in the middle of a volcano before
it erupts and takes form in the world. You detect that that boiling wish, that
pressure of thinkingness, is what you then surrender to God. In an instant, all thinkingness disappears; the presence is all-prevailing,
like a rush into the space created by the absence of the ego. That which “is”
stands forth and is so stunning, you wonder how you ever paid attention to
anything else. It then takes over the life, and it does whatever it does. To
teach or not to teach, to give lectures, to write, has nothing to do with
anything except that it does it by itself. The consciousness does that. The
consciousness speaks of its own. I don’ t have to tell consciousness to speak;
it speaks of its own. If it wants to demonstrate a Pollock painting, it does so. There’ s no thinkingness to it. The one thing that made the mind useful for many years, there was no
way to relate to the world. It didn’ t talk about anything comprehensive or
sensible. The body went about its own business. There was no way to tell
anybody what the condition was about. I never mentioned it until I wrote
about it in ’95. What do you do—walk down the street, tap somebody on
the shoulder , say: “Guess what, I just discovered that the ultimate truth is
the subjective reality of the Self as the All-Present Awareness of Allness”? No, things just happened of their own. And it took a while to get used to
the fact that everybody talks to the body and calls it this name. And it’ s
always interesting to me, what’ s going to be said—I haven’ t the slightest
idea what’ s going to be said. You hear it the same time I do. Wow. Sometimes it’ s terrific, you know . One thing it did do in how to relate to
people was, it was very comical—the mind’ s response to some quality ofhumor , humor that seems to be innate in its compensation, because you
could leave the world at any time once that ener gy comes to you; you’re
free to walk out of it. And one compensation I get for walking around and
talking is this sense of humor . It comes up sometimes, it’ s so funny . And
people will say , “You laugh at your own jokes.” They’re not my jokes; I
have nothing to do with them. They came out of the blue fully formed in the
way in which I got them. They break me up hysterically . I don’ t know
where they come from. But sometimes the most funny things just appear ,
and they just appear out of nowhere and then continuously do that. All right, so that pathway , direct through the mind, is how you get
through sur gery without anesthesia. It’ s also how you heal yourself of
things. And people have watched it happen, where you fall down and you’re
injured, and the first thing you do is, you don’ t label it. You don’ t call it
anything, like “sprained ankle”—the willingness to let go labeling it; the
next thing is to let go resisting what it is you’re experiencing. Next thing to
do is let go calling it “pain.” These are all labels and names. Radical reality
has no names or form or labels. You don’ t call it anything. You let go
resisting whatever has happened. You don’ t even call it “sensation,” as you
let go resisting the pain. The pain leaves your ankle and becomes general
throughout your aura, it’ s equally present everywhere. You know the system
is working, you let go resisting whatever you’re experiencing. You don’ t
call it nausea. You don’ t call it the flu. You don’ t give them a name like
“aller gy.” You create all those things by labeling them. You give no name,
you let go resisting it. As you do, you feel it in your whole aura. You
continue to let go resisting it. As you do, it disappears and you get up and
walk away . So if you’re having sur gery and there’ s no anesthesia, I’ll tell you: you
walk the edge of that knife. The slightest resistance to the pain is
excruciating. As you continuously let go resisting the pain, you transcend it, like into
an angelic space in which there is no pain; nor is there capacity to
experience pain in the angelic realm. Yeah, so the angelic realm—is that an
angelic realm? Yeah, that is an angelic realm. It was very aware that the
Spirit was being uplifted by the angelic to a domain in which this physical
pain was not experienceable. Anyway , that was just a side issue. As you do intense spiritual work, all kinds of phenomena come and go,
you know . There was a period of time when all the so-called siddhis, thesiddhis came and went. There was—the minute you touched something, you
knew exactly who it was who wrote it, where they came from; you give
them their life story . That’ s got a name, I for get what it is. What’ s the name
of that, do you know? Psychometry! Yeah. That came and went all by itself,
and somebody’ s scarf was in my of fice back east, and I picked up the scarf. And I got it was “Estelle, my secretary ,” went out those thoughts. “Y ou
would have to have seen it. How did you know that it was mine?” I don’ t
know . “It” said it. So, it was psychometry . There was clairvoyance. There was distance
viewing. I drove around states where I’d never been before, without a map,
and drove directly to where I was going—all around Florida, where there’ s
a million lakes in all. You just knew where to go, you hold where you are
going to go and automatically , you drove there. There was all kinds of
psychic phenomena. And you always knew what everybody was thinking. You were telepathic and all that stuf f. All that came of its own. That’ s all the
so-called supernatural, paranormal, psychic, whatever you want to call it. It
came of its own and it went of its own. Happily , I knew not to get attached
to it, and I just witnessed it. You could fix electrical equipment—that still
happens sometimes too. You just see it as being well. Amplifier is blown
out, and you just see that the amplifier is perfectly fine. All of a sudden, the
amplifier starts; then the person next to you says, “How did you do that?” I
said, “W ell, you do A Course in Miracles .” He says, “I like that. Can I do
the Course of Miracles?” I say , “I happen to have one volume—here.”
“Thank you so much!” And I never saw him again. So those things happen
because of the ener gy of that aura, that particular ener gy level. Sick people
get well; they come and sit down next to you and they’re all crippled up and
hallucinating and God knows what, and walk up whistling and feel fine. It’ s
all gone. You just witness it happen. It happens of its own. You have
nothing to do with it. People who do A Course in Miracles  have that same
experience—that healing ener gy. I don’ t know what level that ener gy is. Let’s see what that is; I don’ t know what it is. “That phenomenon was over
600: resist”—“that was the ener gy of the presence: resist”—the ener gy of
the presence as what? The ener gy of the presence—Oh, “the ener gy of the
presence as aura: resist.” Okay , so the presence can express itself through
aura. That aura was over 600, 650, 680, 690, 700. When your ener gy of the
aura is around 700, it is capable of the so-called supernatural. Anyway , it’s
advised in all good teachings to not get involved with that, nor to pursue itfor its own sake. Not to pursue it for its own sake because it gets to be an
ego trip and you start to tell everybody that you’re this, that, and the other
thing. Also, it’ s not reliable. So these so-called scientific tests to see
whether people have psychic phenomena are not real; the whole test is
designed in such a way that it’ s erroneous. Those gifts come and they go;
you can’ t just set up a laboratory experiment to see if you can count more
fish in the bowl on the computer . It doesn’ t work that way . It comes and it
goes. And the person has nothing to do with it. Those gifts come and they
go; the gift arises because of some need within the world, and then it leaves. I remember once there was this lady waiting under the clock in the Plaza
Hotel. She was clearly hallucinating—going on and on about somebody
supposed to meet her under the clock. And I was quite aware it was a
delusion, and God knows all this. Anyway , the ener gy just prevailed. And pretty soon she got up happy ,
gave up the whole story , and walked away fine. So those phenomena
happen, you see, but there’ s no personal self that chooses that. I think it says
that in A Course in Miracles  too—that the healing capacity will arise from
the need through the Holy Spirit; it has nothing to do with you and your
willingness to be there. So sometimes you would feel like a transmitter—
you would feel almost like a Divine ener gy going through you and coming
out the heart, traveling somewhere and accomplishing some spiritual
healing, I guess, and then the ener gy would stop of its own, you know . It
had nothing to do with you; you were just sort of handy there. All right, so
that’s the way through consciousness itself. To understand the nature of
consciousness—we’ll get more into the content of consciousness when we
look at positionalities. So, the big thing that creates the block is the
propensity of the mind to take a position and then from that position, be in
conflict about seeming dualities. I have to choose this or choose that—the
so-called great block of the opposites, which at the highest level, is as I
talked about before, had to do with existence versus nonexistence: “isness”
versus “beingness” versus “goodness” versus et cetera. And the solution to
that, then, is that there is no opposite to God. Truth prevails as it filters
down. Humankind is like the forest for the trees and the leaves in the forest,
so the sun is very bright and then as it filters down, it filters down and it
becomes darker and darker and gives our society its form. Muscle T esting: A Logarithmic ScaleHow can you calibrate an archangel? Well, that has to do with calibrations. When you calibrate something, you say “on a scale of 1 to 1,000.” You can
say on this scale, or you can make up your own scale. You do not have to
use this scale. You can say “on a scale of 1 to 1,000, where 200 is dividing
between truth and falsehood, this person calibrates at such and such.” If you
don’t specify or hold in mind a specific scale, you can come up with any
number . See, scales are by agreement. “On a scale where water boils at 212
and freezes at 32, the temperature of this is so-and-so.” But you could use
any number , see? You can use centigrade or you can use Fahrenheit. You
can make up your own scale; you don’ t need this scale.
_OceanofPDF.com_The_Path_to_Spiritual_Advancement_-_David_R_Hawkins.txt
Summarize the following text section accurately and concisely. Maintain specific details and numerical information, and use anti-repetition mechanisms:

        The awareness that the Self is the source of an infinite series, of an
infinite series, of an infinite series of dimensions calibrates over what. “Calibrates over 1,000” (T rue); “1,100” (T rue); “1,200” (T rue); “1,250”
(True); “1,280” (T rue); “1,290” (Not true). That which is the source of
one’s Self is also the Source of all the dimensions; you’re not limited to just
this dimension. You are only expressing yourself as this dimension. That’ s
just a recent discovery. To understand, then, your relationship to God and karma—karma is
merely what one has become throughout the various lifetimes. At 600, you
see there’ s only one lifetime. You see that—they are not an infinite number,
but quite a few incarnations. It’ s just a recall of one life. It’ s this life one
remembers—being a pickpocket in Paris and various things like that. It’ s
only just within memory; it’ s just who you are, or had been, and what was
learned there. Therefore, what you’ve become automatically goes as a continuum. It’ s
just one life you have. There’ s only one life. There are not multiple lives. There’ s no such thing as going from life to non-life, and then back to life,
and then incarnating, and all. There’ s only one life, and so long as you
identify with the body, you limit the memory to this body’ s life. As you no
longer identify “me” or the self as this physicality, then the memory of all
the other lifetimes comes back. Many people have memories of previous
lifetimes when they go out of the body. Once they escape this body, they
can see all the lives. So, karma, then, is merely the accumulated ener gy. So, every action
affects your calibrated level of consciousness. So the spirit body, which has
a classic name, is sort of like a little computer. It keeps track of where you
are in time and space and all your merits, demerits, et cetera. So, that brings us to a recalibration. This is a great moment in time. We
are going to change these calibrated levels of consciousness. You don’ t
want somebody in the 700s as president of the United States. It just won’ t
work. They wouldn’ t have any interest at all. We found that great leaders of
great religions should be around 570. You cannot run a huge or ganization,
like the Catholic Church, over 600. It wouldn’ t make any sense at all. And
you don’ t have enough power, spiritual power, in the 400s. At 570, we have
Pope John Paul II. 570 is Unconditional Love—he tries to bring everybodytogether and heal up the past as best he can. The Dalai Lama runs around
570. If you’re going to be the great leader of a great world church, you
ought to be around the ideal of 570. If you want to be the president of the
United States, you’d better be around 450. All the great presidents are really
around 450. The signers of the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence were more in the 500s. And the Constitution of the United
States calibrates at 700, higher than any country I know of. But, to be a
president, you’d better be smart and around 450. 450 is the intellect, the
capacity to really handle this world. If you’re going to be a great political
leader, you’d better be around 450, or you’re going to get your socks beat
off. At 500 and up, one isn’ t interested in that anymore. Worldly power is
uninteresting, and politics are only interesting to the degree that they reflect
a certain spiritual truth. What I wanted to do is to say is that one is not
better than the other. And many of my favorite people are in the 300s. They’re very willing. 310 is Willingness. “Y eah, let me do it, let me help;
let me. ” They’re great people to be with; they’d build the whole world. The whole world is built by people in the 300s. We have a crew working for
us that has a little white dog. This little white dog, whom I never met before
—here’ s this workman, he’ s a one-dog contractor. You know, they come
with one dog, two dogs, et cetera. This little dog goes everywhere with him,
loyal as can be. So, here’ s this white dog, whom I’d never met before and
he’d never met me, and this dog comes right over, just instantly loving you
—instantly loving you; just glad to see you and, “Gosh, let’ s be friends. ”
And boy, instantly, we are like intimate loving pals. Instant Love, huh. We
calibrated that dog. Let’ s do that dog. That dog, who is up in the audience
right now. “That dog, we have permission, right. ” (T rue); “He’ s 500”
(True); “He’ s over 5” (T rue); “501” (T rue); “502” (T rue); “504” (T rue);
“505” (T rue); “506” (T rue); “507” (T rue); “508” (Not true). He’ s about 505
to 508. Pure Love, huh. The first time I calibrated a dog’ s wagging tail and got
500, I said, “Whoa, half the people on the planet don’ t. ” We calibrated our
cat’s purr. Let’ s get Kitty’ s purr. Oh, I love that kitty. Kitty’ s purr is over
500: resist” (T rue); “502” (T rue); “504” (T rue); “505” (Not true). Kitty’ s
purr. Kitty just sits there, just radiating pure Love. So, here, Love comes
through the animal kingdom without intellect. People look down on the
animal because it doesn’ t have intellect. See, that’ s the ego. They say, “Theanimals don’ t have an ego. ” Can’ t get screwed up like humans. This dog
just comes over and loves you, like that. Isn’ t that great. No wonder people
love their animals. People say, “Why, he’s sick. He thinks more about his
dog than he does other people. ” Well, the people around him calibrate about
190, and his dog calibrates at 500. Isn’t that strange, huh. That Love comes up then—it is like two channels. One is a channel of that which is venomous, poisonous, hatred, and it brings
about death. Then there’ s that which is nurturing, benign, peaceful, and
serves as an avenue for Love. In my view, Love manifested within the
physical domain by motherhood. There was no Love—the dinosaur doesn’ t
love its eggs. It just lays an egg and goes of f, right. There’ s the maternal,
the mother who cares about the child. That’ s when Love began to shine on
the earth. There was no Love in the world of dinosaurs. Show me some
Love in the world of dinosaurs—it doesn’ t exist there. Everything eats
everything else. Levels of Consciousness Are Different, Not Better
I just got of f on that tangent because I didn’ t want people to think that
“this” is better than “that. ” Somebody at 700 is not suitable as a carpenter,
is not suitable to run a church, is not suitable as a president. You don’ t want
anybody at 700; most of them can’ t function at all. They just sit in their
ashram, and if they still survive, people come and say hello to them, and
they smile happily at them, and that’ s that. You don’ t want people down at
the bottom, either. There’ s one restaurant [where] I used to eat breakfast,
and I stopped going there because of the low calibration of the waitress. The
calibration of the waitress was so bad, I couldn’ t handle it. I would go there
all the time in Prescott, and every time I’d go there, she’d say, “Do you
want a menu. ” Like she never saw me before. “Y ou want a menu. ” Sort of
confrontational. “Y ou want cof fee. ” I’d ordered tea the last 20 times. I’m
the only customer in the restaurant at that time—there’ s nobody else. Every
Tuesday morning for months, I’d ordered the same thing. “Y ou want
coffee. ” No. She never stops talking. She’ s opinionated about everything. I
can’t stand the ener gy of this place. It was convenient, that’ s all. All right. She calibrates—I don’ t want to calibrate her. Then there’ s another restaurant I go to, and they say, “Oh, hi, I haven’ t
seen you all week. You want tea. You want your usual. ” That’ s where I eatevery morning—Monday, Wednesday, and Friday morning. They know
what you want. Of course  they recognize you; you’ve been there every
freaking morning, you know what I’m saying. When we wrote the book Power vs. For ce, 85 percent of the world’ s
population calibrated below 200. That leaves us 15 percent here in the 200s,
who are the builders of the world, the construction workers, the
steelworkers, the people who go to work every day. They’re the backbone
of our society, and the 200s and the 300s. The 400s is the world of the
intellect and reason that dominates America; 500 is rare; 540 is extremely
rare, and from 540 and up, there’ s practically nobody. The thing is that their
power is so enormous that they counterbalance the rest of the whole
population. That which is over 200 is integrity. So, integrity means honesty, the
honesty of one’ s convictions, and, if in truth, you cannot find God through
the intellect, which is what I tried to do—you cannot find God through the
intellect. And you have to really warp logic a little bit to get there. And, going through God as “first cause”: if you go back through this—as
we were talking about “causality”—you’d say, well, “God is ‘first cause. ’”
No, that can’ t be, because the sequence is not of “sameness. ” You suddenly
come to “dif ferentness. ” The quality of God is not the same as the quality of
the supposed ef fect, so you cannot find the original billiard ball behind all
the billiard balls. Because when you get past number one, there are no
billiard balls there. You will not find another billiard ball behind billiard
ball number one. If you can see through that conundrum, that’ s like a koan,
and you’ll become enlightened.
505
What is the calibration level of the dog that the author calibrates?
200
What is the calibration level of the waitress who always asked the author if he wanted coffee?
To explain that one is not better than the other
What is the purpose of the book "Power vs. Force"?
Enlightenment has nothing to do with good personhood
What is the main difference between enlightenment and salvation?
Not specified (there is no direct mention of the book's purpose in the provided text)
What is the purpose of the book "A Course in Miracles"?