If you realize it is just
the persistence of the animal, you can get of f moralizing about it. And if
you can get of f moralizing about it, you can avoid spiritual guilt. If you’ve
listened to enough confessions, you’ll realize that everybody’ s ego is the
same. The next penitent in the booth is just going to tell you the same thing
the last 10 thousand told you. “I lied to my mother .” “I cheated on my
wife.” “I’m lusting after my secretary .” “I took pens home from the of fice.”
“I stole paper clips.” I mean, what does the ego do? It’ s acquisitive, huh? And it’ s carnal. And it’ s lascivious and libidinous, and it gets hooked on
those things. So the dif ficulty with addiction is, it gets hooked on it. So, the first thing we do is try to grasp the totality of the ego, and the best
way is to contextualize how it evolved throughout all of history , which is
what I’m doing in this current book. The reason I disagree with the textbook
—I like A Course in Miracles ; I think it’ s a great thing. I mean, it just blows
you out when you read the sentence, “My thoughts don’ t mean anything.”
Whoa! Somebody with a college education—“ my thoughts don’ t mean
anything? ” I drove a cab all those years to polish up my thoughts, and now
you tell me they don’ t mean anything. Well, because spiritually motivated
people are generally in the 400s, I like A Course in Miracles  because it
tends to disassemble the ego as the great thing at which we genuflect. I
mean, “My thoughts don’ t mean anything”; that’ s my favorite from A
Course in Miracles. But I don’ t like the textbook, because the textbook, I
think, was sourced from a somewhat dif ferent source than the workbook. It
tends to polarize one with the ego and pictures the ego as one’ s enemy , an
evil enemy . The animal isn’ t evil; it’ s just animal. The willingness to surrender the lesser for the greater is all that’ s
required: the willingness to question the validity of anything below 200. Let’s say you hate somebody , and that hate is “justified.” In fact, as a matter
of fact, you don’ t have to go over and over the fact that it’ s justified; you
should grant the ego its wish right in the beginning and say , “Yes, it is
justified.” It is justified. He ran of f with your wife, ruined your business,
burned down your house, and you’re pissed at him, right. That’ s that oldjoke: The guy standing on the street corner , and his wife has run of f, his
house has burned down, he’ s been fired, and he says, “I don’ t know , God,
why me?” And he hears this voice coming out of the heavens: “I don’ t
know , Geor ge, there’ s just something about you pisses me of f.” Nothing
like bad karma to turn a guy into an atheist, huh? So, how can the ego be surrendered to God? First is to become
acquainted with what is the ego. It’ s a persistence of the animal instinct, but
now elaborated through mind, the intellect, and given authenticity by the
mutual agreement of society . For many years I ignored current events. I
didn’ t read a newspaper or listen to radio for years and years. Somebody did
a make-wrong about it, and I bought it. I let go of the make-wrong about
paying attention to the world. That make-wrong is a misinterpretation of the
calibrated level of 700, where, let’ s say , Ramana Maharshi says, “There is
no point in trying to change the world, because the world that you see
doesn’ t exist,” which is true within a certain context. Within another
context, the world is the drama of the ego. I find it fascinating, because
what you see is every ego mechanism played out on a grand stage. So if you
want to understand your ego, what you try to do is comprehend what goes
on in the world and see it in terms of the ego, and you then understand
yourself. And you understand the fallacy of the many positions that pertain
and are popularized in society—you see right through the fallacy in a way
that is expressible through languaging. From the nonlinear domain, you see
the idiocy of it. You don’ t see it as idiocy , but you see beyond it; but you
can’t explain it. It takes years to learn how to relanguage things in a fluent
way to explain that which is obvious so that it makes sense to the intellect. Being a student of the world, then, you’re really a student of the ego. Letting go wanting to change it in the world comes about as a willingness to
letting it go within yourself and vice versa. For giving the world and
forgiving yourself are one and the same thing because the world is just a
projection of the ego. You might say , “Well, it’ s not my ego.” Well, it’ s the
collective ego. So you might as well take on the collective ego and do
everybody a favor , you know . All the people who haven’ t gotten around to
surrendering their ego, you surrender it for them, and they get jacks for
openers—they get into heaven right of f the bat. You did it for them. Well,
we say that in a jocular fashion, but that’ s a fact: that every step you take
forward spiritually benefits all of mankind.One person that you for give already af fects the consciousness level of all
of mankind. “That’ s so: resist” (T rue). “Therefore, everyone is a savior ,
potential savior: resist” (T rue). Everyone is a potential savior . Each and
every one of us, as we for give that one person that we hated—we could
chop them in small pieces and flush them, because they deserve it. You
can’t pretend they didn’ t deserve it, and you can’ t pretend they didn’ t do it. It’s a fact they did, and they probably do deserve it. But despite that, you
still for give them. That’ s where the jump is. All right. That comes out of the
willingness. The intention, then, to make these moves comes about from—first of all,
it comes about through the heart. I usually don’ t talk about the heart,
because it makes things very short. When you bring up the heart—good-
bye. I sit on the heart. I also have to sit on the mind, but the mind is easier
to sit on than the heart. To keep the mind functioning in languaging
comprehensible to the world took a great deal of ef fort; it took me many
years. The willingness to make these steps comes from the heart. It’ s
because of the innate Love of God you’re willing to surrender the hatred. You understand? You don’ t do it because you intellectually understand that
it’s a necessary step to reach Enlightenment. The willingness to surrender
everything to God, including one’ s justified hatreds, is strong enough that it
brings you to the willingness to surrender them. The willingness to
surrender all to God is the all-fire in the middle of it all. It allows you to
walk into a hail of bullets—literally to walk into a hail of bullets. “For
Thee, O God, I do die with joy .” And you walk right into the bullets, and
you go into ecstasy . The minute you leave the body—ecstasy! Having done
it and remembering it, when done for the Love of God, the immediate
experience as you go out of body is ecstasy . You know that you have passed
a great barrier and that many have not. One of the great values of war is that
it does allow those below 200 to cross over 200. Because when you face
death for the belief in a higher good, even if it’ s for the good of mankind or
for the Love of God, then you pass a certain level that those who have not
done it cannot pass. So, in a way , war is an opportunity for which many
young men seek to reach that level, because you actually have to face literal
death to do it. You can’ t just do it in your imagination. That’ s one of the
side benefits of war , not that I recommend this as the best way possible. But
it beats hari-kari, I tell you, because hari-kari was not too great either .The willingness to surrender one’ s all: that, as I’ve said in previous
lectures, is the integrity of the kamikaze pilot and a lot of these Islamic
zealots; when you calibrate ’em, they actually , literally believe they are
doing it for God; and as such, they are over 200. They may be in error , but
those who manipulate such people, on the other hand, calibrate at 70. When
they get there and find there are 72 vir gins, what they don’ t know is they’re
over 900 years old. That’ s the part the guru doesn’ t tell them. So, spiritual integrity: spiritual integrity means one does what one does
out of the innate love for God. Now , that love for God may not swell up as
an outpouringness of emotion. It can be a profound commitment, out of the
willingness. So, ascending the ladder , if you want to call it the ladder , then,
is based on willingness. The willingness to surrender anything because it
stands in the way of your experiencing the Presence of God. So it comes out
of a profound commitment and not an emotionality . Emotionality is a
substitute for what is really a greater insight. The greater insight is the
intuitive understanding of the essence of your own existence and the
willingness then to commit to a greater understanding of that reality . Willing to surrender everything to God is the machinery behind all this. Now , as you take the nature of the ego apart, the work becomes more
specific. We’ve said, religion is one thing; enlightenment is another . Jesus
Christ died for the salvation of the world. The Buddha taught
enlightenment. Christ taught the way to heaven. There is only one quote we
still have, and that is, “Heaven is within you”: that God is both transcendent
and immanent. But the stress of Christianity is primarily on God as
transcendent. Although it is the way of the heart, the Buddha is aimed in a
different direction: the realization of the Presence of God as the Buddha
nature, as the Reality of the Self. That branch of Buddhism called “Lotus
Land” coincides with Christianity , in which the Buddha of the Lotus Land
is the Savior . The aim of Christianity is to reach 540. The ultimate sainthood, the ideal
of Christianity , is Unconditional Love: 540. Where can you find 540 in
today’ s society? There are spiritual teachers above 540. There are spiritual
groups 540 and over—the best known being Alcoholics Anonymous. AA,
curiously enough, calibrates at 540, Unconditional Love. Unconditional
Love, which is shocking to people who are not familiar with Unconditional
Love—because a guy has a slip; he goes out and shoots three people, runs
over five children, and burns down his house. And when he comes back to ameeting, they say , “Gee, we’re glad you’re back, Joe. You sure need to be
here. You may not think you’ve got a problem, but we know you do.” That
is Unconditional Love in practice as a reality—not as a religious ideal to be
memorized, but as an actual way of the heart. Jesus says that if you get up to 540, you really don’ t have to worry; in
fact, He says if you get up to 500, you don’ t have to worry—the ideal of
“Love your neighbor as yourself.” “It’ s over 500: resist” (T rue). “It’ s over
540: resist” (T rue). It’ s Unconditional Love. I hate to tell you, but it’ s
Unconditional Love. Where does the willingness come from? As justified as it is, you realize
what it’ s costing you. You say , “Do I love Jesus, do I love Christ, do I love
God? Am I willing to sacrifice the ego for Enlightenment more than I want
to dislike this person?” And of course, the answer becomes, “No.”
Otherwise, you’re giving your ultimate spiritual destiny to some stranger—
your ex-mother -in-law , or something. You understand? So, the willingness
to surrender , then, comes out of the willingness to give all to God. Ramana Maharshi is well-known because he only died in 1958. The
advantage of the more recent gurus who calibrate in the 700s—Nisar gadatta
Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi are both around 700—is because they lived
so relatively recently that we at least have verbatim some explanations of
teachings which were already there in more cryptic form hundreds of years
or even a thousand years ago, but they were so cryptic as to be
unintelligible unless you are already enlightened. Many of the things that
are said, let’ s say , by Huang Po are absolutely right on. But to realize
they’re right on, you’ve got to be at, like, 800 to get it, which isn’ t too
helpful when you’re still trying to figure out how to for give your ex-
mother -in-law . Practically speaking, we want to start with a teacher to whom we can
relate. Having a teacher with a very high calibration is not necessarily of
any great benefit. I think the aura of the great teacher is a great benefit, but
the specifics of what is being taught may not correlate with where you are
at the time. If you are still having trouble for giving your ex-mother -in-law ,
you don’ t need a teacher at 800 to tell you that you’ve got to let that go. A
Course in Miracles  is extremely good at that, because A Course in Miracles
says you cannot for give it as you presently see it. Isn’ t that a great, brilliant
observation on the nature of the ego? The way you see it now , no, you can’ t
honestly , legitimately let it go. You can only pretend to let it go. You canonly suppress the anger . You can only suppress the judgmentalism. It says
that your problem is not that you hated her or you are angry , or something. The problem is that reality has been distorted by the perceptual apparatus of
the ego, and now you’re seeing it out of context. When you place it back in
context, it’ s automatically resolved—there’ s nothing to for give. Every
negative feeling, then, is a consequence of taking something out of context
—taking it out of context and coloring it with an emotionality . So, how do you surrender the ego? First, contextualize what ego really is,
that it’ s not evil and that it’ s the persistence of the animal; but persistence of
the animal deters one’ s spiritual evolution and therefore, the object is to
transcend it. The best way to transcend it, and the reason for these lectures,
is to describe in some detail the actual mechanisms of the ego. In A Course
in Miracles , that is done to a considerable extent. There is a considerable
explanation, as you go through the workbook, of the mechanisms of the
ego. But then it’ s really up to the Holy Spirit. When you surrender it to God,
you are asking God to recontextualize it so that you see it dif ferently . Now
that you see it dif ferently , there’ s nothing to for give and the whole thing is
resolved. In these lectures we try to be more specific about how that
perceptual distortion occurs in the first place. It occurs in the first place
because of the ego’ s propensity for positionality—positionality meaning the
creation of the opposites by an arbitrary point of view . To pick on a scale of
temperature and say , “Above this is hot and below this is cold.” Well, you
could have gone down here and said, “Above this is hot and below this is
cold.” Or you could have gone up here and say , “Above this is hot, and
below here is cold.” The important thing to see is that the scale is really
only of one measurement. It’ s not two. It’ s not either/or . It’s not good versus
bad. To see that what the mind considers to be opposites are merely
gradations all on the same scale. Let’s take what could be conceived of by the ego as a duality in this very
scale of consciousness. We could say there’ s a duality between that which is
above 200 and makes you go strong with kinesiology , and that which is
below 200 and makes you go weak. Like temperature—temperature
measures the presence of heat. It doesn’ t measure the presence of cold. There’ s only one variable, called “heat.” If heat is present, we call it
“warm.” As less and less heat is present, we call it “cold.” So, cold is
nothing but the absence of heat, right? There is no such thing as coldness.We can do the same thing with light. Light and darkness are not
opposites. There is only one variable. Light is either present or not. Light is
either intensely present—less and less light, we begin to say it’ s getting
dimmer; now we can say it’ s semidark; now we can say it’ s dark; now we
can say it’ s pitch-black. There’ s not two variables called “light” and
“darkness.” Therein lies the resolution of the problems of the ego. To
realize that one thing: there is only one variable. It’ s present to varying
degrees, that’ s all; or experienceable by varying degrees. So, on this scale of consciousness, then, the light which shines forth is
first described in Genesis—the Unmanifest becomes manifest in the
nonlinear world of non-form as the ener gy field of light, representing the
infinite potentiality of that which becomes the universe. As the infinite
potentiality , the Radiance of God shines forth as creation. It does so first in
the nonlinear domain. Only way down the whole process does it begin to
appear in form and materiality . That’ s way along the process by the time it
reaches physicality . Then the light interacts with physicality , and life
originates and then evolves from the bottom up. There’ s no conflict between evolution and creation, because evolution is
creation. So as the hand of God unfolds, perception witnesses it as a
sequence in what it thinks is “time.” But all we’re seeing is the unfoldment
of creation, and therefore creation is what is responsible for what is
happening this instant, because the unfoldingness of creation is what we
call “now .”
All we see, then, is the infinite potentiality of the power of God,
manifesting not only as this universe but as an infinite sequence of
universes, because the essence of God includes, as a quality , creation,
creativity . That which is created by God then has the essence of God within
it and consequently also has the power of creation. So, as we speak of it
linguistically , out of the universe arises an infinite universe of infinite
universes of infinite universes which, every instant, faster than the speed of
light, are creating further universes, which—because they are innately
creative—are creating other universes. You understand what I am saying? Out of power like that, we have to scale down the power so that it’ s
compatible with protoplasmic life. This kind of ener gy, then, would fry an
ordinary piece of protoplasm, wouldn’ t it? It even boils solid rock into lava. So, Infinite Power gets scaled down. This is a scale of Love. At the top is
Infinite, Unconditional Love, and this lower level represents less and lessLove. When we get down to the level of the dinosaur , Love is sorely absent. The dinosaur does not really care about another as he gobbles him up. You
see, maybe the most advanced dinosaur , she lays an egg and maybe passes
back a longing glance at it at the beginning. But she goes on, because there
are other things to do. So, we see consciousness then can be calibrated as to the presence of
Love. This lower section denotes the absence of Love. As we note the
absence of Love, we notice that instead of Love, we have egocentricity . We
have a narcissistic, megalomanic self-aggrandizement in which the self
(with a small s) of the ego becomes God; and out of that, to maintain that
illusion, that which is really God has to be refused. And that’ s why the
lower astral realm arises. The lower astral realm is constituted by that
consciousness which refuses the Divinity of God as Creator and says no. “I’m Milošević and greater than all of mankind, and the International
Tribunal has no right to question my actions; nor do these judges have any
authority , nor does this court have any existing authority , because I am
greater than all of mankind.” Right? “I can therefore with impunity
slaughter 34 million people. And it’ s my business, not yours.” It allows
Hitler to say that the Germans don’ t deserve to live, because they lost the
war; and he wanted all of Germany destroyed, right? He wanted all of Paris
destroyed. Throughout history , that which is totally devoid of Divine Love, and
refuses it, presents itself on the planet as evil. “What I’m thinking is correct:
resist” (T rue). “It’ s okay to say it right here” (T rue). The dinosaurs, as much
as they’re cute and we give them away with hambur gers and all, are the
ultimate—the killers of mankind, the opposite way of the herbivore. Love
appears within evolution first as maternal love; that’ s its first breakthrough. So, the evolution into Love—choosing would be the Love, choosing God;
or choosing the negative god and choosing the ener gy of the dinosaur—is
like two alternate ways to go. The degree to which Love is present, then, and the unconditionality of it,
the willingness to totally surrender anything and everything to God, is the
one variable on that scale. It does not mean that anybody is better than
anybody else. That’ s why I like the other scale. It’ s mathematically correct,
but it doesn’ t infer what we’re saying. The Presence of God is infinite potentiality . It’s a reality of the Self
unfolding. This is the persistence, you might say , of the animal world, thepersistence of the animal domain. There’ s two ways to go: the way of hatred
and the dinosaur , where your survival is always at the cost of the life of
someone else, or the way of the herbivore in which life is sustained in the
mammalian world by Love. So, you choose either Love or non-Love. The freedom of our own nature as we are created is to choose God or not. I spent many years as an atheist. I was a devout atheist. I didn’ t fool around
with it as an intellectual position because it was cute and stylish. As I’ve
spoken before, I was walking in the woods one day , and I was a devout—in
fact, a scrupulous—Christian. I was a boy soprano, and I still adore church
and great cathedrals. I don’ t speak in great cathedrals, because the minute I
walk in, I break out in tears at the incredible beauty of it. Anyway , one day I
was walking through the woods, and all of a sudden, the totality of man’ s
suffering was revealed. It was almost like the opposite side of the infinite
light that came to me when I was, like, 37 or whatever . It was almost like
the opposite of it—the totality of the suf fering of all mankind throughout all
of time. I can’ t explain to you how I knew it, but it was. In that instant I
became an atheist. I hated any god that could allow the sheer dimension, as
well as qualities, of what I saw . I became a rabid  atheist. I went to Jesuit
universities, and when you hit the bar on Friday night—I mean I could beat
’em, beat their socks of f with theology . I got a straight A in theology , and
thought it was all BS. Hahaha, so here’ s this atheist getting straight As in
theology . I could tell you everything that’ s wrong with Thomas Aquinas’ s
proof for the existence of God as primary cause. In fact, I can tell you today ,
if I remember . And I would always go there for the free beer . Those
drinking days are gone. Because I held a confusion which the ego commonly makes. It holds God
responsible for that which is the consequence of the ego. The totality of
human suf fering is a consequence of all those ego positions. It’ s not a
consequence of God. God doesn’ t create anything like that, but the ego does
create it. So I held God responsible for that which is really the consequence
of the functioning of the ego. But I was integrously atheist. Let’ s see what happens to the atheist,
calibration-wise. “At the level of the atheist, the integrity was over 200”
(True); “210” (T rue); “280” (True); “300” (Not true). All right. So, the
atheist can be integrous. Integrous, if it is not an intellectual position of
pridefulness and vanity and ego. But if one’ s commitment to truth is
profound and you are a religionist, there’ s going to be a moment whenyou’re going to go through a violent convulsion, because a lot of what one
holds dear is going to run smack up against commitment to absolute truth. And that’ s what happened with me. At the time I was in psychoanalysis and Lionel Ovesey was a professor at
Columbia University , and he was an atheist too, so we took a dim view of
religion. He called it “foxhole fear ,” and I said, “Y ou’re right! Regress to
childhood, and you want Daddy God to save you.” We both ridiculed it. So
that’s as good as the intellect can do with God, because the Presence of God
is a direct and profound experience. And all that went out the window many
years later when I hit bottom and the ego stopped functioning altogether—
went into a funk. So the willingness to surrender every positionality to God requires
understanding the nature of the ego. We’ve said the ego works on the basis
of positionalities of either/or . It takes that which is unitary and tries to
dissolve it into a duality . So, the problem of the ego is that positionality
creates duality . Therefore, the strict definition of the pathway which I
represent would be most closely , historically , Advaita, the pathway of
understanding the Presence of God by understanding the nature and the
source of the mind itself. Which takes you, as you go through it, beyond
mind to “no-mind,” and then the question is, “How do you explain ‘no-
mind’  in language?” That took 30 years: how to explain “no-mind” via the
“mind.”
The willingness to surrender positionalities—the power behind it is really
the heart. The willingness to surrender the way you see it and ask God to
show it to you as it is in truth, the willingness to let go right and wrong—
this part is important. The rest of it is just talking. What keeps these
positions in place is the satisfaction and the feedback we get out of it—the
juice we get out of it. The ego can juice any situation and just suck all kinds
of continuing ener gy to survive out of it—the evening news at 5:30, as we
talked about earlier . The T est of the T empter
The dif ference between hot and cold, as you can see, is an artificial
positionality . So your intellect sees it. But, no, the problem is going to be
emotional—that you get grim satisfaction out of everything: grim
satisfaction out of martyrdom, out of being wronged. The more horriblyyou’re wronged, let me tell you, the bigger the juice. The more horrible the
crime committed against you, the more stuck you are in your ego now ,
because the payof f is big. The payof f gets bigger and bigger . And as you
evolve spiritually , the tempter is going to come to you, and the way the
tempter comes to you is of fering an enormous gratification of a justified
position. At a certain consciousness level, the tempter comes to you. You might say , that which we call “the tempter” is present at all times;
you’re constantly under the test of “the tempter ,” if you want to call it that. What’ s the source of the tempter? The source of the tempter , then, is the
pleasure one derives out of one’ s ego positionalities. It isn’ t power over
others; it’ s the gratification you get out of power over others. What the hell
do these idiots who slaughter millions get out of it? They don’ t even get to
see it, right? Hey , there are millions of people getting slaughtered and
chopped up out there, and you don’ t even get to see it; you’re locked up in
your of fice here. Look what you’re missing. Get out there and slosh around
in the blood and step over the bodies! I mean, you’re missing the grim,
satanic satisfaction. No, the satisfaction he’ s getting out of it is Luciferic,
not satanic. Satanic is the expression, but what he’ s coming out of is power
over others, the capacity to be God over others. That’ s Milošević—look at
him on TV. The pridefulness of that positionality is what he’ s unwilling to
relinquish to God. And that’ s how you choose the lower astral: positionality . So, you’ll catch the ego red-handed. You’ll see that he gets a grim
satisfaction to say , “Oh, I can’ t possibly be enjoying this suf fering.” No,
you’re not enjoying the suf fering; you’re enjoying the juice you’re getting
out of the suf fering. Do you get what I am saying about “juice”? The ego
feeds of f the juice it gets out of what otherwise—at least to the intellect—is
described as negative. No sooner is the town demolished by the flowing
lava than they’re rebuilding a new one exactly in the same place. Isn’ t that
right? No sooner does the house slide down the side of the mountain into
the Pacific Ocean than they’re building a new one, in exactly the same
place. No sooner do the rivers flow over the banks in the Midwest and
sweep millions of houses away , they’re instantly building houses as soon as
the mud dries. The ego’ s attraction and addiction is to the juice it gets out of suf fering
and being mistreated. That’ s the juice of the far -left, liberal, politically
correct position: that you can get juice out of any social reality by
recontextualizing it. Why? Because the egotism involved brings you to aposition called “entitlement.” Once you’re entitled, everything is an of fense. Everything is an of fense. Everything is a possible lawsuit. Everything is
publicity , because entitlement is the grandiosity of the ego, of the infant. So,
egomania is nothing but the grandiosity of the unbridled infant of the ego. Expecting the world to acknowledge it, the king baby inside. It expects the
world to cater to its egocentric position. The world never heard of you, and
after you’ve left, it’ s not going to miss you. The idea that it’ s going to cater
to you while you’re here is about a three-month-old’ s positionality . But the
juice that’ s derived out of the indignities and injustices of this world—it
thrives  on it. All the people that are rude to you. No sooner did they catch this crazy butcher of 30 people who chops them
up, and I won’ t even tell you—it’ s unspeakable what he did to the remnants
of their bodies. No sooner does this happen than some poppycock jumps up
on TV—he’ s worried about the civil rights of this sucker . Right. Why? Because he can milk injustice out of this. He can see the position of the
winner is always “the bad guy .” Like the capitalist is always “the bad guy .”
Who says that? A guy wearing clothes? Yes. Where did you get your
clothes? “W ell, [they were] manufactured by some company .” Where did
the company get its money? It got it from capital, didn’ t it? You’re walking
on a sidewalk. Who made that sidewalk? Some company made the
sidewalk. You sit in a car . Who made your car? You open your bottle of
milk in the morning. Where did you get the milk? You got it from some
company . Where did you get the money to buy all these things that the
people you hate provided for you? Well, you got it from the people you
hate, because they provided the jobs, right? So, you see how positionality makes everything wrong. You can make
the goose who lays the golden egg the bad guy . So positionalities swing
back and forth, then, and create the political spectrum which keeps us
entertained. All the guys in the restaurant in the morning look forward to
opening the editorial page. What’ s today’ s outrageous calamity that you can
really discuss with the other guys, and how stupid the government is, and
all. So when you are honest about it, you see that you love your ego. You
love the juice you get out of your ego. See? Once you admit that truth,
you’ve taken the cover of f of it. You love the ego. It’ s your source of juice;
it’s the source of all the injustices, the calamities, the pains, the hatreds. Where would you be without it? You’d be stuck with the reality of the Self,
which doesn’ t buy that crap. It doesn’ t buy it at all. Give me a break! That’ swhat God says when people say , “What have you got to say , God?” God
says: “Give me a break! Give me a break. Enough from all this human
juice! Take away the TV set. I looked at it and you can have it back.” I gave
God a TV set, and He said, “I don’ t want to look at it—it’ s horrible.” Why? Because it’ s full of all this juice that we get out of it. The movies juice you to death, you know . If you calibrate a lot of
commercials, TV commercials and a lot of movies, your arm will go weak
about 14 times a minute. Why? Because we love the fear , we love the
indignation, we love the shock, gore, horror . It Takes Radical Honesty to Undo the Ego
The way to undo the ego is radical honesty . The way of Advaita is radical
truth: the willingness to let go all illusions, including the illusions about
illusions. The source of the ego, then, is the juice that we continuously get
out of it, which pumps it up; pumps it up, pumps it up; gives it life. The
willingness to relinquish that, that’ s what you have to surrender to God. Not
positionality , because the minute you let go the secondary gain that you’re
getting out of that position, the ego positionality will disappear of itself. You’ll laugh at it. It will let go of itself. The thing to search for is: “What
kind of satisfaction do I get out of that?” I get the satisfaction of being
wronged. “W ronged” is wonderful, is it not? Whole countries go to war , and
they’re wronged. They’re righting the wrong of Versailles. What wrong of
Versailles? The kaiser did the same thing that Hitler did and lost. Now
Hitler says that was an injustice. What injustice? Nobody asked the kaiser
to invade Europe and kill people, did they? So, it feeds of f that injustice. The whole German people—40 million
people died in World War II. I was in World War II, and it’ s more of a
reality to me than [to] many younger people. It was a reality in which 70
million people died, out of the juice, out of the juice of being wronged. The pleasure that one gets out of the juice of the ego justifies everything. It justifies mass murder; genocide; if allowed to, the final killer bomb if
they lost the war . The final killer bomb was big enough to eliminate all of
mankind. All of mankind was going to be eliminated by the final killer
bomb if Russia lost a nuclear war with the United States. Luckily , there
were enough Russians to stop them before it became a reality , but the
megalomania behind it, as you see, is unstoppable.The dif ficulty with the reasonable ego of the Western world is that it
presumes that other people are going to operate within the lawful confines
and reasonableness of the ego. Other people are not. People say , “Well, he
wouldn’ t do that. It would cost him all his countrymen.” Of course he
would do that! So, the weakness of our position as you see it in the world is the
presumption by the naive that other people are going to be ruled by reason. The 400s is the level of reason. We say , “Well, nobody would do that; that’ s
irrational.” There are lots of people in the world that think rationality is
stupid. You want something, you take it, man—what’ s the problem? There
are whole cultures. You know how that culture thinks: “W ell, she left her
purse there, so she deserves it.” I treat them all week long—Monday ,
Wednesday , and Friday morning. “If I can get away with it, they deserved
it” is the justification. In the 400s, you don’ t buy that, but down in the lower
part of the world, that’ s justified. “They deserve to die because they are killable.” Whoa! Do you realize
what that means when people come from that space? Because they’re
killable—that’ s why they deserve to die. The dinosaur doesn’ t need
justification to eat the smaller animal. He kills it because it’ s chewable, I
guess. So now you understand a little bit more about the ego. You don’ t have to be afraid of it. You have to be honest that it’ s there. And that it owes its survival to the payof f it gets out of its positions. The
payof f—the way to get rid of it is, first, be honest and admit it. “Y eah, I
enjoy . . . whatever . Now , am I willing to let that enjoyment go for some
higher purpose?” Well, you can only take the word of people who have
done so whether the sacrifice is worth it. Because it does seem to the ego to
sacrifice all of that glory and fame and justification and revenge and all is a
big sacrifice. Don’ t kid yourself. To the ego, it is a big sacrifice. It is a big
sacrifice to let go “being right,” to let go . . . not nurturing that wrong, to let
go of that hatred. It is a big sacrifice—don’ t pretend it’ s a small sacrifice. There’ s a lot of pseudo, nongenuine spiritual work that people attempt, and
it doesn’ t work. Why? Because they are unwilling to face the nitty-gritty ,
the nitty-gritty facts. Radical truth means you’ve got to take the mask of f everything and be
willing to see it for what it is, and now handle it from the viewpoint of
emotional honesty . There is a big, massive payof f in ego positions, or you
wouldn’ t be sitting here in a body today . You would have karmically goneoff into the mists of the higher realms. And therefore, the fact that one is
back here in a body again means that one has sold out spiritual truth for the
gratifications of the ego over and over again. But in this lifetime, it’ s
coming up to be questioned. In this lifetime, you say , “Was it worth it? Is
the experience of the Presence of God worth sacrificing all that I get out of
my ego?” The answer can only be gotten by faith, actually . Experientially ,
no. Experientially , you’ve got nothing upon which to say that giving it up
would be a better deal. Anything in your experience telling you that giving
up the pleasure, resentments, and hatreds and satisfactions of winning is
worth it? Not experientially , no. Faith, yes. Based on faith. Based on the
teaching of some entity who has gone through the whole trip and tells you
that the end result, the experience of God, is so incredible, beyond all
description—so beyond the totality of all the values of all of mankind
throughout all of history . All the pleasures and all the values and all the
acquisitions, emotionally and materially of all of mankind throughout all of
history , are like a speck compared to the Presence of God. Nothing is even
in the same domain. Therefore, you’re asked to sacrifice that with which
you are familiar in hopes of entering a dif ferent domain. And in that
domain, you only have the traveler that’ s been there. Marco Polo tells you
what the Chinese are like, but you have to take his word for it. So, we have the inspiration, then, of the spiritual teacher . The value of the
guru is primarily one of commitment to absolute truth, out of which comes
an integrity which is so profound and convincing that one buys that
integrity . See, truth cannot be ar gued. It cannot be defended, and it has no
answers for any ar gument. Its authority is absolute. It is the Absoluteness of
the Presence that defies any question and against which any question falls
flat, because there is no room for question. That which is All That Is is
beyond all questioning. To let go and surrender the known for the unknown—we call it the
Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research. Every spiritual aspirant is a
researcher . You have no idea what you’re really going to experience when
you let a certain thing go. You only find it by doing it. You only find it by
doing it. Just like the explorer , you can go by the compass, but you don’ t
really know until you get there that that’ s an absolute fact. So, each one of
us evolves based on faith. The faith of the conviction of the integrity of
whatever spiritual teacher or church or spiritual tradition, whatever guru,
whatever . One’ s inner direction leads one to that which you’re able to hangon to with absolute certainty . When I was an atheist, I’d already got the
absolute certainty of the truth of the Buddha. I was an atheist at the time,
and I knew that what he said was absolutely so. So the intuitive
knowingness was there, many years prior to the validation experientially . Karma Is What You Are
That leads us up to the next topic, which is the part karma plays in all of
this. To avoid the whole subject of karma is, again, the fallacy of many
religious positions which say , “I don’ t believe in karma.” I don’ t want
anybody to believe in karma at all. I don’ t want anybody  to believe in
karma. I don’ t believe in karma. Karma is what you are. You ask, “How do
you let go of the ego?” Well, the ego is the accumulated karma of all of life
through all of time, through all of history as it presents itself now in the
reality of that which you are at this moment. Somebody says they don’ t
believe in karma; in that case, you don’ t exist, because you’ve got two ears,
two eyes, a nose, and a mouth. If that ain’ t karmic, what is it? I mean, you
didn’ t come up with four ears and three eyes and two mouths, you know . So
obviously , this moment then represents the accumulated ener gies and
effects in form throughout all of time. You can’ t pretend that somehow the evolution of consciousness
throughout all of time and throughout all forms of life has somehow
bypassed you and you have magically escaped karma. No way . That’ s
spiritual pride to think that one is not subject to the laws of the universe. One time in a very advanced state—it was a very , very advanced state—
came the potential downfall of the guru. A lot of gurus fall down. “At the
pass was over 800” (T rue); “820” (T rue); “840” (T rue); “860” (Not true). Around 850. So, it’ s another shocking fact. You see, to be a radical realist
takes a lot of guts. It takes a lot of guts and takes a lot of heart. You’ve got
to face radical facts about things you don’ t want to face. Many well-known
gurus, if you calibrate their writings, they’re pretty good. If you calibrate
where they were at, at the height of their spiritual evolution, you get a very
good number . If you ask where they are at now , you may get a very low
number . Shock. Because at each point along the way , it’s like a test comes
up that says, “Oh, yeah?” The students I teach are unprepared for that. First
of all, don’ t pretend it’ s not going to happen, because it’ s going to happen. You say , “I’m never going to ‘so-and-so’  again.” The next question thatcomes up from the universe is, “Oh, yeah? Oh, yeah?” “Uh huh.” “Y eah,
sure.” Anyway , this was a very advanced state, and it was a state of absolute
purity and a profound state of the Presence as clarity , peace, and non-
positionality . Anyway , in this state, which was nonverbal, because thought
had stopped years before that, came a knowingness that presented itself. The knowingness was, “Now that you have transcended karma and are no
longer answerable to some otherness called ‘God,’  and you realize there is
no otherness to which you are answerable for; and because you realize you
are beyond all human karma, you are not answerable in human terms, all
power resides in you. Own it.” That was the temptation, the ultimate
Luciferic power for its own sake. And the rationale was correct up to a
certain level. When you truly transcend the ego, you’re not subject to
human karma and normal human karmic terms; nor is there some angry god
that you are going to face who is going to get even with you for being bad
and beat you up and throw you into hell. All that’ s bullshit. Anyway , you’ve
transcended all that. Now , knowing all that, how about this: you are the power . Here comes
the Luciferic temptation. And you could see who had said yes and who had
said no. It was strange. Not all that many had been through, and you could
see who said yes and who said no. Power for its own sake. You say to
yourself, “Why would that which we call ‘evil,’  by the world’ s terms,
choose to be that way?” It does it for the payof f—for the sake of power
itself. Not because the power gets you something, but for its own sake. Just
as people will murder , not for some motive; looking for psychological
reasons why the thrill killer kills is totally absurd. “He got beat up in his
childhood.” Yeah, right! Everybody got beat up in his childhood. No, he
does it for the sake of it itself. He murders for the sake of the thrill of
murdering. The way we surrender the ego, then, is we’re radically honest, we’re
radically honest. We see the payof f we get out of it. We are radically honest
about whether we are actually willing to give up that payof f for something
promised but not yet experienced, because that takes faith. What is karma, really? How far does it go? See, the error that was made
by that Luciferic ener gy at that level was, it’ s beyond the karma of the ego
but not beyond the karma of the Reality of the universe. You are not beyond
the reality of the karma of God, of the Reality of the universe, which is far
beyond the human. It includes you in it! So, if I’d known what to say to thatentity at the time, I would have turned on him and said, “And that includes
you.” Unless you’re greater than the Infinite Reality of the Infinite Creator
of universes of universes, out of which your little silliness arose. Anyway ,
those are some things that happen to you and is pertinent to karma, and we
will talk more about karma later . The Process of Letting Go T akes Intention
How do you not revert? Well, many things are let go of in degrees, you see. And you’ve accumulated pressure of many lifetimes behind many things. So, it’ s more than just a passing thought, sometimes. It takes very intense
intention and devotion and the miraculous to let it go. And that’ s why
prayer and the request for intercession is traditional: to ask God for help to
let go my addictions and the pleasure I am getting out of such and such a
thing, see. So we ask for Divine help. That is the pathway of devotion. To understand spiritual work, it’ s necessary to know something about
karma and what is the truth of karma. What does it really mean? First of all,
it’s somewhat stigmatized among Christian circles and others as being of
Eastern origin and therefore foreign, and all this and that. Karma as a
specific religious concept, of course, is defined in the dictionary in a very
specific way . Karma, in my understanding, is more the essence of karma in
that All That Is, the entire universe, in fact all the universes of universes—is
one karmic totality . One karmic symphony . In other words, all that ever
existed, all that ever is—in thought, word, or deed in both the linear and
nonlinear domains—are part of a total oneness. To be beyond karma would
mean that somehow you escaped the oneness of the totality of God and all
the universes, which is not likely . The universe is one karmic unity in perfect and total balance, in every
detail. All That Is is obviously part of the evolution of all that was at the
point of observation, becoming the fulfillment of its innate propensity
which was created as part of creation. Everything is perfect because at
every point, it is fulfilling its potentiality as it is possible for that
potentiality to unfold under the conditions that we call “the present.” In the
next instant, it will again be perfect. So, all is perfect at every instant. The
only way to make it not perfect is to contextualize it in the hypothetical. But
because the hypothetical has no reality , it does not invalidate the truth of
what was just said. The hypothetical does not exist.So, because the universe is one karmic unity in a continuous state of
perfection of the unfolding of its potentiality , nothing can escape karma and
still be part of the universe. So, if anything was beyond karma, you
wouldn’ t know about it. There is no point to worry about it, because it
wouldn’ t exist, and neither would you. You cannot be anything this instant
unless you were something the last instant. How does it operate, really , spiritually speaking? First of all, the
confusion has to do with confusing karma with reincarnation. The reason
it’s rejected by Christian belief systems is because of two things: that Jesus
Christ did not talk about it, and specifically , it’s referring to embodiment. Generally , karma as understood by the common layman is: if you’re not
good, you will come back as a toad; or you are a very good toad, and now
you are not a toad anymore. So it’ s confused with incarnation. Now , karma
and incarnation are two dif ferent things. Reincarnation can be a karmic
potentiality , or it may not. Karma is merely stating that that which is
continuous is continuous, and part of an ongoing Oneness. What it is really
saying spiritually is that the decisions of the spiritual will then have
consequences. These consequences are agreed upon by all religions. Those
who claim they don’ t believe in karma—of course they believe in karma. Otherwise, why would you avoid sin? Because after you die, karmically
you are going to go to other places. So they all believe in karma, but they
don’t believe in reincarnation. That’ s two dif ferent things. Karma means that the consequences of actions will have an ef fect in the
future. And of course, Christ taught that. “Y ou reap as you sow ,” et cetera. So, He taught karma, but He did not get into the whole problem of
embodiment. Karmically , embodiment is a very complicated and tricky
question. It may or may not occur , and it may or may not be an option, and
it may or may not be said yes to. The other thing that people don’ t understand about karma is that there’ s
an infinite number of universes. There is an infinite number of domains. Within an infinite number of domains, there’ s an infinite potentiality of
infinite universes, and these multiply at an infinite rate. I want you to wrap
yourself around that one! I want to ask a question that’ s been bugging me. “I may ask this question: resist” (T rue). “Jesus Christ never had any
previous physical incarnations. I may ask that: resist” (T rue). “That is a
fact: resist” (T rue). “The Buddha did: resist” (T rue). That’ s what I thought. I
was driving along the other day and I thought, One r eason Jesus Christdidn’ t talk about pr evious embodiments is because He never had any . The
Buddha, however , did. And by level 600, you recall ’em; not that they are
different lifetimes, but it’ s just like a memory—like you remember what
your teacher said in eighth grade. So, Jesus Christ, first of all, came directly from heaven, see. He never
incarnated as a human physicality . “Jesus never incarnated as a physicality
before: resist” (T rue). That’ s one thing I like about kinesiology . You ask
these questions, and after you’ve asked thousands of them, it weaves a
fabric of understanding that is greater in depth and dimension and subtlety
than can be easily described. I always thought, until this moment, that Jesus
Christ didn’ t go into the subject of karma specifically—past-life karma—
because the ego as it is today is the karma. Your karma is today’ s ego. Today’ s ego is the compilation of all that has occurred in the evolution of
this consciousness up to this moment, just like a tomato is. A tomato sitting
here represents the evolution of tomato-ness throughout all of time until it is
manifesting as this tomato. There is no way this tomato can escape tomato
karma, because it is tomato karma. The ego of today is nothing but the crystallization and manifestation in
this lifetime of all that has been accumulated since the beginning of time by
this particular consciousness. Because they’re one and the same, I thought
Jesus Christ’ s understanding and seeing that equality , there’ s no point in
talking about past lives and confusing people. Because at the time that He
incarnated and the culture in which He incarnated, it would have been
another excuse to reject His teaching as outlandish, because in traditional
Judaism, past lives is not taught. So He would have been more out of gear
with the society in which He got Himself born. The Buddha, on the other hand, not only recalled them but also taught in
a society in which that was common knowledge. That’ s common
knowledge in the Far East—that one has had numerous incarnations and,
hopefully , up the evolutionary tree. Then we’d say that every act of the will, every assent of the Spiritual
Will, is reflected in one’ s spiritual—the vibrational ener gy field called the
“Soul.” Let’ s see if what we just said is so. We’ll check everything out:
“That’ s so: resist” (T rue). Thank you. See, I don’ t care whether it’ s so or
not. Usually you get a question: how do you know that what you’re doing is
scientifically accurate? I don’ t frankly care. I really don’ t care; nor do I care
if people are unable to do it or just believe in it. It’ s just a tool, youunderstand what I’m saying, but it’ s an extremely informational tool,
extremely informational, pretty much like a compass, you know . To
navigate without a compass is where mankind has been. Mankind has been
unable to know truth from falsehood. The inability to know truth from falsehood is why the millions get
slaughtered, generation after generation. One incredible monster after
another slaughters more millions. And they never lack for followers. Somehow , they never lack for followers. No matter how bizarre it is, you’ll
find endless followers, you know . The Spiritual W ill Determines One’ s Karma
“One’ s karmic position is determined by the agreement of the Spiritual
Will: resist” (T rue). All right. So, it’ s the Spiritual Will, then, which
determines one’ s karma. That which you spiritually intend to be, the result
is what determines one’ s karmic fate. How does the karma operate, then, and how can you say that the justice
of God is absolute? It’ s obvious when you go into a certain state. It is a
condition. Enlightenment is a condition. What kind of condition would you
call it? It’ s a paradigm. The ego has one paradigm, and that’ s the paradigm
of the linear . The nonlinear is just a dif ferent paradigm. From this paradigm,
this paradigm seems unreal or outlandish, and to the scientific world, not
believable. To this paradigm, this viewpoint is equally untenable. Anyway ,
because the universe is a karmic unity , you could say that which is the
infinite power of the Unmanifest becomes manifest as the universe; creates
a karmic field, let’ s say , within the Absolute Reality and the infinite power
of God would be like an enormous electromagnetic field, and everything is
included within it. When we explain the dif ference between power and force—force is
something that goes from “here” to “there” and expends ener gy and
therefore comes to an end. Power does not require any input of ener gy, is
beyond time, and stands there and holds all within its field without the
requirement of any ener gy. And because it is just the field, everything in it
aligns itself within that field according to that which it is. So if you’re a
little iron filing, then, where you’re standing in this electromagnetic field
depends on the strength of your char ge, your shape, the negative and
positive poles and where they are, et cetera. So, what you’ve become byvirtue of spiritual agreement, by virtue of the Spiritual Will, then, has
determined the char ge on your spiritual body , which, as it separates from
the physical body , will automatically gravitate where it’ s destined to be by
virtue of that which it has become. By virtue of that which it has become, it
will automatically adjust itself to where it belongs within the infinite
magnetic field of the Will of God. Yeah? Is that simple enough? It does not
require any arbitrary God or Judgment Day , because the consequence of
that which you are is automatic as the consequence of the reality of that
which it is. There’ s no arbitrary God who has to sit up there and wait until
you get up there and, boy , you’re going to get it. It’ s absolutely not
necessary . That which chooses and is attracted by hatred goes to the realms of
hatred. That which is attracted by beauty and peace and Love and Divinity
automatically gravitates to it. Is that in agreement and obvious? Therefore,
the judgment of God is absolute, and absolutely perfect, by the virtue of the
nature of Creation itself. All of Creation, then, in its perfection guarantees
absolute justice. Nothing and no one will go to any place other than that
which it already is. That’ s pretty clear , yes? Like a cork in water , then, each
one floats depending on one’ s buoyancy and the density of the water . Salt
water is denser . Therefore, one can refuse the sovereignty of God, and refuse God, and
choose the lower astral realms. God doesn’ t force you to accept God; nor
does God force you to the lower astral realms. People gravitate toward
hatred because that is what they have chosen. Everyone Starts from Where They Are—There Is No
Punitive Judge
We would assume that a run-down, degenerate-looking bar and grill, with
drunks lying around the place and vermin in the place and rats eating the
garbage, that the people who go there would love it when they clean it up
and paint it and put new drapes and get rid of the rats and disarm the
patrons. And we all know that’ s not a fact. The new owner comes in, cleans
up the place with new drapes, new carpets. The old crowd doesn’ t go there
at all. They desert it. Remember the Electric Circus in the East Village—
that was early ’60s; it was the beginning of the psychedelic era. It was the
“in” place to go. Andy Warhol and all the elite intellectual, artistic typeswent to the Electric Circus—and the groups that later became famous, they
weren’ t famous then. That was the first psychedelic disco. The walls had
just drapes, because they didn’ t have money for walls and stuf f. It was hip,
cool, and everybody who was anybody went there. After a year or two, I
forget, some new owner bought it. They closed it for about two months
while they cleaned it up. Well, they cleaned it up, and now it had
curvilinear , beautiful plastic walls and stuf f, and nobody went there. The
fact that it was funky was why it was cool and a lot of people liked it. You
know what I’m sayin’? They cleaned up the old Electric Circus, and it fell
on its butt. Nobody went there anymore. It was no longer hip, wasn’ t cool,
nobody wanted it. So, as amazing as it would be to people in the 400s, there are people who
prefer to be on the streets. I’m in char ge of a treatment center , and a lot of
them, the minute you let them out, they’ll go right back to the very source
of their own devastation. Right back—exactly the same lifestyle, same
people. Just as the wife goes back to the man who beats her up—she gets a
court-order protection, and within 48 hours, she’ s back with him and then
he’s beating her up again. So it goes, over and over; the person is attracted
to that which they are karmically destined for . So that pretty much takes care of some of the questions we had there,
because it takes the view of God as judge. You might say , the universe
judges absolutely , but not in the moral, arbitrary , ego understanding of the
word judge . The idea of the judge, the punitive judge, comes from, really ,
the Old Testament. The Old Testament itself arises from tribal gods. See, all
the early cultures had tribal gods. There are the Roman gods and the Greek
gods, and they all have great names—Zeus and Athena and all these various
gods—and they were supplanted over time as life evolved. Some of the
early scriptures still have these anthropomorphic gods who are subject to all
the fallacies and foibles of the human ego. The so-called gods of many
ancient cultures are nothing but exaggerated humans subject to the same
proclivities of the ego—jealousy and envy and hatred and revenge and
vanity . But when you calibrate their ener gy, you see they’re mostly the so-
called gods of the lower astral realms. They’re talking about the gods of the
lower astral realms, who rule by vanity and egotism and revenge and anger
and favoritism. So you’re not talking about the God of the evolution of
consciousness; you’re talking about gods of the lower astral realms, right? Freud said they’re all projections from the unconscious. Let’ s see what wesay about it. “The gods that I was talking about are projections from the
unconscious: resist” (T rue). Okay . “They also exist as ‘realities,’  in quotes,
in lower astral realms: resist” (T rue). “Because they got projected there:
resist” (T rue). So, they originated in the unconscious out of guilt, fear ,
anger , hatred, and all those things. And they’re accepted as realities by a
large part of society . A large part of society doesn’ t know which end of this
chart God is at. You talk about spiritual confusion. Lar ge parts of society—
and I say lar ge parts, very lar ge parts of society—think God is down here. I
don’t know what they think is up there. There’ s one religious group that
thinks that to experience the Buddha nature is a demon and that God is
down here. Even if you can’ t tell the top of the chart from the bottom of the
chart, you really ought to not proselytize others, you know . I mean, you can
do damage to your own karmic potentiality , but to drag others along with
you . . . proselytizing has never been something I have been interested in. Karmic propensity , then, means that as a result of whatever has gone on,
you start from where you are at. Everybody has to start from where they’re
at. Where you are is from where you were. In a Christian culture, for those
who believe in karma, they have usually been influenced by Buddhic things
and by their own personal experiences to a qualified karmic understanding
of karma that, no doubt, what you do in this lifetime is going to have quite
profound consequences in the future, which may or may not include the
choice to reincarnate. The implied purpose of reincarnation is the chance to
choose again, the chance to choose again. And many spiritual teachings do
emphasize that this is a chance to choose again. Doesn’ t A Course in
Miracles  call it that? “What A Course in Miracles  says about this is a fact:
resist” (T rue). “People who incarnate now have chosen to incarnate: resist”
(True). “They were forced to incarnate: resist” (Not true). None of us were
forced to. I didn’ t know that. “W e were given an option to choose again:
resist” (T rue). “Many of us choose to undo by re-experiencing what we did
to others: resist” (T rue). Yes. I know my own consciousness before this
event that happened was one that would choose to experience that which I
did to someone else, because I didn’ t see any other way to undo it. So, the
guilt of that which I did was suf ficient that I was actually willing to re-
experience exactly what I did to that other person, you see. I gave the
example of not killing somebody that I should have killed, haha, and going
through a hernia repair without anesthesia as a karmic undo-ment of the fact
that, having run a sword right through him, I left him to die of his woundsinstead of having the spiritual courage to kill him. In that case, I should
have, out of mercy , put an end to it, but I didn’ t. So in this lifetime, I undid
it. Let’ s see if that’ s a fact or not. “That’ s a fact: resist” (T rue). Yeah, that’ s a
fact. So one will get recalls like that, and you can do spiritual research. I think it’ s valuable to do karmic research to clear up any
misunderstandings. One thing you can clear up with karmic research is self-
pity. The idea that you’re the innocent victim of all these vicissitudes of life
—with a little karmic research, you will find that you are not the innocent
victim of all these vicissitudes of life. No; that you have really chosen this. Well, it’ s a lot easier to accept the consequences of your own actions. You
say, “Out of my willingness to evolve spiritually , to be worthy of heaven, to
be worthy of God’ s Love, to experience the Infinite Reality of God”—you
can respect yourself that you are actually willing to reincarnate and go
through what you’ve gone through again as a human being for the mere
chance of undoing it and choosing better . So you can respect yourself for
what you’ve put yourself through. And you certainly have undone a lot of
bad karma, so the worse life has been, the better it is, huh? If your life’ s
been dreadful, boy , oh boy—I don’ t know how you rate. Well, I earned
heaven, I’ll tell you; I’ve been through quite a bit. You could say , “If I chose this as an option, then why did I choose it? Because it says you’re not forced to reincarnate.” You don’ t have to, don’ t
have to. It’ s an option. We can choose it. If you could skip the childhood
part of it, you know , it wouldn’ t be so bad. This time, the childhood part
was so boring, I don’ t know how I got through it. I thought children were
awfully boring, and I used to look at them: “God, they’re so dumb. They
play these dumb games.” I couldn’ t wait until I grew up. So I read Plato in
the meantime while I waited to grow up. You weren’ t grown up until you
were this high, and I was only this high, so I just had to sit in a chair and
read Plato by myself. I thought childhood was quite boring. There wasn’ t
anything particular in childhood I needed to undo. The disasters didn’ t start
until later in life. So you can see you may get a dif ferent position about your physical life
this time. It might give you a dif ferent way to maybe respect yourself
instead of kicking yourself. Instead of kicking yourself for errors, you might
say to yourself, you can recontextualize it; that this was a dif ferent way of
looking at it, a dif ferent way of learning, a dif ferent choice. And I turned it
down this time. This time you turn down great wealth, let’ s say . You lostyour shirt in the stock market. Oh, gee, high-tech stocks are just not the way
to financial heaven, I guess, right? All of us live and learn. We try to gain
what we can from this lifetime. We can turn this lifetime, no matter what,
into a plus, to extract that which is spiritually valuable out of every iota of
it. A lot of times, you can surprise yourself. A guy stole a lot of money from you, let’ s say . You discovered that
somebody embezzled a lot of money from you, and you want to get even.
_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:

        If you realize it is just
the persistence of the animal, you can get of f moralizing about it. And if
you can get of f moralizing about it, you can avoid spiritual guilt. If you’ve
listened to enough confessions, you’ll realize that everybody’ s ego is the
same. The next penitent in the booth is just going to tell you the same thing
the last 10 thousand told you. “I lied to my mother. ” “I cheated on my
wife. ” “I’m lusting after my secretary. ” “I took pens home from the of fice. ”
“I stole paper clips. ” I mean, what does the ego do. It’ s acquisitive, huh. And it’ s carnal. And it’ s lascivious and libidinous, and it gets hooked on
those things. So the dif ficulty with addiction is, it gets hooked on it. So, the first thing we do is try to grasp the totality of the ego, and the best
way is to contextualize how it evolved throughout all of history, which is
what I’m doing in this current book. The reason I disagree with the textbook
—I like A Course in Miracles ; I think it’ s a great thing. I mean, it just blows
you out when you read the sentence, “My thoughts don’ t mean anything. ”
Whoa. Somebody with a college education—“ my thoughts don’ t mean
anything. ” I drove a cab all those years to polish up my thoughts, and now
you tell me they don’ t mean anything. Well, because spiritually motivated
people are generally in the 400s, I like A Course in Miracles  because it
tends to disassemble the ego as the great thing at which we genuflect. I
mean, “My thoughts don’ t mean anything”; that’ s my favorite from A
Course in Miracles. But I don’ t like the textbook, because the textbook, I
think, was sourced from a somewhat dif ferent source than the workbook. It
tends to polarize one with the ego and pictures the ego as one’ s enemy, an
evil enemy. The animal isn’ t evil; it’ s just animal. The willingness to surrender the lesser for the greater is all that’ s
required: the willingness to question the validity of anything below 200. Let’s say you hate somebody, and that hate is “justified. ” In fact, as a matter
of fact, you don’ t have to go over and over the fact that it’ s justified; you
should grant the ego its wish right in the beginning and say, “Yes, it is
justified. ” It is justified. He ran of f with your wife, ruined your business,
burned down your house, and you’re pissed at him, right. That’ s that oldjoke: The guy standing on the street corner, and his wife has run of f, his
house has burned down, he’ s been fired, and he says, “I don’ t know, God,
why me. ” And he hears this voice coming out of the heavens: “I don’ t
know, Geor ge, there’ s just something about you pisses me of f. ” Nothing
like bad karma to turn a guy into an atheist, huh. So, how can the ego be surrendered to God. First is to become
acquainted with what is the ego. It’ s a persistence of the animal instinct, but
now elaborated through mind, the intellect, and given authenticity by the
mutual agreement of society. For many years I ignored current events. I
didn’ t read a newspaper or listen to radio for years and years. Somebody did
a make-wrong about it, and I bought it. I let go of the make-wrong about
paying attention to the world. That make-wrong is a misinterpretation of the
calibrated level of 700, where, let’ s say, Ramana Maharshi says, “There is
no point in trying to change the world, because the world that you see
doesn’ t exist,” which is true within a certain context. Within another
context, the world is the drama of the ego. I find it fascinating, because
what you see is every ego mechanism played out on a grand stage. So if you
want to understand your ego, what you try to do is comprehend what goes
on in the world and see it in terms of the ego, and you then understand
yourself. And you understand the fallacy of the many positions that pertain
and are popularized in society—you see right through the fallacy in a way
that is expressible through languaging. From the nonlinear domain, you see
the idiocy of it. You don’ t see it as idiocy, but you see beyond it; but you
can’t explain it. It takes years to learn how to relanguage things in a fluent
way to explain that which is obvious so that it makes sense to the intellect. Being a student of the world, then, you’re really a student of the ego. Letting go wanting to change it in the world comes about as a willingness to
letting it go within yourself and vice versa. For giving the world and
forgiving yourself are one and the same thing because the world is just a
projection of the ego. You might say, “Well, it’ s not my ego. ” Well, it’ s the
collective ego. So you might as well take on the collective ego and do
everybody a favor, you know. All the people who haven’ t gotten around to
surrendering their ego, you surrender it for them, and they get jacks for
openers—they get into heaven right of f the bat. You did it for them. Well,
we say that in a jocular fashion, but that’ s a fact: that every step you take
forward spiritually benefits all of mankind. One person that you for give already af fects the consciousness level of all
of mankind. “That’ s so: resist” (T rue). “Therefore, everyone is a savior,
potential savior: resist” (T rue). Everyone is a potential savior. Each and
every one of us, as we for give that one person that we hated—we could
chop them in small pieces and flush them, because they deserve it. You
can’t pretend they didn’ t deserve it, and you can’ t pretend they didn’ t do it. It’s a fact they did, and they probably do deserve it. But despite that, you
still for give them. That’ s where the jump is. All right. That comes out of the
willingness. The intention, then, to make these moves comes about from—first of all,
it comes about through the heart. I usually don’ t talk about the heart,
because it makes things very short. When you bring up the heart—good-
bye. I sit on the heart. I also have to sit on the mind, but the mind is easier
to sit on than the heart. To keep the mind functioning in languaging
comprehensible to the world took a great deal of ef fort; it took me many
years. The willingness to make these steps comes from the heart. It’ s
because of the innate Love of God you’re willing to surrender the hatred. You understand. You don’ t do it because you intellectually understand that
it’s a necessary step to reach Enlightenment. The willingness to surrender
everything to God, including one’ s justified hatreds, is strong enough that it
brings you to the willingness to surrender them. The willingness to
surrender all to God is the all-fire in the middle of it all. It allows you to
walk into a hail of bullets—literally to walk into a hail of bullets. “For
Thee, O God, I do die with joy. ” And you walk right into the bullets, and
you go into ecstasy. The minute you leave the body—ecstasy. Having done
it and remembering it, when done for the Love of God, the immediate
experience as you go out of body is ecstasy. You know that you have passed
a great barrier and that many have not. One of the great values of war is that
it does allow those below 200 to cross over 200. Because when you face
death for the belief in a higher good, even if it’ s for the good of mankind or
for the Love of God, then you pass a certain level that those who have not
done it cannot pass. So, in a way, war is an opportunity for which many
young men seek to reach that level, because you actually have to face literal
death to do it. You can’ t just do it in your imagination. That’ s one of the
side benefits of war, not that I recommend this as the best way possible. But
it beats hari-kari, I tell you, because hari-kari was not too great either. The willingness to surrender one’ s all: that, as I’ve said in previous
lectures, is the integrity of the kamikaze pilot and a lot of these Islamic
zealots; when you calibrate ’em, they actually, literally believe they are
doing it for God; and as such, they are over 200. They may be in error, but
those who manipulate such people, on the other hand, calibrate at 70. When
they get there and find there are 72 vir gins, what they don’ t know is they’re
over 900 years old. That’ s the part the guru doesn’ t tell them. So, spiritual integrity: spiritual integrity means one does what one does
out of the innate love for God. Now, that love for God may not swell up as
an outpouringness of emotion. It can be a profound commitment, out of the
willingness. So, ascending the ladder, if you want to call it the ladder, then,
is based on willingness. The willingness to surrender anything because it
stands in the way of your experiencing the Presence of God. So it comes out
of a profound commitment and not an emotionality. Emotionality is a
substitute for what is really a greater insight. The greater insight is the
intuitive understanding of the essence of your own existence and the
willingness then to commit to a greater understanding of that reality. Willing to surrender everything to God is the machinery behind all this. Now, as you take the nature of the ego apart, the work becomes more
specific. We’ve said, religion is one thing; enlightenment is another. Jesus
Christ died for the salvation of the world. The Buddha taught
enlightenment. Christ taught the way to heaven. There is only one quote we
still have, and that is, “Heaven is within you”: that God is both transcendent
and immanent. But the stress of Christianity is primarily on God as
transcendent. Although it is the way of the heart, the Buddha is aimed in a
different direction: the realization of the Presence of God as the Buddha
nature, as the Reality of the Self. That branch of Buddhism called “Lotus
Land” coincides with Christianity, in which the Buddha of the Lotus Land
is the Savior. The aim of Christianity is to reach 540. The ultimate sainthood, the ideal
of Christianity, is Unconditional Love: 540. Where can you find 540 in
today’ s society. There are spiritual teachers above 540. There are spiritual
groups 540 and over—the best known being Alcoholics Anonymous. AA,
curiously enough, calibrates at 540, Unconditional Love. Unconditional
Love, which is shocking to people who are not familiar with Unconditional
Love—because a guy has a slip; he goes out and shoots three people, runs
over five children, and burns down his house. And when he comes back to ameeting, they say, “Gee, we’re glad you’re back, Joe. You sure need to be
here. You may not think you’ve got a problem, but we know you do. ” That
is Unconditional Love in practice as a reality—not as a religious ideal to be
memorized, but as an actual way of the heart. Jesus says that if you get up to 540, you really don’ t have to worry; in
fact, He says if you get up to 500, you don’ t have to worry—the ideal of
“Love your neighbor as yourself. ” “It’ s over 500: resist” (T rue). “It’ s over
540: resist” (T rue). It’ s Unconditional Love. I hate to tell you, but it’ s
Unconditional Love. Where does the willingness come from. As justified as it is, you realize
what it’ s costing you. You say, “Do I love Jesus, do I love Christ, do I love
God. Am I willing to sacrifice the ego for Enlightenment more than I want
to dislike this person. ” And of course, the answer becomes, “No. ”
Otherwise, you’re giving your ultimate spiritual destiny to some stranger—
your ex-mother -in-law, or something.
The ego gets hooked on it.
What is the main issue with addiction, according to the author?
He likes it because it disassembles the ego as the great thing at which we genuflect, but disagrees with the textbook because it tends to polarize one with the ego and portray it as an enemy.
What is the author's perspective on A Course in Miracles?
The ego is the persistence of the animal, but now elaborated through the mind and given authenticity by the mutual agreement of society.
What is the source of the ego, according to the author?
The willingness to surrender everything to God, which requires a profound commitment and not an emotional response.
What is the key to surrendering the ego, according to the author?
He believes that karma is a fact, but reincarnation is not necessarily the case, and that one's karma is determined by one's own choices and actions.
What is the author's perspective on karma and reincarnation?