You can’ t get sober in AA unless you cross the
level of 200, because the first step in AA is, “I admit I am powerless
over”—or any of the 12-Step programs—“I admit that I am powerless over
‘so-and-so.’” Well, that’ s the truth. If you had power over it, you wouldn’ thave the problem, would you? So, that’ s jacks for openers. So, 200 is jacks
for openers into the spiritual world, where you’re willing to admit the truth
about yourself and you give up being defensive, and you stop being guilty . People below the line are hard to deal with because they’re very
defensive. So, 200 is Neutral, a very nice, comfortable place to be; 175, you see,
people are prideful, and they get “tiddleyed” if they make any mistake. If
you say , “You stacked the cards backward.” “I did not!” And, “Y ou told me
that.” You know , it’s very defensive, so it’ s hard to deal with. Neutral is
easygoing, because each Neutral knows that you can’ t live a day without
making lots of mistakes—it’ s impossible. That person who didn’ t make a
mistake today stayed in bed all day , and it was a mistake to stay in bed all
day. So, for giveness comes in out of compassion. Compassion is really the
answer to most of the lower negative ener gy fields: compassion for yourself
and for others, the willingness to for give, the willingness to for give and
overlook human error . Human error . Error is built into the human
mechanism, and so error is inevitable. I just read a very good article out of
Fortune  magazine that most companies are designed for success and they
have made no preparation for error . And they’re discovering now that the
company that knows how to turn error around in a very positive way is a far
more profitable, beneficial, and friendly place to work. So in your company ,
what you do is, you set up your error strategy: “First of all, errors are going
to occur here. How are we going to handle them? What are we going to say
to the customer?” Et cetera. So, you get out of defensiveness and you turn it
around into a positive. I thought that was a very beautiful article for
Fortune  magazine. You see, a lot of what is really considered spiritual is quite acceptable in
the world of commerce as long as you don’ t label it. As long as you don’ t
call it “spiritual,” it goes a long way , and of course it’ s very profitable on
the bottom line. Spiritual principles are highly profitable to the companies
that institute them, but they don’ t use spiritual terms or spiritual
terminology which turns a lot of people of f. The basic truth can be very
profitable to any company . Certainly , to be considerate of the customer—I
don’t know how any of these companies make it that you call up and you
get this string of answering machines, and then you punch 6 and 8 and 12. I
mean, how much does a human being cost an hour? Nowadays you can getthem for nine dollars an hour , right? I mean, you’re this giant corporation,
and you can’ t afford nine dollars an hour to have a human being say , “How
may I help you?” with a really friendly voice? Wow. They’re saving nine
dollars an hour and losing millions by the hour; disgusted customers
hanging up, saying, “I was on the phone for 20 minutes, and I never got a
human being. To hell with them.” What does it cost them? So, the insensitivity of corporate life at its interface with the human
domain is of interest to me. I recently got a call from a writer for the Wall
Street Journal  writing an article on that. The institution of spiritual
principles in business: does it actually show up on the bottom line or not? To even ask the question seems, to me, sort of absurd, but you know the
difference yourself: you get somebody helpful and friendly on the line. So,
what you want is somebody who answers your telephone is at 310. In
Neutral, “No, he ain’ t in now .” It’s okay with them to disappoint you,
because their self-esteem doesn’ t ride on pleasing you. A person down
below may be angry . An apathetic person—we get a lot of apathy on the
telephone; those are about fourth-grade dropouts and the government has
assured them some kind of a job, but they really shouldn’ t be in the
workplace, actually . They need training on how to be in the workplace. So, each one of these fields [on the Map of Consciousness®] represents a
certain level of consciousness, which is impersonal. Each one of these
fields, by our assent, tends to dominate the field. So, our thoughts, without
realizing it, tend to be in tune with a prevailing ener gy field which we have
brought in out of our own agreement. We call that entrainment . The ener gy
field prevails in society , and by your assent, you agree to that ener gy field,
and now it tends to dominate your consciousness. We see that the success of the negative ener gy fields depends on that
entrainment. And in that book, and the book I’m just finishing and research
I’m doing now , it isn’ t the lyrics of certain negative kinds of pop music; it’ s
the ener gy field which accompanies it, which is like a carrier wave. That
carrier wave contains the pattern of that negative ener gy field. So, it’ s
possible to unconsciously invite in a negative ener gy field to dominate your
consciousness. You went to the party to have a good time, but when you
walked out, you’re now under the domination of a field which we could
term “satanic,” yeah. One has now agreed by propinquity , and the ener gy
field now dominates that person’ s consciousness. So, all they did is listen to
a lot of rock music and get stoned, and as far as they’re concerned, that’ sjust having a high time. And nobody sees the connection between that and
walking into the schoolroom and killing eight people. You ask them on it,
you see them on TV: “Why did you do that?” “I don’ t know , I just wanted
to see what it felt like.” He just wanted to see what it felt like. And how did
the person ever get to that level of consciousness? Because their
consciousness is dominated by a negative field. So, these fields which we tried to calibrate, we can depict them with a
generality . Don’ t forget, these calibrations are sort of general. In other
words, I can’ t say that it’ s 200 or 201.2. Why? Because it’ s really a whole
new field for investigation. One could spend a lifetime and a Ph.D.
dissertation exploring just a few points above and below 200 and how that
manifests in society . What does a jump in two points—from 202 to 204—
how does that manifest in one’ s annual earnings? How does it manifest in
job title? Even two points from 202 will take you from the back desk to the
front desk, right? From 200, it will take you from the front desk; from 202,
will take you to the manager ’s office. Another two points will take you up
to be assistant manager . Probably another two points, you’re manager . So,
we’re dealing in broad numbers, but I’m sure even slight variations have
quite a profound ef fect as they express themselves in human life and
society . So, each one of them is really a field for detailed research. What
we’ve really done is sketch out the broad outlines, but we haven’ t mapped
out every nook and cranny in the coastline. OceanofPDF .comCHAPTER 6
The Willingness to Completely
Surrender One’ s Life to God
How far up the scale is it possible to go in one lifetime? From the depths of
hell to the Presence of God, within a day , is a subjective experience, so that
would be practically the whole scale. It’ s possible to jump enormously ,
because you don’ t know what kind of karmic loading is behind such a
move. Understand what I’m saying? You don’ t know what the possibilities
are. I think, by choice . . . Yes, I think I see what the answer is, actually;
what I actually myself did and what Ramana Maharshi recommends, okay? “Taking the third step at great depth will take you all the way from the
bottom to the top: resist” (T rue). What I did was what’ s called, in AA, the
third step: “the willingness to completely surrender one’ s life completely
and totally to God with no considerations, no withholdings, no matter
what.” Ramana Maharshi recommends to look within and ask, “Who am I?”
He is not exactly correct. It’ s not “Who am I?” [It’ s] “What am I?” “Who,”
you’re looking for a personage again—it’ s like you’re looking for a bigger ,
better ego. So, I don’ t agree with that teaching as it is verbalized. “What am
I,” because the “what” is impersonal; the “who,” you’re looking, like, for a
higher person . Ramana Maharshi, you know , suddenly dropped over at age 15 or 16,
whatever it was—he was just an ordinary religious person, Hindu—and
thought he’d died. And obviously in that moment, completely surrendered,
and saw himself as dying and dead. And then came out of that experience at
700. And he never left the mountain. I know what he experienced, because
in walking through, what should we say . . . in completely surrendering
everything, there was the experience of dying—of great, profound anguish,
of really dying. One knows that one is—really—dying. And you know
you’re dying, and it was, in this experience, rather dreadful. But it onlylasted a few seconds, half a minute, something. But it was very , very
definite, the experience of dying. It’s not possible to experience one’ s own physical death. For get about
experiencing your own death. Nobody experiences their own death. It’ s not
possible to experience your own death, because you’re out of body , and
when the body goes, you’re not there. So you don’ t experience any death,
because you haven’ t died. How can you experience your death when you
haven’ t died? But the death of the ego, yes, that is the death that people
dread. They think it’ s the body , but it’ s the ego—one’ s identity . So, the
willingness to surrender even one’ s identity as “I,” as “me,” to God can
bring about enormous change. It was through that great space that the
splendor of That Which Is shone forth. You never experience your own
death. There’ s two questions that we could do just as an aperitif. “W e have
permission: resist” (T rue). “One never experiences their own physical
death: resist” (T rue). That’ s a fact. You don’ t have to worry about
experiencing your death, because it ain’ t gonna happen. The other question
that we sort of need to know—“we have permission to ask this one: resist”
(True). “The time of your death in this lifetime is karmically set: resist”
(True). It’ s karmically set, so why worry about it? The time is certain, and
you’re not going to experience any death anyway . One of the biggest
reasons for the propagation of the ego is fear of death. To merely know that
you’re not going to die, you’re not going to experience any death, and it’ s
already set already , relieves a great deal of reason for the ego to continue its
dominion over you. That brings to mind a question about karma: so, what can you do in this
lifetime to negate any karmic responsibilities that you may have acquired? Do you have any shortcuts? Do good at all times to all people and cross
your fingers. I guess one follows one’ s spiritual direction to the best of
one’s ability , which is all that’ s required. You know what I’m saying? That’ s
all that’ s required. It’ s not that God is a cruel taskmaster . See, God is not
arbitrary . God is completely nonarbitrary . One earns one’ s way out by one’ s
own good intentions. And you watch Dickens’ s A Christmas Car ol every
year. It’s worth watching every year , because I think it’ s a great spiritual
treatise. I think that Dickens’ s A Christmas Car ol is one of the greatest
spiritual treatises ever written. The Ghost of Christmas Past—we see whereit would take us in the future, and now we have the chance to choose
differently , that’ s all. He was a great spiritual teacher . “The question is, are you free to move to their level of calibration, or do
you help them move into yours? What’ s the bridge between the two?” You
don’t move your level of consciousness to match theirs. Out of willingness
to communicate, one accommodates. The personality—what Jung called the
persona —does that all the time. A certain type of languaging is appropriate
for one group and it is not for another , so you do as the Romans do, for the
sake of harmony . The persona, in this particular instance here, automatically
adjusts to whatever environment it’ s with. It tends to not want to be around
people who calibrate less than 200. It doesn’ t enjoy it much, any more than
it enjoys loud noise. It doesn’ t enjoy it, but there’ s a natural willingness out
of compassion to be what you feel you can be to others when it is
appropriate. If it is nonintegrous, there’ s absolutely no reason to go along
with it. One could merely disregard it. You know , Christ said, do not fight
evil; just ignore it, walk away from it—to walk away from that which is not
compatible. At a certain level, one, for instance, may leave the big city and move to
the country where it’ s very quiet. Now , the peace and quiet of the country
would drive some people nuts. They come visit you for a day or two, and
they can’ t wait to get back to the big city . They are attuned to that ener gy. One just does what one can to be compatible with others for the sake of
harmony . You don’ t have to start giving them a lecture that bullfighting is
wrong. Bullfighting calibrates at 35, by the way . Dogfighting and
bullfighting calibrate around 35. It’ s about the same as the Roman
Colosseum: blood for the sake of blood. You don’ t have to give them a
lecture about that—that dogfighting is immoral, or something. For the Joy of the W ork
Now , if a spiritual teacher is not supposed to accept any money for the
teachings, just for the facilities and food and whatever , how does the
spiritual teacher eat? It isn’ t that they shouldn’ t; it’s just that that’ s not a
primary goal—not a goal, see. But naturally one has reality , needs that have
to be met. So, what’ s appropriate? You see, all things that the calibrated
level is, is all based on motive. What is the motive? The integrous teacher is
not interested in whether one has lots of followers, lots of fame. You do itfor the sake of the work. Because of the joy of the work. I have three radio
programs coming up soon. The question is: Why should you do a radio
program? Do I really want to do radio programs? Well, to have this kind of
knowledge and not share it with others . . . In other words, to have certain
knowledge that can be helpful to others, one gets joy out of sharing it. It
would be like Sir Alex Fleming, who discovered penicillin. He excitedly ran
all over the place. He’d say , “Wow, this can stop disease; this can cure
disease.” For five years he ran over and knocked on all doors, and
everybody laughed at him. Then World War II came along, and soldiers
were dying of infection. More people died of infection in the war than by
gunshots. In the Civil War, more people died from wound infection than
anything else. So, here he’ s got a cure for it. Penicillin completely stopped
the spread of bacteria. He was saying, “W ow,” and he runs all over
excitedly . That’ s what a spiritual teacher does—so excitedly , and wants to
share it. So, the pay that you get is the joy of the sharing. The only
difficulty is, you don’ t have the amount of time that you would like. You’d
like to do all the programs, go to all the speaking engagements, talk to
everybody that you could, all day long. But you have rent to pay . So I look
at it, if something pays the rent and frees your time so that you can spend
that time teaching, then you’re giving it back to the world. Do you
understand what I’m saying? But to store up riches on earth, I think is
foolish. Storing up riches on earth is not appealing. So, all the material
things no longer have any appeal. After January of 1965, there was the instant loss of all the things that
motivate average people: success, fame, having lots of patients, being well
thought of. All those things were meaningless. So, what was the purpose of
going to work at all, and returning to the of fice? It was really compassion
for the suf fering of patients, and now I had a new dimension. I could see
within the psyche of the patient the real source of the illness, and that they
were devoid of the recognition, the validation of the true Self within. Because their external was so repulsive, very often, that there was really
nobody , even their own mother couldn’ t love them, see. So, what they
needed was somebody that could discern the “Self” with a capital S within
and acknowledged its presence. Instantly they felt healed. When you feel
acknowledged and gotten and understood, that instant of connection only
takes a split second. It can happen anywhere in the world at any time. Instantly , there’ s a mutual recognition of the truth of who you are. Oncethat’s validated, after that, things don’ t really matter . Whether you get better
in terms of the world or not is sort of irrelevant. The capacity to do that is
what propelled the continuation: the joy of one’ s perfection or expertise, or
whatever you call it. You know , musicians typically live to be very old, and so do humorists
and artists. It’ s not unusual for a symphony conductor to father a child at
92. And 30 years after other people have retired and died already , they’re
still writing and conducting symphonies. Artists tend to be long-lived, and
humorists—they live into their late 90s. So, there’ s something about humor
and art and music that is somehow life-sustaining. That’ s interesting, isn’ t
it? When I was young, you worked for the company until you were 65. You
got a gold watch, and they had a big retirement party . You then got with
your wife in a recreational vehicle, toured the United States, came home,
and dropped dead in two years. So, everybody retired at 65, had a
retirement party , toured the world, and dropped dead at 67, because now
you don’ t have a title, you have no name; there’ s no reason to continue on. Depression and Brain Chemistry
One can unravel depression from various viewpoints. Of course, it’ s seen as
hopelessness, lack of self-worth; it’ s sometimes expressed as anger turned
within oneself. So, there’ s a personal self-evaluation there. We’ll skip the
karma in the whole story . We’ll go to the brain chemistry . You can turn
depression on and of f by raising and lowering one of the brain’ s
neurotransmitters. Genetically , about a third of mankind is prone to
depression. Women are more prone than men. Certain age groups are more
prone. You can turn depression on and of f by raising and lowering one of
the brain’ s neurotransmitters. So, that’ s the physiology , the physicality , the
genetics of it. The karmic propensity is something else. It comes from self-
evaluation; it’ s really due to the lack of joy in the experience of one’ s own
existence. The answer is, truthfully—aside from the brain chemistry—
spiritual. And it resolves only when one surrenders the depression to God
and says, “I will be of service, even though I am useless and hateful; but,
even as that, I will continue to serve,” and the depression will lift itself. It’ s,
to some degree, a narcissistic self-evaluation which the degree of narcissism
refuses the judgment of the world. The judgment of the world is that you’rea good father and husband, and all that and the other . But the ego, in its sort
of megalomania, disputes that and says, on the contrary , “You are wrong,
and I am right.” So there’ s a vanity of the ego at the core of it. It’ s not really
“cured” until that narcissistic core of the ego is resolved, surrendered to a
higher power . Nothing that you think about yourself is true. It has no
validity . Whether you think you’re great or you think you’re horrible,
they’re both irrational and somewhat lunatic. If you think you’re great, that
is a moment of lunacy , and if you think you’re awful, that’ s an equal
moment of lunacy . There’ s no validity in anything the ego says about itself,
you know . What I really try to convey is a grasp of the dif ference between the linear
and the nonlinear , because to know under which bush to look is very
helpful. Understand what I’m saying? That’ s what I’m really trying to say . Too many things say: “W ell, we’re looking here while you’re looking there,
’cause that’ s where the light is,” right? But, the keys were lost over here,
right. So we’re trying to create an understanding of how to approach that
which is really unapproachable from the world of the ego, without ending
up in the dead end of many religious rigidities and belief systems. Enlightenment is quite a bit dif ferent than being a religionist. OceanofPDF .comPART II
Radical Subjectivity:
The “I” of Self
OceanofPDF .comCHAPTER 7
A Different Paradigm of Reality
When I wrote Power vs. For ce, 85 percent of the world’ s population
calibrated below 200, 200 being the critical level of integrity . Below 200,
everything makes you go weak with kinesiology; above 200 makes you go
strong. It dif ferentiates truth from falsehood and various degrees of, really ,
spiritual ener gy. You might say the ener gy field of Divine Love is the most
strong at this level and diminishes as you go this way . God is both immanent and transcendent. Religion has to do with God as
transcendent. Spirituality , Enlightenment, the way of Zen and the ancient
mystics is through within—the discovery of God immanent, rather than
transcendent. You might say the ego is like clouds, and as you remove the
clouds, the sun shines forth. Up until recent times, 1,000 calibrates the
levels of the great spiritual beings of history . And that has been the limit of
human physiology . The human nervous system, until almost now , could
only handle up to 1,000—and then with some dif ficulty; in fact, with great
difficulty . And then, as it goes down, you see what happens is, the clouds
begin to obscure the sky and therefore, that is what is indicated by the
shading. They will try to improve on the chart even further . So we’re starting with a recapitulation, really , of the Map of
Consciousness®, because historically that’ s how it evolved. The work was
first published as a Ph.D. dissertation called Qualitative and Quantitative
Analysis and  Calibration of the Level of Human Consciousness , complete
with the null hypothesis, p < 0.001, statistical analysis; and it was
sufficiently impressive that, when presented to the faculty who I asked to all
vote on it—I presented it during their vacation time, and the dean called
them back from their vacation. Would you believe the academic committee
came back from their vacation to review the material because they thought
it was so remarkable? Actually , it’s the E = mc2 of the nonlinear domain, so
I guess that caused excitement. I say these things from a jocular viewpoint,
you understand.At 431, you can see one is pretty well on their way to the light. They’re
pretty much in the light. That’ s traditionally the level of the intellect, the
capacity to reason and think, which is of great benefit. Whatever is of great
benefit to get up to here then becomes a block to getting beyond it. So, after
struggling your whole life to perfect your intellect, you now find that it is
the main obstacle. And we discovered that 4 percent of the world’ s
population goes from 500 up. When you get to 540, the number of people
that reach this is 0.4 percent. Zero point four . So we drop from 4 percent to
0.4 percent. The dif ficulty is that it’ s very hard to transcend the level 499;
499 is the limit of the intellect. Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, all the great
scientific geniuses, Freud, all calibrated 499. And if you go back to Sir
Francis Bacon, all the great scientific intellects throughout history seem to
stop at 499. The Great Books of the W estern W orld were done in the
University of Chicago, I think, back in the ’30s. Let’ s see what their level is
. . . “The Great Books of the W estern W orld are the greatest philosophic
insights in intelligence throughout all of history . I have permission: resist”
(True). “It’ s over 450” (T rue); “460” (T rue); “465” (T rue); “470” (T rue);
“480” (T rue); “485” (True); “490” (T rue); “495” (T rue); “496” (Not true). The Great Books of the W estern W orld calibrate at 496. So, that’ s the
accumulated wisdom of the greatest intellects in all of history . Of course,
the Great Books of the W estern W orld exclude spirituality . And so, it’ s as far
as philosophy can take you. Radical Subjectivity: What Is It? So, we’re talking about radical subjectivity . Spirituality has to do with
discovering a dif ferent paradigm of reality . Science, the world up to 499,
the Newtonian paradigm, has to do with form. It has to do with content. Spirituality has to do with context and not content, and it is a dif ferent
paradigm. Now , the dif ficulty in society is, society is in the linear paradigm. In society , the Newtonian paradigm is what’ s real. That is traditional
science. Science is in the low . . . well, in the 400s; 420 to 425 and up. Medicine is maybe around 430. Psychiatry is maybe five points higher , but
it is still within the linear paradigm, which as we know from our own
spiritual research and personal experience is a very limited paradigm of
reality .The spiritual dimension has to do with context. And it is, first of all,
unlimited; it is nonlinear , and it is touched by advanced theoretical physics,
which realizes that no further advance can be made in understanding the
reality of the universe without understanding the nature of consciousness
itself—which accounts for the conferences on science and consciousness
which have occurred. And I’ve spoken at a few in Tucson [and] in New
Mexico. They had a few of them, maybe three in a row at the University of
Arizona, but they have stopped; they probably blew their wires out—
because there’ s quite a war , ideologic war , between traditional science and
advanced consciousness. And traditional sides, to some degree, feel greatly
threatened by the nonlinear domain, that there is a dimension beyond the
comprehension of the intellect. Therefore, there is the linear domain. That is the realm of the ego. It is
the traditional world of our civilization. Beyond that is the nonlinear
domain: the nonlinear , which is approached via science and a form of chaos
theory . Chaos theory begins to sense that there’ s something beyond that
which is countable, calculable, measurable, that can be weighed, identified
and photographed; that there is another reality . And that is just where it’ s
pushing forward to try to comprehend the nonlinear domain. Spirituality is the nonlinear domain which creates context. Science and
linear domain create content. But meaning doesn’ t come out of content. Meaning comes out of context. Consequently , science is unable to grasp the
“meaning” of anything, which is a bit of a limitation. When atomic reaction
occurs—“What’ll I do with it? Should I blow up the world or . . . create
energy, or what?”
The dif ficulty , then, is that context is what creates meaning, significance. All of human life is lived from the nonlinear domain. Although we handle
an object here in the linear , it’s the nonlinear that gives it significance. It
gives it meaning. Human life, then, is lived subjectively as the experiential presence of
consciousness itself as it registers the linear domain—it’ s not the linear
domain, but what it means to you. What is a million dollars? It’ s what it
means to you. If I stack a million dollars here, it’ s just a bunch of paper; it’ s
a nuisance. It’d be right in the way , wouldn’ t it? I’d be moving the million
dollars all the time. No, it’ s what it means to us, what it means to us. So, the
human is run by significance and meaning, which is in the nonlinear
domain. Significance and meaning are conveyed by a flick of the eyebrow .You’re out someplace in public, and your father flicks his eyebrow— wham ! That totally changed your life right that instant—nothing was said. You get
the meaning of that: “Keep that up and you’re gonna hear about it when you
get home, young man.” So, the significance, then—meaning, value, all the
things that we live for , and motivate all of life—are all in the nonlinear
domain. They may find expression in the linear domain. A new Mercedes Benz is
in the linear domain, but it’ s what it means  to you. So, reality , then, is what we have agreed reality is: the linear . But the
linear is always subjectively experienced by consciousness, which is in the
nonlinear . Therefore, the radical materialist is up against the absurdity that
if only an objective, scientifically measurable kind of a world is objective
and true and verifiable, then by what right does he say so? Because that is a
subjective conclusion there. So the objective world doesn’ t even exist
except as is experienced subjectively . It is the subjective reality that we’re
talking about in spiritual evolution. In the book I’m working on now , I try
to track the evolution of consciousness throughout all of time—throughout
the universe, expressing itself as this universe, this planet, the evolution of
life on this planet, from the beginning up to the present time. That takes a
couple of pages already . Actually , all such things are simple when you see
them. So, when you see them, they are all quite simple. The Mystic
The mystic, then . . . the mystic is one who realizes the Presence of God as
the Unmanifest becoming manifest as consciousness, awareness, and the
radical subjectivity of the sense of “I.” Therefore, the book I’m finishing
now is just called The Eye of the I . The Eye of the I  is coming, really ,
through the third eye of the Buddhic body , in a way , but it’ s preparing the
way. The first one, the Ph.D. thesis, was a scientific basis I thought most
comprehensible by the academic world. And then pushed it a little bit over
to the nonlinear and used something safe and familiar to the intellect, the
academic intellect—and that was that graph, and we used logarithms and
things that people are comfortable with. And then we moved on to The Eye
of the I , which was the evolution of that to its higher significance and
dimensions, and I hope to conclude it with the book I’m just finishing now . What we’re tracking, then, is subjective experience.The subjective experience has to do with physicality , and it really
emanates from the animal domain. When you track, “What is the ego,
anyway? Is it something evil? Is it something to be fought? Something to be
ashamed of? Conquered?” you hear all kinds of approaches to the ego. It’ s
the screaming maniac that you have to quell, et cetera—the wild ox of the
Zen ox-herding pictures. It arises—if you track it back as to its etiology—
its origin is really within the animal domain. It’ s really within the animal
domain. You won’ t find anything in your ego that you can’ t see at the
nearest Monkey Island. If you go to the zoo and watch Monkey Island,
there’ s your ego, right there. They’re grasping, they’re challenging each
other , they’re baring their teeth. They’re trying to grab each other and mate
right on the spot and fight of f all the females fighting for the male, the
males fighting for the females. You see this alpha male and female
dominance. And you see people looking for favoritism; you see people
codependent with each other and “Love me ‘because I love you.’” You see
all of human pathology exhibited there—paranoia, possessiveness,
territoriality . All you see is today’ s headline. I didn’ t see this morning’ s
headline, but I’m sure it’ s right from the latest review from Monkey Island. So if you look at the ego, all we see is really the dominance of the animal
within us. Of course, the animal, the animal within us, is still present
anatomically as the old animal brain. So, being a human being is a very
difficult thing. If I were Saint Peter , I’d say , “Are you human?” “Y eah.”
“You pass.” Anybody who survives a total life as a human being is in a
terrible conflict from the instant you’re here. Why? Because you have an
animal body . It’s made of meat and bones and the same thing as a cow or a
horse. Within the brain you have atavistic drives built into your brain. The
basic nuclei in the brain are built into survival, hating rivals. Here you have
an animal body , you have the remnants of the old reptilian—not only the
animal, but reptilian brain. And then, superimposed, the mammalian brain,
and then lastly , the cerebral cortex in the frontal region: the cerebral cortex,
which is a very late arrival in the human scene—a couple hundred thousand
years, which is practically no time at all. Therefore, it’ s helpful to realize
we’re a primitive race. My view of mankind is that it is a very primitive
race, barely out of the animal stage. Why can we say that? Well, we see that 87 percent of the people are not
out of the animal stage yet, you know? The human, the light of humanness
dimly dawns on some people, but it’ s a late arrival. It’ s only in late 1986 orso that the consciousness level of mankind jumped from 190 to 207. In
other words, like yesterday . Well. Consciousness level 200 here is the
difference between that which is destructive to life, negative to life, and that
which is spiritually aware. So you don’ t really see the beginning of Love
until 200. Love doesn’ t count in the world of survival. On the battlefield,
forget it; and you’re selling used cars, for get it. A friend of mine who was
here last time sells used cars. I mean, the idea has to do with survival. The Evolution of Consciousness
All right. So, this evolution of consciousness, then, which evolved in the
beginning: Genesis makes you go strong. In the beginning, out of the non-
form, non-anythingness, arose light. Light, then, was the ener gy of the
Unmanifest becoming manifest. The first sign of any Divinity in the
universe, as far as we know , is light. Let’ s see if that’ s so. “The first
emanation of God as manifest was as light: resist” (T rue). So, Genesis
makes you go strong. Genesis . . . there’ s only three books of the Old
Testament that make you go strong. Genesis is one of them. Proverbs is
another , and Psalms is another . The rest of them make you go weak and
seem to come out of sort of a primitive religion—a primitive religion in
which the view of God is an anthropomorphic projection from the
unconscious of all that is negative and feared. The evolution of consciousness, then, takes us through. This ener gy is
coming up through the animal kingdom. There’ s a bifurcation in the animal
kingdom, a very strange one. If we go back to the lowest forms of life, we
find that there is no concern for others. It’ s rapacious and it lives by virtue
of destroying the life of another . This reaches its epitome during the age of
the dinosaur . The dinosaur was probably the epitome of that ener gy when it
reigned upon the earth, rapacious with no concern for anything except its
own greedy survival. The maternal instinct had not arisen as yet. The
dinosaur laid an egg and wished it well. Good luck. But then there arose a parallel line of evolution, the warm-blooded
herbivore. The herbivore does not kill anything in order to eat. In fact, the
herbivore supports life. The green grass grows, the herbivore eats it. It
represents combining oxygen and chlorophyll. And then refertilizes the
earth, which makes for more grass, so the herbivore doesn’ t have to killanything or anybody in order to survive. So, you have that which survives
only by killing, and that which survives without killing. And the evolution of Love, as I’m tracking the evolution of
consciousness, doesn’ t begin until it arises on the planet as maternal love. The mother ’s caring for the infant is the first dawning of Love on the
planet. Until that, until mammalian love or the bird’ s mother caring for the
egg, Love didn’ t really exist. Does a dinosaur love another dinosaur? Not
likely . You might say the appearance of spiritual ener gy, then, was in the form
of the mother , and much later , between man and woman. Romantic love is a
very recent development. It’ s only a few hundred years old. The upper
classes didn’ t pay any attention to love; you married for what was good for
the family , and then you found love elsewhere. Men and women, until very
recent times, spent very little time with each other . The man was out
hunting and fishing and brawling and doing unmentionable things. And the
woman was home taking care of domestic issues. They spent very little
time. There was very little companionship between man and woman. So,
romantic love is really quite recent—really , in the late feudal period. The
idea of romance between man and woman is a pretty modern kind of a
thing. So, even romantic love is very recent on the planet. One would
assume it was always there, but if you look back through history , you
realize it was relatively rare. At 431, where we are today , we’re looking at God as wisdom;
meaningful; He’ s approachable by reason; we’re capable of understanding
Him; and the mind at this point is capable of abstraction. Well, at the lower
levels, the mind is very concrete. It’ s not capable of abstraction. As people
evolve and reason begins to really take hold, they hear a spiritual truth, and
a certain percentage becomes attracted to it. That starts the spiritual quest,
either through an emotional hitting bottom or by the sheer advance of
consciousness and its evolution as it is expressed as reason. So, 431 is a
very high level. It surpasses most of mankind. Any guy who’ s watching the
TV news will tell you that. The world is so stupid. That’ s what a guy is
supposed to say to his wife: “God, it’ s so stupid!” He’ s all upset about
politics, and she’ s not interested in politics. So, radical subjectivity , then, is the very essence of experiencing the
Presence of God as that which says “I”: that which allows you to be aware
of your own existence, is at all times present, never absent. It’ s the firstthing you become aware of when you wake up in the morning. The first
thing that happens before thinkingness even starts is the awareness of
existence. There’ s an awareness, as you wake up, that one exists. You don’ t
even have a name yet. If I catch you at the very first instant you open your
eyes and say , “What’ s your name?” “Give me a second while I wake up. Give me a second.” “Are you a man or a woman?” “Go ahead, give me a
second until I wake up.” “Are you an American or European, or what are
you?” “Give me a second to wake up.” So, consciousness is there before
even content. Consciousness awakens, then, with the awareness of
existence. That which allows you to say “I” is presumed, as you wake up, to
be the personal “I.” Because reality seems to have to do with form and facts
and physicality , one presumes that knowing that I am, that I exist, being
aware, the sense of “I,” is coming from a personal “I.” And that’ s the only
illusion we have to jump. The sense of “I” is not coming from a personal “I” at all. It’ s coming
from an impersonal “I.” Consciousness is an impersonal quality . The
consciousness which arises as you awaken is not personal at all. You have it
focused  on the personal, but its essence is not personal; it is because of the
Infinite “I,” that which is not dif ferent than Divinity , reality , truth, all the
things it’ s been called throughout the ages. It illuminates the awareness that
shines forth as the awareness of your own existence, but its source is the
Infinite “I.”
That which knows that you’re here this second is not the personal “I,”
because if we ablate the personal “I,” you will still be aware that one’ s
quality is that of existence. It was that dilemma that confronted me at age
three. People say , “We’d like to hear personal stories.” The personal story is
actually irrelevant, but it gives an example of what we’re talking about. In this lifetime, at age three, out of complete oblivion and nothingness,
suddenly there was a shock. This thing here was sitting in a little wagon,
and I realized I exist. It was the awareness of existence with extreme clarity
and extremely shocking intensity; nor was I pleased with it. There was a
shocking awareness of existence. Instantly arose a fear . If I had come into
existence, then hypothetically it might have been that I might not have
come into existence. So, it was really the awareness of existence as
“beingness,” “I am–ness.” At three, there was no verbalization about any of
this, but it was a complete understanding of it, let me tell you. And it really
set the theme for this lifetime for many years to come. That dilemma ofreality as “existence versus nonexistence” is extremely abstract and
extremely high level. It’ s a spiritual paradox you don’ t have to solve until
you get to level 890 or something, which was dif ficult to handle, therefore,
at age three. But the dilemma of existence versus nonexistence was like a silent
paradox that hung out in the back of my mind in the lifelong pursuit of
identifying the radical truth of the Self and who you are. And it wasn’ t
verbalized again for many years, but there was the paradox of existence
versus nonexistence. The beautiful thing about realizing the truth of who you are—the truth of
who you are is not dif ferent than that which subjectively is conscious of
your existence. Nothing needs to be said about it. It doesn’ t have to be
searched for . You don’ t have to study to find it. It’ s more an intuitive
awareness that sort of dawns on you that that is the ultimate reality you’ve
been searching for . That ultimate reality is timeless; and as one becomes
aware of it, one realizes that that which you really are has always existed. You’ll always exist, because it is beyond existence versus nonexistence. It is
beyond time. It is beyond form. It is the substrate out of which all
experiencing arises and that solves all the riddles. Now , religion says such an awareness is not possible until after you’re
dead and in heaven or someplace. So religion looks at God as transcendent. The transcendent God shows up in Genesis, creates the universe, promptly
disappears, and goes in heaven—moves to heaven—and you don’ t get any
chance to meet Him until after you’re dead, if you’ve been good. There is
that horrible moment called Judgment Day , though. Uh-oh! God rolls the
dice, says, “Good luck, you’re on your own.” Then He hangs out in heaven,
waiting for you with a big stick. And, if you didn’ t do so well— whacko ! Into the boiling cauldron—out of which He gets great glee, by the way . He
loves  to see people suffer . Anyway , He picks the good and the bad, or He
picks 144,000. So, that is the God who is transcendent; to be feared; projected
somewhere, elsewhere in time and space; because heaven is up there and
you’re down here. Well, if you’re down here and heaven and God is up
there, the chances are not too good you’re going to run into Him at
Walmart. Traditional religion, then, is a denial of the reality of the truth of yourself. It is in great contrast to the mystic. Religion, therefore, is extremely limitedas compared to spirituality . So, we dif ferentiate between religion and
spirituality: a very delicate but important dif ference to be made. The signers
of the Constitution understood it perfectly . The Constitution of the United
States calibrates at over 700. That is spiritual brilliance. That’ s the level of
the sage, the genius. It clearly dif ferentiates spiritual freedom from the
establishment of religion and clearly saw that, if anything, religion is an
enemy of spiritual freedom. Of course, coming out of England, and
Protestant and Catholic conflicts over the years, et cetera, they were highly
conscious of that. But I don’ t think it came out of their historical
experience. It came out of, really , a spiritual inspiration because the signers
of the Declaration of Independence, et cetera, all calibrate in the high 500s. They were extremely gifted men, and we are very , very fortunate. The
Constitution of the United States calibrates higher than the constitution of
any [other] country on the planet. It guarantees spiritual freedom, and it
does so by prohibiting religion from becoming established, and
simultaneously it does not prohibit religion. So, it was extremely brilliant. Very few people today really comprehend the dif ference between spiritual
and religious. So religion becomes, over time, an institution which has its upside and its
downside. In another book we’re doing right now , we calibrate the level of
truth for all the world’ s great religions, and you can track it down through
time. You can track it down from the time of its origination, down through
the centuries and down through the Council of Trent, the Council of Nicaea,
all the various things—and see what happened to all the various world’ s
religions. Traditionally , the mystic has been at odds with traditional religion. In
fact, some religions condemn the mystic, and historically , mystics were
burned at the stake and declared heretics—excommunicated and put in
strange places. In some world’ s religions, actually , the subjective reality of
the mystic is declared to be formally heresy . To experience the Presence of
God within is actually forbidden in Islam, for instance. So the Christian
mystic didn’ t do too well either . The only place the mystic has really prospered in history has been in
areas of India, where their tradition of the mystic is traditional. The Vedas
explain the realization of the Presence of God as Self, for some thousands
of years. All those, by the way , do calibrate at 1,000, as does the Buddha,
who cleverly got himself born in India so that he didn’ t get crucified for histeachings. Had he been born elsewhere, he would not have fared as well. But there was already a friendly knowledge of spiritual truth in that part of
the world of great antiquity . So, what he taught was not at great odds with
their tradition. The lands that are favorable to Buddhism are today the most
favorable to the mystic. When we speak in Korea, let’ s say , or the Orient,
you know , they come by the thousands from all over the country , because
all we are saying is that we have sort of demonstrated in a scientific,
verifiable way what their culture has held to be the truth for thousands of
years. The prosperity of a religion or a spiritual teaching depends considerably ,
then, on context. On context, not just on content. The religionist tends to
emphasize content  and declare holy wars based on content, thereby
negating the context. But it is the context out of which their spiritual
teaching is true. Without context, what they’re babbling is nonsense. Any
mental hospital is full of religious people that can babble all kinds of
religious stuf f. It’s the context that gives the spiritual teaching any kind of
validity because God is the ultimate context . That which is God derives its
infinite power by the fact that Divinity is infinite context. Out of infinite
context comes infinite power . So, religion which negates context has just
negated its own validity . Spiritual seekers are made up considerably by people who’ve had a
variety of religious backgrounds. And many have ridden it as far as it can
go and then wanna know: “Where do we go from here?” Some people have
had subjective spiritual experiences which are quite powerful. In this
lifetime, such things occurred. At age 12 or 14, a near -death experience
which was transformative totally eliminated the fear of death for the rest of
my life. And in the late 30s, suddenly , all that the mind had considered
“myself” in reality completely disappeared and was replaced by an infinite
context, which was the presence which swept away all thought. So, those kinds of severe spiritual experiences, then, account for some of
us being here. Other people become interested in spiritual work because
they have a variety of illnesses. And they’ve heard that, through spiritual
investigation, every illness known to mankind has been known to become
healed and resolved, and I myself have witnessed it. It is true that with
intense spiritual work, a certain percentage of physical illnesses will remit
or totally cure. In some cases they will not, but to a spiritually evolved
person, it no longer matters whether it does or it doesn’ t. So, the fallacy ofcriticizing that spiritual work did not lead to the healing of something
means that the person did not evolve enough. You follow A Course in Miracles , let’s say , with great intensity—or even
AA, even the 12 Steps—you take the third step of the 12 Steps with great
intensity; you finally reach a state whether the physicality survives or not is
totally irrelevant. Because when you totally surrender your will to God, the
craving for continued physicality disappears. And whether this physicality
survives or not is, frankly , of no interest whatsoever . So, a person who
intensely does spiritual work will either recover from the physical illness or
they will reach such an advanced state of consciousness that whether the
body survives or not is really not of any particular interest. They will even
reach a point where if they left soon, that would be fine. So, spiritual
endeavor , then, does handle any and all physical illnesses. Anybody who has been around in any of the consciousness teachings that
are prevalent— A Course in Miracles  is one I was familiar with—we saw
people with every illness on the face of the earth go into remission or
recover . And that started these Attitudinal Healing centers which were based
on that group: a spiritual approach to chronic and incurable illnesses. Jerry
Jampolsky started one out in Tiburon [California]. He wrote Love Is Letting
Go of Fear . Jampolsky brought his whole staf f back east, where I had a big
clinic. We started the second Attitudinal Healing center in New York. And
there we did also see every kind of illness known to mankind remit. And
this particular body , which was af flicted with all kinds of disasters in my
30s, slowly remitted from a whole lot of these disasters, including the
ability to see. When I grew up, I had thick glasses and I was what you call nowadays a
nerd—no doubt. While everybody played stickball, I sat there reading Plato. It does sound kind of nerdy when I look at it now . I liked Aristophanes and
Plato and Aristotle, and those are my heroes. With thick bifocals on, you
can’t play baseball too well, because it hits you in the nose before you see
it. You’re too small and skinny to play football. I tried the swimming team,
and they said, “Y ou’re way too short.” So Plato was my pal. But anyway ,
after this transformation of consciousness, many ailments healed
themselves. And I still wore thick trifocals then. While in A Course in
Miracles  class, somebody said, “Why do you still wear them?” And I
thought, Huh, I never thought of that as a belief system . I always thought,
being a physician in training and being a physician, that nearsightednessand astigmatism and all those things were physical, due to faulty
construction of the eyeball and the lens, et cetera. So I never thought of it as
an illness due to a belief system. I put the glasses away in my pocket and
never took them out again. So then I had to drive blind for six weeks. Happily , I wasn’ t living in
New York City anymore. But it was interesting because what I needed to
see, I could see. See, when you surrender every instant, when you stop
trying to control or change every instant as it arises—as the wave of the
instant arises—you surrender it as it arises; so you begin riding the crest of
the instant of “now .” And as you do that—I would always be able to see just
what I needed to see: the pedestrian right before I ran over him, so I missed
him; the stop sign turning red, et cetera. Driving around Sedona, I can
remember driving around the edge of the clif f and I could just see the edge
of the clif f, so I was surrendering fear all the time. And I would just see the
edge of the clif f as I needed to see it. I’d go to make a left turn in the dark
and the rain, and all of a sudden, I would see the curb that I was supposed to
see, because the headlights of some car would mysteriously arrive from
someplace and illuminate the curb, and I’d make it. If you look at it through
the intellect, it’ s hairy , but—anyway , for six weeks I surrendered my
survival to the Presence of God. The Infinite Presence guided everything,
which it has since 1965. It’s Because of the Self That You Survive, Not the Ego
The ego sells you the illusion that it’ s because of the ego that you survive,
but actually it’ s because of the Self with a capital S that you survive. It
certainly was not the ego keeping me alive. Anyway , I thought, Well, I guess
you’ll never get to see anything again. I mean, I couldn’ t see this crowd
here, in a way . I couldn’ t see the table. I can’ t see anything close, and I can’ t
see anything far . If you can’ t see either close or far , then you can’ t see
anything, can you? I knew if it was light or dark. So, one day I was standing
in the kitchen of a friend, and—I think it was A Course  in Miracles  class, in
fact. We were standing in the kitchen, the friend, talking about this, that, or
the other thing, and suddenly , with no warning, everything became clearly
visible. I looked at the calendar across the room. I could read the calendar—
January , February , March, April . . . So, even vision returned with great
clarity . And a number of people who’ve heard the story tried it and had thesame experience. And they all said it took about six weeks. Anyway , that’ s
the six-week program, folks—anybody who’ s willing to drive in traf fic
without knowing where you’re going until the last instant, if your nerves
can take it. As we progress spiritually , various peculiar phenomena do occur . There
are physiologic changes that happen, and they dif fer depending where you
are along the path. Some are exquisite. Some are beyond description. There’ s also various psychic, paranormal—the so-called Siddhis that arise,
which spiritual debunkers like to attack. There’ s also paranormal kinds of
things arise. There’ s exquisitely pleasurable sensations. Then, as you get
higher and higher , at least in this particular case, there’ s extremely awful
kinds of pain and you get wracked by all kinds of discomforts. So, we’ll try
to recontextualize all these things. The physiology of the nervous system
literally changes as you advance spiritually . There are shifts in the brain’ s
neurotransmitters. There is a shift from adrenaline to endorphins as a
predominant motif, neurochemically speaking. There’ s a diminishing in,
and finally the elimination of, the startle reflex. As a shot goes of f behind
me, I don’ t react at all. When I say “by me,” I’m talking about this body . If
a shot goes of f, it’s a passing notice, but there’ s no sense of alarm. That
disappeared after the near -death experience. In World War II, there was no fear of death either . We’d be facing
imminent, certain death, and I felt high. People were throwing up on the
deck, and I felt exhilarated. I was in a state of happiness. I guess I thought I
was soon to be with God. So there’ s a dif ference in emotional reactions, and
there are really profound changes throughout the human body . And I think
the healing process which many people come to Sedona, seeking healing
for various things, which we explained in the last lecture and previous ones. The ener gy field of Love, to choose Love, then tends to favor a healing and
a healthiness of the entire acupuncture system and a strengthening of the
immune system. I think any illness, if you become interested in intense
spiritual work—and by intense, I mean intense—you can transcend the
level at which that illness will remit. OceanofPDF .comCHAPTER 8
Understanding Karmic Influences
There are also karmic influences that may prevail. There are many times
when karmic deterrents to healing become transcended and the person goes
into remission. There are certain serious karmic limitations, perhaps, that
preclude the absolute healing of certain conditions, you see. So, each and
every case is researched; that’ s why we find kinesiology very fun and
useful. We find it’ s very useful in karmic research, because some trait or
some persistence in your life that’ s not explicable by logic, with a few
questions, you can find out where that originated, and sometimes you can
even recall it. It wasn’ t this lifetime—no, it wasn’ t this lifetime. But you do
remember it. I know why I don’ t get along with horses. I just don’ t get on with horses. I also remember where that all started. Anyway , let’s see if we’ve
transcended that one with horses or not. “W e have transcended that one
with horses: resist” (T rue). Yes, we did. I was very mean to horses, and they
also were very mean to me, and we just didn’ t get along for a lot of
lifetimes. In fact, that might have even remitted this week, yes. There was a
horse out in the corral and crying, crying, crying. All the other horses had
gone out on the trail, and this horse just cried and cried and was just
carrying on. And I couldn’ t stand it. So I was at the girls’  ranch where I am
the chief of staf f there. They have 50 adolescent girls. I said, “I have to take
care of this.” I couldn’ t stand this horse crying, obviously with emotional
pain and acute separation anxiety . So, I stopped everything to go out and
comfort this horse and began talking to that horse, who realized that
compassion was paying attention to it—the horse got that. It didn’ t heal the
horse, but I think the horse did get a message. But it could be where that
remitted, anyway . The Muscle-T esting T echniqueNow let’ s talk about kinesiology . We don’ t teach kinesiology . We explain
how to do it, and then it’ s up to you. It’ s like learning how to ride a bicycle. I can’ t really run bicycle-riding classes. But we do give you references
where you can go. People ask us . . . we have a sheet that gives references
on kinesiology . Jerry Teplitz, I just happen to be familiar with. He puts out a
whole course called Switched-On Living which demonstrates it in spades. Also, it’ s not a technique that everyone can do, but you can find people who
are able to do it, and if you have a distinct question—should you kill
yourself or not, or go to a movie—you can ask them. That’ s one of my
favorite quotes: “I couldn’ t decide whether to go to a movie this afternoon
or commit suicide.”
When two people are calibrating a thing or event, why do they get
different answers? This is a relative scale. If you really are serious about it,
first of all, you don’ t have to calibrate anything; I’ve already done it for
you. But if you’re going to be do-it-yourself-ish, you have to do it yourself. You can use the single-ring technique. If it’ s an important question, we
suggest you find a partner you can work with. For some people it comes
very rapidly . When I first saw it, I “got” how to do it in an instant. It’ s why I
tend to be impatient with people that take weeks to get what I could see in
one instant. So I’m not a great teacher of it. Teplitz has Switched-On
Living. There’ s a book by a nurse that’ s very good. If you call or write our
office, we have references on kinesiology . John Diamond’ s book Your Body
Doesn’ t Lie is about as good a description of the technique as you will find
anywhere, and it has illustrations. Another book [by Diamond] that is also
out is Behavioral Kinesiology . John Diamond, M.D.’ s Your Body Doesn’ t
Lie is a very good reference. And Jerry Teplitz has an elaboration of it with
videos and audios. So that’ s a good way to learn it. To really define it for yourself, you have to say , “in reference to this scale
of consciousness.” You can use any scale. You can make up your own scale. But “in reference to this scale of consciousness”: you have to give
conscious reference to it. I used to say , “On a scale of consciousness from 1
to 1,000, where 200 is Integrity and 500 is Love,” or “where 200 is Integrity
and 600 is Enlightenment,” on that scale of consciousness, then: “The
answer to this question is so-and-so.” You understand? It’ s an arbitrary
scale. We could have made it from 1 to 100; we could have made it from 0
to .1, and you could have .001, .0001—you see. Anyway , this turned out to
be logarithmically so, because I asked, “Is this numeric?” It said, “No, it’ slogarithmic.” All right. So it’ s a logarithmic scale. If you want accuracy ,
then you have to say: “In reference to this scale, where 200 is Integrity and
600 is Enlightenment, this dog calibrates at so-and-so.” I’ve already told
you in previous lectures that the dog’ s wagging tail calibrates at 500. And
so does a cat’ s purr . And Koko—you know , the gorilla—calibrates over
200. And there’ s a famous gray parrot, out of the University of Arizona, that
can count and tell colors. He knows which is gray and he knows which is
cork. He calibrates over 200. So you’re safer with the gorilla, Koko, than
you are with 78 percent of the people on the planet, who’ll steal your wallet
while they’re doing kinesiology with you. What Is a Genuine Mystic? What percentage of genuine mystics are alive in the world today? What is a
genuine mystic? “A  genuine mystic is—they mean by this somebody who
calibrates over 600: resist” (T rue). Okay . What percent are alive in the
world today? We can’ t get percentage, because it’ s less than 0.01 or
something like that. We can get the number , though. “The number of people
on the planet today who calibrate over 600 is over 30” (T rue); “32” (Not
true). It’ s between 30 and 32. Let’ s see; where’ s that other scale we had up
here? These were revised periodically because these changed between 1995
and the year 2001. Let’ s do the rest. “The number of people 700 is more
than six” (T rue); “More than eight” (Not true); “More than seven” (T rue);
“More than eight” (Not true). “The number over 800 is more than two”
(True); “Three” (Not true). “The number over 900 is more than two” (T rue). “The number over 980 is more than one” (T rue); “T wo.” (Not true). One
over 980. Surrendering the Ego to God
Now , how does one go about surrendering the ego to God? Can intention
alone change your consciousness? Yes. It’ s intention that motivates the
whole spiritual ef fort. It’ s one’ s intention that sets the context, and then
everything else falls within that context. You see, the mind will
automatically prioritize everything. If your most intense intention is to
reach the conscious experience of the Presence of God, then everything getssubsumed under that. The mind then automatically discards things that
would be extraneous. I can remember going through medical school. I put my way through
college and medical school. The financial demand of getting through
medical school and the intellectual demand of endless hours of study took
priority over everything. There was no time to read novels; there was no
time to go to movies. Every dollar had to count, so that prioritized
everything. I was a cabdriver , as my wife well knows, and every second
counted. Every second was money . When the light turned green and the
oncoming traf fic—if they didn’ t instantly jump it, I had made my left
already . The intention, then, is very determinative. How Do You Surrender the Ego to God? The books I’m writing have to do with understanding the mechanisms of
the ego. Before, we talked about positionality . Then we talked about how
the ego arose as survival mechanism in the animal world. It then became
elaborated by the intellect. The intellect now becomes the instrument of the
animal instinct. It’ s still up to the same thing; it’ s just more sophisticated. To be top dog now means the brand of car you drive and its year , or one’ s
position or one’ s title or one’ s income, or the store you bought your clothes,
or the style. So the intellect has merely become the servant of the animal
and expresses itself in more sophisticated ways. It’ s still up to being the
king of the hill and being the alpha male or the alpha female, et cetera. If
you see that the ego arose, it’ s not dif ferent than the animal, and its
motivations are not dif ferent than the animal, then you can stop feeling guilt
about it and stop making it wrong. There are many spiritual teachings that tend to make the ego wrong and
label all its on-going-ness as sin. Sin is just the persistence of the animal to
give in to biologic drives, at the price of a more evolved kind of human
love. Then it gets labeled “sin.” So, sin would be that which is still innate to
the animal kingdom, and by being human, it is now expected that you will
transcend it and not be dominated  by the animal drive. It doesn’ t mean that
you don’ t have the animal drive, but it means you won’ t be dominated by it. The reason I tracked the origin of consciousness as it evolved throughout
all of evolution is to disassemble the guilt-and-shame mechanism which
precludes many people from serious spiritual or religious endeavor . In the12-Step groups, many people buck at the fourth step. The fourth step is a
“fearless, searching, moral inventory .” A lot of people will go to the third
step, but when they get to the fourth step, they don’ t want to go to AA
anymore because they’re faced with what looks to them an ominous guilt
trip. Well. How can you look at the downside of the ego without
succumbing to guilt and shame and anger , et cetera?
_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:

        You can’ t get sober in AA unless you cross the
level of 200, because the first step in AA is, “I admit I am powerless
over”—or any of the 12-Step programs—“I admit that I am powerless over
‘so-and-so. ’” Well, that’ s the truth. If you had power over it, you wouldn’ thave the problem, would you. So, that’ s jacks for openers. So, 200 is jacks
for openers into the spiritual world, where you’re willing to admit the truth
about yourself and you give up being defensive, and you stop being guilty. People below the line are hard to deal with because they’re very
defensive. So, 200 is Neutral, a very nice, comfortable place to be; 175, you see,
people are prideful, and they get “tiddleyed” if they make any mistake. If
you say, “You stacked the cards backward. ” “I did not. ” And, “Y ou told me
that. ” You know, it’s very defensive, so it’ s hard to deal with. Neutral is
easygoing, because each Neutral knows that you can’ t live a day without
making lots of mistakes—it’ s impossible. That person who didn’ t make a
mistake today stayed in bed all day, and it was a mistake to stay in bed all
day. So, for giveness comes in out of compassion. Compassion is really the
answer to most of the lower negative ener gy fields: compassion for yourself
and for others, the willingness to for give, the willingness to for give and
overlook human error. Human error. Error is built into the human
mechanism, and so error is inevitable. I just read a very good article out of
Fortune  magazine that most companies are designed for success and they
have made no preparation for error. And they’re discovering now that the
company that knows how to turn error around in a very positive way is a far
more profitable, beneficial, and friendly place to work. So in your company,
what you do is, you set up your error strategy: “First of all, errors are going
to occur here. How are we going to handle them. What are we going to say
to the customer. ” Et cetera. So, you get out of defensiveness and you turn it
around into a positive. I thought that was a very beautiful article for
Fortune  magazine. You see, a lot of what is really considered spiritual is quite acceptable in
the world of commerce as long as you don’ t label it. As long as you don’ t
call it “spiritual,” it goes a long way, and of course it’ s very profitable on
the bottom line. Spiritual principles are highly profitable to the companies
that institute them, but they don’ t use spiritual terms or spiritual
terminology which turns a lot of people of f. The basic truth can be very
profitable to any company. Certainly, to be considerate of the customer—I
don’t know how any of these companies make it that you call up and you
get this string of answering machines, and then you punch 6 and 8 and 12. I
mean, how much does a human being cost an hour. Nowadays you can getthem for nine dollars an hour, right. I mean, you’re this giant corporation,
and you can’ t afford nine dollars an hour to have a human being say, “How
may I help you. ” with a really friendly voice. Wow. They’re saving nine
dollars an hour and losing millions by the hour; disgusted customers
hanging up, saying, “I was on the phone for 20 minutes, and I never got a
human being. To hell with them. ” What does it cost them. So, the insensitivity of corporate life at its interface with the human
domain is of interest to me. I recently got a call from a writer for the Wall
Street Journal  writing an article on that. The institution of spiritual
principles in business: does it actually show up on the bottom line or not. To even ask the question seems, to me, sort of absurd, but you know the
difference yourself: you get somebody helpful and friendly on the line. So,
what you want is somebody who answers your telephone is at 310. In
Neutral, “No, he ain’ t in now. ” It’s okay with them to disappoint you,
because their self-esteem doesn’ t ride on pleasing you. A person down
below may be angry. An apathetic person—we get a lot of apathy on the
telephone; those are about fourth-grade dropouts and the government has
assured them some kind of a job, but they really shouldn’ t be in the
workplace, actually. They need training on how to be in the workplace. So, each one of these fields [on the Map of Consciousness®] represents a
certain level of consciousness, which is impersonal. Each one of these
fields, by our assent, tends to dominate the field. So, our thoughts, without
realizing it, tend to be in tune with a prevailing ener gy field which we have
brought in out of our own agreement. We call that entrainment. The ener gy
field prevails in society, and by your assent, you agree to that ener gy field,
and now it tends to dominate your consciousness. We see that the success of the negative ener gy fields depends on that
entrainment. And in that book, and the book I’m just finishing and research
I’m doing now, it isn’ t the lyrics of certain negative kinds of pop music; it’ s
the ener gy field which accompanies it, which is like a carrier wave. That
carrier wave contains the pattern of that negative ener gy field. So, it’ s
possible to unconsciously invite in a negative ener gy field to dominate your
consciousness. You went to the party to have a good time, but when you
walked out, you’re now under the domination of a field which we could
term “satanic,” yeah. One has now agreed by propinquity, and the ener gy
field now dominates that person’ s consciousness. So, all they did is listen to
a lot of rock music and get stoned, and as far as they’re concerned, that’ sjust having a high time. And nobody sees the connection between that and
walking into the schoolroom and killing eight people. You ask them on it,
you see them on TV: “Why did you do that. ” “I don’ t know, I just wanted
to see what it felt like. ” He just wanted to see what it felt like. And how did
the person ever get to that level of consciousness. Because their
consciousness is dominated by a negative field. So, these fields which we tried to calibrate, we can depict them with a
generality. Don’ t forget, these calibrations are sort of general. In other
words, I can’ t say that it’ s 200 or 201. 2. Why. Because it’ s really a whole
new field for investigation. One could spend a lifetime and a Ph. D. dissertation exploring just a few points above and below 200 and how that
manifests in society. What does a jump in two points—from 202 to 204—
how does that manifest in one’ s annual earnings. How does it manifest in
job title. Even two points from 202 will take you from the back desk to the
front desk, right. From 200, it will take you from the front desk; from 202,
will take you to the manager ’s office. Another two points will take you up
to be assistant manager. Probably another two points, you’re manager. So,
we’re dealing in broad numbers, but I’m sure even slight variations have
quite a profound ef fect as they express themselves in human life and
society. So, each one of them is really a field for detailed research. What
we’ve really done is sketch out the broad outlines, but we haven’ t mapped
out every nook and cranny in the coastline. OceanofPDF. comCHAPTER 6
The Willingness to Completely
Surrender One’ s Life to God
How far up the scale is it possible to go in one lifetime. From the depths of
hell to the Presence of God, within a day, is a subjective experience, so that
would be practically the whole scale. It’ s possible to jump enormously,
because you don’ t know what kind of karmic loading is behind such a
move. Understand what I’m saying. You don’ t know what the possibilities
are. I think, by choice. Yes, I think I see what the answer is, actually;
what I actually myself did and what Ramana Maharshi recommends, okay. “Taking the third step at great depth will take you all the way from the
bottom to the top: resist” (T rue). What I did was what’ s called, in AA, the
third step: “the willingness to completely surrender one’ s life completely
and totally to God with no considerations, no withholdings, no matter
what. ” Ramana Maharshi recommends to look within and ask, “Who am I. ”
He is not exactly correct. It’ s not “Who am I. ” [It’ s] “What am I. ” “Who,”
you’re looking for a personage again—it’ s like you’re looking for a bigger,
better ego. So, I don’ t agree with that teaching as it is verbalized. “What am
I,” because the “what” is impersonal; the “who,” you’re looking, like, for a
higher person. Ramana Maharshi, you know, suddenly dropped over at age 15 or 16,
whatever it was—he was just an ordinary religious person, Hindu—and
thought he’d died. And obviously in that moment, completely surrendered,
and saw himself as dying and dead. And then came out of that experience at
700. And he never left the mountain. I know what he experienced, because
in walking through, what should we say. in completely surrendering
everything, there was the experience of dying—of great, profound anguish,
of really dying. One knows that one is—really—dying. And you know
you’re dying, and it was, in this experience, rather dreadful. But it onlylasted a few seconds, half a minute, something. But it was very, very
definite, the experience of dying. It’s not possible to experience one’ s own physical death. For get about
experiencing your own death. Nobody experiences their own death. It’ s not
possible to experience your own death, because you’re out of body, and
when the body goes, you’re not there. So you don’ t experience any death,
because you haven’ t died. How can you experience your death when you
haven’ t died. But the death of the ego, yes, that is the death that people
dread. They think it’ s the body, but it’ s the ego—one’ s identity. So, the
willingness to surrender even one’ s identity as “I,” as “me,” to God can
bring about enormous change. It was through that great space that the
splendor of That Which Is shone forth. You never experience your own
death. There’ s two questions that we could do just as an aperitif. “W e have
permission: resist” (T rue). “One never experiences their own physical
death: resist” (T rue). That’ s a fact. You don’ t have to worry about
experiencing your death, because it ain’ t gonna happen. The other question
that we sort of need to know—“we have permission to ask this one: resist”
(True). “The time of your death in this lifetime is karmically set: resist”
(True). It’ s karmically set, so why worry about it. The time is certain, and
you’re not going to experience any death anyway. One of the biggest
reasons for the propagation of the ego is fear of death. To merely know that
you’re not going to die, you’re not going to experience any death, and it’ s
already set already, relieves a great deal of reason for the ego to continue its
dominion over you. That brings to mind a question about karma: so, what can you do in this
lifetime to negate any karmic responsibilities that you may have acquired. Do you have any shortcuts. Do good at all times to all people and cross
your fingers. I guess one follows one’ s spiritual direction to the best of
one’s ability, which is all that’ s required. You know what I’m saying. That’ s
all that’ s required. It’ s not that God is a cruel taskmaster. See, God is not
arbitrary. God is completely nonarbitrary. One earns one’ s way out by one’ s
own good intentions. And you watch Dickens’ s A Christmas Car ol every
year. It’s worth watching every year, because I think it’ s a great spiritual
treatise. I think that Dickens’ s A Christmas Car ol is one of the greatest
spiritual treatises ever written. The Ghost of Christmas Past—we see whereit would take us in the future, and now we have the chance to choose
differently, that’ s all. He was a great spiritual teacher. “The question is, are you free to move to their level of calibration, or do
you help them move into yours. What’ s the bridge between the two. ” You
don’t move your level of consciousness to match theirs. Out of willingness
to communicate, one accommodates. The personality—what Jung called the
persona —does that all the time. A certain type of languaging is appropriate
for one group and it is not for another, so you do as the Romans do, for the
sake of harmony. The persona, in this particular instance here, automatically
adjusts to whatever environment it’ s with. It tends to not want to be around
people who calibrate less than 200. It doesn’ t enjoy it much, any more than
it enjoys loud noise. It doesn’ t enjoy it, but there’ s a natural willingness out
of compassion to be what you feel you can be to others when it is
appropriate. If it is nonintegrous, there’ s absolutely no reason to go along
with it. One could merely disregard it. You know, Christ said, do not fight
evil; just ignore it, walk away from it—to walk away from that which is not
compatible. At a certain level, one, for instance, may leave the big city and move to
the country where it’ s very quiet. Now, the peace and quiet of the country
would drive some people nuts. They come visit you for a day or two, and
they can’ t wait to get back to the big city. They are attuned to that ener gy. One just does what one can to be compatible with others for the sake of
harmony. You don’ t have to start giving them a lecture that bullfighting is
wrong. Bullfighting calibrates at 35, by the way. Dogfighting and
bullfighting calibrate around 35. It’ s about the same as the Roman
Colosseum: blood for the sake of blood. You don’ t have to give them a
lecture about that—that dogfighting is immoral, or something. For the Joy of the W ork
Now, if a spiritual teacher is not supposed to accept any money for the
teachings, just for the facilities and food and whatever, how does the
spiritual teacher eat. It isn’ t that they shouldn’ t; it’s just that that’ s not a
primary goal—not a goal, see. But naturally one has reality, needs that have
to be met. So, what’ s appropriate. You see, all things that the calibrated
level is, is all based on motive. What is the motive. The integrous teacher is
not interested in whether one has lots of followers, lots of fame. You do itfor the sake of the work. Because of the joy of the work. I have three radio
programs coming up soon. The question is: Why should you do a radio
program. Do I really want to do radio programs. Well, to have this kind of
knowledge and not share it with others. In other words, to have certain
knowledge that can be helpful to others, one gets joy out of sharing it. It
would be like Sir Alex Fleming, who discovered penicillin. He excitedly ran
all over the place. He’d say, “Wow, this can stop disease; this can cure
disease. ” For five years he ran over and knocked on all doors, and
everybody laughed at him. Then World War II came along, and soldiers
were dying of infection. More people died of infection in the war than by
gunshots. In the Civil War, more people died from wound infection than
anything else. So, here he’ s got a cure for it. Penicillin completely stopped
the spread of bacteria. He was saying, “W ow,” and he runs all over
excitedly. That’ s what a spiritual teacher does—so excitedly, and wants to
share it. So, the pay that you get is the joy of the sharing. The only
difficulty is, you don’ t have the amount of time that you would like. You’d
like to do all the programs, go to all the speaking engagements, talk to
everybody that you could, all day long. But you have rent to pay. So I look
at it, if something pays the rent and frees your time so that you can spend
that time teaching, then you’re giving it back to the world. Do you
understand what I’m saying. But to store up riches on earth, I think is
foolish. Storing up riches on earth is not appealing. So, all the material
things no longer have any appeal. After January of 1965, there was the instant loss of all the things that
motivate average people: success, fame, having lots of patients, being well
thought of. All those things were meaningless. So, what was the purpose of
going to work at all, and returning to the of fice. It was really compassion
for the suf fering of patients, and now I had a new dimension. I could see
within the psyche of the patient the real source of the illness, and that they
were devoid of the recognition, the validation of the true Self within. Because their external was so repulsive, very often, that there was really
nobody, even their own mother couldn’ t love them, see. So, what they
needed was somebody that could discern the “Self” with a capital S within
and acknowledged its presence. Instantly they felt healed. When you feel
acknowledged and gotten and understood, that instant of connection only
takes a split second. It can happen anywhere in the world at any time. Instantly, there’ s a mutual recognition of the truth of who you are. Oncethat’s validated, after that, things don’ t really matter. Whether you get better
in terms of the world or not is sort of irrelevant. The capacity to do that is
what propelled the continuation: the joy of one’ s perfection or expertise, or
whatever you call it. You know, musicians typically live to be very old, and so do humorists
and artists. It’ s not unusual for a symphony conductor to father a child at
92. And 30 years after other people have retired and died already, they’re
still writing and conducting symphonies. Artists tend to be long-lived, and
humorists—they live into their late 90s. So, there’ s something about humor
and art and music that is somehow life-sustaining. That’ s interesting, isn’ t
it. When I was young, you worked for the company until you were 65. You
got a gold watch, and they had a big retirement party. You then got with
your wife in a recreational vehicle, toured the United States, came home,
and dropped dead in two years. So, everybody retired at 65, had a
retirement party, toured the world, and dropped dead at 67, because now
you don’ t have a title, you have no name; there’ s no reason to continue on. Depression and Brain Chemistry
One can unravel depression from various viewpoints. Of course, it’ s seen as
hopelessness, lack of self-worth; it’ s sometimes expressed as anger turned
within oneself. So, there’ s a personal self-evaluation there. We’ll skip the
karma in the whole story. We’ll go to the brain chemistry. You can turn
depression on and of f by raising and lowering one of the brain’ s
neurotransmitters. Genetically, about a third of mankind is prone to
depression. Women are more prone than men. Certain age groups are more
prone. You can turn depression on and of f by raising and lowering one of
the brain’ s neurotransmitters. So, that’ s the physiology, the physicality, the
genetics of it. The karmic propensity is something else. It comes from self-
evaluation; it’ s really due to the lack of joy in the experience of one’ s own
existence. The answer is, truthfully—aside from the brain chemistry—
spiritual. And it resolves only when one surrenders the depression to God
and says, “I will be of service, even though I am useless and hateful; but,
even as that, I will continue to serve,” and the depression will lift itself. It’ s,
to some degree, a narcissistic self-evaluation which the degree of narcissism
refuses the judgment of the world. The judgment of the world is that you’rea good father and husband, and all that and the other. But the ego, in its sort
of megalomania, disputes that and says, on the contrary, “You are wrong,
and I am right. ” So there’ s a vanity of the ego at the core of it. It’ s not really
“cured” until that narcissistic core of the ego is resolved, surrendered to a
higher power. Nothing that you think about yourself is true. It has no
validity. Whether you think you’re great or you think you’re horrible,
they’re both irrational and somewhat lunatic. If you think you’re great, that
is a moment of lunacy, and if you think you’re awful, that’ s an equal
moment of lunacy. There’ s no validity in anything the ego says about itself,
you know. What I really try to convey is a grasp of the dif ference between the linear
and the nonlinear, because to know under which bush to look is very
helpful.
The first step in AA is "I admit I am powerless over...". It's important to understand because it's a crucial step in the process of surrendering to a higher power and acknowledging one's limitations.
What is the first step in AA, and why is it important to understand?
The number 200 is significant because it represents a level of consciousness where one is willing to admit their powerlessness and surrender to a higher power.
What is the significance of the number 200 in the context of the text?
The author argues that spirituality is not the same as religion. While religion focuses on content, spirituality is about context and the nonlinear domain. The author emphasizes that spirituality is not about achieving a certain level of consciousness, but rather about the willingness to surrender and let go.
What is the difference between spirituality and religion, according to the author?
The number 700 is not explicitly mentioned in the text, but it is implied that it represents a high level of spiritual awareness and enlightenment.
What is the significance of the number 700 in the context of the text?
The author explains that the linear domain is concerned with form and facts, while the nonlinear domain is concerned with context and meaning.
What is the main difference between the linear and nonlinear domains, according to the author?