Plotinus class 10/14/1983

CLASS TRANSCRIPT 10/14/83

 

 

Categories: [Later.]

 

Sabian Symbols: None

 

Contents: [Later.]

 

[Transcriber note: Files are out of order. First File B, then File A.]

 

AD: [faint] [one/two words inaudible] [sounds like: and] talk about a little bit, and gives you an idea, an outline of what I’m doing, trying to do. And then-- and then we can discuss the point [sounds like: some people are] [few words inaudible] [couple inaudible student words simultaneous with AD] you got the quotes ready, right?

 

S: [sounds like: Yeah.]

 

AS: [faint] [few words inaudible]

 

AD: [quiet/faint] Alright, the-the first-- the first thing about Soul, remember we said that, when we conceive of the One, the-the-- it would help to think of it in a distinctive way, you know, [sounds like: as--] we thought of it as having many aspects, but all these aspects were indivisible, indivisible from one another and from the One itself. But, Plotinus make-- does make a point over and over again that the-- or the paradigm of anything that’s found has to be located primarily in the Transcendent itself. So the paradigm of Soul is located in-- in the One itself [sounds like: (when/and then)] he speaks about-- about that as its power, its undivided power. And, there the life of the One is unsullied, undiluted, uncontaminated, pure life, an unlived life. And then he speaks about this life as the power of the One which radiates forth. It is the power that the radiation has to employ(,) that power, that radiation he speaks about as becoming the Intellectual-Principle. So on the one hand you have the life which is the unlived life which remains in the One, and then you have the life, so to speak, which is projecting forth or radiating [sounds like: the] Intellectual-Principle. So from that point of view, one could see that, in a sense, this life is the power of the One radiating forth the Intellectual-Principle. And, concomitant with that, we said, was the Absolute Soul. These were, in Plotinus’ terminology, the three primal Hypostases. On the one hand, transcendent One itself. Secondly, the Intellectual-Principle which is radiated forth from it. And concomitant with that would be the Absolute Soul or the Absolute [sounds like: Life in] Intellectual-Principle. I think PB would do something like this, he would call these three Void. And he would call the One itself the Holy of Holies. And from that comes the Void, alright, which is the-- can be bi-furcated as an Intellectual-- the Ideas and the World-Mind, the World-Mind and its Act. [students assenting, very faint] And, I think these three would correspond to what PB calls the Void. And he speaks about the soul that has reached self-recognition can penetrate into that Void. Remember, we spoke about that [sounds like: determination--] self-recognition(,) (to/can) come to his own Overself. Then a deepening insight of Overself, it has three levels of penetration, first level [few words inaudible] the Absolute Soul, the Intellectual-Principle, the Holy of Holies. But at any rate, taking off from the Absolute Soul now, if we followed our series of quotations, and those are the three primal Hypostases [possibly one word inaudible] [sounds like: (there/then) everything’s poured] from the Absolute Soul, what we refer to as the Demiurge or the Universal Soul, Soul of the Universe. Now the Soul of the Universe, on the one hand, it’s contemplating the Ideas which are in the Intellectual-Principle, and on the other hand, the reflex of that contemplation would be the organization of the samskaras of God or what you might refer to as the atom. And, the organization of these samskaras by the reason-principles, which, I think we pointed out, represented the primitive stuff or primitive matter that is going to be guided by Universal Soul and the reason-principles into the production of the universe. So it was like a ground-plan of the universe. I think Avery made some interesting comments, he pointed out the-- he thought he saw that the reason why Plotinus called this a tentative illumination of matter was that the samskaras of God, or the so-called matter, would not retain those reason-principles, and that if it was possible it would shed them. Now, this notion of the matter of God we could think of it something like this. You know when we refer to the transcendent as having fourfold-- a fourfold aspect? It (has/had) a unity, a being or intellect, and a nature, and then a body. Now the body of the transcendent One we’re thinking of as the matter of, [sounds like: alright--] the matter which is coeval with the One. Now matter here is no kind of stuff obviously. But if you were to think, where could universal manifestation take place? You’d have to say, in some way or another it takes place in God, I mean where else could it take place? And if it took place in God, then the entirety of universal manifestation or parts of it when they dissolve, they leave behind the traces of their, let’s say, presence at one time or another. And if this has been going on forever, has no beginning, then these traces which have been left behind in the-- in the body of God, which would be subtler than space, the primal space, then these tendencies would remain there [sounds like: in--] this is what we’re calling the matter, the disordered motion, that the Demiurge has to organize into primitive matter. That’s what we’re referring-- that’s what I’m referring to as matter and that’s the way I understand most of the traditions to speak about it. Well at any rate, we said that the Demiurge, by organizing and imposing reason-principles on the matter, laid the ground-plan or the plan of the universe, and from that, the next step would be to think of the Sun souls or I should say star souls as inhabiting that-- inhabiting a realm within the plan which was laid out by Universal Soul. And I think we said that, if we think of each one of these star souls as an Idea or as having its own Intellectuality, alright, then we went on to point out that each one of these star souls, which is a Sun in its own right-- and we’re calling it star soul. And we’re saying that it is evolving from within itself its own world. So if we took our star as an example, which is [sounds like: a] soul, and we thought of this star as evolving from within itself--because it has its own Logos principle, its own Intellectuality, it’s evolving a universe within itself--then we would say that it would need certain powers to do so and then we speak about the cosmic soul or the Sun soul as having these powers by which it evolves the potentiality or the Logos principle which is within it. Now, the strange thing that happens now is that each one of these powers-- now we’re speaking just about [sounds like: (our/a)] Sun. In another Sun the arrangement may be different, you got binary systems, ternary systems, I don’t know, they-- I-I’m-- I’m happy just to try to figure out what’s going on a little bit over here. So in the case of our Sun, which is a star soul, it has these powers by which it evolves or unfolds the latent Idea that it has and to do so it has to, so to speak, on the one hand, use the matter which has been supplied to it by the Universal Soul. And we pointed out, you-- I-I think there is some corollary here if you go according to some of the astronomical theories that point out that the primary elements have to first be given and then secondary elements evolve out of that. Now-- then the strange thing that happens is that each one of the powers of the Sun, let’s say each planet, is in its turn a soul. So, the Earth of our Solar system is a soul. And this soul, alright, it also has the same kind of fourfold division like the Sun soul had. The Sun soul for instance we said has a unity, alright, and being, and it has a soul and a body, it has these four principles. In other words, the One itself is like the paradigm that they all imitate. So, when we think of our Sun, alright, it has an apparitional body, the one that we see. Then it has its own manifesting principle. Then it has a reasoning phase and its unity phase in the Intellect. So it has also fourfold. So in other words we’re saying that the Sun [sounds like: had] unity, it has being, and that’s in the Intellectual realm. Then it has soul, alright, which is its principle of manifestness, and then that which appears within it, the apparitional body. So it has a fourfold division too. Now we go down one more step and we say well the Earth too has a God and the Earth is a Goddess or a God. It too has that kind of fourfold division. But now its division is a little different. It has on the one hand a body, alright, and that would be, let’s say, the four, five element(s). And it has what we would call soul and that would be the life which organizes those elements and, you know, [sounds like: can--] is the inner force or the formative forces that organizes those elements into creature. And then we speak about the Earth as having an Intellect [sounds like: but here--] and that would be the 360 Ideas. And then we speak about the Earth as having a unity. And that unity corresponds with the cosmic powers of the Sun soul. In other words, the cosmic powers that belong to the soul of the Sun, the seven planet(s), is the same as the unity of the Earth. Just one more sentence (from/for) Richard and then you could [sounds like: freestyle]. (bit of laughter and faint background student chatting for few seconds) Now, what we call the Undivided Mind of the Earth and what you call our Overself, which we say coincides with that, I’m not identifying (them/it). In-in terms of the symbolism I’m saying it coincide(s) with. So then, the Undivided Mind of the Earth and your Overself coincide. So that I look to the-- in-in terms of the symbolism, I look to the whole of the Solar system as symbolically representing my Overself. And in a similar way, I would say that the Undivided Mind of the Earth symbolically is its Overself and its Overself, so to speak, and my Overself and cosmic powers of the soul of the Sun, all these seem to either be identified with one another or associated with one [sounds like: another]. Alright. Then, given that, alright, then finally, the next level below is a human soul comes down and inhabits a-- a vehicle or a body which had been organized and prepared for it by the Earth. So the Earth [sounds like: as] a God, alright, [sounds like: it’s] God, it’s a unity, an Ishvara, whatever you want to call it, is a unity, alright, and this God has prepared the vehicle which a human soul, because of a-- an-- a desire on its part to be re-embodied, seeks, and the moment that some [sounds like: such] body will be available for it, in other words, a body which has the characteristics or the tendencies that this soul wishes to express, at that moment it comes in, and that portion of the soul which we speak about as the embodying soul, the re-embodied soul, identifies with that moment of time where a body will be produced that will be express-- that will express the inherent (tendencies/tendency) that this soul wishes to express it. So at that moment, alright, it descends. Now, we’re still going down, alright. Now at that moment, alright, the re-embodying soul, let’s call it the individual mind, receives from-- receives from the Intellect or the Mind of this world, receives the idea of the world. Now the idea of the world [sounds like: it] receives, we have to remember, is a thought. It’s subtle but it’s still a thought. So that the world-image which is given to the individual mind is a thought. Now this individual mind, accepting or let’s say receiving this world-thought, identifies with a body which is included within that thought. This body of course is also a thought. And, identifying with that body, that subtle-- that body which is in the realm of-- it’s in the subtle realm, this thought-body, the next step would be to see that this individual mind now transmits to that subtle body, alright, moment-by-moment, beat-by-beat, drop-by-drop, seed-thought by seed-thought, doesn’t matter but it transmits to that subtle body the seed-thought, which, going from the heart to the head, alright, gets projected and magnified and now we experience the world we live in. So we’ve gone all the way down. [short pause] Avery, [couple/three words inaudible] that you want to [sounds like: do]?

 

[student assents, very faint]

 

AS: [faint] [sounds like: Uh-hm. Yeah.]

 

AD: [faint] Alright-- maybe next [one/two words inaudible] You take-- you take on [sounds like: their criticisms].

 

RG: [couple/three words inaudible]

 

AD: No?

 

DB(?): [faint] You hurt his [sounds like: 7th house].

 

RG: You hurt my (settled/subtle) thinking.

 

S: Right. (bit of laughter)

 

RG: Not [sounds like: 7th house].

 

S: [faint] I knew it.

 

RG: Can you just elaborate the-- the one relation of the-- and I forget which one [sounds like: it is], the-- of the seven-- yeah, the seven planets, the souls of the seven planets are analogous to the unity of the Ear-- of the Earth.

 

AD: [faint] [sounds like: So what?] [couple/three words inaudible] what you’re getting at Dickie.

 

S: [one word inaudible]

 

VM: I thought you said the Undivided Mind of the Earth coincides with your Overself or with our Overself--

 

AD: [simultaneously] Yeah, we can [couple words inaudible]

 

RG: [simultaneously] That was what he said [sounds like: (after her/afterwards)], what he said (that/the)--

 

VM: [simultaneously] --as well as the [one/two inaudible student words simultaneous with VM] cosmic powers of [RG assents simultaneous with VM, faint] the--

 

RG: Of-- you know, what he said is-- that the seven cosmic powers of the Sun represent the unity of the Earth Mind.

 

VM: [faint] Right, right [few words inaudible]

 

AD: [simultaneously] Yeah.

 

S: [simultaneously with VM] Yeah.

 

S: Yeah.

 

VM: [faint] Same [sounds like: thing].

 

AD: [simultaneously] The unity of the Earth.

 

RG: Right.

 

AD: (Now/No) I don’t know which way it would be to do it best, but-- If we say that this is the Earth here [diagram], alright, and you put the planets out here [diagram], [drawing] Saturn, Jupiter, [sounds like: Mars], Venus, [sounds like: alright]. [short pause] Now if this whole realm here [diagram] is the Solar Logos and these are its various powers (we/you) could [sounds like: focus on], and this is the Earth [diagram], what we’re saying is that this undivided and spontaneous activity, I should say this functioning of the cosmic soul, on the one hand(,/--) the functioning of the cosmic soul would represent a wisdom which is unfathomable actually, we’d already had begun to [one word inaudible] that, I mean, we can’t understand it. But we do know that there’s-- if we can conceive of everything that is going to be manifested, whether here, here, or here [diagram], because each one as we said you remember has its own Dragonic belt, each one will evolve creatures according to its own status. So that maybe when you die you go to different places and get different bodies and you get different experiences. It’s not only true that the soul incarnating on the Earth will incarnate in many different kinds of bodies and [few words inaudible] a variety of races and, you know, cultures and civilizations in order for it to reach maturity, but I would assume that that would be true in other places. But the point we were getting at I think would be [sounds like: (the/this-)]this here. That if we say, well here’s the gross elements, fire, earth, air, and water [AD indicates on diagram], alright, and there’s the life which is in these creatures, alright. Let’s call that the psychical or the vegetative soul [diagram], alright. And then around that we speak about the degrees [diagram]. Now, what we’re saying is something like this, here’s a body [diagram], here’s the soul [diagram], the life of the Earth, here’s the Intellect of the Earth [diagram], and this would correspond to the Undivided Mind of the Earth or its unity [diagram]. [student assents, faint] Now the unity, the unity of the Earth is not the unity of the Solar Logos. [sounds like: Unity] goes somewhere else. But the basic point I think here is that if we think of our Sun as a star evolving its own Intellectuality or, you know, bringing forth a world from within itself, then, to speak about its unity, you would have to go into the Intellectual realm. Because there-- Let’s say, the apparitional body, the body-- the Solar system as it appears to us is the apparitional body, the one that we can see, alright. But it has a principle by which it manifests the universe, let’s say a principle of [sounds like: light]. Just like in us there’s the asmita principle, the I AM, so has the Sun the I AM. And its I AM is-- is the principle of manifestation and what it’s going to manifest is the sensible world that we perceive. Prior to that would be its reasoning phase, or its Intellectual phase, and its unity phase in the Intellectual-Principle. So the Jupiter and Saturn would be in the Intellectual-Principle. But its Mercurial phase would be that principle of manifestness which is located in a certain realm [sounds like: that’s] given by the Universal Soul and within that it would manifest its own body. [student assents, faint] Now-- This was a question Avery asked a long time ago but I didn’t answer it in class and I thought it wiser to restrain at that time. But when Plotinus, and even PB in some of the [couple words inaudible] (philosopher/philosophy), speak about unity of-- unity with the One, union with the One. Which One do you think they’re talking about? From reading Plotinus, which One do you think he’s talking about?

 

[short pause]

 

AS/RG(?): [couple words inaudible]

 

[student assents, very faint]

 

AD: Don’t grumble, say it out loud.

 

RG: [sounds like: Avery said they] meant the real One.

 

AD: The real One? (RG laughs a bit)

 

S: [faint] Yeah.

 

AS: [faint] The Holy of Holies is what--

 

AD: [simultaneously] Yeah. So he’s really far(--/.) You-- you know, this is so staggering, so hard for us to conceive. You-you saw how as we came all the way down, alright, you see where we’re at, the very dregs. (AD laughs) [RG: Hm.] But, the amazing thing is, like Plotinus has pointed out and PB, here it is possible [possibly one word inaudible] for a-- a-a soul to come to self-realization of itself, that is, it could recognize the body so to speak for what it is and the life within the body or the psychosomatic organism simply as a vehicle for this ment-- mental being(,/.) the mental being that you are, and which we can call the Witness-I, which is an expediency because this is what you really are, the Overself [diagram]. So the Overself, so to speak, has as an intermediary this mental being or the Witness-I, alright, which occupies the psychosomatic organism. Now, if we do this here, if we imagine a person like Plotinus or a person like PB who’s achieved a status where he’s-- he’s come to the recognition-- come to the recognition of his own I AM, his own-- the God within himself, alright, his own Overself. That would be this whole realm [diagram]. Alright now, can he achieve identification, (the/a) supreme beatitude? And PB makes this remark, I-I-- I-I can’t, I-I’m just gonna have to paraphrase. He says that the philosopher who has developed insight, by the-- by developing that insight he can penetrate into these three-- he has these three initiation(s). And he speaks about the first initiation as a penetration, alright(--/.) The-- the way I look at it is, the Overself here [diagram] which symbolically coincides with the Solar Logos achieves unity with the asmita principle of the Solar Logos [diagram]. That’s the first initiation. The second initiation is it penetrates deeper and reaches identity with the Jupiter Saturn phase of our Solar Logos [diagram]. That would be the second initiation. The third would be, with the help of and the Grace of Heaven, or the Intellectuality of our Solar Logos, be catapulted into identity with the One [diagram]. This is the way of taking the three phases of-- the three initiations take place. And you can see that each one is void because the asmita principle of the Sun, the Intellectuality of the Sun, alright, or let’s say the Absolute Soul, which is the same as the Intellectual-Principle in Absolute Soul, alright, and then [AD hits board with chalk to indicate on diagram] the One above that. So that there’s the-- there’s this descent first into the asmita principle of the Sun and then to the Intellectuality of the Sun or the Absolute Soul, which includes the Intellectuality, and then the One. And these would be the deepening [AD indicates on diagram] phases of insight as it penetrates deeper (into/into) what he calls the Void. [short pause] But--

 

LR: [faint] May I ask you a question?

 

S: [faint] Sure.

 

S/LR(?): [very faint] Ok.

 

S: [one/two words inaudible] [sounds like: the Overself](--/?)

 

AD: No? [very faint, possibly a student, sounds like: Alright.]

 

LR: [sounds like: Me--] what you’re calling the individual mind which receives the World-Idea, that would be at the level of the mental body of the Earth then?

 

AD: Yeah.

 

LR: And, that individual mind is not the I AM principle?

 

AD: No.

 

LR: The I AM principle is what you’re calling the Overself which corresponds to the [AD simultaneously, faint: Yeah. Uh-hm.] powers, planetary powers.

 

AD: In other words, it would correspond to the unity or the Undivided Mind of the Earth.

 

LR: Unity of the Earth. And the individual mind is some-- is concomitant with the 360 degrees?

 

AD: No, there-- there I’m not sure, the individual mind, on the one hand, is the offspring or let’s say is an aspect or a part of the Overself, alright. That would be what we call the Witness-I. But when the Witness-I receives the World-Idea, the Idea of the World, then it is made into a mental being. In other words, the Witness-I takes on the World-Idea only at a certain time, the ti-- that time when there’s the inner tendencies and attitudes and desires that it wishes to express. It is at that moment that it seeks to identify with the Intellectuality of the world. And in doing so at that moment it becomes a mental being.

 

VM: I see. So-so that’s why you don’t want to make an exclusive equation between the tropical zodiac let’s say and the individual mind.

 

AD: Uh-huh.

 

LR: But for the purposes of a life--

 

VM: [simultaneously] [sounds like: But] one individual life, yeah.

 

LR: For--

 

AD: [simultaneously] For an individual life, yeah.

 

LR: [simultaneously] If you’re talking about the life, then that is concomitant with those 360 degrees.

 

VM: Oh yeah.

 

LR: At death, say, that’s [sounds like: withdrawn] back into (the/this) immortal principle. But each time the reproductive soul puts forth a specific incarnation [sounds like: as it were], then the Witness of that incarnation would be concomitant with those 360 degrees.

 

[student assents, faint]

 

AD: Yeah, the Witness would be [sounds like: a] concomitant but the mentally formed being would not. In other words, what I’m-- what I think you’re saying would be something like this then. The basic ideas that constituted a mental being are different from the Witness-I. The mental being that you are is, let’s say, basically composed of certain ideas. An order, an arrangement, the combination of certain ideas, not all the ideas. Because then that wouldn’t be any different from the Void Mind or the Undivided-- I mean the Intellectuality of the Earth. So this universal-- I’m sorry, this Witness-I, by taking on at a certain moment in time an adaptation to the World-Idea, by adapting itself to the World-Idea for that moment of time, alright, identifies with certain reason-principles and not with all, but with certain reason-principles. These become the presupposition of the entity which is going to appear.

 

[student assents, faint]

 

LR: Let me try to repeat what you just said. The Witness-I [sounds like: is the absolute] concomitant with the 360 degrees but for a particular life it’s a particular collocation of those degrees which represent [sounds like: instead] its mental body.

 

AD: [faint] Yeah, its mental being, the mental being that he is.

 

LR: Now, for practical purposes is that mental being other than the Witness?

 

AD: [faint] Well not really, [sounds like: not at all].

 

LR: But, principially it’s different.


AD: Yeah.

 

LR: But--

 

AD: Because the mental being is an organization of reason-principles, certain reason-principles. So that when I speak to a person, he has mental presuppositions which are different from another. And if I refer to this as his mental being, then I’m referring particularly to the ideas that organize or constitute [sounds like: me] as an individual distinct from other individual.

 

LR: Ok.

 

AD: Whereas if I say that you are the Witness-I, the 360 degrees, I can’t distinguish you from anyone else.

 

S: [few words inaudible]

 

LR: [simultaneously] Ok but, um-- at the same time I thought you had said that in the state of contemplation is when the mental being finally disassociates from the-- from [AD simultaneously: Uh-hm.] the body and the senses. And there then has access to the true World-Idea.

 

AD: [very faint] [sounds like: Yeah, yeah, you could say that.]

 

LR: Ok. Now, is it--

 

AD: The mental being that has access to the World-Idea doesn’t get the World-Idea, [sounds like: it gets] [sounds like student assenting simultaneous with AD, faint] certain [sounds like: feelings]. [one/two inaudible LR words simultaneous with AD] So [sounds like: feeling could]--

 

LR: [simultaneously] Ok, that’s what I’ve been asking, he’s still particularized at that [sounds like: part].

 

[student assents, faint]

 

AD: Yeah, he doesn’t become, he doesn’t become the Intellectuality of the world. [students assenting, faint] I mean, we still have to keep in mind that there is a distinction to be made between an individual soul which is reincarnating here, alright, and (its/it’s) [couple words inaudible] psychosomatic organism, and the Intellectuality of the Earth. And, they’re not the same, and they’re not going to be the same. And from there on all our problems begin.

 

RG(?): [faint] Can I--

 

AH: Anthony, may I ask a question in regards to the very last thing you said in your description when you explained [sounds like: that] there’s two individual experiences, thoughts, within a-- a specific body which belongs to the Earth. That specific body in some way belongs to the Earth. You said that too is a thought. Could you-- could you elaborate a little of that juncture where individual thought and the-- the body that belongs to Earth but is also a thought intersect? Is my question clear or [one/two words inaudible]

 

[short pause with some student talking in background]

 

AD: The-- I-- I don’t know, I’ll try [sounds like: explaining it]. When we-- when we speak about the-- a-- a-a soul or the individual mind incarnating, and we speak about him-- [10 second pause] so, a-- we speak about it as going to inhabit a body or he identifies with a body. But just prior to this identification with the body, we speak about the world is given to the mind of that individual. Now, it isn’t that, “Here, I’m giving you something,” ok, it’s not that when we say that the-- And even the analogy that we use like for instance if I hypnotize you and then trans-- give you, you know, express a thought and impress it upon your mind and now that thought becomes your reality. It’s closer to that than giving you something actual, than a physical thing. So when we say that the World-Idea is given to an individual mind, we have to think of this individual mind as receiving a thought, assimilating a thought or bringing a thought into itself. It’s here where the World-Idea and the individual mind interact, they’re joined together. Because, if we say that this object exists for me and for you, then what we’re saying is that there’s a common denominator that underlies the perception of, you know, the mountain that I’m looking at and the mountain that you’re looking at. Your sensations of the mountain naturally differ from mine and there’s two sets of sensations here [sounds like: that] being discussed. But the object does have a commonality in the sense that it belongs to the World-Mind and it is the World-Mind that is delivering that idea to the individual mind, to all individual minds simultaneously. So then you and I would see the same mountain.

 

[student assents, faint]

 

AH: To whom does the body-thought belong, to the World-Idea or to the--

 

AD: [simultaneously] Well that’s-- that’s a double question. On the one hand, the thought of the body, the body-thought, alright, is fabricated by the World Intellect, the-- the Mind of the World. But on the other hand, insofar that an individual soul identifies with that body and now has to feed it, and I don’t-- I-I don’t mean oats, you know, I mean it has to feed it, that is give it light, life, being, alright, it has to, so to speak, pump into it seed-thoughts of-- so, it’s a combination of the two things, these two things that you can speak about as an individual, the individual body, psychosomatic organism.

 

AH: So there is two streams intersecting.

 

AD: Two str-- streams intersect.

 

AH: Now to trace those two streams back, [AD: Uh-hm.] do they have common source? To trace the two streams back, [sounds like: do] they have common source?

 

AD: Well, no, we don’t want to-- I wouldn’t say it has a common source, because then all these distinctions that we’re elaborating would get lost. What we’re saying is that on the one hand, alright, there’s a psychosomatic organism, alright, which has been evolved through the processes that the Earth or Nature employs to bring about the evolution of that body. So you could, you know, breed dogs or horses or whatever, alright. And there’s a genetic history that follows body after body which is independent from the soul that inhabits that body and is going to use that body. So I want to keep the-- this distinction alive for now. On the one hand Nature fabricates the body, the irrational soul of the world fabricates the body and the organs within that body, but then it’s the life of the individual soul that keeps that body vivified, that keeps that body (informed/in form). It is the individual soul that lights up the functioning that is going on within that psychosomatic organism. So that on the one hand you have the psychosomatic organism, the body, the senses, and the memory which is the result of the interaction of the senses, you know, with its environment, and it builds up this enormous memory or, you know, memory bank, alright. But the light that illuminates that functioning is coming from the individual soul, and that light which is illuminating that functioning of that body has to be distinguished and separated from it in meditation(,/.) so that the-- the individual soul is, so to speak, disassociate itself from the psychosomatic organism and experience itself as it is in itself. But because Nature has conjoined these two together, when that period is over and trance or [sounds like: so--] Nirvikalpa, whatever, back to the identification with the body. Now we pointed out certain times that-- under certain duress or illnesses the soul seeks to leave the body and leaves it behind, alright, and that all that’s left behind would be the organic functioning of this psychosomatic organism but the rational soul has left. And the body would still go on living. But if you were to expect anything from that body which is still living except a s-- (a/uh)-- an organic memory, alright, I think you [sounds like: would be] deeply-- deeply disappointed. [short pause] Alright Louis?

 

LD: [sounds like: Well, is] the-- the unity of individual soul and the unity of the Earth soul is both the Undivided Mind of the Solar system, and is that itself [couple/three words inaudible]

 

AD: [simultaneously] No, no, don’t put it that way.

 

LD: No?

 

AD: Don’t put it that way. I want to leave-- I-I want to leave these things purposefully ambiguous. Because there is no language that’s going to say it. When you experience yourself as the Overself, that means you’re-- now only in terms of the symbolism, don’t think that your consciousness is spread out over the planet Saturn and everything, alright. But in terms of the symbolism, the Overself would be equivalent to that-- it would coincide let’s say with the Solar system, the Saturn being the outermost, ok? [TS, very faint: Ok.] Now, the Undivided Mind of the Earth would also be that. And I could leave it dangling like that. I don’t have to join them. I don’t have to say the Overself of an individual and the Overself of-- or the Undivided Mind of the Earth are identical. I-I-I don’t have to say that.

 

LD: Well, why I asked is, [sounds like: (I/I’m)]--

 

AD: Just like I don’t have to say that the powers of the cosmic soul are identical with the Overself, of the Earth or of an individual. I don’t see why I have to formulate it that way.

 

S: [very faint] They’re concomitant.

 

AD: Huh? They’re concomitant, yeah. [sounds like: Or] if-if(--/,) keeping in mind when we were doing that exerci-- that tractate that Avery read to you about the authentic All, that you are an All, that the whole of the cosmos exists within you. Well certainly that it would apply to the Earth as an individual. And certainly it would apply to any individual, alright. Now you destroy-- you destroy the being, the authentic being of any individual if you-- if you identify the Overself of this individual with the Overself of that individual. So, let’s leave it dangling. Yes, maybe my Overself which coincides with that, alright, is identical with the Overself of the Earth, maybe, maybe it won’t. [LD: (sounds like: Then--)] But it would seem that if(--/,) as long as I’m a mental being, looking up I would be inclined to say there is one Overself, alright. Looking down, I would say there there are many individuals.

 

LD: Ok that-that was my question, that-- that’s really where the level of definition of one and many starts, at that level of soul, or-- or is it-- can you also bring it down to the part that goes all the way down(./?) [sounds like student assenting] Am I clear? [student assents] [one/two inaudible student words simultaneous with LD] You know, that the part of the soul that comes all the way down, that could only be thought of as many right?

 

AD: No.

 

LD: And-and only at that level of the Undivided Mind can we speak of soul as one and many?

 

AD: Yeah, ok. [sounds like: Let’s] speak of the soul here as one and many.

 

S: [possibly part of background] [couple/three words inaudible]

 

LD: That-- also, in this picture, in calling this the unity, [student assents] is-- is-- does that mean to identify this on-on that kind of level with the inerratic sphere?

 

AD: No, no.

 

LD: [simultaneously] Or is that-- I always thought that was [AD simultaneously: Look--] the unity.

 

AD: Look, there’s greater and greater unities as you proceed upward and outward and onward. Don’t limit the unity. There’s the unity of your own being, there’s the unity of the Earth’s being, there’s the unity of the soul-- of the cosmic soul. There’s many many ones. [short pause] At any rate, I think this gives us initially premises comprehensive enough to try to understand, you know, the tractates that Plotinus has on the soul. And so I’ve become very suspicious of all those words, the All-Soul, the Absolute Soul. And I refuse to identify the meaning with the words but try to find what the meaning is in terms of context. But I no longer [sounds like: assume]. If I cannot get the meaning from the context, I just have to let the passage go because I don’t know what he means. And I would be kidding myself if I think [sounds like: he does].

 

[students assenting or some faint student talking in background]

 

AH: [sounds like: Is there] another question or do you want them more--

 

AD: [simultaneously] (Well/Oh) sure.

 

S: [simultaneously] [one word inaudible]

 

AH: [sounds like: Alright.] When you spoke of that individual soul vivifying or giving life to the psychosomatic organism, you said that’s (in/im)-- what has to be separated out in meditation. [AD/S(?), very faint: (sounds like: Alright.)] See, [sounds like: you speak of] [one/two inaudible words simultaneous with AH, source unknown, possibly AD] that vivifying light in itself. Do you speak of it as having any contents or just a vivifying principle? Like there are some contents-- [AD simultaneously: Well--] it seems to me that there are contents that can’t be found either in psychosomatic or in the soul. There’s a way of speaking about a kind of content that’s not found in either but must be spoken of as [possibly one word: a] combination of those two.

 

AD: [sounds like: Yes], you could speak about them-- combination of those two, but the-- if we think of the psychosomatic organism’s functioning, and it doesn’t have the light of the soul diffused through that functioning, throughout that functioning, you’ll never recognize that a square box embodies the idea of a square. That’s a recognition that comes from the soul, or an intuition that comes from the soul. So, when we-- we speak about-- when you were speaking about the intellect(,) which is the--

 

 

(Side 1 Ends)

 

(Side 2 Begins)

 

 

AD: --organizing the contents of the intellect in a way different than the-- the way the intellect did it. So its presence becomes available to us by the reasoning or the reason(--) or the feltness of the reasoning processes which is referred to as an intuition. It is this intuition which comes from the soul which starts indicating that within the psychosomatic organism or the body, senses, and the memory, that there is a factor which we do not understand which is illuminating that whole [sounds like: tirade], that whole [student assents simultaneous with AD, faint] organism.

 

AH: Anthony, in the example of the square and the idea of square, it wouldn’t be correct to speak of that light containing the idea of square.

 

AD: Well yes, it would be correct to speak about the light of the soul as having this knowledge.

 

AH: The idea of square?

 

AD: The idea [sounds like: of square]. It would be included, so to speak, it would be included in what we refer to [sounds like: as] that mental being, which as it reincarnates a sufficient number of times accumulates within itself a content of the ideas. That would be one way of looking at it and the other way we’d look at it is say that the soul already has these ideas within it and that the experiences on Earth provide the occasion by which these ideas are evoked in its memory. And a combination of these two I think [sounds like: will] give you answer to that.

 

LR: [faint] What was the second [couple words inaudible]

 

AD: That the ideas already exist [sounds like: as] the soul, and that by experiences in the world, these-- these ideas are called forth or evoked [sounds like: in] what they call reminiscence. They’re called forth, and you can recognize that that’s an idea of a square or a circle or a man or whatever because the idea’s al-- to begin with in the soul. [student assents, very faint] But, we’re saying that a combination of both will account for the-- the evolution, the unfoldment, and the spiritu-- spiritual maturation of the human being. Otherwise, there would be no reason for him to come here if he knew that what the ideas in the soul were all about.

 

LR: In the first example, when you said the accumulation of incarnations of this mental being [sounds like: acquires] a certain content.

 

AD: [simultaneously] [very faint] [sounds like: Yeah], yeah.

 

LR: That’s the stage that that mental body is formed and [one/two words inaudible] [sounds like: discontinuous(,) remain(s)?]

 

AD: [simultaneously] Yeah, is being continuously formed.

 

LR: No. It is carried over from life to life?

 

AD: [faint] It is being-- it’s being continuously formed.

 

LR: But not everything [sounds like: one hundred percent becomes] [couple words inaudible]

 

AD: Yeah.

 

LR: Um--

 

AD: But this gets built up.

 

LR: That mental body.

 

AD: Yeah, that gets built up whereas everything underneath it-- in other words, when a person perishes, it perishes, period. But the mental being again incarnates, and again, alright. Some more is added to [sounds like: what he was, the] growth of this [one/two words inaudible]

 

LR: And, if we were to like apply some [sounds like: of] what we’ve been talking about [sounds like: considerably just in terms of--] [AD, very faint: Uh-hm.] in terms of the level of insight, Interior Word, intuition [one/two words inaudible] could you say [sounds like: it come--]

 

AD: [faint] [sounds like: Why--] I mean unless you give me something specific I can’t answer you.

 

LR: [simultaneously] Yes, [sounds like: I understand]. You said that insight would be beyond [sounds like: the World-Idea], that would be the level of the Overself. [sounds like: Does] the Interior Word the-- at the level of the World-Idea, the level where the world-image, the World-Idea is given to the individual mind? And the individual mind [sounds like: makes] [few words inaudible]

 

[short pause]

 

AD: [quietly] No, the Interior Word is given when you’re identified with the mental being. Because the impression that is made is made on the mental being [AD drawing/indicating on diagram] from the Overself. It is the Overself that is delivering a message, an intuition. It is the mental being or the intellectuality of a person, the true intellectuality, I shouldn’t use the word intellectuality, but the mind of this being that is impressed by the intuition that’s coming from the Overself, and this impression, this mental impression is communicated to us as the Interior Word. But you have to remember, it is not heard as a word. It’s the reception of a mental impression which only much later on when you think [sounds like: backward] you recognize that, yes, you were being spoken to. But the speaking was not like that you hear in a dream in the subtle realm because there’s still something audible. This is purely an impression made on the mental being, [student assents, faint] which we translate as a word or as, you know, the audible sound.

 

LR: Well it-- And that is the level that-that-- the mental being is the body which-- which gets impressed by the World-Idea.

 

AD: Yeah, because the-the Interior Word is available to a person at that third level of contemplation.

 

LR: And then, if I--

 

AD: If he’s in the level of [drawing] meditation, the second level, [sounds like: could be] mixed up or confused with the functioning of the psychical.

 

LR: And will that be the level of intuition [few words inaudible]

 

AD: [very faint] [sounds like: No, no. Would what be the level of intuition?]

 

LR: [simultaneously] The next step that is a--

 

AD: [simultaneously] No, intuition is here [diagram], that’s the same--

 

LR: [simultaneously] Intuition and Interior Word would be the same level?

 

AD: [simultaneously] Yeah, the same level.

 

LR: Then it’s different [sounds like: from being a] [one/two words inaudible] The mark made on [sounds like: you]?

 

AD: [simultaneously] The mode of-of receiving it.

 

LR: Are you saying that the intuition is [one/two words inaudible] purified of the psychosomatic as much as it is-- it has been, [sounds like: you know], received (in/it) through the heart?

 

S/AD(?): [very faint] Uh-hm.

 

AD: Because an intuition is available to you in the silence, alright. But then that intuition does get translated or dressed in clothes, alright, but that’s now when you’re [AD indicates on diagram] identified with the psychosomatic organism, it’s still available to you, you still translate it into words. This is where the difficulty comes in because that intuition could be translated into words that mislead you. Or, if the ego is strong enough, it will alter it a little bit.

 

LR: More distortion.

 

AD: More distortion.

 

S: Anthony?

 

AD: Coffee time. (student assents, bit of laughter)

 

RG: Hm.

 

S: [very faint in background] What’d Anthony say?

 

AD: Alright, you take it over from there now.

 

[17 second pause with faint student talking]

 

ME: I had a question. In the thing that’s in between the mental being and the psyche [diagram], that it’s qual-- are there qualities that you’d particularly say are the q-- qualities [couple/three words inaudible] point of the human culture that you call the mental being? Whereas with the psyche there’s [sounds like: always this] organic memory that’s left behind that the rational soul leaves? Say the rational soul is [sounds like: still there], you distinguish it by let’s say the-the-- the traces or the ideas that are left in the mental being?

 

AD: You want to distinguish between the mental being and the psychical? [21½ second pause] Well, for the mental being is-- that’s a difficult state to understand because for m-- for most of us that have any experience with that, it’s an awareness of awareness, it’s a consciousness of consciousness. And, it’s altogether different from the consciousness of an idea, embodied thought, it’s altogether different. First of all there’s-- an absolute silence reigns…even though the trains are running outside and around you. And, as soon as-- [17 second pause] as soon as there’s any kind of discursive understanding going on, you’re in the psychical realm.

 

S: What it would mean [one/two words inaudible] [sounds like: (answer/answered) (this/his)] question which is similar about the-- the idea of a square circle. [sounds like: You know] [couple words inaudible] that unders-- that the idea itself is in the mental somehow [AD simultaneously: Yeah.] but that the understanding of it would be from the psychical [sounds like: as containing] [AD simultaneously: Yeah.] the discursive(?/.)

 

AD: The experience of the Ideas as they are in the Intellectual realm are in no way to be confused with the way we understand them at the discursive level. [students assenting, very faint] [half/one word inaudible] [couple seconds of incredibly faint student talking in background] [very faint, sounds like: Yes, I think. I think.] [few seconds of incredibly faint student talking in background] [very faint: (Ok/I see), yeah, yeah. I see.] Let me think about it cuz I can’t formulate it yet. In the meantime, think about other things.

 

S: Anthony, when you were first describing this mental being, did you say that it was a combination of ideas or reason-principles that constituted the individual for this particular life?

 

[noise or one inaudible student word]

 

[students assenting, very faint in background]

 

S: [very faint] [sounds like: Anthony--]

 

AD: Yes, we said that the mental being, which is the presupposition of an individual life, alright, and constitutes the-- the mental being for this life, ok. [student assents, faint] And then in the next life he has a different set of ideas which co-- constitute and organize him to be a mental being. And that all these experiences, alright, are being like deposited in the soul. And they accumulate, so that you have the growth of this mental being taking place.

 

S: [faint] But when you use the term mental being you’re referring both to that which goes from life to life accumulating [sounds like: the]-- [AD: Yeah, yeah.] [sounds like: or] the residue of [sounds like: these ideas], and also the ideas which constitute [sounds like: him] that particular life.

 

AD: [simultaneously] [faint] Yeah.

 

S: Now--

 

AD: It’s very hard to separate them because sometimes in a given life there’s a minimum of past karma operative, and at other times there’s an enormous amount of past karma that’s operative. So you-you can’t make the distinctions the way I wou-- I mean the way you’d like them, you can’t make ‘em that way. You can’t say “This is the mental being,” alright, “and there’s no past to him. And it’s just this incarnation.” You can’t do that because you don’t know. That’s only something a Sage or a Seer knows, how much of your past is operative in the present incarnation or how little of it is operative in the present.

 

S: [faint] Would there be any point in trying to discuss how the-- [short pause] just kind of make [sounds like: the] further distinction between how the ideas which have accumulated in the past existence [couple words inaudible] as opposed to the ideas which [sounds like: constituted (him/in)] this life alone?

 

S: [very faint in background] [sounds like: They’re the same.]

 

AD: [couple/few words inaudible] [sounds like: the same].

 

[short pause]

 

WY: Anthony? When there’s (an/the) awareness of awareness [few words inaudible] basically describe symbolically as this mental being that is a-- [sounds like: I guess a consideration] of reason-principle(s) [couple words inaudible] [one/two inaudible student words simultaneous with WY] the self(./,) and it’s-- it’s different from the full 360 degrees of the Earth’s Intellectuality. Is the awareness of the awareness the-- that particular mental--

 

AD: An awareness of awareness is the result of a long cumulative effort where the mental being has reached maturation. And then that’s left behind and it’s just the awareness of awareness. [student assents, very faint] Now, part of the difficulty of discussion here is also going to be the fact that you’re thinking of this in-in an objective way and you can’t have any objective relation with that mental being. It isn’t something out there. There’s no objective relationship with this.

 

RG: And yet it’s not the subject. [PD simultaneously, faint: Insofar--] Or do you mean it to be the subject?

 

PD: [faint] Insofar as [couple/three words inaudible]

 

AD: Well I-I-- you know, I’d like to say well this is the third level of subjectivity, the highest level of subjectivity. But(--) [sounds like: well] I’m-- I’m presenting the difficulties [student assents, faint] that are inherent in trying to understand this and it’s not that simple. [sounds like: Yeah--] I mean-- I-I know what he means when he says this is the highest level of subjectivity, third level, [sounds like: that’s] [half/one word inaudible] I know what he means, I’m acquainted with it. But I’m also acquainted with the fact that it’s not covered by simply saying [student assents simultaneous with AD, faint] this is the third level of subjectivity, and that much much more is involved, as I tried to point it out. First of all, there’s no objective way of understanding this, although I keep yakking like there is. Secondly, the process of the maturation of a mental being, alright, is a cumulative one, it reaches a certain point where then it dissolves and all there is is so to speak [sounds like: an--] this awareness of awareness, alright. And I think that’s what he’s referring to as the, [student assents] you know, third level of subjectivity, [one/two words inaudible, possibly: ideas].

 

VM: Sometimes when we discuss this concept of the mental being, I-I have a difficult time distinguishing it from the-- the use of the term “ego” as we defined it [sounds like: for] many weeks. [student assents, very faint in background] In some ways the mental being sounds like a [sounds like: superior] principle to the ego, on the other hand, [AD: It’s--] it’s not-- it’s not clear to me.

 

AD: It’s almost the same, there’s almost-- you know, there’s almost an identity. The-the only reason I’m not saying it’s the same is because then that would lead you to think that the ego is a persisting entity, you know, when [VM simultaneously, faint: (sounds like: Exactly.)] it goes on from life to life.

 

VM: Right but you talk about that mental being as being a particular collection of ideas for this life is all I’m [half word inaudible] at least in one aspect of it it isn’t persisting although its experience seems to be distilled into [AD: Yeah.] some kind of ongoing wisdom.

 

AD: [simultaneously] And so-- and so you can see how difficult it is to separate the ego out from mystical experiences and [VM assents simultaneous with AD] have a pure mystical experience without any interference of the ego. Because the ego-- from-- well, this is an opinion. The ego extends all the way up to that realm.

 

[RG assents, faint]

 

VM: Uh-hm, that’s why it’s very hard to--

 

LR: But ego would also include the [RG simultaneously: Include the two lower.] other two realms, [sounds like: I mean] that would be [sounds like: the ego].

 

VM: [simultaneously] Well of course, of course, no I-- no problem there but-- [sounds like: it was just] [one word inaudible]

 

AD: [simultaneously] So it’s almost like sometimes you can say that there’s something of an ego in the mental being, because it is individual compared to other individuals, alright. But on the other hand, it’s not the ego which we’re speaking about when we referring to this person, this psychosomatic entity, his own-- a certain peculiar functioning which will come to an end, alright, and we refer to that as an ego too. So, there’s going to be some confusion here. But I’d rather live with the confusion than with the-- the very strict, you know, boundary lines which are fictitious. [student assents, faint] Even in the higher stages of contemplation, you’ll see that very often the ego will come in and interfere. And, it’s very possible that it may not even be from this life, that the vision may be a-a calling from the past.

 

[students assenting, faint]

 

LD: I have a short little quote from PB where he seems to point you to a level-- the psychosomatic, the-- the mental or the Overself which is-- Would-would you like me to read it or not?

 

AD: Go ahead, sure.

 

S: [very faint] Read it.

 

[LD reading, PB, V6, 8:2.31] “There is no real ego but only a quick succession of thoughts which constitute the “I” process. There is no separate entity forming the personal consciousness but only a series of impressions, ideas, images revolving round a common centre. The latter is completely empty; the feeling of something being there derives from a totally different plane--that of the Overself.”

 

LD: And-- and I thought he was speaking just like you are, that-- of this psychosomatic revolving around this void mental being which [AD: No.] (derived/derives) something from the [sounds like: (Overs--/Overself.)]

 

AD: [simultaneously] I-I-I didn’t understand it like that Louis, although--

 

LD: [simultaneously] Well, maybe I’m--

 

AD: I’ll have to hear it again. The psychosomatic being, alright, or the series of thoughts is revolving around an empty center simply means that there is no point for it. I mean, there’s no kind of self-identity in the totality of thoughts that constitute an entity. So if we-- if we take the analysis this way, if we say I’m going to analyze myself, alright. Now if I take the point of view of the body, well that’s a con-- that’s-- that’s always in production, ok, from moment-to-moment it-- it’s incessantly changing. At the same time, within that momentary body, there is a psychological-- or I should say physiological functions going on which produce certain modifications of the sense-organs, alright, which are then stored in the memory. Alright? And again, the memory is thinking about something which no longer is because it’s gone, alright, and this revolution around this “I”, alright, the “I” there being nothing, there’s no-- there is no center to that process. But when you start saying “I”, you’re not referring to that process, you’re referring to this light which is immanent in that process. And so the feeling of the “I” is coming from another level of being, it is not coming from the level where the psychosomatic organism is being constituted by the world-process itself or the World-Idea. That’s the way I understand [LD simultaneously: I-I--] that quote.

 

LD: Yes, I see. I [sounds like: do see].

 

AD: [simultaneously] Well remember, opinion, it’s only my opinion.

 

LD: No, I-I see that, you’re just saying that void empty center is really an imaginary--

 

AD: Yeah, because--

 

LD: [simultaneously] It’s not void the way you think of mental being being void.

 

AD: [simultaneously] If you think of-- no, it’s not the Void Mind, you see, because the way I understand this, is here’s this memory content of the psychosomatic organism revolving about something which isn’t there anymore.

 

LD: I see, [sounds like: alright]. [student assents, very faint] But, see, the confusion I had was you speak of that [sounds like: spiritual] level or mental level within the Dragon as void and that’s why I interpreted it as such.

 

AD: Well, [student assents] you notice, I give that a kind of ambiguous feeling.

 

LD: Yeah.

 

AD: It’s a growing mental body, and a mental body of course is hard to think of it in terms of any kind of thingness, alright, but at the same time it’s maturi-- it’s maturating towards an awareness, an awareness which will become aware of itself as mind. [student assents, very faint] [possibly: It’s] maturing towards that.

 

LD: It seems so similar to the way he speaks of glimpse, I mean-- I know the way he uses glimpse is so wide that it’s hard to pin down but that becoming aware of awareness--

 

AD: Well, again, “glimpse” has a range of meanings and-- You know, like he’ll say that you’ve had a glimpse(,) for instance(,) you’re listening to a great piece of music or you’ll see a great painting where momentarily you’re completely enthralled, alright, and for a moment you’re utterly still and breathless. It could constitute a glimpse (to/for) you. I mean some people have been so affected by works of art that it was a glimpse for them. And from then on they knew there was a higher world. I know as a child when I first heard music I said “Ah, there’s a heaven.” [S, faint: (sounds like: That’s right.)] I had no doubts. Took a little longer to tell me about the hell part. (some laughter) [short pause with some faint student talking in background] Alright, that’s about where our problems begin, huh? Then when we’re all the way down there to figure out what septiles, quintiles, and reptiles mean.

 

[sounds like student assenting, faint] (bit of laughter, faint student talking in background)

 

S: Anthony? [one/two words inaudible] this diagram, can we go over a little bit when-- the issue that’s [couple/three words inaudible] [sounds like: with the World-Mind], the-- when the World-Mind is given to the individual, or when the World-Idea is given to the individual mind? In the issue about it being given to the heart and then projected(--/,) going up into the brain and projected as the person’s world. And that heart’s been spoken of as a subtle-- Because for there to be a body--

 

AD: [simultaneously] It’s part of the-the World-Idea which is subtle, subtle in the sense that it’s not-- [student assents, faint] you’re not acquainted with it at the wakeful level of consciousness.

 

S: So that the brain where that seeds goes into to get projected is what?

 

AD: I’m sorry?

 

S: If the heart is subtle that the World-Idea gets dropped into--

 

AD: Oh, it’s the subtle brain naturally. (some laughter, student words)

 

VM: We thrashed that one out too.

 

AD: I thought Richard would know that. (some laughter)

 

S: [very faint] [sounds like: He hasn’t come.]

 

VM: [faint] [sounds like: You] don’t believe it when Richard says it. (RG laughs)

 

AD: I mean, if you go back to what we just said Lauren, we said that the World-Idea which is subtle is given to the individual mind [possibly: and] the individual mind receives, alright, then an-- the-- the image of the body is included in that subtle idea you’ve received, alright. That image will include the brain too. [S: So--] It won’t be just the heart.

 

S: The World-Idea is constituted of those 360 degrees, right? Isn’t that what [AD simultaneously, faint: Uh-hm.] we said? So the brain, the subtle brain also must be somehow-- I don’t know how you’d correlate it with those 360 but (it has/it’d have) to be--

 

AD: [simultaneously] But we can’t do that there, (we/you) can’t correlate the World-Idea with the 360 Ideas, it’s a supposition in the sense that any image that appears, or the Idea of the World as one world, is going to be composed of all the Ideas that constitute its own interiority because we’re saying that the world is an expression of its own interiority. And if its interiority or its Intellectuality is these 360 Ideas or 720 or 180, whatever number, alright, that’s what-- that’s what the World-Idea is going to be basically constituted of. But the point you were making here is that if the World-Ideal-- if-if the world-thought is given to an individual mind, I mean, the image of the body which is part of that subtle world is given too. I mean it isn’t-- it isn’t that just the world-image is given and the body’s excluded but the body is included in that subtle world. Now, the mind feeds that, [student assents] it feeds that subtle-- the thought that the world-- the-- the thought of the world which is given by the Mind of the world to this individual mind, alright, the thought of that body is included in that and it is that [sounds like: that] the individual mind now directly communicates with and transmits to it, through its heart center, you want to call it the beat, you want to call it seed-thoughts, you want to call it drops, I don’t care what you call it, alright, there’s going to be this constant communication coming through the subtle heart which goes up to the brain and only then can you be aware of a world in wakeful consciousness. The withdrawal of that produces the reverse, you go back into dream consciousness and sleep consciousness. [short pause] Yeah [sounds like: Harriet].

 

S: Ok, when-- when you say that the soul vivifies the psychosomatic, is-- is this process what is meant when speaking of the seed-thought(s) [AD simultaneously: Well--] [sounds like: in] (this/the) subtle body(--/?)

 

AD: That’s included, the seed-thought includes not only the image of the world but a vivifying image of the world which brings life and (light/life) into your body.

 

S: So it’s through that seed-thought that the life is brought in [student assents, faint] [couple words inaudible]

 

[noise or student assents, faint]

 

S: The psychosomatic though, when you say psychosomatic organism, you’re referring to the subtle, that--

 

AD: [simultaneously] Yeah, at that level.

 

S: [faint] --refer to the subtle, [sounds like: uh-hm].

 

AD: Because for us the world that we know and the world that we experience is the result of the duplication of that subtle world, but intensified, [sounds like: experience is] much more intensely and much more con-- because of that intense-- intensity of awareness is experienced much more concretely. So we distinguish between the subtle world which is given to the individual mind, and the reflex of that which is brought about by this process. And the world is experienced in its wakeful state. But [student assents simultaneous with AD] it has to go through this process. [student assents, very faint] So we speak about a reflective consciousness.

 

S: And the light of the soul that is within all this is also coming through this seed-thought, if it’s all included in that seed(?/.)

 

S: [very faint] Oh yeah.

 

[student assents, very faint in background]

 

AD: Yeah, little [sounds like: quantas] of energy. Each one of those thoughts, as a matter of fact, each one of those seed-thoughts, it is true that they come-- they come quickly. But, in the actual experience itself, it’s like in slow motion. And each thought, each seed-thought, is a-- like a treasure-house of knowledge. Quite is truncated, deviated-- Although i-i-- This is peculiar. On the one hand, there’s such-- it’s such a storehouse of knowledge. On the other hand, when it comes through and gets intensified by the-- you know, the apparatus that we were speaking on Friday, and concreted as the world [sounds like: we’re--] that we perceive, it seems on the one hand there’s an intensification, but on the other hand there seems to be a loss of knowledge. So that, in a sense, we pay a price in order to experience the world much more intensely that a-a great-- a great amount of knowledge that is associated with the seed-thought seems to get eliminated or because it is of such a subtle nature it’s just not received as part of the World-Idea.

 

[student assents, very faint]

 

LR: But if we-- but if you-- if you took everything that’s around [sounds like: one] person, everything that-- that appeared outside, [AD simultaneously, faint: (sounds like: It would) (one/two words inaudible) consciousness.] and you just tri-- everything, and then you just tried to condense-- condense it all into an-- what you’re calling a seed-thought you could do it, a little [AD: Yeah but--] powerhouse [sounds like: over there].

 

AD: It’s good as an analogy but it’s impossible in actuality.

 

RG: Anthony, would you say our subtle image there or would you say our subtle heart and brain, is that the body of the World-Idea?

 

AD: Yeah.

 

S: But there-- I-I didn’t understand that.

 

S: Individually [sounds like: or to you?]

 

[RG assents]

 

S: [faint] [sounds like: Seems to be.]

 

RG: But [sounds like: (with/if)] the subtle body or subtle heart and brain for us is the body of the World-Idea, its real body. For us it’s subtle. I mean our perceptions of what we call our externalized body are exterior to the reality of the-the body of the World-Idea which is-- if we could receive the World-Idea in the subtle heart we would receive the actual body of-- of the world.

 

S: [one/two words inaudible]

 

S: [faint] [possibly part of background] [sounds like: It’s alright] by me. [RG, faint: Yeah.] I’ve always [one/two words inaudible]

 

AD: What size for instance would the seed-thought have like when I communicate to you, let’s say that he’s under hypnosis and I send a command, alright. We speak about it as a thought being expressed, you know, or communicated to you. But if we tried to speak about it in any spatial way [S simultaneously: It’s (one/two words inaudible)] [couple/three words inaudible] [student assents, faint] Something similar to that is the difficulty when we say “seed-thought”. (You/We) think of it as a compressed, you know, miniature germinal [VM simultaneously: Yeah, right, microfilm.] [one word inaudible] rather than( a/uh) subtle, you know, [VM, faint: Ok.] [sounds like: a] subtle thought, it’s not a s-- a seed-thought in the sense of size.

 

VM: [simultaneously] Yeah, yeah, and in the same way when you say subtle body you must resist the temptation to see some gaseous ethereal (bit of laughter) body. But-- and that’s why you [sounds like: like] in some ways appreciate it as the whole subtle world [sounds like: is] not localized.

 

AD: [faint] Yeah, and generally [sounds like: the-- them--] the experience that the mystic has-- [sounds like: rarely] the experiences that he has is of that subtle world, which can be really very [sounds like: confusing]. Because when he-- when he gets there he can have no orientation (for/a) long time. And yet, I don’t know if you remember when you read some of PB’s notes. There was a man who had this clairvoyance, alright, [one word inaudible] clairvoyance [couple words inaudible] that he perceived subtle world directly. [short pause] Remember he was looking at a cinema, a picture in Egypt? Remember that?

 

RG: Yes.

 

[student assents, very faint]

 

AD: And, he was sitting down looking at a movie picture. And in front of his mind’s eye came-- I don’t know who it was that he-- but it must have been one of the old time [one word inaudible] he specifically warned him not to get involved in these studies concerning the Great Pyramid because his life was in danger. [student assents, faint] So like, they were communicating with him at the subtle level, telling him “Look, mind your own business, stay out of [sounds like: these pyramids], it’s none of your business,” [sounds like: you know]. Of course nothing would entice PB to really get going. (laughter)

 

KD: Is our-- is our psychosomatic organism that’s composed of the memory traces, is-- is that part of the World-Idea or not? Cuz it seems like, you know, like when you were describing that the body can go on functioning, just the organic memory can continue, but it needs that conjunction with the-- with the individual soul. Like there is no [one/two words inaudible] World-Idea, there is no World-Idea. Right? So-- so the-- so that matter that we’re talking about that’s at all levels, that’s composed of all these memory traces from all the level of the ground-plan of the universe, is it part of the World-Idea, [sounds like: I mean I could-- it seem--]

 

AD: [simultaneously] [faint] No, no, no, no, wait [sounds like: I’m lost], you had better start again. (some laughter)

 

KD: Ok they--

 

VM: [sounds like: Well, too-too fast.] (laughter)

 

AD: [amidst laughter] I got a tiny little brain.

 

KD: The-- the organization-- the organization of memory traces into the psychosomatic organism, when we speak of the-- of the traces, you know, we-we speak of them as like just the organic memory functioning, or like we spoke of them as-- as matter, is that part of the World-Idea? But--

 

AD: Well, [KD simultaneously: --but it is--] that’s organized by the World-Idea.

 

KD: Yeah, but it’s not the World-Idea that’s given, is it? It’s not part--

 

AD: [simultaneously] It’s included in the World-Idea. In other words, when you examine-- when you examine let’s say some creature, you know, you take-- you dissect it and you tear it apart and all that, you are investigating the nature of this psychosomatic organism which is part of the World-Idea. In other words, what science is understanding is (the/a) way the World-Mind’s intelligence is operating, its-its-its functioning, [KD assents] the-- the way the intelligence is organizing the material at its disposal according to the Intellectuality that it operates with.

 

KD: But it seems like when we talk about the World-- the World-Idea, it sounds like it’s a-- it’s a very living thing, you know, it’s a living reason-principle, the living idea [student assents, very faint] [AD: Well--] that-that’s coming like from all [AD simultaneously: But they are.] levels [one/two words inaudible] [sounds like: the]--

 

AD: They are. But look--

 

KD: [simultaneously] If-- in the psychosomatic organism though it’s composed of-- of left-over traces and I guess I don’t understand the, you know-- at one point they’re-- they’re living and they’re organizing something, a living principle alive (in/and)-- and yet our world, our psychosomatic organism that’s prepared for us before there is a conjunction of the individual soul with that psychosomatic organism, that’s not a living-- I mean, I guess it has to be [sounds like: somewhat].

 

RG: Well wait, but that also--

 

KD: [simultaneously] It-- it’s just-- I don’t understand that [sounds like: distinction].

 

RG: [simultaneously] But Kathleen, that body is not-- is also the body of a soul. Even prior to the individual soul’s activation isn’t it the body of a cosmic soul?

 

KD: It has to be-- right, it has to be [sounds like: ensouled].

 

RG: [simultaneously] So to speak of it as unliving doesn’t make-- doesn’t mean anything. It’s certainly living, [KD: To(--/?)] living with the life of the cosmic soul in it.

 

KD: Yeah, so at that level it’s part of the-- part of the Sun. And from our--

 

AD: [simultaneously] It’s the planet(’s), it’s the planet’s. Everything on-on Earth, alright, belongs to the planet.

 

KD: So maybe you could say that those traces left behind are part of the soul of the Sun, but that’s like where they--

 

AD: No, tra--

 

KD: [simultaneously] --where they--

 

AD: No, the trace-- the life that’s lived on Earth leaves be-- leaves the traces behind on Earth. It doesn’t leave them in the Sun.

 

KD: I mean the soul of the Earth, right. That would be-- that--

 

LR: [simultaneously] [faint] Wouldn’t that be Neptune? Wouldn’t that be what we refer to as Neptune?

 

AD/S(?): Well--

 

LR/S(?): [few words inaudible]

 

KD: [simultaneously] I-I-- yeah I think so, I mean I have the same problem like when we talk about the-- the Earth, the 360 degrees are living, that’s like the-- the way the Earth understands the Ideas coming from the Solar Logos. And then that you would have the traces left behind of those [AD simultaneously: Well, yeah.] 360 degrees. And I don’t understand I guess the psychosomatic organism, that it’s-- I thought was composed of the traces of those Ideas. And then you had the living 360 degrees and I don’t understand that-- that conjunction, you have a-- you have a transmission of those-- of those living Ideas. And-and it-- which is part of the-- of the World-Idea that’s being transmitted from level to level.

 

AD: I don’t think I [sounds like: really] understood you yet so if [sounds like: (somehow/someone)] [S simultaneously, faint in background: Oh.] understands [KD simultaneously, faint: Ok, right.] her maybe [one word inaudible]

 

LDS: [simultaneously] Could I try to [few words inaudible] try?

 

KD: (Yeah/Yes).

 

LDS: I-I think what you’re referring to is what Anthony spoke earlier of as the cosmic soul carrying these reason-principles orders the samskaras that are there available in the universe, or let’s say on Earth, traces of life lived. Now it’s going to build psychosomatic organisms by ordering those samskaras in a certain way, constituting them in certain way, based on those reason-principle(s). Now, it’s up to an individual soul, dependent-- depending on its proclivities and tendencies and needs, to then make the choice of which psychosomatic organism has the appropriate sa-- samskaras in it for it to fulfill its needs. So, there’s a matter then of-- (so/well) there’s a couple things going on there, there’s-- there’s this body being built up by the cosmic soul, which has nothing to do with the individual soul at all. The individual soul doesn’t seem to have anything to do with building that body. But it is the individual soul that chooses that body to use to gain the experience that it has to have for fulfilling something in itself.

 

[student assents]

 

LDS: Does that help at all?

 

RG: And the traces are not other than the Ideas at the higher level. They’re the residue of it on Earth.

 

KD: Right.

 

S: [one/two words inaudible]

 

RG: [simultaneously] They’re not different.

 

S: The tra--

 

LDS(?): [simultaneously] [one/two words inaudible]

 

LDS: [faint] [sounds like: Go.]

 

S: Well they were demeaned in some way, I mean [couple/three words inaudible]

 

RG: [simultaneously] But they are the traces of those Ideas, [student assents, faint] I mean maybe they’re filtered through bodies but they are the 360 [half/one word inaudible] through this filtration system.

 

[few seconds of highly inaudible AD talking, part of background]

 

BS: Yeah if we-- if we refer back to what you-- what you were saying Wednesday night about intellect being some sort of mental distillation-- at least I took it that way, some sort of mental distillation [sounds like: of] the biological and physiological functioning.

 

AD: [faint] No it wasn’t mental distillation.

 

BS: Yeah I know you-- yeah.

 

AD: Very specifically I avoided that, the intellect is a manipulation of effects produced [sounds like: by our] physiological functioning. So in other words the-- the way an entity reacts to a given se-- you know, stimulus, is already predetermined in some way by the fact that how it has operated in the past because it’s a stored content and it’s operating from memory.

 

BS: But-- yes.

 

AD: It’s not mental.

 

BS: Ok.

 

RG: [simultaneously] So that i-- that intellect isn’t mental. That intellect--

 

AD: [simultaneously] Because-- [BS: Right.] I-I mean from the point of view of the intellect you would never get out of this. You couldn’t, by definition, become spiritual because the intellect in itself cannot include-- I mean the intellect by itself or, you know, distinguished from the soul, is in no way spiritual.

 

BS: Then these are-- then these would be vehicles for the reason-principles within the-- within the mental being-- vehicles for those reason-principles in the mental being(,) for the-- (oh/no) I’ll stop right there. Vehicles for the reason-- or an expression of the reason-principles in the psychosomatic organism, the reason-principles being for that individual mind the mental being itself.

 

[short pause]

 

AD: [faint] Try again, [sounds like: I-I uh--] The reason-principles are [sounds like: where]?

 

BS: [simultaneously] That intellect that you were referring--

 

AD: [simultaneously] [faint] The mental presupposition of the psychosomatic organism, yeah, ok.

 

BS: Yeah.

 

AD: Yeah.

 

BS: Mental presupposition. And, that would be content or one aspect of the mental being, [RG simultaneously: But you just--] possibly, which has two aspects because that would be the Intellect of the Earth, [slight pause] or the-- the soul of the--

 

AD: [simultaneously] Well, that would be part of the understanding required in order-- in order to speak about a mental being, and that this is an ongoing process and that [student assents simultaneous with AD] ongoing process is-- has to be added on to get a fuller definition of what the mental being is.

 

RG: But you just said the intellect wasn’t the mental being.

 

AD: Yeah.

 

RG: It isn’t.

 

AD: It isn’t, no. The intellect, again-- the way I understand the intellect, it is something which is evolved within the lowest level and the next level, between the psychical and the gross. [student assents] So, if we think of the body, alright, composed of the element(s), and the organs in their totality and the body function, alright. So, for instance, there’s some sort of sense quality [sounds like: in Dave], alright, you hear a sound or you-- or-or you see a certain color or a streak of [one/two words inaudible] alright. This is a-- a modification of the body, the senses, that’s all. There’s nothing else there, [RG assents simultaneous with AD] alright. Now, a sufficient amount of these modification(s) are retained by that psychosomatic organism’s functioning. This stored content can be manipulated according to, let’s say, [sounds like: in] a certain situation it would react according to the stored content or the memory content, “This is what I did in the past, this is what I gotta do now, again,” alright. Now this manipulation of the stored content or the-- the-- you know, the activity which is-- which the psychosomatic organism is-- participate in and which is now retained as its memory content, this-- the manipulation of this is (what/well--) I call the intellect. There is nothing divine [students assenting simultaneous with AD] about it, there’s nothing soulful about it. [RG assents, faint] Now, assuming, assuming that you understand with your intellect some of the truths that, let’s say, we find out in philosophy, this will not give you a ticket to heaven. You still drop dead and you dissolve and all those thoughts that you have about that reality dissolve with you.

 

LR: And you still call that understanding?

 

AD: Well, again, the word “understanding”, you have to tell me what you mean. Kant uses the word “understanding” he brings in the soul but he doesn’t use the word “soul” but he brings in all the higher ideas.

 

[student(s) assenting, bit of laughter]

 

LR: What you’re talking about seems to be [couple words inaudible] [sounds like: of] concept.

 

AD: No, no. I-I’m trying to avoid that so carefully. Because, like if I start saying the concept of a square or of a quadratic equation, I’m bringing-- I’m bringing in a higher reasoning faculty. I’m thinking of an ordinary animal, [LR simultaneously: So you think concept is above?] an-- a ordinary animal, a dog. He goes over, alright, he hears the bell he goes over and eats, alright. Now, when the next day comes and the bell rings, do you think he--

 

 

[File 831014b Ends]

 

[File 831014a Begins]

 

 

RG: --no, but I mean--

 

AD: [amidst laughter/student talking] You don’t like that! You don’t like that.

 

VM: It sounds like animal cunning [one/two words inaudible]

 

AD: You-- you got the point.

 

S: [faint] (Right/Great).

 

S: Are you [S simultaneously, faint: But--] saying this is the type of intellect that most of us operate with? (laughter)

 

AD: [amidst laughter] No I’m not saying that! (more laughter, student talking)

 

VM: [amidst student talking] Come on.

 

LDS: [simultaneously] [amidst student talking] We haven’t gotten that far.

 

AD: I’m just trying to make a distinction to give you an idea of what the intellect is like.

 

S: [amidst student talking] I know you didn’t say that [sounds like: but do you accept it]?

 

AD: Now, if this intellect is completely subservient to the, let’s say, to the animal itself, then you can see that intellect is absolutely just concerned with the preservation of this psychosomatic organism. It’s amoral, to say it’s good or bad is, you know, beyond the point. But now, when that intellect, alright, does have a memory content and it does have a storehouse of knowledge, all these modifications of its sensory functions, and you say the light of the soul pervades that, now you got a different story. Now the intellect can get an intuition that there is such a thing as a soul. But if there isn’t that light it can’t get an intuition that there’s such a thing as a soul.

 

S: [faint] But then [few words inaudible]

 

BS: [simultaneously] Ok, now that light is within that mental being?

 

AD: That [BS simultaneously: (sounds like: What--)] light is coming from the mental being.

 

BS: Yeah. I’m not-- I’m not-- I’m not sure that’s the source.

 

AD: [simultaneously] Or let’s say the mental being is pervasive, [BS assents simultaneous with AD] completely, and that organism is within it. But I’m make-- I-I’m making these very artificial distinctions because you’re not going to come across a human being, so to speak, in whom the [student assents simultaneous with AD, faint] light of the soul is not pervading his intellect, that’s obvious.

 

VM: [sounds like: Alright.] [student assents] Anthony, before when you talked about when you get old or senile or whatever, the higher rationality leaves the body(--/.)

 

AD: Like me, yeah. (some laughter)

 

VM: Like (me/you). And-- and, say there’s only sort of vegetative memories or traces [AD simultaneously: Uh-huh.] left and so on. Isn’t it possible [sounds like: that] this particular almost animal level of intellect still could be functioning?

 

AD: [simultaneously] Yeah, yeah.

 

VM: [simultaneously] That’s probably the only level of [AD simultaneously: Yeah.] intellect which is functioning.

 

AD: Uh-huh.

 

VM: So the person knows how to drink a cup of coffee and--

 

AD: [simultaneously] Yeah, he-he-he’ll still be able to eat, he’ll know what he wants to eat, what he doesn’t want to eat, alright.

 

VM: Right.

 

AD: Yeah.

 

BS: And still do mathematical problem(s).

 

S: [simultaneously] [few words inaudible]

 

VM: He could still balance his checkbook probably, stuff like that.

 

BS: [simultaneously] Yeah, that’s what I mean.

 

[few seconds of faint student talking in background as class continues]

 

AD: Well--

 

S: [faint] No.

 

RG: No.

 

VM: No?

 

S: [very faint in background] You have to bring in [possibly one/two words inaudible]

 

S: [couple/three faint inaudible words in background]

 

VM: [simultaneously] You-you can’t use the animal intellect to balance (a/your) checkbook?

 

AD: [simultaneously] I-I don’t know, I-I would s-- (laughter) I-I would assume as soon as the higher mental reasoning is required, then--

 

VM: [sounds like: You] need more.

 

AD: You need more.

 

S: [very faint in background] Richard [couple/few words inaudible]

 

RG: [simultaneously] [one word inaudible] but when you try to do [one/two words inaudible]

 

AD: [simultaneously] Now you see again, now look, we’re trying to make-- we’re trying to draw a line where we can’t.

 

S: Yeah, yeah.

 

AD: I mean life isn’t like that, you can draw a line and say everything on this side, alright, is the intellect without soul, everything on this side is the intellect with the soul.

 

VM: Ok, you might balance your checkbook with a lot of mistakes. (laughter)

 

LR: [amidst laughter] [faint] No, no, no.

 

VM: Bounce a lot of checks. (VM laughing)

 

RG: But you would say you can’t think--

 

AD: Well, [VM simultaneously: But (sounds like: you were) just saying-- I think the point is--] let the wife take care of the bank book and you don’t [VM simultaneously: Right.] have to balance--

 

VM: No, the point is that when-- (some laughter) but-- and in f-- in fact, you can’t do it any other way-- is that when you’re imposing say even a simple arithmetic, there’s something of the higher mathematicals that are required, even in a primitive way, so in that sense you can’t restrict that functioning just to that animal intellect. Is that the point you’re trying to make?

 

AD: That may be so, I don’t know.

 

VM: Ok, I-I-- it may be too [couple/three words inaudible]

 

AD: [simultaneously] I know that a chicken for instance has five chickens, alright. [VM simultaneously: It knows how to count.] The little chicks are following it and then you take one away. [VM: Yeah.] It can’t count, [student assents, faint] but it keeps looking for the other one.

 

VM: It’s aware of the presence of absence.

 

AD: So I-I-I don’t know, (laughter, student words) where does this begin, where does it end, I don’t [sounds like: really know]. That-- that chicken will go back and [sounds like: say]-- it doesn’t say one, two, three, four, where’s the fifth? It just look.

 

MB: [few very faint inaudible words in background]

 

RG: [simultaneously] But it-- but it--

 

AD(?): [simultaneously] It starts looking for the other one.

 

RG: Alright, but what you mean by intellect there is what-- I mean normally they call instinct, there’s an intelligence embedded in the body that functions a certain way without concepts.

 

AD: [faint] Yeah.

 

[student assents]

 

AH: So--

 

AD: Now as soon as we start bringing in concepts, we’re going to have to bring in the higher reasoning processes which abstracts from the experiences universals and then starts manipulating these universals and now you’re bringing in the higher soul. [student assents, faint] But the reason why I tried to make it so drastic, (because/cuz), like in explaining to some people, you sit down and you meditate, and you watch every thought that comes into your mind and you analyze every one of those thoughts, I guarantee you within a week you’ll suffer from nausea. You won’t believe how much you regurgitate nothing but the past. That’s all that keeps going on, a regurgitation of the past, you’re always vomiting up things that you experienced last year, the year before, when you were five, when-- four or five minutes ago, on and on and on. And then you begin to say, “This is an intellect?”

 

AH: And you wouldn’t describe those as concepts?

 

AD: Well you see what I just-- what I just said. I pointed out that there’s a certain level where the light of the soul starts making [sounds like: you] self-aware by the fact that it starts pointing out the commonality or the universal which is embedded in the variety of instants and abstracts that and says this-- this-- it has a concept now. Now it starts manipulating concepts. You’re bringing in the soul now. Now, as I tried to point out, in this analysis it was extremely artificial, it’s phony, it, I mean-- the whole purpose was to show you that this intellect, alright, was completely subservient to the entity that is operating and is a tool of the ego, it is completely subservient to the ego. And unless the light of the soul comes into that, alright, it will never undertake the study of metaphysics, philosophy, or meditation or any of that.

 

RC: You can take that [sounds like: a long ways] too, I mean-- It seems that all the answers that a computer can produce don’t require the light of any soul.

 

AD: Uh-hm.

 

RC: If this-- if you think of this light as-- this intellect as having been trained to behave in a certain way by Nature, there’s no light of the soul required [sounds like: for him] to act that way.

 

AD: Well I wou-- I would say that the computer is directly based on the functioning of the intellect, the manipulation of its stored memory contents [student(s) assenting] into a variety of patterns to answer to a specific situation or environment that it finds itself in. And, I would never suggest to a person use your intellect to get to the-- to the truth or get to, [sounds like: you know], spirituality, it won’t do it. But only an intellect that’s been disciplined and trained by the soul can do something like that, prior to that-- And-- and that’s exactly true. The intellect of a computer and the intellect of the psychosomatic organism I think are based on the same principle. It’s a kind of-- it’s not a real intelligence yet. But it isn’t non-intelligence.

 

[short pause]

 

RG: Would you say, Anthony, the mental be-- the-- when you were talking about the mental being before, [couple/three faint inaudible student words] is that an experience of the Ideas in a-- in a defined or an undefined way? In other words, is it particular?

 

AD: [simultaneously] Well-- [student assents] I-- I-I see there’s no way around it. Now I’m going by a very bad memory but let me put it this way. You reach a certain stage of contemplation. And, you contemplate and you get occupied with many universals, universals in the sense like love, compassion, truth, alright? And, you-you take one up at a time or one is brought to your attention at a time and you meditate on that. And, this process, like I tried to point out, is the process that keeps maturing. It reaches a point where the-- the nature of the consciousness itself gets investigated. But, when this happens, then the thoughts, or I should say these universal Ideas, are negated, they’re subsumed, they’re-- they’re ignored. But you-you-you’ve reached a maturity [sounds like: of] contemplation and now you will tend to think of yourself as just mental being, Void Mind. You don’t think of yourself as an addition of all these thoughts or universal essences, you don’t think that way anymore, they’re gone, alright. Now you’re becoming aware of awareness itself. Because, as you’re drawing towards that Undivided Mind you tend to go in that direction. You tend more and more to identify with the awareness which is aware of the awareness. And, when you start doing that then of course the Overself, the glimpse is inevitable or even prolonged stay in (there/it). But it’s a-- it’s-- it’s a difficult concept to speak about. First of all it’s not a concept because I haven’t been able to elucidate it or articulate it very clearly because of this ambiguity about it.

 

[short pause]

 

RG: You know, from the way you’re talking about it now it seems almost totally contrary to the way we were talking about septiles.

 

AD: I don’t think so (uh/um)--

 

RG: I don’t [sounds like: see it].

 

AD: [simultaneously] I mean I-- I can’t be sure because here-- here’s the experimental work we’re doing, alright, trying to correlate these things. But, you remember we were speaking about Fermi last night, and it was when he didn’t know that he really knew.

 

S: Hm.

 

S: [couple faint inaudible words]

 

S/RG(?): See, I-I think [one word inaudible]

 

AD: [simultaneously] That’s the way I understand the septile(,) when it’s really operative.

 

RG: But you know, it sounds-- the way you’re describing it I was gonna say sounds like the way we’ve been lately talking about transiting septiles. It’s very different from the way we talk about natal septiles.

 

AD: [simultaneously] Oh yeah, oh yeah. A natal septile to me represents a very fixed idea which governs a man’s life and is his basic presupposition.

 

RG: So that [AD simultaneously: Yeah.] would seem to not be in the mental being, an experience of the mental the way you’re talking about.

 

AD: [simultaneously] No that’s-that’s not the mental being. The mental-- the mental being is always on the move, [RG simultaneously: With a transit--] whereas this is within the categories of the imagination. So it’s congealed, it’s fixed. It’s a-- it’s a supposition you’ll never give up. It’s the world-view that accompanies him when he-he speaks.

 

S: [very faint] You mean the septile [RG simultaneously: Ok.] [sounds like: is within the categories] [few words inaudible]

 

[student(s) assenting, very faint in background]

 

AD: [simultaneously] Yeah.

 

S: [simultaneously with AD/assenting student(s)] [sounds like: Uh-hm], right.

 

RG: Right, so in th-- right, so in this view now, it’s the septiles natally really are in the psychic. That they’re psychic determinants, not mental determinants, but the transiting septiles are unfolding the mental level.

 

AD: Yeah. And that’s why the Void Mind is experienced, “I don’t know,” you know. The one time he does know, he says “I don’t know.” And that’s why it’s almost impossible to describe that level, because there’s n-- as I tried to point out before, you can’t have an objective relationship to it. How can you have an objective relationship to that which you don’t know? [student assents, very faint] And yet this is exactly what Fermi said--“I don’t know,” you know. And yet he did precisely the correct thing, everything that was required, boom!, the day was a marvelous day, everything worked out. But he didn’t know. But still you can see the other part of Fermi, the organized part, the part that was congealed, had fixed patterns, fixed habits, attitudes, worked with them. And if that wasn’t there, of course, nothing could be done so he has to be there too. So you’ve got this mixture of these two levels which is utterly confusing. And we’re experiencing that in trying to figure out where goes where, what goes where. Who on first base and what on second. (some laughter) (We/You) can’t figure out [sounds like: where else] things-- I mean, we can’t figure out the correlation. Is there a system? Maybe there is no system, that’s what I tried to warn us [few inaudible RG words simultaneous with AD] yesterday. It may be no system. [RG and student assent, faint, possibly part of background talking] It may be, what we would say, asymmetrical.

 

[student assents, very faint]

 

VM/S(?): [very faint] That’s [sounds like: terrible]. (student assents, laughter)

 

RG: [laughing] That’s why [sounds like: I] wanted to make [one/two words inaudible]

 

S: [couple words inaudible]

 

AD: Look, the truth of the matter is, if there’s any validity in this little outline we just made, if there’s any validity, then you can see we’re trying to get a glimpse of this spontaneous functioning and wisdom which the World-Mind is operating with.

 

[students assenting, faint]

 

S: [one/two inaudible words, possibly part of background]

 

AD: Which I thought was worthwhile and more (laughter, student words) important than Kant’s, you know, Critique of Pure Reason, which I don’t think is a critique at all.

 

BS: [faint] Well sure.

 

S: Right.

 

[student(s) assenting]

 

AD: Well he had no mystical experience at all whatsoever so naturally he had to approach it in a completely rational way, which, you know, if you study and you like that kind of stuff, you can get something out of it but I studied it and it was dry rot. (laughter) I mean I could appreciate it intellectually but it was dry rot. How does this get me out of my situation, you know, how can I get out of my situation, this man’s telling me I can’t get out of it! (students assenting, laughter) Alright, class is over, ok? Unless you got more questions.

 

[student assents, very faint]

 

AH: I have more. It would-- you spoke of the fixity of the septile or, more generally, is a-- is that-- you could speak of the fixity of a mind-body complex. It would be--

 

AD: Now what do you mean mind-body complex? [AH simultaneously: Psychosomatic.] Do you mean the mental and the psychosomatic organism?

 

AH: Well tha-- that’s my question.

 

AD: Or do you mean the mind as we ordinarily understand it, which like a Zen Master would say, that belongs to an ape. (bit of laughter, student assents, very faint)

 

AH: I was going to ask the question [HS simultaneously: (sounds like: Deeper.)] that-that you’ve spoken to already. There’s a fixity that has something to do with the body, something to do with that ape mind. Then there’s this other moving, changing [AD: (sounds like: No.)] entity. How do you speak of those two in regard to the natal chart?

 

AD: Well that’s what we’re trying to do, we’re trying to understand what is the relationship that exists between the spontaneous wisdom and functioning of the planetary sphere(s) and the individual ego, what is that relationship, what is going on there? Now, I don’t think we could ever clearly say what’s going on because in the case of one it might be an evolution of-- of his spirituality and in the case of the other it might be a devolution, if I could use that word. [student assents, faint] So, we do know, we do know that given certain aspects, alright, or relationship that is existing between the transients, you know, the transits, and the fixed natal chart we do know that alterations will take place in the psychosomatic organism. We know that for a fact, I mean anyone could prove that, you know, without any trouble, if he-- if he really wants to. So, that part we understand that there is a relationship between these two. But the difficulty comes in in trying to understand, if there are these three levels of subjectivity, which one is operative at which time? So that, in other words, we single out this-- the psychical processes from the mental processes and from the bodily processes. So if you get a-- a square between Mars and Saturn you’ll break your leg, you’ll have no doubt, that’s a sensible phenomena, you got a broken leg to prove it, alright. But when you start talking about an idea coming into a man, alright, and the man is not an introspective man like Puccini, alright, you-you read his biography [one word inaudible, possibly: right] he tells you nothing about his inner life. He tells you about his cars, his finic-- fa-- finances, I mean fiancés, (laughter, student words) tells you about the ducks he shoots, he tells you about everything but he doesn’t tell you anything about his inner life so, how could you, you know, get an understanding of the quintiles from him? You can’t, so you got-- I-- and that’s the thing you want to do, you want to separate these various different aspects and see, “Ah, the-- these apply to the physical or the sensible, these apply to-- to the psychical, the emotional, [student assents] these apply to the ideational.”

 

S: [sounds like: I’m almost right.]

 

AH: [sounds like: I’m] confused about the rationale [sounds like: of-- can you just--] [VM/S(?), faint, possibly part of background: I see.] We spoke earlier tonight about this body (as/is) in some-- in some way(s) organized in advance by the world, it’s prepared, and then there’s an in-- individual that comes to inhabit it for a time. [someone assents, possibly AD, faint] But you speak-- and we als-- and we speak of both of those things, that body which is prior, an individual who visits, in regards to a native-- natal chart, as if the natal chart explains both of those--

 

AD: No, no. You-- I don’t think anyone ever sends-- said that, I don’t think anyone has ever said that the natal chart explains the [sounds like: present] and the future that’s going to unfold. But the natal chart for that individual is an absolute sin qua non because without it you can’t speak about something happening to that individual.

 

AH: It do-- the natal chart does refer to the specific [AD: Individual.] body.

 

AD: Yeah, specific body, his body here.

 

AH: That body was organized prior to the natal chart’s existence.

 

AD: Well, yes, of course. The-- you-- you really don’t need a natal chart at all, but you need a body. (some laughter, student words)

 

BS: Now, now.

 

AH: [simultaneously] Is that a question, I mean-- did I ask a question(--/?)

 

AD: Well I’m only trying to answer it (AD laughs a bit) as I see it. Yes the-- the production and the fabrication of all the entities that exist for instance on our planet goes on whether we make natal charts for them or not.

 

AH: So does a natal chart refer just to the psychic mental level?

 

AD: No it refers to all three.

 

AH: I don’t see how it refers--

 

AD: [simultaneously] The fixed ideas that you come into the world with and the psychosomatic organism which is the field within which these fixed ideas, feeling, and cog-- willing is operative. In other words, the body is the field within which the-- this triple mode of knowing is operative.

 

AH: And the rationale for that is the specific location of planets on degrees from the point of view of [one/two words inaudible]

 

AD: [simultaneously] Uh-hm, the relationship.

 

AH: That rationale is accepted as a given or an apriori presupposition I-- we don’t-- we don’t question that--

 

AD: Well we’ve been questioning. (AD laughs a bit)

 

S: [one/two very faint inaudible words]

 

RG: So look, the mental being then that-- (that/but) if the natal chart and those aspects don’t seem to-- are fixed attitudes, they don’t seem to refer to this mental being.

 

S: [very faint] Why not?

 

VM: Why not?

 

RG: Because he [sounds like: said] the mental being was a totally fluid process [VM simultaneously: No, no, no.] and you could get an in-- That’s what he-- [LDS simultaneously: I thought it (sounds like: was)--] [sounds like: but] you can get an intuition into-- into the Ideas.

 

AD: [simultaneously] Well, the mental being is that totally fluid process, the zodiacal [RG assents simultaneous with AD] degrees, alright. The representation of the mental being [sounds like: intel--] within the categories of the imagination is a fixed representation.

 

RG: So therefore it’s not the mental, it’s in the-- it’s-- the representation is in the psychic.

 

AD: Yeah, all of this is within the [sounds like: (psyche/psycho)].

 

RG: [simultaneously] Is in the psychic.

 

AD: [faint] Yeah.

 

RG: So therefore, the natal aspects don’t refer to the mental but the psychic representation of the mental in the psychic.

 

AD: Try-- try again.

 

RG: That the natal aspects don’t refer to the mental per se but their image in the psychic.

 

AD: Yeah, yeah. Yeah and-- the way you just put it, remember like when you try to understand your septiles or someone else’s, it showed ideas which are fixed, the reason they’re fixed is because they’re in the psyche. [student assents simultaneous with AD] If they weren’t in the psyche then they wouldn’t be fixed. [RG assents] But again, then there’s the-- the other problem which, you know, we have to keep in mind, and that although the natal chart is fixed, if your identity includes higher levels like the [RG assents simultaneous with AD] Overself, alright, then you can’t allow the chart to completely determine everything.

 

RG: Right.

 

AD: There has to be that openness to the fact that an intuition which is coming from the Overself let’s say, the whole system [diagram], the-- the [RG assents simultaneous with AD] wisdom itself, coming from there into you, alright, and given that-- I-I’m inclined to say that even that’s fated. But, disregarding that, alright, if the person is inclined to be receptive to that, alright, then the intuition can come in. It will at first come in (in/and) the way that it’s experienced by these examples we had whether it was Einstein or Fermi, where-- even here I’ve had people tell me, “You know, I knew something very important but I don’t know what it was!” [student assents, faint] They had-- they had for a moment the inspiration, an intuition was coming in, alright, but they couldn’t translate it. Now it’s very possible that at that time there was no quintiles being formed so that he could formulate that intuition, verbalize it, put it in a suit of words, you know, and say “Ah, now I see what that thing is.” Because it’s like an invisible man and unless you put a suit of clothes on him you don’t see anything there.

 

HS: But in that particular example is the knowledge then within the mental being of the entity? Or does the knowl--

 

AD: [simultaneously] I’m sorry?

 

HS: In the-- in the thing you just said, is the knowledge then within the mental being of the entity, [AD simultaneously: Yeah.] so to say? Or does it-- do you posit back to the [AD simultaneously: Yeah.] Undivided Mind?

 

AD: Because it is the mental being of the person, alright, or the-- his Witness-I or we call it this mental being, that is receptive of that intuition that’s coming from the Overself. He’s the first recipient of that. In other words, what KCB called his higher spirituality is the recipient of the intuition. And then that has to filter down all the way down to the level of brain consciousness where we’re operative, if you remember the outline that we presented when we said that the World-Idea is given to these individual mental being, alright, and then this World-Idea which is a thought and includes the body of or the image of the body that this mental being is going to identify with, and then this mental being feeds that, alright, and in feeding that s-- the s-- the heart center with the seed-thoughts which reach the brain and then ex-- expand into the wakeful world of consciousness, if we keep all this in mind, alright, you can see the process that an idea has to go through in order to reach you where you are now!

 

HS: When you say “where you are now” that’s the conjoint of that animal men-- mentality--

 

AD: [simultaneously] It’s-- it’s where you are now. In other words, when-when Fermi or Einstein-- Einstein awoke and-- he knew something but, you know, it didn’t get all the way down yet, it has to get all the way down.

 

HS: Ok, and that-- and that something that he knew was available for-- for him later [couple/few words inaudible]

 

AD: [simultaneously] Yeah, yeah, then he formulated it, as a matter of fact they work all day and they formulate it. There-- the aspects seemed to be favorable for the possibility of a formulation in terms of words and, you know, equations and all that, and you write them out and then someone else could read it because now you got it sensibly down on paper, alright. So, the idea has to be transmitted, let’s say the Overself gives an intuition, alright. The intuition’s picked up by the mental being which we experience as a void state of mind, “I don’t know anything.” Then that has to be transferred through the subtle realm of the being until it reaches (the/that) wakeful consciousness and then he says “Ah, I got an idea.” But look at what it went through.

 

HS: Ok now when he has this i-- when he actually gets this idea in a wakeful consciousness, is it so to say in spite of that animal intelligence, you know that-that pseudo-intelligence?

 

AD: In spite? Well, [HS simultaneously: Or is it through the vehicle of it?] no, I wouldn’t put it “in spite”. Because after all, the evolution of that so-called soul in a human body is taking place that way. So I wouldn’t say “in spite of” but I would say, well, the cosmic circuit has contributed all this, alright, and now the Divine Wisdom is adding to that so that the soul can evolve. So I wouldn’t say “in spite of”.

 

HS: Ok.

 

AD: But I would say [HS simultaneously: (couple/three words inaudible) say what?] it has, you know, in addition to the developing animal intelligence, the spiritual intelligence. Because, even if you remember the way PB put it, there’s three parts to us. There’s an angelic part, a human part, and an animal part. And those three have to be brought into some kind of harmony, correlation.

 

HS: Ok [sounds like: and] [half/one word inaudible] is [sounds like: a wi--] the human part would be what, the mental being or the Overself?

 

AD: I’m sorry?

 

HS: What-what would you call the human part?

 

AD: I would say that’s the mental more than anything else. But still, you can’t say that because the mental being has to have the kind of physiological organism that he has in order for the Idea of Man to express itself adequately.

 

HS: And in the case say of Fermi now if-- (was/is) the knowledge that he brought in, that was determined by the physiological organism he had?

 

AD: Yes, that’s absolutely necessary. The kind of body you have is very determinative of the kind of knowledge you’re going to get.

 

HS: You would--

 

AD: You can’t have a real coarse, you know, animal body and write the Enneads. (laughter, student words)

 

S: [amidst laughter] [faint] Why not?

 

S: [few very faint inaudible words]

 

S: [faint] Anthony, the degrees in the natal chart are representative of the mental being, is that right?

 

AD: Just ask the question.

 

S: [faint] Ok. The way--

 

AD: [simultaneously] Why do you people want to go through a prelude when you want to ask a question? (bit of laughter)

 

S: [simultaneously] [one/two words inaudible]

 

S: [couple words inaudible]

 

S: [faint] When you read the degrees in the natal chart, in response to what Richard was saying earlier, are you reading something that’s entirely within the psychic or are you also in a sense reading the mental being of the [possibly one word inaudible]

 

AD: (Oh/Well) that depends on the individual. I know that there’s times when I read a chart(,) and I get a glimpse of the higher mental being. And I know there’s times when I don’t get it, all I get is this person in front of me, this ego in front of me. It varies. I-I [sounds like: think so]. I mean these are problem(s).

 

RG: It’s possible that, I mean the Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto natal degrees could give you some indication of the mental beings or, if that’s totally obscured by all the aspects they have, then it wouldn’t-- you couldn’t see it.

 

AD: Well sometimes [couple inaudible student words simultaneous with AD] it’s almost impossible. Yeah-- these are what I call [sounds like: work] problems, these are things that have to be worked out. It’s one thing to have a [sounds like: good] cosmogony that we just presented from(,/--) you know, which I assume I’ve taken from Plotinus. But it’s another thing to work out particular problems and their detailed answers. And this is what, you know, [sounds like: PB was] trying to understand. Because if, he feels-- at least I feel that if we can understand this here then one of those quotes of PB will be significantly approached and that was when he pointed out that each individual’s experience is very peculiar to him and no one else, he must understand the nature of that experience so that he can evolve from the meanings he has extracted and the learning that has taken place from extracting those meaning(s). Otherwise they’re just going to repeat the same things over and over again, you know, like a m-- the merry go-around. So, to some extent I think that when this kind of astrology is evolved it could be spiritually helpful. I mean more than that I don’t want to say but I do want to say that these are problems that have to be worked out, we don’t know. And, we’ll argue the point here for months. Everybody gets bored and jumps out the window or goes out the door. But that don’t mean a damn thing to me because I’ve-I’ve learned a long time ago not to res-- let me put it this way, the way PB put it. Don’t expect too much from people and you could love them. (some laughter, student words) [student assents] (some laughter, student words) So the-- the work has to go on and [sounds like: I do--] I think, I think we’ve made a great-- I think we’ve made some considerable progress, I mean, you know, the couple of years that we’ve been working [student assents simultaneous with AD] we made some progress. I think we know when we know something and I think we know when you don’t know something. And [sounds like: (there’s/those) other things that] [three words inaudible]

 

[student assents, faint]

 

[short pause]

 

HS: So when you take a scientist, would you--

 

AD: [simultaneously] I’m sorry?

 

HS: Taking the scientist, you’re saying he’s receiving information about the World-Idea that’s outside his mental being.

 

AD: Yeah.

 

HS: Is that-- Now-now are you saying this spec-- specific individual can’t-- necessarily is given to receive this kind of information? It wou-- it wouldn’t be that he could receive what you would call soul information?

 

AD: What would be the difference?

 

HS: Ok, what would be the difference?

 

AD: You see, like, if we said-- You remember I said let’s leave these terms dangling and ambiguous. Let’s not have that-- that desire which I had, you know, as a Virgo to really get things down where this nut fits this bolt and nothing else, you know. Sometimes you have little (leaks/loose). But I said, on the one hand, that represented the Undivided Mind of the Earth. On the other hand, it also represents the Overself of an individual. And on the third, alright, it can be identified with the cosmic powers of the soul. Now all these things seem to be at the same level of being, alright. Now to say that, [AD hits something] let’s mash them all together and get one thing out of it, I don’t feel a need to do that. Let me leave them nice and free. You have the Undivided Mind of the Earth, alright, which is equivalent to that wisdom that we speak about. We have the Overself of an individual, a person who’s reached his individual Overself as coinciding with that sphere. And we have the seven powers of the cosmic soul, alright, also as coinciding, in our symbolism, with all these things.

 

HS: Ok, you would call that all the spiritual realm, right, that realm?

 

AD: [simultaneously] Yeah, sure I call that [sounds like: the spiritual].

 

HS: [simultaneously] Ok, now an individual could get sort of the information like you get-- like a-a realization of his own soul. And then he could get a realization into-- into like the reality of the world, right? Is-- are these two-- [half/one word inaudible] aren’t these two different kinds of realizations?

 

AD: Bob-- I-I-I [few mostly inaudible student words simultaneous with AD] don’t know if I followed you Herbie, but a person can realize his own soul, the Overself, alright. [HS: Right.] He can reach that level where he realizes the Overself, and let’s say he goes even further and permanently identifies with the Overself.

 

HS: The Overself.

 

AD: Ok?

 

HS: He might-- ok.

 

AD: [simultaneously] Now, on the one hand, he has an understanding of the nature of his subjectivity, [HS assents, very faint] alright. Now, what’s required of him if he is to be a philosopher is to understand the nature of the World-Idea, to some extent, I don’t mean every detail, how DNA works and all that, but-- [HS simultaneously: (one/two words inaudible, sounds like: RNA.)] He has to understand that there is an Idea of the World which is evolving, alright, and this World-Idea is another aspect of himself. It’s the what.

 

HS: Ok. Now you got a scientist--

 

AD: [simultaneously] Wait, wait.

 

HS: Ok.

 

AD: It’s the what. What do I mean by that?

 

S: The objective.

 

AD: Now we just said that the psychosomatic organism is something which is organized by the soul of this planet, alright, and given for an individual soul, but this-- this body which is organized by the planetary soul belongs to and is part of the World-Idea. So that there’s these two aspects. There’s the “who”, the subjectivity, the soul proper, and there’s the “what”, the World-Idea which it inhabits. [HS: Ok.] And in order to get a complete understanding like a philosopher, both sides have to be thought of and considered and held in juxtaposition. You can’t say “I am just this pure soul, the World-Idea doesn’t exist” because the world will deny that!

 

HS: Ok. Now when you have, so to say, inside now, inside, you get certain kinds of information, you’re-- the Undivided Mind is forming the mental being, the mental being is feeding the psychic, the psychic unfolds inside the-- you know, the physical as-- and then you have like thought of an idea. Now you’re getting information. Sometimes it’s contemplative [couple/few words inaudible, possibly another student] I mean it will be contemplative. And it seems like there’s a possibility for-for it to be soul or subjective information and World-Idea or objective information. Right? He’s not willi-- you wouldn’t want to say that-- you wouldn’t want to submerge the World-Idea back into yourself at this point. You want to keep them distinct.

 

AD(?): [very faint] Uh-hm.

 

HS: Ok. Now does the process of the aspects that-- does this a-- is it possible to determine from the aspects which kind of information is going to come in?

 

[students assenting, very faint]

 

[short pause]

 

AD: I-I-I don’t think I have enough experience to answer a question like that. Maybe others might, Tim or Richard maybe have thought about that but I haven’t

 

HS: Ok well so you have like a guy-- a scientist who has this tremendous insight into the World-Idea. Well I-I’m just trying to see, what makes it so that he’s getting an insight into the World-Idea--

 

AD: What makes him for instance [RG assents simultaneous with AD] preoccupied with the nature of the World-Idea [HS simultaneously: Rather than--] rather than with the nature of his self?

 

HS: His own self.

 

AD: Uh-huh. Again, I-I-- I really don’t know. [VM simultaneously: That would be indicated in the chart though.] I suspect there’s a few things involved.

 

VM: But that predominance of interest would be indicated by the chart, wouldn’t it, [AD simultaneously: Uh-hm.] I mean-- [sounds like: When you--]

 

AD: [simultaneously] Yes. I would assume that there would be indications that this person is orientated basically towards trying to understand the nature [VM simultaneously: Sure.] of the World-Idea than trying to s-- understand himself. [student assents, faint] So you look at a chart of Einstein or [VM simultaneously: Fermi.] Fermi you can see there’s a preoccupation with the objective. [VM(?) assents, very faint] On the other hand you look at a chart of Gandhi or re-- Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, the indication should be that he’s more in-- interested in [few inaudible student words simultaneous with AD] finding out who he is rather than what he is. On the other hand if you look at a chart like PB I would assume-- or, you know, Atmananda, that these people are, you know, [one/two inaudible student words simultaneous with AD, very faint in background] non-plussed, I mean [RG simultaneously, responding to student in background: Yeah right.] he-- they want both or nothing, they-- they want to understand both sides of the coin. [HS: (Now/And) that point of view (sounds like: is)--] I don’t know, I don’t have that much information or experience and knowledge in astrology.

 

HS: Would you say that point of view is shown in the chart, the guy [sounds like: who wants] both side(s)?

 

AD: [simultaneously] I think they should show in the chart. I think there would be indication. [sounds like: Here’s] a man preoccupied with trying to find out who he is and everything else is irrelevant. Here’s another man who’s preoccupied basically with trying to find out what the nature of the World-Idea is and he doesn’t care about finding out who he is. [TS simultaneously: You know, Gandhi--] [sounds like: And] I-I think that’s possible.

 

TS: I just realized as we were speaking that Gandhi has a Mars Venus conjunction in Scorpio in the 1st.

 

RG: And Fermi in the 7th.

 

TS: [simultaneously] Fermi has a Mars Venus conjunction in Scorpio in the 7th.

 

RG: [simultaneously] That’s right.

 

S: [sounds like: Yeah.]

 

[student assents, very faint]

 

TS: So it’s the ruler of two planets in dignity, one preoccupied [sounds like: to] a certain extent [one word inaudible] [sounds like: himself](--/.)

 

AD: Well, that seems to make a lot of sense, doesn’t it, in the [student assents simultaneous with AD, very faint] 7th house it would be like his partnership with the world [RG simultaneously: World, (sounds like: yeah) (one word inaudible)] and in the 1st house his own-- you know, an interest in his own inner being or [RG assents simultaneous with AD] in his own identity. [S simultaneously, faint: That’s right.] [student assents, very faint in background] But you see, basically these are things that have to be worked out, I mean we could pick up pieces and pieces and more pieces of information, then, you know, we put the intellect to work on it or a good computer, maybe it would come up with some kind of outline. All I present you with is problems. (bit of laughter, AD laughing a bit) Not solution(s).

 

DH: But I’m-- I’m gathering from what you’re saying about astrology that even if, like with Gandhi, you know, (it/it’s)-- it’s his own soul, he’s preoccupied with his own soul, that the-- looking at the transits it would still be-- you would be looking at how the World-Idea-- how do his experiences in the World-Idea are-- [AD simultaneously: Oh (sounds like: no).] are facilitating that or bringing out that--

 

AD: [simultaneously] You see the intri-- you see the intricacies of the problem now. In other words, it’s the World-Idea which is forcing him to inquire into the nature of his own [DH assents] “who am I”. [student assents, very faint] Yeah.

 

DH: [mostly faint] [sounds like: Right], and that’s all that’s-- I mean the-the-- the astrology would have to be, [sounds like: if it’s seeing anything of that principle is that--] I mean-- [student assents, very faint in background] As opposed to something that you were speculating earlier, that possibly there would be some-- for higher individuals there would be some contact directly with the soul but-- that didn’t have to be precipitated through [sounds like: these transiting] [possibly one/two words inaudible] [AD: Um--] [sounds like: I mean, and it wouldn’t be a recent insight.]

 

AD: Well, there’s-- there-- there are many who come in, well “many”-- there are some that come in with that self-awareness already in full momentum, alright, [sounds like: to (each/reach), I mean]-- it’s pro-- the time that they’re coming in is proficient to that further in-- investigation into the nature of [sounds like: thems-- of] who they are. I would-- I would generally say that that’s true of any Bodhisattva(s).

 

RG: And also, I don’t-- I don’t think you could disting-- I don’t think you could totally separate, I mean each soul is conjoined with the World-Idea when it enters, and that you would have to allow that the subjective aspect of-- of the person is conjoined with the unfoldment of the World-Idea in a way that allows for the fluidity between the objective and subjective sides [possibly one/two words inaudible] manifested in (it/him).

 

AD: [simultaneously] You-you-you see, it’s very complicated, it’s very complex. And that’s why I say if we get some glimpses (and/then) we could organize them and not make them a system, [RG: No.] we’re safe. [few seconds of faint student talking in background] Alright, I’m sorry I didn’t have a paper ready for you.

 

S: [faint] Oh.

 

VM: [amidst laughter/student talking] Anthony, can I ask [AD simultaneously: (couple/few words inaudible)] you a short-- I have a short question. Anthony, what time is meditation on Sunday?

 

AD: What time is sundown?

 

VM: I don’t know.

 

S: [faint] [sounds like: Ask David that.]

 

AD: [simultaneously] [sounds like: Isn’t that--]

 

 

THE END