PB Class: the Interior Word -- October 5, 1983



RC: . . . At the end of that paper that we read he presented a question with an answer:

PB: ``QUESTION: Who can tread a path without feet?  Who can see without eyes?  Who can hear without ears?  Who can speak without words?


ANSWER: Contemplation can tread without feet; discrimination can see without eyes; attention can hear without words; the self-born can speak without words.'' (``The Interior Word'' essay, p. 97)


PB: ``The experience of the Interior Word brings with it, or is heard in, an intensely concentrated state.  With it t here is a positive feeling of being the assured master of one's mind, emotions, and body.'' (22.2.156)


PB: ``When he has travelled to this stage of his journey; when he can close the door of his chamber, lie down, and listen to the Interior Voice; when the silence within becomes audible with clearly formulated instructions, then only is he ready to speak to others or write for others, and teach them.  Until then he is a deaf mute, unable to write and untrained to speak the sacred language.  No the Pentacostal power has descended on him and he is able not only to see the truth through the surrounding darkness but also to give it to those among his people who can take it.'' (22.2.169)


PB: ``The ideas which come to his mind though the Interior Word come stamped with the certitude of truth.'' (22.2.147)


PB: ``The Interior Word carries an authoritative and commanding tone.'' (22.2.141)


PB: ``The Interior Word is not heard with the reasoning mind, even though its statements may be very reasonable.  It is not connected with the intellect at all, as are all our ordinary words.  It is received in the heart, felt intensively and deeply.'' (22.2.142)


PB: ``Now that he has developed the capacity to hear, there sounds forth out of the obscure recesses of his being a silent voice, a messenger without name or form.  It is the Word.'' (22.2.143)


PB: ``In that state of inspired communion when the Interior Word is heard, thoughts keep coming into consciousness from a source deeper than the personal mind.  The ego is not directly thinking them but instead experiences them as being impressed upon it or released into it.'' (22.2.134)


PB: ``The Interior Word is never enigmatic and puzzling but always direct and simple.  Only the revelations of occultism are obscure, never the revelations of truth itself.'' (22.2.144)


PB: ``The utterance of the Interior Word can be heard only in heaven, only in a state detached from the animality and triviality of the common state.'' (22.2.135)


PB: ``Interior Word: Out of this blankness something will begin to speak to him.  It will not be a sound with the body's ears.  That would be a low psychic manifestation which must be stopped at once, if it happened.'' (22.2.137) (repeated)


PB: ``To bring others a message which elevates them and a truth which inspires them, the Interior Word will speak through him as him.  This is a wonderful phenomenon when it happens.'' (22.2.163) (repeated) (para #2 in PC transcript)


(student discussion = approx. 4 minutes)


RC (about 1/6 through side 1): It's funny, he spoke about how in the process of his writing he would often get these messages.  Sometimes he would get a sense that this is a message for (inaudible), and at other times he would get a sense that this is a message for so and so (inaudible), and sometimes after he finished writing it down, he would realize ``Oh, that's for PB.''


PB: ``When the mind can be trained to attend with sufficient concentration to listen inwardly, it may hear the Interior Word.'' (4g/64/26 unpublished)


PB: ``Chinese Wisdom calls the Interior Word ``The Voice of Heaven.'''' (4g/64/27 unpublished)


PB: ``Until the Internal Word speaks in him he is really incapable of helping others spiritually.  He may be able to do so intellectually or to comfort them emotionally but that is a different and inferior thing.'' (22.2.138) (para #1 on PC transcript)


(student discussion = approx 4 min.)


RC: (about 1/3 through side 1): A lot of the things that he said I'd read before but they didn't carry the same meaning as when I read them as when he said them.  Something much more was being (communicated here).  (pause)  I think I mentioned that one time I (he said to Anthony)--you know how the zen people in the beginning  the mountains and rivers and so on and you get all confused , and then afterwards there's mountains & rivers again--I mean you'd probably have a hard time counting up how many times he'd heard that, and then he just kind of smiled and said ``(inaudib le)''.


TO HP FROM JF: Try to get the punch line of above PB anecdote: otherwise advise if I should delete it.


(student discussion = approx 30 min.)


RC: (approx 95% through side 1): We talked one time about astrology--we talked several times--this one particular time I mentioned that I never really knew what to do with the information that came from astrology, and sometimes I'd get a very certain sense, a certain sense of events that were likely to transpire, but I would never know--well, like should I tell the person-- is he better off not knowing if a painful experience should you talk to him to act in a certain way so that he doesn't have that experience?  Or is that painful experience exactly what they needed and not learn otherwise?  And he  said, ``yes, I think you can understand why that kind of activity is reserved for sages.'' (laughter)  But on the other hand he said ``astrologers can help on the level that can be helped--when he stays within the level where he recognizes what he does know and what he doesn't know, he can help.'' But this is different from what we are trying to talk about (inaudible)


PC/ = 2 min.




St/= 1 min.


PB: ``He must eliminate all those intellectual ideas which stand between him and the Real, all those emotional states which cloud it.  Otherwise his mystical deliverances will merely reproduce those ideas and states interwoven inextricably with real inspirations.'' (16.14.92)


PB: ``Personal factors help to mold the revelation not only from the conscious surfaces but also from the subconscious depths beyond them.  The ego-complex insidiously penetrates it; the emotional nature immediately permeates it.  The questions arise: whether these limitations can be transcended, whether a genuinely universal and impersonal condition can be attained in the seer himself, so that the resultant revelations shall be a ``pure'' one.  The answer is that it certainly can, but that it is a rare and exceptional attainment.'' (16.15.133) (para # 3 on PC transcript)




PB: ``There is a fundamental difference between mystical escaping and mystical altruism.  In the first case, the man is interested only in gaining his own self-realization and will be content to let his endeavours stop there.  In the second case, he has the same aim but also the keen aspiration to make his achievement, when it materializes, available for the service of mankind.  And because such a profound aspiration cannot be banished into cold-storage to await his materialization, he will even sacrifice part of his time, money, and energy to doing what little he can to enlighten others intellectually during the interval.  Even if this meant doing nothing more than making philosophical knowledge more easily accessible to ordinary men than it has been in the past, this would be enough.  But he can do much more than that.  Both types recognize the indispensible need of deliberately withdrawing from society and isolating themselves from its activities to obtain the solitude necessary to achieve intensity of concentration, to practise meditative reflection upon life, and to study mystical and philosophical books.  But whereas the first would make the withdrawal a permanent, lifelong one, the second would make it only a temporary and occassional one.  And by ``temporary'' we mean any period from a single day to several years.  The first is a resident of the ivory tower of escapism, the second is merely its visitor.  The first can find happiness only in his solitariness and must draw himself out of humanity's disturbing life to attain it.  The second seeks a happiness that will hold firm in all places and makes retirement from  that life only a means to this end.  Each is entitled to travel his own path.  But at such a time as the present, when the whole world is being convulsed and the human soul agitated as never before, we personally believe that it is better to follow the less selfish and more compassionate one.'' (20.4.222 & Persp. p. ______)


(student discussion = approx. 1 minute)


PD: ``Who's the `we' there?


St's: (inaudible)


AD: You don't recognize the world partnership?


(student discussion on the notion of spiritual help = 3 min.)


RC: I think what you you think of the Interior Word, the quote that we've read, a man doesn't have to be a sage for this phenomena to happen, that provided that you can enter into a state of contemplation, the Soul can speak directly to you.  It may speak directly to you in terms of for you, it may speak directly to you in terms of individuation, or it may speak to you in terms of what it has been trying to get across to this other guy, but--


LR: What does that mean, Randy?


AD: The message is for someone else.


LR: What does that mean, does that mean that the other person's Overself that you're apprehending directly, the other person's Overself?


RC: At that level it's hard to distinguish yours and his.


LR: Is that level beyond the individual Overself?  What does it mean to get a message for somebody else?


RC: For a moment your mind is operating from a universal perspective, and speaks from the Earth specifically to the other person's situation. (inaudible)


LR: Does that mean that the Interior Word is (inaudible) from the Universal Mind and (inaudible) to that particular individual Overself.  We have spoken of the Interior Word as being specific guidance TO you about your own spriitual growth. . . . Now the specific guidance is not your spiritual growth, but (inaudible) another person, wo is its SOURCE different?


RC: No, I think the source is the same . . . Here we get into the question of at what level is it appropriate to say the Overself is one, and at what level is it appropriate to say (inaudible)


LR: But if you say that most of the time the Interior Word concerns your own spiritual growth, then that doesn't concern everybody else's spiritual growth.


AD: Yes, but you don't have to circumscribe yourself so narrowly.


LR: But you don't see the problem or my confusion at all.


PB: ``To bring others a message which elevates them and a truth which inspires them, the Interior Word will speak through him as him.  This is a wonderful phenomenon when it happens.'' (22.2.163)


AD: No, I don't see the problem: Why my Soul can't tell me to tell you to do something.


LR: I know your Soul tells you to do something (inaudible).


Speaker: Let's not bring up that. 


AD: You're asking why doesn't your Soul tell you directly?


LR: No, I'm not asking that.


AD: Then what's your point?


LR: . . . A couple of weeks ago you said that most of the time the Interior Word concerns very personal (inaudible) specific guidance to your own development.


AD: Yes.


LR: So that seems directly coming from your own Overself. . . Now if the Word comes to you for somebody else, for one of your students--


AD: Well, we took the example of Socrates, you remember--


LR: And Alcibiades.


AD: And Alcibiades, yes.  Socrates was very clearly and (directly?) told not to have any conversation with Alcibiabes, and a couple of years later that was changed.


LR: . . . If PB got a message and he said that was for such and such a person and had to send that off in a letter, then that spiritual guidance is form someone other than  himself, right?


AD: Yes.


LR: Now the question is: doesn't that raise the issue of one versus many Overselves?


AD: I don't see why.


LR: From what point of view you distinguish, guidance specific to you and guidance specific for someone else?


AD: You see, you're working under the assumption that there's many World Ideas.


LR: --working from the assumption that there's many World Ideas?


AD: There's one World Idea.


St: (inaudible)


LR: The quote about the Interior Word is very specific, very specific.


AD: You (mean then) it's very specific.  It's very specific in what it tells you. 


LR: Very specific--


AD: It's a very clearly enunciated message; there can be no mistaking it.  There can be NO MISTAKE about it.   That's its specificity.  It's specificity does not mean that it cannot be concerned with others that you may know.


LR: So your saying it's coming directly from the World Idea itself.


AD: I'm not saying it's coming from the World Idea.  It's coming from your own Higher Self, and it's very directly related to you.  You can have a conversation, a dialogue with it, you can (talk with it), and it can deliver to you knowledge (inaudible) very very specific as (it can tell you something) very very specific about what to tell someone or what not to tell someone, what to do or what not to do.  And the specificity has to do with the MESSAGE and not the restriction that it is only for him, only for his benefit.  And besides, it is for his benefit when he's helping others, too.


LR: I'm so confused (inaudible)


AD: Very good.  Let's go back to what Tim read.  Tim, would you read that first one?


TS: (mumble)


AD: I can't hear you, Tim.


TS: This one? --``He must eliminate...all those intellectual ideas.''?


AD: Yes.


(quote read)


AD: I'm sorry, Tim, the next one.


TS: ``Personal factors . . .''


AD: Yes.


PB: ``Personal factors help to mold the revelation not only from the conscious surfaces but also from the subconscious depths beyond them.  The ego complex insidiously penetrates it; the emotional nature immediately permeates it.  The question arises: whether these limitations can be transcended, whether a genuinely universal and impersonal condition can be attained in the seer himself so that the resultant revelations shall be a pure one.  The answer is that it certainly can be but that it is a rare and exceptional attainment.'' (16.15.133 repeat)


AD: What is he saying there?


TS: In my own language?


AD: Yes, in your own words.


TS: That real revelation only occurs when the individual has actually dissociated himself from his horoscope, he prenatal configuration and is moving in accordance with the Soul.


AD: But then when he wants to communicate that message, wouldn't he have to use those very presuppositons you say he has transcended?


TS: Yes.  There are other quotes where he speaks about the necessity of philosophic discipline (inaudible) anyhow were you have to, the emotions must be purified, discipline them so that distortion factor is mimimized.


RC: But one part of the difference would be that he would be able to use it, than be passively (inaudible) by it, that he could actually be able to (inaudible) given this psychic vocabulary I have to work with, how can I squeeze something out of it that would communicate what I have to communicate?


LR: (inaudible)


AD: What he's saying is that you can use your presuppositions to help state your revelation.


CdA: . . . The way he spoke about the rarity of this experience . . . how clear and precise and unmistakeable the certitude that comes through the Interior Word, it sounded like he could be speaking of a different order of revelation?


AD: I don't think so (inaudible).


CdA: What level of revelation PB refers to here--is it a philosophic revelation?  (hard to hear)


AD: It depends on how many levels of revelation there are--


CdA: (inaudible) You said it was a revelation from the Divine Mind as opposed to a revelation from the individual Overself you're given guidance.


AD: It's from your Individual Overself.  All you can know about the Divine Mind is through your Individual Overself.


CdA: (inaudible)


AD: The important point is to notice here is how he's pinning down that most of us are caught up in our presuppositons, and that that is a very rare person, who, first of all, recognizes them, and secondly, transcends them, and thirdly, even uses them to his advantage.




AD: You want to read the third one now, Tim, the last one, the big one?


PB: ``There is a fundamental difference . . . '' (20.4.222 repeated)


AD: All right, let's proceed now, let's go on.


PB: ``At this stage he discovers to his growing wonder that he _is_ able both to communicate with the Overself and to cooperate with it.'' (4g/64/29 unpublished)


PB: ``It is a process of inner dialogue, of mental conversation with the other self and of emotional communion with it, flowing under his thoughts to and fro.'' (22.2.160)


(student discussion = approx. 2 min.)


PB: ``At this stage he discovers . . .'' (4g/64/29 unpublished, repeated twice)


AD: You could leave out those first three words, it won't materially affect what he's telling you.


(student discussion = approx. 5 min.)


AD: Read the rest of them, Randy, and we'll discuss them.


PB: ``If the Interior Word bids him move in any direction which seems encompassed by difficulties or blocked by obstacles so that he can see no way before him, let him not doubt or fear.  A way will be made by the power of the Overself.  He need only obey, relax, and trust the guidance.'' (22.2.139) (repeated)




PB: ``When the Inner Word begins to speak to him, he may begin to speak to others--not before.  For only them will what he says bear any creative power, spiritual inspiration, enlightenment, or healing in it.'' (22.2.140)




PB: ``It is as if another voice, another being--'' (corrected para below)


AD: Are those the two, another voice, another being, or is it--


PB: ``It is as if another being spoke inside me--not with audible voice but with mental voice--and imposed itself strongly on my own mind.'' (22.2.136)




PB: ``_Internal Word:_ In the New Testament, John introduces the idea of the _logos_, the Word which speaks in every man who comes into the world.  Every man is not able to hear it although it is always there, always immanent.'' (22.2.148)


LdS: Anthony, do you have any comments on that?  What I asked you about last week--


AD: More specifically--


LdS: Last week we talked about in principle this Interior Word is always there, or is always there but not always available, depending on the person's ability to receive it?  There is some speculation on whether that's true, whether it is always there, and this quote seems to confirm that it is, but I asked you about that and you didn't feel that this logos that John brings up is not the Interior Word--you didn't (????) that it was--


AD: Well, the interpretations can be both ways: John says ``In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God''; he could be interpreted to mean that in the beginning the Intellectual Principle is the Word of God and is the same as God.  Or you could interpret it at the level of the Individual Overself, where you would have the same thing repeated.  At any rate, if you did know, that at the higher level the Ideas are with God, you would have to know it through the intermediary of the Overself.  Both interpretions would stand up.


LdS: Isn't there something more profound or more inclusive in the notion of the Logos--even if we're speaking at the level of the Overself, and the Logos that the Overself knows or has as its ultimate content, wouldn't that be like the grouping of the total (?????)


AD: Yes, what that means-- ``In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God'': If you interpret it to be your God, your Overself, you could put it that way--``In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the Overself''--then naturally you're speaking about in the beginning the Word was with the Overself.


LdS: So you're saying the fundamental source of the Interior Word, or what the Interior Word (???????) is not in identity with the World Idea given to the Overself.


AD: I don't know if you can say that simply: because the point here is that it's your Overself that communicates to you the knowledge, whatever specific knowledge the World Idea is expressing at that time.  And it is your Overself that will speak to you directly.  It isn't the World Idea, except through the intermediary of your own Higher Self.  And then you can go on further and say that the Word is always imminent in its expression of the World Idea.  So in that sense it is uninterruptedly and continuously expending all of its might to express that, disregarding whether you're aware of it or not.


LdS: . . . What is the limitation when you say that the Interior Word is given to each individual Overself, what are you implying by limitations, because you said it can't be the entire World Idea because it's coming through your Overself. . . . There's some implication of some limitation.  some specificity that's been placed upon that, that it isn't appropriate for every one, at all times.


(Student discussion = approx. 5 min.)


HS or DR: . . . that the word that is creating that is immanent in you, in the word that is breathed by the creator, is related almost in this almost trivializing way, through the word giving you advice about how to proceed.


AD: It's not trivial.


St: Yes: that world is of that magnitude, that's what makes that (communicate?).


AD: What I was discussing with him is that there's an interpretation that is metaphysical of the words of St. John.  There's a metaphysical interpretion of that.  If you can say ``In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,'' and if you consider Plotinus, you can say ``In the beginning was the One--in the beginning was the Ideas-- and the Ideas were the same as the One.''  You can interpret it at that level.  You can interpret it at a lower level where the Overself, which is your One--in the beginning the Word was with It.  And you have to ask yourself, ``What does he mean by `Word' here?'' It would have to be the World Idea which is being projected, manifested by your Individual Overself.  And your Individual Overself is always manifesting that World Idea.  That's all I was referring to.


And there's many possible ways of interpretting St. John, and you'll find both have been done throughout religious history.


RC: On the one hand, you have to say that the intelligence is conascent with the Soul is immanent, (inaudible) , whether you know it nor not, it IS there.  But on the other hand, for the intelligence to become reflective and conscious, only evolves at a certain stage of evolution, and that this point hes (beginning) to speak, he's talking about the stage where those two come together,


St: (inaudible)


AD: Can you give an example?


RC: Yes, the two in the sense that he talks about the Interior Word as one aspect of the Overself's power, and it seems that in order to express that power it requires that the ego be brought to the point where the intelligence in the Soul can now operate in a self-aware mode.


LdS: You're trying to handle this problem in the quote where it says this word is always there, and you're saying practically speaking in terms of an individual's experience, it isn't always available to him but it only becomes available at a certain stage of (inaudible).  And you're trying to speak that that point--like what does it mean to say the preparation, the meaning of being able to contact that, what does that include . . .


AH: . . . The key to understanding the condition of an individual is the ability to enter contemplation.  I don't know how you speak of an ego being present in a state of contemplation as refined or otherwise--


AD: What do you mean by the ego?


AH: Mental activity, some personal I, the psycho-somatic.


AD: Do you mean the body, the senses, and the memory?  Is that the ego?


AH: The list of thing--the body, the mind--


AD: The body, the senses, the memory--


AH: More extensive than that--


AD: YOu have to speak up.


AH: Those certainly are not parts of the ego--


AD: And what else would you bring in?  The body, the senses, and the memory restricts us to the psycho-somatic organism.  Do you have an ego yet?  What's missing?


AH: The I-ness.


AD: Tell me more, I don't know what you're talking about.


AH: The (reference) to the personal I.


AD:  You have to bring in the mind, don't you?  If you bring in the mind, then you're speaking about that entity which is reincarnating.  Now you speak about an ego.  So you have all these three levels in order to speak about an ego.  If you have all these three levels, then that means that at the contemplative stage, the ego is still there.  If you can see that point, you've got the key to the first initiation.


AH: It's hard for me to understand, Anthony, the (extensive??) way of defining the ego to include the mind-stream.


AD: Well, again: We point out that the body, the sense organs, and the memories, are all a product of Nature.  They're fabricated by Nature; your body is fabricated by Nature, it's functioning--all this is an organized structure and function which is done by Nature.  Unless you speak about an Individual Mind pervading that body, or imparting Intelligence and (Light?/Life?) to that body, you can't speak about an individual ego.  So as soon as you say ego, you have to bring in that.


So there's a distinction between, so to speak, those two lower levels of the circle--you know, around the dragon--the two lower levels, and the third level.  The third level, you're brining in the Mind into the psycho-somatic organism.  And you shouldn't confuse the Mind with the functioning of the psycho-somatic organism which gives rise to certain bodily appearances which are NOT the Mind.  So when you say ego, you're going to bring in these three levels.  The mind, the body with its sense organs and its memory traces--all this would be the ego.


Now when that ego meditates--when you sit down and meditate and you reach the contemplative stage--you haven't left the ego behind.  It's just that now you've left the psycho-somatic organism behind--the body, the senses, and the memory--you're still within the ego.


LdS: So the mind you're speaking of, Anthony, is the light that's given off by the Soul--

Anthony, and the source of that mind is the individual Soul, or the two lower parts you spoke of.  The psycho-somatic is the product of nature and it would be in that light given off by the Soul that the Interior Word would be received.


AD: I'm sorry--it would be by that Light?


LdS: The light you spoke of or the mind--


AD: The mind--


LdS: --the level of mind, the highest principle.


AD: That's where the impression is made--


LdS: That's where the Interior Word--


AD: The impression that comes from what's above it (the Individual Mind)--the Undivided Mind--that impression is made on that level of the ego.  And that's why there will be no audible sounds at all if you have conversation with the Interior Word.


LdS: And you're saying that that mind, like the Plotinus quote on the animate, that mind has its souce, it's source is the individual Soul, not the System of Nature.


AD: Yes.


PC: Louis, is that mind, the light, given off by the individual soul, is that correct?


AD: Well, Louis--


PC: He said that that mind is that light that is projected from the individual soul--


AD: Well, that would be one way of putting it.  Projected, permeates: It would really be difficult to find a word that could adequately say how a person gets embodied and what embodiment means.


LdS: I wanted to say, Peter, the source would be the individual Soul . . .


AD: If we used the diagram--  The Overself consciousness could not be restricted to any portion of the diagram: You know, the seven spheres and the sublunary realm and all that.  We couldn't EVEN restrict the Mind of an individual, or I should say the Soul of an individual, to any of that; it is utterly free of all that.  But when you speak of an Individual Soul reincarnating, then it must identify and associate with those three levels.  In other words, from the dragaonic belt we speak about the mental level or the level of the intellectual gods of the Earth, the mental, that's what that (????mind) is identified with.  Now that permeates the body, pervades a body, imparts life  to a body.


Now the reverse process is brought into operation if a person (works?/learns?) to concentrate, meditate, and then contemplate.  The process is reversed--  Now he frees himself from the body, and then from all the disturbances, memories that the body can give rise to, and he's now at the third level where he's just Mind itself, or let's say just pure attention.  And I DO mean pure.  There isn't any other item in the attention.  Now you can receive the Word; now you can have a conversation with the Word.  Now a dialogue can ensue, and the ego will be involved.


LdS: (You spoke of/is that) mental level pure, that pure mental level that's being boid, in its purity--


AD: So what kind of substance does that attention have?  If you isolate the attention and you intensify it so that you're completely immersed in it and it is your being, what substance could it have?  What could it be made of?  So it's just a trick to say ``attention'', isn't it?


But at any rate, the point that was being made here is that the ego extends that far.


DR: You spoke of that pure attention, where is there room?


AD: Where is there what?


DR: How do you speak of the ego being present there?  It would be a very rarefied ego.


AD: Again, you didn't follow what I said.  We said that in order to speak about the ego being properly, we have to examine what its constituents, content, are.  And they were constitued by the psycho-somatic organism.  The body, the senses, the memories.  And then something attaches itself to that body.  If you leave that out, then you have a psycho-somatic organism that's functioning but no-one there.  You would be simply a product of nature, where universal intellect is functioning and there would be no individual.  But you never met such, I mean generally not experienced as an individual.  So that means that this body is inhabited as an individual Soul.  An individual Soul that has reembodied for the purposes of having experiences on this plane.  Now this individual we refer to--let's call it MIND--asssociates with that psycho-somatic organism, and thinks of itself as a psycho-somatic organism.  Or vice versa, the psycho-somatic organism can claim mind for its own, for itself.  But at any rate, it is the combination of these things--that constitutes an ego.  All right, now you start the process--go ahead.


DR: When you say that that's an ego, is that now separated from, is that now different from (?????) that individual soul or Mind that associates with that body.


AD: It's different and it's the same.


DR: Is that ego different from the Soul that associates with it?


AD: It's different, and it's the same.  Are you the same, or different from the David Ruth that appears in the dream?


DR: (inaudible)


AD: In one sense you are that body, if you consider your subjectivity primarily as bodily, and in another sense you're not, if you consider your subjectivity as mainly mental.  But the fact of the situation are that you are these three things together.  You're constituted of these three things. (inaudible)


DR: I'm sorry--those 3 things--and (inaudible).


AD: The psycho-somatic organism--you remember that we spoke about the elements, and the power of the elements, those things go to constitute the psycho-somatic organism and its functioning. 


DR: So now you're calling the ego the unique situtation when the mind is associted with that--


AD: With that body.


DR: With that body.  So now your going to call it an ego.


AD: Uh huh.


DR: So this the body of God.


AD: Okay, now you're sitting and you're meditating, you forget about the body, you've succeeded in concentration, and you move into meditation.  Now there's only the world or the realm of ideas, and manipulation of memory contents--now that's God.  So there's neither of (?????two) around.  Now you're in what we might call a mental condition, you're just a mind distinguished from--I'm not saying separated--distinguished from that psycho-somatic organism.


DR: Why isn't that the individual soul or something similar to it?


AD: It is, it is.


DR: Because in the beginning you said that this mind that associates with the body makes the ego.


AD: It is the individual soul.  Also, it is an individual soul associated with a certain psycho-somatic organism.


DR: So even though that preparation is somewhat temporary.


AD: It's temporary because --


DR: Contemplation is--


AD: --temporary, because as soon as you come out of contemplation, Nature will reclaim that Soul and say it belonged here.  You notice that in the morning?


DR: I don't notice much. (laughter)


AD: But all trance states are just temporary: As soon as you come out of them, the re-identification, the identification is resumed.  But in the stage where you are contemplating, or where you are attentive to your attention, and only that, you feel that you are just Mind itself.  It is at this stage that we were saying the interior dialogue can take place.


SDx: Anthony, in the three constituents of the ego that we were talking about, is in in any one of those or (inaudible), that we place the tendencies or the vasanas.  Is that what still remains when you're in a state of contemplation, the ego is still there because those tendencies haven't been removed, and that's why--


AD: I'm sorry, Severin, start again.


SDx: When you're in that state of contemplation, and it's just that pure attention, of attention to attention, is the difference that makes it still the ego and not just the Soul the fact that the tendencies are still there, the vasanas are still potentially existing?


AD: In the Soul?


SdX: In that individual mind.


AD: They're not eradicated just because you go into nirvikalpa samadhi.


SDx: That's in fact why the re-association with the psycho-somatic--


AD: --is resumed.


SDx: It's not a pure attention, but it's the same as the Soul.


AD: I'm sorry?


SDx: It's not a pure attention.


AD: It's a pure attention.


SDx: Is what makes it pure the fact that those tendencies--?


AD: It can't be purer, because then it wouldn't be attention, it would be the Overself.  The level could become so profound that you could withdraw all life from the cells of the body. (inaudible)  Very extended meditation.  But we're not discussing that.


But what we're discussing is that you reach this level where you (consider, and you) experience yourself as this mental being.  Only at this point can this dialogue take place.  You do not have to be a sage.  The dialogue could take place, I think Randy mentioned this--it could be intermittent; it could be once, it could be twice, could be (unable to hear).  But you do get the distinction I'm making here between the body, the senses, and the memory that belongs to the body, that psycho-soamtic organism. 


And it is not to be confused with the Mind which permeates that (psycho-somatic organism), makes judgments upon whatever appearances the psycho-somatic organism offers it.  That's distinct from it.  And this is the first really big hurdle you've got to understand.


CdA: Is this level of mind, this level of pure thinking, would you say (inaudible)--


AD: Yes: the mind , you don't think that the functioning of the psycho-somatic organism.


CdA: No (???????).  Is this the same as what Plotinus would call the reasoning Soul passing judgment on the animate?  (see _________)


AD: Yes.


CdA: (inaudible) And you're correlating this to the outer circle?


AD: Yes.  That's the reasoning Soul or the Mind.


AH: Anthony, did you equate contemplation with nirvikalpa?


AD: No.


AH: What trance state would you call it?


AD: I'm sorry?


AH: What  trance state would you describe contemplation?


AD: I wouldn't describe it as any trance.


AH: It's not a trance?


AD: No.  You certainly could go into trance, but contemplation--it would be better to think of it as reverie, a brown study, a deep immersion.  Forget the word ``trance''.


CdA: When you said before that understand this was the key to the first initation?


AD: Yes.


CdA: Do you mean that to go beyond the levels is the first initiation?  How did you mean it?


AD: What line are you asking?


CdA: I just thought I'd try--


AD: I thought it made it obvious that it (the first initation is) to be able to distinguish between the psyche and the body.  In other words, what we call the three levels of subjectivity.  The highest level of subjectivity:--remember-- To distinguish that from all the others is the first initiation.  You recognize that the Mind is other than the psycho-somatic organism.  It's a very clear insight that can come to you when you have been put through this enough times.  I'm sorry, shall we continue?


PB: ``The Interior Word did not speak to me for myself alone, to prepare, teach, and direct me.  It spoke also for others.  It required me to write down its messages for them even more than for me.'' (22.2.166)


AD: Tim, did he ever tell you how often he'd write a message and he'd see the person for whom it was being written?


TS: (inaudible) Yes.  (inaudible)


AD: Just what I said, it's not mysterious.


St: (inaudible)


AD: I'm sorry?


St: (inaudible)


AD: He may or may have not, but there was a very distinct image of the person for whom the message was intended.


MB: Does the teaching that the Interior Word relates to, does that include a philosophic--


AD: I can't hear you, Myra.


MB: Does the teaching, when he talks about discipleship, does that include philosophic teachings, like teachings of--   Does the teaching that the Interior Word relates to include philosophic knowledge?


AD: Yes.  It could bring about visitations that you can't even believe or conceive, and it could make you aware of the most simple things that have to be done.


MB: But he also includes development of the (inaudible)--


AD: Once you have that, once you have that, you're on your way.  The Interior Word is a very highly regarded phenomena.  It's almost like your personal contact with your own Divine Self.  That's what the Master tries to get you to reach, because once you reach that, then you're on your own.


But I think the point that should be mentioned here, Myra, is that it can include visitations or experiences or states of beatitude that we cannot conceive.  It can also be concerned with telling Socrates ``Don't talk to Alcibiades.''  Aren't all Bibles--didn't he say something in one of the notes? 


RC: All sacred systems--


AD: All sacred systems.


PB: ``All inspired bibles are the records of this inner utterance.'' (``The Interior Word'' essay in _Essays on the Quest_, p. 93)


TS: There's a whole section on writing in inspired (inaudible).


AD: When he says that all inspired scriptures-and we're speaking about the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads and the Bible and whatever--and he's saying that they're all a product of the inspired Words, you can see just from that clue alone how much knowledge the inspired Word could deliver.  Because some of those texts, of course, include a pure form of intellectuality.


MB: That quote from John, that itself was itself a revelation that the world about the word--


AD: Yes.


KD?: Anthony, is the word Logos applied at these levels.


AD: Yes, the Greeks especially.  I think you remember Heraclitus stating about the Logos: You cannot reach its end no matter how far you walk.  They had a very profound notion of what the Logos was.


KD: (inaudible)


AD: Just hearing the word won't tell you anything; even a parrot hears a word.


RC: In reference to what Myra siad, one thing that we distinguished between teh Interior Word and the mediumship or automatic writing, in the case of the INterior Word, the personal ego would actually know (inaudible), wouldn't be unconscious vehicle for something it wouldn't understand.  When you come out of it, you might not be able to intellectually formulate it, might not be able to participate (inaudible), but what distinguished from mediumism should be said.


AD: You know the easiest way to distinguish (the Word) from mediumship?  It's really very easy.  In mediumism, you'll always be complimented: ``You're the greatest.  You're the new Messiah.  Your understanding and comprehension is actually equivalent to that of the World Mind.''  You'll know that you're (into?) mediumism or the psychic realm.  It's usually preoccupied-- When you get into that realm, you'll see that there's some kind of self-adulation that the ego, so to speak, is concerned with.


If we go back to the diagram we used before , it's like the ego is in that second realm, that intermediate realm between the gross and the mental is in that realm.  And it will be excessively preoccupied with itself.  You'll think it's someone else~!  But you'll think that whoever is speaking to you is someone else, but it isn't: It's your own ego, speaking to you, itself, complimenting itself.


You remember that statement by PB: ``The ego worships only itself.''  So as soon as you see that, you won't need red flags.


The general experience is that generally when you come out of a dialogue with the Interior Word, you're quite humble.


ME: Anthony, along that line, it's mentioned that there are many different bibles, inspired words, but even in each document there are  contradictions, conflicting statements that can be only ascribed to  ``God said''.  Can you use that same kind of criteria?


RC: This quote (inaudible)


PD: That's why he mentions his position about reason in most of his writings . . .


PB: ``When we understand that it is not possible for any man to free hi8mself totally from personal standpoints, we understand that all mystical communications and religious revelations are afflicted with relativity and are consequently imperfect--all, that is to say, except those where the recipient has sought and sought successfully to transcend his humanity.  Such an effort is embodied in the philosophic discipline.  Such recipients were men like Gautama and Jesus.'' (16.15.134)