The following interviews were conducted by Gayl Welch as part of her dissertation entitled " A Phenomenological Study of the Transpersonal Experience of "Acting From Field" : Three Case Studies, completed in 1983. The interviewees were Martin Muller, S.S. and L.G. The background of each individual is provided in the text. To download the text please go to Chapter 4 - Results - in the dowload section.
Section 1
The taped interviews from the three participants were reduced by means of the phenomenological reduction method outlined in Chapter 3. The reduced data was presented to each participant to be sure the synopsis reflected their experience of acting Field as well as they could express it at that time. A short biographical statement precedes the approved synopses as they appear in this section. They represent the idiographic (individualized) expression of acting Field. When read together at one sitting, the differences of expression become very evident. There is such a great number of differences that the researcher will not comment on them, but let each expression speak for itself. The bracketed numbers in the text are references to metathemes in Section 2 indicating that the material immediately preceding the brackets was used to explicate a particular metatheme.
Participant L.G.
Ever since she knew about the word "psychology" and what it meant, L.G. has been interested in it. She has been a psychologist most of her life. She was the one her teenage friends used to call up and say, "What'll I do about this," and "Oh, I feel so terrible." She figured she'd better get trained because she was just running instinctively.
Psychology was her undergraduate major, and she has been a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist since 1974. She received a Ph.D. in Psychology in June, 1981. She and another MFCC have a Television series on infant and child care in the Los Angeles area. She has two children of her own.
L.G. has been working in an ontology group with Martin Muller since 1975.
Contrast between previous experience and living field . Before 1974 or 5, 1 walked around completely oblivious of this particular set of things. Then I sat in class with M. for years without having any kind of feeling other than being a sponge. I appreciated what was going on, and I felt an action with the music. But as far as being a participant, forget it. Then I had my first experience of beyond whatever it is that I knew before. My experience was so very different from that time, that I say I went from sleep to waking up. It was a jolt and very surprising [5.2].
Field is radiant or radiation. There is a direct experience-awareness that I am not just "skin-in." The skin used to be the edge of what I considered me. Now I know that's not so. I know there is something beyond that, that's still me. When I am not connected to the field, it feels very close around me [2.1 ], not very radiant. Radiating begins as a tension and feels skin-in at first. As it expresses, it becomes all-encompassing through me, around me, from me ??? When I'm consciously working (or sometimes it works by itself) it feels more alive, or fuller or larger. When I live field-A1 and my mind isn't working, there is a radiation that comes through me. Actually, it looks like the whole world is a giant radiation, me included [5.3]. The barrier is gone that is usually there when I live skin-in or from my mind which stops that action from happening. The radiation includes the body; it includes everything. It's around and through [7.3]. There is a direct experience of connecting that is, among other things, sensory.
Field-A. When my intention is to do that, the sensation is that there's a physical sensation at the top of my head, almost like a tingle, and there's an openness or an awareness (hands are out at the sides of the head) of being skin-out. I see from a higher place. If something very stressful is going on, the activity that goes on in the solar plexus stops and becomes more heart centered. The movement of energy shifts from absorption to radiation.
Movement to field-A is a nonmind intention. One doesn't do it by thinking yourself field-A. It's not a mind thing [6.31. I t's not an emotional thing [7.3]. It's an intention. I don't know how to say it better than that. It comes from whatever it is that is not my mind that still operates when my mind is doing something different. It is a connection with the Field, allowing the Field to work through me instead of trying to grab something [1.21. The first time it happened was
_________________
l ln field-A, the locus of awareness is shifted to the Field with a focus through a point localized in the top of the head designated as "A". See also footnote 2 on centers.
when I gave my mind a song to sing or something else to do. The natural impulse that was a part of me could participate in the way it knew how to participate. It goes on independent of brain activity (1.2; 6 . 3; 7.3)
The brain and the Field operate independently. I can run the brain without the field. And I can run the brain in the field. Then the field can run itself without the brain.
I don't get a whole lot of times where the field is without the brain except in the group with the music going on [8.2]. Now the brain is bored and it's just off someplace else. In the beginning, there was an efforting, a trying to make all the pieces of information, or bits of experience, that I had fit. It was in my mind that there had to be a magic combination of fit so that "it would work," whatever that meant to me. Since I didn't know, my mind was having a wonderful time doing that and not getting any place. I have a very clever mind. Now f know its a getting out of the way. I figured out it wasn't a doing. I had to give my mind something else to do so that the natural impulse that was a part of me could participate in the way it knew how to participate [1.3;. In the beginning, the hard part was dropping all the stuff that I usually use to control my world. It was a very conscious dropping. It wasn't an accident. I can repeat it. Living the field without the brain had a trueness, a wholeness that simply wasn't present before [8.2]. 1 was "one with." I was (stretching arms way out to sides). It was allowing the Field to work through me instead of trying to grab something [1.3; 6.3]. It was very simple. Instead of my mind trying to figure out things, I was whole. Now the mind is just quiet at those times. It has no collection function. An experience is an experience. The only thing I remember when I have been sitting with the music is that I have been sitting with the music, very alive [8.1; 8.2). It is the simplest thing I'd ever . . .
There are other times that I listen with my mind and am also out in the Field because there is some information that can be passed. Information is passed better both field and mind. The mind accesses information. It collects but there is no judgment quality. I can talk (9.3; 9.4]. When I do my work in my office and I'm a therapist, much of the time it's field-A with the mind. When it feels appropriate, the mind is not there.
There are other things that seem too hard to be Field with. They are just mind. Sometimes I am at a party and people have been drinking a lot and it's just real hard to be Field. Part of it is, I feel like I'm getting drunk by being "out." I am there with my mind, you know to be entertaining, to be entertained. It's a mental function. The mind assesses; it pidginholes; it judges. It forms impressions and stores for new combinations - especially storage (8.1).
Experience of Field without brain. This sound's so corny. I feel lit. It's like being a giant Christmas tree or something [5.3]. I feel lit. I feel as alive as I ever feel. I am active. When I say "active," I mean present: a full aliveness [5.2]. It's timeless [8.3] and there is a vague sense of tuning going on. Before that, I may have come from scatteredness. It's like all of my cells are facing twelve different directions. Then I sit down to work, or we are in the group, and I can tune a certain amount of that - align it. When the music is on and h1. does it with us, he tunes a whole bunch of stuff that I have no way of getting to. It's like turning a radio onto a station.
Field as (metaphorically) changing sizes. When I really connect with field-A, I have a sense of being taller than I am. It feels like a more subtle, almost physical body, but not physical at all. It is an envelope. It's not the etheric or mental bodies. I am looking out of my eyes from a higher place, whatever that means to me. It's where I am accessing the vision from. It's not necessarily related to what is going on outside.
There is a distinct awareness that I have changed my mode of thinking of myself from skin-in to out (with her hands in the air around her head). It includes the whole thing. When I live skin-in, the old position I used to do all the time and don't do much any more, I feel smaller [2.1]. As a physical experience, when I am living field-A and stand up, I feel taller than my usual skin-in position. At the same time, I feel the field is more active or larger, but that is not quite accurate. When I work with someone, sometimes the Field gets bigger. When I say "bigger" it's a metaphor. I wouldn't use a yardstick and say, when they come in they are two feet wide and when they leave they are four feet. It's a metaphor, but it's fairly concrete in terms of my experience. They do change perceptibly. The change in size is accompanied by a very apparent change in their ability to look at what they are dealing with.
To live Field is an objective position. To live Field and to be from that in one's daily life gives an objective position that assists in being centered within the situation that you face so that the hysteria
that usually prompts people to come into therapy becomes not a part of what is going on. You get to watch the things that are happening and relate to them in a joined manner that's not so upsetting. It's clearer, more objective.
Difficult to express in words. It's always a chore to try to explain to people who have never seen us before what it's all about. S.S. calls it conscious empathy. I don't have a word for it. First of all, there is no way to describe what is going on in words; the words are always smaller right away [10.11. It's true of your description of "being in." As I read that, that seems smaller than what is going on. It's a direct experience, and it's different every time. But it's enough the same so that I know what it is [6.4).
Sees fields around other people. It's something I see around other people. There are two kinds. One is sparkley and one is steady [ 9.1 ]. They look different. The steady one is almost like a pavement which is hot and there's moisture on it, and there's a kind of shimmer stuff going on. The sparkley one has more (moves hands back and forth rapidly, pronating and supinating wrists) .., sparkles. There are people who vary. It's either turned off or turned down, or they're not connected with it. I can tell by an almost sensory (you know, five senses) kind of experience [9.1]. Sometimes it's visual, in terms of seeing that kind of radiation. It's alive. There are people who one sees who feel very. ~ dead, or dull. Many have a steady emanation. There aren't too many people who are sparkley. It's more present the more people work along the lines !vi, suggests, or along whatever lines they can figure out. Since my perception of people is better, I see more [9.1 ]. Occasionally, I see one as active out on the street, or nearly as active, as some of the people who work with i0. But generally, no.
Feels fields tactually. Sometimes, if I happen to walk past one of those with a particularly strong field, I feel it. I feel it tactually, kind of like walking through a warm fog. I don't smell it; I don't taste it; I don't hear it.
Field spoken of is not the aura or psychic phenomena. It's not the aura. It's not colored to me anyway [9.2]. It's my experience that I don't have any experience with being a psychic. It's not something I do, but it seems like a different set of skills or talents. I don't know exactly how it is different because I don't do it. But I have watched SS. have both abilities. I have watched one leave and the other one come in. When she was very psychic, she was able to say whole bunches of interesting things, detail, wise, about people. Very impressive. She could understand that this and that created this. And as that left, there was a more universal quality. There was not so much attention to the details, a shift to the action: how one could use it to move through so there was a kind of resolution that happened [9.2]. In this second position, there is more of participation. It has nothing to do with being a channel or receiving like that.
Does not feel alone when by herself . Acting from Field is something I participate in in group, and sometimes when I am by myself. I call on my group in my work when I am "alone" [4.5b] because I don't feel I am really alone. When I let myself tune in to what is, there is a sense of company, of presence [4.5a], or other presences. When I am running around like an idiot, shopping and cooking like I was yesterday, I am alone. Period [4.1].
No separation from things. In field-A, when I look from a higher place, the normal separation of being at things (being in reaction to things) leaves and there is a with that. At the same time, I feel the Field is more active, and there's no separation from things so it doesn't even matter [4.6]. There is a division. I mean, I still know I'm not the chair, but that knowing is a brain kind of thing. But the experience is joined. It's not a brain kind of knowing [4.1 ]. It feels like there is a joined knowing and a learned separation [2.2; 4.1 ].
In my first experience, M. asked me to come up and put my hand on his. There was a sensory feeling, of having the energy from the Field and beyond coming through and out of my hand, to join his hand. It definitely was an energy. It was even visible, because the boundary between his hand and my hand left and there was a kind of joining cellularly. The skin had boundaries, but the usual boundaries one sees around the fingers weren't there. It was a very subtle kind of difference, but it was real. On the level of visual real, it was real.
Nonseparation from a client. Later, a client came to me who was as scattered as I have ever seen a person. And that was a visual, sensual experience that I had nothing to compare with, because I had never seen anything quite like it. I was getting, nowhere with the tools I had from the old bag. I thought to myself, "Listen, you only have an hour; why don't you try something different." So, I dropped everything I knew and went to field-A. The first thing was a reception by my body of her physical state. I was having the direct experience in my body of something chemical, and that was what I was knowing at the same time. I kept saying to her, "Have you taken any drugs?" [4.4] What it was, was that she was a very drug sensitive person, had been at the dentist earlier in the morning and had had an incredible amount of tooth work and God knows how many shots of Novocain, which had made her totally haywire on the physiological level and on the psychological level she was feeling crazy. It started an hour after she left the dentist.
I sat her in a straight-backed chair and said to her, "This is art experiment. Would you be at the top of your head, close your eyes, and I'd like you to be quiet for a few minutes." Then I did the best I could with field-A, with as much as I could manage. And I watched her scatteredness just get kind of real calm. And about five minutes later, she opened her eyes and said, "What have you been doing?" And I said, "It's a process I know. Why?" And she said, "Well, I feel about 200% better" [7.2].
Then I tried an experiment with her putting her own hands on different centers2 to see which one worked best for her to keep that happening for her. This center was terrible; this one was great, etc. 1 said, "Why don't you try this" (one hand on the heart above the middle of the ribcage and one hand on the top of the head just in front of the midline). And she said, "Oh, that feels real good." I said, "Call me tomorrow, and every time you feel like you're going off again put your hands there." She had to do that for about three days until that stuff got out of her body [6.5].
_____________________
2 Nine centers of awareness are located in well-defined zones in each person. Each has its own general radiation. Not to be confused with the chakras. For description and location of A, U, and M, see Muller (1978), pages 118-151.
The nonseparation is not like psychosis. In my ordinary day, I live field-A when it's possible, when I remember. Lots of times there's no separation. I've seen crazy people, and they are nonfunctional in their position in the world. That's not the position I live. I am a mother and a wife and a therapist, and I live in the world in a very functional manner [3.1].
Initially, clients experienced in one of two positions. When a person comes in, they usually have one of two positions they take when they are dealing with another person. One is at the other person where they want to analyze the person or that kind of thing. The other way, they are in reaction to and they hate this; they love that; this is wonderful; this is terrible. There is a very large defensive reaction.
Therapy changes the other position to a “with”. As one connects the Field more, lives that more, there is a “with” that happens instead of an “at” or reaction to. The information is there, the words are there, but they are not hysterical. It eliminates the hysteria, basically. There is an objective dealing with whatever needs to be dealt with
3.11. This cannot happen in the at or reaction to positions.
What happens when I am field-A with clients, there is more of a directness about the appropriate thing to say to help them see more clearly their situation, and to take a different position [3.2] They can, on occasion, find their own answers in the clearness of the space that's created by me. When I start to work Fieldwise, it is as if thefield expands and joins the other field and they join what is there. A fullness and aliveness is more present in the room [3.2]. If they are receptive to what is going on in the room, then they start picking up what is going on, too. There is a response in them. I see it in their behavior. It's the difference between being dead and narrow and being out and alive [10.3].
Sometimes, when a client comes in in their ordinary state and is not working fieldwise, there is a narrowness about them, in terms of their orientation [7.1]. It almost seems sensory. As we work, the feeling in the room shifts, and they occupy more space. It feels like a physical presence. And also their processes of dealing with whatever they are trying to deal with get wider [7.1]. Sometimes, I don't even have to say anything and they make connections that come from the combination of them getting wider, joining whatever is in the room, participating with me, and me participating with them [10.2].
Often, the resolution happens within the coming together of the two people sitting there [3.2]. It's knowing how to proceed, how to be, what position to take. Often, I just sit there, field-A, and let them talk, and a knowing just happens. I say I get it from Left Field [8.4]. (That's my joke for people who d on 't know what I'm talking about. They think I'm talking about baseball.)
From Field is different from ordinary insight therapy. It isn't insight, it's outsight. Insight is going in, and recombining and acknowledging whole bunches of things. The other is like going outside. It's a huge shift in position of personal relation [6.1]. The inside is like taking just a little teeny step.
Different from Rational Emotive Therapy. I know how to do
Rational Emotive Therapy. The rational emotive mind stuff is still very personal. It does not include anything larger. And it is still very much self-serving. When I go field-A, there is more included in that. It's more valuable to more people than just myself. It's not how to save my hide or how to come out winning. When I'm inside, when I am in my solar plexus, I'm skin-in. I don't include more. Sometimes, it does include more people, but from the skin-in position, I am just saving my own face. When I go out, it's clearer. It's being in what would serve the most in the situation with all the people included, and whatever else seems appropriate in that space [5.11. It's beyond humanistic. It's serving life rather than serving myself [4.2].
Effect of working on own self is a joining with. When I'm upset, I am usually in my solar plexus. It's a physiological feeling in my stomach. There are no solutions from that place, and I know that. I know that If I remember to live field-A, everything simplifies, and I know what to do rather than having to try to figure it out [6.11.
One Saturday, I had to work with a group of new people where a group had lived an especially full, concrete Field life the night before. Vie had been to the grocery, and I left my children off with the groceries on the way. They were supposed to put them away. We had all kinds of perishables. The living from the night before carried all the way through my meeting with these new people. When I walked in the house after the meeting, I was very with. There was just no separation. I walked in and saw the groceries. I had them come down to the kitchen and said, "You really need to look at how you are relating. That's not very aware of you not to take care of this [6.2].
I'd like you to go up to your rooms and just consider what it is that's going on." It was all very even. There was no hysteria.
I put away the groceries, and we had a wonderful talk about being in a house in a more conscious manner. That's a whole lot better than what I have seen myself do in the past, which is get in their scene and just screaming and making them feel terrible. They don't learn anything from that. They learned a great deal from the other. The with had to do with understanding, knowing the most appropriate way to proceed that would create the best kind of results [6.2]. That was a joining process not a screaming at and having them not get what it was - other than their mother was hysterical.
Sense of being a sample of humanity. I have a real sense of being one of a sample. What I do serves my sample - those who function like I do. There are other people like me out there, working on the same things I am, and when I figure out how to do it in a more clear manner, there is somehow a helping of them going on. I have a sense it's not just on a direct contact level, like teaching them, but the sense is not clear [4.3]. When there is nothing else to keep going on for, that will do it.
Participant S.S.
S. S. lives in Los Angeles. She was a teacher for seven years in the Los Angeles City Schools. She was a teacher, school psychologist, a mental health consultant; and now is a psychologist in private practice for the past thirteen years. She has been a student of and worked with Martin Muller for eight years and trying to blend the two.
S.S. received her PhD from International College in 1981 and is currently diagnosing learning styles, problems and strengths from voice analysis alone. As reported in Brain/Mind Bulletin, January 25, 1982, and Leading Edge, February 22, .1982, she can diagnose the individual orientations of seventy students or workers in one day, prescribing the instructional methods and learning and working environments most effective for each.
She has three adult children.
Personal empathy. Personal empathy is subjective empathy. One can absorb the other person, often in one's body [5.1]. That often can be very disturbing to the person who is empathetic (depending on what is absorbed from the other). Being "in" is very limited. I feel tiny. It does feel awful sometimes. See, if I go inside you (from my inside to your inside), oh, I feel things. I can communicate from my limited inside to your limited inside [4.1 ]. There's lots of stuff there [8.2). It's more emotional: the old way. In relation to absorption, it would be the usual position of empathy, i.e., passive [5.1].
Radiating empathy. In the radiating position, I have to "come out." The whole person is radiating, not just a part [5.11. One may be aware, let's say, of the subjective feeling of sadness, but one doesn't feel sad himself. He may know the inside is sad and depressed, but when radiating actively out with a person, the client may have a kind of directivity and radiance that can be shocking to both the client and the examiner. One radiates to the other what is needed [3.2]. If the client is depressed, one radiates joy, etc. I usually work from a specific center; J but primarily, it's an experience that's hologramic. In the first place, it's whole, and in the second place with a center. Actually, you don't radiate to the other so much as you radiate with the other.
There is a nature side and a spirit side. In the usual position of empathy, people are more on the nature side. I mean, it is personal empathy, a more subjective empathy. One can absorb the other person. The other way of empathy is more spirit related, which is a radiating position. It is a more directed attunement. The directivity comes from outside the person. It uses the person for it's expression [1.2]. It works spontaneously.
On being present. The transpersonal is present, much more present than the more familiar references of mental-emotional-sensory. The latter are not quite to the point [2.2]. They are in the second place beyond the core, but not very far beyond. The transpersonal feels so present. It feels absolutely not beyond. It's hard to express because the word "transpersonal" feels like it might come from beyond. Being present doesn't have parameters. It's unbounded, free; there's an openness. You can breathe [2.1; 5.2). There's an eternal quality in it [8.3].
One requirement is for the participant to empty. It's as if one were to be cleansed, to let go of past referencing, to risk being present in the moment, to move from one direct experience to another [8.3].
__________________
3 See footnote 2 in this chapter and Muller (1978).
On participation. I don't feel being, absorbed by the Field, but rather a participation with. It is the opposite of absorption. It's a radiation. Participation is a with that is a spontaneous, direct movement out with another.
Doesn't see auras. I don't see auras. I'm talking about emotions, i.e., moody, when I say astral. I was told that I was clairvoyant and clairaudient. If I was both clairvoyant and clairaudient, what I experienced was a kind of intuitive correlation.I did not see and hear in a phenomenological way. I just knew intuitionally. Now I think the intuition is somewhat more refined, perhaps "higher." The differences between then and now seem
to be:
1. The content is less substantial or personally referenced;
2. The past is not the point;
3. There is a capacity to pin-point much more specifically what is needed in the moment rather than an interest
ing psychic fact;
4. The focus is in the action needed in the moment [9.2].
Use of the words "field" and "soul". “Field” and “soul” probably not synonymous; but, when I was first talking, I used them that way: soul to mean Field and Field to mean soul and both of them to mean transpersonal. I was not distinguishing that. I see a difference now. When I talk about types of clients I work with, I think I am talking about soul. I've changed as I've gone through this.
Field registers as consciousness of soul. One of the ways it registers with me has to do with the consciousness of soul. Like with
you, I experience that there is an active soul. How I know that, I can't say, except there's something else there. 1', is invisible, but it's totally present. And I can contrast that with somebody else where it's just not there. I can say G. is gigantic, and it's not your body, which is tiny. Soul is big. It goes way beyond our bodies. There's no end to it. It's like we could be sitting anywhere in space somewhere. It's not bound by anything. I'd like to bring in living models to a university class, one group where it's there and one group where it is not there and say, "Can you sense anything different between this group and this group?" I can't believe people can't see/sense this, but maybe they can't. I have to see that.
In the Field, she is not aware of her body. I am not aware of my body at all. The Field involves everything (the room, the tape recorder, the questioner, etc.). It involves everything and (it's so difficult), yet it involves nothing [4.6]. I sound like a Zen Buddhist. I don't mean to be difficult. I feel connected to my body holistically, not in aspects [4.6]. I feel present. I can't say I feel a lot of energy in the different parts of my body (points to parts), but if you ask me to focus on a certain place, I'll do that for you. So I would say the reason I know I am in my body is that I feel present. I don't feel beyond anywhere. I am very much here with you. That's the only way that I know that my body is here. I know it's very different with L., whose body is involved. I would say her connection to the sensory world is much more apparent to her than mine. I don't have that gift, you might say.
Field expression is not from the subconscious. I think the fact that I can express to you in this way shows that the Field life is not
the prerational primitive consciousness. There is a consciousness involved. This, I assume, was not there in the primitive. There are two things at play when I am talking. One, there is an unconscious function working. Either the subconscious or superconscious can talk to you through a conscious structure. (I hope it's the superconscious! ) The consciousness is a support [9.31.
I think this material is from the superconscious because it is impersonal, more objective, more clear. It doesn't destroy the person. You know, some of those urges that come up from the unconscious can be overwhelming. They are like tidal waves. This (the Field) is very helpful. It is very positive. I am not even talking about the use of the word to mean positive-spirit. It is positive in the sense that it is objective, clear, impersonal, open, new, fresh (3.1; 5.2].
The Field is objective rather than subjective . When I use the word objective, I don't mean sensory phenomena that is completely open to verification by anyone. What I mean is that it doesn't use the mental, emotional., and sensory worlds for its base. It uses them as supports [7.3]. But it doesn't use them primarily - in the first place [7.3]. I know it's not enclosed in the subjective because it works with other people. You know it has some objectivity because when you play it with the other instrument (with the other person), it seems to work. This means the other person responds. There is an echo in the other person [1C.3]. The echo may not include the verbal at all. You know it because of that echo. You wouldn't know it otherwise. Otherwise, you do it by yourself subjectively.
Echo signaling objectivity occurs in two ways. There are two kinds of echo. In one way, there is a response from the Field that is
apparent. It's a wholistic experience so you might say it's seen, heard, felt, experienced all at once [10.3]. There may or may not be the concomitant words to go with it. Sometimes the words are poor. But if you keep talking to the person, the words begin to match the fact that the field is "echoing."
In the other way, sometimes I sense that the Field is not responding, but I have a sense that there is a response and that the person is not living and saying it in the right way. If I work with them a bit, they begin to live what they are saying in a more real way and then the Field responds. In another instance, you may ask somebody to share an experience that they think was in some way Field related, and they shared; but, the Field is not showing. If you ask them to do it again more truly, sometimes the Field will be there. In the first case, they may have just repeated the experience verbally, while in the second, they were living again as they told it. In living it again, the Field will respond.
So, in one way or the other, there is an echo.
The experience of "something else" - love current . It's hard to tell what it is that "comes out" when I register "outside." I can tell you what it's not. I have no judgments, and I feel quite empty. There are no references [4.1; 10.11. It's a love current. There's a kind of love that is not personal that goes out. With it goes a deep appreciation for the human condition and a deep wish/desire to participate in that life in a way that would be of service [4.2; 4.3]. For me, the heart is empty, but directed. Some people experience the direct radiation as a laser beam; I don't. For me, it's a kind of global participation; however, there is a specificity within that [5.3].
Actually, there are two kinds of experience. One is holistic and is definitely directive. The more global participation doesn't have any attributes. The specific directivity has no attributes either, but it has a definite action/ movement within it.
Functioning from the Field is constantly improvisational. When you are with a client and do something, you may think you can use a technique. Put the moment you start, everything is open to modulation; total improv . . . no scripts. It's not known to me what is going to happen. It's fresh. You can't hold it [6.4]. You just play it like music. You don't do anything but play it. You don't self-reflect. It's active from the Field; it's not passive [6.3]. I can't tell you how to work from here. There is no "how." Like you open your mouth and the words come out, and I don't mean that as a passive thing [6.1]. It's a risk, in a way. It's a giving position. The thinking of it, the doing of it, and the action all happen at once. You may know it as you begin to speak. It takes time to say it [6.2] . I just open my mouth, and the material comes out. It's like I know things, and I don't know how I know them. It has nothing to do with acquired information [6.1]. The closest thing in familiar language is intuition. It may come down to the intuition; I'm not sure it starts there [8.4].
What's known is not acquired information stored in memory . It seems to use the mental, emotional, sensory world for its expression, but the knowing is from somewhere else. I wouldn't know it from those references. There's no way I could know that. But this something else seer-,s to know, translates it through the mental, emotional, and sensory apparatus (which you could call the personality) , and something comes out [8.4]. Instead of memory, it seems as if there is something more sharp. In place of memory, if you can trust this process, there is a greater focus that comes in, a greater capacity and a more precise capacity to assess, formulate, and take action [8.1j. It is as if the mental, emotional, and sensory functions are honed in the process of playing the Field [7.1].
You just express, and you can't hold it. Like music, you play it and it's gone. You would never want to hold it. Sometimes, I am participating with somebody and inn the moment, and just for a moment, my mind looks at what I am saying and says, "Ah, that's interesting." But, it rarely does that [9.4]. But, when it does that, I could maybe remember what came up because the mind for a moment has gone in and has been an observer. But for the most part, I can't tell you at the end of the day what happened during the day. There is very little or no memory involved. You don't look back on your day to examine it and judge it [8.1; 9.4].
Instead of remembering many facts, I tell you what you need to know now. I can begin to put it into words when you ask me. Sometimes, I don't even know I have the words until you ask me. I would think I can't say one thing, and yet, because it is real alive, if you do ask me, I do have words. I am always surprised. Like I am surprised right now that I have so many words to give you. I have gone through this so many times. Shocking! Now I think, "My God, this is working!" It's amazing. And if I do things I need memory for, it's there. Sure the memory works [8.1]. I don't have to worry about it. Like I don't worry if the sun comes up. It's there.
Some aspects come from outside the brain. When I'm doing what may be from outside the usual brain, I experience surprise because the material seems new to me. That's one of the checking points - it's new or seemingly new. From the usual mind, I car) recall something from the past - acquired knowledge. In the other situation, there is never repetition. You create tools and techniques in the moment, and then you have to put them down. The tools are secondary; they are born in the moment. You have to create new music all the time.. It's never the same [6.4].
Seeing the Field. When I say I see it, I do see it. I see it with my eyes. I sense it with my antennas - not my sensory. It has no color; it has no texture; for me it has no - for me, it has nothing. It's not seeing in the regular way of seeing, but like an artist sees things other people don't see. They absolutely see them. it's a different kind of consciousness [9.11. When I see the field around someone, it's present and the personality may or may not be integrated with it. I don't see it around everyone.
Hearing the quality of the field in the voice. I can hear the Field as a harmony in the voice, a harmony that is not just a personal harmony [9.1]. There are two kinds of balance: one where the voice is closed and one where the voice is open. In the closed one, it might be like C E G, those notes in the voice and that's all. When it's open, there is a qualitative balance and harmony with resonance. It's not a balance and a harmony that you'd say was closed, but a triad that is resonating all over the place. There is a larger instrument somewhere. If you have a piano, it's resonating down at the bottom and up at the top. In the universe, it's everywhere. For me, it's like (I need to use a symbol) if the Field is working through the personality, you have this large resonance coming through a balanced and harmonized instrument.
With the Field, there's a group life, a "we." With Field, there's a group life. I never feel alone. Because I don't know any better, I could say it is like a "we" [4.5b] . I lost feeling like a person so many years ago, I don't know that I ever did feel like one person. I feel like a croup [4.5a] and I feel something around as a group [4.Sb]. I feel connected to something larger. It feels very silly to say, "My name is S." It always did feel silly, but I didn't know that. I didn't talk to anyone about it. No one would believe that.
Work from the Field with three types of clients. I have four main different types of experiences in working with people. In some people, the field is not apparent. I can't find a soul connection. I think the field is there, it's just not present. In the other three, I'd say the field is more present. In the first case, I think the soul may not be active. The person comes essentially with personal references, with personal ways of looking at things, with subjective material. Their experience is limited.
In the second case, I experience the field as a presence. It's rot integrated with the personality, however. It's obviously two conditions rather than one. You just know it because the field is not coming all the way through. There is a radiance and there is the beauty of that condition, but the person doesn't experience it. You can tell that they don't; but, you can also experience that it's there.
If I just forget my eyes and listen with my ears, I can hear it in their voices. I can hear that it's not coming out. Usually, I am not separating hearing and seeing; it's just one experience. But if I decide to just put the voice on tape, I would hear it.
The third type of person that I see has a balanced and harmonized instrument, and the soul is just waiting to "come on stage," if I could put it that way. In this case, there are still two conditions that are not integrated. You have a very well integrated personality that may be exhausted from its good integration. You would sense in their voice, for example, a lot of balance and harmony, but it sometimes has fatigue in it. Sometimes, you'd think the person was ninety, and they are twenty-five. This person I would train to face the personal life from this other place (the Field).
There is a fourth case, where the Field and the personality are integrated, and there is wholeness. I wouldn't do anything here as a psychologist. There would be nothing psychological to do. I won't go into the other possibilities now. With the third person, I would train her. In the case of the person who has problems with the personality, I would work transpersonally with what is disturbing the integration. And the first person who has to become broader, I would just be broader. I see the play of these four at this point and am open for more.
Work with people who come only with personal references. They are limited in their experiencing, perception, and interpretation of life. I bring them another dimension. I take it and broaden it, or show them that what is going on in them is an aspect of something deeper. I try to bring them behind the play of what is apparent [1.1]. They are always dealing with what is apparent, you know, on the level of the first impulse. "I feel upset." And they keep feeling upset. So I train them to begin to go back behind - to unfold what is behind their desires, what is behind their thoughts, to unfold what is behind their sensation. I use that a lot. It's always remarkable with people that there is something behind [10.2]. I use a lot of techniques. I work to play the centers in a concrete way, and they begin to get a sense that there is something behind. I may work with all the centers. In that group of clients, the heart is active in many of them, but often in a more nature-related way. I work with the heart along more spirit-related lines. They relate better to others but they don't necessarily become aware of the field. They become more able to love, and they become able to organize their lives better because they get a sense of the directivity in the heart. Even after all that, I still experience in many of them that the Field is not active.
Work with those in which the Field is active and the personality is not integrated. With these persons, the field is present, but it is somehow not integrated. With the first group, it's not present In the second group, it's present whether they know it or not. When you speak to them from that larger place, there is a response in them. I always feel wonderful with those people. I wish they would feel as wonderful with themselves as I feel with them. I feel very light, a very natural quality. There is a feeling that the personality and the presence are not coming together. They don't quite communicate with one another. They don't quite come through. I see/sense/know that the person is not happy. If they were to experience the other part, there would be a bloom of a kind. When it comes through, the person experiences their life differently. I look at what is not helping, what may be disturbing the integration. Then I do supportive work with the personality. I always work transpersonally.
I use a particular guided fantasy very frequently. They do a visualization of a mountaintop and being there and choose one of the qualities of that experience and internalize it. Then I have them go down to the valley to the group and get a sense of the purpose of the life of the group, then internalize the group. From there, I have them go out into the world seemingly alone to live their reason for being on earth. From that visualization, I can see where the integration is botched up. I may use it like a Zen meditation, over and over again, from the A, to the U, to the M 4 until it works.
With the balanced person whose soul is ready. With the balanced person, I think of one person who is sort of archetypal of this type. She was weary of always seeing life from the personal referenced side the nature side. The personality may be tremendously refined; it may be spending morning, noon, and night refining, arranging, purifying, and qualifying the concrete life. They have done the best job anyone can do from that position [1.3]. The person may be devoted, an incredibly efficient worker and responsible. They would be willing to do the same impeccable job for anyone no matter if they were the President or in the ghetto. That's a clue. That's a soul quality. The person may be incredible, but joyless, tired, weary, and thinking of killing themself. There is something wrong. That life has too much stuff in it. It is crowded. The soul is ready to live through the personality [1.31.
_______________
4 For A, U, and M, see Footnote 2 in this chapter.
I would work with this person in silence much of the time, more radiating or with music, not much explanation. It would be almost reverential. It would be more simple in a way. I would not want them to talk too much about their families, problems, etc. I would train them to face their personal life from this other place, always. When I worked in silence with this person I have in mind, she began to become aware of something in the room. One day, she pointed to the centers, one-by-one all of them and said pointing around, "There is something out here in the room, and it comes out through these places in my body. What is that?" She had come to that awareness on her own while w e worked in silence. I had said nothing about anything to her [7.2].
Works on self by working with others. I don't take too much time to work separately on my own instrument because I am working on it all the time with my clients. I am really working twelve to fourteen hours a day with people, and I am adjusting myself all the time. In the supportive work I do from the Field, I adjust myself to play from whatever center seems most appropriate [4.4]. I might play the m of the A and see what response I get from that, whether to stay there or whether to go higher. I see where there is the greatest response and try to live from there. From there, you can hear people differently. They see differences in themselves; they feel more themselves, and they move themselves. I may have to change where I am coming from to fit their changes [4.4; 6.51. I don't always succeed. I try to maintain a specific directivity along certain lines, and that takes a great deal of total energy. And what is required is always different. I can't say I work fourteen solid hours a day making these adjustments, because I can't. But I know that I am to do it, and I try to do it [3.2;. Sometimes I'm tired and sometimes it's harder than others.
Participant M.M.
Born in Switzerland, grew up in a family that maintained a home for children in poor health. The home became a school where, from the age of nine, he was exposed to an environment dealing with problems of psychology, pedagogy, and health.
In the University, he studied under Piaget, Baudoin, and others, graduating with the equivalent to a masters degree in the United States. Then he sought and studied all he could find in Hindu and European mystical lore and occultism to broaden his traditional training.
M.M, began teaching in Switzerland in 1941. By 1943, he was maintaining a home where people came to him for help and training. Working along rather classical lines at that time, he oriented the individual toward the deeper self. From 1948 to 1960, he developed a new approach which he began to write about.
When he and his wife and two children came to California in 1968, he not only left the mountains he loved to live in, he left all classical approaches to psychology. After settling near San Diego, he began working with groups of psychologists, people in therapy and people searching for a new mode of being. The writing about the technical training begun in Switzerland was refined, translated, and published in 1978 as Prelude to the New Man: An Introduction to the Science of Being.
Wholeness. The approach to wholeness is usually linear [1.3]. So people speak of a lower self and a higher self (the one behind) . :,;e have to reach the higher personality. We have to be the higher personality. What is missed in this proposition is that the awareness of the so-called "higher personality" is much more whole than the awareness of the personality with the small "I." These are not two different wholes. The small "I" covers ground that is within the awareness of the higher "I." The higher aspect sees as a whole; the personality is included [2.1]. That means everything including the function of the personality will be experienced and expressed differently, according to the greater whole [1.3].
In the experience when you are the whole, there are ways of acting in which there is no ego. But then the level implied is not subjected to time and space. For usual consciousness, this is idle talk. I mean, you cannot participate in that untrained. It is not possible. I'm afraid that, for instance, on the psychological level, you deal always with a sort of separated identity. Beyond identity there is something, but it is, let us say, a still greater whole [4.1]. It is not a fading of identity.
Comedian and mask: Different types of consciousness. Consciousness belongs to your personality. Consciousness is centered around the acceptance of the sense of "I." It's a typical function of the persona (mask). Now, when you start finding who is behind the mask, the proposition is different. When you are yourself again (the real one - the Comedian behind his mask), you don't speak the same way. In the image of comedian and mask, consciousness as it is known, is a mask function.
In using words, I have to make a difference between consciousness which applies to what is known on personality level, and another type of consciousness. But if I say "consciousness," it is confusing. So I say awareness. The awareness that deals with the whole is not the sequential awareness of the mind [8.1]. The mind, being obviously part of the whole, can be trained to function as part of the whole instead of being only part of the persona. But that means retraining the mind. That retraining can only be done from the one behind - not by the mind itself [9.3]. On the level of the mind itself, if you have an incomplete functioning, whatever this functioning proposes will be according to itself - incomplete.
Taking the position of comedian. If you are identified with the personality, and you look into the unknown field of what stands behind, you look at it according to data from personality level. When you explore what is behind, you have to be that. As language goes, you say your real self is behind the mask. You do not explore Self. you are Self, that means the proposition of exploring behind the mask involves you being the one behind, and you have to take that position [2.2].
When the comedian deals with another comedian, there is no more duality in the relation of the mask (that means the personality) and the real self (whatever that is). That means you have one continuum of action that involves comedian and the mask in one action. Ideally speaking, this is what is supposed to be on the scene in mankind. The comedian plays in the theatre, and there is only one action. There is no duality of the personality and something hidden behind.
You cannot be anything in the whole without assuming responsibility. You are a responsible actor. The actor is creative [3.2). That is to say simply, that he is a creator [6.4]. The mask is only as mask. Anybody can use that mask. In a troupe of actors, masks can be interchanged; actors cannot be. Something else can be lived through a mask. Depending on what is needed in a given character, you'd assign that role to a certain actor rather than another one because one is more gifted in that kind of shading than the other.
Field is a function of the one behind. In one way of looking, there is only one universal Field. But then, within that whole Field, you can originate a specific action. Now, you can look at the specific actions as polarized minor fields within the whole [4.63]. Then you have the aspect of several fields. But the several fields stem from the whole and are dealt with as expressions of that whole. The Field is a function of the one behind.
When I speak of the one behind the mask, I am speaking of something other than field, which is still directly related to the field. You can look at Field simply as Field; you can look at Field as presence. It makes a difference.
Field includes electromagnetic and other physical fields. The encompassing Field includes electromagnetic, gravity, particle, and morphogenic fields; and it is much more than that. It's much more than anything I have read about to date. The closest expression would be the physicists when they say the particle is an event in the dynamics of the whole. That means the operation of the particle depends on the dynamics of the whole. Now Field involves the dynamic of the whole. That would be the closest approximation I can give.
You have to realize you come from a society that doesn't know about the Field. Of course, science says any object has different types of fields. This is known; and if there are such concrete fields as electromagnetism, gravity, etc., finer fields have a good chance to be present, too. These finer fields are around and through. Field awareness is nothing new in itself, but people have not assimilated the fact that when you meet somebody, you feel an effect of the field of that somebody in your own field. The current social paradigm does not allow for that yet.
Point in Field used for orientation. In human awareness, there is always a center point, symbolically speaking, that represents "!," "ego," the being, whatever it is. In old images, the being radiates a field; or currently, the Field makes the being appear [5.3]. But human awareness has usually the need of putting an individual somewhere. If one uses only the Field, some people get disoriented. They need a point, a symbolism, as it were. For example, in a circle, one would need a point in the circle. Somebody has to be there. so we call it Presence. The one behind the mask is Presence. His/her awareness is field awareness (i.e., encompassing the whole). The primitive image of godhead is somebody.
Personality as a product of the whole. This talk about the whole and the personality is not new. Let's go back to Patanjali, somewhere between 11,000 and 200 E. C. He says that the Atman, which in our example is the so-called Real Self, is projecting itself in the mind substance. So the mind makes a picture of Atman. The Atman is conscious. The mind, having the picture of the conscious Atman, believes itself to be that conscious Atman. Actually, the mind is not conscious; it is only a function used by the one behind the mask.
The whole personality is a product of the field. This is why psychosomatics5 works. In physics nowadays, they accept the dynamics of the whole for subatomic physics. They are not yet ready to do that in the whole field of physics. For us, the evidence of the whole producing or manifesting the particle (or so-called material world) is obvious. I know it runs against biologists who say, "No, the body is built another way." Their paradigm takes into account only such that does seem to behave that way. But those functions are caught within a larger whole. In the larger whole, there are other aspects that bring along those biological functions. This relates to what we call psychosomatics.
Functions linked with dynamics. I link function with dynamics. A given function has a certain effect in general dynamics. Let us say, here is a pool of still water. Then I add water from a hose to the pool. The water coming from the hose may be the same water as is in the pool. Nevertheless, it does create a movement in the pool. So we could say the way the water functions from the hose produces a certain type of movement. The energy from the pump is going to show as water movement. I would call that a function.
Mind is function; emotion is function; sensory is function. Now let us take away the shapes and accept them purely as function.
________________________
5 That field of activity that covers the dynamics that relate psyche (soul) with the soma (body), or that part of that. Example: a psychological disturbance can trigger a physical illness.
There is no reason why we should limit these functions to certain aspects only. If, for instance, you come into a room, you have an overall impression. You register the whole of it, but the sensory abstracts only what is already known from the room. There is no reason whatsoever to abstract those particular aspects and say, "This is the sensory." YOU register a much more extended sensory awareness [9.1 ]. When we take the sensory as being a function of the whole, there is no reason to stop the function at what is known. You instantly register unknown propositions from around and in yourself that are not registered by consciousness because consciousness does not know to handle them.
In the image of the comedian and the mask, the consciousness, as known, is a mask function. It's part of the usual sensory. If you have a sensory that is not limited to the mask, that means that it is an instrumentation that goes deeper than the mask [9.11. But actually, for us, technically speaking, the one behind the mask is still part of the persona.
There is a conceptual problem. We have to realize that every description is given according to a certain paradigm in which it makes sense. Change the paradigm and we have to use other modes of description. In descriptions made for Western countries, there is the double image of ego, a lower and a higher self. There is also a double image of the soul: the perishable soul and the nonperishable soul. We work differently, which means we have little to do with those definitions. If you ask me how I experience ego, I can tell you: if I work in time and space, the ego appears; if I work out of time and space, there is no ego [8.3]. So, what is ego? I am talking about the sense of ego, which is the sense of identity that allows you to say "I" however deep. There are modes of living in which that sense of "I" is not needed. It is a very objective experience. When the experience goes on, the awareness does not require a me or a you. The action does not require that, and one is action-situation oriented. One deals with the dynamics of what is going on here. We deal with Being life; but Being life as seen from a personality implies an identity; an object. It's what defines somebody. W he n one deals with Being life, one does not deal with the personality as known. It does not mean the personality is excluded. In the whole, everything is included, but according to the whole, not according to the personality (which necessarily implies a limiting abstraction).
Stepping in from the whole is a proposition most people don't understand. They are so much ego-centered that being a whole is inconceivable, except conceptually. Even if they state, "I am the whole," or "I" is still implied [1.2]. Ninety-nine and ninety-nine one-hundredths percent of the people cannot deal with a condition in which I is not implied or the dimension (order of life) in which the “I” is not implied.
The condition beyond ego is extremely precise. The condition behind or beyond the sense of identity is extremely precise. You don't lose yourself in a kind of vacuum You might better understand if you see "I" not as an object, but as a function: a function that may be needed under certain circumstances and may not be needed in others. If the function, i.e., the personality, looks at what stands behind, it gets confused. It gets only data according to the limited personality. The result is those propositions that are vague, misty, lost. When the personality is not trained, its propositions about this subject are bound to be vague. The larger condition is much more precise. It is not a globality of awareness [3.1]. You are much more aware of modalities when working than when you are conscious on the usual level. If you have a scientifically trained mind, a discipline has been followed to train it that way. The discipline required in this field is more exacting, not less. A mathematician needs only his mind trained; in spiritual training, you use all the functions available always. Any technical movement requires them all.
"We" is obvious in the condition of the whole. The "us" we speak of is precise. It is very real, but basically there is no memory involved. There is no form involved as known on the conscious side [8.5; 8.11. That means we could say that it is totally nonconscious (meaning superconscious). Yet, that is not completely true. The consciousness does participate; but the consciousness does not generate it. When you objectively follow what you really live and then look at the sensory perception, the emotional perception, and the mental perception, don't expect everything to be reducible to those [4.5a]. The sense of "we" becomes naturally obvious when other ways are used.
Channeling position is dangerous. When you take the position of allowing the GREATER WHOLE to work through you, you are still the person. It is the usual position of channeling. You cannot be you ("I," ego, or whatever you is) by channeling. If you channel, you don't accept the responsibility for what you do. On the other hand, the position of I do that is creative [3.2]. If you are channeling, you cannot say, "I am That," because the action goes through. In our perspective, channeling is dangerous. In our experience, channeling has generated catastrophes. Typical channeling is what a medium does when he/she is working. I expect people to take more responsibility than that. In channeling, you are still the small, personal "I," and you look upwards and hope something comes through. Usually in that position, the dangerous point is that you don't make a difference between projections of desires and really something else which might happen. This depends on how clear you are, technically speaking.
Psychotic condition of faded identity is different. Freud and I speak about two different propositions when we speak of a condition without the "I." Freud speaks of a condition that refers to the personality. I am speaking of a condition that is referring to what is behind the mask. There is a big difference, which also implies two very different types of awareness: the ordinary consciousness and the awareness of the whole that is not sequential. The identity beyond usual identity is not a fading of identity. I agree with Freud, this fading is very dangerous [3.11.
Supraconscious and subconscious. There is a big difference between what I call supraconscious (above consciousness) and subconscious (below consciousness). Psychologists have spoken of the unconscious, and usually accept it as a whole. Here, I mean two different functions.The one that is more related to the mask
(personality) aspect in its usual state is the subconsciousness. The awareness that is more related to the mask is the subconsciousness. The awareness that is more related to the one behind the mask is the supraconscicusness. In order to mark out their different qualities, I use the term polarity. What is more related to mask has a negative polarity; the one behind the mask is more positive polarity. In awareness, the play of the two polarities together gives what is called consciousness.
Differences between positive and negative polarities. Being aware of polarities implies training to know what is at work. Reading in books is definitely not sufficient. Verbal definition does not help. Books cannot describe the real life behind. I cannot remember having come across books making specifically the difference. That does not mean it was not made; it just means it was not told.
There are practices, exercises, you can do to become more readily sensitive to the difference. For instance, you can look at somebody at eye level. You might be drawn up; you might be drawn down. Drawn up means there is an action coming from up going down. Going down means there is an action coming from down going up. It is related to what we call a symbolic condition which happens to work close to physiology. When you are drawn up, you are drawn toward the positive polarity; when you are drawn down, you are drawn toward the negative polarity.
Some people differentiate them intuitively. There are psychologists who do make a difference, especially if they have a little bit of Yogi training. Ida and pingale, yin and yang can be accepted as being aspects of the play of polarities.
Another exercise is to go with the finger from the top of the head to the nape of the neck on the midline. Practice tells when the attention goes down and becomes submerged in the subconscious activities coming up. You have to watch very closely where you feel that the person is losing control; where she/he becomes just immersed in the activity. That means she/he is driven by instinct, or whatever you want to call that. If the lack of control comes up past eye level, that means the objective side is under impulses from the subconscious, the instinctive side. And that means that the person is not in control. Given the right conditions, mental balance can be lost. There is an average control that is acceptable. When that control is lost, then it's a delicate situation because of the danger of losing mental balance. If those people indulge in psychic adventures, they might easily lose their balance. There is not enough positive presence which gives mastery of the situation.
Field can be seen with or without polarities. You can look at Field the positive way; man as a being is a positive being, so positive polarity dominates. This is the superconscious. So the Field as it is usually seen is seen positively. You can see it without polarities, simply as Field. Or you can look for nature components in the Field, because nature has a life in itself.
The one who is aware does not need senses. Perception is typically the use of something through which you have the "ception." That means its mediated. In direct life, you have no mediation; the one who is aware does not use senses, and does not need them for awareness. Senses are only tools. When I speak to you, I need them. Otherwise, I couldn't speak. In this perspective, I use the personality (the senses, the emotions, the mind) as tools, typically in order to express, typically not in order to "reach up" [1.3].
With Field awareness, you have to realize there is one requirement: you have to be able to "see" without projection of anything. I have to say that in quotes because "seeing" is an aspect of livance. You don't need any image because an image is a way of representing which is based on memory or references from the past. Any image is based on past references. The livance-based "seeing" is without images. What you "see" you "see" now, without any need of any reference. A reference means linking to the past.
Range of sensory function can be extended. Sensory is an instrumentation that covers a certain range of activity, and we simply say the comedian is behind that. If we look at it symbolically, the comedian is a person by itself, so we have a double personality: the person of the comedian and the mask. This would mean that we have two personalities, a concrete one and an abstract one. They are actually only one instrumentation that is seen as two because the usual senses are geared only for the lower, more concrete aspects. If you are aware differently, your tool aspect covers a much wider range. And here we have a difficulty because if someone knows only the lower range of the persona, that somebody might be confused by what we say. It seems to be contradictory. Actually, it is not; it is simply a matter of range and kind of conventional use of the term "personality" that covers only one aspect.
Clairvoyance and telepathy are part of the mask. Clairvoyance and telepathy deal with known references. Clairvoyance sees colors, shapes, and all sorts of forms. This is dealing with what is already known by sensory perception except that it is a more refined condition.
It is part of the extended mask [9.2]. It is part of the sensory function which has been refined to some extent.
As far as the average goes, from what I see around nowadays, most people involved with psychic phenomena are on the nature side [9.2]. That refers to the past: symbolically speaking to the Atlantean period. But besides man's history, it refers to the subconscious power. In spiritual training and initiation, the psychic function has to be retrained. With that kind of functioning, one cannot even comply with the prerequisites of the first initiation. There are lots of persons with authority today who are unable to tell the difference between negative and positive polarity. That means they do accept as spiritual whatever is out of the ordinary, indiscriminately. This is dangerous.
Livance is a fullness of life. Livance doesn't go along any paradigm. If you simply speak of, "I live this," "I live that," with the usual three functions (sensory, emotional, and mental), and you call that fullness of life, then you have given the word "life" a very limited meaning [5.2]. Livance is a new word to which you can give a content somewhat different from the words that are already know. You can hear it in relation to a fullness of life that you experience, an encompassing awareness that goes beyond those three usual ways. And anybody experiences an awareness that goes beyond [2.1]. It's a wholeness, a fullness of life in which the known modes (sensory, emotional, mental) can be present or not present. Whether your mind understands it or not does not affect the fullness of life. The difference, if any, stands in the mind not in the fullness.
Action, being creative, is new; making description difficult. The action, being creative, starts in the now. Now is new; it's not from the past. This is the main problem with verbalizing. By definition, you use words that have gained meaning in the past, and you are supposed to respect that meaning [8.1; 10.11. If something is not from the past, to express it with references which are from the past means you are going to miss a lot of points.
I don't see it according to mind's understanding. It is utterly different from any referential system that is usually used. So I cannot speak of it. When you ask a question, you ask according to your system of references. Action is not core according to that system (or any system) . So, I am very embarrassed, because I cannot answer that way. I would have to translate it into a referential system and the translation is poor because there are missing dimensions in it. The translation is reductionist because you ask me to express in modes that don't contain those dimensions. This problem can be altered if you bring out the ability to listen through the words. Words are carriers of meaning. The meaning is the life aspect, if you want. You can hear a word with your concrete mind knowing it is only a carrier, and your attention is on the meaning behind. That means you join the life, the wholeness behind [10.2].
You cannot do a phenomenological study of what is lived if you want to respect the condition of wholeness. Most people don't respect this condition. So they reduce the fullness of what is lived to the limits of the paradigm they are using, and then wonder why it is not effective [ 10.1 ]. Of course, we can make abstractions from what is being lived in order to answer your question, but we can never tell what makes the procedures or dynamics effective. It is not possible to tell; there are no words. It cannot be enclosed in any known paradigm [10.1 ]. It is not verbalizable in its fullness. We can give hints, or a few pictures, like a map; but it will not be the territory.
Action does not originate from the mask. It would be a distortion from the livance even to describe a field as "being activated." When you observe somebody, and then see the field activated, it does not mean that the consciousness has activated the field. It simply means that with the intensity of the life, what is usually not seen becomes little by little seen. So you may say, "The field is activated," simply because what sees becomes sensitive to what is there. It does not mean that the field was inactive before. We could say certain zones of the field or heights or levels of the field have increased activity to make it more concrete.
Consciousness does not trigger field action. It's obvious that the effort known on the mask level is not here. !t does not work that way. The field action does not result from the mask effort. It's a purposeful action, not a purposeful effort [7.3]. The mask might be involved. For example, if you work with acupuncture needles which touch the concrete body, your concrete side is obviously involved. But the action of the one who plants the needle is not an action which originates from the mask. There is no action in the sense most people mean by the word, "action." When you plant the needle, you don't say a word. You don't need to have social intercourse. There is no need to be energetic in the physical sense either. The action does not start from the personality [7.3].
If you take the symbol of the comedian, the field, and the personality, the action starts from the comedian. Now, whether the real one is only that or more than that is another story. But let's take it that way. So the action does not start from the personality, but from the comedian, obviously, like any normal action (5.11.
The doer aspect: movement is in creation. I say to somebody, "Do this. Don't ask how; just do it." I have done it with a group of psychologists. They laughed at me heartily. It was fun for them, because you have to know first in order to do. Now, I remember three years later, one of the psychologists suddenly realized it was possible [6.1 ]. The sequential mode of acquired knowledge requires that you acquire knowledge first and this allows you to do. In the field in which we work, it is not so. It's the Doer aspect. In the doer aspect, the movement is in the creation, the Doing. In Doing, you see, you know, and you do simultaneously. There is no sequential aspect [6.4]. Dewey's learning by doing could be a reduced aspect of that: if you do something, and then analyze it, you know how to do it. In what I am speaking of, there is much more involved.
I could relate it to the symbolism of the Indo-European roots, Bd and Kr. Bd is related to Buddha, buddhi, and relates to knowledge and wisdom. Kr is related to activity: creation. You find it in Christ, creator, creating and in the Hindu Kriya Yoga, for instance. In the present time, there is a shift from Bd to Kr which is symbolized by the shift from acquired knowledge to the Doer.
Acquired knowledge is typically mask. In the Bd aspect, you have to learn first. Academic training is to learn first, then practice, and finally you are able to do this. It is assumed this is how things work. When you are no more the mask, but the one behind (you are IT, really, and the mask has acknowledged it), then you can take the position of the Doer. In that case, when you face the evidence that some action is to be done, you simply do it [6.1]. You see what is to be done, you know the modalities, and you do it simultaneously. Evidences are not discussed by your mind.
Doer does not involve self-reflexiveness. I hesitate to put a label on the Doer in terms of any system, because when we do it, we just do it. There are no considerations whatsoever, in terms of "Am I relaxed? Am I under stress?" You just do [6.3]. When you speak of effortless or something like that, I cannot understand. Seen from the personality, it may be effortless or not effortless, or whatever. Frankly, I don't care. I mean by that, there are no personal consideration. We are situation oriented, or action oriented on that situation [5.1]. Our concern, if we speak of concern, is in that situation-action. The sense of reflexiveness is not needed. The elation, "I am doing well," for instance, is completely beside the point. The concern is not on "me" acting; the concern is on the situation [9.4). You are situation centered and this completely changes the whole psychological frame [6.3].
In living whole, we work with mankind. In living the whole, we don't just work with another person; we deal with that whole being. This implies a lot more than personality. Let's make it more precise. Any action on that level deals with the whole of mankind, or mankind as a whole [4.2]. If you happen to deal with somebody or a group in front of you, on that level, that group is simply symbolic of a human
condition [4.3]. The personal aspect as usually seen from a small point of view is not important. If it has to be involved, you have to assume a position in which you use an identity.
Dealing with the comedian behind the mask. I can come out with two aspects if you use the symbol of mask and comedian. One aspect would be the comedian dealing with the other comedian; the other aspect would be the relation between the comedian and the mask. You can adjust the mask so the comedian can use it; you can also adjust the field. But there is a third proposition which is to adjust the comedian (that means the "I" aspect within that field). To help the comedian establish a better relation, implies an action with the comedian, the field, and the mask. Actually, any adjustment takes all three into account. And it is possible to work on the comedian alone, or the field alone or the mask alone or any combination.
Working with Field alone. Apart from an initiate, I don't know anybody who can adjust the field alone at this time. It has not yet come out. There are symptoms showing that something is going in this direction, i.e., awareness of the field. It will become greater and greater. Mow, awareness in the field exists in very limited ways: psychic sensing and clairvoyance, for instance, are a limited use of this awareness.
Working on the mask alone. Typically, conventional medicine is working on the mast-, alone. If one adjusts only to what shows on the apparent level, that means the physical symptoms, posture, expression, body chemistry, and so on, one adjusts the mask only on the level of the mask. Now, do the same action starting from the field (and that could include chemotherapy) and you would be surprised at the difference in effect. If one adjusts the mask for the sake of the mask itself, actually one adjusts according to a concept or a general idea.
Working to adjust the mask so the comedian can use it. I deal with somebody in a class, for instance; I see that somebody striving to reach a certain point. Now, when we act in class, that certain point is already here. I mean I see it; it's already working. Wh at I do is help make the connection between that and their linear consciousness [1 .11 . Seen from my side, you are trying to become what you obviously show already. According to what shows fieldwise, you have to adjust the action so the mind can participate in a way. The adjustments are what I call modalities. As an adjustment goes on, you have to take different shades, different steps. One step might work in a given direction for five seconds, another for ten minutes. But they do change. You can't adjust according to a concept or a general idea. On the average, if the mask is devised in a general kind of way, there is a general kind of "best possible position." The best possible position might not be adequate for the one using the mask because the one using the mask is not the average image. It rarely is the average image, if ever.
Modalities don't follow a system. Modalities are the way you act, the forms you use, the shades in the forms, and so on. You know them directly as you do it, always clearly. You do not depend on measurements, devices, gadgets, or tests. Simultaneously, when you do it, you see the shades needed [6.5]. In my experience, I realize that most people don't realize what that means. those who become, let us say, introduced, do the same. They act, let us say, in therapy. They become aware of lots of shades that play as they act. You don't follow a system; you follow the dynamics of the moment. The dynamics change constantly, and you adjust to those changes instantly, too [6.5]. If you follow a system, you cannot do that. Adjusting the changes might be a little like playing an instrument, say the piano. You are unskilled, and your finger hits a note beside the one you wanted to hit. You are aware that the note ought to be modified according to the tune, so you modify it.
Knows and does simultaneously. You have to change as the dynamics change. You know simultaneously as you move the modalities. As far as effect is concerned, there might be a slight delay because of the delay of your awareness. I know ahead of time. For me, it is not ahead of time; it's as the work is going on simultaneously. But seen from the outside, it looks like being ahead of time. Consciousness working in time and space takes time to adjust, which accounts for the delay [6.2].
I can give you an example. In acupuncture, I can plant a needle. The needle at a certain place is supposed to give a certain effect, and there are places that are neutral according to maps established a long time ago. Our experience is different; the needles work according to the one who plants them. They have more or less effectiveness according to the one who is behind them. Because the awareness she/he has as she/he sets the needle in, she/he is going to trigger the type of life the needle will have. You can plant the needle with no effect. But then you can awaken an effect as soon as you are part of the action. You step in. You have to stand behind what you do. That means you will transmit through the needle what You can give of your own life. This is what makes the needle alive. Traditional acupuncture does net see it that way.
One who works is aware from all three levels. If we act, i.e., plant a needle, in order to have a certain effect, we have to take into account who is behind, and with that "who" there is the field, and there is the personality. This is going to determine which points of the body we are going to use, and in those points, exactly what plays. This implies that the one who plants the needle is aware and working from all three levels involved. When I say, "You have to know what you do," I mean the awareness of all three levels is clear. Otherwise, there is no reason to plant a needle within a millimeter, or even closer, of "the point."
When you live all three elements of the condition as the needle works, you can give some input in the conditions, in what I call modalities. You can give different shades to the overall action. That means, as the needle is working, you can trigger shades of action that go within the action of the needle without moving the needle. This is possible because of the oneness in participation.
There is a precise awareness. It does not necessarily translate in mental terms. You can simply go with the needle along the place that is needed, (running his thumbnail slowly along his arm near the wrist) . There is a knowledge that doesn't go along verbal lines. For both the patient and the one who plants the needle, it's related to all three aspects of the ones behind, and a correspondence between each. On that level, there are no words. There is the field of the one who practices and the field of the patient (stretches his arms to the sides beyond his head and notes that his arms are too short to demonstrate).
Here you have a life knowledge that is not intuition, which is a kind of duality. The intuition, you sense something there (points over his shoulder). In this situation, there is not "there." You live that situation whole. There is no duality whatsoever [8.4]. Now, if you happen to have some abilities to modify shades within the personality, you modify shades, using modalities.
Living the effect of action in the other body. The correspondence between the two comedians and the two fields includes the personality. Now, there is a tricky point. When all three awareness' are present [4.4], the one who plants the needle lives the effect of the needle in the other body. I do say lives; it's not a representation. You live-see the chance and after awhile, when the needle is no longer effective or levels out, you can take it out.
When I say "live," it is not "live the other," which is a duality. I do say "live," which is a oneness. You have to make a difference because these situations do exist. Some people can live somebody else as a duality. When you live a oneness, there is just that one condition. That doesn't mean you have a confusion or a vague sense of identity, which is a personality problem [4.4].
Testing a result before proceeding. This is what I call sounding. If I have options and want to know which way of proceeding works best, I sound one and see the response. These ways imply certain technical points. If you cannot respond at that moment, maybe you can at another moment, so I cannot use that procedure now; I swim in a certain surrounding or are the product of a surrounding we can call mind substance. Why not:' I have trained my tool ( in this case, the mind) to sense the mind substance and to see what degree of fineness or coarseness is involved in a given functioning. The chitta has become objective for me: sensory. I mean "objective" literally; as evident as any object around for usual sight, like a lamp, for instance.
Being aware of when using the brain and when not using it. What I have to say might look weird: I am fully aware of the difference of an awareness using the brain, whichever hemisphere, and when not using the brain. The quality is different [8.2]. For those who have experiences in awareness, it would be describable. There is a definite quality that makes the brain action more concrete. Going through the brain there is some freedom lost. It's like a stiffening agent, let us say like calcium in a plant. It's much freer without the brain [8.2', . I know the descriptions of right and left hemispheres. These are secondary descriptions. They have their value, but they are not involved in what we speak of. It's true that when you express from the comedian through any spoken word, you need the brain [8.1]. As you work with aspects that are beyond what you call the concrete mind, you might use the right hemisphere more often than the left one. However, this is not entirely true, because what you bring out from the comedian can be absolutely rational and logical. What is coming from the comedian would probably show more or less equal use of both hemispheres [8.1 ]. The use of both hemispheres would be from what is synchronizing, over-arching the two hemispheres. I am not speaking of the Corpus Collusum, the neurological bridge between hemispheres.
For me, the physical aspects are simply reflections of other aspects. As seen before, the body and the personality are products of the field.
The whole lives a quality until the mask is aware. In order to train a tool, you have to hold the livance a certain way. You could say it emits a vibration. You hold it this way until the persona tunes in and is able to response. [7.1]. Remember, the livance is not subjected to or limited by the persona. It is a dynamic activity that is difficult to put into words because it definitely implies another type of awareness. You know what you do. In simplified version, you subject that part of your consciousness you want to work with to a certain quality of life. You do this steadily every day, not constantly all day long, but repeatedly until the consciousness adjusts. It works with any mask, not just this one.