CALISTHENICS JUNE 17TH, 1980
STRUCTURING OF THE GROUPS FROM THE FIELD -- FIELD AWARENESS IN THE FIRST PLACE -- LIVE FIELD-WISE ---THREE ASPECTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS --SENSORY FEELING ---MENTAL CONNECTION WITH THE CENTRES --- DYNAMIC OF THE WHOLE --- CHANGES GOING ON IN THE WORLD ---SEVEN CHAKRAS ---NINE CENTERS --THE REAL MEANING OF CENTER -- DYNAMICS OF CHANGE
This is our last session before the summer recess, and I am prompted to ask you a question because someone asked it quite candidly the other day. The question is: Is there any change in the groups? In your experience over this last year, is there in what you register in yourself, around yourself, in what you see around, or what you feel going on, is there anyone here who has not felt any change? Lift your, hands. Does this mean that everyone felt a change?
Okay, then I can also say that this person also confessed that her position in life was just to be open so that something may happen. Now, I'm fully aware that position is very popular, not just in the groups, I mean all around. Just be open and something will happen, meaning that you don't assume any responsibility - you have nothing to do. That doesn't work. It works so little that this person was unable to realize that there have been lots of changes in the group. I have to tell of one change. Perhaps I have told it already, but I'll repeat it: For a while now, when we meet in the big group, with the music session, every time I come in I am impressed. There is a group emanation that wasn't here last year. And the change is rather big. Of course, it does not express in terms of the little goodies you might want for yourself. But it does express as a group activity, that shows some evidence of Presence activity going on. It's not yet fully directed, you don't yet know what you are doing, but undeniably it's no longer the wishy washy feeling it once was -- good intentions, but nothing centered.
Has anyone either a question or comment about what you feel has changed in the group action, or maybe for yourself.
Participant: I have a comment: You phrased your original question in very broad terms. I'm aware of a definite change of quality in this room, when I come in here... In my perception, if you hadn't stated it so broadly, I'm aware of very little change in myself, but definitely some kind of change of a greater magnitude in this group. I would not be able to speak of the quality.
Martin: Actually, it's an interesting situation. You are able to acknowledge a change in the quality of the group -- definitely -- and have difficulty in acknowledging a change in yourself. Usually they go together. when you have a group, the group activity is much more than each individual. It's not the sum, it's kind of a geometric or logarithmic progression. Usually it's expressed in geometric terms, that means: one person has the power of one; two persons together, have the power of four; four persons together, the power of sixteen. See what I mean? So if you look for the same change in yourself, account for the difference in power. Maybe this where you are confused.
The structuring that makes the group effective -- little by little -- comes first from the field, the whole of you, and in the last instance it comes through your consciousness -- not in the first instance, in the last. This refers to your situation too (participant) in so far as when you have the volume in the group, (because of the group) it may become evident to consciousness; whereas when you deal with the same quality with yourself alone, the volume might be much too small for your consciousness to acknowledge. In this respect, it's more easily acknowledged through the action of the group, although not always. Sometimes you are a bit in advance so you can acknowledge it better in yourself. But still there is that change in quality, quite definitely. And then, there is that other law: If that quality were not working in you,
You wouldn't perceive it. You can perceive only according to what is working in you.
Due to the fact that the groups become more efficient in their collective Presence, I want you to train a bit more seriously -- a bit more to the point. I would like you to train every day, systematically, this summer to be field-aware in the first place, not the last place. the last place is when you tell yourself: "Now I have to be field-aware". That means that you tell yourself in the first place (with your brain or your feelings or whatever) that you have to be field-aware. This is not from the field, it is from the enclosed awareness. This is the usual trap, and its a very Popular trap; everyone relishes falling into it.
You.are free to ask questions about how to do it. This is a typical example of falling into the trap. It's the enclosed awareness that asks how to trigger a field
activity. A field activity is a field activity. If you want to live field-wise in the first place, the easiest way to do it is when you meet someone. You relate field-wise in the first place. You see field-wise in the first place. Then the person. Then the personal features -- possibly.
There is one typical reference you can use. As soon as you live field-wise, you are completely free, not enclosed. As soon as you start analyzing or asking yourself how to do it, you are enclosed. Is that clear?
You have to make a step of maturity and realize that an closed awareness is an enclosed awareness, a field awareness s a field awareness, a soul awareness is a soul awareness, a sp"writ awareness is a spirit awareness., Why do you always want to use your enclosed awareness to trigger the other ones? Sounds silly. if you want to live field-wise, you live field wise -- that's it. As simple as that. All the difficulties come from old habits of enclosed-ness. You feel that something is missing if you are not enclosed.
For instance, if I take the example of that participant when he spoke of the usual will of everyday life, there was no soul. Okay, if we follow the books (which means that since it's printed it's bound to be true), then, which is more you: the one who ignores the soul and thinks it has to reach the soul, or the soul? But then you get tangled up because there is something after the soul called spirit, and there is something called the small ego and then there is the real ego, and there is the Monad that is still another ego, and so on.
But let us leave that alone for now. Simply realize that all soul activity is triggered from soul; all field activity is triggered from field; all brain activity is triggered from brain. Later on you can go into more complex interplay, but first swallow this and assimilate it. If you cannot assimilate this you will have digestive troubles -- obviously.
What I say may sound silly, but it is the problem you face. the persistence of willing with the brain activity to reach the field, when you know perfectly well in your own experience (not from the book) that the field is constantly there anytime, anywhere you can see a field activity around someone. Scientifically speaking, you have no object without the field around -- some sort of field -- and that includes the human personality. And as you know we deal with that, we see it all the time -- can't help it. When you work here you feel it all the time also. You might forget about it in between, but not when you are here. So it's part of your experience. Being part of your experience, if you want to live field-wise, you live field-wise and that's it.
Now, what I ask is not field-wise in the last place, but field-wise in the first place. Within the field you have the dynamics of the whole which creates your existence as a personality. So when I say field in the first place, it is actually in the first place; it's not just a figure of speech.
If you do something like healing, or working in a group and giving something to someone, even if you are qualified, if I cut off the field action from your personality your effectiveness is gone right away. As you know, I can do it, but it's not agreeable, neither for you or for me. Sometimes it's needed because you might be on the verge of understanding that the effectiveness does not lie in the solidity of the object.
When we have the service group, or even this group, especially during the music, or all the time if you are steadily field-aware, you will notice that there is a greater quality of Presence in the room. We call it "collective Presence"-- of the people here and very often more than the people here, but another quality of Presence. That's a field activity. It's known to you.
In the work we do this has to be here in the first place. And we come to the time where it is high time to work systematically. I wish you had better brains -- as much as you do -- but for me it is a side issue. We have things to do first. There is a tremendous gap between the awareness and what is actually going on. if you want to bridge the gap, the field has to be active -- very consciously active. Now when I say very consciously active, it means that you dwell so much in field activity that you can reach the consciousness with you as field. I do not say the consciousness reaches up, I say the field reaches down -- until you realize that your body is exactly like suspended particles within the field. There is no solidity at all. But this is a side issue for the consciousness.
Train yourself to be field-aware-in-the-first-place. When you awaken in the morning, be field-aware. Every time you meet someone, be field-aware. If you place flowers in a room, be field-aware, of the Presence of those flowers in the room. The more you are field-aware, the more you will hesitate to attach labels like "roses" because when you are field-aware the activity is so big that you don't find it in books speaking about roses. And the label "roses" that you have learned since childhood does not correspond to what you live. So you have just "that" for lack of better words but "that" is big.
Any questions about field-in-the-first-place?
Participant: I have a question about speaking without collapsing the field awareness. This seems to still be a difficulty. If I am expressing what I'm living, that's not a great difficulty, but when I am trying to work with the tools that are available in the world, conceptual stuff that you have to deal with when you are teaching philosophy for instance... it feels like there is a conflict. Is there any suggestion that you can make about how... Reading books,for example, that don't have anything to do with spiritual things, it just automatically collapses the field awareness, and I have a feeling that wouldn't have to be.
Martin: Quite right.
Participant: I know there is no "how to", but I wonder if there are any suggestions as to how... if there's a difference in position... I can't quite... I've been working to do this for a long time and it's not very effective.
Martin: What about being field-aware-i-n-the-first-place.
Participant: Then I can't focus on what I'm reading.
Martin: No, not true. If you are field-aware in the first place, whatever you do, there is field Presence in the first place. But, if your mind acknowledges the field, it directs its attention in that direction, let us say up, and then you; look down at what you read on the page, your attention is no longer up and the field is gone. This is not field-aware in the first place, this is field-aware in the second place or third place.
Participant: It's okay if the material has something to do with a spiritual thing., then it seems to come with.
Martin: How come? Is there anything that is not spiritual?
Participant: Well in that sense no.
Martin: I suggested that you train for the whole summer and see what happens when we meet again.
I don't know if you followed her example. It's quite typical, and I'm afraid all of you without exception will find yourself in that kind of position. The trap. Your mind is aware of the field. This is not field awareness in the first place. This is the mind looking at the field, or sensing the field, and thus you believe you live the field in the first place. No, you are sensing the field. If you direct your attention in another way, you have difficulty, because of the split in the attention. Instead of going here it goes there -- so the field is gone. Until you learn to direct your attention both ways -- here and there simultaneously which can be done. And then you think you are field-aware. No. You are aware of the field not field-aware. It's bound to happen because of the interference of consciousness in functions other than consciousness is tremendous.
You can notice that the field is activated anyway -- this does not change -- but it's field-in-the-first-place. If with my mind I look at the fields around the room, and I register something in my head, it's not field-in-the- first-place, it's my mind registering a few things -- among them the field.
A non-enclosed awareness is free ;-- no boundaries. An enclosed awareness is enclosed -- that means boundaries.
Are there any questions about field activity?
I also have in mind another training with your consciousness.I would like you to register something starting from very simple points: the three aspects of consciousness. You have sensory consciousness, then you have feeling consciousness, then you have thoughts or mind consciousness. Well all of you can acknowledge that -- it's rather simple.
If you have three aspects at play (sensory, emotional and mental), the interplay gives nine points:
Within the sensory you have the sensory linked toted sensory level -- so we could call it sensory-sensory.
You also have the sensory linked to the feeling level-- so you would have the sensory-emotional.
And you have the sensory linked to the thinking level -- so you have the sensory-mental.
Now same with the feelings:
You have the feelings-sensory.
You have the feelings-feelings.
And you have the feelings-mental.
On the mental level you have:
The mental-sensory
The mental-feelings.
The mental-mental.
What I want you to do this summer is to live with it and simply learn to acknowledge the different shades -- the three points and the nine points. Watch the interplay. Knowing that in our present-day civilization we have a tremendous bias -- shocking. You know the sensory-sensory. of the feelings you know the feelings-sensory. Of the thoughts you know the mental-sensory.
I call the formulated thoughts in your head, for instance, mental-sensory. Before you speak you review what you are going to say, for instance; this is quite sensory. You are mainly used to this aspect -- the sensory side.
With the feelings you register emotions mainly when they are solid enough, for instance, the churning of your plexus. These are solid feelings. A feeling-feeling is a pure feeling. It's neither mind, nor sensory. Incidentally, you feel it -- of course -- but you don't register it. You register the sensory side.
With the mental, here we have a big, big problem. We should say you know the mental-sensory, you know the mental-feeling up to a point, but you don't know the mental-mental.
Did you ever realize that you have a very hard time mentating -- that means being active mentally. I say mentate because the thoughts are already formed, and there is a mental activity way beyond that stage. This we could call (as some authors do) mentation---pure mentation without feelings. You will notice that most of the time you feel you are either held back or boosted by your own feelings. That means that feelings are always very closely related.
We speak of three types of consciousness -- these three types correspond to the three centers it the throat. Pure mentation belongs to the heart (upper part), something extra-ordinarily clear.
You can see the extension of that. If you look at the extension of that you will find that there is a relation between the nine centers of awareness and the nine aspects that I spoke of. If you extend it to the centers, pure mentation would belong to real head activity, and as you know the real head is not yet awakened. You use your head as an extension of the heart -- it's not the real head.
This all might become clear if you learn to observe the different shades between the interaction of sensory, emotional, and mental -- and the play. There is always a play, and all three work together all the time. Learn to watch that play to begin to realize how you work with your mind meaning your whole consciousness. Instead of just accepting consciousness blindly. Sometimes something pops out and sometimes something else. No. If you see the play you can modify it once you know it.
If you are field aware in the first place, the proposition of dwelling with the three aspects of consciousness and seeing the play and interplay, you will find & lot of things. If you forget to be field aware in the first place, you will start analyzing with your mind and usually the emotional mind not pure mind.
You could call this type of activity meditation, but I'm afraid that the word meditation has some artificial connotations. So, I simply tell you to dwell with this play of consciousness until it becomes clear. But remember when you do it to be field-wise in the first place.
I don't know if you realize that if you put yourself in the position of being field-aware-in-the-first-place, and then note the play, it would mean that you would begin to have an impact, field-wise, on the limited aspect of consciousness.
Field activity always implies field Presence. In the hologram it is pictured as the core activity, which implies Presence. So you are Present field-wise instead of enclosed-wise. You, Present field-wise does not feel at all like you know of as your little ego. Not at all. It is not you as you usually know yourself either. But it is still you as you intuit sometimes. The you, you want to reach. So let it be here in the first place.
I wonder if you realize the change going on in the world. A few times we have tried to convey it, for instance, in quoting some passages from Capra's book The Tao of Physics. He says that there has been a tremendous change in physics: from the building blocks of Newton (this plus this equals that or gives the whole) to new physics where they say that the particle is created and is an event in the dynamics of the whole --they begin with the whole. Furthermore, they say that the addition of parts never makes the whole. This is mind-boggling for those who are used to the old ways. It is self-evident in the new way.
When you are field aware -- and the field is never, never static -- you experience the dynamics of the whole. I say experience not analyze -- and this is the first place-- then obviously all your relations with whatever aspects you see in yourself, in others, in humankind, is related to that whole, as aspects of that whole. It's a big, big change.
In occult lore there is another way it is put that may not be as dramatic but it comes to the same point: The coming of the Lords of the Venus or Lords of the Flame to help mankind (Sanat Kumara is one of them. In human memory this is seen as a cause. We start from a point and we go onward toward a goal. With this you have a causality; and you build toward a goal. That is how it is registered in the human consciousness hence the need to come to the cause of everything. If you have a physical ailment, mental ailment, emotional problems, you go back to the cause that can be far away in childhood or before birth -- possibly back into another life. Some people do that. That's this way of handling things.
Now we have the Lords of Mercury. (Remember these are only symbols. Don't tie up those Beings with the planets. They are not tied to a planet, even if they did dwell on it.) If I speak of the Lords of Mercury symbolically, mankind is now somewhere midway between the starting point and the goal. The action of the Lords of Mercury is a goal action. They act from where you will be -- from the whole. They draw you to the whole -- symbolically speaking. (Actually it's more complex, but People can follow this imagery.) The whole becomes self-evident. You learn to see all the parts, all the way back to the beginning, as events in the whole and not as building blocks -- that's a big change. This is going on right now. But it does not mean that the Lords of Mercury begin only now to take things in hand. According-to the ]legend, they intervened in paradise under the shape of the snake-- the famous serpent. The snake is the symbol of wisdom.
In the type of work we do, and by now you ought to know it experientially, we work with the whole in the first place always. This is why, for instance, you,can live that field freedom or that field beauty, right away, whereas according to old standards you have not reached this stage -- it should not be possible.
A few centuries back it wasn't possible, but now it is -- as you experience.all the time.
It is not that one way is right and the other wrong. It's one type of function and another type of function in a whole, and the whole does contain a linearity. But linearity is only one of the features of the whole, you can also work without linearity. We do much of it, which allows us to play according to what is going on now. But when we play without that linearity we are faced with a problem: you have an authority (a book, let us say a good one) that says that this and that is so, and you have to take this step and that step -- and then I come along and I say nonsense. Well, not exactly, you can do it that way if you want, but the time is different. If if you you want to pioneer, there are new ways. If you are afraid to pioneer, then go along the old ways. How long is the old way old? And at what point is the new way new? I venture to say that all these problems stem from some rigidity in the consciousness. I have heard it said that, for instance, that because The Tibetan uses the seven chakras and I use nine centers, and because I come along later, I must be correct and he must be wrong.This is a bit childish. Still this kind of pitfall is always here. and don't put labels of quality on those functions.
The whole Hindu law is based on the seven chakras. Here you are dealing with a function that is symbolized with the number seven. Now we come along with the nine centers of consciousness. Here we deal with another function that is symbolized by the number . We speak of two different things. Two different functions. When you have two different functions, you definitely cannot say that one quality is right and this one is wrong. No judgments of value. This has this use so we use it this way, another has another use so we use it that way. Depends on what you do.Learn to see things that way -- as functions going on. Use one technique -- it's geared along one line, one functioning. Use another one and it's geared along another line. Don't compare the lines. The question is : in a given situation, this situation, what can we do? Traditionally we have these possibilities -- okay traditionally, yes -- are there other possibilities? Is there anything more efficient? Let's try it. Sometimes there is nothing more efficient. Sometimes there is. Depends on your ability to face the situation. If you apply a technique that you cannot live, it has no value. So it depends also upon what you live not on what is supposed to be the best. There is no such thing.
In the book there is a whole science, we could call it the science of the centers of consciousness, that is tremendously useful. I have taught this science for over twenty years and I have met people who were pretty proficient in acknowledging centers, even radiating something pretty precise with centers, but I haven't come across anyone who knows the real meaning of what a center is. I don't know of one person -- not one who realizes the potential of action. If you want to realize it, you have to be proficient in it. It's not understanding it that will do it. It has to be a working tool -- something that moves something you can play with -- really not conceptually. If we want a given note, you give the note exactly as if you were playing on a piano. If you hit a note it's that note not another one. You have to be able to do that with centers -- which is a lot of training. If you are field -aware -in-the - first-place it's fairly easy. If you tackle it with your brain you will get lost. Hence, I have found no one who is really efficient in it. You&u can use it psychologically, it's one of the biggest areas for practical application. You can use it physically as well -- to a certain point -- in psychosomatic situations. You can use it to see how the person is functioning; how the person relates to the field (centers are quite directly related to the field), and so on. Now this means something. When you face this you will realize that although we have made a lot of progress it's still a far cry from something professionally effective.
Now for the book, I have to say that I have to allow you more time than that. But for training with field-awareness-in-the-first-place, this is actually very simple. Put your attention on it everyday -- even if you do it wrong -- even if you think of the field. Little by little, your attention on the field, you will eventually realize that at a certain moment it is quite spontaneous. This has to come out. You will also notice that if you train yourself with this simple discipline (when you meet someone -- field-first) you will be surprised that after a very short while, first you will see the field (see/feel whatever comes first), and then you will feel shades in the field. Fields do have shades. They show basic qualifications.
You live field-wise-in-the-first-place and you drop all the divisions. The schooling for the mind is difficult.This is why I ask you to do something very simple this summer.The two steps: (1) field-aware in the first place, as much as you can (as I said first you might look at the field instead of being field-aware but still you live with the field and that does something), and (2) just dwell with the three aspects of consciousness and begin to notice the interplay.If you will work with-dynamics rather than the angle or point of view you will notice that any labeling or classifying you do becomes very relative. You choose one because it fits for now and then you drop it and choose another one. The dynamics remain the same. It's new for the consciousness. it's, let us say on a more psychological level, exactly the same as in physics.
In Newtonian physics, the particle was a real particle, until you found out that it is no longer a particle it's just an event in the dynamics of the whole. Now translate that psychologically. If you follow the dynamics you have a chance of realizing what an event is, but if you don't follow the dynamics you have still the solid particle, and this is a hang-up. Approaching it field-wize (field awareness is essentially dynamic all the time), you have a chance to find out the dynamics of consciousness, rather than sort out this and that. Whatever you sort out is always relative. There is a bias in the consciousness to always approach from the sensory side. You will notice that human awareness, as of now, is always U based, but the body is an M expression, so you get lost between the two. Within that U you have an M aspect which gives out the sensory bias, because you identify yourself with the body.
See what I mean? If you approach from the field-awareness in the first place, there is no problem with that. Because for the time being you adapt this position. At any time you can take another position. If I explain something to you I choose a position, and if you change I change the position too.
Do you feel all set for the work of this summer?
Participant: I don't understand why you speak of only nine possibilities of the three functions.
Martin: Why choose only nine rather than more than that of eighty-one for instance? Yes, because I want you to work with something you know. Sensory awareness is clear, emotional awareness is pretty clear, mental awareness is pretty clear. So it's something you know. But then you learn to dwell with it and see it at play -- that means seeing the dynamic side not the label side. "Sensory" is a label, emotional"is a label. You have to recognize how it works, an also how you live or how it feels when it works --the dynamics and the balance of those dynamics. So I confine myself or I limit the exercise to three known aspects in order to discover dynamics in a very conscious and simple way. If I would extend the interplay of the nine centers, and you know only three concretely, most of it would be totally unconscious. Now we cannot observe the dynamics on the unconscious side with consciousness. You can do it field-wise when the field is real. When the field awareness becomes real then you can much quicker than you can with consciousness.
You can subdivide all the time, actually infinitely, but at a-certain point you lose the purpose or the efficiency --if you go into too many details that are not familiar to you. The purpose is just to make you aware that you can be conscious of consciousness. So we start with something fairly simple. As I said, you can be aware field-wise, of consciousness but that's another story. Then you can grasp many more things that you can do with consciousness. But dwelling with consciousness is simply to make your consciousness a bit more limber and thus more ready for changes.
Incidentally, speaking of changes, I want you to observe something in the play going on. In your own experience, nearly all of you know that every once in a while you get confused or you get into trouble with your own awareness -- sometimes you become foggy, you don't know what you are doing here and so on. There is a kind of general upset, which in turn means that your old balance is gone. Usually when this happens you complain -- some quite a bit. Now I propose to you another vision of the same situation. if you want to introduce a change, it is much easier to do when the general condition is unbalanced than when it is balanced. Because when it is balanced you don't see any reason for a change. So if, when you work here you get upset, there are two aspects: It means that you begin to outgrow your old condition -- obviously. You don't yet see the new one and thus you are upset, which is an occasion for rejoicing. There is a point that you don't know yet, but it comes with field-awareness. When you are field-aware and there is an upset, you can very consciously take the opportunity of the upset to introduce from the field, with field awareness, a change in the condition. The upset is a disorientation so you take the opportunity to introduce a new direction. Very often it is not just a new direction but also new components that will work. It can be so much so that under some conditions you will want to maintain the upset a little bit longer than natural to have more time to put what you want into the new situation. This is true with mental or emotional upsets, it is true with a physical upset. A physical upset can be an illness, anything that shocks your body, including a fall -- a fall shakes your body. You get hit by something; you fall heavily; You feel shaken -- don't miss the opportunity. You have to have a second look at what happens in life. When You see the consciousness at play, when there is any upset in that consciousness on any of the three levels for instance, take the opportunity to introduce something you are aware of field-wise. You can sound the note (it's a way of speaking) within that upset until things orient in the direction of the sounding. It works more easily during an upset than it does in a normal or stabilized condition. In a stabilized condition you have to unstabilized it somehow. Now that can be done without upset but if you don't know how to do it without upset, then events make you outgrow the stable condition. Something happens that upsets you and then you have your opportunity. Events do help you. It's simply a frame of mind if you want. You take advantage of a situation to build something, instead of remaining the same all the time, or instead of cogitating in your mind, dreaming about spirituality and so on. So from, now on, upsets are very welcome -- not always agreeable. If you don't like them you will learn to change without upsetting everything. As I said this is a possibility too. But I have to say that an upset of any kind can be a very good opportunity to move.
But remember, from the field. If you start thinking you will move according to the condition before the upset. That means you would have a tendency to go back instead of forward.
When we play the music, well most of you realize by now that something is going on, you might remember that we told you when you act, the first thing to do is to be aware from the field not from the mind of what is going on. And we ask you to join into the dynamics -- some people call it the dance -- the great play. When we play the music we call it The Service, it is a service, religiously speaking. It's also a celebration, just as religiously speaking. But it's a live action. The more you are field-aware, the better your chance of joining in with awareness of what is going on -- at least part of it.But not the joining in of your mind -- and actual joining in field-wise. This is the first joining in, and finally your personality with its consciousness is included in the field, as an aspect of the field, part of its dynamics. When we play music at the beginning and now at the end, the same. It's a celebration. You forget these brain activities: how, what and so on -- all the labels -- and just join in. Field-wise-in-the-first-place always.But in the case of actually joining in, what I wanted to convey is that it is based on field-awareness-in-the-first-place. As soon as you are field-aware, you might notice quite keenly that the action is in the field. And I have to remind you that the field goes through the body -- not just around. This is why you can realize incidentally that the body is an aspect of the field and not something separate.So let's play some music again.