CALISTHEINCS MAY/JUNE 1984
· INTEGRATED PERSONALITY – KR – RELATE EX[ERIENCE-WISE – SOUND THE MISSING ELEMENT –SOUNDING DONE BY ATMAN –FEET,HANDS,OR HEAD – WHAT YOU DO,NOT UNDERSTAND –“ME” A SYMBOL – M.M. DIFFERENT “SCOPE”, DIFFERENT “Body” – PRAGMATIC EXPERIENCE – “I” HAVE TO BE ABLE TO –NO, GIVE – HOLY POVERTY – MARTIN AND GEORGETTE – YOU + PERSONA – LEFT FOOT, NONE OF MY PERSONS – DEVELOPMENT – HIGHER AWARENESS --
Today we will continue with the training of sounding, but first I would like to make a point on the subject of the integrated personality and then answer any questions you might have. "Integrated personality" is a term that is used by Dwharl Khul in the Alice Bailey books. For him, if you can direct your life and do in your life what you intend to do, then you have an integrated personality. For him also, less than this and you are not really fit for spiritual work.
Usually this is heard from the standpoint of the persona alone, so you might not realize that it can be seen from another angle. Our definition of integration is very different -- it's the other side of the picture in which the comedian or Atman has the persona in hand to a minimum degree and can use the persona for its own purpose.
A successful person in this world consciously acts from persona level alone. In the integrated personality we speak of, the gap begins to be filled -- not image-wise, but practically. When you learn to sound, and especially when you learn to sound without processing (which is high fidelity sounding), then you begin the real integration.
Do you have questions about this sounding, about any experience you might have had, about your own practice, or anything about this integration?
Participant: By processing, do you mean self-reflexivity?
Martin: Here you have to learn something that is not easy for consciousness. The mind is on the persona level and is used by the persona self-reflexively. It doesn't know how to work differently. Now here we have a problem because persona-wise your mind is automatically going to be self-reflexive. Every time you work for yourself, you are automatically self-reflexive. So for us the keyword is gift, or more technically, we say: the Doer does.
But then you have to understand that we come from a period in which the U function was dominating, and the Doer belongs to an M function which is just beginning now. Doing from the U function is not the action of the Doer, it's a self-reflexive action. You have to come out with a new mode of functioning. You have something to do and you do it. Technically speaking, you have done it. Afterthoughts are useless because you have done what you have done. The mind believes in afterthoughts -- you learn lessons and so on -- but this is simply because you don't know the other function.
To do is a creative action. You find the Sanskrit root kr, belonging to doing, in creator. It's a creative action. And, as you do, you can only do so much. okay, you do so much and that's it. It's a very, very objective position, much more objective than anything we know otherwise. Anything we know of otherwise is usually bound to a system. The Doer is not bound to a system, he is facing the situation as of now. If you have something to do, like helping someone, and you saw that persona yesterday so you tell yourself that today you will continue with what you did yesterday ... The Doer never does this. Today is not yesterday. Self-reflexiveness is not useful in this situation, so the mind learns to work differently. If you want something more psychological, it means the mind learns to respect the precognitive stage in its fullness and does not try to grab it.
For all practical purposes, in my experience, self-reflexiveness always contains a position which starts from ego awareness. Meaning you are more centered on gaining something with your training than on creating, on giving out. Giving, it's a very simple password. It's not foolproof however. I have known people who have given a lot in their lives -- in order to be ... whatever -- the motivation was a benefit for themselves. When we speak of gift, we mean a free gift.
Martin: Does that answer your question?
Participant: Pretty much, yes, but there's one more point relating to processing: In that situation, could that possibly mean that one is in the experience, living what's going on and attending to living what's going on, staying with the experience at the moment until the situation has resolved itself.
Martin: A situation never resolves itself. This does not happen, it only appears to happen when you look at a short span of time.
Participant: I was thinking of a short span of time.
Participant: Yes you can help someone go over a hump, and this is surely very welcome ...
Participant: The process I am speaking of is what has taken place experientially within those given moments.
Martin: There are many dimensions to that kind of question. Ideally speaking, if you can relate to another person experience-wise, in the other person's own experience, and not get a feedback for yourself, this is a first step that is very important. If you start processing, you abstract from the other person's condition something for yourself. No, stay with the experience and forget about the processing. If you stay with the experience you will notice that there are qualities, shades of life that come through naturally, without even thinking. There is a kind of exchange, a symbiosis, that establishes itself, whether you speak or not. Some people have had extraordinary experiences of very close sharing without any words. But this means you are entirely centered on the other one's condition. You are here for a gift, so the other one is at stake not you. if you are concerned about your brilliant behavior, your brilliant way of handling the situation, then you are not really concerned about the other one's condition. That concern for yourself creates the self-reflexiveness.
But, let us say, you are in a situation that is perfectly genuine and you spontaneously relate to the other one's condition. Learn to stay with that, don't create theories about it, don't classify it, stay with that living life. I wish everyone would be very skilled at this kind of training. It's a first step, but it is a training that is absolutely needed. Then you will begin to realize what it means to act, without always looking for what kind of benefit you might have, even if that benefit is called "experience."
We sometimes insist on what St. Francis called "holy poverty," in which you face the situation without any reference of any kind, you are just completely poor of references. The only thing present is the situation and you face it in this way. Nothing asked. No strings attached. Nothing. Then you can face the situation, instead of facing yourself.
Further questions?
Another Participant: On the sounding with music, it's my experience that I'm forgetting something, or missing something. If I sit and play the music, not just in the body, but in all aspects that I know to be me, it always seems like I'm missing something. It's like there's an element that's not there. I don't know how to say it.
Martin: I have a proposition: Sound the missing element. I'm very serious about this, because it is very important that you begin to realize you can sound something you don't even understand.
Here we have a very real situation: the feel of sounding and also that inkling of something missing. That inkling is an awareness in itself, it knows what it is speaking about, and it is telling you that something is missing. But you cannot translate the missing point into the language of consciousness, you have to sound it as it is. In a moment we are going to play music. First you will sound it, then we will participate and you will see that it makes a difference. As we participate and as you experience the difference you sound it. Just that. In a way it's the missing part you speak of. For the consciousness it sounds impossible, simply because of old habits, but you do learn to give out, to sound directly that kind of feel of life without trying to pre-shape it mind-wise.
This kind of experience is very, very important because the functioning of consciousness is so little understood. You do not even realize that consciousness abstracts things from what you really live, and never gives the fullness of what you live. You are always shortchanged. Yet you persist in accepting what consciousness abstracts as being the fullness of your life. There is a discrepancy here that is just fantastic.
Now, if we come back to what you said about something being missing, you have the sound of consciousness which is powerful, and that tiny sound of something missing that is not powerful at all. So what are you going to do with all that noise? You are going to reduce the noise of consciousness so that you can "hear" the inkling in it's own language. The habit is for consciousness to abstract something from the inkling and act on the abstraction. No, this is not what you want, you want to respect the inkling. The inkling obviously expresses in a way that consciousness does not understand, so let it express itself. Sound it so that it comes out. In this way you learn the language, little by little -- as it comes out. But it has to come out. Don't be stuck with the inkling, stuck with the stubbornness of the mind wanting to understand it, to translate it, to abstract aspects from it, so that it can say, "Now I understand." This is not the way. Ten years later you will suddenly realize and then you will have to begin the same story all over again. You understand, you understand again, you understand again. Why not learn the language directly, then you will have the fullness of it.
One thing I can say to you on this subject, I observed it yesterday so I say it in advance to you so that you might possibly be a little bit freer. Yesterday when we played the first piece of guitar, everyone tried so hard to give out a perfection of sounding. If you try hard, the first thing you do is create a tension. How can you sound with a tension. Everything has to be limber when you sound. If you create a tension your sound is distorted. Don't try hard to sound, give that life out. It's a gift. I pick up in some minds that you try hard to satisfy Martin's requirements. Now that's the silliest thing you can do because you don't know what my real requirements are -- they are much worse.
You work for yourselves, but the sounding is a giving out. Imagine those speakers sounding for themselves. You would be horribly frustrated. The kind of stuff of which the speakers are made has a completely different understanding of sound than you do, so if the speakers were sounding for themselves it would be just plain horrible for your ears. But they do sound for you, so you find them adequate. The same applies to you, if you sound for yourself it doesn't work very well.
Many things go on in this room. You may all sound together the gift. You may sound for Christ. You may sound for "Other." You may sound for ... with no label. Just give out. Sound -- as a gift of life, quality of life. No strings attached. No desire to be perfect in sounding. There is only that gift.
The main difficulty is that most are stuck with the popular idea of self-perfection. If you have eyes to see you know where that drive to self-perfection leads. Look at the state of the world. People are blind, but you are not obliged to stay blind as other people are. Why would you want to? Look around at what is needed.
Then you learn one other point. The real sounding is not done by the persona, it's done by Atman behind. I would like to give an example. As you know, I have had some physical difficulties lately. There are among you some "good souls" who try to help me. This does not work. And here we have to make technical differences. The consciousness having the desire to help is not able to do it. But if consciousness has been sensitive to Atman's movement to help, consciousness ought not to interfere This means let the action go on without interfering personally. Daniele is a doctor and she knows that she is perfectly ineffective with me, to a degree that is astounding for a doctor. This is simply because she is aware that ordinary means don't work. We work and act differently. Yesterday, a quarter of an hour before the session, I would have been very happy to have someone else take over. It was that bad. But we take our responsibility to you a lot more seriously than you think. As some of you know, the responsibility we have weighs more than the well-being of our own persona. The only one who was able to minister to me was Georgette. And for the reference of some of you who are aware of these things, the level of action was way beyond consciousness. Way beyond. So when the time came, I entered the room, sat down, and was sufficiently well for the whole evening. This is valid for today too. With no persona action at all.
Sometimes I would like to say, "children, children" ... You hear so many words spoken and you don't really realize what is going on -- the actuality of it. You can handle your person in a much greater way than you are aware of. We show it. We do it. If we show it and we do it, it's for you to do it also.
Okay, let's go to some practice. First we will play a piece of guitar, play it in whatever way you can.
Incidentally, one very important point. I'm used to seeing all of you fixed, trying hard, you are like horses with blinders so that you are not distracted. When you do that you miss completely what is going on. Look around, follow what is going on in the room, and if you feel that something is missing, give it out. See if you can establish a balance in what is going on. You might say "I'm alone." Well, Georgette and I are not many against all of you, so why couldn't you do it too. It's simply because you reason differently. Stop the reasoning and act.
One interesting point. If you really sound, it comes out, all over the place. You might have noticed that I very often look at your feet and sometimes at your head or your hands -- three expressing organs for three different types of functions. You would be surprised at how someone can try hard, vibrating, sounding ... I see the head boiling, in the hands perhaps a little bit, in the feet nothing. One of the big difficulties we have is to convey to someone who really lives it in the head that it is only in the head. That person sincerely believes he is living it fully -- no, fully is another way. So when you do it be limber. Look around and see what's happening. You might look at the atmosphere in the room, you might look at how it comes out with different people, and so on. Be a bit lively, not centered on yourself. There is an action going on, be with the action, instead of being with yourself. It's kind of lonely to be with yourself isn't it? So learn to be with the action. Okay?
(music)
How many of you made room for Atman to play?
(Two hands are raised)
This (first participant) is wishful. The other (second participant) is half right.
With your position (first participant) there is a training in objectivity that has to be mastered: the ability to make the difference between how you would like it to work and the reality of it. It's not easy and many, many people have this problem, it's just that you are the only one who expressed it.
I remember once when I was in school in Switzerland and I wanted to go home. Early in the morning I tried to get the first train and when I came to the station I saw just the last car as it was leaving. I nearly got it, but "nearly" didn't help, the fact was that I didn't get it and I had to wait for the next one. It's amazing how few people are objective about this point. In modern times, if you nearly get your plane it means you didn't get it. "Nearly" doesn't help. If you desire Atman to work and you nearly get it to work, it means it didn't work. But when Atman works it's another story. So you can be a pretty long time in the position of the second participant, for instance, where there is a reality but the consciousness is not really aware of what it is. You feel something ... and you have to learn to respect that feeling and stay with it without trying to translate. Keep that feeling in its fullness, do not try to abstract it, until the situation clears up.
In this situation there is a little known and a bigger unknown. Sound the big unknown and forget the part that is known. Have the courage to take the step to sound that unknown. of course your mind says: "How can I sound what I don't know?" Mind is only one function and your life is a fullness. I have repeated this for a long time, one day you have to act on it.
Incidentally, this reminds me of another situation. You are much too dependent on me and too little dependent on what you do. In the new movement, the Christ Impulse becoming active opens the M field. The proposition is always what you can do, it is never what you can understand. The situation of yesterday was solved anyway, but let us say it happens again. Who is going to give what we have to give in my stead? It's a serious situation.
There are still among you people who don't work -- it's amazing. The need to practice is not understood. There is a cog in the brain that doesn't work. You do not realize that if you want to come out you have to work. We work every day, formally and informally. We give the example of steady work. We have people who know us since before 1950, so they ought to have an inkling of what training means, what the integration of the persona means.
Now we are going to play the music again, but this time we will play with you. You have the reference of how you played, how it felt around, and so on. When we play there will be a difference. Forget the sounding you just gave, and sound only what is different from the first time. There is that overall life -- subtract the experience of the first time and sound only what remains. Let's do it.
(music)
Were you frozen? Did you notice those feet that did not respond? One of most common reasons why the feet don't respond is that you try hard with your head. Now, the sounding is done throughout the persona on any level -- all the functions, including the cellular, respond simultaneously. If your head tells your feet to move, this is not the simultaneous response of the entire persona, this is one part of the persona pretending to rule over another part. The integration of the persona requires that Atman begins to handle the persona for it's own purpose. I don't know if you realize the difference between an ordinary human being and the real human being, created in the image and likeness of God. Man the tenth creative hierarchy. It is the real you, Atman, who learns to take over this new aspect called persona and use it for it's purpose. Now that's a bit hard for your mind, but what you live here is precisely what happens. If you learn to respect what you live rather than respect what you think, it will be a lot easier.
Could you spontaneously make the difference between what you played and what we did now? Could you feel the beginning of an ability to sound that which has not yet been processed by consciousness and just give it out. Can you answer? Who dares to?
Participant: I can feel something giving out, but not me giving out. Like a body moving through me, but it wasn't me.
Martin: Who is you?
Participant: I'd like to know.
Martin: It isn't the accepted image you have of yourself.
You know, I come back again and again to something I borrowed from Patanjali. I'm fond of it because it's so clear, so simply expressed, in so few words.Atman projects itself in chitta (mind substance), the mind makes an image of Atman and believes it is Atman. So the mind believes it is conscious, but it is not the mind that is conscious it is Atman.
It is so simple. If you could take it as a fact of life instead of taking it as a brilliant theory, you would realize that what you call "me" is exactly what is described, the mind making an image of Atman and believing it is it. It's an image you have. Now some progress in language has been made in psychology because they start to use the expression "ego-image." They are not aware that it is precisely an image and only an image, not the reality.
So when you say "me," I have to ask what is "me"? Is it the real you, Atman, or is it the image? For consciousness it is automatically the image. You have to learn to lean on the other one that is not known, because very obviously Atman does not have the same consciousness. It acts in a different surrounding. So you have to learn very definitely to broaden the scope. "Me" is only a symbolic proposition, it's not a fixed quantum. Many people have the idea that "me" is "me" and no one else is "me." This is the fixed quantum that an image can give you. Later on you learn to drop that fixity and accept your sense of "me" as only a proposition for lack of better words, but knowing perfectly well that you are something else. From time to time you really feel being something else. Accept it, it's true. of course you feel a discrepancy between the usual "me" and the other one, but the proposition is to allow the other one to take over to some extent. It's the beginning of a new period and as in all beginnings, situations are not perfect, so we can't ask you take over entirely, but at least a little bit. At least to the extent where you realize that the feelings you have sometimes of being completely different are perfectly real. Learn to live it as it comes and not translate it, because with it comes another consciousness. Atman is conscious differently. The usual consciousness is not fit for Atman. Atman's consciousness is a lot more precise and a lot more encompassing.
I'll give you a small example. I was aware that when I play with Georgette and I look there with her you were going to say I don't do what I ask you to do (i.e., look around). You just don't know the extent to which I can fool you. Because you need your eyes to see around, you have to turn your head. I get a tremendous amount of data from the ... How can I say that? I'm with you and there are your reactions, and according to that I intensify one way or the other. Even if I center with Georgette the reactions in the rest of the room are within the scope. If I don't use one item, the eyes for instance, there are still a full assortment of other possibilities to use for the same purpose. Or I can use none of them and still be overall conscious anyway.
Questions?
Participant: I was very much aware as soon as the music started that it was real different from how we played it the first time. So different in fact that I thought maybe in the beginning what had happened with the music had made me forget the other one. The only way I can describe the difference is to say that it's like it lacks substance. In the first one I was aware that the quality of vibration I was experiencing was much coarser, and I experienced it more clearly physically. In the second one the quality was so much finer that I am really not clearly certain I can say I was emitting it, because physically I almost couldn't feel it. Does that make sense?
Martin: Yes, but why would you question your ability to do it anyway?
Participant: Well I won't say that I did. I'm trying to explain the qualitative differences. And it was so different that I won't say that I wasn't doing it, or that I wasn't sounding that, but the consciousness was not able to grasp as clearly the physical manifestation because of the fineness of the quality.
Martin: Good point. Actually a very good point on many aspects.
One, it gives you an experience of the reality and necessity of the practice of finer, finer, finer, facing "Other." Then you face another proposition altogether which is pretty hard for most of you to grasp. You live that finer quality which has a reality in itself, as you noticed, but then you tune into your physical aspect and that is much too coarse, so you just wonder what it does with it. Here we touch a very important point. By living that finer, finer, the body changes, until you come to the point where you begin to realize that your usual perception of the physical world is fooling you. What you perceive is so only because of a disposition of the sensory perception. In reality there is a lot more to it than people know of, and when you bring that finer aspect down into the physical you hit a discrepancy. So one of the ways we use to try to explain this is to say that we live the body differently. And as you know, by experience, our body actually vibrates very differently from all of yours. This means there is a change in the body. Suddenly you might begin to realize that when we spoke of the creation of the spaceship it is a reality not known to the world. The real man is a spaceship, symbolically speaking.
Participant: There was a physical response to that fineness, but the awareness of what I'm conscious of generally is so different from that quality it almost didn't recognize any response from the body. or maybe the response was so small ... I don't know. I did experience that there was some kind of response Physically, but that it was way different from what I am used to.
Martin: This is one of the reasons why we insist on facing "Other"or Christ.
But I say Christ only for those who know something, at least intuitively, about this. Do not face Christ as an image. If Christ is an image for you then face "Other," because what you experience has a root that is very, very different from everything your mind imagines. one of the quickest ways to work this out is to sound it. Then you will see that little by little the so-called physical gets used to it and begins to give it out. But you have to get it used to it, and that means you have to live it. Sound it, in spite of the inadequacy of the physical. This is how Atman comes through little by little. It's part of what I call reeducating the persona away from that terrible habit of working only according to consciousness when obviously you experience something else all the time.
You need experiences like this to bring it home. All of consciousness is included in the experience, not just the physical. In this way you come on practical ground. It's one of the difficulties we have. In society, spirituality is an attractive concept. This being the general situation, if we have to come out in this society with a factual, pragmatic spirituality, it's kind of weird. You can see for yourself it is weird.
Questions?
Another Participant: Could you say something more about the objectivity you were talking about.
Martin: What is your motivation?
Participant: You mentioned objectivity in reference to a certain kind of wishfulness -- training in such a way that you can differentiate. I want to ask how to do that but I know that's not an accurate way to put it ...
Martin: That is already a first step.
Participant: I did want to say that if I'm honest with myself I can acknowledge a wishfulness.
Martin: The trouble is that it's difficult to be honest with yourself.
Participant: So I guess another way to ask the question is: How do you know if you are really being objective?
Martin: According to usual consciousness you just don't, but when it happens you know it.
You know you are asking for an answer for that part which is not very objective. How can you hope to train the part of consciousness which is not very objective to become - objective just by following a recipe that is tailored for the nonobjective part of consciousness -- meaning in order to be accepted d by consciousness the recipe has to have some components that are not very objective. We don't go along with this.
If you heard the previous participant, for instance, he was just telling about an actual experience. That's objective. There is no wishfulness in it. He doesn't really know, how far the physical responded -- maybe it did, maybe it did not. That's objective. If he continues he will have the experience needed to go further. He will settle some points by pragmatic experience.
The lack of objectivity comes simply from desire: you want to reach a goal for yourself. If you want to reach a goal for yourself instead of giving out, you are bound to be nonobjective on some points. It's bound to happen because you serve yourself. It comes to my memory, as an example, the Emperor Constantine started putting dogma around the teaching of Jesus and it came to the point where Jesus himself was a kind of obstacle to his dogma, so he started destroying the clues about Jesus. It's the same principle. You believe in something that serves yourself and you are no longer objective. If you want to give, you learn very quickly to see if what you do helps or doesn't help -- not in self-reflexiveness, but action-wise, which is a lot more pragmatic.
But the biggest point for everyone is that self-concern: "I have to be able to ... " No. Give. I have told you I don't know how many times that in my practice in this incarnation, from the very start, the very start, I have learned to have no time to prepare myself for what was going on. We constantly do things with you that we never did before with no training whatsoever for doing it, except, of course, the overall training. If something comes then out it comes, which is a shock for consciousness.
I don't know if I answered your question, but I hate to answer in the usual way. It is my experience that it is not very effective.
Or we could again suggest holy poverty. You face the situation without any preconceived idea of any kind.- with no hope of anything. You learn to just face every situation fresh, then, you have a chance to be more objective.
But when there is the ability to face a situation without any preconceived idea of any kind -- you just face it as it is, as of now -- you are in no position to speak of objectivity, because you just do what has to be done. There is no struggle between subjectivity and objectivity -- you are past the stage where you need objectivity. We only use the term to draw your attention to the fact that things are a lot more pragmatic than most of you realize.
Then there is that other point that has come up in science, where they wonder if the subjective nature is not more objective than-the so-called objective nature. They are also beginning to wonder if it may be that the subjective aspect is the objective aspect and the objective aspect the subjective. In some instances it is perfectly true. So much for objectivity.
Further questions ?
Participant: Martin, when you were speaking of being aware of the group, does that ever have an effect in your persona?
Martin: If I am aware of it, I live it. Can you elaborate on what you would like to know?
Participant: I was just wondering if there is any physical change in your body.
Martin: It depends on what you call "physical change." Let us say the weight and limitation of the group is awfully heavy and we have to carry that weight. Most of you are happy-go-lucky about your training, but what you don't know is what it costs us.
Another thing you are not aware of is that we do not deal with the persona per se, not anymore. But if I need some information about the reaction between, let us say, Atman and the persona, how something is received, I can do it at anytime, anywhere -- if I am anywhere in the world or you are anywhere in the world. Don't be confused, it's not just when I see you. I say this in addition to what I said before about when I look at Georgette.
Incidentally, this is not what I look at. I remember some I one saying one day that Georgette is emitting and Martin is receiving and giving out. What you don't realize is that we do exactly the same work, from exactly the same point, except that she takes one position and I take another one. Mine you can hear, more or less, her's you can't. A few years back ...I made experiences in groups where I tried to show you that when you think you reach her you don't. It can be shown, but we are past that stage. These are simply intricacies of the spiritual work that allow something to be done. We come back on that. If you think I relate to Georgette persona to persona -- I don't, not at all. It's the same with Georgette. We are just wondering how long it will take you to do the same. When we deal with you with the music, for us you are Atman and not the persona. You take a long time realizing it, and that time is heavy. Do you really care? The giving action is usually not that strong.
Now we will play another type of music, and, as you,will notice, with another type of music there are other possibilities, other ways to come out. But again, please be limber.
Look around, feel around. Check yourself. Are you giving or are you trying to do something? Are you tense or are you relaxed? Are you with what is going on in this room, or are you so preoccupied with yourself that you have forgotten? It is for you to check these things.
(music)
You can notice, looking at the feet, that it's better than the first time. I still notice that some of you try to figure out with your head what your feet have to do. What I want you to realize is that it's the entire persona at the same time, it's not one plus another. It's all of it. So do not process head first, then come down to the hands, and finally to the feet. No, the whole thing explodes simultaneously. Does that begin to be clear? You have to learn to be cautious with consciousness, it's not the only instrument. You need to realize that there is a lot more to the persona, and, also, that you are not the persona. In the Greek symbol, the persona is the mask the comedian uses, so the whole unit is comedian plus mask -- you plus persona.
Now I'm going to show you something that pertains to the integrated personality. I am going to play with you my left foot, so "I," whatever that is, will be perfectly free. Atman is going to express through the foot. Those who are sensitive will notice that the action will actually come from the left foot. The center of gravity will be in my foot, not in my head, the head is going to look around. You are free to observe. It will have an effect. I have told you may times that each part of the body has an intelligence of its own, and it can sound.
Okay, let's go a second time.
(music)
Do you notice that all the feet respond, even those that didn't before -- so there must be an affinity. Now look at my feet. My right foot is nearly dead compared to the left one. For me it's plain.
Do you notice the effect? It's not as powerful as when the whole persona is used, but it has a distinct note of it's own. This means you can express something with the foot, sufficiently powerfully to contradict the French saying: "dumb as your feet." But seriously, do you realize that we are pretty pragmatic about what we do? When we speak of integration, we know what we speak of.
Questions?
Participant: My experience was that it wasn't only isolated to one foot, both feet were involved, and the hands and the head as well.
Martin: The action was not intended for feet alone, it's simply that the feet spontaneously responded better. But the action was overall in the whole room, so it's normal that you feel it all around.
Okay, now we are going to play it again. This time I will play it with practically none of my persona. You think you can play only through the persona, but it's not true. Sound whatever is here.
(music)
Do you notice that the feeling is very different? In this kind of surrounding you don't know exactly what you are anymore. You are not sure about your ego-image after all. Somehow you feel something else. It might not be clear for your mind, but it's still clear for you.
Look at the atmosphere. Look at your positions.
Comments? Questions?
You look a bit stunned.
Participant: I would say the stunnedness I feel is regarding trying to see ... what has this to do with the integration of the persona? How is this useful? When do we use this? Do we work with this and work through the persona?
Martin: The action itself is completely different. In the true action there is no question asked. My reason to ask if there are questions is to see where your consciousness stands, that's all.
When we deal with you this way, the lowest level is Atman, there is no consideration at all for the person as you usually know it. It might touch the person, yes, but from the level of Atman. Therefore the strangeness you felt. The action is different from what was expected. obviously, it is. When you ask the usual questions of "how ?" "when ?" "where ?" and so on, these are questions from the usual consciousness. Atman works differently. When Atman is working we cannot answer along these lines, because it's not the way of Atman, it's the way of the persona. Integrating the persona can be done along the the line of the persona, yes, with sufficient discipline. The integration I speak of is an entirely different subject. It's an action from Atman -- it actually is. So the person cannot say: "I integrate myself into Atman's world." It cannot. Atman's consciousness is fully different. Very different. Or simply: different.
Is it useful? Obviously, provided you give it out, otherwise it is not. But it's still a fact of life. If you don't make it useful in this incarnation you will do it in another one. Someday you will do it. It's part of what is called man's evolution.
Are you satisfied? Otherwise, continue to ask.
Incidentally, this is for all of you, when you are not happy with the way I answer you, ask again.
Another Participant: The residue that stays from this experience, and it seems to be here in the room, seems so definite, why is it such a chore to get to this experience? Is it the resistance in the persona that keeps us from coming out with this kind of quality, that keeps us from coming directly to it?
Martin: 'You might remember me defining "development" as taking the envelops away. As you notice it's spontaneously here. And when you live it you just wonder why it's not always here. It's simply because of the way consciousness works. This is why I always speak of retraining awareness. It's not something you reach, it's already here. This is the frustrating part of it, because your experience is that it is already here.
Participant: It seems so solid.
Martin: And definite, as you said. I'm glad you felt it. So you have a clue that higher awareness is more precise, not less precise. And it is quite solid, actually more solid than the usual awareness. You know, you can see, on the public level, in politics, for instance, how you can sway opinions one way and another. You cannot do that on this level.
Participant: I guess it's like a level of absolute, but it's not even absolute. It's even finer than an absolute.
Martin: You are perfectly right.
It's interesting, when you go into this kind of experiencing this actually happens all the time. To say it is absolute is possibly the best way you can express, but you're still not satisfied, because when you sound "absolute" in the average mind, you realize that it's not that. So either you have to redefine the word for your own purpose, or find another one, and maybe you just don't.
Participant: There's a smoothness to it, whereas I think of absolute as being harsh, or being in a different realm.
Martin: Because there are more dimensions to it than the mind knows. on the other hand, you might experience that kind of directiveness, when your mind is not really ready, then it's harder than steel, you cannot bend it. The emotion side of man is used to bending everything and suddenly you touch something you cannot bend. So some people experience a kind of harshness, but, as you say, it's not really harsh.
Participant: No, there's a refreshingness to it and a keen familiarity -- it's like coming home.
Martin: It is. It really is.
Now you have to adjust your consciousness to that -- not "that" as an item, but as field of reality. The consciousness has to learn to respect it. Otherwise you keep only the image and lose the life.
Participant: ... and the ability to recreate it, whatever that is
Martin: You don't recreate - you unveil it. It's already here. You have experienced it as here, why would it go?
You know there is an absolute discipline: The consciousness has to learn to respect that experience as it is, with the kind of awareness involved in the experience, that kind of awareness that makes everything precise yet there is no way of expressing it. This you have to learn to respect as it is and little by little the consciousness gets used to it. Then, little by little, you can use that consciousness as you do any consciousness.
Okay, we'll play a last piece of music.
(music)