Excerpts from Gayl Welch's study of "ACTING FROM FIELD"
The following is a compilation from an interview with Martin Muller, which is part of the research data for a Ph.D. Dissertation entitled " A Phenomenological Study of the Transpersonal Experience of "Acting From Field": Three Case Studies". Gayl's dissertation which was completed in 1983. The whole study has been added to the site under a separate entry.
From Gayl:
His (Martin's) statements are in response to the following query:
There are three common ways to connect with the transpersonal. I am looking for others. The three common ways are:
(a) To think about, believe in; philosophize about that which is beyond.
(b) To look at, observe, relate as an 'other'. This is common in mystical experiences and meditation. There is a striving to become more united with that which is beyond.
(c) To be in, to be absorbed by, to go along with, to be carried in without a sense of determining the direction of the action. To have no separation from that which is beyond. It may no longer feel as beyond. A 'wu wei"; a doing‑not doing. It is a doing because of participation and a not‑doing in the sense of in some way directing or creating the action.
Do you connect in any ways different from these? Do you use this in any way to affect your personality? Do you use it in any way in your work with others?
Gayl Welch
_________________ ________________ ______________
WHOLENESS
The approach to wholeness is usually linear. So people speak of a lower self and a higher self(the one behind). We 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. That means everything including the function of the personality will be experienced and expressed differently‑‑according to the greater whole.
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. 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 1 say "consciousness", it is confusing. So I say awareness. The awareness that deals with the whole is not the sequential awareness of the mind. 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. 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.
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. That is to say simply, that he is a creator. The mask is only as mask. Anybody can use that mask. In a troop 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. 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 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 "I", "ego", the being, whatever it is. In old images, the being radiates a field; or currently, the field makes the being appear. 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(ie., 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 B.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, beleives 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 psychosomatics* 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 that field of activitv that covers, the dynammics that relate psche(soul) within 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. 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. 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 how 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. But actually, for us, technically speaking, the one behind the mask, as it is known nowadays, is still part of the persona.
MODES OF LIVING IN WHICH THE SENSE OF "I" IS NOT NEEDED
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. 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's 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. When 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.", an "I" is still implied. Ninety‑nine and ninety‑nine one‑hundreths 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
I 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, ie., 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. 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. That means we could say that it is totally non‑conscious (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 reducable to those. 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 If you are channeling, you cannot say, " I am That", because the action goes through. In our perspective, channeling is dangerous. In our expereince, channeling has generated catastrophies. Typical channeling is what a medium does when h/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.
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 one behind the mask is the supraconsciousness. 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 s/he becomes just emersed in the activity. That means s/he is driven by instinct, or whatever you what 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".
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. There is actually only one instrumentation that is seen as two because the usual senses are geared only for the lower, more concrete aspect. 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. It is part of the sensory function which has been refined to some 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. 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 AS 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. Livance is a new word to which you can give a content somewhat different from the words already known. 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. 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. 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 done according to that system (or any system). So I am very embarassed, 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. 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. 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. 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. It does not work that way. The field action does not result from the mask effort. It's a purposeful action not a purposeful effort. 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.
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.
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. 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. 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 Indoeuropean 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 acknowleged 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. 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. 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 considerations. We are situation oriented, or action oriented on that situation. 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. You are situation centered and this completely changes the whole psychological frame.
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. 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. 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. So actually three propositions occur: 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, ie: awareness of the field. It will become greater and greater. Now 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 mask alone. If one adjusts only to what shows on the apparent level, that means the physical symptoms, posture, expression, chemistry, and , ans 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 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. What I do is help make the connection between that and their linear consciousness. 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. 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. 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. 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 s/he has as s/he sets the needle in , s/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 not 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. In 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. 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 awarenesses are present, 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 change and after a while, 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.
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 have to use a different one. So when I apply a procedure, I know right at the moment the range in which it will work. It's not only applicable to the body; it can be psychological.
STRUCTURING, IN THE SUPRACONSCIOUS
There is also another application. When you live a certain quality of life, you see that quality of life in the field around and through the other person. You see the response. If there is no response, it is too early. The person is not ready for it. If there is a response, what we observe is that there is a certain structuring that is being done beyond consciousness (supraconscious).
Structuring begins in something much more refined than the brain, and this something else in turn, tends to trigger refined responses in the existing structure. That structure could be the brain. If we work that way, the person has a tendency not to be aware because it's supraconscious, then become aware in a different way, a very refined way that is different from what is usually known. This affects the known consciousness which becomes little by little more limber and able to adjust. The movement starts from the less obvious to the most obvious, not from the most obvious.
ADJUSTING HIS OWN MASK
Let's say my tool doesn't make sense of a certain quality of life. I live that quality until the tool adjusts and I have the sensory perception of that life. Let's take a typical example. For the Hindu Yogi, Patanjali, you have chitta: mind substance. The mind is not the brain; it is the substance of which thoughts and images are made. Now in the scientific community, this does not exist. Some people might have a conceptual idea that thoughts 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. 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. 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. 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. The use of both hemispheres would be from what is syncronizing, overarching the two hemispheres. I am not speaking of the Corpus Collosum, the neurological bridge between hemispheres. For me the physical aspects are simply reflections of other aspects. As seen before, the body and 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 respond. 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.
I