Symbol 12

This is symbols 12, which means that we've come full cycle almost, and our full circle is an indication to us to do something which is not logical, and that is to make a pivot. The logical thing in an integral is to complete the integral and to come full circle. And this is a fundamental error that's inculcated by non savvy education. No one in a wisdom tradition ever comes full circle. Instead, before closing the circle at the last possible moment, we turn. We turn like a dancer pivots. And the Greek word for that turning was metanoia, noia meaning noetic, meaning mind and meta meaning above mind, so that a metanoia and the first use of it was in the Pythagoreans. But the first written use is in Plato. A metanoia is a point of turning in the mind, where the mind stops, its integral turns, and begins a completely different mode, a mode of differentiation rather than integration. And this was extremely difficult to teach. When the primordial men and women simply did their metanoia in their visionary questing. No one told them that what they were doing was very difficult. They simply suffered the privation as a part of the process of doing this. But in classical Greece was the first time that there was a conscientious informing of people who had not earned the right for a metanoia and got it in a civilized, urban, preemptive way. What would you get if you had this metanoia, you had something which the Greek word translates as virtue. You had virtue in a book called therapy. Robert Cushman about 40 years ago. I remember Jacob Needleman using this as a text in a Pythagoras Plato seminar at San Francisco State about 1965. Cushman writes in here. In the dialogue, the meno. Similarly, the position is reached that virtue is indeed knowledge. Therefore, it ought to be teachable. The plain fact seems to be, however, that there are neither teachers nor learners of virtue. The impasse suggests the presence of some concealed inconsequence or ambiguity of thought. Upon this, the discussion flounders as upon a hidden shoal. All of the teachers of virtue. The Greek term is arete. All the teachers of virtue. In the classical Greek time they were called ensemble sophists, teachers of wisdom, those who know what you should know and are willing to teach you for a price. Their knowledge, and as long as you continue to pay, and as long as you continue to Honor them. If they have fame and money, they will teach you wisdom. But the Pythagorean Socrates Plato lineage was wise enough in actual wisdom to see that this in fact does not ever happen. It's a mystery, but it's a mystery which is resolved by the understanding of some relationship to celestial fields of possible the realm of the divine. In the earliest experience. Who knows how ancient men and women came to understand that by looking at the stars in the night sky, that you could determine that there were patterns, patterns of stars, as in constellations, but also that there were rare celestial events like meteor showers. And these events, like meteor showers, locate themselves in a certain part of the sky, a certain part of a constellation. And down through the millennia, the word that has come to locate the source of a meteor shower is called the radiant. The radiant. If you were looking a couple of nights ago for the Geminid meteor shower, the radiant of that is always in the constellation Gemini and any kind of A celestial event like that occurs because the shower of meteors. If you could keep track of all of them, they would make a kind of a buckshot pattern that had a single focus. There was nothing at the focus, but there was a focus and that would be the radiant. The non-point focus from which all of the events constellate as a cloud, as a patterned cloud. And that radiant was considered to be a divine message to us about how the pivot in the mind produces differential vision from what before was an integral mentality that the shift from integration to differentiation Happens on a pivot that has something to do with the Q of radiance in celestial events, and that that radiant is not determinable by any other activity than initially allowing it to be. So that when it came time for the maturation of our species, to understand that there was such a thing as psychology, as the study of the psyche, the study of the mind, the very first person to write a textbook on psychology, William James, understood that there are events in our consciousness that are only Experienceable. After we allow the radiant to emerge because of a cloud, a meteor shower of activity. And it was the origin of the term brainstorming. And James introduced the concept in 1865. In a review, the North American Review, and a review of T.H. Huxley's book about Darwin, Darwinism about evolution, and T.H. Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, made the point that now we will have the facts and the logical technique by which to trace how we got to be where we are. And James and an anonymous review pointed out that creative brainstorming was a necessary adjunct to the discernment of the real. And when James wrote the world's first textbook on psychology, it's still in print 120 years later. Two big fat volumes. It made the study of psychology not so much a European discipline, but an American discipline for a while. So that when they held when the first president of the American Psychological Association held a world meeting, it was at Harvard University, where William James taught in 1909, and people like Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Sandor Ferenczi came to the United States for the meeting for the world class initial meeting. And if you look at let's take Jung for a second because we're going to talk about it. You'll never find a passage in Jung disparaging William James. He has the highest respect for him. And to not understand that there is as much William James in Jung as Freud is to not know Jung. Now, it's a curious thing about William James. Not only was he the author of the world's first textbook on psychology, but he was also a what they used to call a corresponding member of the Psychical Research Society in London. And James was very much the big wheel in that society. So that at the end of his life The last couple of books that were published posthumously of William James bore the titles Essays in Radical Empiricism and Essays in a Pluralistic Universe. When James died in 1910, he was right on the verge of showing the quality of discoveries that came out the very next year, in 1911, and the qualities of discoveries that came out in 1911. In a couple of years resulted in Niels Bohr understanding about the seed idea that became quantum mechanics. So we're talking about an era where the top sensitive intelligences trained in wisdom in the world were maturing at the same time towards understanding something which ancient wisdom indeed understood and always passed on, but passed on in an esoteric way, never passed it on in an exoteric way, never passed it on to the people, only to those who, after special training deserved to hear. And in terms of the old Pythagorean categorisation, only those who deserve to hear because they could keep their mouths shut for a long enough time to let it sink in the akousmatikoi those who have the right to hear, and that after it sank in. It wasn't that you were convinced because of what you had been told, but because it sank in in such a way that you performed the metanoia within yourself, and you could see for yourself and the mathematicae those who could for themselves see but see in a transformed, conscious, visionary way, so that that Pythagorean community that sheltered the metanoia not of a single individual like a yogic tradition would be, but a whole community of people who were having their metanoia, as in like a meteor shower, all within some finite period of time, within, say, five, ten years, a generation at the most, Where there would be maybe 40, 50, 60 examples of this. And that kind of mystical community understood that this was a new form. It was an evolution of our species, and the evolution was not to grow bigger horns so that you could gore bigger animals, but that the human person had a relational community based on wisdom and not on authority on an integral basis. It wasn't because someone was the chief, it was because the community saw together. And because one they saw together. We talked about this last week. They saw in something called unanimous equanimity. One form of that tradition, some 1300 years after Plotinus, was the Quakers, the friends who sit together and are silent until someone is moved to speak and do not make any decisions until there's unanimity, and there are many other. There are hundreds and hundreds of human communities throughout the millennia, since 2500 years ago. Who used variants of this? The Gandhians were concerned with having unanimity before any kind of satyagraha campaign was begun, that if we don't all see this together, then we have no spiritual pivot upon which to base our action of Transform, because we're doing this action to transform a population of people who do not know how to see yet. And so we're not punishing them or looking for a victory, but we are trying to create the circumstances under which they will transform, or enough of them to transform, to see that what we're doing is real and that the decision is not based on authority, but based on a decision of reality. This is a completely different social quality. Yeats, in his writing emphasized being Irish, emphasized an Irish writer of about 250 years before he was born, an Irish writer named Jonathan Swift, who you've probably heard of. He wrote a book called Gulliver's Travels. He also wrote in 1704, when Isaac Newton's Principia mathematica of about 20 years before was making such a huge impress on poetry that English poetry by 1704 was getting to have two different contending factions, and Swift wrote a book called The Battle of the books, where he said, one of these factions are like spiders and the others are like bees. The spiders spin webs out of their own bowels, whereas the bees go around to flower, to flower in nature, collecting pollen, and that there are poets who collect pollen and make honey, and there are poets who make webs to catch you in. And Yeats said, this is the way in which a poetic is bastardized. On one hand. To inculcate a taste for authority and empire in a population. And on the other hand, creates a dimension of freedom which is not limited to. Decision making, but complements decision making with understanding that we need. Creative brainstorming also to create a gradient, because that gradient is a differential form and not an integral form. And so our education by symbols 12 is getting set. We would complete this entire path integral if this lecture were just more of the same. And that could be done. I've done this long enough. If you want to have notes on that, I can deliver that. It would be untrue. Whereas the wise thing is to prepare you for next week when we pivot, when we perform a communal metanoia, and even if you don't do it then or get it, then you're far enough along that at some point you will find that you're beginning to see and you will prove it to yourself by the best differential form. You will begin to practice it yourself in your own lives, and the whole purpose of an education is for you to be at home in your own lives. Not to be masters of rote information that has been categorized and pigeonholed and then delivered with authority. So there is a completely different thing. And the title of today's lecture is Zero Pivot Vision Orders, because that metanoia, like a fertile seed grows, can be nourished and its growth yields not just an interesting plant, but a whole realm of life, so that there is, to use a metaphor that was used in the late 19th century, at the time when Yeats was doing his writing. There's all the difference in the world between a mechanistic outlook on man and a biological, living, organic outlook on man. This quality. Of letting the radiant occur is a part of the way in which conscious wisdom complements the integral learning, and it takes its form initially as vision. What's interesting about vision is that it immediately does not complement symbols, but it's most immediate. Complementation is in myth. It's only after sophistication of using the pear myth and vision for a while, that one gets to be a mathematicae and sees the hidden inside structure of the relationship in close. And it's like the nuclear physics, but one doesn't see the nucleus right away. The first thing that one sees are the electronic properties of the outer shells of the energies. And this is all in keeping. It's completely natural. So to try to teach something like this from a symbolic ideational basis is rather naive and shows no experience whatsoever with reality. It only shows that you must learn from people who themselves didn't know. And this kind of ongoing mechanical ignorance has put the entire human race into a box canyon, from which it cannot extricate itself. And so, naturally, we will do what nature has always done. If we can't walk out of it, then we will learn to grow wings and we will fly out. There's no problem with that at all. We can become winged in the blink of an eye. Now, this quality of vision and myth in someone like Yeats. He saw that ancient poetry was full of a quality of myth. His great teacher in this was reading Homer. And for Yeats, the way that Homer used a mythic field to characterize the general integral. And yet within it, he peppered images that were completely natural, like individual flowers visited by a bee. And that that bee visiting these individual images was collecting from each one a little bit that would go to make the honey in that mythic comb. And so Yeats had this beautiful confidence that this was the ancient technique. And when it was put into a wisdom form, the wisdom form that Yeats became acquainted with presenting, it was not Pythagoras, but was from the Indian tradition, from the Upanishads. And Yeats, with the help of Swami Purohit, made a translation of the ten Principal Upanishads for himself. He also later did a translation of the Bhagavad Gita. But it's the Upanishads that are important for him, so that Yeats learned the ancient India way of how One uses a zero pivot presencing of vision to pair and evoke from ancient mythic patterns an approach which condenses in two different ways at once into the symbol. The mythic comes into the symbolic through the natural integral, through the penetration of the mind, by the experience that language characterizes, and indexes by images that images come into the mind. Mythic images come into the mind by language, by mythic language, which is always oral. Mythic language is always that someone tells you that has a morality to it. And so in that ancient tradition, poetry is meant to be read out loud. Drama is made to be performed that when you have a play or you have a poem, it's to be in this crucial moment, lifted off the page. For instance, one of the great figures in English poetry who did that was Chaucer. And one of the few portraits of Chaucer that we have is Chaucer standing in all his beautiful finery at a place in France, and he is declaiming his own poetry to an audience of men and women. It's amazing to see 600 years ago that the audience is pretty evenly divided between men and women. He's lifting the language off the page because he's in that mythic tradition that this is how symbols are approached naturally. Robert Duncan wants, in an essay on Dante, said Dante is one of the world's greatest poets because he remembered to keep his image as natural, even though he had a mind full of medieval cosmologies and was sophisticated enough that he could keep it on four different levels at the same time. He never lost sight that images must be natural to mythically have an effect so that they nourish the interiorization, so that symbols on an integral level are nourished by life experience. Index by mythic Language, but that there is another way in which symbols are approached. And one has to be careful, because the approach from this other way. Can be misunderstood so that what is happening is a regression, whereas. The conscious way is not through a regression, but through a recursion. Through memory that a remembered written language can approach symbols and carry with it the zero pivot, indexing orders of consciousness so that one can be conscious of that. What you are looking at is a structure that is part pictorial and part phonetic, that part of that kind of great poetry is that it has a visionary written, symbolic language and an oral, mythic spoken language, and that the two come together and when they come together in that way, you have a new kind of focus, a new kind of language that is a braiding of two different modes, the differential conscious mode and the mythic symbolic integral mode, and that they're brought together in such a way that this new kind of language is called sacred. It's a sacred language, so that when you come to understand, for instance, Egyptian hieroglyphics, this woman, Stephanie Rossini, has done a good job. I think for about $10 you can buy this little book, Egyptian Hieroglyphics How to Read and Write them. And it's interesting because you can look at a lot of scholarly work on hieroglyphics and never find somebody who just simply tells you what you need to know without having to be a phony German to find out. Yeah. Principles of Egyptian writing. The hieroglyphic system is partly phonetic, representing sounds and partly pictorial determinatives specifying the range of meaning. Determinatives are especially important because of the great number of homonyms in the language. Or some language like Chinese, unless the inflection is exactly right. If you don't know, the homonyms become legion. In Egyptian, the same way some hieroglyphs have a sound or phonetic value, and they're called phonograms. There are usually two or more of these in a given word, and they are placed first when writing the word. Other hieroglyphs have a pictorial, symbolic, or figurative value representing an aspect of reality. These are the ideograms and determinatives. Determinatives are written at the end of words, following the phonetic signs, and supply a range of a specific range of meaning, so that the phonetic quality of a hieroglyph is like the prow of a ship, and the symbolic pictorial aspect is like the rudder, so that when you have the prow and the rudder, you can use a hieroglyphic language to combine the mythic and the visionary together in a sacred, symbolic language. And hieroglyphic Egyptian hieroglyphics are the first language in the world to ever effectively do this in a complete vocabulary, with syntax and grammar that allowed for the teaching of high wisdom in this way. One of the first Greek graduates of this school was Pythagoras. He studied for 22 years in Egypt. How to do this? All of that Learning was lost in the fourth century A.D., and it wasn't until a man named, amazingly named Napoleon, deciding that he wanted to conquer Egypt as a part of his plan of legitimate world empire, not only went to Egypt with his troops, but went with a whole shipload of savants, one of which named Champollion, and he was the one that began the whole study of Egyptian hieroglyphics in the modern world. And that was at the beginning of the 19th century. And at the end of the 19th century, the beginning of the 20th century, a man in London named E.a.wallace Budge wrote the first vocabulary, a Hieroglyphic Vocabulary of the Theban Recension of the book of the dead, published in London, 1911. Oh my goodness! Oh my goodness! He published a two volume Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary in 1920, and he published a book on Egyptian language, Easy Lessons in Egyptian Hieroglyphics, with Sign List, 1922. So that it was possible for people speaking English in the London-dublin era by 1922, to really understand what goes into a mythic, visionary language. A hieroglyphic quality in 1922 is when James Joyce published Ulysses. But Yeats is the figure who's interesting to us at the moment because Yeats is very profound. Special case. In 1921, he published a little volume of poetry. Uh, it was called Michael Robartes and the dancer, and seven years later he published a volume called The Tower, and from 1921 to 1928. Yeats maturity shows a skyrocketing quality of marshaling hieroglyphic, sacred language English on a scale that's almost unapproachable by anyone else. In 1921, the lead off poem was Michael Robartes and the dancer, and it's a poem that's a dialogue between a he and a she, and the he starts out opinion is not worth a rush. In this altarpiece, the knight who grips his long spear so as to push that dragon through the fading light, loved the lady, and it's plain. The half dead dragon was her. Thought that every morning rose again and dug its claws and shrieked and fought. Could the impossible come to pass? She would have time to turn her eyes. Her lover thought upon the glass. And on the instant would grow wise, she replies. You mean they argued? He put it so. But bear in mind your lover's wage is what you're looking. Glass can show, and that he will turn green with rage at all that is not pictured there. She may I not put myself through college. So you get that. By 1921, Yeats was getting into a very interesting situation. But by 1928 we find a completely different man. The lead poem In The Tower, seven years later, is his most famous poem. It's called Sailing to Byzantium. Listen to the difference. That is no country for old men, the young in one another's arms, birds in the trees. Those dying generations at their song. The salmon falls. The mackerel. Crowded seas. Fish, flesh or fowl. Commend all summer long. Whatever is begotten, born and dies. Caught in that sensual music. All neglect. Monuments of unageing intellect. An aged man is but a paltry thing. A tattered coat upon a stick. Unless. Soul clap its hands and sing. And louder sing. For every tatter in its mortal dress. Nor is there singing school. But studying Monuments of its own magnificence, and therefore I have sailed the seas and come to the holy city of Byzantium. So he has come. He has come at last to a fount of a sacral quality of ancientness. And it is here that he wishes to deliver something. And all the time that he was making the metanoia from Michael Robartes and the dancer to sailing and Byzantium in the tower, there is a quality of Yeats coming from the mythic realm. The Michael Robartes realm. And from the tower, the archetypal symbol realm. The tower is one of the Major Arcana cards of the tarot deck, and he was coming closer, with the two paired together to a new quality of realization in himself. And the trigger for all of this was not his own massive genius, but the fact that he had married a woman who initially he didn't love deep enough, and she, to get his attention, started faking that she could do automatic writing. Her name was Georgie and Georgie in 1917, discovered in her deceptive technique of faking it that she really did do it, and she was so shocked at this that she got completely involved and realized that there's something weird going on that her deception to interest her man and her really interested him in how all of this really happens. And Yeats spent all of his time from then on making the plan out of which we shouldn't even call it a plan. It was the meteor shower of creative brainstorming which located the radiant for him, out of which all of his great poetry and work came for the rest of his life. Let's take a break and we'll come back. Yeats wife began her deception. Her automatic writing on the 5th of November, 1917. And it went all the way to March 29th, 1920. Jung delivered a series of things called Seminars on Dream Analysis. He began on November the 5th, the same date, 1930, and ran to March 21st, 1934, 5th of November to 29th of March, 5th of November to the 21st of March. It's very curious the parallels that happen and when you run across parallels like this on this level, you can almost count on the fact that they're resonances. They are parallels because they are resonances, not from a common ground, but because they are resonances from the same constellation of radiant. And if you try to use your mind in an ideational way to find where it is the point of shared source, you will turn up nothing, because there is not a single point of shared source. The resonance is of a relational gestalt and not of a thing. So that there is always an invisible source to site, but it becomes seeable in vision. But the difficulty is being able to allow that visionary Ousness of the far flung relational gestalts to recursion back into a mind that is able to understand it in terms of an idea. And this is where the difficulty is. How do you bring a great vision back into the mind? And it is a compliment to the classic problem of how do you bring mythic images into a higher integral, into an idea, and that those two processes are, in fact resonances of each other, and that when taken as a set, it's much easier to master. And that if you take either by itself, it's misleading, because the structure of the mind takes the one process and leaves it in the abstract so that you get Logical relationalities that are bereft of juice, and the other. You get the pounding rhythm of the drums that make a lot of emotional sense, but you don't have any abstract quality of structure, so you need both together as a set. This is why, in the classic way, at the time of Pythagoras. But in China, Lao Tzu called his book Tao Te Ching. You have to take the Tao and the te together as a set. And then they are not only Complementarities, but there I have to use this term. They're breakable, but they're breakable. Not in the sense of an integral where you braid them together. They're breakable, like the double helix of the DNA. They're breakable in the sense that they are cognate with each other all the time, but the cognate ness is not on 1 to 1 correspondence, it's on a complementarity of zeros and ones, so that when you do that, you get an index which has ordinal powers, different orders that will register, hence zero pivot vision orders. Consciousness comes in exponential powers and the exponential has no limit. We are truly free. We are free on such a grand, colossal scale that it is like the very air out of which the breathing of life transpires. When we look at something like a. Vision. He used his wife. And in the dream analysis, uh, Jung used, uh, the dreams of a of a woman. Um, Christiana Morgan. There was a biography of her recently. One of the mysterious women in Jungian psychotherapy. The last dream in this dream analysis seminar. Um, which the lecture was given on the 25th of June, 1930. The man dreams that he's an ape man who's trying to attack this woman, and she breaks through this window. And as she does and goes outside, he's immediately changed from an ape man to a hypercritical male saying, what's all this fuss about? Jung. From the transcript. Last week we were talking about the attack of the ape man upon the anima, and how she succeeded in getting out of the window and into the world. And when she shouted for help, people instantly came, and the ape man desisted. Then something quite typical happened, which happened already in the Bible. Right at the beginning. It seems to be a basic trouble of mankind. Or perhaps one would say, of men. What did Adam say when things became awkward? And the respondent is Mrs. Baines. Mrs. Baines, whose husband, H.G. Baines, translated the I Ching. He said that Eve tempted him. Yes, says Jung, there it is. The woman did it. So the ape man said to her. Why the devil did you break the window? She had to fight for her life, and he complained that she had broken the window. This is characteristic of the more or less civilized ape man. First he raises hell, and then he complains that he has to dust his coat off. That shows the nature of the ape man. He is terribly Impulsive. He tries to violate her, and when it doesn't work, he says, oh, excuse me, I just wanted to ask you what time it is. He is a coward. As long as he succeeds, it's all right. But when he sees that he has failed, he instantly swings round and complains that she has disturbed the noble household by breaking those windows. This is a very odd situation. By 1930, of course, you can do associative things and say, well, Tarzan the ape man was going full bore by that time, but it isn't that there's something primordial in here. And the fact that he goes back to the origins of the Old Testament goes back to the origin of the Genesis myth, goes back to Adam and Eve is very interesting because the consciousness of that entire integral, that entire path integral, the entirety of what is called, glibly, the Old Testament. It's actually a wisdom cycle of Jewish wisdom. The last document in that particular cycle, the last element in that path integral starting from Adam and Eve in Genesis. The last integral item is the Book of Daniel. The Book of Daniel performs an ancient wisdom zero pivot vision order. What is the Book of Daniel about? It's about dream analysis. Nebuchadnezzar has all of his court wise men come and none of them can interpret his dream, because there's a very peculiar stipulation. He tells no one his dream. Nebuchadnezzar is the ape man. He bullies everyone. He makes this huge Neo-Babylonian Empire, which is going bad, and then he draws in the wise men. He says, there's something going on here. You have to interpret my dream. And they say, well, tell us what the dream is. He says, no, if you're really wise men, you'll know what the dream is. So no one, of course, can interpret it. They don't know what it is. But the proverbial figure of Daniel knows precisely what it is. Because this kind of man only has one kind of dream that bothers him. Why his power doesn't work. That's the only thing that bothers him. And so the answer to that is to educate him by making a context where he understands that he never had that power exclusively, and that maybe it's working for reasons other than just that you can't cut it anymore and puts his mind at rest. And so it gets elevated. Daniel traditionally became the the, the wise man of the whole Neo-Babylonian Empire. But the Book of Daniel is not just about dream analysis. It's about how dream analysis of someone who is so typical that you know exactly what's bothering them. But it's about how you take dream analysis from an individual and you step it up because there's such a thing as a deeper dream analysis. There's a dream analysis of human types. It isn't just the individual who dreams, but it's a population of human beings in various types who dream very similar dreams all the time that there are archetypal characteristic dreams of types of people, and that you have to learn how to raise the dream analysis from this person as an individual to this type, and from that type to an archetype of all dreams will fall into this kind of a meteor shower constellation. All dreams are of a certain archetypal field. And yet that's not the end, because there's something beyond that. And what's beyond that is not a dream any longer, that it's so wide and so profound that instead of being a dream, it is a vision. Because the dreams are all in the mythic horizon. They're all in the mythic flow. All dreams are mythic. They're all images of experience and feelings Things and things happening in that kind of a flow, and they integrate in the mind the way that language interiorize us to the symbol. But the vision is different. It doesn't interiorize to the symbol. The symbol recursively gets inhabited by a transcendent visionary consciousness, a differential consciousness that comes back to it with a new dimension. So radical. William James called it radical imperialism. Empiricism, imperialism. God, Napoleon would have loved it. The mind now faces a peculiar situation. If it's alert, it has. Stuff coming in that are incommensurate, and they're coming in from two different qualities, and the only way that it can tolerate this is if it has equanimity, because if it has a slightest leaning for one or the other, it sees the one or the other as the enemy. If it's emotional, it sees the abstract relationalities of mathematics is a real threat to its humanity. And if it's logically mature, it sees emotion as a blurring enemy. It's got to be done with. And so only a mind in the state of equanimity has any ability whatsoever to entertain both. The Bhagavad Gita says evenness of mind is yoga. Krishna tells Arjuna over and over again. He says, you're not going to win this battle because you're the greatest warrior, because you can put power out there. Nor are you going to win this battle because you are so disciplined that you can hold your power in abeyance. Neither of those by themselves are going to work. You have to evenness of mind. You have to both do and not do at the very same time. You can have the fruits of action, but you cannot desire to have the fruits of action. Whereas if you don't desire the fruits of action, you will get caught in that kind of a trap also. And so this quality of equanimity of mind allows for two incommensurate to come together. The integral and the differential, and they both must inhabit at the same time in the same space. They cannot, according to the laws of the universe. They cannot do that. It cannot happen. So the laws of the universe must be transformed. They have to be changed so they can do that. And because four dimensional time space does not allow incommensurate in the same place at the same time, you have to widen the dimensionality of reality with consciousness so that they can, so that consciousness is able to add to time space to that four dimensions, at least a fifth dimension that allows for zero and one to inhabit as a set the same time and same space, with the proviso that it has an extra Dimension. So Lao Tzu called it Tao Te Ching. The Zero of Tao and the unity of Te together, and that they occur as a set. They have their relationality, and because they have their relationality, they have a rationality, their ratio of goal. But they also have in their ratio ableness. They have an ability to come into nature and work objectively in ritual actions. That's why action can receive yogic discipline. There is such a thing as a karmayogi. When I was a little boy, Gandhi was the greatest karmayogi and about 2000 years it was impeccable as a karmayogi. And it doesn't stop a Yogi like Sri Aurobindo from admiring him, or a Raja Yogi like Rabindranath Tagore from saying, this is a Mahatma, this is a great soul. Gandhi could never have written poetry or songs on the level of Tagore. He could never have had the exquisite intellectual refinement of Sri Aurobindo. But when it came to massive action with equanimity on a scale of 5 or 600 million people, he was without any peer whatsoever. If you want to put 300 million people into a yogic action, Gandhi could do that with such Simplicity that it was frightening to the opposition. When he did his great salt march to the sea. The British Empire passed a tax on salt. You have to pay us a few shekels every time you make a pound of salt, every time you buy a pound of salt. And Gandhi said, well, we're going to challenge this. So he went from his Sabarmati Ashram across the river from Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad was where all the big British textile factories were. And so he set his ashram up across the river. Directly across from them here are all their big factories. And here's this little mud hut ashram. And so he walked from there 130 miles to the Arabian Sea, the coast of. It's called Dandi. He went to Dandi and he went into the ocean water. He held up the ocean water till they evaporated. And he had salt, and he sold that salt. He said so tax God. And pretty soon people were making salt all over India. About three 400 million people challenged something which would not hold, and they had to back away. And as they backed away, the British Empire suffered an earthquake because they realized that they were dealing with someone who could not be beaten on the level of karma. Yoga is like an Arjuna, but not with bow and arrow, but with social action. And all it takes is one master like that and the entire world, if it were a complete perfect empire, would stand no chance against someone like that. A spirit warrior like that. It's a no contest. But the difficulty in the Book of Daniel was not that one could learn to analyze dreams of the individual, of the type, the collective type of even the universal archetype of all. But how do you deal with a massive future vision that comes when the time form which characterized space, which held all the experiences from which all the dreams in the world come from ends, and some new as yet unknown time form begins and you have to start from scratch. And the only thing that carries over is what is remembered. And that memory is the only thing carrying over. When one has a great vision of a new era, a new heaven and a new earth, and the mind that can receive that and not cower before that is only a mind of equanimity, so that when that happens, generally there are very few. In fact, there are sometimes none. Nobody knows. There have been whole eras in the past where no one knew at all. Fortunately, two eons ago, there were a few people who were wise enough to have the equanimity and be able to see this. One of the great figures of that time for a thousand years was called the Stargazer Zoroaster. Zarathustra was able to see that the constellating of differential consciousness can be brought and applied to life on Earth by someone who accepts a double transform, allows for consciousness to come into life and livingness, and allows for life and livingness to come into consciousness so that there's an exchange, and that the exchange is on the basis of consciousness accepting imagination, Which is a mythic trait into its center, so that consciousness allows for mythic imagination to function within itself, and that conscious memory is accepted by mythic experience and allows for memory to be operative there, and so the exchange of imagination and memory allows for, if one has a zero pivot, equanimity for a new complementation, a set relationality, living visionary life comes into play. And this, of course, is what Jung, as soon as he finished the dream analysis, he went to what the last chapter, chapter ten of the Book of Daniel is all about letting dream analysis go and teaching people how to work with vision of a new era. And so the next seminars were called the Vision Seminars. And these seminars were secret. No one could see the seminars except very, very few people. The vision seminars took place from the 5th of November that date again. 1930 and went to March 21st, 1934. And when you look at this. The original edition of this work consists in some 2000 mimeographed pages bound in 11 volumes. The title page of the first volume reads Interpretation of Visions, part one seminar on the in Analytical Psychology given by C.G. Jung, doctor C.G. Jung, Zurich, Autumn 1930. Each volume bears the statement. This report is strictly for the use of members of the seminar, with the understanding that it is not to be circulated, so that the dream analysis seminars and the vision seminars, dreams and visions, and they come together in what they come together in a symbolic technique of transformation that has to do with the mind. That's where the psychology is. But it has to include both sources together in a set. The zero and one together. Otherwise there's no cure. There's only adjustment one way or the other. And the patient, instead of being cured and being a person, becomes more and more surreptitiously clever at undermining themselves and others. And so we have now a planet of extraordinarily clever demons, and they're called people. And almost no one who has any equanimity whatsoever, allowing for vision and myth to come together and find a breathable, distributed. Remember the principle of the snowshoe distributed complementarity so that life is real, so that there's almost nothing happening that's real. It's all make believe one way or the other. It's all emotional posturing or intellectual projecting. And so we have a shadow puppet show with no audience, and the storytellers are drunk. So it's a very curious thing. Fortunately, I hate to be cavalier about it, but it's always this way. A change of a massive time form. It's always this way. The generations that it happens to are always in the quandary that we're in. And that's why men and women of those eras, their wisdom relearning, is of interest to us because we are resonant waves in the same meteor shower. We all have the same radiant, even though we happen to live 2000 or 4000 years and 2000 years from now, those men and women will have a lot of radiant resonance with us. So we have friends all over the place, past and future. One of the qualities that you see is that the two coming together produce a capacity for what? When you have vision and myth together, when you have an oral language and a written language together, a magic language like a visionary language, always has to be written. Write it down. Then you get a quality of poetry. Look at the titles of some of these books on, um, on the kind of poetry that we're talking about, ancient myth and modern poetry. Visions of presence in modern American poetry. Myth and presence. Poetry that together allow for what? A set that takes a transform. Because the zero or the one independently do not accept. Transforms. They do something else, which they have to do. Hermann Hesse, a great friend of of Jung's and a competitor of Yeats. One of his great books of this time, pictures Metamorphoses. 2000 years ago was Ovid doing the Metamorphoses? It takes a transform because that set, that zero one set is capable of both being a binary which is expressive to any amount of detail that you wish. The latest terabyte computers all run on a binary language of zeros and ones. Together you can write anything. The difficulty is, is that when it gets more and more refined and proliferates to the trillion bit level, you can't keep track of gestalts in an integral way. No one is that smart. So it has to have relational constellations that are able to be translated and transformed back into play. Which means that there has to be someone who is able to do this both ways. Wisdom is a two way process. Always. When it comes to Yeats's A vision, just like Jung's dream, seminars and vision seminars were locked up and only a few of the cognoscenti could see them. At the dream seminars, there were somewhere around 40, 50, 60 people. All told. Half of them were Americans. There were more Americans than there were We're British, German, Swiss, French altogether. Why? Is it because at that time, in the late 1920s, Americans were psychologically alert because they already had about three generations from William James time of understanding that all of this is important. Important in the sense that one has to be alert not only to the psychology of emotions and images and symbols, but also of psychical events that are from the invisible, from visionary, transcendent, that also come back and meet in the mind. But they come back in a special kind of way. They come back. How does Lao-tzu say, he says, that there is such a quality as the return. The circle doesn't go on and on that you go so far. And then what happens? There's a return. So the ancient Daoist understanding of return is extremely important, because the return carries with it in braided and indexed and encoded, in that the return brings a reciprocity into play, but allows for the reciprocity to be two ways it allows for consciousness to return and come back, but in such a way that it accepts accepts the whole integral ecology of nature. Otherwise, consciousness doesn't have very much relationship to emotion at all. You can be an abstract Yogi to the point to where you wouldn't feel feeling at all, much less emote emotion. What good is that? So the whole point is not to get rid of emotions so that you're unemotional in the face. It's like someone looking at good and evil and saying, well, we don't want to have any evil whatsoever. But the concomitant problem is saying, well, we have to make friends with evil and invite it in. Well, that's also stupid. So there's a very delicate, swampy kind of middle ground, unless there's that zero pivot equanimity, and that cannot be taught from someone who knows to those who don't know. It's like Plato. We started with today, the teacher and the learner have to learn at the same time together. Otherwise it doesn't disclose. When we start the second year, when we start the ecology of consciousness, differential consciousness, one of the first things we're going to use, like we use the I Ching to begin the natural cycle, we're going to use the ancient Hermetic writing, the mind shepherd, the poimandres. And the Poimandres is a hermetic dialogue written about 90 A.D. in Alexandria. And Hermes Trismegistus tells taught his student that at this juncture, from here on, he's not the wisdom teacher, telling the student about wisdom, that the language moves so peculiarly that the teacher has to allow himself to be dissolved in the endless cascade along with the student, he says, the speed And the continuity of visionary wisdom. Language is so fast and so enormously rich that the teacher cannot follow it either, and so gives himself over with the student and both learn together at the same time. Um, it's known as being companions along the way. And Socrates, in several of Plato's dialogues, says over and over again to the important, authoritative young men, you cannot expect to learn arete, to learn virtue from some one who is an expert in it, because an expert could not disclose arete. They have to discover it with you together, because it's a 0 in 1 set. Yes, they know, but they have to temporarily not know in order for the disclosure of it mutually to happen. This is why, if you queue up to some wisdom teacher who's going to teach you from there, enlightenment is full of crap. It is not structurally possible in reality for that process to happen. All that happens is a shackles and disciples and portly gurus. I think one of them had a whole line of pink Rolls-Royces at one time, right? Well, we want the whole valley. So it's a it's a peculiar actuality that wisdom cannot be taught, but it can be mutually learned. And the whole point of the poimandres is that the teacher has to learn that he or she must learn again, from scratch, every single time they teach. And if they can't do that, it's called Shunryu. Suzuki Roshi called his book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. If you can't return back and be a beginner again, then don't teach. You have to be able to get back to that zero pivot and discover the one in mutual wonder. Philosophy begins in wonder. That's how the phrase in Plato translates over and over again. Philosophy does not come out of expertise conveyed. It comes out of a mutual sense of wonder so that there's something awesome about the disclosure. Both are awestruck that here it is again, that all over again. Here it is, fresh and just now disclosed so that it never is old. It's anciently fresh. One of the translations of the name Zarathustra is Ancient Light. We talked once about how, from our star from Seoul, our star's name is Seoul on this planet, that the light that comes to us doesn't take just eight minutes through space to come to us through time. Space. But that that light has been bubbling up from the interior of the star for about a million years before it gets to the surface and shoots out in that photonic stream. So the light that comes to us is eight minutes in transit and a million years of percolating. And how does it percolate? It percolates because the sun as a star has a sound wave gestalt that operates through all of it. The sun rings like a bell. And every resonance of the sound of our star carries a wave of electromagnetic energy. So if a star stops ringing like a bell, the light doesn't happen. So there's such a thing not only as seeing the light, but of hearing the truth. And when they're done together, then that language is a special language. It's called in honor of the first time in this planet that it was done. It's called a hieroglyphic language. It's called a sacred language because it always has an oral, personally delivered quality that's mythic, but it has a invisible visual, rational, relational, pictorial, symbolic gestalt that goes with it, so that when one hears a living language, you hear it, but you also see it in the mind's vision, visionary capacity at the very same time. And this is different. It's different from any other conveyance. All other conveyances are communication. This one is a discovery, learning, presence, learning, and it's a quality that life has. Yeats's vision papers were locked up just like the dream seminar papers and the Jung's Vision seminar papers. And it was only 1992 that they were published. Uh, three volumes. Here are the three volumes. And the first two volumes are all the transcripts of the automatic Writing of Georgie Yeats, and the third volume is a series of notebooks that Yeats kept. He kept nine notebooks, and those nine notebooks also had a complimentary card file index. So there were three components. There were the automatic writings and two big volumes of Mrs. Yeats, and there was Yeats notes in nine notebooks. And then there was a card index file, and all these things were locked up. Nobody had any access really to them until 1992. Here's how. May 23rd, 1920. Yeats notebook, it records this is in New York City that he's recording this. They were in New York at this time. And the parentheses is for Sleeps. In other words, there were cycles during sleeping. And he says in the return and in the shiftings, the period of sleep was in quotation marks, return recursion and shiftings. That's the mythic imagery. The two together, which is that of communication, corresponds to the period in dreaming back when the spirit is with the PB psychic body. The spirit on coming out of it has no memory of the state. Yoga is called a dreamless state. No images at all. What is that state? That's the zero pivot. It's zero because no images record there whatsoever. Why do they not record there? Because they have a common focus in five dimensions of an exchange happening. And if images were there, there would be no space in five dimensions for the exchange to happen. So it's kept open. It's kept open because the process of exchange is happening. If there were a graven image there, then you would be worshiping a false god. The fact that there's no image there means that the process divinely is working. It's happening. Remember the old wisdom story about Milarepa and Gampopa of how in the Vajrayana, the Kagyu lineage was established? It was established because Gampopa, the greatest intellect of his day thousand years ago, is unbeatable. And he had all these nights of fabulous dreaming. And he came to Milarepa again and again in Milarepa. Yes. That's wonderful. Go back to sleep. And finally, Gampopa had a night where there were no dreams at all. None. It doesn't mean that he got through all the dreams and exhausted them. It means that he got to that zero pivot. Later on, he would get to the vision and he would write his classic book from that vision. But at that particular moment, he thought he had failed because there was nothing there. When he went home and later he heard that Milarepa died and he thought, I will never get enlightened because I'm smarter than anyone else and I don't have any teacher to teach me. And then he discovered in his vision that he had indeed learned then because there were no images, because there was an exchange going on. So in the Vajrayana, in the diamond vehicle. The diamond way, what is there in equanimity is mutual exchange and not anything of any individual, even on collective level. That's why the cosmos is wide open and wild. You don't have to have spurs to ride. You don't need any saddle. You ride bareback. And the most peculiar way in Tibetan it's called lamrim. It means without any boundaries whatsoever. More next week.