Calisthenics June 1982

Transcription

1 Calisthenics June 1982 ANSWER THE NEED --- LIVE THE LIFE --- POSITIVE SEEING ---ADDRESS DYNAMICS ---M-WISE NEED HELP RETRAIN CONSCIOUSNESS ---UNITY OF AWARENESS CHANGE RELATION --- The problem to be faced now is how to work productively; the work has to produce results..now, for instance, in the healing group you have to flow -- whatever flow means -- because the demand is there. You meet a need instead of meeting your desire to flow. Also when you meet a need you are in a situation in which the activity can be controlled. It can also be checked.: others around can tell you if you meet a need or if it is only you wanting to meet a need. Realize that wanting to meet a need is self-centered. If you face a definite situation, then you face it in a way that will answer the need, meaning you establish a link, a syntony, a symbiosis, call it what you want, but you begin to live "that" life. Then, according to what you are, Some feature will come up and you will know that a certain thing is needed. I remind you of an experience that you know: When you dream, the dream is fully alive; it is only when you are out of the dream that you suddenly realize it was only a dream. Remember the experience because the first thing that you do is project the same situation further. You start dreaming mentally; you make an image of yourself flowing, and it can be just as vivid as a dream, possibly more because you are awake, but it is still a dream. So, some sort of control has to be set up, and here we have a difficulty. Obviously we need people who will train the ability to distinguish between an image (be it emotional, mind, or any combination) and what we call livance, which is limitless. Livance can be observed very easily because it's not head centered, it's all around. If you look at the head, the "all-around" goes through the head, but is not head-located like mental imagery. of course you can train your mind to go further than the head, but it is still head-centered, it's not livance. I am using the healing group as an example, not because it is the only way of working, not at all, but rather to propose that you find applications of the same discipline to other fields of activity. Find a way of working/training that can be controlled, that is factual, and thus brings results. By factual I do not mean that you have to touch a body in order to trigger something; you can be very abstract, you can even work without the body, but you must be able to check what you do. If you live the quality that you want to boost in the other, it has to be the other's quality, not your own. If that shows, it shows around in the field instantly, and it shows in the "patient" instantly as well.

2 Participant: Would you go over working with someone who isn't present again? Martin: I don't know what to say about it, simply that it's possible. Participant: You said something about living their condition... Martin: In language we say "their condition" because people are usually ego-centered, but actually in livance there is no "me" and "you". For instance, it's quite popular, not in these groups, but elsewhere, to live a certain quality of light. So, if you live that quality of light, you will live the one you know, and the other will radiate the same light with other characteristics, those that belong to that situation. Participant: So you're sort of radiating the other person? Martin: I would like to please you and say "yes," but I can't. You live the condition; it's a lot more intimate than radiating. You don't radiate, you live the life. Radiating means you are you and the other is someone else, and that the radiating goes from you to the other. If you live the condition there is no "you" and no "other one," there is just that condition. So the concept of radiating is not proper, even if you do radiate. A clairvoyant might see you radiating because you live that quality of life, but you would not be radiating that quality of live from you to the other one. If everything goes well, the other one will start to radiate that same quality of life, then you would both radiate the same life, but the action is not the radiation, radiation is an outcome. The principle is that you always start from the highest, and finally, within the whole, you come to a specific point. This has to be lived and lived so often that your own person tunes in and becomes what it is: an instrument to help in the same direction. Basically it implies a repositioning of your whole person. Let's take an example: you expressed sympathy. The simple fact of expressing sympathy already helps. She will feel better because you expressed sympathy, not because it worked. So, in addition, what you do has to be effective. The training we want is not just in helping, there is a specific way to do it from the whole. It's not by building piece by piece, others can do that..there is, for instance, a situation that happens very often: I'm thinking of when someone is in personal difficulty and needs help. Psychologically, you can deal with the conscious level and what is just on the borderline of consciousness, maybe a little higher and maybe a little lower -- this is the usual way of working. Now suppose the person has training from other lives, meaning behind the personal aspect there is an awareness that is not conscious but is pushing for a higher quality. You can try to help from the personal level, but you will go nowhere, because the higher quality cannot come out. Now, speaking of a group action, there would be needed those who realize that higher quality and can say: "This has to be lived". How do you tell that in words? You cannot, you have to

3 show it. The group has to learn to see, and to realize that there is a quality in the field that has to come through. Now let's say we all live that quality -- the problem is solved. Of course, it's not fully solved, because training is still needed, but it is solved as far as a breakthrough is concerned. We are stuck again with the need of people who have this kind of awareness, and possibly more than an awareness, because some people are able to see it but not live it, and -some are able to live it but not see it. So, there is a working together to be done. But whatever way we choose, we always face the need for those who see more than the usual, and thus can check what is going on. It is not done by feeling. No, seeing is positive. Most of the group has learned to perceive more than the usual limited activity, but this is not sufficient. There has to be this positive seeing. You might call it living/seeing, you might call it livance. Call it whatever you want, but I insist on it. You know the usual finite seeing, but if you see the other way around (meaning what is going on in the field), then you have a tool that is useful. You don't see forms, you see dynamics. Whatever proposition we face, we come to the point where abilities are needed. There is no escape. The time of dreaming is gone. You have to come out with abilities. How do you do it? I always come back to the same thing: training, training, training. Now training can be seen in many ways, but we see it in one way and in one way only: Live livance, all-encompassing livance, expressing through the instrument, your personality (and actually much more than the instrument). When you can be Christ-centered or God-centered, whatever term you want to use, and you meet a situation, the faculties you need will come out by themselves, automatically. And when they come out you have to reeducate your personality to face the fact -- this is the real training. I am the living proof of this; I work this way all the time. Any training in which you try to reach something, you can just forget. Now I know it's easy for me to say "forget it", because I can do it. I know when you go home the first thing you will do is try to reach it, but you cannot reach it with your brain. You live livance and because you live livance it hits your brain. When you make a decision to live livance, it actually means that you already are living it, it's simply that the brain has just noticed it. You know, training is not working hard to develop the mind or control the feelings it is not reaching up to soul or spirit. We don't work that way. The whole training goes the other way around, and the sooner you realize it, the easier the way will be. If you sit down and face someone and want to radiate to them and then ask: "Do I radiate?" "What do I feel?", you approach by the small end, instead of the whole, and then you wonder why it is not effective. It might be a little effective, this I won't deny, but as far as this group's activities are concerned, you won't be effective. You have all noticed drastic changes are coming. They are for the world; they manifest in this group as a symptom of what is going on, but they are for the world. When you face a situation, for instance, when you help someone, you might not realize it, but you actually do address dynamics. As you do it, there is not the usual emotional connection. It is

4 factual, a facing/living of the dynamics of the situation, then bringing changes into that. The one who acts is not "me", the healer, acting on "you", the patient. No, it's working situation-wise. It's very different. The awareness involved is really different. Afterward, you might come back to the relation "me" and "you", if you want, but as you work it is not the situation. If you don't have, ideally, a livance of all the dynamics involved (-you might not be ready for all that is involved), there must be at least a wholeness that includes a lot more than the person. If you bring a change in dynamics it is because the being "behind" requires it. You have to shape according to that, not according to your whims. An ability to be aware of the real aspect behind has to be there. It's one of the reasons I repeat again and again: I see you differently than you see yourselves. This is why we can work. I wish the time would come when you suddenly would realize that this is true, and that you can do exactly the same. It's not my sole privilege. It's simply a change in position. Participant: When you speak of a change in dynamics, are you referring to a change in feeling, behavior, thinking, or any one of these things? Martin: No, I'm not. It's a matter of semantics. Dynamics are a lot more subtle than what you speak of. What you speak of is, let us say, the symptomatic end of dynamics. To give you an example: Suppose you have a psychological problem, and this situation is kind of concrete for you - you are blocked somewhere and you more or less know why and so on. You look for help. You can approach the situation in the same concrete way, i.e., psychologically. You can also work on the dynamics, meaning you can deal with the problem without ever speaking of it, and there is a good chance that the result will be a lot better than the usual method because it involves a lot more. In the book (Prelude to the New Man) you learn about the "Desire Exercise". You learn to see that there is something behind, and something behind that, etc. The features you spoke of are on the level of desires -- that which you are conscious of. Now, dynamics can be what is behind, and all that is behind that. Actually when you deal with dynamics you don't speak that way, but still you can use that image. Participant: So, for example, if someone walks into the room and their orientation toward life at that moment is very depressed, and you work with the dynamics of that situation, their orientation toward life would change, and, as a result, their thinking, feeling, and so forth would change. Martin: Yes. I can give you a practical example. It happens in this group every time you come into this room. You change, and we don't address the outside, everyday situation you confront in order to allow you to change. No, we address dynamics, moreover dynamics of a higher order, and it brings along a change. When we play music you see it, and you don't do a thing to make it happen. There is one thing that the mind has to learn: The higher the center of gravity of the action, the more effective. The same applies for dynamics. If you want to be effective, use the highest dynamics you are able to use. The mind thinks you have to bring it down into the concrete, and

5 you have to change (retrain) this. What you call concrete is only seen that way because your mind has adopted a point of view that sees that way. It does not mean that it is so. You feel those heavy bodys and you take them for granted, but when we work together the body awareness changes utterly and completely. I wonder if you realize that "body" is simply a form of awareness. I don't have the same sense of solidity that you have. To give you an example: If I blow on my hand I can blow right through. With your sense of body it doesn't go through. Now, what's the difference? Are you going to say that we are higher beings so we can do it, but, poor you, you cannot? I'm here to say that it is simply a matter of positioning your awareness. Simply that. Learn to be limber. You exercise your body, why don't you do the same for your mind. Do impossible things. The mind awareness is definitely not the only one. Look for something else. The mind is only a tool. We can second the motion of Patanjali when he says that it is not the mind that is conscious, but Atman using the mind. And don't say that you have not reached that level. It's part of you, and you keep trying to reach a part of you. Sometimes human logic is kind of quaint. For instance, if we approach from the angle of the changes going on, it's not the group changing, but rather there is a mode that we call the M function (thus the presence of the Doer) that brings along a change in the group. It's not me deciding, it is, let's call it, a historical event. It manifests here, but it's on a much greater scale. So, you can't say "Why didn't you say it before?" I've said it all the time. If you have some sort of memory better than mine you might realize that the call for some concrete action was started years ago and never heard. Now, suddenly, because of the new function, it becomes more obvious. I know sometimes you wonder why it is so hard. We come from a period that worked U-wise (the Knower), and we go into a period that is working M-wise (the Doer), so you approach the M aspect with the U function. This is what happened to the group I spoke of earlier, a full year of working U-wise when an M was called for. But now you begin to realize, which is fine. Mayday, mayday, we need help. Now, you take it as a joke. Suppose you mature and realize that it's for real. The call is the same, but you have two different positions. I've told you we see you differently. Suppose you begin to realize it's true, and you start doing the same: seeing differently. Of course, it can be devastating, because the old mode is then gone. You come to points at which you simply cannot go back to the old mode because it's much too narrow. Can you see how, throughout the years, everyone has been centered in self-development, systematically forgetting our need for help? Now some were not that bad, but as far as others

6 go, the self interest has always been greater than the action going on, or the awareness that we actually need help. We told you, for instance, that your taking over Calisthenics would free us to center on what we are here for. You haven't taken over yet, I still have to look after it constantly. You have taken over some activity, not with the idea of helping us, but with the idea of training yourselves. The whole position is different. And basically it's a matter of position. We come from a period of time where building blocks were supposed to make the whole, and we are now in a time where it is recognized that the sum of the building blocks never makes the whole -- you start with the whole in the first place. It's very different as far as position is concerned, but you still have the spirit of building blocks operating: "I have to train this and that in order to..." There is a way of looking at things that is completely different from the way it used to be, and this way is perfectly logical in itself. We have given you examples of things that we can do. We can do them, not because of the degree of initiation, but because of the position. Change position and you can do them also. It simply has to be done. you have the whole in the first place. The dynamics of the whole create the particle. This is definitely a turning around. Now suppose, for a change, you train in order to be helpful in the work, and the training requires you to position yours-elf in a different way so that you can follow-what is going on: field-wise, personality-wise, spirit-wise, nature-wise and so on to conditions in which those differentiations no longer exist. If the situation requires you to take that position and you act from there, the tools will show. And, when you train, be as adamant as possible. If an action is not adjusted, stop. The one performing is the first to be fooled, so it's the one checking that has the responsibility to stop the one performing. I'll give you an example that happens time and again in the healing group: a healer acting and doing damage. The next one then has to correct the damage. It happens constantly if the action is not tuned. Some people are strong, so it doesn't matter, they simply don't feel as well as they might for having had a treatment. They might even feel heavier. They might feel their plexus going, or their head spinning -- meaning the condition of the healer is being projected onto them. This is why I say that a patient really has to be very patient. Some healers believe they train. in fact, when you really act you never train. The ultimate training is not to train, but simply to act. The sense of training comes because we have to provide a way to get over from the U function to the M function. Now suppose instead of training in order to go from the, U function to the M function, you decide once and for all to act M-wise, then-you don't need training because the M acts. Of course the action will be refined, but not with the awareness of training, which is self-reflexive.

7 Also, if you act in a group, let us say, to bring a fine quality, and there is a weak link in the group, this is where it will break. If you have someone really bringing presence to the room and someone is projecting a tight plexus, this will destroy the effect. It applies in every case, as soon as you have a group. So some unity, some seriousness ought to be present within the group, however small, however large. This is what I show you constantly, but not with words. I mean the real way does not use words. I wonder if you will ever realize. People think I make an ego trip or a power trip, or that I always want to dominate. For years I have encouraged you to verify everything yourselves. Learn to see, learn to follow, until you are able to read the melody behind the words -- or what is lived, what is shown. I speak so everyone looks at me. Now I look over there (with Georgette). If you were able to follow what I see there, you would be staring with your mouths open. Of course, you do see a little. By now you have gotten used to seeing that we have a field that is very different from yours, a field that does not have the same limitations. This does not mean that yours is necessarily limited to the point you believe it is, but it does mean you unknowingly constrict the field. Time and again when we work together, especially with the music, you live differently. Your concrete mind makes abstractions, images, yes, but you are also aware there is a lot more going on. Why don't you stay with the "lot more". It's a simple matter of doing it. It's part of retraining consciousness. Another point in your training that is needed, and those who have some abilities to see have to learn, is to see the difference between the mind image and what is truly lived. You can have someone living a condition and speaking of it, instead of speaking it. You can see simultaneously the condition being lived and the mind image, and the words coming out according to the mind image and practically hiding (like an eclipse) what is really lived. It's a very funny situation. You can also see, of course, people who have only a mind image and the livance is absent. You can have the tricky situation in which livance is here, but the words come out according to an image, so livance doesn't come through. The words might be correct, but still you are not happy because they are not alive. Now suppose you see one of these situations and you start to help? As soon as you start the action, what do you have? A mind image pops up. But the training requires that you go directly into movement: M function, without stopping at the conceptualization stage. Go directly from livance to action. Act livance. Act what you live. It's a very direct mode. Participant: When you speak of the "we" acting, or of living "we" rather than as individuals, how inclusive is that "we"? Martin: The "how" depends on you.

8 I'll give you an example. We have an organization called The United Nations. We, the nations But there is no "we", it is simply a convenience called "we". Every country is always on the watch for its own individual advantage. There is no so-called sacrifice for the whole. Now when you speak of "we", we have to check to see if that "we" is like The United Nations or better. Hopefully it's better. It depends on what you can do in your awareness. If you take the usual position, it does not contain a real "we". Of course, progress has been made in history, for example, you can have the sense of, let us say, a team action that is really a team. Let's call that a good "we" -- a sense of team. But if you want to broaden your "we", I have to remind you to be concrete. If you think you include all of humanity, at least part of the "we" is a dream. It would be better to forget the dream "we" and stay instead with a "we" that is real for you, until your live" is so strong that you approach everyone "we"-wise. That would be something. Maybe I ought to tell you of an experience I had a few years back when I met the people who deal directly with Life, meaning they shape Life itself: Each individual awareness is an expression of the whole awareness. You don't have separate awarenesses, there is only one. If I gather an experience, it is automatically the experience of the whole -- instantly. If someone else has the experience that I would need in a situation, it is instantly available here as "mine". There is no possessive awareness whatsoever. We are here for a task. We invited you to join in. But there is a certain quality of livance that is related to the Christ action that has to be here. Prepare yourself along the way if you want to. Psychologically we accept that proposition to make the situation easier, but, in the meantime, we do the work with you, the greater you, until it finally comes through. The old psychological trend is to deal figuratively with objects. In your proposition certain "things" don't work -- the object is what has gone wrong. No, the difficulty is not with the situation (object), but with your relation toward the situation. obviously the mind is bright enough to realize that it can approach a situation in many ways -- ways in which you can act with no movement, with some movement, or with a lot of movement -- there is a full choice. It's a matter of relation. And, if you need an ability and you relate "correctly" to the situation, the ability is there, without training. The relationship of, let us say, healer-patient becomes a situation lived, not the healing of a patient. You have a change, a complete change in relation. You might approach the situation in the usual way. You might have someone in need, that's the appearance, but,as soon as you tune in, the relation healer-patient changes, and, if the tuning is done properly, suddenly you deal situationally. You live that situation, not the patient's and not your's, there is no possessiveness whatsoever. Now, that's a change in situation. The situation is the same, but the way of handling is very different. Now, what I described is an ideal proposition, and, I'm not saying that everyone can do it, but, from time to time, they are really in it situation-wise. Then it fades away again because of the interference of the consciousness with it's teaching up. When you live situation-wise you don't reach up, you come out as creator.

9 So the problem is in the relation. You have to change your relation. If you change your relation, you don't need to acquire, you act and it works. I don't say it works fully, because it has to go through your personality, and the personality has the habit of reducing the action to its own level. This is where the training comes in. You have to accustom your person to the presence of other modes. The person is routined and you have to break the routine. Then you discover there is more and more effectiveness. Its' a kind of continuum as far as the tooling is concerned. You might be tempted to say that the person has developed a capacity, you could see it developing and so forth, but you are addressing the thingness of the ability. In reality there is a change in relation, including the person. To give you a primitive example: If I need to move my hand from here to here, the knowledge of how to do it does not allow me to move. Knowledge is a U function. The movement is the M function. Most of the time you don't honestly realize the difference. The mind hasn't faced it. The mind still believes that if it knows how to do something it can do it. No, the actual movement is another function. In the old position, knowing was the base. Now, with the Doer, the seeing, knowing, doing are one and the same function --it's all simultaneous. You see all the shades vow need as you move. Instantly. You don't need to figure out first. If you figure out first and then start moving, as soon as you start moving you trigger dynamics. Let us assume that the dynamics require a slight change, then your figuring out is no longer any good. You need another awareness that works with the dynamics. Dynamics are changing constantly, so it must be an awareness that is not static. When you figure things out, it means you have condensed the field of dynamics into one static image. But the movement is never static. Participant: It seems like there could be some way for the person who is the patient to actually do the healing themselves that they could come out in the way that is needed in order to affect the healing. Martin: That's true but it's not easy. Let us say you ache somewhere in the body and you need relief. The aching is the usual level and it's hart to tune to something that is different and live the body in a way that is completely different, in spite of the aching. The aching is always going to bring you back to the sensory awareness of the body, when what you need to do is live the highest possible and start from there. Let us say you have sprained an ankle and you want to put a water compress on it. If you do that alone you will have a certain result. Live the whole, and I do mean the whole not just the whole person, and do that, and you will have a very different result. It's a lot more effective. Now the difficulty with a person alone is precisely a tendency to be brought back to the limited awareness. Someone who is not involved has greater facility to tune into something higher, and doing it, might help you do it too. This is where the togetherness comes in. The strength of two is four times greater than the strength of one. Participant: I see your point. To go a little further, it seems that unless people do train in that way, the tendency is to feel that in order for a healing to take place, the action must come toward

10 the patient, or that some action from the so-called "outside" has to happen. The patient is in a somewhat passive position. Martin: According to the traditional words: outside/inside, action is from the inside. As I said, you live the situation and the duality is gone. It's very hard for the mind to realize to what degree you can really live the situation and act in that situation as the one living it -- and this means from the inside, symbolically speaking. You don't project on the the situation. You act right within the situation itself. Maybe not the whole, situation, because, as I said, you can heal someone without referring to the sickness, or whatever. You can take it into account or you can work without it. It's the limits of the mind that stand in the way. The possibilities are infinite. The dynamics within the situation can be managed. You can push them around, but you have to be aware that the "you" is not exactly the person as you know it -- it's always a greater you.