By Richard Rose
There’s another thing you’ll see, let’s say as your perspective broadens. As soon as you start watching the umpire you’ll become a trifle indignant. And I think that you might be able to measure religions or philosophic movements by how far they went in their self-analyses. Some religions reach a point in which they do nothing but denounce the umpire, or denounce the inabilities of the umpire. And they call this the devil; the umpire seems to be the devil. The umpire neglects to properly take care of the person. So the word evil or devil is chosen to lay the blame and start a battle. Because it’s evident that people wanting to get off the hook want to do some type of battle, and we have to have an adversary to do battle, so we create one.
After you watch this umpire for awhile and realize that it’s just a programming that nature put in you to keep you alive long enough to reproduce — then it’s no longer a devil. And what I mean is that this umpire is basically here exactly for that purpose. For instance a person getting into sex too young — there’s an instinct in mankind against that, at least in this country up until the last twenty or thirty years. We’ve lost all our survival instincts I think on that line. I think the tendency now would be to educate children on sex starting in the first grade, so that by the time they’re twelve they’ll be so completely debauched they won’t have any drive left to go out and rape anybody or get in trouble. But the whole purpose is simple: if you have a farm you don’t let your heifers in with the bull. It’s not a question of elitism or fear or prudishness. If you want to raise healthy cows you keep the heifers away from the bull until they’re two years old. And if you want to raise human heifers that are healthy and productive, you keep them away from the bull until they’re fifteen or eighteen years of age, or you’ll have runts. It takes a certain amount of time to produce a healthy creature. And you can’t say, “Well, they did it at fifteen, let’s try it fourteen. They did it a fourteen, let’s try thirteen. It didn’t seem to hurt at thirteen, let’s go back to twelve.”
So what it basically amounts to is that there are certain fears and certain antagonisms in human beings. Now some of these are for each other: jealousy and that sort of thing. But legislation is put down to preserve the body so that it can properly reproduce, and not only reproduce but to support the child. So that if a guy’s bombed out of his head to a point where he can’t keep a job, he can’t support a child — he’s an enemy of nature. Now this is basic, somatic, natural psychology. You’re no blasted good if you can’t support your children. You shouldn’t reproduce if you can’t support your children. There’s not an indefinite entity called the establishment or the country or the government that should support all the children that all the dishrags would like to produce.
So this is built in by whatever you want to call it: God or the engineer, or the automatic blueprint that was put into the human being — as in all the animals; we’re just a little bit more egotistical form of flesh. But the blueprint is in there. This voice, the umpire, is there to say, “Hey, don’t eat too much, you’ll blow your gut and you’ll not reproduce tomorrow,” — or you’ll get so fat that you won’t be able to, or you’ll get some disease, your heart will get bad and you’ll be inclined to have a heart attack and you won’t be able to raise your kids.
And the same thing goes for the power complex, or any of them. Any of them can kill us. But nevertheless, these egos, this survival ego, these vanities are put in us. Because if we weren’t vain we wouldn’t pursue. The male has to have this tremendous rooster complex: that he is in demand, that all he has to do is go out and make a few flourishes with his feathers and things will happen, and that this is his main purpose on earth. The computer somehow puts him in check, and then at some time or another it also turns him loose. Now — I say the umpire us not us and it’s not even a good protector: And once your purpose is served, you’re expendable; somehow the computer or the umpire seems to have done its job, it disappears, and somebody else replaces you — with an equal amount of vanity that you had when you were playing the rooster:
And I think that all of this is in order: There’s nothing wrong with it; this is just nature defending itself; nature having blueprints — which all of the erudite sociologists and psychologists are going to change — they’re going to reprogram it. They’re going to reprogram us so that we will survive; we’ll get vaccinated against the detrimental qualities of perversion, dissipations, narcotism and alcoholism and God knows what.
So this is just basic survival. If you’re just interested in basic survival, then you get as far as the umpire. You may even form a religion, you may even call your actions sins, in order to help reinforce yourself against an early death. This is basically what religion is — it’s somatic, that type of religion. Now there are religions that go beyond that, but they have so little popular appeal that the meetings are held in caves and God knows where.
[Break in tape]
There’s one other point in the basis of perception. As I said before, there’s more than one type: there’s sensory perception and mental perception And it’s necessary to understand this. Because we see a lot of stuff and we like to think “we” see it, but we don’t define who is “we”. We don’t define what’s going on when we’re seeing.
For instance, suppose you see a green apple — this is visual perception — and you throw the apple out the window. And then we can visualize the apple sitting right here on the table. We can still see that apple in our mind’s eye, sitting right here. We can even close our eyes; we don’t have to see it sitting there, we can see it in our minds. And we can see almost anything that way. Now of course they call this memory. But — supposing we have this apple in our mind’s eye and we decide that we’re going to have little red diamonds a half inch apart all the way around the outside perimeter: We visualize an apple with little red diamonds. Incidentally, there are a lot of cults — and I identify them as cults — that do nothing but visualize. I was listening to this tape the other day and somebody is saying, “See o-r-a-n-g-e. Now see blue.” And so on. And he’s taking people through this course, a hundred and fifty bucks for a weekend, for seeing different colors, being able to visualize them.
But regardless, you can. You can see an apple with swastikas on it if you wish. Now what is this? This is actually a mental picture. It is a mental picture that is seen that has never been real; there has never been an apple that grew on a tree that had diamonds or swastikas on it. So this is what I call visualization. This is the ability of the mind to create. And what it does, it projects someplace. As we say, we see it in our head, it’s projected there. A picture is seen. Anything that is seen is substantial. Whenever anything is recorded — like if five people see a mirage — then that mirage is substantial. That’s the same evidence that sends a man to the electric chair — five people, two people perhaps, can send him to the electric chair: If two people see a mirage, that’s legal evidence. It’s scientific evidence, it’s testimony, it exists. Erratic? — sure, it may be erratic; because when they move up to the scene where the mirage seems to be it’s not there.
But regardless, we have that ability to project, to create. And unless we understand our ability to project and create, we cannot start to look inside of our own head, because every step of the way we’re visualizing and projecting. How many people have been in the process of projecting what love is? — the color of the horse the man had to ride in on, what the horse looked like, what the guy looked like, the qualities that he had inside of him. Then projecting phony qualities of the person who is meeting the man on the horse. We’ve built up a whole phony system of the princess with no faults, nothing but every superlative, meeting the man on the horse, who has nothing but superlatives, and waiting for ten, fifteen, twenty years for this visualization to come true — angrily hating the world, because other people refuse to believe that dream.
So unless a person sees this early in life we go on. Sometimes we don’t know it; sometimes we think, “Oh, yes, I know what you’re talking about. I don’t get into that stuff.” No — you’re into something else, some other form of visualization. But this form of internal looking is a projection of this process-observer mind. It’s a mental projection. I’ll give you some examples of these different things now.
Sensory perceptions: Objects are apprehended. Now when I say apprehended it means the things that you see or things you hear, touch, smell, etc., the five or six senses.
Memory perception: This is remembering and also visualization. But when you remember anything — for instance if I say to you that you would remember that log cabin you were born in, and it flashes back into your head: a farm back on a hillside with a certain slope, the logs sticking out of the corners of the log cabin, etc. — an exact picture, everything coming back to your head. Now this is a vision. This is not a projection. This is a perception. Whenever the memory is stimulated it produces a vision — even if it’s only a split second, if you’re running through things very rapidly …
[Break in tape]
…and you can see that, you can recall that. Call it back and it will appear:
Reaction visions: There are visions that we can only describe as being reactions; we don’t know their nature, we just react and we see them. We react to a certain situation, place, time, etc. — these are ghosts, visitations, mind projections. Sometimes these are things that we project out of the mind and seemingly see with the physical eye. But we project them first.
Holograms: A hologram is a reaction but we just don’t react properly with a hologram.
Hallucinations: Again, we don’t react properly; we see something that’s not there because it twists somewhere inside our seeing mechanism. In other words, our sensory-perception mechanism is not infallible. And this is another reason why we should question our own judgment in a lot of things.
Mental perceptions: This is a person perceiving with their awareness; true revelations about an unknown environment acting upon the mind, or the mind acting upon the mind.
Then we have deliberate projections. Is it possible to deliberately project? This is the fifth quality of the mind. We have ESP — that seemingly people do sit down and project. Also astral projection; and there’s another thing called ‘zapping’ — this has been pretty well substantiated as being a power of the mind.
Okay, I don’t know whether I got the point across. If not, I hope that some of your questions will bring this across to you.
Question: In what you’re describing about nature, what is the purpose of getting this knowledge? To prepare you for the transcendental? [rest is inaudible]
Rose: I wouldn’t say that. I’d just say you start to see your purpose. And I don’t think that needs to be the only purpose, and I’m not inferring it’s a negative pursuit. I’m just saying that once you get wise to it, you may not have to suffer, you may not have to drown as quickly. In other words, you’re going to die. We’re talking about death. You’re dying right now; everyone here is dying, we’re approaching a certain end. Now — you can jump out the window or you can do it slowly. Consequently, when you realize what you’re programmed for, then naturally the unspoken thing is — what can you do to prolong it, while you’re taking time to learn? You don’t know, and a person has to prepare themselves in order to find out. What I’m trying to avoid for you is this idea of blasting yourself into knowledge. And instead trying to take a methodical, possibly laborious course of finding your definition, as opposed to extreme measures. It’s never been done with extreme measures.
And the other inclination we have, and I can’t argue with it, because every one of us has it: everyone moves as they’re supposed to move. Each person has a certain capacity, and no rationalization will identify their capacity, and you don’t argue with it. I hear people saying, “What good is that? — let’s eat, drink and be merry, because everybody’s kidding themselves who thinks there’s another objective in life.” And the proper thing to do, outside of saying, “Well, what is happiness?” or, “Who is being happy?” is to let the person eat, drink and be merry. Because if he doesn’t have the intuition or instinct or whatever is necessary, or hasn’t inherited the proper computer to do the work, he’s not going to go anyhow. He’s going to do what he was destined or programmed for: But the whole idea is trying to get a breath of relief from the programming, the treadmill.
Q: What is the zapping you referred to?
R: Well, zapping is an instantaneous hypnosis. Zapping is a technique that came out of India. Gurdjieff could zap. The first instance I ran into with zapping — there were certain yogis who came into this country forty of fifty years ago. One of them was Meher Baba and he could look at you and you would collapse; he would just stare at you. Gurdjieff could look at you and you’d collapse. Because he established a mind-to-mind contact and then he pulled the strength out of you. There has been enough of this that has happened, and it’s predictable. They can predict they can do it and it can be done. And you can do it if you’re somewhat astute in hypnosis; you can knock people off their feet.
Q: [Mostly inaudible about John Lily’s immersion tank]
R: [Inaudible; cracks some jokes] I’ve never been in one. I don’t know what it would do for you. It might be worth trying. I just don’t like the machinery there. It might be good. I’ll tell you something else, though: I don’t believe that you can take just anybody and put them there. It’s like LSD. I remember talking back four or five or six years ago with some people who had LSD and psilocybin and some other drugs. And I said, “What does this do for you?” One girl was talking about it, and she was pretty much of an authority on it — she had ruined both her kidneys with it. I don’t know whether the LSD did it or the needles or what, but her kidneys were shot, and she was pretty much of a philosopher in her last days.
But she said to me, “You get out of LSD what you put into it.” And I find that this is very true. Certain people take the same LSD — and one has nightmares, pursued by monsters and bad trips or something, while another person will take the identical LSD and have almost a spiritual experience. And I think the same thing goes for any of these experiments. You can’t get blood out of a turnip. If a person has certain basic innate qualities and they go into spiritual research, they either have to change their state of being — this is one of the secrets of it — before they go into it, or they’ll get what they’re going in for: And I think this is the way with a lot of stuff. The so-called workshops that occurred on the west coast — I suspected the motives of the people in it. I don’t think they were clear enough in their head to get the proper results. And I don’t think there’s too much difference between a man going into a tank like that or a yogi going out on a mountain where there is no one else, where he’s alone with the universe and that sort of thing. But if a person just goes out on a mountain with a hatful of vices and hangups and weakness, he’s not going to get anything …
[Break in tape]
…[whether that’s] for two lifetimes or ten lifetimes. He has to put something out there. I took LSD once — I was trying to see whether it would break open an experiential field that I had been in before. And I had a beautiful, a very beautiful experience. I died, incidentally. It started off by dying — I went through a death experience, and then I had a very beautiful experience. And I compare this with hundreds of young people that I talk to, and they couldn’t understand: an old bastard like me should have had a rough trip. I had a nice trip. But I think it was because of the way I approached it. I had prepared myself for it too. You can prepare yourself for these things.
I’m not trying to change a trend today, I’m only trying to sort some people out who may pick up an intuition from what I’m saying, that you can’t indulge in these many voices that the umpire would reject and come up with any good results. There has to be a certain change of being before you go into a search for spiritual experience. In other words, there’s a trend to have experience; there are a lot of people who want experience. And I’ve run into quite a few of them; they’d come down to my place and want to stay there, and I’d find out that they were into — I mean a whole lot of vices — and they thought that they could continue these things, all of these let’s say open spigots on the computer: The computer has to be shut. You have to put the material in the computer and then you shut off the input and the output, if you want a decision out of the computer: You can’t have a bunch of monkeys in there all the time jumping around. You’ll have an experience and what will your experience be? Monkeys. That’s all.
Copyright 1977 Richard Rose. Reprinted from a transcribed talk called A Method of Going Inside dated Nov. 1977 on SelfDefinition.org.
Richard Rose (1917 – 2005) was a spiritual teacher and author of eight books.
By Richard Rose
Bart Marshall writes:
“Richard Rose is quite possibly the most profound and original spiritual teacher America has yet produced. In many ways he is our Ramana Maharshi, and yet he remains unknown to all the but the lucky few who have happened upon his books — or the fewer still who have had the great good fortune to cross his path. Of his many writings, Psychology of the Observer is the most indispensable to the serious seeker. In it Rose reveals the essence of the process that led to his enlightenment, and directly points the way for us to awaken also.”
This page was published on May 30, 2017 and last revised on July 2, 2017.