And Pratyahara, Smriti is the Buddhist term for mindfulness, but it also means recollection, and Pratyahara is the term which is used in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali for the same thing, which means something, hara-ri means you gather it unto yourself, as it were, you see. It's the same thing, just two terms for the same thing. Now I am extremely pleased, this is what you should have been given last time. The other were just notes later, you know. See I haven't seen this for about thirty years, it is just the Buddhist society spewing this forth all the time, and I don't know any longer what's going on. But this is the text and I am very pleased with it. You see I was not very pleased with the other, which was mere notes, but I couldn't do better. I think it is very well done indeed.

[01:04]

And being Leo rising, I am always pleased with myself, and on this occasion I have enough reason to be pleased with myself, you see, it is well done. Now you want to say something on it, or do you want to discuss something else, I mean it doesn't matter to me. And you see now there is here a triangle, you see, which I asked him to write, but the girl who typed this out didn't put the triangle into it, you see, in 1 over 6. There is a lovely triangle, but she didn't bother, you see, and special effort. I don't know, you see, I couldn't tell you exactly, but this is how I recognize, that's why I asked him to find the triangle, but the girl didn't put, or woman didn't put the triangle in. We just got these this morning, so we haven't had a chance to study them. I just got mine two seconds ago. Well, I mean, perhaps we can find, I mean, what do you want to do, you want somebody to read it out?

[02:07]

Excellent proofs. Not me, because it's bad on my eyes. Or do you just want to read it quickly? What do you want to do, I mean? It's difficult to read quickly. Slowly. Is there anything else to read besides this? I prefer to pause it and read later, because I get stuck with the significance of the reading. Well, I mean, this shows why two wars were necessary to prevent the Germans from conquering

[03:09]

the world, because they would never allow this kind of chaos to happen. They would have done it yesterday, not today. But Americans are somewhat English, and so we are used to this chaos. It's worse in Spain and in the Soviet Union. It would be next week, some news that the machine has broken down, but we will bring it. I was in Moscow, I remember this. First, the Polish Bureau has to look through it to see what heresies are in it, to see whether the spirits of Karl Marx are offended. Who can read, then? Gemini, can you read? Have you recovered your throat? Yes. Well, you read out, then. What? Two. Two. Yes, you see, this is only notes.

[04:20]

In English, there would be no end, you see. I mean, if I were printing it, I would leave the end out. These are just my private notes. What's the difference between cosmic and psychic, then? Well, but I mean, why does Professor Gunther not write internally and externally, but cosmic and psychic? I mean, we must always assume people... I mean, you see my argument. I mean, if it were just externally and internally, there must be more to it. Hmm? And is the cosmic in you, is the cosmic only external or internal? You see, her Venus, you will be beaten because you are sitting so near me, you see. Her Venus is in, where was it, in Cancer. That's right. The Mary in fact. Venus in Cancer. Now, is this Venus cosmic or psychic? I'm just pouncing on you.

[05:23]

You said internally. There is this Venus, internal or external. If it were only external, why would it affect her attitude or life, isn't it? Well, so that's the first thing. Why do we have these terms, cosmic and psychic? I mean, why don't I have for psychic, mental, and for cosmic, natural or heavenly or something like that? I mean, why do we have psychic instead of mental? I mean, I'm perfectly capable of typing out mental things, but I don't. You seem to have more of a personal connotation to it. It's an individual consciousness versus some unconscious world out there.

[06:31]

No. This is definitely not so. But psychic is the furniture of your mind, which is not recognized by official psychology. Mental is that which is recognized by official psychology, which is both conscious and unconscious. Psychic is all sorts of moonshine, like telepathy and ghosts and things like that. So psychic is the sum total of your mind, not only the one which is recognized by academic psychology, which makes it very uninteresting. I mean, psychic includes... You see, mental means you distinguish, say, types as... I mean, the American method is somatotonic, viscerotonic, and cerebrotonic. That is mental.

[07:35]

Psychic is Pisces and Leos and all this kind of stuff. Is cosmic, again, standing in the same relation to astronomy or something like that? No, cosmic, no, is everything about the external world, but not restricted to what modern science admits, i.e. astrology plus astronomy. Astronomy would be natural, but astronomy, astrology, and anything else which comes into your head... ...is cosmic, you see. That is the meaning of that. But the internal and external is not very accurate, because that is one of the difficulties of these magical things, that there is no clear division between the external and the internal. I mean, for instance, if you know, I mean, ask Venus, or think better of a different example, what are you...

[08:37]

Your son, you are a damnable Virgo, isn't it? Now, you see, this Virgo's son, which is operating in you, is that now up there, or is it in you? You see, it's both. I mean, according to astrology. Because otherwise it couldn't make him into a damnable Virgo. It must be in him. I'd like to ask a clever question like this. Oh, we were not fast enough, you see, but I mean... So therefore, this was not quite the correct answer, you see. That in magic, the difference between external and internal is blurred. Is cosmic then not related to... ...specifically external? No, no. Cosmic means that, you see, natural means that it is dead. Cosmic means that it is alive.

[09:39]

Natural. Natural, if you see. You can take the moon, let us take the blasted moon, you know, moon up there, the Americans call it moon. Now, from a natural point of view, the moon is a mass of matter, isn't it? They are still nettering on what it is and spending a lot of money on finding out whether it's volcanic or whether this yellow muck which they brought there is something or other. Now, from the point of view of the cosmos, it is a living thing which influences lots of things here on the earth. For instance, when the moon is full, people go off their heads and things like this. Or the moon, where was your moon? No, your moon is large, so we must fast. So where was your moon then? So with him, one must be careful that he will crush you if you are not careful.

[10:42]

Now, you see, that is a moon which the astronomers would just laugh, you see, who has ever heard of a thing like this, isn't it? The moon which we spend money on is a thing which consists of a lot of dust. That's a natural moon. A cosmic moon is a moon which makes him act to be vicious if he is thwarted. So the cosmic in that sense is very definitely not an external moon. Well, it is both external and internal. The whole category of, I mean, the whole concept of external and internal, you would not apply to it. Dr. Kanza, how could you distinguish this in terms of, say, a Sambhogakaya Buddha and a Svasambhogakaya Buddha? Or a Dharmakaya Buddha and a Svabhagakakaya Buddha? Bulgarians are always precise. On this occasion, the Bulgarians model. Say it again. We speak of a Dharmakaya Buddha.

[11:47]

And a Svabhagakakaya Buddha. And if I'm not mistaken, that corresponds to a cosmic Svabhagakakaya. No, you are totally mistaken. Now, do we have something to write here? I mean, since you brought it up. And I just yesterday spent $4.50 on buying something which Takhtang Tulku is letting loose. On mankind, full of Sambhogakayas and things like this. Takhtang Tulku, you see. So I will answer it. We can't. Then you must just take it on trust. But it's so much easier, you see, since he who brings in Sanskrit, if I could write it down. But I can't write it down. Okay. Now, he got it totally muddled up. Totally. I don't say totally, but it is absolutely totally. But it is very relevant to the question. I mean, this is perfectly true.

[12:53]

That in the Buddha now, you have four bodies. And the first body is the body as it is in itself. I will give it to you in English. The body as it is in itself, that is the Svabhavikakaya. Svabhava meaning own being. Svabhavikakaya. Now, that is the Buddha's body as it is in itself. Now, this is now reflected in three other Buddhas, in three other bodies. If it is regarded with wisdom, it becomes the Dharmakaya, the Dharma body. If it is regarded with faith, it becomes the enjoyment body or the Sambhogikakaya.

[13:57]

And if it is regarded by the ordinary nitwit, it is the so-called transformation body or Nirmalakaya. These are the four bodies. If you say it is not so, you are just wrong. There are things I really know. It is not a matter of spiritual insight. And it would be much easier, of course, if I could write it down. But I cannot. So, those are the four bodies. Now, the first body you can't say anything at all about. Because it is as it is by itself. You cannot say anything about it when you are there. No, not too much. I know what this blasted thing looks like when I look at it. But what it looks like when I don't look at it, I couldn't tell you. What does it look like if nobody looks at it?

[15:02]

You can think about it till you are blue in your face. You have no idea at all. It is a thing in itself. So, therefore, that's off. Now then, you can look now at the Buddha, either with the eye of wisdom, then you get the spiritual Buddha, the transcendental Buddha, which we are. We are transcendental. The top word. Or you can look at them as an ordinary person, the ordinary nit. Now, the ordinary nit just sees an ordinary person walking along. That is the transformation body. That is the sensory world. Now, the body which corresponds to the intermediary world is the Sambhogakaya, which is translated as the cosmic body, for instance. You can translate it as a cosmic body. Do you see that? So, therefore, the triple world, which I have, is the basis of Buddhology also.

[16:06]

Well, you seem to be still at doubts. Well, I knew the relationship of the Svabhavikakaya Buddha to those three other bodies. I came across the term Svasambhogakaya Buddha in Lama Govinda's book. Yes, you see, Lama Govinda is a man whose knowledge is about as genuine as his title. So, I would not pay too much attention to it. In other words, if this great man should come to San Francisco, as he occasionally does, you ask him, one, for the Tibetan corresponding to this wonderful term, and two, where precisely, dear sir, did you find it? Not in your own books, but in Tibetan books. Do you follow that? I mean, that's a great difficulty. I mean, these people have an enormous capacity for confusing everybody. But as I have explained, it is perfectly clear, isn't it?

[17:10]

You have the Buddha's body by itself, then you have it on the transcendental level, on the natural level, and on the intermediary level. And this other thing is just him there, spinning along. He has no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't know Tibetan. I mean, he's just... He's just a Lama. Perhaps you also ask him in what sense he is a Lama. No, that's a great difficulty, you see, that it just always sounds... You see, if we were haughty towards people who have no degrees, but we have some reason for it, because they cause untold confusion, you see, by introducing a thing like this, which is quite impossible. Yeah. So therefore, cosmic, and you call it a cosmic body, because, again, it is living. Whereas the natural world in modern science is dead.

[18:14]

It's all a lot of pieces of metal dashing about. So therefore, we have explained to our satisfaction the words cosmic and psychic, and why we did not say natural or mental. Any more? I mean, you are still chewing on it. You are a Virgo, of course. There is no real... There is no pre-established harmony between us, but the exact opposite. So what are you still trying to chew on? Maybe I'll be able to ask later if I have a question. You have a question? Well, you can have a question now. All right. You see, he should not be, you see. That is a question of astrology, you see. Astrology means that he should not be, and therefore the great wisdom would be that he and I together are the universe. But still he shouldn't be, you see. Astrological opposites, you see.

[19:18]

They exclude each other and go on each other's nerves. And therefore your task is now to embrace them in yourself and complete yourself by, I mean, absorbing this kind of finickiness into my own essence, you see, which I find very difficult. But in any case, I am delighted that you are usually supposed to be very precise and you cause the most frightful confusion. Even a Pisces couldn't have the more confusion. Dr. Kotlin, to go over this again, the Sambhogakaya is this intermediary world. Yeah. In all of its myriad or its four different categories that you are referring to. Oh no, I wouldn't say. You are catching me out. You see, there is one thing, I don't want to find the false category. Where is the blasphemy? The so-called fourth category. Concrete visions and symbolic experiences of transcendental... Oh, there is the fourth. Thank you very much.

[20:19]

Well, I am glad, you see, I mean, that's what I meant. Because I later on see it's the most important, and I thought, what the hell has happened to it? It's no longer there. No, you see, no, I don't see anything of the kind. What I see is that Buddhism assumes that you have an approach to the Buddha which transcends the sensory world. And this is an approach of faith. And this gives two bodies of the Buddha in fact. It gives what we can call his glorified body, which is the body which has the 32 marks. You must have heard of the 32 marks. You see, he has a halo and he has a third eye and he has sort of hood over the head and things like that. Now this can only be seen with the eyes of faith. You see, the ordinary person would never have thought of this, you see, because to him the Buddha just looked like some weary old chap who was trotting along there in the heat of India, you see.

[21:20]

But with the eye of faith you see the body which is the basis of Buddhist art. You see, Buddhist art has never tried to show the ordinary body of the Buddha. There would be no point in it. But it only shows the glorified body. Do you understand? But then in addition of the Mahayana says, there is a body which can only be seen by the assembly or congregation of Bodhisattvas. Hmm? You see, therefore this Samoikakaya exists of two tiers as it were. The one is what the ordinary faithful, if they have faith, see. I mean it's difficult to believe, but I mean that's what they say. You see, you can see that. And this is a basic question of Buddhism, an aspect of Buddhism which is so alien to Europe that we find it very difficult to believe it. You see that they say this is a very beautiful body

[22:22]

and the Sanskrit word for it is āsī-cāna-kāyā, which means the body which you never get tired of seeing. Hmm? Hmm? Is this an actual... I mean you could imagine that you would never get tired of seeing Marylin Monroe without any clothes on. Hmm. It's rather difficult to believe. But you could imagine that, isn't it, if you are an American. I mean you see what you are made of. Now the same about the Buddha. Of course it would be better for her to keep a few clothes on, to keep her jewels going. But the idea is, you see, that it is a body which is so beautiful that you want to look at it again and again. And that applies to the ordinary people who are, here they are, you and me and so on, if we have faith we are supposed to see that. You see that is the same idea which Greece had that spiritual and physical beauty go together.

[23:24]

And only the barbarians of the North do not see this. You see in Buddhism it is an argument to see you are so ugly. You see, your ugliness is an argument against you because it shows it is a retribution. Hmm? What a ghastly person you must be to look as ugly as you. Hmm? Now this is, I mean, against everything you learn in Puritanism, isn't it? But it is the Greek idea, I mean it is called the Kaloy Kagatoi. That the people who are beautiful in spirit are also beautiful in body. And there it becomes the basis of homosexuality. So do you see that? In Buddhism homosexuality has been frowned upon. So that is the first tier. Do I make myself clear? Now the second tier now in the Mahayana is that if now the Buddha preaches to the Bodhisattvas then they see something else.

[24:27]

Which is now a still more glorified body as it were. And becomes a cosmic body, much bigger. You see the first tier of the Sambhogakaya is 16 feet high. Glorified person. That is a glorified person, you see. But he is 16 feet high. His collar is made of gold. He has not only halo but a sort of halo all along the body. And then he has light coming from here. And then he has got webs between his fingers. And all these interesting things, you see. That shows how far it goes back. Because in England for instance Beowulf has that too, you see. It is a sign of an ancient hero to have these webs between the fingers. That is that one. But now if you now come to the Bodhisattvas you have another body added to it. Which is infinite. Or practically infinite. You see that in the Shin sect in Japan.

[25:31]

If you have these pictures of Amitabha as the rising sun. You must have seen that one. Amitabha over the mountain. Now that is the Mahayana glorified body. You see that. So you have two. Now they both depend on an attitude of faith. You see the ordinary person sees precisely nothing. So that is the similarity to my intermediary world. But now to press it still further it would be absurd now because I have four different kinds. They have got four different points. I mean this has nothing to do with it. But the point is that the Buddhists have accepted the basic thing obviously in the definition of the Buddha. Don't you see that? And therefore you see you cannot see the Bodhisattva the Buddha preaching to all these Bodhisattvas in the sky in some way or other. If you have no face you just don't see anything.

[26:34]

You just see a few clones. If that. Because you are out of the sensory world. You see in order to transcend the sensory world you must have special sense organs to get it. I mean even with astrology there are people who only use their brains. They cannot do it. It requires a sort of clairvoyance to build it up. I mean if you would see me doing it you see it's just you see I do this with my hand like this conjure it up out of the blue. And if you don't have this conjuring ability you can't do it. I mean his views on astrology I wouldn't pay any attention to because he would go from fact to fact and would find them daunting. So no interest. You have to have it. All right.

[27:35]

Any more on this thing? Well the truth is the learned doctor is not prepared for the question. You see I haven't seen this stuff for 30 years. You ask me for something I just don't know the answer to. I've never thought about it yet. So we have. I think we better go on reading. I have explained to my own satisfaction the words cosmic and psyche and brought in a lot which nobody had expected would be brought in. But you see the original term is Asi Chanakya which means the one

[28:39]

which you get never satiated with in looking at. That applies to the whole range within Sambhogakaya. And that also applies to you see the enjoyment body is the body whom the bodhisattvas enjoy. Sambhogas. Sambhog. What is just means enjoy. Sanskrit. It's the same thing again. It's the same term but it uses a different root. The main thing is that you are overjoyed to see it. Just as we assume that the ordinary American was overjoyed when he saw Marilyn Monroe having a bath. Mahayana art emanates from this vision. No, the Buddhist art emanates from this vision. And the Hinayana art concentrates on the one tier

[29:40]

and the Mahayana art on both. On both. I mean if you have for instance the Buddha of Kamakura the famous Buddha of Kamakura that is the glorified body number one not the cosmic one. But he has got, you know, they have the greatest difficulty in getting this top notch on, you see. That was a terrible difficulty. He had a sort of turban on the head and the Greeks worked on it in Gandhara and it becomes uglier and uglier and uglier. And then it took about a thousand years until this was tamed in the Kamakura Buddha. And in the Kamakura Buddha

[30:41]

it is tamed and becomes beautiful or at least becomes innocent. But there you have for instance the one that all the hairs on the Buddha's body curl to the right. They do it. If you look quite closely my hairs don't curl at all. But they all curl to the right. And that is one of the 32 marks. He has the eyes of it really means a cow but I always translate it of a beautiful heifer. Because cows don't have much prestige. And if you look at a cow she has really beautiful eyes. I actually went I live where there are cows I know people I'm glad to say. And I was amazed how beautiful the cows eyes are. And what is the word you just go and look. Well you now have cows in green green garbage. Well I mean that would be an opportunity

[31:42]

to improve your knowledge of the 32 marks looking at the eyes. You have in the I mean the most famous thing I mean there would be lots if I would start I mean I must stop it you see a lot of these things is the most famous is the Amitabha rising beyond the mountains. And then you see you're headed because now the difference is and that's a very important difference that in the Mahayana this body has an assembly around it. It's part of the universe which is known as the Buddha field Buddha Kshetra. And therefore on these things in Japan which are just I mean ordinary things that just have survived in Japan you have not only the Buddha Amitabha in his cosmic body but you have then the congregation all over the place the so called

[32:42]

Buddha field or Buddha kingdom or something like that. So therefore all Buddhist art is on that subject. And why then just to ask you a question why then do they never represent the actual body of the Buddha? I mean what we would call the natural body but the average Nitzo. Oh the answer is so simple that you obviously don't know it. Huh? Because Buddha was a negro? Negro. He was not usually an intelligent negro you see. He was either a negro or a mongol probably a mixture between negro and mongol. I mean this is not I mean no you see most Buddhists

[33:42]

had no experience of negros I mean it's only since this religion has moved into this part of the world that it has collided with the negro question in Asia it has never Yes but why? There must be some reason in it I mean Buddhists are intelligent people I mean that is a great advantage of religion. It's all thought out. It's not a stupid religion. No. Nobody knows. Huh? No, no the marks are all supernatural out there. Oh you mean you have like Christ becomes then a white man and all the negros begins to young and so we want a black one and the chicanos

[34:43]

want a brown one and then the little Japanese want a lovely Madonna yes. Well I mean this shows you you know nothing. The reason given is that the ordinary body is putrid and repulsive. You see that Buddhism has always thought to withdraw all narcissism from the body. You see which is again completely against what we are being taught. It says that order is a stinking filthy thing. To see beauty I mean that's why I thought of this already when I brought up Marilyn Monroe. It would be very difficult for a Buddhist to be enchanted with Marilyn Monroe in the nude. I mean when she has clothes on it's alright you can imagine all sorts of things. But some naked bitch you see you would at once regard as so putrid and stinking to high heaven

[35:44]

if you have done this as good Buddhists should have done that you would see no enchantment in it at all. You don't like it but I mean that is the truth of matter. And this is the result you see you know these are official meditations and I mean I have done this I could not I mean I am quite interested in the girl but I would never regard a woman as beautiful. The whole idea of a woman as beautiful I just I mean this is it becomes second nature to you I mean it's just no wonder these American females always deodorize themselves to such an extent that really nothing is left at all. So you see that is an essential part of Buddhism that on the one side you have the theory that physical beauty is a sign of goodness. And an ugly man and especially a deformed man must not even become a member

[36:45]

of the order. This is forbidden. Because he is obviously the curse of heaven visibly rests upon him as you see Christianity. But even a beautiful physical body is not sufficiently good enough to portray Buddha. No but I mean there is not. There is not. There is not. You see the body is and the body is filthy I mean it's absolutely filthy. You see you see you have all these meditations looked enough in my book. I mean you start see with the nine apertures. Now you see you go on with the nine apertures a bit long time. For about five hours you deal with the nine apertures. There are nine isn't there? The one girl whom I really love on the campus has eleven apertures because she has two holes in her ears to put brains into that. But still there is still the other nine. Then someone says then you have

[37:45]

you see I mean you see it in America I mean your whole purity river that all people smell. And you know in America I mean women I mean it's just fantastic to see what they do here to deodorize themselves. I mean I suppose they do it. I mean I don't look at me I don't know whether they do it or not. I couldn't care less. But if you look on television and so on there's a lovely one with two little girls they are like this and so on. And it is that absolutely not a smell is left on the whole blasted bitch because it's all pushed off. So do you see that? There's the smell there are the apertures. And generally I mean it's the most undesirable thing. Don't you see that? From that point of view you see you have a definite aversion to the physical body as being filthy as an aesthetic objection to it. So it is aesthetic as an objection and I find it

[38:46]

you see I mean that is one way which is so second nature in me that I feel I feel this. I mean they say I mean if we again say make her suffer that I would rather touch a rotting corpse with a pole ten feet wide ten feet long than to touch a woman on her skin and rub her it's the rubbing which brings out the heat and the general smell and sweat and things like that. You have that. I mean it may be distasteful for you but I mean you must understand Buddhism as it is lived you know. You have that in Shakespeare. Shakespeare he was a Taurus and Taurus he loved sex you see he loved it. But when he got a bit older he saw that this led to terrible sweating I mean there are lovely descriptions of the actual process.

[39:48]

So you see this revulsion against the flesh or whatever it is called is an aesthetic one and so in in Shakespeare and so it is in Buddhism. You see it is a revulsion to the sight and to the smell. I mean the smell is terrific. I mean there is a lot of smell in it. Real salt. I mean you feel uncomfortable. The attitudes you see now therefore if the Buddha had got that this does not express his nature in the least. That's why it is forbidden you see for Buddha to for 500 years to show him at all in the human form. But then after 500 years under the influence of Greek civilization he was then shown in an idealized form which however has none of these features. You see they have the most vague explanations of this. You see. I mean for instance the smell which they always have the smell which you can easily

[40:52]

understand in the East. You see. You can imagine I mean how the Indian females used to stink. The Indian males you see they stink. I mean that is the main feature which any British imperialist brings back to England that he describes them as a lot of stink. He indicates I mean this is the grateful or pleasant way in which they talk about their former subjects. And there is always a stinking stink. So there must be some smell in it. I do not defend these British imperialists. But it must be a sort of outstanding stink to our heaven. And then a few machine guns were used to reduce their number. So therefore you see the body is definitely a filthy accretion which has no beauty whatsoever. You see any beauty

[41:54]

you may have is in the imagination. And I say I mean well you may not see I have done this. You see I have done all sorts of things and this is clear to me. I mean if you yes I mean it is usually women I mean in our case it is women. If I think of a naked woman I mean this woman there in the naked I just see it. Thank God. She wears clothes and she has a misfortune to sit to my left and all this will be repeated to mankind for 600 years. These things only last for a hundred years. Could you say or is it possible to say that there is some intrinsic statement or some intrinsic you can say that the Buddha is intrinsically beautiful or that there is some basic aesthetic consideration which underlies all of this? Yes.

[42:55]

I mean you see the logic behind it. If beauty is a reward for good action you see a beautiful woman was a virtuous woman. An ugly woman was an unvirtuous woman. It is as primitive as this you see. It is as full. No. Then the Buddha must have been excessively beautiful. But not in his physical body which was absolutely awful. But in his glorified body. You see here within him we all have a glorified body within us. I mean I have it. You know this in theosophy. You have the aura and all this kind of thing. You have vast penitence. On this you see that you can see the aura. Can I do it? Sometimes you can. You see the aura. You see that the body does not exactly stop here at your skin but there is a bit further on. You can see it if you like. So therefore you see

[43:57]

it is in the logic you see that the Buddha must have a body infinitely more beautiful than his body but it is not this kind of thing. Because in Buddhism you see this is an aesthetic aversion to the body which is connected with an aversion to sex as the most dangerous rival to meditation. I mean if we can begin again back to our little girlies then any beauty which might be in them is due to our sexual desires. So I cause a riot in the third class I give in Berkeley by saying the definition of an instinct is that you are interested in something which is inherently uninteresting and then try to explain by the object of the sex it was inherently uninteresting. And I mean you just I mean I couldn't keep it up I mean you were bold. You mentioned later on here

[44:58]

the world of non-instinctual objects. Yes, non-instinctual objects. What did you I didn't quite understand what you were saying. The world of a non-instinctual object is that you have a beauty you see that any beauty which is connected with sex at most and also with men you see I mean it's obvious that the amount of latent homosexuality in us is enormous. I mean I noticed this in Oxford this is agreed on you see this is one privilege which we have. We can be homosexual and are not prosecuted. And it's a privilege you see. People, the world seems people who sleep with boys all the time and nobody would dare to touch him. We are the children of the sun. Now this is being standardized by having Parsons' Pleasure. Parsons' Pleasure is where you bathe in the naked completely. Only men are allowed. And I also sometimes went to Parsons' Pleasure not really

[45:59]

because I prefer girls any time but because a friend of mine a man called Harvey we were writing a book together and he insisted on going there was this typewriter and then I saw that I had a tremendous amount of homosexuality in myself which I never quite feel like. You see that you walked along and there you saw them you see some real boys dying to the love girls here nowadays you see and it was exactly like it. But then I realized between boys and girls there's no means as clear as you imagine and in fact later on when I started to be thinking I found that I'm always only interested in girls who look like boys myself. You see my libido only works and they are always invariably repressed or suppressed lesbians are a fraudulent man. So you see so therefore if you speak about the beauty of men

[46:59]

the devil is in it too. You have the libido in it just as you have with the girls. And it's difficult to demonstrate but I was absolutely amazed what I thought about this when I just thought to myself how good it is. Thank God I'm fixed on these females because otherwise I would get involved in this which has the greatest advantage at least in the English form that it causes forms of jealousy which are so pathological that I prefer on the whole heterosexual variety. Now you see so therefore now what you have to find is a non-instinctual beauty. And that's a very difficult thing. Because I mean you know I mean Freudianism and so on that a lot of sex symbols are smuggled into the world sublime things you see. Now a non-instinctual object would be pure beauty which is of no interest to any of

[47:59]

your instincts. That is what is meant. But for instance you have it I mean among the artists who have it Blake I would an English artist called Blake I think he comes very near it. Whereas of course most I mean a very large part of western art is just polite pornography for the rich. If you look at it I mean the Madonnas and so on it is quite obvious. These are just little gods in Italy you go to bed with normally. And now you put them there and put a little baby by their little bosoms you see and then you come around. I mean the non-instinctual ones are the Byzantine ones. But I mean the Renaissance and so on that is all mere pornography. It's clear. So in terms of your previous comment a non-instinctual object would be

[48:59]

something which is also interesting. Something which would not interest any sensible person. In which nobody who has any sense would ever be interested in. That is the test of it. Something like the transformation body. Yes like the transformation body. I mean any instinctual person would see what's that. But there are such things and the only example at the moment you see as I say I'm unprepared would be Blake. I think he is the nearest I can think of and there is especially a very beautiful one which I hope to reproduce in my next book if I can bully my publisher into it which is by Blake drawing of the cave of the nymphs as described by Porphyry

[50:00]

a Neoplatonist you see. I found that. You see now that I would have thought was about the nearest I could think. But and compared with that most of western art is clear pornography I mean it is just titillation just showing enough of the women to make them look attractive. Yeah. So I'll be making some head I mean have I made myself clear on it? Yeah. You see I mean so therefore this kind of physical aversion to the physical body is of the essence of Buddhism. I mean I do not out for a moment that you may later on invent forms of Buddhism which may change all this. I'm only talking about which is known to man. And that is you see why the entire tantra the whole purpose of it is to transform your body into an ethereal body. And

[51:03]

enormous efforts are made which are fantastic what they have thought of and produce what they call the Vajra body the element type. So it's not to liberate your ordinary body in any sense? I don't think so. So no this is the sort of stuff you get. an unusual understanding of what it is that you use your ordinary senses. Well that is the usual understanding in a certain part of the world which is known as the B area of America. This is only a very small part of the world. Well not a lot about Buddhism here which I've never heard of before. No. They have a seminar it's called Tantra Yoga Sensual Fulfillment Seminar. It says you can use the ancient teachings of Tantra Buddhism to obtain greater sexual satisfaction. They're holding these seminars in Sausalito. I know it

[52:03]

only too well I know it only too well because I was asked to attend these things you see. And I don't know as what. You see quite a lot is known of this and what is known is you see that sex sexual intercourse in the Tantra means the withholding of the semen. That is a fact. And all I can advise you is to try to do it. My hat sir. And then you will see that this is a form of asceticism which is what they think of. It just can't be done. Well it can be done. I mean you may have heard of coitus interruptus practice known here to some extent too. Now this coitus interruptus

[53:03]

is about multiplied by a million and we see the effect on the nerves. It's terrific. And therefore any satisfaction which is derived from it must be purely imaginary. This is a technique to develop your body? Yes. You see what you have to do is to overcome your instincts. You see this became clear to her. She is chaste. You see I am not. You see Venus in Cancer chaste. You see that sex is a sacred thing. To me it's a mere joke. So in consequence I will explain it in my own jocular form because Venus is in a query. Now you see the point is to overcome your instincts by denying them in action. Now

[54:04]

In action as opposed to? To just in general the thinking. Now what you do is you know we have sexual intercourse and you must do it in the yogic position. That's the first thing. Venus this shows that I clearly am a monk a Mongol reborn because when I was a young man I tried instinctively to do this without ever having read any books about it. So I assumed this was my yogic position. Now once you get over this in addition you must keep your semen semen is an American word I hope. Now this is total madness because you see now the woman now you must have the poor girl who is not a Shakti but a Prajna a little wisdom

[55:05]

she must be small because otherwise she just fall off you must have little Shaktis and you will find that on the pictures they are always little ones. So I took one little little jewels that's why I know everything about jewels. Now then however you find that you have not reckoned with the facts of life because you are stuck now in this woman I mean I must bring at least so much physical fact you are stuck in this woman. Now you say to yourself be a good boy keep these plastic sperms in. But she you see thinks how wonderful it is and she has got a thing which all the time goes like this you see which is always a vulva or something to be pushing now you see if you say to her keep still we want to do this here she is driven mad you see because her entire organism is built to go like this to get these plastic sperms out

[56:05]

of you I mean if they had learned that they wouldn't survive that and she survives it without getting into a state of total hysteria then you have overcome your attachment to sex and the amount of fun involved I mean you see celibacy I mean it's very much more convenient you see and this of course is terribly funny because in America of course women here they imagine you see that they are equal and all this kind of thing and so they dislike and so one of these little girlies came to me a Chinese girl and wanted to write on women in Buddhism and then now they had always a very bad name there

[57:05]

you see because they stir up these passions and their filthy bodies you see all the time but then do you not think professor the tantra the position of women were immensely increased by them allowed to become consorts and shepherds and I just looked at them and said now are you one of these little coits who come along to pull my legs if you have the remotest idea how your position would be improved if you were stuck on to a man in the only position and were allowed to keep still and not pull at him you would think differently but she was the kind of Chinese they have eyes like lizards you see and I wonder does she poke fun at me or not I do not know whether she pokes fun at me but in her paper later on the whole page was written about the glorification of women by being allowed to be labored by these yogins so I mean do you follow this

[58:05]

I mean I don't know whether you follow it or not you see the whole point is I mean if you know anything about sex is to get rid of the blasted sperms and in fact the interesting thing is that it appears to you when you do this I don't know whether anybody is allowed to do this is that it is really a terribly urgent matter to get rid of these sperms I mean you get really involved in this matter at least I do but here you have to completely deny this and therefore you see the people who do it see that the pain is almost unbearable you see it's still being done I mean we don't know what is getting done but it is still being done that there are many yogis in India who do it you see like Shiva Shiva my wife and a friend of mine whom I do not know he lived with them and they always have to laugh at the barbarians think that

[59:05]

this is a form of going to abroad whereas in fact it's the exact opposite you see it is just destroying your instinct by torturing it almost beyond endurance I mean don't you see I mean I would have thought so I know especially the poor little girls you see because I mean they must be small and they must be young too because really these old hegs are no good for them so you have a quite so young chick of 16 or 17 you see come on she keeps still they at last begin to feel entering into the meaning of life so I'll drink off their heads I mean do you follow that this is I mean without any doubt I mean this is absolutely 100% certain what I tell you that this is in all the books about him and in fact I found in

[59:59]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ