Assagioli has a conversation about intuition and how to develop it and manifest it in the personality
By Roberto Assagioli, August 20, 1971, subtitle: Conversation with Roberto Assagioli And B.C. Original Title: Allenamento dell’intuizione – Livelli di realità – Conversazione con Roberto Assagioli di B.C. Translated With Notes by Jan Kuniholm. From the Assagioli Archive in Florence. (There is another conversation between the two of them about subpersonalities)
It is no wonder that two first rays of mind conflict. The first ray collides with the other first rays — this is normal. Now the important point is this: that you mentally train yourself to express intuitions as best as you can. But on your own — this is a process you have to do yourself — and then present the results to S.[1] from the mental level upward. You have an intuition. Instead of expressing it as such, you process it, try to interpret it mentally as best you can, and then try to substantiate it at the level of the concrete mind. You find good reasons for it at the concrete mind level, confirmations and so on. This is very good training for your mind, and in general it is exactly the function of the mind itself.
Also, you can arrive at your intuition from the mind. You can present your insight in mental terms, and use S.’s bottom-up method. This is not just his method; others use it too. And you can do it just fine, if only you must take the trouble. You see, for intuitive people this is a way of bringing down intuitions to the mental plane and confirming them at that level, making them reasonable.
It is also a scientific method. Sometimes a scientist has an intuition, and then he tries to see if the facts confirm it, through observation, experiments, and so on. But you have to do this by yourself, and present only the final products to S. and others. I think that will solve the problem. And then when he tries to present an insight to you with this method, try not to react critically but mentally cooperate with him. Think of it as a good exercise for yourself. This attitude completely changes the situation. It also helps him train his mind. Be patient with all the tortuous and progressive steps he has to take to get to his insight. Have the patience to follow him through the various steps until he gets there.
I believe in this because I have to do the same thing myself. The light of direct intuition works for me. All his processing and rationalization is really annoying. I don’t feel the need for it. But I feel I have to do it for others. You see, in writing the book I do it all the time. There are many things that I feel are superfluous, but I put them in for the sake of the readers. So, I do it all the time. That can encourage you.
(B.C.: It does)
The richness of diversity in unity is that there are all these different ways. It is good that there is this diversity. It is good because we have to become able to tread them all, and so all the paths that are undeveloped in us represent opportunities. There is a beautiful observation by D.K.: “Christ is the synthesis of all the rays in the Hierarchy.” You see, He has achieved a synthesis of all the rays. That is why He is an example for us.
(B.C.: You say that I should and could learn to work from the bottom up?)
Yes, in a sense. But by no means abandon your mode. Both ways. And be careful — first work your way, from the top down, and then reverse the process and do it with the same insight from the bottom up.
(B.C.: Like this…)
Yes. It’s fun. Practice it, but on your own. Don’t talk to S. about it, practice on your own. And then when you get the hang of it . . . This is one of the things that is best to do on your own. But it’s good that it came up. It is important for you — give it all the thought and practice it needs. And that will make it easier.
(Referring to the last paragraph in B.C.’s writing of August 14). There are different levels of communication and reality. The transcendent level is the continuum and the formless, and the flow and the process. This is the highest reality. But the others also have their own definite reality. Again, one should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Certainly, they are not to be taken seriously as if they were “absolute” or final. But they are still not mere words. They are relative realities in time and space. Here is a good example of what we are saying: you have had the insight into the higher reality, the continuum, the formless and so on. But you don’t stay at that level. You have to deign to descend to the relative reality of the Masters. (choked laughter) Do you see the point? It is a continuous paradox: what is true at one level is no longer so true at another, and vice versa. Levels of reality. And normally one should not create an opposition between them, but rather a synthesis.
(B.C.: Like this…)
Yes.
(B.C.: I wonder if I should try to focus the mind on those higher levels, and then consciously bring it down.)
No. You no longer focus the mind on the higher levels. You focus there anyway, spontaneously. She[2] is there, and she has to come down. Do you understand what I mean? She basks at the top, feels good there, and wants to stay there! (stifled laughter)
(B.C.: What is the esoteric meaning of this, assuming there is one?)
It is this, it is an esoteric truth or principle of these degrees of reality. That is, the inclusive view — to include the transcendent and the immanent.
(B.C.: So it’s like…)
(R.A. chuckles as he begins to draw another triangle)
Yes. But appreciate each level. For example, for teaching purposes: for many people you have to start with this (the base of the triangle), with the shape, and then leave it gradually to see the relativity of it. But, if you start with the absolute and the transcendent, they go out of their minds (stifled laughter). They won’t accept it. You see, it’s leading to that. It fits perfectly with what I said before, especially in teaching. The vast majority of the people you will teach are non-intuitive.
(B.C.: So you have to keep the whole triangle in mind, not to identify with any level)
Bottom to top. Emphasize it three times.
Relativity will be discovered progressively. If we start saying, according to the higher perspective of Vedanta, “everything is maya, everything is illusion, there is only one Universal Reality,” well, it will go nowhere. If the Supreme deigns to manifest Himself in objectivity (stifled laughter), He must have good reasons!
This brings us back to that Zen saying, “for many people, mountains are mountains, and plains plains…” (even for scientists, they are atoms, there are play of forces and so on). But after understanding this, one must return to the relative reality of mountains and plains. You cannot climb a mountain if you only think of atoms swirling around. Remember this example.
When you transcribe this tape, make several copies — they will also serve other intuitives. See how it fits together. Your personal problem is just one case of a more general problem.
[1] The identity of S. is unknown; perhaps someone doing training with B.C. —Tr.
[2] In Italian many nouns are given gender designations that are not used in English. It is possible that “she” in this sentence refers to “the mind” in the previous sentence . —Tr.
Leave a Reply