SOME ASPECTS OF EST TRAINING

AND TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY:

A CONVERSATION

Werner Erhard
San Francisco,California

James Fadiman
Menlo Park, California

This is an edited transcript of a discussion that took place Feb-

ruary 1, 1977, in San Francisco, The occasion was an informal
meeting of a few members of the Association for Transpersonal
Psychology, several Journal editors, and friends,

Werner Erhard is the founder and primary spokesman for Er-

hard Seminar Training (est), James Fadiman is a lecturer,
author, a past president 0/ the Association, and an associate
editor with the Journal.

After opening remarks by Frances Vaughan Clark, president 0/

the Association, the [ollowing discussion took place with occa-
sional audience participation.

JF: One thing I'm not sure of is whether you and I agree on
the role of the self, or the personality. That may be because I'm
so interested in "devaluing" personality. I am more and more the
using the term "personal drama" rather than personality so issue
that even "getting off one's position" to use an est term, isn't of
getting off enough since one is still attached to getting off one's personality
position. This seems to be more a transpersonal value than
perhaps you would accept.

WE: No, I'd be wholly aligned with what you just said. I'll tell
you where I think the difference might lie though, and that is
perhaps in the path. What one does with personality is not
avoid it, or ignore it, or suppress it, or shove it out of the way,
but take responsibility for it, complete one's relationship with

The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1977, Vol. 9, No.1 27

 one's personality, transcend it, and therefore include it as a
content in the context which one is when one transcends one's
personality. So, rather than to do away with the personality
-and I'm not sure that transpersonal psychology would do
away with personality-l want to make it clear that est would
not do away with the personality. One would be responsible
for it, cause it, instead of be the effect of it. Essentially one
would complete one's personality as a way of being unattached
to it.

JF: I'll go very much for that. I think the difference is that it
isn't "destroy" or "ignore", it's "devalue" the personality.
personalities What finally made it clear for me was when I met a couple of
of people who, in all general senses, are enlightened beings and
enlightened go around doing what they do, and who still have personalities.
beings And their personalities stilI had character flaws and irritations
and neurotic disturbances and bad stuff from their mother,
and I thought, "Oh, what a terrible disaster this is, to be
enlightened and still have your personality." But then as I
watch them operate they also still have their arms and their
hair. In this sense, personality doesn't interfere with their
function, but it also isn't the place from which they function.
Their personality hangs around and when it's appropriate, it
operates.

WE: Yes. That, by the way, is for me the most common

popular flaw in the notion of what it is that we're talking about
That is, the notion that people who are enlightened don't have
personalities and do have or don't have hair, as the case may
be, depending upon which discipline it is, or don't have neu-
roses, etc. That's a kind of campaign of mine-to humanize our
heroes. And the problem is that you get caught in a dilemma. If
you humanize the hero, then you begin to make human qual-
ities or personality anright, and that isn't the answer either. It
really is just as you described it. I feel that we're totally aligned
on that. I would like to find where there are differences, if there
are some. You have a better insight into both camps than I do,
Jim, so maybe you ought to point out where you think the
differences might lie.

J F: Well, there is certainly a difference in method. I think you

are more from a tradition that has people sit out in front of the
temple for a couple days, miserable, cold, hungry, desperate,
and if they still want to get in then you let them in. Much of the
work I am interested in uses the method of going out and
giving a little soup while they are out there. Milarepa (in The
Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa) has. this wonderful di-
chotomy: he goes to work for Marpa who treats him like a total
disaster, just beats him and kicks him and snarls at him and

28 TheJournalof Transpersonal
Psychology,1977, Vol.9, No.1
makes him sick, and Marpa's wife every once in a while comes
and gives him a little soup and a little love and says, "Don't
worry, he doesn't hate you; this is what he calls teaching." And
in some sense you're clearer on this being, the teacher, who, so
to speak, beats people and makes them sore. Less visible is the
wife, the compassionate side, the soft compassionate side. It's
very clear that est is compassionate but it's the compassion of
the "steel sword," and I'm not really comfortable with that
approach. I notice that in the work 1 do when I'm trying to
move people on, it's always from a much gentler place.

WE: Yes.

JF: You and 1 have talked about this in terms of the way one
runs, say, a communications workshop. That is, is it necessary
to force upsets, or force people's anxieties and irritations and
disturbances to the surface to get the job done? I think this may
be an area where we operate differently.

WE: Yes, and again I think that the difference is one of

degree. For example, in the est training it's clear to me that if
people don't have the experience of being loved in the train-
ing-I don't mean of being sympathized with, I really mean
being loved-that they are deprived of something in the train-
ing. Somewhere along the line they have got to catch on to
the fact that the person who is doing the training loves them
and is doing the training out of the experience of loving them.
By the same token, I agree with you totally that if there is a
spectrum within which to operate, est would be at one end of it
and you and the other people I know who identify themselves
as transpersonal people would probably be at the other end of harsh
it. But what I am trying to point out is that I would feel and
uncomfortable characterizing est as devoid of that gentler kind kind
of compassion. And I would feel uncomfortable as character- compassion
izing transpersonal psychology as being devoid of the harsher
kind of compassion.

JF: I've certainly been a lot meaner since experiencing your

training.

WE: There is a place where I think there's a real opportu-

nity to explore something, although we Inay turn out to agree
totally about this too. 1want to start the conversation with what
Gregory Bateson calls "natural history" and talk about what
is commonly called experience, or what we ordinarily mean
when we use the word "experience." If you say to someone
"What are you experiencing right now?", and they attempt to
describe what they are experiencing right now, what they dis-
cover is the best they can hope to do is describe what they

Some Aspects af es: Training and TranspersonalPsychology 29

 experienced a moment ago, and can never describe what they
are experiencing right now. In addition to which, they can't
even think about what they're experiencing right now, and
they can't even perceive what they're experiencing right now,
because when they stop to perceive it, it puts it back in time. I
suggest that it's actually even worse than that. Not only can't
they perceive what they're experiencing right now, but the best
that they can do is to perceive what they experienced a mo-
experience ment ago. Actually, they're not able to perceive even what they
and experienced a moment ago. The best they can hope to do is to
concepts perceive the symbols used to record what was experienced a
moment ago. Ultimately all perception is of symbols only and
never of experience. And the symbols of experience are con-
'ceptual and kind of pictorial-perhaps "conceptual" is really
the more technically accurate word.

So one has experience and one has concepts of experience.

And the purpose of the concepts of experience is to organize
experience, otherwise one would have to grope around the
walls of the room to find a hole to get through because of the
lack of the concept "doors." In addition one would have to fall
through the hole accidentally to get out of the room. So, con-
cepts about experience are very valuable in that they allow one
to survive and function in the world.

We could say that experience is process, is moment by moment

explanatory by moment, and concepts are about experiences and orga-
principles nize it and are its organizing principles. To put it into more con-
versational Ianguage, I would call a concept an explanatory
principle.

Fundamentally, I think what goes wrong in people's lives is

that the concepts begin to determine what is experienced. Then
one has a conceptually determined experience which rein-
forces the concept, which then more fully determines the ex-
perience, which again reinforces the concept, and so on. Then
people almost literally drop out of the experience of life and
live in a mechanical state in which all, or most of, their experi-
ence is conceptually derived. So if you ask someone, "Do you
love your wife?", and they say "Yes, but I don't get along with
her very well," what they really mean is that they live with the
concept that they love their wife, and very infrequently do they
have the experience, if at all.

Then, if your concepts agree with society's values, you're called

successful, and if your concepts don't agree with society's
values, you're called criminal, revolutionary, insane, etc. And
so you have only one of two things to do. First, the old notion

30 The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1977, Vol. 9, No.1

of what to do with deviant people was to give them the right
concepts through some form of brainwashing, a very new term
for a very old technique. It's also called enculturation, sociali-
zation, etc. Or secondly, you can give them therapy.

My notion about the newer therapies is that they intervene in

the space between concept and experience, and break the grip
of concept on experience so the person can begin to experience
more directly. These techniques allow people to get in touch
with their bodies, to get in touch with their sense of motion,
their way of being, their emotions and their feelings, etc.

I'd like to suggest a third alternative. The third alternative is

hard to describe because our language is designed to deal
almost exclusively with concepts or explanatory principles
and, rarely, with experiential quality. This third part of the
game is simply not available through language for the most
part. You can only point at it, you can never capture it. I am
talking about what there isn't a word for, and there really isn't
any way to talk about it because even the syntax doesn't work
very well on this.

I call this third alternative the "generating principles" of life.

So we have, first, the generating principles of life, second the the
process of life itself, and third the explanatory principles of generating
life. When you're functioning with the generating principles principles
you can't explain life. So, in Zen, it is said that those who know of life
don't tell. In other words, what generates the process does not
organize it or explain it. To say those who tell don't know
means that which explains the process of life does not give rise
to that process but merely organizes it.

As far as I can tell transpersonal psychology is very much

about the generating principles. at least it approaches them
through the paradigms of processes and of concepts. It still has
some of its roots in therapy and psychology, which seem to be
conceptual, and more of its roots in what 1 like to can the
humanistic psychological approach, which I see as experien- abstraction
tial. Transpersonal psychology seems to be centrally concerned
with generating principles. Now just to give us a language to
talk with, Tcall these generating principles "abstractions."

JF: Your model is one which points toward abstraction. In

Buddhism there is a name for this, it's called the "boat." One
gets in the boat and crosses the great water with the boat. Only
an idiot carries the boat onto the land on the other side. We call
those "idiots" scholars and theologians. Some of them write for
the Journal. They hang out here for a while and then decide

SomeAspectsof est Trainingand TranspersonalPsychology 31

 that since their stuff is useless on the other side they better go
back-which is what I think I do because I love playing with
concepts, kind of like juggling invisible baseballs.

WE: The usual models exclude abstraction, which leaves

only experience and concepts. Either you're a touchy-feely or
you've got some intelligence, one or the other and never the
twain shall meet. I think that some of the people in humanistic
psychology kind of bought that, and my suggestion is that true
intellect is a function of abstraction. There was a time when
you couldn't really learn relativity theory, although you could
different know it. In other words you could abstract it, but you couldn't
logics "concept" it. In Copernicus' time, one probably couldn't con-
for ceptualize the sun as the center of the solar system. You could
concepts create that notion, you could know it by making it so-not by
and concept-making, but by creating it. Physics fascinates me be-
abstractions cause at its edge, Einstein took physics out of the sensorium,
out of concepts. Even if you use concepts that seem to tran-
scend the sensorium, ultimately they're rooted back in the sen-
sorium. For instance, infinity (00) is a beautiful symbol. You
can put it right in the center of your concepts, and manipulate
it in mathematical models, and it's lovely. But the concept of
infinity and the "sense" of infinity at the level of abstraction
are two entirely different entities for me. So concepts have one
logic and abstractions have another logic, and the two logics
are entirely different. and they are based on entirely separate
epistemological systems.

JF: I guess I'm seeing it from a place called "certainty." Cer-

tainty is right in the middle of abstraction. The degenerative
form of certainty is called knowledge and then it goes down
from there to the lowest form which would be rationalization
or reasons. The concept of infinity, which I can't handle at all,
is more useful to me as "eternity." In terms of the conceptual
world, eternity is a long time, and in the abstraction area
eternity is an experience, and] know that many of the people
here have experienced it. If you haven't experienced it, you
don't know what it's about, and when people say, "Well isn't
eternity a long time?", you say, "That isn't it." And you say,
"Well how about a verylong time? How about three of them?"

So the thing that is fascinating to me is that all that I'm inter-

ested in, in some sense, is the little sign posts that people leave
out.It's that old problem of pointing the way, and people come
and suck on your finger. I'm really interested in how Trans-
personal is trying to set up a little set of road maps that say not
only, "There's the finger that points the way," but then there's
another sign that says that "This is only a finger, do not suck."
That's the place that I see transpersonal psychology doing a

32 The Journal oj Transpersonal P~:vcholog;~ 1977,.Vol. 9, No.1

service, talking in the conceptual world but continually point-
ing out where all the windows and doors are. In some sense I
see transpersonal as a highly intellectualized activity, drawing
from experience, taking it from eternity, and seeing what
happens.

One of Ram Dass' many stories is about his teacher who went
in and out of Nirvana. He'd ... [inhales] ... and he'd be in
Nirvana and he'd come out and everything would be totally
new and cool and fascinating, and he'd say something which
was from a place of certainty and then he'd start to get stuck in
the world. He'd think he was hungry, or an old Hindu, or
whatever his thing was, and he'd take another breath and he'd
go out again. And "out" was eternity and timelessness and
selflessness, etc., and then he'd come back and everything was
new again and he'd say something else. When you've been in
the place of certainty and "come out" now and then, the story
makes a lot of sense. If you haven't, it sounds like one of Ram
Dass' crazy stories. Physiologically it looks like you can't be in
it because that type of eternity isn't a long time, and you're in it
in time so you come in and out. And the thing about the est
training or sitting Zazen, or taking dope, or falling down the
stairs, or a lot of other things is that you may break, just for a
moment, into "eternity." Once you've been in it long enough
or often enough, then at least you know that it was there.

There's a phrase in the training called "I got it," when really
the phrase should be "I had it," because all you get is that you
had it. As soon as you say you've got it you no longer have it, signposts
but you know you had it and therefore things can change. I and
think that's what we're all talking about, and that all of our change
work has been in that direction. We're coming up with differ-
ent signposts and different ways, and the thing that I like about
what you [W.E.] do is that the training has brought into possi-
bility that moment of eternity, or certainty, or infinity, for
people who seem not to have any other signposts.

WE: There's something I have to say, and I want to say

something less than I mean as a way of sneaking up on what J
mean. I want to say that if you don't keep reminding yourself
that you're talking about that which one can't talk about, you
can rapidly come to false conclusions. When you're manipu-
lating symbols, you can make conclusions that are wholly con-
sistent or logical or legitimate within a given system of symbols,
but which have little or no legitimacy in the realm of experi-
ence and certainly none in the realm of abstraction. So at the
level of concept, we manipulate symbols around and come up
with new answers or new ways of looking at things, and that's
really a lovely process, and people enjoy it and I enjoy it

SomeAspectso/est Trainingand TranspersonalPsychology 33

 too. I'm repeating a lot of what you said, by the way, to keep
reminding us that a good idea isn't necessarily accurate about
experiences or abstractions.

It seems to me that concept is never sufficient to tell the truth in

the world of experience-that it's always deficient. It's essen-
tially deficient in a quantum way rather than in a linear way.
It's not just less than experience, it's different than experience.
I would say to transpersonal psychology people, watch out
for an equivalent deficiency with regard to experience. Being
high, getting zonked, knowing, insight, whatever, is so far be-
yond concept and provides such valuable insights into con-
cepts that it becomes very appealing, almost like bait to get
the caught on and stop at experience. When you get marvelous,
process incredible insights, and it feels terrific, and you have a sense of
and the at-one-ness and a sense of spaciousness or spacelessness, then
sourceof it's a good idea to watch out that you don't get trapped there
process because that isn't the source of the process, that is, the process,
and the process does have a source. What you can learn by
experience lies about the world of abstraction or the world of
the source of the process.

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine that you and I are

caterpillars and we're down here on the floor and we're talking
about being up there in that plant and you say, "Listen, I'm
going to turn yOllon to something. I want you to get that it's
possible to go from down here on the floor to up there on that
leaf without crawling over the space in between." Now lknow
that experientially that's crazy, that cannot be done, it's ex-
perientially impossible-T know because I've been up on plants
like that a thousand times. So I say to you, "You're talking
about some concept, about getting from here to there with-
out covering-what would be for a caterpillar-the space in
between." So I accuse you of conceptualizing, but a kind of
mad conceptualizing since it doesn't fit with the consensus
reality. If you think about it you'll see a caterpillar could sim-
ply not get the idea of flying, it's simply not available to a
caterpillar.

I like this analogy because no matter whether he knows it or

not, the caterpillar turns into a butterfly, which is my view of
the way it's all going-so all this conversation may be irrelevant
anyhow. But to the butterfly, the idea of flying is, of course,
very natural and the butterfly encompasses within the flight the
equivalent to the walk up the wall, or the space in between. So
one of the things I would say to trans personal people is that
just as there is a distinction between concept and experience, so
there is a distinction between experience and abstraction. The
process of life has one system of logic, an epistemology, a

34 The Journal of Transpersonal P

l sychology, 1977, Vol. 9, No.1
philosophy and an ontology, which is distinct and different
from and not predictable by the epistemology, logic, etc., of
experience. Now there's one last point I want to make but I
think it's your turn.

IF: I just had an image of a surfer. If you've ever been surfing

and you're riding a wave, particularly if you're body surfing so
you're more into it, there's a feeling of total unity and oneness.
Now what would happen to a surfer if you came up to him and
said, "Excuse me, do you realize the cause of this'i-vit's the
moon!" He might say, "I doubt it, because every way I have of
knowing, it's very clear that it has nothing to do with the
moon." To say it's the moon might imply living in a space,
which, even if so, detracts from life. Now I'm not sure if that
image fits what you just said.

WE: I think it does. What I think you're saying to me is

"Look, what you do with experience is experience it, be con-
scious of it, be aware ant, be in it." Now are you telling me that
you want me to be in and conscious of and aware of the source
of my experience? Even that seems to detract from the experi-
ence. 1 agree. You've fallen beautifully into my trap.

IF: You may now make your last point.

WE: Yes. The reason 1 say you've fallen into the trap, which
obviously you haven't, otherwise I wouldn't be telling you you
did, is that you're applying experiential values to abstraction, abstraction
and abstraction has no experiential value when viewed from and
abstraction. Abstraction only has an experiential value when experiential
viewed from experience, just as experience doesn't have much values
value when viewed from concept. So the validity of an ab-
straction is not predictable and even sounds ludicrous or
strange from the structure of concept.

Let me give you another analogy. If you take a deck of cards

and they are arranged in their logical sequence from ace
through king, you may for example, want to know about the
king. But if you are coming at the king from the ace, the way
you get there is to go from ace to two to three to four to five to
six to seven to eight, and every step gets you closer and closer to
the king and finally you bang into the king and you say "Ah, 1
now know what the king is because I stood on the queen and
reached the king." What I'm suggesting is that as fully as
you've apprehended the king, apprehending the king the other
way, from the top of the deck down, is entirely different.

Similarly, if you get experience backwards, which is the way in

which I think humankind has it, then in fact, no matter how

SomeAspectsof est Trainingand TranspersonalPsychology 35

 smart you are, you are stupid, because the best you can do is
explain it, but have no mastery of it. Or, the very best you can
do is to force it, which is the other end of the spectrum from
mastery of it. So, 1 say that if you don't start at the abstract end
of the spectrum with the cause of things, if you're not coming
out of the cause of things into your experience, then you're not
fully experiential. And if you're not coming out of your ex-
perience into the concepts, then you're not even fully concep-
tual. I'm suggesting that there is a logical sequence here and
that there is a logical flow or an appropriate flow or a natural
flow,

IF: There are two ways to look at that flow. One is, detach-
ment is of no value to someone who is detached, which is a
valueless space, which is very awkward when you're striving
for detachment because you realize that when you get it you
won't care about it. The other side is, and I quote a Sufi source,
"A donkey with a load of books is still an ass," and as you
pointed out, «here we are," coming from the load of books side
of the hassle. In the first research I ever did many years ago
changing with psychedelics it was clear that something changed after
attitudes, the participants had a single high-dose psychedelic experience.
values We tried to get at what had changed, and it wasn't really
and beliefs physiological. It was something about personality structure,
but mainly it was attitudes, be lie fs, and values, which made
huge shifts almost overnight. Subsequently, the research sub-
jects spent a long time trying to figure out how to restructure
their lives to include these new values.

A ud: Would you say that same kind of thing happens to the
people who go through the est training?

WE: Yes, I would say that it's a secondary result rather than a
primary result. The primary result for me is a shift not in
attitude-that happens secondarily-but a shift in one's atti-
tude about attitudes. So that rather than, "I used to have a
shitty attitude and now I have a positive attitude," one hears,
"I used to be stuck in my attitude whether it was shitty or
positive, and I actually thought I had that attitude and that was
my attitude. And now I can see that I have a whole spectrum of
attitudes through which I move back and forth, none of which
I am, and none of which is my attitude because I don't have an
attitude-T am watching attitudes occur." So I think that when
that happens, when you transcend attitude and you don't have
that attachment to your attitude anymore, you know things are
rotten, but so what, you know they are just rotten, that's all. It's
not totten that they are rotten, they are only rotten. Whereas
yesterday it was terrible if they were rotten, now, you know
they are just rotten and later on they will be terrific, and after

36 The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1977, Vol. 9. No. f

they are terrific they will be rotten again, and it kind of goes
like that in no particular order necessarily. Anyway, I'm here
amongst all the psychologists so I can't let you get away with
that attitude stuff. .

JF: From an attitude to beatitude.

Aud: We should probably look at what attitude really means.

Mood is more what you're describing I think.

WE: Technically, attitude means a way of holding the world

or a way of holding what you view. In other words, you have a
point of view about the content of your perception or the
content of your experiences.

Aud: It literally comes from how to hold yourself'in the world,

a body attitude.

JF: The word "attitude" is a stance. Every time people try to

define transpersonal education, or psychology, or whatever "transpersonal"
their discipline is, what I try to say is "No, Transpersonal isn't as an
that, it's simply a stance or an attitude, a way of taking on attitude
whatever it is you're taking on," which is my way of trying to
project us from being the kind of group that people would have
to say, "They're stuck in their attitude, let's form something
else."

WE: That's one of the things that I think is brilliant about

transpersonal.It's really beyond point of view. The word itself
almost means that.

Aud: I was interested in your caterpillars and your quick

statement when you were talking about how the caterpillar is
going to become a butterfly anyway and for that process to
occur it's not necessary for him to know it. And then I thought,
ell then, why est, why transpersonal education? Certainly not
.cause it's needed.

WE:.'·Well, r have something to say about that. Life is essen-

tially .rbout "making it" and you get to define what "it" is.
Maybe it is living in the right part of town, or maybe it is not
living in the right part of town, depending upon which culture
you're part of. But life is essentially about making it or, to put it
in the terms we use in est, it's about surviving. Most of what we
know about life is rules about surviving, and you can survive
mightily or you can survive tinily, but it's about surviving. The
three rules about surviving are "more, better, and different";
they are the answer to all problems of making it. If you've got
any problems, the answer is one or a combination of more,

Some Aspects afest Training and TranspersonalPsychology 37

 better, or different "Different:' by the way, has a parenthesis
after it; it's called "change." That's what I liked when you said,
"We don't need it." How the hell do you talk about something
you don't need? Obviously it's stupid to talk about something
"making it" you don't need-we don't talk about things we don't need in
and this world. In a world which is composed of making it, the only
values question is, what do you need? The only question is, if you're
not talking about how to make things better or make me better
or something better, or if you're not talking about more (oh,
and the new more is "less," what we have to have is more
less) or better, or different, then you're talking drivel and
nonsense. I tell people they don't need the training, that it
won't make them any better. They won't be any more sexy or
smart or better off than they were. They won't be any different
and they won't have changed. They'll be exactly as they were
when they walked into the training and they'll have gotten
nothing out of it. People only value something because in the
world of "making it" only something is of value, nothing is of
no value, and it's the whole incredible stupidity of the Western
concept of Nirvana. For my money most of the Buddhists have
sold out and explained it so that it could be held in Western
terms. This has totally ruined it. Nirvana seems to be so pa-
tently obvious that I can't get why the Buddhists have sold out
and explained it. I mean this is Nirvana, obviously, it can't be
otherwise. All of it is exactly the way it is and none of it isn't
the way it isn't, and in the dictionary that's the description of
"perfect. "

J F: Earlier someone asked, what do we do it for if those folks

who we are helping don't need it. Well, it's clear who
needs it. We do. I mean why do I like to talk to six hundred
people? It isn't that they need me, but if they weren't there I
couldn't do that, so my feeling is that therapists, much more
particularly, are filling their own needs by doing therapy on
people.

A ud: Last week some friends and I were talking about the
Association's forthcoming Fifth Annual Conference. We were
discussing "source" and the process of creativity, and a friend
quoted Einstein (from Conversationswith Einstein): "... knowl-
edge lay ready before the first discoverer appeared. He did
not create it but merely drew back the veil that enveloped it
so that ultimately we get back to intuition and its literal sense
of becoming aware of things, an exact consideration of things,
states, and relationships, and this intensive consideration full
of wonderment has always been a privilege of a very few
chosen men" -and I want to add that he said-"and women."

JF: The Islamic tradition holds that Mohammed was born

before the earth was formed, but he didn't come into existence

38 The Journal of TranspersonalPsychology, 1977, Vol. 9. No.1

until the Mohammed that we know was born out of a mother
and a father ... that it was always there.

WE: All the scientists I've interacted with take that view ex-
clusively. I have the same problem with any approach which
denies any creative knowledge and says that it's all there and
you can only discover it. Approaches of this kind generate a
problem; how come nobody learns the way the originator
learns-that is, not by discovery but by creation. Originators
lie to people about the way they learn because they did not
learn it. They created it. They didn't discover it because the
word "discovery" is a concept word, it's a conceptually valued
word, it's the notion that what exists, exists locationally in time
and place, and therefore you fail on it. Now the very same stuff
can be talked about at the abstract end of the spectrum in
which you can no longer talk about discovery in a way that the
thing was there and you are going to flop on it. At the abstract
end of the spectrum there is no evidence, and at the concept
end of the spectrum there's only evidence. So up here at the
abstraction you have certainty and down here at concept you
have proof. Down here at concept you can prove anything and
can't make anything happen, and up here at abstraction you
can make anything happen and can't prove anything. Which
goes back to, "those who know don't say, and those who say
don't know,"

To refer to what Jim said, Jim said you can only have been
enlightened, and I agree with him on one level. My way of
saying it is that what you do when you "get it" is to give it up,
because if you hold on to it, all you hold onto is a concept,
because that's all that's hold-on-to-able. Let me say it like
this: what we attempt to do is get to our experience from our
concepts, and maybe even get to the abstractions from the
concepts, and I think that was what Jim was saying about the
load of books.

It is my notion that coming to experience from concepts is a

condition called "becoming." !fyou are coming from concepts, transforming
you are becoming. It is possible to create a transformation in theflow
which the flow of life comes from abstraction aild not from of life
concept.

The thing that I said was happening when we were talking

about caterpillars was transformation. I consider transforma-
tion inevitable-with you, without you, with me, without me,
whether I like it or you like it. It's like women having more
scope in the world-my opinion is irrelevant, it's going to
happen. Now I can go kicking and screaming into that, or r can
go along politely, or I might even support it, but it's going to
happen. The true condition of transformation for me is a

Some Aspectsof est Trainingand TranspersonalPsychology 39

 condition in which the process produces transformation na-
turally, rather than by force. So "Boy, I made it. I was trans-
formed once. I got my graduation certificate and no one can
take it away from me because I have been transformed." Now
I loved what Jim said, because if you do get a graduation
certificate, you are going to hold on to it, and the only thing
that saves you is to be able to give it up. Because it's only when
you're not transformed that you can be transformed; if you're
already transformed, you can't be transformed.

A ud: The way good teachers, teachers with a capital 'T', teach,
is mostly to rely on experience, not on words. But every once in
a while, when something happens, when somebody is ready to
get kicked over the edge to do it, it seems to me that concepts
do it, a word does it at the right time.

WE: I think that it's not possible to produce this state in

telling words. I cannot tell you the truth; I can talk so that you create
the truth, the truth for yourself. If I can talk so that you can create the
creating truth for yourself, and it would come to "aha!" -and I'm not
the truth even there, you didn't even notice me. Now I didn't "get" it
from you, but you were there, and I acknowledge you, in my
terminology, as creating a space for me to create this certainty.
So at one end of the spectrum is the world of words, and at the
other end of the spectrum is also a world of words: one is what
I think the Buddhists call "skillful means," the other is a lot of
talk.

Aud: The thing that I notice about the skillful means theory is
that, when a good teacher tells a story, your thought isn't so
much, "Oh, I wish I had that experience" but, "Oh, I had that
experience."

WE: Yes, that's beautiful.

A ud: So there's no separation between you and him.

JF: I remember very vividly a friend of ours who came out to

the West. When he arrived I felt this enormous urge to teach
him something. And I thought, "I wish I was a teacher in
something, because he is so ready to be taught." And he told
us about his cross-country trip, and everywhere he stopped,
where he was going to hang out with anyone who either was a
teacher or knew a teacher, the teacher would say, "I'll take you
on." It was this ripeness, that you just knew he.was ready to be
plucked by somebody and it didn't matter who, because he was
ready. And it was rare enough so that I can't think of another
incidence.

40 The Journal of TranspersonalPsychology, 1977, Vol. 9, No.1

A ud: Your example, Jim, of the teacher and the pupil is for
me the gestalt of the object and the background. You can
either choose to look at the subject, or you can choose to look at
the background, or you can take it all in at once, which is, I
think, what we're really talking about. In your story it seems to
me that the pupil is the teacher, and so I guess I'm. having
trouble with the dynamic that is so linear.

JF: Well, let me add one other concept of Transpersonal

which I got from (Frederick) Spiegelberg. He pointed out that
Transpersonal can also be called transpersona, as through the
mask. When you get back to who's looking through the mask
you-get beyond the subject-object, you're out into the gestalt.

Aud: I think that everyone here has had the experience of

realizing that we already not only "know it" but are "doing it."
And one of the things that interests me is why it's so hard to credit,
"take credit for it." What it really is, is taking responsibility for blame,
it, and we equate responsibility with credit. Now if you take the and
credit that means you've got to take the blame, and none of us responsibility
want the blame. The way 1 see it, we don't get the pleasure of
the credit, but we don't get the embarrassment and shame of
the blame, and we don't take responsibility for it. My own
experience is that when r have those moments when I take
responsibility without the credit, then I don't worry about the
blame and I really enjoy that very purely. The question is, why
is it so hard to take responsibility?

WE: That's the end game move. For me, what it's really all
about is, are you really going to be responsible for being en-
lightened? You know, we all know people who've given up
all their worldly possessions, who've given up their reputation,
who've given up their parents, their children, their spouses,
who've given up parts of their body, people who'd give up
anything to be enlightened, except the idea that they are not
enlightened. They will not give up not being enlightened, it's
too painful, it's too terrible to give that up.

Aud: And anyway it was yesterday,

Aud: Could you elaborate on that fear of being enlightened?

WE: It was just said: To be enlightened is the ultimate state-

ment of responsibility. I mean, you no longer can lay the onus
anyplace,

Aud: It's termed, "No praise or blame,"

Some Aspects of est Training and Transpersonal Psychology 41

 WE: Yes, that's really very good. You know, once you have a
real experience of responsibility there really isn't any credit
involved. I mean you can't take credit for things being the way
they are because they always are the way they are. They are
never any other way than the way they are, and you can be
responsible for it. What people are afraid of is this kind of
blame- they are actually even afraid of the credit. You know,
as stupid and as small as I've been, I certainly can't take credit
for anything. I might even be able to bear the blame of it, but I
sure as hell can't have any of the credit. And probably the
an single most misunderstood explanation that comes out of
ultimately people who have been through the est training is this business
responsible about responsibility. People cannot get that there is something
position beyond blame or fault, credit or praise. I think what frightens
people about ultimately being enlightened is that it's an ulti-
mately responsible position.

People who come out of the training do the same stupid things
they did before the training. The point is that they give them
up after a while. And then they do the stupid things that are
next underneath the stupid things they've given up, and then
they give those up after a while. So, when you got it you do
stupid things, and when you don't got it you do stupid things,
so what's the difference? The difference is that there's a sense
of satisfaction about life or a sense of completeness about life
when you're completing counter-productive patterns, a sense
which is missing when you're simply reinforcing or dramatiz-
ing or acting out counter-productive patterns. So the real
purpose of est is not to make people better. That's really diffi-
cult for people to understand. People come out of the train-
ing absolutely uncbanged if the training has really worked.
Now there is some little side stuff that people talk about,
about how they got better and how they lost their thyroid con-
dition and all that stuff. That's not what the training is about.
The training's about not moving someplace. It's not about
growth. The training's about transformation in which the pro-
cess of life is reversed, and if, in fact, that does happen, then
community is the natural process which results from transfor-
mation.

So the training is not an end of anything. It's the beginning of

something and what it begins is that process of community. But
then, instead of trying to get enlightened, you live as an ex-
pression of the enlightenment.

42 The Journal of TranspersonalPsychology,1977, Vol. 9, No. J