This is a good, longer session covering many different points. Today I’m focusing on Latuii’s ideas about the intellect and going beyond it. The questioner asks about an article he read and asks for Latuii to comment on its accuracy. Latuii challenges the entire concept that words are very effective at getting at the deeper questions intellect seeks to make plain and bare. It’s about finding a balance between one’s intuitive apprehension of an aspect and the focus that an intellectual penetration of an aspect brings to bear.

The key in all things is balance. Your intellect is a tool. Yours in balance with the proper amount of meditation and the contemplation of your, shall we say, emotional being in day-to-day and moment-to-moment actions—ah, there is perfection. Without such balance, the intellectual machinery will not feed you correct information, due to the fact that your intellect cannot synthesize information but only analyze. The activity of intuition must be sought out within a different type of mental activity which is below the conscious level. You may choose to do this while you are doing some familiar chore. You may choose to meditate. It does not matter how you achieve this state of unquestioning being in which you are listening for that within yourself which is below the conscious level.

It is, however, important for you to know that it is as important for you to understand those levels of yourself which are below consciousness as it is for you to understand that machine which is called the intellect. The intellect is a tool. The dreaming subconscious is a tool. The planetary consciousness, which lies below all of these things, is the greatest tool. Therefore, as you find your intellect racing after one idea and then another, pause and take a few moments to balance yourself with the search into other areas of your own ability to understand yourself, for within that understanding of yourself lies the understanding of that which is.

Does this answer your question?

Questioner: I had the impression that some of the ideas that were coming through in this particular paper were not necessarily purely intellectual but were a synthesis, and that’s what I was pursuing in the question. It seems like the intellectual aspect of it is simply a symbolic translation of the intuitive knowledge.

[I am Latwii.] If you can make the leap from language to intuition within yourself, then you have become telepathic with the author and no longer need his words. However, this is not usually the case, and normally one absorbs the written word with the intellect. Thus, to accomplish that which you desire, which is to imprint these ideas in your own intuition, the thing to do is to take them into meditation with the full intention of allowing your discriminatory power to discern the wisdom within them.

Again, you see, we do not wish to be your gurus. We wish only to encourage you in your own searches, for that which lies before you is your guru, if you wish to put it that way, and we are only the voices coming from various people who have volunteered this service.

We do sound, however, as though we were down on all intellectual knowledge and, of course, without some intellectual knowledge the greatest of intuitions could not then be shared with your fellow man; therefore, always the balance.

Do you see our point, my brother?

Questioner: I see your point. I guess I had not yet groked the difference between an intellectual symbol for communicating an intrinsic concept and the purely intellectual reasoning of data.

[Latwii]: In that case, my brother, let us demonstrate to you the difference. In one case a person reads that there is nothing so beautiful as a rose, and he sees the picture of a rose and perhaps even goes to the store and purchases such a blossom and puts it in his vase and observes it, having been told that this is a beautiful blossom. This is programming from outside.

There is, however, another way of observing this same flowers and that is with a shock of recognition as a miracle. When one sees a rose at dawn on a spring day with the dew still hanging from the tiny petals, with a bee still fluttering about it making honey, and the miracle and the wonder of this rose sink deep into your own understanding, and it is yours. It has come from inside. Perhaps it cannot be communicated. Perhaps you can write about this rose, and someone else may go to the store and grasp it and bring it home and try to duplicate that feeling.

Do you see the difference, my brother?

Questioner: Yes, I do. Well, I see the result is exactly the same though, and that is an understanding, the groking of roseness. One you get through first reading about it and then going to the store and experiencing it, and the other, you’ve just got to wander around in a garden until you have found one without knowing what it is.

[Latwii]: The difference, my brother, is in the level of awareness to which that love has reached. On the one hand, it has touched that within you which will survive, that within you which is free from time and space. In the other, it may or may not have reached that far but probably has not, for it has simply become something that you have experienced.

Thus, we have often said to you: our words, hopefully, are salutary and encouraging and sometimes inspiring, but they are nothing compared to your own efforts, that [of] meditation and understanding of the existence that is about you.

[Pause]

You see, my brother, we are not crazy about words.

- Latuii via Rueckert: February 18, 1979

Originally posted on r/lawofone_philosophy.