What is a Glimpse?

William Samuel recommends adding glimpses to your journal, and I’ve been doing that for about half a year when I review the day. If I haven’t had a glimpse I write down something I appreciate… or can appreciate.

A direct glimpse example: 11/1/19: The source of love is what’s alive – almost by logic.

But what is a glimpse? Is there a “true” glimpse? What voice does it speak for?

Once the wonder of Glimpses is understood, it isn’t long until we’ve examined them carefully enough to see that they come from two seemingly separate sources. First, there is the direct Glimpse, as when we’re writing in our journal or when an answer comes out of the blue from NOT thinking. Then, there are the indirect Glimpses as when we see the beauty of a galloping horse or the grace of a new rose in the garden or the tender smile of a stranger. One glimpse is direct, the other indirect, as if delayed in the world’s time while it developed for the receptive awareness to see it.

…Glimpses arrive in both ways, and their Origin is the Same Light beyond ordinary light. This is in part what Jesus meant when he said that the stones would minister unto us. “Cleave a piece of wood, I am there; lift up the stone and you will find Me there.” Yes, there is Light beyond light; there is a significance in everything, quite beyond the values given by men.




An indirect glimpse from 10/17/19: The moon looks so big…because it is big. – somehow this makes me cry, release, hope, like believing in God, that the universe is OK – it can take care of itself.

If a glimpse comes from reading a spiritual book, I think that leans towards an indirect glimpse. For example, these three while reading Richard Rose’s 3 Books of the Absolute on 10/19/19: “I is dead. Death is dead and life has no living…All that remains is all” – a feeling he’s seeing something true and real. This implies unconscious knowledge of this.
“and I saw the voices of men…and I saw the beautiful patterns of motion…but the world was as still as death” – still as death, this feels important – an issue I turn from and not faced yet. To face these could be a path.
The poem, in general, feels honest, true, and says there’s more than I’ve seen yet.

What should I do with these? Sit with them; pick one and sit with it, asking what do I hear? What message is it saying? It has a life to it – could change me a bit. And would be safe to let in. I have let it in a little – but not fully.


As one lets go, it becomes natural to have more Glimpses. They come in greater strength and regularity—provided we know what to do with them when they arrive. Among many things I do with my Glimpses is to look for their confirmation out in the tangible world of people, places and things. Direct glimpses are precursors of knowledge breaking into the community of mankind. Presently my Glimpses tell me that a new clock is soon to begin ticking in the guts of people everywhere. I anticipate seeing these insights confirmed as Good in the affairs of men.

Yes there is a time to withdraw from the world and think of other things, but there is a time to come back and see the mountain again—and commence to do on the mountain what that seeing commands.

It sounds like the question I need to ask myself is, what action does this glimpse request?

10/16/19: self-definition is something you get to do. You get to define yourself. You already do. This one seems to suggest taking up the reins and being my own authority about what I am in a way that can choose to exclude what anyone else says. After that, I did allow a self-definition as an individual observer with limited will. But have I really done everything with this moment of light I can?

Can glimpses become more, or do they stay enigmas? Like abstract art that seems to have some message, but it’s not clear what I’m supposed to hear? Like a dream that feels important but its message is unclear. Glimpses do seem like dreams – the mind projected something on what it heard.

Once upon a time I wanted the glimpse to bring information to this old sense of myself and work a wonder for it. Hear this softly now: The Glimpse doesn’t just bring the truth like a messenger; the Glimpse is the Truth; the Glimpse is the Light; the Glimpse is our genuine Selfhood emerging!

The value of the Glimpse itself eludes everyone until precept upon precept, here a little, there a little, slowly it dawns. Most remain unaware that it is the Glimpse of Light that matters and does the work in the phenomenal world.

Or maybe it’s just a matter of saying “thank you.”


Individual mind vs. Unmanifested Mind

In, The Mind, Rose talks about a so-called, “unmanifested mind.”

We experience two minds: the individual mind and the unmanifested Mind-Stuff.

The individual mind is individual in appearance only, but we will call it that, when we refer to the mind of personal observation.

~ quotes from: https://selfdefinition.org/rose/writings/richard-rose-the-mind.htm

Right now, I experience personal, individual mind. That may even define me: my current self-definition is an individual consciousness with limited willpower over thinking. If my experience goes beyond an individual mind, however, this might change who I am.

The mind is like a two-way camera that takes pictures and projects the picture at the same time.

The mind is like a camera in that it has points of focus, similar to lenses. It has a big roll of film, or memory bank… The light seems to be coming from the external world.

Diagram 2: The mind-camera analogy (a.k.a. Ray of Projection/Creation)


However there is a Light, coming from behind, for the Unmanifested Mind, which is actually projecting a picture, which we are in reality only able to see when stimulated by percepts.

Any specific content of my individual consciousness seems to be coming from an external world. For example, when I see a pen, there is a pen in an external world. Our culture has worked hard to explain the contents of personal experience. Hard sciences explain objects, and social sciences explain psychological forces. Those “unmanifested” realities governing capillary action of ink on paper, for example, have a longer-lasting reality than any specific manifestation in a given pen.

So, in my first guess at unmanifested mind, I speculated science refers to this but takes a stance this “mind” is unconscious and non-reactive. So, the unmanifested reality behind personal observations is clockwork-like. Actually, reality behind objects is probabilistic sub-atomically, just that there are so many independent random events making up any observation, essentially the central limit theorem kicks in and unmanifested principles appear identical to clockwork.

Of course, you may know toward the end of Isaac Newton’s life he had more interest in Theology and Alchemy than Physics.


Principles and laws aren’t very mind-like. A “mind” would react. When we pray for a manifestation in our favor, we probably temporarily adopt that outlook. A mind might also have some of its own memories that influence how it reacts, causing “miracle” discontinuities.


So, a scientific view is helpful, but it clearly backs away from unmanifested mind.

As a second avenue to get a sense of why Rose used these words, could my belief in solely an individual mind be false? Maybe, the observer could be non-individual if there is no information passed between individuals. Or, if this experience now is a dream, the contents are actually imagination and projection from some bigger mind that has not manifested. These both allow for a logical possibility I’m wrong, but a possibility is not really counterevidence.

If it’s true that my mind is not just an individual mind, shouldn’t there be evidence of it?

Perhaps there is. Sometimes it feels like information is passed from an individual mind to another individual mind without an obvious communication medium with sufficient “current” capability. So, a third avenue to find evidence of “unmanifested mind” is seemingly unlikely coincidences of communication among people. One example could be walking by someone and having a sudden shift in mood. Another could be a feeling of rapport – either positive or negative. Do these imply my mind is more than personal?


(There’re a few books by Rupert Sheldrake about this stuff I haven’t read yet)

On one hand, a feeling direct mind communication may have occurred is never convincing. If I have a feeling while being tailgated someone is in my head or while serving customers at a restaurant I’m in someone else’s head, those could be imagination. It’s never clear, but if they’re ever true intuition, that could mean my individual mind is somewhat connected to another mind. Or Mind.

On the other hand, even if apparently real, Rose seemingly dismisses these experiences as solid evidence of experience beyond the individual mind:

Telepathy received is still perception. Telepathy transmitted is projection. The Percepts are not limited to the five senses.

So far, these avenues look for observations to trace back to unmanifested mind. My fourth angle involves tracing back the observer of this individual experience.

The lights are on. It seems unlikely purely unconscious matter could become conscious; as I evidently am. When compared to the noise and picture of my observed individual experience, who is experiencing is completely quiet and unobserved. Being an individual experiencer seems it implies defining myself in terms of what I observe. Which may be like saying a submarine is a deep water viewer when that’s its current environment.

Am I, as the observer, limited to an individual because the experience is individual? What is the source of this light, this consciousness? Evidently, that is even more unmanifested than any laws of science.

Willpower, automatic or willed?

Right now I feel I am applying willpower. I’m writing about will, which takes more will than not writing. I see my inner argument if attuning to it: do I do this writing or not write? It’s a little painful, but I’ll work towards awakening and think this is part of that.

It feels like it’s my decision to make. When I know which side will win an inner argument, I don’t have a decision to make really. Only when I don’t know what will happen, could voluntarily applying will have value.


I see it like shooting a basketball in that I don’t know if my intention will happen, but by trying, by applying will, my agenda, my vision for the future is more likely.

Now you will immediately ask, “But do we not think? Or do we not will to do certain things?” The truth of the matter is that we do not perceive, or remember, or really act or react, by virtue of will or volition. The Will is in itself only a reaction.

Quotes from: The Mind, by Richard Rose, at: https://selfdefinition.org/rose/writings/richard-rose-the-mind.htm#attributes

We do not begin life willfully, nor live it willfully, until we are able to find out the limits of our bondage. When we find out whether we are able to do anything on our own, then it is possible to try to enlarge that ability.

Will is but a particular Reaction to various Reactions and Percepts.

Let us try to get behind the false face. We can observe, by introspection, that much of what we would like to think of as thinking, is nothing more than reaction, – and mostly automatic reaction without any volition on our part. Of course we can get into some very complicated reaction patterns, and this complexity (as is noted in the Law of Complexity) is visible life.

Next, we are inclined to look at the above analysis of the mind, and take pride in being able to “Project.” We might think for a while that our ability to project is our individuality. The truth is that we are but a channel for the projection, if we are referring to the individual mind and the Unmanifested Mind, neither of which we really are.

Likewise, we can take some steps away from illusion. We begin by recognizing that the material world presents an illusory picture. We secondly notice that we are automatons of a sort, galvanized by desire and curiosity.

But then we settle back and say, – well at least we perceive, remember, react, and project. Actually these qualities are also automatic. We cannot control these functions, unless we controlled the entire environment.

So this will, experienced as my force in the mind, could be as automatic as the forces it wants to push.

If I want to write something semi-useful and not too annoying, I have a conflict with voices wanting to spit something out quickly. I can get identified with a mental effort reacting to this.

So why does it feel like me? Like I am the one willing to assert willpower to direct the mind? Am I, as will to assert willpower, just an automaton? Identified with “Reaction to various Reactions and Percepts”? Isn’t all reaction willful?

What of this am I controlling? Is the control just a useful lie? Why can’t I control it?

Attributes of an individual mind

We experience two minds: the individual mind and the unmanifested Mind-Stuff.

quotes from: The Mind, by Richard Rose, at: https://selfdefinition.org/rose/writings/richard-rose-the-mind.htm#attributes

I’m conscious of the individual mind. I wouldn’t say I’m conscious of “unmanifested Mind-Stuff.” Not offhand, anyway. Though he seems to think human minds can experience “unmanifested Mind-Stuff” or else actually do, just don’t really think about it as having a different source than the individual mind.

The individual mind is individual in appearance only, but we will call it that, when we refer to the mind of personal observation.

I am not sure why he says “appearance only” – it sure appears individual 🙂

There’s more on that individual/unmanifested distinction later, but first the article dives into what the individual mind is composed of.


This mind has four apparent qualities or attributes. Perception, Memory, Reaction, and Projection. All human actions are contained in these four. We perceive, we retain, and we project. We are like a camera that takes pictures, and projects pictures aided by Light.

Can I see these four attributes of my mind?

I’m listening to some music, “Happy Together” played on classical instruments at the library. I perceive the music. I also perceive the lyrics in my mind; imagine them anyway. That may be another of the four, probably projection.

I hear the violins and cello. I remember the recording and lyrics as the Beatles. I react somewhat without will to “hear” the lyrics in my imagination in a British-sounding voice. I react to this by trying to remember which Beatle sang it. I project their voices as well I can on the melody, trying to figure it out. (It turns out the song is by California band, the Turtles.)

This sounds similar to what the quartet played at the library:

Obviously, if the audio is working – if you know the audio is working – perception occurred. If it sounds familiar, memory occurred. If the mind tries to remember lyrics, it reacted. And if you can imagine the lyrics sung, maybe projection occurred.

So all four arguably are occurring, but are they the only four attributes of a mind acting in this scenario? Some potentially additional attributes can be considered combinations of these four. For example, Rose states:

The Reaction of memories upon memories is imagination.

When imagining the lyrics, is this so? Could it be so? I think this definition of imagination could be when imagining a song that doesn’t exist, sure. Well, in fact, since the Beatles cover doesn’t exist, to hear it maybe requires some interaction of memories upon memories. But if continuously incoming perceptions keep moving thoughts, it seems like imagining sung lyrics that line up with memory, doesn’t involve a second layer of memory. It’s not trying to imagine a new version, just replay a remembered version. Trying to imagine a Beatles version would have memory acting upon memory. (And I argue would sound the same 😉 )

So, many attributes of the individual mind can come from a combination of these four attributes. But what about individual willpower? Choice? Decisions?

Now you will immediately ask, “But do we not think? Or do we not will to do certain things?”

I’m going to will to check spelling and post this now.

Study the mind directly

The reader can reject the whole concept if he wishes, since the object of this book is to encourage the reader to find things out for himself.

Quotes from: Richard Rose’s The Mind https://selfdefinition.org/rose/writings/richard-rose-the-mind.htm

When we’re talking about the mind, you don’t have to believe other people, you can look for yourself. Do you trust authorities to teach you about yourself, or can you be your own authority? What of what you know from others is real knowledge and what is merely concept juggling?

I think of studying my psychology as something like this image, wandering my attention and occasionally noticing manifesting features. Over time invested in the maze, its walls start to become more obvious. Its walls are its patterns. And I can talk from some degree of authority on my mind.



Many of the earlier authorities who felt obliged to define their work came up with several compartments, and seven to nine attributes of the mind.

What are the top seven attributes of your mind?

Some possibilities:

  • Cognitive functions (i.e. thinking, feeling, sensing, intuition, and the introverted and extroverted versions of those)
  • Worry, anxiety, defensive reactions
  • Desire, hope
  • Self-referential thoughts
  • Honesty & dishonesty
  • Management of competing desires
  • Perception of silence?

Those are my first seven guesses.


The eight cognitive functions Jung identified are displayed in this graph:


(Image source: http://possibilitywarrior.com/language-of-functions/)


We must approach the subject in a simple manner, until we are able to experience the mind directly – which is the correct way to study it.

Anything anyone else says about their mind came from introspection and can only help direct questions for our own introspection. It’s their truth. Freud offers a classic example. Perhaps projection explains every theory of reality.



Very uninspired week but not painfully so. Missed almost all my meditations, played a video game in all of my free time, totally ignored my to-do list and had a celibacy accident when I thought I was done with those. I finally finished the game I’ve been playing since the retreat a month ago and have been watching a conflict what to do next: find another or turn away. I have voices that want both.

Despite lower energy levels from not being celibate for long, both PSI meetings have seemed great. Perhaps it is contrast to not thinking about finding truth, perhaps it is simplicity I was hoping for out of playing games. Perhaps it is something Art’s doing. That I can see I’ve never been anything other than awareness is a problem.

An exercise to challenge assuming I make decisions is a highlight this week. Trying it three times has left me feeling some doubt about this beloved assumption. It was: dedicate 2 hours to not making a single decision then report one’s findings. After a few days of procrastination I was quickly surprised by what was happening once finally starting.

I’ve continued to play video games some each day and had a celibacy accident. Damn that every movie has stuff not helpful to someone trying to be celibate. While the game playing costs energy, my thinking seems simpler, as I hoped (and thus more like normal people).

On Friday at work, I took notes to meditate on later and this looks like it’ll continue and goes well with thought provoking podcasts. I also cut back to only one one hour meditation to see if it improves quality. So far I don’t see it.

Main topic I was trying to meditate on was what do I want out of life. I figure if I can get it in words, I can measure my life by it much easier. This is maybe the 5th time I’ve tried. At our retreat I had “permanence” but didn’t think much about it. And this week, I went from to answer existential angst, to enlightenment, to right now it’s just feeling want/lacking, all words are interpretations.

A few more inisghts. Also I acted on 2 inspirations, 1. getting a mini-confrontation group on decisions started with others who expressed doubts about decision making and 2. to add something I enjoy to my life: playing some video games. I don’t know whether it’s unfortunate or not, but, as I feared, “1 hour” never happened. I couldn’t turn away for a long time, missing all but two morning meditations, not sleeping enough for work, and watching my energy dissapear but my decision always to keep playing, or after a break, go back.

This morning I woke up disgusted with the game but as the day wears on and I realize it’s chalk full of unpleasantries (and why so damn many?) ignoring them and playing looks appealing again. A little game playing usually has a good effect on my mind: life doesn’t feel like an endless miserable to-do list, my honesty with others and in my thinking increases, and I feel more on a same plane with others. But I can never keep it to a little.

I don’t know what I want next week. On one level I want to put time into some of these insights, on another level, I see a miserable to-do list before me and want to find a kinder experience. I don’t want to keep putting off my to-do list but I’d also like to not be such a miserable slave to it. But I’m afraid I am.

The retreat was very good. Silent periods, silent rapport sittings, participant led sessions, Art and Paul led sessions, and talking until 3am at the fire. I got a huge number of insights and felt after the first day this week had been productive if nothing else happens.

My 3 main moods are: 1. an insecure mood I spend the most time in, 2. a very insecure mood I was in that first session Sunday night, 3. a pity/despair mood which is usually, to always, a reaction to tension.
My 4 secondary moods are: 1. Ego boost, which can come from surprising positive feedback from life, 2. spiritual/existential longing, 3. awakeness, 4. an inspired/courageous mood.
Self knowledge is the question. That is: this is my experience, whose experience is it? Dan is the experience.
Two of Shawn’s poems seemed like things I could see so that, “unexpectedly close,” “closer than close,” made possible sense for a moment.

I committed to 30 minutes/day reviewing notes slowly for the next three weeks.

Feedback I got:
– I am happier
– am I too comfortable?
– happier/less weighty
– only awake sometimes – maybe I should work on this (?)
– lighter
– not sureing I’d dave right under the surface (?)
– I should consider studying my dreams. The one I shared for our dreamwork session was a good one
– not having one clear goal for the retreat but rather several goals is “shotgun” approach rather than “rifle” approach
– being not present, spending time in my head
– stoic, able to persist

My mood is pretty influenced by our first day of a week long retreat. Just a little confrontation sends me into a strong self-pity mood. I get convinced I’m totally stuck, a drain on the other seekers who get it, and I wish I could quit but I can’t, or at least crawl in a hole and stop participating in life until it becomes reasonable, but I can’t.

Before this, my week was decent. Some meditation on what do I want out of life, which could get somewhere. I had a very good conversation with Ben. I feel I’m holding back a little but am also pleasantly surprised to hear someone else taking the search seriously. Had an interesting discussion on Landmark Education – do I know I’m going to die? Also: whether this life is the final dream-within-a-dream or not, doesn’t matter, it’s the same observer. Even if other consciousnesses could be experienced, it’d still be by me, the observer. And finally we discussed, does observation/observing end when observation/observed will end? I assume the latter event will occur with the body’s death (or final dream’s body’s death, as the case may be) but if observation/observing’s source is unknown, there may be room to question this.