THE ALPHA AND OMEGA by Eugene Halliday
[Recorded in Liverpool sometime between the late 1950’s – early 60’s]
1. ..With the end superior to the beginning. … If not, what were we fighting for. … Let’s begin then .. We’ll start with the paper, which we always start with - with this white paper – means the Absolute Power in a state of equilibrium. White is the equilibration of all the colors, and the colors are diversified white light. So the first state we can symbolize by the paper, which is apparently static; the paper is doing nothing at the moment. This statement, “The paper is doing nothing,”
2. In Indian philosophy is called ‘pralaya ‘, which is the same thing as the Western concept of ‘maximum entropy’. The ‘trop’ in ‘entropy’ is ‘trope’ - ‘to turn’, so ‘entropy means ‘in-turning’; ‘in-winding of energy’. What ‘maximum entropy’ in science means is, ‘the state where the energies of manifestation have wound themselves in to their greatest possible degree’. That’s the maximum degree of in-turning of energy.
3. If we imagine all the energies there are in the Absolute, and we imagine them instead of turning out from the center, and enthusing upon each other as they might be seen to do; instead of turning out in that way (we should call ‘ek-tropy’) we imagine them to turn in. And in the act of turning in they are going away from contingent stimulation. So we have ‘en-tropy’ and we have ‘ek-tropy’. A few years ago science used to talk a lot about ‘maximum entropy’ and say the ultimately (you can find this in extant books of science now), ultimately all the energy of the universe; or universes - the multi-verses, would wind-in and go to a state of equilibrium; and that when that state was reached, all would become static, cold, lifeless. Well, there’s a bit of bad philosophy behind this statement. Because if that were true and there had been infinite time before us, the laws of probability say that maximum entropy should already have been reached before now and we should have wound up. We should have turned those energies in and the thing should be static and it is not. And yet we have an infinity of time before us; and given an infinity of time before and after, the law of probability says that this entropy state much be reached given infinite time, which we have both before and behind us. Therefore, it is surmised that it is very probable while the energy is winding in in one center, it may be winding out in another center. So it was then postulate that for every zone of entropy, there is another zone of ek-tropy. For every zone of in-turning of energy there is another zone where the same energy that is winding into one place is winding from another place into it.
4. Now, the question is, “Is the last date superior to the first date, or not?” When we say, “Imagine the paper to be still,’ and this paper is the white – the equilibrated – Absolute … When we, as finite beings imagine (that is, make an image or picture) of the paper as static, what does it really represent? Does it represent Absolute Energy in a static condition? Or does it represent an abstract idea of a possibility that, in certain zones within the Absolute, there might be a static condition? We have to say this, that we cannot imagine the Absolute at all! Because to ‘image’ means ‘I-mage’ - is the same as ‘I make’ except the ‘k’ becomes ‘g’, so the ‘mak’ or ‘spot’ (we say ‘mak’ in the ‘Im-mac-ulate Mary’) is made into a gross-material being in the word ‘i-ma-gor’. In the image, (05.00) the formal idea, the substance ‘m’, the energy ‘a’, and the inhibiting function ‘`K’ - the ‘mak’ - that idea becomes grossly established; which means that the energy becomes very tightly packed.
5. Now, if we say, “An image of the Absolute,” we are talking nonsense immediately, because the word ‘absolute’ means, ‘away-washed’; ‘ab’ and the ‘solute’.
6. Now, something is being ‘solved away’. In the concept of the ‘Absolute’, what we ‘solve away’ are all finite considerations whatever; all forms; all contingent relations – everything of the finite is washed away in the concept of the absolute. That being so, we cannot make an image of the Absolute; and therefore we cannot say that the Absolute is static, because the concept of the ‘static’ is the concept of forces … finite … pressing upon each other. There are no static entities other than systems of opposing forces, stabilizing in their opposition. which is the thing you are supposed to do when you say your prayers, and put your hands together – and hold them together - and this holding of the hands together should remind you of the opposition (the polarity) in the universe and in your own organism.
7. And you know, very often, when kiddies are saying their prayers, they can’t hold them together, so they lock the fingers and try and get the fingers to hang on to each other. If you actually put your hands together and then forget about them, they start drifting apart. So it’s a method of stimulating the memory: to put your hands together symmetrically without any ‘hanging on’ of thumbs or fingers to aid them, and that helps you to say, “Am I remembering myself … my polarity – the opposition between my will and my intellect? I put them together; I hold them together.” And with this continuous remembering of the opposition comes reflexive self-consciousness.” … And the word ‘static’ is made of the root ‘sta’ which is the same in ‘stand’…. and … another ‘T’ in the grip of ‘fixation’ here. Now this ‘S’ in ‘static’ means ‘the life force itself’. This is the original serpent - not with tail in mouth – free. It is an undulation … of absolute energy. It is not felt, but when it comes onto the ‘T’. ‘T’ symbolizes where two forces meet. So there is an establishment, ‘S-tablishment’ and, where those forces strike, the energy rotates.
8. So, unless we have forces in opposition, we cannot bring anything whatever into existence, and when we did so, we are making the situation static only by feeding into it energies that oppose each other … We write cons-truction (the ‘truction’ means ‘drawing’)… ‘Drawing together’ … If energy is drawn together, then it con-tracts, as it contra-acts; there is ‘contra-action’ in ‘contraction’. Plus if you open your palm, the fingers do not ‘contra-dict’ – they do not ‘speak against’ each other. If you close them and bring them into contact - that is, they act together by touching each other - in that moment of ‘con’ you are drawing together, ‘draw’ ‘tract’, with ‘con’ – ‘con-tract’ - they are able together … they will play with each other and this opposition can make this static position of your fingers. You press upon them with equal force and then they are held in static relation. So this ‘static’ refers to the finite energies in opposition, and therefore this ‘static’ cannot refer to the absolute. This means that when we image this paper, and we say, “It represents to us the Absolute,” it is really just a symbol, and we must get rid of the paper once we have said, “It symbolizes the Absolute.” … We must then get rid of the paper, and retain the concept that the Absolute is an equilibrating power Absolutely; but finitely we’ve said nothing whatever about it. (10.00). We have said it is power because it is the absolute cause of all relative events, but of itself we can say nothing whatever finite, and static refers to finity and therefore we cannot say it is static. And the opposite of static is dynamic, and therefore the Absolute must be conceived in a peculiar way, to be dynamic.
9. Now, it is power; it is energy; it is force, and when we consider it in-winding, immediately we make a locus – a place - the topos. And when we have done so we have immediately finited our concept and we’ve not got the Absolute for the time being!
10. When the energy is conceived by us to wind into one place, we can say if we like that it becomes potential, as opposed to actual, If it winds in completely it ceases to act upon another center we will call ‘the observer’.
11. But – that same energy that’s in-winding, by definition could wind out. And if it winds out again (that is – ek-tropy) it will then begin to impinge on other centers, which may be in-modeled (?) So, throughout the absolute we have to conceive that all that we mean by ‘place’, by ‘locality’, all that is headed under topology, all those things we must say are somehow functions of ‘Absolute Power’
12. Now, the totality of patternings of these in-wound energies constitutes all our geometric propositions. And when they’re in-wound, they occupy zones, and constitute, in a peculiar sense, a substantial universe governed entirely by inertia. ‘Inertia’ means ‘in-work’. This same thing - the entropy – is to be thought of as ‘in-ertia’. That is ‘in-working’; an in –turning’ is an ‘in-working’. So, wherever we have a finite structure, whether it’s a triangle or a square, we must think, “If it exists, there must be rotating energies inside it to fill it up. Large groups form molecules; smaller ones – atoms, primary particles, and so on. We go down to very, very, tiny little rotations of that force, to the tiniest conceivable sub-atomic functions there are. But while we are doing so we are not thinking about the absolute, we’re thinking about a finite zone.
13. But when we think about the Absolute we must say that, “It is that in which all these things are, and in which all these things co-exists.; and that in which there can be no possible application of the concept of separativity. ‘Separativity’ refers to the finite, and the finite is the product of the in-winding of energies to create centers. And when those energies have in-wound to create centers, then individual existences come to be whether human, animal, vegetable, or mineral; whether atomic or sub-atomic, they are individuated zones of inertia, and as soon as we circumscribe them we are talking about a finite, we are not talking about the Absolute.
14. So the question is, “Is our final condition - our ‘Big O’, our ‘Omega’ – better than our ‘Alpha’.
15. And you need to say, ’”Yes,” and, “No,” simultaneously (it’s a pair of opposites) to let the white paper again symbolize the Absolute, let this entirely abstract concept of ‘the static’ be applied to it for a moment in addition to it. Let us say we are imagining the paper to be static and that it represents the equilibration of Absolute Force. But we know that the term ‘Static’ cannot be applied to it – and nevertheless let us apply it to it in order to clarify this fact. That when we think about equilibrium we think about finite forces opposed to each other, and these finite forces pressing on each other keep each other in being by their opposition and that makes it static.
16. Now this is not the ‘Alpha’ – no matter how big the context of forces may be, it is not the ‘Alpha’. The ‘Alpha’ (our letter ‘A” is the Greek ‘Alpha’; … in the Hebrew ‘Aleph’) (15.00) – they symbolize the ‘non-manifest’, the ‘non-differentiated’, the ‘non-finite’. They symbolize the Absolute prior to any concept whatever of finite being.
17. Now this ‘Alpha’ is already an abstract idea as we are talking about it, it is not the ‘con-crete’ or ‘grown together’ whole. And consequently we have to say about it that it is the absolute beginning of all things. It is not the head of the series; that is the letter ‘B’, - the ‘B’ in ‘being’. The ‘B’ in the first word of Genesis in ‘bereishit’ which means – ‘barah’ – the ‘ba’- ‘ra’ means ‘in that house there will be differentiation’.
18. So we have ‘A’ and then we have ‘B’, and the ‘A’ is the breath, the first sound a baby makes when it cries – it is ‘aah’, and that breath comes out of the child without obstruction, and when it closes its lips it says ‘b’ . So after it says ‘R” when you smack it after it is born, later on it will discover it has mobility, contestability, self opposition in the lips – it will put the top and bottom lip together and by contra-action; contradiction; contraction, it will say ‘’B’. And therefore it will be the point of circumscription where there will be brought into being, for it, finite concepts. So that ‘B’ is the head of the finite series, but ‘a’ or ‘A’ is the absolute head. ‘a’ corresponds with the theological concept of the ‘Godhead’, plus ‘B’ corresponds with the theological concept of the ‘assumed Mary’ or, the Son in his own house – this is the ‘Ben’ or ‘Son.
19. Now, let us remember, we want to know if the ‘Alpha’ is inferior to the ‘Omega’. We know that the mere fact that we isolate these two things shows something peculiar about it because one has indulged in an abstraction. The Absolute itself in its full concrete significance – not as an abstract idea but as the concrete whole of all actuality whatever – that Absolute cannot be improved upon. So that when we refer to it we must now assume that this white paper is not static, it is power, and that this power is vibrating.
20. The vibrations are too fast for you to see. We know that the molecules of the paper are vibrating. We know the atoms and the sub-atomic particles, and the electrical charges that constitute them are all vibrating.
21. So although the physical human eye cannot see the movement as a constituent of that paper, nevertheless we know that these movements are there.
22. So now we’ll have a look at the difference between ‘A’ and ‘O’ and see whether ‘O’ is superior to ‘A’.
23. The first thing we observe about it is this. There is a circumscription in the ‘A” plus two ‘legs’, and in the ‘O’, this thing is circumscribed and the legs are not drawn. But if you like to … if you want to write this thing with a Greek ‘Alpha’, or as an auolant call it an ‘A” inverted – the ox’s head, we see again that in fact ‘A’ is ‘O’ plus. So that in the diagram, ‘A’ is not less, but more than ‘O’. Let’s see why.
24. The two horns on the inverted letter ‘A’ symbolize the dialectical functions of spiritual power itself. One of them symbolizes ‘idea’ (that’s the one on the sinister side), and the other one symbolizes ‘will’. There is ‘will’ and there is ‘idea’. That is to say, in power, as dynamic, we view two aspects. One – the volitional aspect whereby the power ‘wills’ form; and the other is the form itself which is ‘willed’, and the form is a restriction, self-imposed by the Absolute. (20.00)
25. ‘Form’ … As you can tell - ‘the Idea’ (the ‘d’ tells you there’s a division; just as the ‘r’ and ‘f’ in ‘form’ tell you there is a differentiation).
26. So one horn means the ‘power’ or ‘will aspect’ and the other horn means the ‘form’ or ‘idea’ aspect of the Absolute. But these aspects are not to be separated out from each other. They are seen to be aspectual only, and not separated. And yet somehow this Will winds itself in, circumscribes itself, isolates a zone of power, and makes an idea. The idea it has made is a form, but the form is only the form of the Will – the mode of its operation – so there’s no division whatever between the Will and the Idea, because the Idea is an exact expression of the Will that makes it. Because it is the Will, there formulating in that way.
27. And we have a Trinity here. We’ve turned the letter ‘A’ upside down, and we’ve seen that it represents two horns and one circle.
28. Now the circle resolves the opposition between the Will and the Idea. … We observe again the danger of abstract thinking … We know that the belly is more urge-full than the head, and we know the head has more ideas than the belly … in manifestation. And the peculiar thing is that, down at the bottom end of the body, there’s a little thing looking suspiciously like an ‘Omega’ which contains seeds. There’s a bag there, and inside that bag, little seeds are made. And those seeds are contained in a thing, the outline of which is the ‘Omega’ – the big ‘O’. And all the seeds are the contracted potential forms of the Absolute. They’re in the man.
29. Now the fact that they have contracted into it - that’s ‘entropy’, they’ve ‘wound into’ it – means that they can ‘wind out’ again. When they ‘wind out’, they ‘wind out’ … into manifestation.
30. Now we remember that no body; no person; no consciousness, ever knows anything other than the modifications of its own substance. … And cannot do so. …. Therefore, we can say immediately that when that absolute energy appears as spermatic energy in a man, when it is being a sperm - because the sperm’s modification is what the consciousness knows in that place – all it knows, in the sperm-form, is what it’s like to be a sperm. It doesn’t know yet what it is like to be a zygote, or an embryo, or a baby. Those things are potentials, in-wound in, which are not yet wound out. But the totality of all that may yet wound out, is already in., and nothing can come out except that which has gone in. So, as nothing can appear from it, that has not gone into it, or, as we say, there is no evolution without a previous involution; then the evolved state and the involved state must be exactly equal and opposite. So it appears that the beginning and the end are identical in one respect in one aspect.
31. But if that is so, what is the good of struggling? Now, somewhere on an earlier tape we have a statement, “The Spirit never got lost. The body cannot be saved. Therefore, what does salvation mean?” And we said, ”It means realization that the Spirit can’t get lost and that the body can’t be saved.” Which is a very important point because otherwise we struggle unintelligently to release something which cannot be released, and we are in a state of identification where something that has never been bound, believes it is bound. The Spirit, the Absolute, cannot be finited; and the finite can never become Absolute.
32. So what does ‘salvation’ mean? It means realizing that the whole problem is one of identification. Do you identify with the Absolute? You are free. Do you identify with the finite? You are bound. (25.00) .It is identification that does it.
33. Now, if the ‘in-volution’ and the ‘e-volution’ are exactly equal and opposite, then it appears that there is no improvement. But we’ve already seen that a pair of opposites are both equally valid. And therefore always pre-suppose behind them, that that has polarized itself in this opposite manner. So this absolute, which stands behind this polarization, is greater than both, and yet cannot manifest without using both.
34. Now if we say, “Here is the ‘Alpha’ and here is the ‘Omega’ – the beginning and the end,” we can see right away a peculiar thing about it , they are exactly equal and opposite and yet they’re only aspects of something that has never yet appeared in a polarized state. And that which does not, and cannot, appear in a polarized state is the Absolute as such. It is the Absolute absolutely; that is, not polarized, but prior to the concept of polarization.
35. Now, it’s obvious that we’re short of a term. We write ‘A’ for the beginning of the Alphabet, and in English we write ‘Z’ and in Hebrew we write ‘T’, and so on … the ‘Tau’ …. and …. ‘A’ is the ‘head’ absolutely, and ‘B’ is the beginning of the time process, and it goes along through its development through the various modalities symbolized by the letters. … But this ‘A’ has a double significance, it has the significance, not only of the Absolute ‘head’ but also has the significance of that internal to which the ‘B’ appears.
36. So now we have to draw the letter ‘A’ and look for the letter ‘B’ in it. But we already said that the letter ‘B’ used to be a circle, and this circle symbolizes whatever can be circumscribed or finited. And this finiting process is what we mean by manifestation – the universe that can be known by the sense organs.
37. Now we look for that in the letter ‘A’ and we find it quite simply … that the body of the letter ‘A” apart form the legs (or in its inverted form, the horns) … the body of the letter ‘A’ is the letter ‘B’.
38. That is to say, we can draw this and say, “This a kind of chalice – that’s the horns of the sign of the Ram, and this we put inside it, is the Cosmic Sphere which is ‘being’ itself. So the letter ‘A’, really it means ‘A-B’. It means the Absolute Head as a pure vowel, and it means the ‘head of a series’, a consonant ‘B’.
39. When we now say, “Is the Omega superior to the Alpha?” We say immediately, “No. It is exactly the same, and yet behind this opposition Alpha/Omega there is a Super-Alpha that really has polarized itself as ‘itself’ and ‘other’, in the polarization Alpha/Omega. Where the one thing that has retained its identity throughout the whole process is the Absolute which cannot change.”
40. So this mysterious Alpha appears through the whole thing; in other words it is the Absolute Breath that is needed to pronounce every other letter. That is, you can’t pronounce the letter ’B’ without your breath; so that when ‘B’ appears, it is only Alpha acting upon itself and constricting itself to pronounce the ‘B’. And when it goes to its term – called the ‘Omega’ or ‘Big O’ - it is still the Alpha, the same Alpha, which is now substantialized (that’s the ‘M’ function) and it is grossly objectified (that’s the ‘Ga’ function), and it is circumscribed (that’s the ‘O’ function). So it says, “‘O’, circumscription; big substance - grossly established.” And that ‘Big O’ (30.00) is simply the modal behavior of Alpha carried to its term. But Alpha is not a ‘static’, not a finite, and therefore all the things that might appear in the time process as problematic, separate, serial problems, subsist inside the Alpha as pure actuality. They are not potentials in Alpha; to and for the Alpha they are actualities, and therefore God is said to be ‘Pure Act’; He is not a potential God, He’s an Actual God. But the ‘finite’ who is brought to be by the in-winding process, and is acted upon by the out-winding process of another - that ‘finite’ identified with - has a problem of ‘What is the relation between its ground (the Alpha), and itself come to its term (it’s Omega). For the Omega is the bigger, or the cosmic ‘O’; the cosmic Self; the cosmic Lord; the cosmic Christ; the cosmic Adam.
41. This cosmic being, the biggest circle we can conceive, is the Omega, and it is only the Alpha, which has there modalized itself in that form. So in that sense, there’s a peculiar superiority, absolute for the Alpha, because it is actually on these perfected forms. And yet there is a process going on inside it. The totality of the elements of which constitutes perfection, but any single elements or group of elements identified with constitutes a problem. And the problem for the individual is then, “How do I become Omega, and is it worth it if Alpha is already there?” And the answer is, “If Alpha is seen to be Absolute actuality and not a potential, then it is seen that Alpha is really Omega, but that the individual is striving to get back to the source – the Alpha in himself – and that Alpha is pure actuality; immediacy; simultaneous experience of its total elements. If it gains this simultaneous experience of the actuality of Alpha it is Omega … in itself. So peculiarly the Alpha and the Omega are identical when viewed as a pair of opposites. The Alpha is absolutely superior because the Omega is only a function of it, and yet the Omega is a necessary function of it, because only in it is the totality of the actual possibilities of the Alpha realizable in a form. This form being one of self –contraction; self-contra-action; self-contradiction - for the dialectical process internalized in any finite.
42. …. for the moment, is the seamless whole we’re talking about. And anything the paper does – if it moves in one part – it necessarily alters the tension systems in all parts
43. If we now arbitrarily certain circles upon the paper and say, ”Let us pretend what is obviously not true; that the paper inside the circles is separate from the paper in another circle, or outside the circle.” Now that is the belief of individuals. A man who is identified with the limits of his own perceptual body – in the fact of identification, is committed to fend for himself as a finite. If he does so, he must start hitting against other beings, or trying to rope other beings in to his purpose.
44. If he does so, because there are other zones of the paper, he is in effect, trying to fold the paper up. He’s trying to make all the other circles become circles laid upon themself. (35.00) And this is a very natural response, but it also one that is doomed, absolutely, to fail. The attempt on the part of any individual to dictate to another individual is doomed to fail for the simple metaphysical reason – the individual is an arbitrarily demarked zone and the thing upon which the mark is drawn (the paper) is a symbol … is continuous with all other paper in all circles and beyond. So that if one of these moves, they all move. And if one of these tries to make all the others congruent with it, in other words it tries to fold their energies into itself, it has taken on that impossible job, ‘The reduction of the Infinite into he Finite’.
45. Now all the enmity in the world depends upon identification with finites and ignoring the fact symbolized, and put into an imperative form, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” it does not mean, “As if he were another being like you are.” It doesn’t mean another being at all – it means what it says, “Your-self!”
46. Now when any arbitrary circumscribing line is looked at, and you see inside that line the paper - and that paper correctly is the self absolutely - therefore the self that you think about when you think about the consciousness in yourself, is exactly the same as any other self in any other body. Whether it’s the consciousness in a plant or an animal, or locked up in a stone, it is the same consciousness. And if you say, “Alright, this consciousness is the same, and therefore when I act on this particular body I necessarily act on all bodies because the body is a modality of the consciousness.” The consciousness knows only the modifications of itself, so that this particular body which I tap now, is just one of the modalities in an Absolute continuum called ‘The Self’, with a capital ‘S”. But that is the self you refer to if ever you refer to your consciousness as such, and not to a form of experience recorded in your memory.
47. Recorded in your memory there is a very simple thing, nothing more than the clashings of contingent stimulate (mutual irritation). The forms of those disagreements; those contradictions; those stimulae … recorded … constitute your individuality - the thing that you refer to when you identify with your body. But that is not consciousness; that is a modality of, and in, the consciousness.
48. But if you identify with the consciousness and not the body then you immediately gain all consciousness there is. And you can legitimately say that all the other bodies in the room, or in the world, are yours, because you are referring to that ‘Self’. And this does not mean that you can, with your physical body, order the other bodies about. That would be a misconstruction.
49. It means, that this conscious level you have now reached – the level of the Absolute – sees all bodies in it as functions of it and that there is only the one, supreme, seamless Self.
50. Now, if that is ‘the moment’ there are no problems with relation. You can’t start a fight with another body if you know that you’re not a body! It’s just not conceivable that you would do it. Why should you do it if all these bodies belong to this one Self and this one Self is working in all bodies to express the potentials of their relations? And if you identify with that Absolute Self, all you can do is go on working for the ultimate development of the potentialities of all the relational possibilities of all the bodies there are.
51. Now as soon as you let go of this seamless Self that runs through all things and which makes all the modalities (called ‘individual bodies’) of all kinds: minerals; vegetables; animals; humans, angels, and whatever … Once you let go of that seamlessness you identify with the finite body.
52. In doing so you have done yourself ‘one in the eye’ (the ego ‘I’) because you have in fact identified with a finite system (40.00) of engrammed memory patterns, which, because it is finite, has only finite application. In other words, identification with the physical body produces ignorance of all the things not contained in that particular body. Which means as soon as you identify, to defend yourself … you know less than you need to defend yourself. Hence Christ said that if you try to preserve your life you will lose it.
53. Let’s look for a moment and see - here are two beings, they both have a nuclear center and it functions directly from the Absolute, and it does so immediately. But because of the in-winding and rotations of energies in each place, although the seamlessness of the paper is not destroyed, there are functions without is a power of that seamless which bring into being apparent finite entities, and these apparent finite energies can hit upon each other’s perimeters; they cannot hit upon each others centers, because there are not a plurality of centers. The center of every being is the original white paper before it is drawn.
54. Now, where they can hit upon each other, there arises the contingent stimulus, a stimulus with touch. And we find that it specializes, in our organism, into five special organs against a general feeling or sentiency quality of the protoplasm. And it has a coordinator called the ‘common sense’, which coordinates the messages of the five senses. And also, between these five senses going in, and the energy from the center coming out, there arises the double triangle, or six pointed star, which is not the ‘common sense’ but the sense of the dialectical opposition of polarity in ‘being’ itself, and this we call ‘the intellect’, purely.
55. Now, the other one – the ‘common sense’ – is people normally mean by mind. If they say, ”Oh, that fellow’s got a good mind,” normally they don’t mean he’s got a pure balanced intellect able to see the polarized functions of the universe, they mean that he’s fairly well stocked with knowledge through the five senses. So that if a fellow goes to the appropriate brick building and acquires some knowledge, and then later from his memory throws the knowledge out again, some bright wit will say, “He has a good mind.” Now, it simply means he has had engrammed upon him certain formal stimuli, which have left records in him, which on the appropriate stimuli are replayed like a tape message. That does not mean intelligence, it means mechanical response. And it is no proof, when a person manages to get a BA … that he’s a brilliant fellow, when his memory is so stuffed. … But inside this ‘common sense’, a little deeper, is the zone of the intellect, and the intellect is only concerned with, “Yes,” and “No,” ; with, “For it,” or, “Against,”; with, “This,” and, “Not this.” ; it is concerned with polarization; with opposites. And therefore it thinks in pairs of universal ideas. And it is this intellect which makes the analysis, “This thing is worth doing; this thing is not worth doing,” according to the purpose within.
56. But right inside, deeper than the intellect is the ‘essential self’, which is the paper, unspoilt by any finite modification whatsoever.
57. In that a person externalizes attention, lets go of his center, identifies with a sense organ, and receives a stimulus from another being, and concentrates upon that stimulus, as in listening, or looking, or tasting, or smelling, or touching, when he does that, if he does it for one sense only, he has made himself four fifths ignorant at the sense level. Simply to finite - if you’d like to do it experimentally – you listen very, very, carefully to the sound of the motors in the tape-recorders, at that time you will find you are not smelling the paint on the wall, or you’re not looking at the colors of the curtains. … To concentrate – to identify with one sense – is to become four fifths ignorant at the sense level, and not only four fifths ignorant at all that is, (45.00) but much more - because you become infinitely ignorant as soon as you concentrate on any finite whatever.
58. There’s not only the five specialized sense organs, there’s a general sensitivity in the protoplasm as such, and there’s an absolute sentiency in your center.
59. With what you identify, with that shall you be informed. So if you identify with one particular sense you will become ignorant on four other senses, try it, and you will find it is so. It is extremely difficult to smell something cooking and decide what it is, while at the same time and with the same amount of concentration you listen to a piece of Beethoven on a record; as you concentrate on one, the other tends to disappear. And this is the temporal function of using the sense organs at all, because they are specialized for serial purposes. But you have a generalized awareness whereby you can actually without concentration … by de-centration … you can become aware of a nice piece of Beethoven and a frying vegetarian chop or something, and get the meaning of both of them simultaneously, and beyond them something absolute sentiency in which all the separable functions of the time process are simultaneously co-experienced. And this is the absolute objective experience of the Alpha-Omega identity prior to its polarization. That is the significance of the Buddhist Nirvana, it is the significance of all enlightenment in any religious concept at all; but quite suddenly, instead of seeing things separately. … Instead of seeing things separately, you see them coherently simultaneously and thereby get their significance, whereas as soon as you listen to a finite and try to solve it’s meaning from itself at the finite level you have wasted your time.
60. So peculiarly, the Alpha, which is the absolute origin of all things, has within its self the being called the Omega (the big ‘O’, the cosmic ‘O’) and this is in itself as an actuality. So that the problem of whether to become Alpha or Omega is not a problem for Alpha or Omega, it is a problem for a man identified with a finite zone within the Omega … now this is a problem for nobody else … the thing is problematic because of identification. Break the identification and it is felt, seen, and known in its absolute fullness, the Alpha and Omega are not two separate things – one superior to the other – but nevertheless the Alpha is ‘absolutely superior’ to all its modifications and to all abstract ideas which are taken from it. They are on a wave, solved, washed-away from this Absolute.
61. The Absolute is Absolutely-All, when we say, “Less than the absolute,” we are saying something particular, and the ‘particular’ is already an abstract idea although it looks concrete. It looks concrete because it acts upon the five senses and the Absolute appears to be non-existent because it doesn’t act on the five senses. It acts on itself being absolutely, the only reality there is. …
62. Question: Well this form has gone between a (..?..) in a time content really hadn’t it ?
63. The problem is set as a problem in the time process….
64. Questioner: … using exterial thought that can’t be really thought, can it?
65. It can’t be solved … The solution is outside the time process; the solution is by the cessation of serial thought. And then we come back to rule one; the folding up of the paper. If you can get your mind in that state defined in yoga ‘eka chita’ – ‘one mind’ which corresponds exactly with what Christ meant when he said, “If the eye be single, then the whole body is full of light.”
66. Now this obviously requires the contraction of all your thought processes into the primary punctum – the ‘yad’ which is the hand of God – the executive power, folded into a unity and it is not allowed to serialize.
67. Now when you get hold of your mind, and you destroy serial thought (50.00) without falling asleep, you hold this unific awareness in yourself and you don’t allow it to move, at that moment there is no problem and you know exactly what Alpha in relation to Omega is. And then you have transcended the problem and we come back to a very early statement that we made here, that, “No problem of the time process is ever solved. Problems cannot be solved, they can only be transcended.” You climb to another level and that which was problematic down there is no longer problematic. And as long as it’s problematic, the level on which the problem appears is the level on which it cannot be solved.
68. Question: What is the final problem of the time process?
69. The final problem of the time process would reduce to, “What is the significance of the phenomena of ‘change of place’. And this you can see physically by doing a very simple exercise. Supposing you look at another person, and you attend say to his left ear … supposing I did it and I looked at your left ear. Now I’m aware that you have eyes, and a nose, and mouth … I’m looking at your left ear. Your left ear is now the focal-center of my vision, but I know you’ve got your hand on your chin. And that is what we call ‘marginal awareness’. I keep my eye focused on your ear, and I am aware that there is a wall under this board here, I can feel there’s a wall right behind me, I can hear by echo-quality what is going on. Now what do I actually do to shift my awareness from the ear to the wall? What do I do? Can you feel it? Quite simply I say, “I alter my attention.” That is, I can actually ... I am such a being that I can tense here, or I can tense here, or I can tense here. I have an infinity of tension points inside myself anyone of which I can increase. And when I increase one above the level of the others I am then said to ‘attend’ – that is ‘to tend towards’ and to hold attention at that place.
70. Now there is no other problem of the time-process other than ‘attention’. As soon as you make a finite tension, the process of time has started.
71. Question: This is the basis of identification in Canagong community isn’t it?
72. Precisely … Now if the ‘Sophic Sphere’ – the totality of all actual forms in the infinite is seen in its totality there is no time. Therefor in the Book of Revelations it says, “And there will be time no more, and sea shall be done away with and there shall be no more sea.`’ A sea is the glyph for ‘the substance modulations as substantial’ that is ‘as inertic’. Whereas, in this absolute state, where there is no time - and time means ‘emission of energies from point to point’, or ‘tensions’ - When those tensions, and finites in particular, are let go of, then you enter into that absolute awareness which is above time and contains all the formal elements that were serialized in time, only simultaneously presented as the ‘wonder-eye’ of the Absolute.
73. But this eye of the Absolute, never with all its actuality and all its forms within itself, simultaneously, concretely … and it ‘twinkles’ to itself. That is to say, it can tense throughout itself simultaneously, all its forms. And this tension that occurs simultaneously throughout it is the cause of what is called ‘the absolute equilibrated light’, where, from each point in the Absolute, a tension is made, and spreads out to all other points. So there’s a continuous ‘twinkle’ in the ‘wonder-eye’; and that, being simultaneous instead of serialized, is non-temporal, but it gives the key to the understanding of all the temporal processes.
74. (Pause) Are there stumbling blocks we’re up against?
75. Question: The seamless garment … a miracle. … woman touches the head of the garment is significant
76. First of all, of course the head is a garment, isn’t it? And this garment symbolizes the seamlessness of the Absolute, and therefore power. And therefore it says that, ”The power went forth from him,” when she touched this. ‘She’ is a finite being; that it is a ‘she’ means that it is a ‘will’. And this will says, (55.00) “I am not good enough to touch the man, the very center of the Absolute. If I can just get to the perimeter of the seamless, and hold that. Some of its power will come into me sufficient for my needs. And as soon s one gets hold of that hem - its an ‘h-m’ function - it is a peculiar thing that she is identifying a pair of opposites, because she says, ”If I can touch this mere garment, somehow, Absolute Force – which is no mere garment – will come to me. So somehow with this ‘m’ I get an ‘h’, because there is no ‘m’ other than a function of ‘h’.”
77. Now if, in fact, a finite person believing that if they come into contact with something, no matter what it is – if it’s a piece of wood or a fetish ... and idol, or a plaster cast of ‘The Virgin’ – whatever it is, if they believe that this is symbolic of the Absolute, the end constitutes for them a ‘hem’ of this seamless whole. And in the belief, as they touch it, not the thing itself but the Absolute that they have in themselves, feeds energy through that concept, and thus they get the benefits of the ‘will to touch’. And she had a definite aim; all she wants is curing, for what is wrong with her. It’s quite finite; she’s not committed herself to do as she’s told absolutely.
78. Remember on one occasion that a Christ cured a rell of lepers and only one came back and said, “Thank you.” So that when they go, for their benefits, they’re not committed to obey God absolutely throughout the time process, they’ve gone for a specific benefit. And that doesn’t matter, God isn’t bothered about that, in fact he’s not ‘B-othered’ at all in any way because he’s seamless.
79. But when they go for a specific benefit, they get the benefit they go for, and it says, “Ask; seek; knock.” Now, “Ask,” with your heart, with your feeling; you, “Seek,” the means thereto with your mind; and you, ”Knock,” with the power, the basic power. If you do those three things, then you must receive a reply. It is impossible to be rejected if you do those three things; because you have said, ”Ask,” that’s the field awareness, with your feel you say, “I feel.” You are quite sincere, you’re not trying to pull somebodies leg on the outside and you’re determined not to pull your own leg, you’re just feeling the seamlessness. Then you ‘seek’ with your intellect, you ‘s-k’ it, you define exactly what you want, but use your field awareness and then you define exactly what you want. When you’ve defined it, then with your will you ‘knock’ against that Absolute. To every action there’s an equal and opposite action. As you hit with your will, your will is, itself, the absolute energy at the point where you are conscious. It hits, in other words, against itself. It starts a reverberation of its own power within you, and according to the definition given in the seeking, and the identification with the field, so as to feedback onto the center of the will.
80. Question: Would you say that the woman (..?..) center, a finite center (…?...? …?...)
81. Well, she’ll probably go again if she gets filled … She’ll ask for more …
82. Question: But she only gets what she asks for?
83. Yes definitely. …
84. Question: She never gets more than that, only the part (?) she wants?
85. Out of the satisfaction she gets, she will (..?..) more, (…?...) , but it won’t give her what she doesn’t ask for. So that when she touches the hem of the garment, it does not turn round and say “Now you have that I hereby confer upon you Universal Enlightenment and full responsibility.” Where she’ll say, ”Please take back when they (..?..) second coming.” It’s not here purpose, and it isn’t God’s purpose to make a finite being have a purpose that they’re not ready for. Because when Christ goes to John the Baptist and says, ”Baptize me,” and John says, “No, I’m not fit to do it.” Christ replies, ”Do it, because thus it becomes to fulfill all righteousness; that the superior should be baptized by the inferior (60.00) so that nothing is left undone. Because otherwise there would be a ‘possible’ remaining merely ‘potential’.
86. Somehow this Absolute has to come down to the level of baptism in the material world which has itself finited, and which is, by being finited, powerless. Yet somehow this thing has to come down and do this deed. So that when Christ goes to John the Baptist and says, “Baptize me,” and John says, “Well it’s no good,” meaning, “You can baptize me.” And He says, “Nevertheless do it; I know you can’t do it, but do it!” Because the inferior must be prepared to baptize the superior, because to every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction, and the Absolute, in all its Absoluteness is exactly balanced by the relative in all its relativity.
87. So the Absolute, the God, goes to the finite relative, John the Baptist, and he says, ”I will come into your water in order to fulfill all righteousness.”
88. Now in the same way when this woman asks for her little cure, she gets it to no more than she asks for because she has her own order of learning; she has her own way of learning the same lessons that everybody else has to learn in other ways. And it would be quite wrong to give her a lesson she’s not asked for because ‘asking’ means ‘opening’. She opens one kind of door, and you may say, ”That’s a triangle.” Supposing you allow Phillip here a square. Its not filling, it isn’t satisfactory, it’s excessive, or it’s too small a square. It certainly isn’t right. And according to the precipitation of the time process, and by the finiting nature of serialization, no two finite beings can ask the same question at the same time in the same way. So everyone should be, and is, by the Absolute, that for which they ask, and no more. But because they have asked and been satisfied they will come again, with a slightly modified request. And it’s the ability to see this, and to refuse to reject oneself (one cannot be rejected by the Absolute because one is internal to it and is a modality of it). But to identify with oneself because of bad choices, bad requests; to say, “I’m not fit to ask any more,” - that would be a fundamental error. It would say that, “I didn’t fit and I’m no good.” Why? “Because I’ve always been no good.” That’s a temporal state, it’s the Devil’s chief weapon if you like, a trench-full (?) of differentiation; the denial of the ‘Seamless Garment’ says, “If you commit an error, you’re stuck with it. There is no forgiveness for you, you have done it; you’re that kind of being, you’re no good. Therefore you might as well accept yourself as no good.” All of that is identification and self-justification by egotism. And the identifying being is always by its very nature self-justifying, because every energy system is straining to equilibrate itself. But equilibration is self-justification, because justification means balance.
89. So that, every being that commits an error, a very finite being committing an error, must if it is identified with the finite do whatever it feels to be necessary to balance itself regardless of the truth or untruth of what it does. And therefore the attempt at self-justification by an individual is always doomed to failure. Whereas, once it is seen that the individual is a modality of the Absolute, then immediately a man is justified.
90. Now this is a justification by faith because in fact, the finite identified person cannot see his justification within the Absolute, but if he can grasp that just a little bit and see the possibility that a totality of all possible temporal forms of all times and places, past, present, and future, the totality of all these must add up to an equilibrated whole. … Must do.
91. And therefore whatever a being is doing at a given cross-section of the time process, it is exactly part of that moment in its totality. So that justifying or balancing of the whole is an absolute fact.
92. And the moment that one feels absolutely justified and is balanced by the Absolute, then one ceases to struggle to justify to ones self.
93. And when does not try to justify ones self as an individual, then a whole series of self-defense tensions disappear. (65.00) When they disappear you can see more. In other words you actually start becoming as just as you have felt yourself to be - Justified.
94. And so the mysterious act of the justification by faith can be seen to be absolutely rational. … (65.45)