APOCALYPSE by Eugene Halliday

[Recorded at ‘Parklands’, Bowden, Cheshire, sometime during, or after, 1983]

1. … I’ve been asked to give a very ‘rough-in’ survey of the ‘Apocalypse’. One very intelligent person thought I could do a ‘dash-through’, in an hour, of the total symbolism of the ‘End of the World’.

2. Now I’ve decided of course not to do that. What I will do is talk about the general principle underlying it.

3. A long time ago there were men called ‘Prophets’ who believed – or said they believed, as ‘believed that they believed’ - that they were instruments of God, and had to rush about, telling civilized people how wicked they were, and of the necessity for reform. … Have you turned it down now David? … (No) … It went down, I couldn’t hear it. …Is it up now? …(It’s OK) … That’s it, I heard the baby, that’s all right. …

4. Now the prophets were complaining bitterly about corruption in civilizations in the ancient world. And they themselves heard voices inside themselves complaining, and declared that these voices were divine in origin. … And believed that it was their duty to speak what they heard.

5. So they went out and condemned all wicked things; and tyrants; and governments; and orthodoxies, and the authorities replied by killing the prophets. And that was the general rule in the ancient world. Prophets prophecy and condemned wickedness, and established governments; and governments reply by killing the prophets.

6. And it became necessary for prophets to be progressively more and more careful. And then arose a new thing called the ‘Apocalyptic Writings’. These were men who had not voices in the head from God, but visions. Visual images which occurred to them, and they were told, “Write what thou see-est in a book.” So the difference between the ‘Prophets’ and the ‘Apocalyptics’ was that the ‘Prophets’ used to ‘say’, and the ‘Apocalyptic Writers’ ‘made books’, which were for studying.

7. But the ‘Apocalyptics’ were men of vision, and the word really meant ‘a vision’ of something which was supposed to explain something else’. And when you see the Book of Revelation in the New Testament, if you read it carefully you will find everything symbolically in it has in partly borrowed from the Old Testament and various other books, some apocryphal, some like the Book of Daniel, and so on -very ancient Jewish thoughts. And there has always been, in the Jewish mind, a complaint about corruption in orthodox governments.

8. The ‘’Apocalyptics’ were men who had visions, and wrote down the visions, and declared the visions to be ‘revelations’ – exposures of the truth about the end of the world - being the final outcome of the battle between the ‘good boys’, who were not governmental officials, and the ‘bad boys’ who were.

9. So we find, progressively throughout history, the idea that governments in general tend to be corrupt, because they have to maintain themselves against a mass of people, generally not very well self-controlled. Let’s think about this very carefully.

10. We all know individually that we have a very large mass of impulses inside us that do not obey ‘laws of logic’. ‘Logic’ is the formal aspect of reality. Logic tells you exactly whether a thing is something, or is not that thing. If we use Aristotelian form of logic we would say, “A thing is what it is; it is not what it is not; and between being what it is and being what it is not, there is no middle.”

11. Now, it’s quite simple to see that any ‘thing’ whatever has an identity peculiar to itself, and this identity is both power, form and function. It is a definite amount of energy involved in being. It has a definite form, and because of its form, power, it has a definite mode of activity which we call its function. (05.00)

12. We use three letter ‘F’s’ and call it ‘triple F’, as a mnemonic. ‘Force – Form – Function’; and this corresponds with ‘Father - Son - and Holy Spirit’ in religion. ‘Father’ means ‘generative power’; ‘Son’ means ‘form’; and ‘Holy Spirit’ means ‘the function of the power in that form’. So that when we say, “Treble-F,” or, “Triple-F,” we are to think every thing whatever, whether it’s mineral, vegetable, animal, human, angelic, whatever, is a definite amount of energy – which we will call ‘force’; a definite form of that energy – which we call ‘form’ or ‘shape’; and a definite ‘function’ or ‘activity’ of that form of energy.

13. Now when we go back in history, we find a certain point where writing is invented, and strictly, when we say ‘history’ we mean, ‘recorded in writings of some kind’; when we say pre-history we mean a speculative period (speculative to us) because there are no writings in that period.

14. Roughly, about 6,000 years ago, language was written down for the first time, and before that time there were no written rules to appeal to.

15. Now before that time everybody did whatever he felt like doing, and there were no written rules.

16. Now it is quite obvious that you cannot formulate a system of government, or control, or a nation of people, without rules. But when you formulate rules, the men that formulate the rules do not intend to tie themselves up with those rules. But they intend to tie-up everybody else if they can do so.

17. So the ‘Law’, which means, ‘that which is laid down’ by the men that make definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. The ‘law’ is invented for the good of the lawmakers, and as they see it, it is good for other people who cannot make laws to be subject to laws by people who can make them.

18. Now here is the division between the ‘goods’ and the ‘bad’, because all the official laws made by government have been made to maintain government. And you know historically there have been many persecutions of people of opinions different from those held by governments. There have been inquisitions; there have been people burnt at the stake, hanged, murdered, and so on, entirely by the lawmakers.

19. So a difference of opinion arose between the lawmakers, and those who were bright enough to see that the laws made were really statements of the will of the lawmakers to control a situation, and handle people who were not bright enough to make laws for themselves.

20. When the ‘Prophets’ saw the corruption that arose in the beginnings of civilization they spoke very loudly against the corruption of government. They wanted man to grow and evolve towards a conscious, deliberate, free-willed, intelligent way of relating. But masses of people do not show very much sign of any capacity for deliberate formulation of self-laws, and obedience to those laws. So the few who made the laws, had it in general their own way within society.

21. Now the ‘Prophets’ as we’ve seen were put to death, persecuted, and so on, by established authorities – kings; tyrants; orthodoxies of all kinds. And gradually there arose a method, by men who said, “If we tell the truth openly, we will be put to death.” John the Baptist loses his head because he insults Herod and his mode of marriage. So his head is off. The head is the center of intellect, the intellect is a critical faculty, the critical faculty must be removed if it openly makes statements against the ruler.

22. So then the ‘Apocalyptics’ came. They said, “Don’t openly tell the truth.” Instead of saying, ”Large, corrupt, body of ‘orthodox religionists’,” call it (10.00), “Lady ridding on beast,” you find that in the Book of Revelation, and the expressions are borrowed from earlier documents, before the New Testament.

23. Now the ‘beast’ was the symbol of the state – a big animal. Now how do we arrive at that symbol? Well if you take your own body, and your body is made of millions and millions of little cells, and all the cells in your body are under orders from certain several centers in the body, in Yoga those are called ‘Locuses’ or Chakras, in the West they are called ‘nerve-plexi’, they are centers, like the brain, and the heart, the larynx, and various other places which actually give orders to all the cells in the body.

24. The ‘orders’ may be my hormone insertion, or by various adjustments, electro-nervous, but orders are definitely given in the body. You can give orders to your body, and your body will obey the order.

25. Do a simple example yourself, say, “I will hold up my right hand,” and then hold it up. … Are there any of you who can’t do it? … Try it. … Why is it, that if you say this to an audience they don’t do it, usually? … Very few do it. Most of them are thinking, “I’m not going to be conned into doing a trick like that.” But can you actually move? Nod your head. … Now there’s a lot of head nodding. … That’s ‘yes’. Now shake it, that means ‘no’. can we do it, or can we not?

26. Audience members: Yes we can!

27. Notice we don’t get an immediate chorus from everybody, but from a few. Now focus that fact. A few will stick their neck out and say, “Yes.” … The many don’t, they’re cautious, because they don’t know what’s coming next. And they think the ones that nod when asked to, are naive and easy to gull. It might be that their gullibility is their means of salvation, because it’s possible to hear a truth to which the head would nod automatically, if you didn’t stop it.

28. Caution stops you accepting a truth, in case another truth that follows it you might not like. We’ll try again now … … Will those of you who have sufficient control over the head and neck muscles, nod the head. … …

29. We got a greater number there … but still there are some who are not quite sure … Next statement may be, “Will you please nod your head more vigorously…. And more vigorously until it falls off!” … …

30. Now I’ve actually seen head-nodders, in a religious ritual, nod themselves into concussion. And they do it quite deliberately, saying they are, “Destroying egotism.” And they fall on the ground unconscious, and when they come out of it they’ve had a rest from egotism, and when they wake up the egotism re-asserts itself. … And that is because; egotism itself is really fundamental to all living beings.

31. There is no such thing as a living being that is not basically egoic, and therefore self-willed.

32. Now lets look at this. You can give an order to your body like, “Nod the head,” … Look, I don’t mind, watch. … I will nod the head … I don’t feel intimidated when my head nods. I think my muscles have obeyed me.

33. Now St. Augustine was a very good ‘self-examining type man’ and he observed that if he gave a message to his body, “Point out the right leg,” it obeyed. But if he said to his mind, “Control yourself,” it didn’t. So he distinguished between a body which obeys, and a mind that doesn’t.

34. There is something very awkward about the mind. It’s more slippy, it’s more diplomatic, and it is more disobedient than the body is. Which is very strange.

35. Now imagine before civilization, every beautiful woman was a target for every alert man. And putting a ring on her finger did not protect her, any more than it does today. But some men who had beautiful wives, didn’t like naughty men (15.00) running away with their wives. So they made rules called ‘No Adultery Allowed’, and if you did do that you had your feet cut off, saying, “Thou shalt not walk in forbidden places - namely my bedroom when I’m out!” That was the law against adultery. A very good law, because indiscriminate relations are not hygienic.

36. Now when the law was made it had to be enforced, and then arose a terrible thing which dominated history ever since. Having experienced this enforced law conferred power on the lawmaker and enforcer, a belief that ‘power’ as such, welded over other people was a good thing, arose in the lawmakers. They actually felt tremendously powerful to be in a position to make laws, and feel that they were superior to the men on whom they imposed the laws.

37. And so there arose two groups in the human race. Lawmakers, fascinated with power (and really that is the only sin) over against infinity, over against other beings. Using ‘God’ as a shorthand for ‘The Infinite’, power even over God was pursued. You still do it in scientific space-travel experiments. We are trying to get hold of enough power to rule the universe and then, with that power, rule all other beings.

38. So we can divide people into two kinds: those who are happy to rule other people without consulting their needs or their wishes; and those who have an idea that people should not be compelled to do things they don’t want to do.

39. Now that divides the world into two kinds; the ‘power pursuers’; and the ones who reject power over other people.

40. Now the ‘power pursuers’ in all the major religions are called ‘the mighty’ of this world. They are the great rulers and they are called, in their final phase, ‘The Anti-Christ’.

41. Now using that ‘Christ’ word (a Greek word, ‘Chrisom Anointed’), it is a symbolic reference to cosmic logic. ‘Cosmic Logic’ – the logic of relationship of all beings.

42. Now all beings are made of energy. The energy is sentient, likes and dislikes, and can ‘will’ a process. So all beings can react against attempts to dictate to them from outside. And no matter how power may be gained, and how much of it may be gained by ‘power pursuers’ they can never control the energy fully of other beings.

43. So we now divide the human race into kinds: those that pursue power and love the idea of power over other beings; and those who do not.

44. Now where do we find the greatest number? In the ‘power pursuers’, or in the others? ……. Where are the greatest number?

45. Audience members: In the ‘power pursuers’.

46. EH: In the ‘power pursuers’?

47. Audience member: No! … The greatest number of people? …. More are the ‘Power Pursuers’…

48. EH: You think more of the ‘power pursuers’?

49. Audience member: They(..?..) potential but they are more.

50. EH: That’s what we call a ‘cynical view’. There is a statement, we’ll say, “95% of the people in this room want power over each other.” … Yes? … And 5% don’t. … Is that true? (Yes) Would you like power over all the other people, or would you rather not have power over them, and request them to be decent and not seek power over you? … … Which is it?

51. Audience member: ‘Power over other people’ seems to me to mean that they are going to have a responsibility, and most folks don’t like responsibility.

52. EH: Most people don’t like responsibility (No! No!) so most people do not pursue power over other people.

53. Audience member: Mmm. Mmm – That’s what I would say.

54. EH: … and that’s the opposite of what Deb said.

55. Audience member: That’s right.

56. EH: So again we have the two opposing opinions. In this one little room, two opinions in total opposition. And Greta has given a reason why certain masses of people do not pursue power, because they dislike responsibility.

57. Audience member: But I would say that those people who (20.00) dislike responsibility, have not yet seen that they are going to incur self-responsibility by pursuing power. So in their ignorance they still ‘wish’ for ..?..

58. EH: Bev says that those who do not pursue power are ignorant and have not seen their responsibilities, and what does Greta say to that? Is that true?

59. Audience Member: I would say there was quite a lot of truth in that. Yes actually.

60. EH: Is there enough proof to overthrow your point of view?

61. Audience member: Emm. I’m not sure about that

62. EH: There we are, we’re in a state of ambiguity now.

63. Audience member: I think that as ideal that a great number of people, probably the mass of people are really not even capable of working out whether they are pursuing power, or whether there’s going to be a responsibility in the power they’re seeking out. I think that they’re really ‘non compos mentis’ about the whole thing.

64. You’re saying’ “Most people are crackers,” aren’t you.

65. Audience member: Yes, I am.

66. So this apparent difference of opinion between Deb and Greta is not so wide as it first appeared. Let’s look. Is it possible that a being might actually feel, “I don’t like giving orders, in principle, to other beings. I believe that other beings would be better if they could give their own orders. I do not wish to give any orders, but I would like to instruct people how to give their own orders to themselves in an acceptable way.” …Yes?

67. Audience members: Yes.

68. Audience member: You honestly believe the mass of people actually can work that out? No!

69. EH: And I say they do

70. Audience member: No, I would say they haven’t

71. Eh: Well we’ve got three opinions. … I say this. The word ‘consciousness’ should not be applied, unless you put into words what it is you are aware of. So you can be very, very, aware, without being conscious. ‘Con’ - ‘with’; ‘s-c-i’, ‘sci’ – ‘cut, analyze’; ‘o-u-s’ – ‘being’. ‘With ‘cutting’ or ‘analytical being’’ – that’s ‘conscious’. Now you can only become conscious by putting into words, but you can be very, very, aware of a truth without putting it into words… Yes?

72. Audience member: Yes, yes!

73. Audience member: That depends on how logical it would be (?)

74. EH: How logical?

75. Audience member: No. Because if ‘truth’ is the formal aspect of reality and Jesus said that he was ‘The Truth’, then you’d have to … not have a form in words possible in order to see a ‘truth’ of that.

76. Not have a form in words. In other words you must have an awareness before you have consciousness.

77. Audience member: We’re talking about ‘truth’

78. EH: But ‘truth’ is the form of reality.

79. Audience member: Well the ‘Word’ is a form isn’t it?

80. ‘Word’ is the means whereby you make quite sure how to define the form. Without the ‘word’ you couldn’t define the form,

81. Audience member: I understand that

82. EH: … but you could be aware of it. You see?

83. Audience member: Well how does it manifest inwardly if you are aware of it, and yet it hasn’t got a form?

84. Well, somebody told me the other day, “I feel that all confused…” That’s how it manifests. Awareness of confusion. So we had a talk for about two hours, and at the end of this time this person said, “Now I see!”

85. What had happened is we put into works the hidden forms in the awareness, and put it in logical form … and then it was seen. … And this very charming person said, “Now I know why women are mad.” That was … “Now I know why women are mad.” I said, “Why are they mad?” And she said, “Because they put their trust in an external being, and believe that that external being has got their welfare at heart. Therefore women are mad.” … That was an analysis. That came out through use of words. Now do you believe it?

86. Now the word ‘mad’ is very interesting. It is ‘M-A’ which is ‘ma’, ‘mother’ or ‘feminine principle’ and ‘d’ which means ‘division’. ‘Mad’ actually means that your fundamental feminine nature, which is a feeling nature, not intellectual, divides itself by deliberately externalizing its desires, and anticipations, and it lassoes some unfortunate intellective male, and then begins to train it. And hopes that it will provide all that ‘the feminine’ wants … And this is the cause (25.00) of ‘feminine madness’. That is to say, quite simply, self-division.

87. Now I’ll ask the ladies in this room if they could for a moment accept a definition, ’Truth is the formal side of reality’. Have you ladies, at any time in your lives, hoped for, looked for, and believed possible, to find an external male who could be a hundred percent trustworthy, and devoted entirely to your welfare and not his.

88. Audience member: Not a hundred percent. … …

89. EH: Not a hundred percent. (No). And there’s an awful lot of silence there … I won’t bother to interpret that …

90. Audience Member: The hope of it.

91. EH: Hope of … That’s why they’re mad. Why? …Why hope for the impossible.

92. Audience member: When you’re hoping for the impossible, you don’t know that it’s not possible.

93. EH: That proves that you’re mad … If you’re hoping for an impossible and don’t know it’s impossible; you’re on an eternally open agreement with nothing.

94. Audience member: That’s the position of women

95. EH: Do we agree wi…. ….

96. Audience member: The feminine aspect…

97. EH: And the ‘feminine aspect’ of the human race.

98. Audience member: You also have a strange feeling that you’ll create that being by just ..?.. hoping for it. (Yes). And that’s another ‘feminine type’ thing.

99. EH: Another ‘feminine aspect’ you see. The woman believes that she can create this sense of responsibility in the mail. That’s great! … … There’s an Indian word for that ‘Ma-ha-ma’ – the Great Mother who can actually bring up a son, never to leave home, never to get married, and nurse the mother in her old age, and make her death happy and comfortable. … And follow her into the next world to repeat the performance; and so from world to world, and incarnation to incarnation. But it doesn’t always work out that way; in fact I’ve never found one case where it did.

100. Now. The ‘ma’ principle is made of a glyph ‘m’ for ‘substance’, ‘a’ for ‘action’; ‘ma’ means ‘substantial activity’.

101. Now let’s examine a little bit of Plotinus. ‘Substance’ or ‘ma-ter’ (matter) is really ‘spirit demoted’. ‘Spirit’ is ‘pure initiative’, and when the spirit gives up its initiative and allows it to go into a state of inertia to provide a necessary resistance whereby spirit will thereby know itself to be such, the inertic power is the ‘feminine aspect’, and it is an impedance to initiative, but in itself it feels that something has gone wrong with the bargain. Because when that aspect of spirit allows itself to become inert, that is to say passive to a stimulus from outside, it has no control over the stimulator. … So it cannot win. … As long as it is passive it has no control, so the ‘ma - matter principle’, in giving up its spiritual initiative, has placed itself in the hands of a being that theoretically might have an intelligent initiative, but in practice seldom does.

102. So there’s a feeling in the female, ”Somehow, a wrong choice has been made. How can we remedy it?” Well there’s only one way of real remedy, the female has to develop the masculine component of its own being, and not to waste its energy trying to work on an external male, and bring him under the control of the non-rational feminine ‘want’. How can you bring an intellect under the control of an unformulated appetite? It is impossible.

103. Now let’s go back to - governments formulate intellectual rules in order to try to control, from outside, the appetites of the non-intellectuals.

104. Now can the non-intellectuals understand the meaning of the law? (“No.”). How many of you so-called ‘lip-titular Christians’ remember the Ten Commandments (Audience noise). Have you got them like this? … … Well if you had it wouldn’t matter because they’re ‘Old Testament’ and they are wiped out by another commandment (Two.) which is really one, with two statements, “Love God, and your neighbor, as yourself.” The rest is commentary (30.00). Now how many of us remember that simple fact?

105. Whatever we do, first we must love God, and then our neighbor as ourself, because our neighbor is a creature of God who we love. Do we actually love and consider the world thereof, the people to whom we relate? More than we do our own good? Or equal to our own good? Well if we don’t, we’re falling under the idea of utilitarian relations with other beings, which are not relations of love.

106. So we find, in the individual human being, exactly the same problem that there is for a nation. We have literally ‘billions’ of cells (American reckoning) in our body, and they have there own opinion about what to do. The little white cells go about swallowing bacteria. They enjoy it, and they do not know that we exist. In the same way, on the embankment of London and Paris and elsewhere, our ‘methylated spirits’ drinkers, who do not weekly read the equivalent of ‘Hansard’, or any official documents. … They don’t want to know. The thing is, “Get the Meths.’

107. Now there are more people pursuing an easy life of non-responsibility, and they are saying, “We don’t like giving orders to people, not merely because we don’t like responsibility, but because we don’t like being on the receiving end of orders given from other people.”

108. So it’s really a very complex thing

109. Now the ‘Prophets’ have observed that governments, tyrants, kings, high-priests and so on all impose in the non-rational masses, rules which the non-rational masses cannot fabricate for themselves, and then fall into enjoying the power of giving orders.

110. Now this is ‘Number One Crime’ in the universe, this is listed as ‘The crime of Lucifer’. Pride in self-power is really the only sin, the rest are merely ‘particular applications’: the desire to rule other people from outside them; the desire to trick them; the desire to deceive them in order to make government easy. In order to give more and more power progressively to governments.

111. Now the ‘Prophets’ were put to death for saying so loudly, so the ‘Apocalyptic Writers’, the ones who have visions, and then write the visions down in a book, deliberately make the visions very, very, obscure, because they don’t want the king to know.

112. ‘There is a beast there with seven horns and ten heads’, who is it? It might be referring to … what? Nero? Maybe. Domitian? Maybe. There was an emperor who said, “I am divining my own right!” The early Christians said, “No, no, you can’t be, only God is divine.” And there was slaughter because of that opinion difference.

113. So, when we examine the ‘Apocalyptic Writings’, they are writings in which visions (visual images that begin in the mind) and it is called ‘Revelation’, and most people think that ‘revelation’ means ‘take the veils off’, but it doesn’t means that, it means ‘re-veil’, ‘put another image in the place of the known one’.

114. Instead of saying, ”That man; that king; that self-declared ‘Royal Being’ is a liar,” we say, “Behold I see a spotted leopard, going around eating people, and destroying them. And these spots are as numerous as his crimes.” That’s ‘apocalyptic’; that’s a vision. Now you have to work it out. And by hiding under an animal, a vegetable, a mineral symbolism, you can insult great people, and they don’t know they are being insulted, unless they get a hand-book of symbology.

115. And if you think that the handbook of symbology will insult you, do you buy it, even in paperback? … …

116. Only there are actually, on the market, innumerable books of insults to governments. They’re called ‘Mystical Writings’, ‘Esoteric Writings’, ‘Occult Writings’, ‘Cabbalistic Writings’. They are all gatherings of insults against governments who have been corrupted by the ’will to power’.

117. Audience member: Yours are on the top shelf.

118. EH: Mmm… On the top shelf ? … I keep them under the bed

119. Audience member: Still allow to do it (?)

120. EH: Not (out of mari..?)

121. Audience Member: No, no!

122. EH: So ‘esoteric’ means ‘essential secret’; ‘exoteric’ means ‘a version of that secret which will obscure the secret if you explain it to somebody. The vision has become ‘apocalyptic’. It has become given to you in a form that you have to work out.

123. There is a ‘Whore of Babylon’ and she is corrupt, and she is conniving with the rulers of the world. What does that mean? Well, the Protestants says it means that Roman Catholicism has prostituted Judea-Christianity. That’s what the Lutherans and other people thought about it when they made their revolt. … Is that nice, or is it asking for trouble?

124. Audience Member: It’s asking for trouble.

125. EH: It’s asking for trouble. Because then we divide again the people, and we find the ‘Apocalyptics’ have been very largely responsible for this kind of battle. The ‘Apocalyptics’ wrote their books and said, like in the ‘Revelation’, “And if you dare to add anything to this book I will add to you the plagues thereof; and if you dare to take anything away I will take away your part in life,” which is to frighten you. Now this makes everybody who is ‘power conscious’ want to read the book.

126. So the men that want to read the book – that’s ‘the hijackers’ of any period of time. They read the book and find that they can actually justify revolting against existing government. So the orthodox rabbis (pre-Christian) when they heard these ‘Visions of the Prophets’, and then the ‘Apocalyptic Writers’ said, “We must suppress it!”

127. When they were in the Babylonian captivity, certain Persian ideas were adopted by the Jews. Now these ideas were very simple, and they were called ‘dualistic’, but they weren’t ‘dualistic’. They were ‘two brothers of one father’. Now if there are ‘two brothers of one father’, is it really a ‘dualism’?

128. There’s a principle, ‘God Absolute’, and he had two sons – we’ll call them ‘Light’ and ‘Dark’, ‘Ahura Mazda’, ‘Ahriman’, and when the Jews were there in Babylon, they learnt about this and thought, “This is great! We can utilize it. We can say, everybody who opposes Jews is anti God.” Later on that term will become ‘Anti-Christ’, but at that time it’s ‘anti God’. Anybody who captures Jews and locks them up and ill-treats them is anti God. Because the God they refer to is Yahweh, the Jewish god.

129. Now the government’s reply is to suppress the Jews. And just as in Babylon they were suppressed, and then though their superior cunning got themselves returned to Jerusalem, but when they’d got there, later on, the Romans come along and suppress them, because, wherever there was an Apocalyptic book – a book with symbols in it that you could interpret against the government – people reading them became rebels, and the orthodox governors of the subject people, like the orthodox rabbis of the synagogue and so on, they said, “This is causing trouble for us, because we have already come to terms with our captors. Actually in Babylon, and later on, and in Rome, a lot of Jewish people had very, very, high positions, and they didn’t mind conniving with their rulers to rule the masses of the people, but the few ‘apocalyptics’ read the books that had been written, with the visions in it, and interpreted the visions and said, “We are correct to revolt. Not only against the Babylonian rulers, not only against the Roman rulers, but against our own leaders, who are conniving with the Babylonians, or the Romans.” So they had this wonderful thing – Revolt, even against your own people.

130. So we find people – zealots, fanatics – rising up against Rome, the result is slaughter and the destruction of the Temple, which the orthodox did not want.

131. So you got two kinds of enemies. The enemy that comes from outside and imposes by physical power, by might upon you; and the enemy, which is your own original religious readers, the scribes who studied the documents, who become the leaders ‘because they have read’. ‘Need’ and ‘lead’ are linked words (40.00)

132. The more you know about the documents, the more you are in a position to lead. But if the leaders of s subject people connive with their rulers to subject their own people, then their own people will revolt if they read an apocalyptic book.

133. So the logic of it is this. Once upon a time mankind was ‘simple’ and ‘one’. You know, we’ve all got lots of ancestors, but if we go back we find that in the ancient times we’d very few, we spring from one primary human type, which we call the ‘Adamic’ type.

134. Now Adam has a wife (which is his own emotional feeling aspect – stressing on the physical-emotional), he is a man of initiative and intellect. But he becomes seduced by his wife, that is, by his ‘feminine aspect’, his emotions, his feelings, his wishes, his wants, his desires. They corrupt him and mislead him, and get him away from his own intellect. The name for that intellect is going to become ‘Logos’, ‘Cosmic Logic’.

135. Now, they give birth to a son, Cain, and ‘Cain’ is a word that means: ‘cunning’; ‘knowledgeable’; ‘intellectual’; ‘empirical’; ‘isolationist’; ‘individual’; ‘separative’; ‘selfish’. And he murders his brother, Abel. ‘Abel’ means, ‘he who thinks that God is his father’, who has belief in the power of God to save, and who wished to behave in a God-like manner on earth.

136. But the earth is the place where Cain, by physical violence; that is, the empirical physical scientist, can kill his brother Abel, who is faith in God. So ‘faith in God’ is murdered by ‘intellectual initiative’.

137. Now the first thing that Cain does after he’s murdered Abel, says, “My punishment is more than I can bear,” and God has put a mark on him, saying, “Let no man Kill him.” He’s a murderer, and God says, “Let no man kill him.” Why? Because Cain - the intellect - if that had been murdered after ‘faith’ had been murdered there would be no possibility of the evolution of the human race.

138. So the intellectual man is protected against death, and what does he do? He goes away ‘East of Eden’ (‘Eden’ means ‘non-division’) and he becomes very sulky, and he thinks, “How can I make myself secure? For every man’s hand is against me.”

139. So he builds the first city on earth. The first civilization, and he does it to surround himself with his own progeny, to protect him against other people that might be related to Adam, Eve and Abel.

140. But in so doing he builds a city whose father is the first murderer. What are the qualities of his children?

141. Audience member: The same

142. EH: They tend to be murderers, because they know that daddy built the city to protect himself against other people. And daddy is giving orders! And children, especially boys, don’t like orders from father. So there appear quarrels.

143. So we now have two lines: a line of Abel, who has been murdered, and whose blood ‘cries from the ground’ – where ‘the ground’ means your physical body, and ’the blood’ means your ‘life principle in your body’, and it is saying, “Where is that ‘faith’ that killed?

144. This happens in every human being. Every single individual human being is an exact model of the whole universe. We call that, “Microcosm of the Macrocosm.”

145. Now, we have two lines. One from Cain, a murderer, and another from a substitute child put in place of Abel. Because it says, “In place of murdered Abel, another son is given - Seth.” And out of this line will come all the people who believe in God’s ruler-ship. They will be called, in the Bible, ‘Sons of God’, and the others are ‘Sons of Men’ (plural).

146. Cain has murderous intent, and will use power, and murder, to get his own way on this earth.

147. ‘This earth’ is the place where power is pursued by the many descendants of the first murderer. (45.00) Meanwhile, inside our bodies, crying for vengeance, is ‘faith’ – Abel reborn as Seth.

148. Now we’ve all got to wish to have faith. But doesn’t faith - in us - get murdered by intellect. Every time we have faith don’t we wonder if we’re right? Doesn’t the intellect say, “You could be wrong.”

149. So inside every individual, just like the big universe, there is intellect throwing doubt on faith.

150. Now no man has seen God, at any time. Because God is an invisible, infinite, power. You cannot ‘see’ infinity. So it is a matter of faith whether you believe it.

151. Do you believe in an intelligent life force running through all the bodies in this room? (Yes.) Do you believe there is such a power? (Yes.) Do you believe somehow that power is intelligent, and can relate all the bodies harmoniously? (Yes.) If it so wills? (Yes.) But, does your intellect accept it? (No. Not readily). Not readily. “You could be wrong’” says the intellect.

152. Now, you are now in a position where you have to take sides, and this has to do with the ‘Armageddon’. A lot of people worry about the nuclear war as an ‘Armageddon’. That worry’s been going on for 6,000 years…. recorded ….

153. Now … Think … every human being is like a little universe, and is like a little nation, a little group, a little organization in himself, and he has ‘faith’, with ‘intellect’ throwing doubt on it. And this places us in a position where we are forced chose whether we will have faith in ‘faith’, or be shaken by the intellectual rationalization.

154. Now if we chose to go on the doubt side intellect, we’ve gone on the ‘Cain side’ and are murderous of any faith that contradicts the intellect. But if we have ‘faith’, and persist in ‘faith’, we are not influenced by spurious arguments of intellectuals.

155. Now these two fight inside the individual human being. But they also fight amongst the nations, and it is quite logical – and this is why the ‘Prophets’ prophesied, and why the ‘Apocalyptics’ wrote their books. It is quite possible, from the original murder, there will be retaliation. And that ‘faith’ and ‘intellect’ will confront each other in a final showdown battle.

156. Now this can occur within the individual, in which case it is a ‘crisis’, and a decision is made: either I reject faith and become an ‘intellectual empiricist’, or I reject intellect and become a person of faith. I don’t know what’s going to happen in five and a half years time in Wigan. … Funny that! … but I have very great faith that something will happen! And that what will happen will be for the ultimate good of the denizens of Wigan, and through them, on the world. They might extend the pier … to the benefit of the whole of society around them. It may become a model example, like the ‘Liverpool Festival’, in the new reclaimed territories, became for Europe for a short time.

157. Something is going to happen, and the battle between ‘intellect’ and ‘faith’ is already … done. The victory was gained before the battle starts, because ‘faith’ has not got parts … and the intellect has.

158. Now the one that’s got parts has got too much to handle.

159. Audience member: And it can fall to bits.

160. EH: And it can fall to bits. So the ultimate victory is on the side of faith, but does the intellect believe it? No. So the great prophets, and the ‘Apocalyptics’ and intelligent, remarkable men, say like Augustine, said, “This battle is inevitable.” … Augustine solved it by saying, “The Roman Empire is fundamentally wrong as a material power, but by a simple conversion to ‘faith in God’, the same Roman Empire becomes the ‘City of God’, by a simple switch of faith. (50.00) So he can then support the whole of Rome as an authority for God. And it’s only a change of view inside us as individuals that does it for us, and we become ‘persons of faith’ by ‘act of will’.

161. This is why, if you’ve got a nice long time to read weird and wonderful books by St. Augustine, you can enjoy yourself.

162. Everything is an ‘act of will’, and the fundamental of ‘will’, ultimately, is to enjoy itself. But it cannot enjoy itself if it is riddled with self-contradiction. But the self-contradiction belongs to the intellect, not to faith. So Augustine can say, “Love God, and do what you will.”

163. If you first love whatever you do, there’ll only be an act of love, and it doesn’t matter what you do. Your dentist pulls out a tooth, not because he’s annoyed at you, but because he will relieve you. A surgeon cuts up your ‘tum’ with a knife, not because he’s sadistic, but to get rid of a few old drops that have formed in the ‘tum’. To relieve you. So the same act can be done with love of God, and is ‘absolutely justifiable’ which could be done from a fiendish, diabolical, motive of ruling somebody.

164. So now we have necessarily an ultimate battle between ‘intellect empirical’ and ‘faith non-empirical’. And on earth it is the ‘intellectual power pursuers’ that try to suppress the ones with faith.

165. Now it is stated very clearly, “There are more people on the side of the intellect in mankind since ‘The Fall’ than there are on the side of faith.” So even in the ‘Revelation’ it doesn’t say that, “All will be saved.” But those will be saved who, in faith, persist in their faith to the end, in the midst of all manner of persecutions from the intellectual power-pursuing government.

166. A pre-condition of salvation, is that you must be persecuted to test your faith, and if you’re not tested, you do not know whether you have faith.

167. So in the final result, there will be a confrontation of ‘cosmic Logos’ which will appear on a white horse with a two edged sword in the mouth, and it will destroy the ‘anti-messianic God movement’. A movement that says “Do not have faith, believe in my scientific investigations, which confer power, and can promise you – in another 3,000 years – a holiday on a space platform beyond the planet Pluto. You can pay now a deposit. …. Because I’ll put the deposit in my bank and it collects interest.“ … Now that’s a particularly ‘Cainish’ thought. But you know in America, they have actually sold the other side of the moon in plots. (Yes.) … Already! … And people who want to go to a moonlit holiday, singing, “Everyone’s gone to the moon,” they’ve ‘paid-up’ all ready! Money out of their deposit account! And it’s gone into another deposit account and is earning.

168. Now imagine the situation where, finally, people begin to get this idea. It really is a battle between ‘intellective dubitative doubt ‘ (material investigation, pursuit of power) and a ‘faith’ that God (that is, ‘Absolute Intelligence’) is in charge of everything.

169. Now they come together, and logic fights with the tongue – a two-edged sword in the mouth. Called ‘two-edged’ because it cuts to right and left – it cuts the ‘haves’ and it cuts the ‘have-nots’. The right is the ‘haves’ the left is the ‘have-nots’, and it attacks both. The ‘haves’ for ‘power pursuit’, and the ‘lefts’ (‘have-nots’) for laziness of intellect, for non-decision.

170. Now at that time, the ‘Cainish’ pursuit of power will have produced fantastical armaments of which we see a vague shadow today in Regan’s ‘Star Wars’ with laser beams.

171. Now, they’ve already demonstrated, that using radio waves of certain frequencies, (55.00) and beaming them, they can cause a human mind to blank out … hundreds of miles away. …. And those people who were pursuing power (and it’s not only in Russia that this happens), who are pursuing power, investigating functions of radio frequencies, are hoping that they can paralyze, by radio, anybody who disagrees with them. And you will have a two-way television in which you look at the screen, but inside is a component looking at you, and recording you, and sending your statement, that you make in your private sitting room, back to headquarters.

172. So if you see a program and say, “That’s rotten!” You’re on tape! … On your specially supplied TV. … This sounds like ‘1984’ … of Orwell … but it’s coming, and they can do it. And they’re doing such amazing things with their ‘Cainish electro-technics’ that they would deceive, it says, “If it were possible, even the Elect.” But the Elect cannot be deceived, because they do not rest upon empirical and intellectual proofs – they live in ‘faith’. They say, “All your inventions are nothing but phenomena, they are behaviors of power. But they have no validity other than the ‘will’. Everything goes back to the ‘will’.

173. What is called ‘God the Father’? What is called ‘Allah the All-Compassionate the All-Merciful’? He is so by act of Will, He does not depend on His intellect, He Wills His intellect to solve problems, but He is not subject to it, because He is pure ultimate Will.

174. Now there is going to be a fight ,between sections of the human race, and they will be ‘Cainish’ and the line of Abel ‘crying for vengeance in the ground’.

175. ‘Faith’ will battle with ‘intellectual structures’ in this world. The signs are, that they are rushing madly towards it because of their nuclear shelters, and the hope that they can have a worldwide nuclear war, and still be safe.

176. Now the intellectuals think they can be safe, because they have technically made the shelters to make themselves safe. But the ones of faith say, “We will be safe, even if you blow us up with your nuclear weapons, because we are not orientated into the physical world at all, and we don’t care if you kill us. You killed the ‘Prophets’, you killed the ‘Apocalyptics’, where you could find them, and you will kill anybody in this world, but what you cannot do in the killing is get rid of the human soul, the human spirit - the intelligent power that constitutes the human being. ”

177. Now as soon as you don’t care about physical death, your faith improves. But if you care about dying physically, your intellect improves, and destroys your faith.

178. Now there’s going to be a great fight. And that fight will be fought, and this is very (..?..), it will be fought and the ‘Anti-God’ spirit will be defeated. And apparently, the ‘Anti-God’ spirit will have been wiped out. And then it says a very funny thing. ‘For a thousand years the Messiah will rule’. That means, out of the shock of this tremendous conflict, logic will keep people in order for a thousand years.

179. Now it doesn’t matter if it means a thousand terrestrial years (the number of times the earth goes round the sun) or ‘a thousand’ means what it means symbolically. ‘Thousand’ is ‘thou– sand’, it means ‘a lot of little bits’. It doesn’t have to be five minutes or five seconds; you can do an awful lot of thinking if you’re in a hurry. And that would be (Symbolically) thousands of thoughts.

180. So for ‘a thousand’ there will be a ruler-ship of logic. And then it says a very strange thing. After this thousand years of rule, the devil will be loosened again. Now why should that be?

181. There’s a big battle in which ‘truth’ defeats ‘error’, and there is a thousand years (that means lots of tiny details) of ruler-ship, and then, of some weird reason (as it says in the Book), “Known only to God,” - but known to anybody who thinks about it – all the people who were glad of the victory of logic, ‘Cosmic Logic’ (60.00), not human, empirical, power pursuing intellect.

182. All the ones who have faith in God. Will be very glad. But there will be many who pretend to have faith and haven’t.

183. So, then the Devil is let lose, that means the conflict will start again. And then the people who thought, “Maybe the Devil was the right one to back,” will come out in the open and start trying the same old empirical, intellective, trick again.

184. But this time it will be an absolute victory, and they will be destroyed. And after that there will be, what is called, a ‘New Heaven’ and a ‘New Earth’.

185. Now the ‘New Heaven’ is the ‘new concept’. Heaven is In your head, the (eve?dot) place, it’s a group of concepts of ‘truth’, Cosmic, universal, truth. And the ‘New Earth’ is the physical application of the new concepts. Then nobody ever again will be in doubt . …

186. Your ‘faith’ is the unifying principle; and the intellect is the diversifying, disintegrating principle, and that will be ‘the end’, where ‘end’ equals ‘finish’ and ‘goal’, prophesied from the beginning.

187. ‘Unity’ - which is the origin of the cosmos, and which was made by a deliberate act of will, within infinite chaos – that ‘unity’ will win the battle against disintegrating tendencies of power-pursing intellect. And never again, will any of those people who have gone through that process be in doubt that the primordial unific ‘will’ of ‘faith’ must necessarily win the final battle.

188. Now how do we feel about that? … We are in a position of having to chose: either we’re going to be ‘persons of faith’ and believe that fundamentally everything is ‘all right’ no matter how bad it looks; or … doubt it, and in our doubt defend ourselves against other people by deliberately pursuing power, and wealth to increase power, and power to increase wealth, and try to subject other people to our will. It’s a simple ‘either/or’.

189. And the way we chose internally determines what we get, and it says this very horrible thing, “After the last battle - whether in the individual, or amongst the nations – those who were fighting on the wrong side will go to Hell.” Now what does that mean?

190. It means, they will know, personally, that they were on they wrong side. … You do not need any other Hell.

191. Now remember that nice Sanskrit term for ‘hell’ … which is a ‘na’ word - a serpent word -the wicked serpent, the old worm that dies not and tries to deceive people?

192. All the people who willed power for themselves to enrich themselves and dominate other people, have in their memories that that was their will. So, by resonance, they are all grouped together. They become a group, held together by identity of purpose.

193. Now they’re put into a position where they are held (that’s what ‘hell’ means – ‘held in’ by their own belief), and the condition they are in is called ‘hell’ and is defined as ‘the place where ‘con-men’ are grouped together and there are no victims’.

194. Now imagine a place like that where all ‘con-men’ are gathered together … and there are no victims! Nobody to dupe! ... What’s it like? … …. Just imagine it! Supposing everyone you knew were a ‘con-man’ … supposing you were not! But you were allowed to peep through a little hole into Hell. And you saw everybody there was trying to ‘con’ everybody, but knowing that nobody was ‘con-able’ because they were all ‘con-men’. Now what would their expressions look like? A Bosch paining?

195. Audience Member: Oh yes! And ten times worse!

196. EH: Ten times worse!

197. Audience member: Innumerable!

198. EH: Innumerable times ... Infinitely worse would be the condition of those people who have voted internally, who are lying and deceiving, and pursuing power and wealth to dominate other people. Only suddenly all the other people, through faith, have become superior to the tricks of the ‘con-man’. So the ‘con-men’ are not ‘condemned’ by anything other than their own self-evaluation. (65.00) And how can there be an escape from that? … Not possible. …

199. And then we have a ‘New Jerusalem’, and it’s ‘four-square’ – it’s a ‘Masonic Place’. It’s like the Kaaba in Mecca – it’s a cube, with six faces, and you sit in the middle of it, you look up, and you see ‘Infinite Power’ above; you look down, and you see the earth; you look to the right, and you see your power as developed; you see to the left, those powers you have not developed; you see your closed past behind you; and an infinite future open in front of you. And you sit in that cube, and you know every facet of your six-fold-being. And nobody can deceive you, because you do not deceive yourself.

200. You know the gypsies say, “You can’t fool an honest man,” because the honest man does not try to deceive himself into thinking he’s smarter than the man doing the sale.

201. Now if you don’t deceive yourself, you are not deceivable by anybody else. … It’s not possible. You can only be deceived by accepting bait. … And if you examined every piece of bait given to you, you’d find where there was a hook in it, and whether it was poisoned, or bent in some mysterious way. And you would not be deceived…. So nobody is deceived except the self-deceivers! And finally, they are stuck with that knowledge, “I was deceived because I deceived, firstly, myself in my secret pursuit of power.” And after that ‘Last Judgment’, the final judgment is the totality of all the judgments of the total human race. And then the one who sits in real power then is called ‘The Messiah’ and ‘The Son of Man.”

202. ‘Son of Man’ means ‘the totality of all the judgments ever made historically by the total human race – is ‘Son of Man’.

203. Now ‘the total human race’ is nothing but the extended ‘Being of God’ trough enumerable vehicles of experience. So ‘total humanity’ is God - manifest as human beings. And the totality of all opinions of the totality of the human race adds up to ‘Cosmic Truth’; and that the ‘Son of Man’ is therefor the ‘Son of God’.

204. Now he comes, and it says, “Four horsemen will ride, and there will be terrible devastation. There will be war, there will be disease, there will be famine, there will be pestilence.”

205. Now anybody who has studied the history of war knows that is what war produces. War brings death, brings famine, brings pestilence. When you kill bodies, they corrupt. Food is destroyed; you actually destroy enemy food stocks, don’t you?

206. Pestilence is when, on the battlefield, amidst all the dead bodies, the insects and the microbes and the viruses multiply, and then they blow all over the earth, and everybody gets a little bit of war - of death; of famine; of pestilence, spreading all over the world.

207. That’s one of the biggest deterrents to governments today there is. The idea of bacterial destruction. You might release, in bacteria warfare, bacteria that by multiplying in appropriate conditions in the right weather - the right climate – and get totally out of hand, and come back, and destroy the children of the rulers. … Now that’s very sobering … But the ultimate trial is one riding with a double-edged sword in the mouth, talking logic, striking at the powerful haves, and the lazy have-nots, equally.

208. ‘Horse’ means ‘hierarchical power issuance’; ‘white horse’ means ‘the balance of all colors’. And when you split white light, you get a rainbow. And the seven colors of the rainbow refer to seven temperaments. You see that in the symbolism of the planets. You have a grabbing, Saturnine, temperament; you have a Jupiter, expansive, generous; you have a Marital, warlike; a Venusian, sensuous appreciator; a Mercurial quickness; a Moon phasiicity. Now all these are temperaments, and they are sub-divisions which, when they are put together in perfect balance, constitute the ‘rider on the white horse’.

209. Every individual human being is then, when self-understood fully, is the ‘rider on the white horse’ who is coming, conquering erroneous ideas. And to conquer - conquering and to conquer - conquering erroneous ideas, and to conquer any future erroneous ideas that might breed from the other ones that were corrupt.

210. That’s a short outline of the, some of the implications of the ‘apocalyptic writing’, and it puts us in a position of necessary choice. And if we decide not to chose to chose, that is a choice too. To shirk the necessity for choice. ‘Shirk’ is not a bad Arabic word, with a slightly different pronunciation, which is not a good thing. Neenapah! (?) What is S-H-I-R-K mean? ….

211. Audience Member: Can you repeat please?

212. EH: S-H-I-R-K

213. Audience member: Shukid (?)

214. EH: What does it mean?

215. Audience member: … It means who (….?...) is (..?..) to God, whatever God gives him he accepts, or she accepts.

216. EH: Does it? … In English it means the opposite. Whatever you avoid of the ‘good’ that you know about is called ‘shirking’….Shira-king’

217. Audience member: Oh! ‘Shira-king’, ‘shiraking’ means that they don’t believe in God.

218. EH: How come that that Arabic word is in English? Is it a ‘Muslim Conquest’? A person who dodges responsibility, and doesn’t believe in God is a ‘shirker’. … … And we have to decide whether we do, or do not, believe in God. And it’s a choice. And if we say, “I don’t want to chose wrongly, so I chose not to chose,” that’s the worst crime of all.

219. It says in the book there, “If you do that, I will spew thee out of the mouth.” So we’re in a cleft stick aren’t we? We have to chose, and to refuse to chose is a choice, and that’s the worst guilt of all.