The Kingdom Within (248)
A talk given by Eugene Halliday,
transcribed with diagrams, tables and arbitrary headings by J. Bailey.
Square brackets [ ] contain editors comments.
It’s called the Kingdom Within.
We’ll have to draw a circle first. I hope you can see it. It’s blue and therefore celestial.
Now, to talk about within, of course, implies that there is a without. And if we talk about king-dome, we are talking about the ruling of a given zone. Let’s put it down, that’s king and dome. The king is a canny man. The root of this word comes from the same as kennen, canny, knowing. And the German Koenig is the same word. It’s from the verb cunnan to know, and the king is essentially one who knows, and the dome is the whole sphere of his knowledge. So when we are talking about a kingdom, we are implying that there is a person, a king, who knows all the form of the zone or dome over which he is going to rule.
Now, when the title was set, the kingdom within, it implies that there is a without. And it may be that there is another kingdom without, or that there is nothing without.
And we’ll see what happens in the case of a human being. We haven’t got the appropriate colours of chalk so we’ll just carry on with the blue and imagine it’s black and red and so on. Let’s look at it first from the point of view of a kingdom within a circumscribed zone. This circumscription necessarily cuts off the outside from the inside, and dome is the same thing as circumscription. Imagine this circle which I have drawn here on the plane surface of the paper to rotate at right angles to the plane of the paper, and it will describe a sphere in space. That sphere is this dome. And dome itself signifies the division of the whole of a substance under consideration. So that when we’re talking about a dome, we first circumscribe and that divides the inside from the outside, and then we put M inside this to signify the substance, sub stantia, that standing underneath the circumscription. And we know that there is no matter other than the modalities of a force, and therefore the substance inside this sphere is simply the way the force, locked in or circumscribed, is behaving. Force is being reflected from the inner wall of this dome and the force traversing this area we call the substance. You can see immediately that the amount of substance in a being is the same as the amount of force in the being.
You know not many years ago in the 19th Century and in the early part of the 20th Century when you were at school, if you were at school, you learned a law called the conservation of energy and matter, or force and matter. And in those days they believed that matter existed over against force in its own right. But it was discovered empirically that matter is simply a force behaving in a specific manner: namely, it is rotating and therefore occupying space and resisting penetration.
So the law was changed to the conservation of mass/energy. Now mass/energy simply means the energy, that is, in-working — en-ergy is in-working — force that is working inside that dome. So the amount of mass a person has is the amount of force a person has. And inertia, in-working force, is the same thing as the amount of force compelled by the fact of circumscription to remain working inside the being.
Now, if all the force involved inside a sphere is rotating continuously, it is called an orderly force, and if we consider that force in itself rotating within the sphere, we see no reason why it should not continue to rotate inside it interminably ... which would be equivalent to a continuous substance with no power to change itself. When we consider the concept of change we have to consider the idea of applying another force, other than the one substantialised, to break down the orderly behaviour of the mass inertia of the system.
If we take food inside our bodies, we break it down in the process of digesting it, and then we distribute that energy from it in the body. It circulates in the blood and to the nervous system, and the way it habitually does this we call the inertia of that organism. Now if the whole thing rotates and doesn’t change the form of its behaviour, then we can say that the being is completely dominated by its own mass inertia. And no change would appear to be possible for it. But the moment we do that we are considering mass inertia and we are not considering the meaning of the word king. Because a king is a person who knows what is inside this substance, and in the act of knowing it he demonstrates himself to be other than it. Inside our own bodies we have consciousness, formal knowledge of what is going on, and this formal knowledge enables us to control the forces in the body. This control is the function of the king. [6:37]
If we imagine this sphere to be full of energy unable to change, we cannot really call it a king, because it can’t do anything, it cannot produce any changes, it cannot evolve freely at its will. So that we could consider it as a purely mechanical system ... like a material machine. When we are talking about the kingdom within, we have to postulate that there is a zone inside a being which contains the king ... this consciousness principle.
So we’ll draw a circle in the middle of the first one and we will mentally rub out any other motion that has traversed it and we’ll write the king inside it, and when we’ve done that we write the dome in the action band here, round it. We can fill in this action band with the word dome if we like. Now this word dome, read Hebraica, is mode. Mode is way, manner in which things act. We know that if we take a rotation and press it in, spirally towards the centre, if it keeps moving it can’t go to the dead centre because if it did so it would stop, and the essential character of force is its dynamism, its moving-ness. It cannot go to a dead stop so it must leave in the centre an empty space in which is no motion. That no-motion is the zone of the king. And the zone of motion, the mode of the action’s force is round that king.
So we now see that the concept of a kingdom implies consciousness and something observed. Now this consciousness is called the subject. And that which is observed is called the object. This subject gives orders to the object, decides what is to be done. It has power to induce changes in it. And it can do this only because its self is not formed. If it were formed completely it could not give orders to the surrounding zone. We can consider this, if you like, as the type of kingdom, of an empire if we like, when we consider the definition of an empire is an area under the control of a central authority. [9:15]
The substance is the M.
The Pi-Ratio function, the point of differentiation from the centre divides that substance up
So the same diagram can do for a man or a central consciousness giving orders to his physical body, or to a nation with a government giving orders to the members of that nation, or to an empire involving many nations, again with a sense of giving orders.
Now, if there were only one such kingdom, it will be quite obvious that there would be no difficulties at all in the control of it, because then the central consciousness would simply give its orders out to the perimeter of its own being, and its own being would have no occasion to disobey it. It would be a self-initiating, self-ordering system.
But in fact we know that human beings, like many other beings, are finited and outside their individual limits there are other beings. Now these other beings — each one with its own centre and its own mass inertia round this centre — give rise at the point of contact, to the contingent relation ... the relation of touch. And wherever this contingent relation arises, there arises an obscuring motion in the substance of the being.
If with my fist I hit this board, it vibrates and knocks something on the floor. An accident occurs: something non-essential. If we say the essential being is the centre being, then the non-essential is the perimeter stimulus. [11:08]
Now, for any given being, which being would be its own law if it were in perfect isolation, there is always a devil ... that is to say, another being external to itself which stimulates the substance of the being under consideration from outside.
If we take any given being, any other being whatever when stimulating the first being gives rise to modifications of the motion inside that being, and these modifications coming from outside are not under the control of this first being. Being not under control, he is not a king in relation to those motions.
This is very important. If a hammer is applied to a gentleman’s skull from outside by another man, it tends to produce changes in the activity of the brain. Those have not been ordered from inside. They come from outside, and therefore they threaten the rulership of the central consciousness. Now this means that any being whatever stands in the position of being a possible devil for any other being.
When in religion we examine the concept of the devil, we always find the devil opposed to god, and opposed to god’s spirit in the sense that the devil is always destructive ... whereas god’s spirit is always constructive, creative. And we can see immediately from this diagram why this should be so. [13:09]
The white paper represents the creative force from which the universe derives. No motion can go to a dead centre, so it must leave at the centre of every being some white paper not drawn upon ... that is, some unconditioned, absolute force, intelligence. Therefore, where there is no contingent relation, that spirit must spread out and progressively initiate and order the surrounding zone.
But if there comes into existence a plurality of being, then there arises in this mutual contact the stimulation from outside of the substance in each being, with the consequent change in the objective state of each being. And that change, being induced from outside, is not under the control of the centre, and therefore insofar as it is not under that control, that centre is not a proper king.
Now kingship consists in establishing this control, this ordering of power. And the enemy of it is always the external stimulus. Christ on one occasion says that the name of this devil is legion. It means an awful lot of him. And he conspires together to attack your central consciousness from outside.
Now you can see immediately that if a contingent stimulus produces a modification of your thought process which you have not yourself initiated, then you have an object in consciousness with which you cannot adequately deal. Your kingdom is threatened.
How to get control over your own substance when a stimulus from outside has in fact disturbed it?
The answer is two-fold. Either you withdraw from the stimulus situation, you run away from it — which is the negative mode and we’ll see that very, very often it is the worst mode — or you subject yourself to the stimulus and at the same time you use the whole of your consciousness to suffuse your substance, to discover the nature of the substance changes induced by the stimulus.
Let’s make a concrete example of it. Supposing we represent this figure as ‘A’ and this other one by ‘B’ and the third one by it, ‘C’. Supposing ‘A’ has previously had no external stimulation, and therefore believes itself to be perfectly capable of initiating changes in itself and ordering its own substance. And then quite suddenly there is an attack from outside. Another being appears on the scene, and that new being constitutes by its very existence an external stimulus situation.
Now, ‘A’s internal content changes. In other words, his thoughts and his feelings change because of the nature of the stimulus given. Now, at this moment, the stimulus is either pleasant or painful. If it is pleasant it will tend to make the substance of ‘A’ move towards the stimulus source where there will arise in ‘A’ a feeling of wanting to go towards the stimulus. But if the stimulus from ‘B’ to ‘A’ is painful, that is to say an excessive amount of motion is added to the substance of ‘A’, then ‘A’ will tend to retreat from the stimulus. In either case the behaviour of ‘A’s substance is being conditioned by ‘B’.
Now supposing simultaneously ‘C’ gives a stimulus to ‘A’ and the nature of the stimulus from ‘C’ is painful when the nature of the stimulus from ‘B’ is painful. Then the being ‘A’ will be constrained to change its shape. It will retire from both ‘C’ and ‘B’, and thus change its shape. We see this in the case of an amoeba if we drop lemon juice on two opposite sides of it.
And in the case of a human being, if you get a human being ‘A’ with certain ideas which constitutes its general pattern of order, and you subject it to attack from ‘C’ and ‘B’, on opposite sides, the shape of the ideas, of the idea pattern in ‘A’, is changed. In other words he’ll withdraw certain ideas, he represses them — they’re not for discussion in the presence of ‘C’ and ‘B’ — and in the process he tends to elongate in the opposite direction.
In other words if you knock back certain ideas, the energy of those ideas repressed will tend to push ideas out in another direction to escape. So that the behaviour and form of ‘A’ would then be determined by ‘C’ and ‘B’. There would then be two devils, or two dividing forces acting on ‘A’. [18:43]
Now, this word devil, as we’ve seen before, comes in various spellings. If you read in Hobbs’ Leviathan you will find that it’s spelled divil, instead of devil. But in either case it comes from a root meaning god, or the god — where Div or Deu is the old name of god, and EL is the name of god. But DIV is the name of god as separator, and EL is the name of god as joiner. So any given being can stand as a devil to you ... or a god. He can stand as a dividing force or a joining force. And sometimes the joining force is actually joining you to something which later you will have to be divided from. In which case it may be a devil disguised as a god.
If we say that the ‘L’ signifies the joining force and the ‘D’ the dividing force, then we will use ‘L’ for all the pleasant stimuli we receive, and ‘D’ for all the unpleasant. The Sanskrit ‘DuHkha’ means unpleasant ... it’s because of this dividing tendency of it. It begins with this ‘D’. We have it, a similar thing in difficult and so on. This ‘D’ sound signifies the actual difficulty experienced in assimilating something.
If therefore we say that ‘B’ gives an ‘L’ stimulus — an assimilable one — to ‘A’, and at the same time ‘C’ gives a ‘D’ stimulus to ‘A’, ‘A’ will tend to fly away from ‘C’ because it’s unpleasant, and towards ‘B’ because it is pleasant. But again its behaviour will be determined from outside itself.
Now, supposing ‘B’ is a very cunning person who understands this law of ‘L’ and ‘D’, which we would bring up-to-date by calling it taxic theory, then every positive stimulus giving a pleasure, ‘B’ would know would cause ‘A’ to move towards it. And therefore if you wanted to determine ‘A’s behaviour, all he need do is set up a series of ‘L’ stimuli. At the back of it he may have a ‘D’ intention.
On the golden mile at Blackpool there are lots of men using ‘L’ stimuli to get ‘D’ functions of dividing men from their cash. And the more cunning the man is, the more he will be consciously aware of ‘L’ and ‘D’. ... should be an ‘S’ in really, shouldn’t there? [an aside reference to L.S.D. ... pounds shilling and pence]
Now, this means that the person with most knowledge about ‘L’ and ‘D’ — about joining and dividing — stands in relation to another one with less knowledge as a king does to his subjects. It isn’t for nothing that the governments of the world spend a lot of time and money financing experiments in the reactions of protoplasm, of living tissue, to stimuli of different orders. Now they have been working at it for many thousands of years that we know about, historically. And yet they have not moved an inch from the original discoveries of the ancients ... that living tissues move towards pleasant and away from unpleasant stimuli.
If then we are to consider the nature of the king’s problem — that is, the problem of central consciousness in a stimulus situation — it can only be that a man wishing to be a king, to rule his own substance, must equip himself with the knowledge of ‘L’ and ‘D’ ... of binding and loosing as they call it in the New Testament.
Binding is ‘L’ and loosing is ‘D’. These are the two keys to the kingdom. I like it, and I don’t like it.
If you increase your knowledge until it reaches a level greater than another being, you release yourself from the stimulus situation that that being would present you with, and at the same time if he remains in your environment, he becomes passive to you if you wish to make him so. Now all depends on the gaining of this fundamental knowledge, because without it you are entirely at the mercy of the stimuli from other beings.
Spinoza, who made a materialistic monism, had one good idea in pursuing this when he said that the man with adequate knowledge is active and the man with inadequate knowledge is passive in the situation. Insofar as you do not know about a certain subject, you will have to take it from somebody who does. If we take the word authority, it actually means a being who has established from itself a law. If you look in the dictionary, say if you take Wylde, you will find that authority has for one of its basic meanings, personal influence. This is not something that you can confer upon somebody with a diploma. It is personal influence. The man who actually gets a roll of paper, who gives it to somebody else and says it is a diploma, if he’s got a forceful personality he may persuade the man to accept it as a diploma. And he may persuade men with less adequate knowledge still, to accept that piece of paper as evidence of talents and powers possessed. But in itself the paper confers nothing. [24:44]
If a man studies a science, in medicine or anything else at a university, and after a long period he receives a diploma for it and a degree, this is only supposed to be evidence of the work done. And if he has crammed at the last minute and not assimilated, and scraped through by trickery, he is not an authority. He’s simply sham. But if he works very, very hard and makes the knowledge his own, and then pushes it a step further and produces a new evolute out of it, he becomes an authority. That is, he becomes an influence in the environment in which he exists.
Now, let’s consider what happens with ‘L’ and ‘D’, with binding and loosing, in a given situation and we’ll take two forces operating at right angles to each other if we like, or in opposite directions on a third being. Supposing we say that the being ‘A’ is being subject to two kinds of stimuli, one by ‘B’ and one by ‘C’.
Supposing ‘B’ is giving ‘L’ stimuli out, and says, You must tie yourself together, you must gain in power, and offers such stimuli.
Whilst at the same time, ‘D’ is saying, you mustn’t gain any power because it’s bad for you. You must keep without power, and then join up with a lot of other beings with no power and belong to them.
Now you can see immediately, both of these two beings might be rogues, they may be leg-pulling. The one who’s telling you you should get power to bind, might in fact be selling you a large stick of rock to do it with. And the one who says you must not get power but belong, might be wanting you to belong to a world wide revolutionary organisation.
So you cannot tell by the use of the term ‘L’ and ‘D’, or pleasant and unpleasant, or good and bad, whether in fact that stimulus is going to lead you into what you really want. There is only one way that you can tell, and that is this: when a stimulus comes to you, whether it’s stated to be in the form ‘L’ or ‘D’, binding you to a future good or dividing you from it, what you have to do — with due regard to the fact that you can only be a king over your own body providing you yourself learn to gain central consciousness and then give the orders to a substance — is this:
When the stimulus comes, you watch your own substance for reaction. If the substance tends to run towards it because it’s an ‘L’ stimulus, and you find on trying to stop it that it is difficult to do so, your first duty is to stop the reaction inside you. Even if somebody came to you and said, I am an angel from god, and I require you to follow me, and for some reason or other, you have tooth-ache or ear-ache or something, you thought, Well I must go, I will follow this fellow to get rid of my toothache. That would be a tendency, and your duty, to gain your inner freedom, is to stop it. [28:08]
This is the meaning of Thomas putting his finger in the holes in Christ’s hands. He doesn’t follow the man because he can see red marks on his palms. They might have been painted on. It’s quite easy to make good scars, even by burning them with a cigarette or something like that, if you want. He wanted to put his finger in the hole to make sure that it was a real hole and not an illusion. And therefore he inhibited the tendency — if he had one — to run after the Messiah simply because a man had appeared and said, I am the man who was crucified. And because he inhibited it, he became stronger.
Now, it doesn’t really matter initially whether you inhibit your response to the voice of god or to the voice of the devil. The important thing is to inhibit it ... so that you can gain centrality.
Christ said, the kingdom of heaven is within. So it’s inside. There’s a king consciousness right inside, there. If a stimulus comes from outside and a five piece brass band accompanies a voice saying, come all ye that labour and I will give you rest, and you tend to run out towards it, your first duty is to stop, kill the tendency to run out. Remember the statement, the kingdom is with, and take the energy of the stimulus in.
If the messenger is genuine, he will be very glad that you inhibited that tendency to rush out, and that you’ve gone in to find your own consciousness. Because if you are going in to find your own consciousness, you are gaining that kind of awareness that he states he wants to give you. Because when a statement is made, come and I will give you rest, the statement is made that, I will remove you from any position where you can be brought into agitation. But that position of agitation is the perimeter stimulus situation. It is a contingent relation. If you can be made to depend on the external situation so that you cannot move from centre, then in effect you are being conditioned by another being, and that being is playing the devil with you. But if every stimulus that’s coming to you and disturbing you is taken as an occasion for you to examine the nature of the substantial reaction, inhibit the tendency to run towards it or away from it, consider its meaning and then go back to central consciousness ... then it has done you a favour. [30:56]
Now let’s consider what the brain-washers have said about this, and what has been established factually with the aid of animals, Pavlov and his dogs, and other people with ants and various insects and other animals. The net result of it can be reduced very, very simply to ‘L’ and ‘D’ stimuli.
If a certain stimulus comes to you and gives you a certain amount of pleasure, your substantial, or as the bible would say, your natural reaction is to run towards it. If it is painful, your natural reaction is to run away from it, and this nature therefore is over against your free centre. This is why in the bible it says that you have to fight this natural man. The natural man is the one that inclines towards pleasure and away from pain. And because he does, smart men who know the rules of pleasure/pain can determine the behaviour of people by giving them a pleasant and an unpleasant stimulus in a certain order.
We said before that when Pavlov was experimenting with a dog, he would get a dog and tie it so that it couldn’t get away, and then he would give it a mild electric shock in one leg. And this dog would be shown something — perhaps a bowl of food — if it bent down to eat the food, the electric shock value was increased and became so painful that the dog’s attention was taken off the meat — pleasure stimulus — and put on the painful electrical stimulus in the leg. And so the painful stimulus here overcame the pleasure stimulus of the meat.
Now in the same way on other occasions he put the meat there and rang a bell and so on, and conditioned the dog to believe that when the bell rang he could eat the meat, but when the electrical impulse was in the leg, it was led to expect an increase in that shock if it tried to eat meat. And so the dog’s behaviour was conditioned. [33:06]
And in the process of conditioning the dog, it was observed that the dog developed a pattern of responses, pleasant and painful, to the situation ... and also to the man who was doing the experiment.
And one of the marked things was, that if the dog were given a lot of pleasure stimuli by the man, it would become very, very fond of that man, and if it were given pain stimuli by a man it would become fearful of that man and begin to hate him. But if the stimuli were increased — although they were pleasurable — if the frequency of them — or if they were painful, if the intensity of them — were taken over a certain level, suddenly they inverted. [33:47]
And this is very important. The thing that had then caused fear and anger and hatred in the dog, the man who applied the painful situation suddenly became an object of love ... whereas the being who had given it all the pleasure could become an object of hate. And this accounts for dialectical, sudden inversions of emotional relations between man and woman, where a young fellow and his girl might fall in love and they mean everything to each other. But because they mean everything to each other, they are in danger of this dialectical inversion. Now we’ll see why this must be so. [34:31]
Inside every being there is a free zone of intelligence, and this is surrounded with a substance which is natural. This is natural man, the substantial man who is subject to the external stimulus. But the internal man is not subject to that stimulus, and is quite free.
Now, if two beings come together and discover that their mode of stimulating each other is mutually pleasurable so that whenever they come together there arises a pleasurable situation in the body, then they tend to merge more and more together. In other words, they tend to move more and more into the contingent relation. But this is the same thing as moving more and more into slavery to the external situation. And it doesn’t matter how pleasant it is ... if it is going to take you off your centre it is going to destroy your initiative.
Now this occurs in very young lovers, when quite frequently a young boy and a young girl actually wish that they could cease to be two, that they could merge together and become only one being. Now consider what that really means. Supposing all the human beings on earth were to get such a tremendous love for each other that they desired nothing except fusion. Now supposing their will was so tremendously strong that they actually succeeded in this fusion.
What would be the result? Answer: the disappearance of all plurality, and a sudden collapse of the whole human race into a primary sphere. Relation would disappear and therefore the whole value resident in relation would disappear, and it would become one mass of self-satisfied substance.
Now, the nature of spirit, represented by this white paper, is essentially creative and prolific. It is determined to multiply centres in order to create relations of value. And therefore, when the pleasant stimulus situation tends to cause merging of two beings into one, there arises from the centre of each being a protest. And that protest is actually the voice of the Absolute Spirit coming in and saying, don’t go too far in your merging tendencies, because if you do you will lose the essential value of the relationship. Hence thus far and no farther is the rule in all relationships.
Now, if this merging tendency goes on and love spreads, the whole universe will collapse into a solitary mass of pleasure sensation ... and then lapse into a simple, monistic matter. And all the values of separate relations, separate functions, creative activities, would disappear. To offset that, the Absolute Spirit acting in the centre as immanent spirit sends out messages to stop this relation going too far. [37:55]
Now, here’s a very, very strange thing: that the voice of god now appears as the voice of the devil. We’ve said that any dividing force appears to be a devil to the thing that it divides. If we get a young boy and a girl together in their first stage of love when they can think of nothing except burying themselves in each other and becoming a coagulated unific mass, and we suddenly interfere with them and separate them, and insist that they have nothing more to do with each other, then they consider we are playing the devil with their relation. And they tend to drive together more and more to get the value which they believe we are depriving them of.
Now, inside themselves there is a voice that says, you can only go so far in this relation and no farther ... further, farther. And therefore when relation has gone to a certain point there must arise inside every individual a dissatisfaction with the relation. This means that no matter how hard you try in the finite situation to make the relation what you would call perfect, you are doomed to fail from the beginning.
Now, let’s look at another aspect. This coming together is also determined by the prolific, for sexual reasons. The mode of reproduction of human beings is by a coming-together process. But once this coming together process has been fulfilled, and pluralised itself as children, then for the time being the coming together process is fulfilled itself, projected its other forms and now there is indicated a period of separation. If now at this moment a dreadful situation arises, there’s going to be trouble between these two beings because they cannot understand why they should now separate, considering how tremendously important it was for them to come together. [40:08]
And the terrible thing that can happen to them is this: that their education tells them quite erroneously that when they come together, they have come together forever. That they are now one flesh, as Christ said. And interpret this one flesh, that they are one flesh not two. Now in the realm of non-dualism we know very well that they are one flesh and at the same time they are two flesh. A man and his wife never become one flesh to the point of disappearing in each other leaving a blob of protoplasm on the dining room floor. What they do is, they come together for a time for renewal of mutual stimulation, and for projection of further entities, and then, because they have come together they must retire. Because they have come together, they must retire.
Education of the ‘M’ order for material security inside an established state, and for security of the state only, requires that a man and his wife shall sign a piece of paper to prove that they are one and that then they shall behave as if they are one in their social appearances. And this has imposed on people an erroneous idea that they must be one in everything. They must have exactly the same view, the same desire, the same function, they must always want to do the same thing at the same time, and so on. And all this is an erroneous idea arising from a faulty education about the nature of the relationship.
The kingdom is within, means the control centre is within. This control centre has inside it Immanent Spirit. This Immanent Spirit has to order its own substance. But in order to order it, it needs at certain stages contingent relations with other beings who are trying to order theirs. And therefore man and woman are polarised and come together so that they can grow in this inner awareness and project beings which will later grow in their awareness and thus enrich the whole relational values of the universe.
If we can see the necessity of withdrawal as well as coming together, break the inertia of the education that says that this shouldn’t occur, then we can go on to develop from inside ourselves and remove from our memory field — that is, the field where our education is recorded — all those feelings of guilt and wrong sensation that we call, being aware that we are not doing the right thing, and we can begin to evaluate each other properly.
Supposing this represents a man and a woman. And they have come together — whether legally or otherwise — they have come together and they have fused their physical and mental and psychic substances for the time being. As a result the whole behaviour pattern of their own substance has been profoundly changed. A boy with no ambition falls in love with a girl and suddenly he feels responsible. His mother and father say, he’s not responsible. And he hasn’t been. He sees a certain girl. Suddenly he feels he would like a house of his own, and he would like to design a pattern of life for himself. This can’t arise in him unless he gets a stimulus. But when the stimulus has come and he begins to make this pattern, he is in danger from his education that has already said, the pattern must be of a certain order. [44:05]
Now, through the polarisation of these two as man/woman, there is a slight difference in the way the man and the woman take the stimulus situation. The woman tends to enjoy the personal side of the relation and to live her life in personal relation. But the boy, the man, tends to examine the form of the relation, to be intrigued by the way things work in the relation, and thus to be thrown away from the personal centre into the formal changes in the substance.
He gets ideas from the girl in the same way that the girl gets a personal sense from him.
The result is, on the one side we have an increase of formal consciousness in the male, and on the other side, an increase of affective emotional consciousness in the female. Now these two are different, and they are essentially different. If now the male requires that the female should understand the ideas that he is working on, just because they have been in this relation of merging together, he commits an error. It is not her function to understand as a female the content of his ideas. If he likes the way a cat’s whisker twists and touches a crystal, and is intrigued with the effect of this when amplified in a certain way, then he should not expect her to be interested in the same thing ... because she is in a personal relation and he has now shifted the accent onto the relation of things. In the same way, if she expects him to remain merely at the personal level and not to be interested in the things, she is committing an error. [46:23]
It therefore requires that he shall tolerate her and she shall tolerate him in the differences between them. All differences between have to be seen for what they are ... that is, differentiating factors. Remember, if we remove all the differences from people, then all that happens is the disappearance of the human race and its collapse into one blob of protoplasm. The ‘D’ factors, so-called devil factors, are differentiation factors. They are the ground of what we call values, whereas the ‘L’ factors that tie us together are the grounds whereby those differences can be brought into relation. And both must be affirmed.
Now, the enemy in the Bible and in most of the great religions has always been stated to be mass inertia. That is to say, whatever the pattern of the relation has been to date, that pattern, tending to continue over and over again, tends to stop further evolutes, new initiatives, new relational possibilities. This mass inertia is therefore the devil ... the devil in the cosmic sense. [47:50]
When we come to examine the equation that this mass inertia equals the dragon, the devil, the old serpent and so on in the bible, we find we can represent the whole process with the serpent with his tail in his mouth. Now he represents the kind of self-continuing stimulus situation. And it occurs inside every individual and inside every group of individuals, from the smallest group ... to the biggest group, like a world empire. Once this empire or this individual has got its energies rotating in an orderly manner, this orderly system tends to carry on, and repeating itself over and over again in the same pattern. But if it repeats in the same pattern continuously, the being becomes bored, mechanically. You know that if you carry a thought on in the mind continuously, it bores through to your tissue.
[break in recording]
... it is new means in effect that for a moment, the inertia, the mass inertia, has been broken. And these new things are the evolutes that will give you the new values and the higher pleasures that make it worthwhile breaking the inertia. [49:15]
We now have then, two motions, mass inertia [M] and a force that breaks that inertia ... the force of initiative. Mass inertia appears in the state, embodied in the law that requires you to keep a certain social pattern. And in individual beings it appears as a comfort mechanism. The thing that sends a lot of men home on a winter night is not love of the dear lady at home, but love of the carpet slippers and the warm fire. Now this tendency for an individual to pursue comfort for himself is just part of the mass inertia, because that warmth from the fire is really energy. You know that heat is motion. If you’re out on a cold night, the amount of motion in you is decreasing. As you radiate heat, you are losing motion, and that motion is the same as your mass. And so you shrink. If you don’t go and get something to eat and get yourself warmed, you won’t expand again.
So the comfort mechanism starts off by being a genuine thing; namely an attempt to maintain your equilibrium, keep the amount of energy inside you at a certain level so that you don’t diminish. But because of the pleasure of the intake of this energy, it tends to divert us into becoming merely a comfort-loving being. [50:43]
Now the individual comfort mechanism is the same thing that keeps the individual enslaved by the social inertic behaviour pattern. The state as an inertic system encourages everything in the home — in the domestic scene — that binds the people, the governed ... to the comfort. Whatever encourages comfort and the binding of people into an existing pattern is supported by the state, because then the governors of the state can remain at the top. And we notice that the pyramid, which is the type of a human society, has few bricks at the top and many below, but the few at the top are very, very busy, very energetic ... they acquire knowledge, and they do things. They initiate things.
A man who, say — we won’t take some of the secret ones like the Cecils, we’ll take somebody like Edinburgh, a façade man who does a large amount of work — he works like mad. He did, what is it? ... thirty-six thousand miles in three months. Why was he doing it? Because he’s one of these fellows in the top. If he doesn’t get adequate knowledge of the world situation, he will not remain active. Neither will the family he represents. He encourages himself, and is encouraged by his immediate family supporters, to have a very active life and to acquire lots and lots of knowledge. And simultaneously they are encouraging other people by multiplication of pleasure devices — like TV, and so on — to stay at home and not to go anywhere at all.
So one end of society, the top end, is moved towards ever more and more adequate knowledge and greater positivity, greater activity, and the other end is supplied with all the mechanisms that encourage satisfaction, round-the-fireplace comfort, and so on, because as far as these things increase there is no possible danger of a revolution. [52:56]
Now in between the top and the bottom there is a block of people, middle class people who give birth periodically to individuals who think that they are a bit too low down. They are not at the bottom, and they are not at the top. They think they could move up. And this thinking clarifies in the minds of some of them, until they realise that if they get adequate knowledge there’s no reason why they shouldn’t join the rulers at the top. And this is why we find that the ones who wish to climb begin to study, and try to increase their intellectual power, and simultaneously become rationalists, and having committed everybody in theory to the acceptance of reason as governor, then begin to make propaganda that anybody using power without reason is wrong.
Now this is the whole of the Marxist position. And remember the Russian Revolution, like the French Revolution, was not conducted by peasants. It was conducted by students and by the lower-upper and upper- middle. The people as such cannot formulate the principles of a revolution. But those who had sufficient education to recognise the existence of power, and the relation between power and knowledge, do recognise this fact. And then they proceed to impose principles of reason on people, and then they decry the irrational activity of the rulers who rule not by reason, but by act of will. [54:36]
As a matter of fact it was during the period when Tom Payne, the rationalist, and others, were threatening to undermine the English social system by rationalist methods, criticising arbitrary power above, and so on, and thus giving rise to turbulence below, the creation of dissatisfaction by pointing out the arbitrary acts of men in power, that John Wesley arose and produced a reaction against the rationalism of the atheistic men like Tom Payne, and produced instead an emotional change, and required people to remember that they had inside themselves a central spirit.
Now let’s look at the position according to the Marxists and according to the rationalists of Wesley’s period. They, the rationalists, really said that all relations are contingent, that every relation is one of stimulus and reaction from outside. For them, there was nothing in the human mind except that which came to it from outside, through its five senses. And in the name of this fact they said every particle of matter or every body is as good as every other body. And therefore if there were some bodies at the top giving arbitrary orders, commands of will, these bodies were unjustified rationally, because all particles of matter are exactly equal as matter. Having made this rational statement — that all particles of matter are fundamentally equal — they then required people below to rise up in the name of equality, and overthrow the people at the top who were disturbing the equality. The only way this could be countered was not by a rational method, because the rational method requires you to argue about the nature of a contingent relation. And rational arguments are interminable by the very nature of them. [56:49]
We have said that when you reason, you necessarily reason in a circle. If you’ve got enough energy and you start with any argument whatever and pursue it through the hours, you will come back to where you started, because your initial statement is that from which you are going to abstract all the subsequent statements that you make. And your subsequent statements have no value other than in that of your initial proposition. [57:17]
And because he knew this, he knew that if he entered into a contingent argument with the atheistic materialist he would lose. And there was one other reply open to him, which was much better. Because from inside a person there does come an impulse, and that impulse is there to order any incoming impulses and put them into their proper place. But in order to get at it you must first overthrow the reason that has been imposed on people from outside. And therefore in the attack on people who were being influenced by the rationalists, it was essential to break the external stimulus situation, to cut off the rational process and insist that people felt very, very strongly. [58:16]
Now, emotion, as such, like the fundamental will, is non-rational. It is not irrational. It is non-rational. And if you put someone in the emotional state, whatever reason — which means elementary arithmetic that you care to present them with — it becomes meaningless. Reason requires you to count. And to count accurately you must be cold. If you are not cold, you cannot count properly. The atheist rationalists were requiring people to be very, very cold in the analysis, and then very coldly to rise up and overthrow these arbitrary rulers.
The reply of Wesley and others was, rouse the emotions in people and overthrow the reason ... and then give them something in place of it, far superior.
Supposing they’d just roused the emotions and given them nothing in place of it, then there would have been another kind of revolution on their hands, as has happened before historically in the middle-ages on occasions. But if we say that this emotion is releasing you from the tyranny of erroneous ideas derived from the contingent relation — but you have something inside yourself far surpassing in value any external — when people feel the loosening of this reason on themselves, they become increased in their sensation of power and well-being. [59:55]
And they do so because, as we’ve seen before, all thinking is negative. Thinking only arises from painful situations. So that when you are being forced to think, the mind is being constricted, like we are making it constrict a bit at the moment. We are concentrating the mind, and in so-doing we are losing a sense of exuberance, of the largeness of life, while we are concentrating on the form of the problem.
Now, if we break that and increase the emotion, all the negative aspects of thought are swept away. And then quite suddenly we insert in the middle of this emotional storm and looseness, the concept of god within. As soon as we insert this concept that there is a god, and that that god is inside man, and that that god inside man has defined the contingent relation stimulus as a devil, then we are on the way to helping people to become centred. [1:01:01]
Now, like every great force, it can be used and abused. The very same force there that released people from this erroneous idea that the contingent relation is all there is, was used by some people, unscrupulously. And it was discovered that every time you disturbed somebody’s emotions, you make them incapable for the time being of rationally judging the truth of the situation. And that when the rational side of you is overthrown, and your mind is in a state of emotional flux, if this emotional state is prolonged — and Wesley saw this very clearly — if it is prolonged for too long for the individual concerned, the individual begins to panic internally, and long for a form to crystallise round, to give security. And at this moment, if you suddenly present an idea in and say, this is salvation, the mind, overtired with this emotional turbulence, seizes on the new idea.
Now, this new idea need not be true, and this we can prove very simply. The Pavlovian reflex scientist and the Marxists who adopted their techniques, know perfectly well that if they shake a mass of people emotionally and lift the emotion to a point where it can no longer control the rational process, and then they prolong this emotion ‘til the brain itself tires, if then they throw any doctrine whatever with great emphasis into the middle of that emotional state, then those people must seize it and call it their security. This is the way that Hitler and Mussolini worked.
So we have to be very, very careful when we hear some high powered evangelists of various denominations. America is full of them ... Father Divine’s. A certain powerful lady speaker with several millions to her credit, simply because of her power to induce these emotions. We have to remember that the tendency to grab at an idea when we are in an emotional state is no proof of the truth of that idea. And therefore we need another measure of truth. We cannot say that a thing is true simply because we want it. Because if that was so we could not account for the tremendous diversity of religious opinions in the world.
Every person who is strongly religious is sure that he is right. And yet one person can be a Buddhist — in which case he’s an atheist — and another person can believe that god incarnated as a man on earth and was crucified, and that it was a god crucified, and that He was resurrected and so on, and therefore there is a god.
These two ideas are perfectly opposed to each other, and yet they are both held with the same tenacity, and the reason is always the same. The person who embraces an idea has first been led through a series of trials, of difficulties, into a condition where he can no longer handle the rationale of the situation and has been driven into emotion. And then in the midst of this emotional flux, when he can no longer bear it, he has seized hold of the idea. And it doesn’t matter what the idea is ... whether it’s flat earth, or flying saucers, or a new religion in French Indo-China ... whatever it is. If you become sufficiently perturbed emotionally, and this is prolonged, and then an idea is thrown at you, if it is clearly expressed, at that moment it looks like salvation. Because this is so, we have to have another method of testing truth. [1:05:08]
Now, when we look at the word truth itself, we find an old root, this tur root, which means law. Whether we take this word truth or the Hebrew equivalent torah — it’s the same root — or the English word door or the German tűr, the thing through which you must go to get into the house, whichever we take, we are up against this fact. ‘T’ which means fixation, and ‘R’ which means shaking free from fixation.
Just like ‘L’ means tie and ‘D’ means divide ... so ‘T’ like the ‘L’ ties you and fixes you.
But ‘R’ like the ‘V’ differentiates you, vibrates you.
Now ‘T’ and ‘L’ together constitute purpose, Telos. And ‘R’ and ‘D’ together constitute the rod of office. And by a simple sound shift from ‘T’ to ‘D’, the one of Grimm’s law, you get the word door, and the word rood, rod, rhoda, the Greek for Rose, meaning develop.
The rod of office with which you rule yourself can only be the knowledge of the law of your own being. And the law of your own being is that you are a being fastened in a situation — that’s ‘T’ — and in that situation there are possibilities of differentiation and development.
So the test of any given situation is this: not does it offer you salvation or saving out of an emotional flux, but does it make you aware that whatever you get into or out of, it will be you as an individual who is tied in the situation, and you as an individual who being tied in it has a way out in the situation.
You’re in it, and you have a way out of it.
You are crucified, that is the meaning of the ‘Tau’ or ‘T’, and you may rule, that’s the Res. Remember this letter ‘R’ in the Hebrew, written that way, in English we write it small the opposite way, originally the same letter, is a drawing of the human tongue.
There’s the man and there is his tongue. That’s the res. It’s the same as the Latin Rex, king.
You may be tied in a situation, but if you can handle your lingua or tongue, you should be able to talk yourself out of the situation. And the purpose of this tongue is to enable you to articulate to yourself your own intention in the situation.
Now let’s consider in any conceivable world that has been, is, or may become in the future. If there are any conscious beings in it, each conscious being must either act from its own centre and make its own initiative, or it will be imposed on in the contingent relation by another one ... this for all conceivable worlds. Either each being will act from its own centre and determine its own evolution, or it will be imposed on by others ... in all worlds. This is symbolised in, either we will be crucified on the contingent relation or we will be able to rule the situation. And we rule the situation with the tongue and all the differentiations produced by it in the mind ... that is by increasing knowledge of the law of the way things behave, and so on. [1:09:18]
Now, we just make a very short final statement about this. Any single being, if it were the only being living in an Absolute Infinite vacuum, would have no problem of what to do with itself, because whatever it was, it’s self would be doing it. But as soon as another being comes into existence over against it, and produces at the point of external contact a stimulus, the stimulus produces a change in the substance. But that stimulus cannot penetrate to the very inside of that being.
So right in the centre of every being there is an eternally free centre. This centre has never formed. This centre has never been obscured by motion induced from outside. So the way to the increase of freedom is always within. Whether we take the most early philosophy of the yogis, or if we take the most modern existentialism of Kierkegaard, the kingdom of heaven is within. Self-determination is within. It can never come by tying yourself to the external relation.
As far as methods are concerned, we have to consider now a slightly more complicated form of the diagram. We have an external part we’ll call the physical body and an inner part, not the innermost, which is the memory, and then the innermost, the immanent spirit. When the stimulus comes to the gross physical body, it gives it an immediate change. The physical body responds straight away. And if it is painful, it will tend to jump away, if it is pleasant it will move towards it. But not only does that happen, but whatever stimulus comes to the physical body, the motion of it penetrates inside and is stored up in the mind in a finer substance and that substance we will call the memory field.
And the important thing to remember is this:
Whatever the nature of the original stimulus from outside, whether it was pleasant or painful, and whatever its form, when it is engrammed on the memory, it will be precisely that form and that amount of pleasure or pain that is engraved upon it. The result is that when you look inside your memory derived from the outside stimulus situation, all you find is a series of forms or ideas, each one of which has appended to it, pleasure/pain. And if you are to be determined by these memories, you are in fact enslaved by stimulus situations from the past which no longer exist. [01:12:37]
Now, let’s quickly look at the word love. It symbolises the development, through labour [L], of an ovum or egg or potential [OVE]. The proper use of that word love means working for the development of the potentialities of the being. So that when a young fellow says that he loves a girl, if he’s telling the truth, at the moment he says that, he wants to do something for her, to develop her. And if she says she loves him and she means it, she means she wants to do something to develop him. And so this attempt to help develop each other is love. Whether it works at the gross physical level as a sexual relation, or emotionally or rationally or spiritually — which means to help to develop towards freedom — all is signified in this one word. This one word is used to translate other words which of which the Greeks would have used four.
They would have used:
Puthos for the lowest physical relation.
Eros for an emotional relation.
Philos for a rational relation.
And Agape for this ‘will to help somebody to freedom’.
Therefore when we come to consider whether we love a person or not, our simple test is this:
Are we really prepared to help that person to move towards a higher level of being, towards the expression of more values and the increase of freedom, or not?
If we are trying to reduce their freedom, and their central self-determination, then we are not loving them ... we are hating them. Hate means to take their power [Ha] and crucify it [T]. If we try to determine them from outside by stimulating them on their organism or in their memory, and try to keep them in bondage to ourselves in the contingent relationship, we are committing this crime against the Absolute Spirit, and we must necessarily fail. Once we understand that if we try to condition somebody from outside to bind them to our will, we have roused the immanent spirit to opposition — and we cannot defeat it — then it will arise that we will stop the attempt. Remember that there is a person inside that body and that memory, give that person freedom, stop constraining them. Then they are no longer afraid, they are no longer driven away and they come together again. And this coming together consciously is of a much higher order than the previous one that was determined by the contingent stimulus.
When you spoke about this stimulus of L and D, our awareness of it is through the sieve. The application of it is through the witch’s sieve I take it?
When this witch’s sieve is in operation, are your reactions then determined by your own centre.
If you are consciously operating, yes.
You’ve introduced the sieve working through feeling then, by observing your own substance.
Oh, yes, yes.
Remember your lowest level, sieve, is simply liking and disliking ... without being aware of why you are liking and disliking. The moment you begin to analyse it, you are really refining your sieve. You are making the mesh smaller aren’t you? Now as soon as you make the mesh smaller you are increasing the number of little holes aren’t you? So you are multiplying the ideas that you have, and the feeling reaction that you have as you increase your analysis. [01:17:22]
If you had a simple wooden frame with no mesh in it at all, you could call that a sieve if you wanted to, of the lowest order. Just put that in the water and pick it up and there’s none in and you’ve caught nothing.
And the crudest one perhaps would be to put a single bar in and you put it in the water and pick something up and you might get a big piece of wood. And as you are increasing the number of parts in the sieve, you are becoming more and more able to detect the tiniest little thing, aren’t you? As you refine this capacity inside yourself you are able to detect a very, very tiny little feeling, a very tiny little idea that previously you wouldn’t have noticed. But this idea was the beginning of something that would have extended into seven years of active relation with other beings.
And if you can get hold of these tiny little determinants, you are actually able to determine the course of your future; and if you wish to, to do the same with somebody else. As say, your own children. You can give them precisely the little seed idea, which he would have to grow at some point in the future. The Taoist statement about this, if you look at the stream running down, and you want to deflect its course, you don’t rush down to where it empties into the sea and put a big block of stone there. You go right to the source where it’s just a little trickle, and you put a pebble or a twig, and that diverts it into another valley.
It’s exactly the same with your ideas and feelings. As your sieve — that is your analytical capacity and awareness — increases, so the tiny size of the elements becomes more and more transparent to you, until you are able to detect something that might have fused with another thing and grow into a large molecule, a heavy determinant of your future. And thus you are able to create, project your future.
When you have spoken about this blocking of a reaction. Each time you do that you are asserting your ????ness to your inertia.
Yes, of course you are. That’s why your first duty when something comes to you, even if it were an angel of god, your first duty is to inhibit it. Because if he is, he won’t mind because he will know that you are trying to become central. But if he is not, he won’t give you elbow room to find your centre, but insists that you have more faith immediately. You see? This call for an immediate decision of a certain type of evangelist is typical. He knows that if he doesn’t get you extroverted fully, you will not accept the conclusion.
But when you spoke of people being disturbed emotionally and then having a concept thrown at them which they immediately latch on to, have you said that the man with the T and the R is able to take it but still view it for what it is and not be swallowed up by it?
Yes. If you know yourself you can induce all sorts of emotions. Like an actor does. And you can know that they are emotions other than you. A good actor gets into his part, convinces the audience that this character is this character, feels these tremendous emotions and at the back of he’s always got a little bit left over. Any good actor knows this and he calls it the little bit left over that he gauges audience reaction with. Otherwise he wouldn’t know when to pause if they suddenly burst out laughing. Right in the middle of a terrible scene, something may occur and if he carries on with the next lines they will be lost, because the audience is too busy chewing over the first bit. And so at that moment he pauses. The audience assimilates that bit, and then he carries on. And in that pause, he was externally in character, and internally waiting for them to shut up.
Now to be an actor in that sense is the same thing as to be an author. If you look at the old spelling of author, A.U.C.T.O.R., you can see that the auctor is the same as the actor, and the ‘U’ in auctor symbolises primary drive. So an auctor was an actor with drive. And when the ‘U’ was taken out and he became merely an actor, he had really lost his primary drive and become merely a façade.
Another question I wanted to ask you. You showed men ruled by will and rationalists underneath and ?????? at the bottom. How do they overcome cyclic law?
By being conscious of it.
Chaldeans, who studied the great cyclic laws of the star masses, and built the zodiac, and knew exactly how long the year was and could predict eclipses, they knew when the agricultural cycle was going to be promising. Like Joseph, they knew when to save things, when to tax people because there was a lot, and thus deprive them and then when there was very little, they could sell it back to them for something else. These people, by keeping their eye on the big cycles, controlled people down below. And when some of the up-coming intellectuals began to study those cycles, the reply of the top men was to discredit the cycle by putting it in newspapers and ridiculing it and saying, this is astrology, this stuff in the newspaper. But the astrology in Whittaker’s Almanac and the data therein is much more useful than the pseudo-astrology of the daily paper.
The only difference between the Will man and all the others is delusion, really, they are deluded by these things.
That’s the whole Indian doctrine of Maya isn’t it? Maya means illusion, and between you and your absolute self-determination there only stands illusion ... Maya. And Maya means affirm your mother [Ma - mother, Ya - affirm] ... which [Ma] means substantial inertia. If somebody shouts, I want to go home to mum ... you see? And if you affirm that side of yourself so that every time you get into trouble you immediately think, where is my mamma?, that’s Maya.
But if instead if the ‘M’ you think of the ‘H’ function in yourself, and if you get into trouble you think, This is for me, I got into it. It’s my trouble. So it must have formal significance for me, otherwise it couldn’t happen to me. So I am determined to find out the meaning of this situation, to me. And I’m not going home to tell mamma, I’m going to expose myself to it and find out what it’s about. And I won’t tell mamma at all.
The great Hamsa which is translated as either a wild goose or a swan, a migrating pure soul in the Hindu system, merely signifies, Ha.M.Sa., two kinds of breathing: in-breathing, out-breathing. And it symbolises that you are your own mother and father, if you knew it. So you don’t need to go home. And that’s why Christ said, if you do not leave your external father and mother you cannot enter into the internal kingdom.
Your external father and mother are very fond of you depending on them. They must be. So they encourage your dependence. They keep you in the contingent situation. They darn the socks for you. They wash your pyjamas even after you’re married if you take them home. Or they’ll even come round and collect them and do them. And all this is to keep up the relation, the M relation, the inertia relation.
And if you allow it to determine you, you’ve had it. This doesn’t mean to say that you’ve got to wash your own pyjamas on principle you see, but it does mean that you’ve got to separate yourself from the dependence on it.
 Mark 5:9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
 Matthew 16:19, 18:18
 Universal Dictionary of the English Language
 1 Corinthians 2:13-15. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
 Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
 Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me [in which the ‘me’ is the Kingdom within].