Resentment. (237).

Transcribed with arbitrary headings

by John Bailey November 2002.

What does the fact that certain behaviour patterns in others produce feelings of resentment signify for the being who experiences such feelings? What is the best way:

A.	Of overcoming these feelings in oneself

B.	Of making others reflect on their behaviour without calling up resentment in them?

Let's go to the first part. There is a fact that certain behaviour patterns in others produce feelings of resentment. What does this signify for the being who experiences such feelings?

We have to remember what our existentialist philosophy tells us about this. It's in the form rather of a general than a particular. What does it mean for a being who experiences such feelings of resentment?

The answer is — it depends WHO is the being. You can't say what in general is going to be experienced by beings in general. It is always a particular being who is doing the experiencing and what it signifies is to THAT being and not to another being. Apart from this existentialist individual fact we have general rules of what irritation is and what causes it. we'll examine these and we'll look at the other question which has to do with the generation of pearls by irritations.

Matter.

Let us draw a circle to represent an individual and we'll draw another circle for another individual. Each circle is simply the circumscribing of a zone of Sentient Power. Remember that every material body is simply a modality of power.

This is no longer a theory.

This is a scientific fact.

Matter is a modality of power. The only difference between the scientific view of matter and our view of matter is that the scientific one is dualistic and ours is not. They think of this universal power as somehow separate from the consciousness of man. We assert that this power is itself sentient. Sentient means that it is able to feel itself and its own processes. To avoid dualism we have to say that the ultimate source of all things is Sentient Power. It is power because it is the cause of things and it is sentient because it feels. We know that this is true in our own case because we can initiate action which means we are power, we cause things and we feel that we are doing so and we are never aware of power causing things other than by our feeling awareness. So we never in fact find power that is not associated in us with sentience.

Sentience is a word derived from sentire — to feel, to know. It is a better word for our purpose than consciousness or awareness or knowingness because it implies field awareness, feeling-awareness. Also it is a non-differentiated pre-analytical word.

Un- Sub- and Super-consciousness.

The word consciousness implies the sheering effect.

CON

SCI	— WITH

— CUT (sheer)

We cut the thing to bits first and then we put them together. This we call consciousness. Consciousness is merely a special modality of sentience. In psychology there is a lot of talk about conscious, subconscious and unconscious. They don't talk much about superconscious because they are irreligious and they don't want to believe in the super-conscious. Logically if they talk about conscious and subconscious there must be a super-conscious opposite to the subconscious. They don't want to know about super-consciousness so they use the term subconscious and unconscious. The difference between the subconscious and unconscious is that the subconscious is bound, circumscribed, limited, individualised. The unconscious is not.

Pre-analytic Whole — Analysis — Synthesis.

The unconscious is simply sentience not cut, not sheered into bits and as we've said before the prefix UN in unconscious which is translated as not, we can translate with an old word, the UNU or intuitive awareness. It is pre-analytic — the kind of awareness that you have before you start chopping with your intellect, before you analyse.

We said a little earlier about the gestalt psychology, it talks about a whole which is apprehended before it is analysed. I come into this room and I become immediately aware of the ceiling limiting it above, the floor below and the walls around it, and a lot of people that I haven't encountered. I have a pre-analytic whole awareness that the room is occupied. That is my initial experience.

Then I come to my second. I start looking around recognising people that I know and I analyse. In this process of analysis I take the whole and reduce it into parts. As soon as I concentrate upon any one of the parts my awareness of the whole tends, though it does not necessarily do so, but tends to lapse. I have to make an effort to retain an awareness of the room and the whole group of people, when I am looking at any particular one. When I analyse into parts, the amount of energy that was spread over the whole pre-analytically, tends to concentrate on the one thing that I look at. If I don't watch it, it will centre on the object that I look at and the rest of the whole will lapse from awareness. This analysis into parts corresponds with science.

Somehow, we have got to synthesise all the parts back into a whole again.

We used a number of integration, three.

We have now to synthesise, put back together again the synthesis of parts into a whole. This whole is a synthetic whole.

1.	I have apprehended pre-analytically. I have a pre-analytic whole.

2.	I analyse it into parts, during which analysis the whole tends to lapse, and I concentrate on each part and lose its relation with the whole unless I continually restate it.

3.	I am now remembering the wholeness that I started with plus the analytic efforts that I have made since. When I add together all the parts and restate the whole, the third phase in the synthetic whole is not the same as the pre-analytic, it the pre-analytic plus the analysis and the additive process.

Consciousness itself is synthetic — as we have defined it.

CON —

SCI —	WITH

CUTTING

Analysis is the SCI and CON is the synthesis. The pre-analytic whole is not conscious. It has not been cut. But it is pure sentience. There is sentience in its pure form. It has not been analysed. It's a pure field awareness. We cut this pure awareness into bits by the analytical process, the use of the sense organs and the intellect. Then we have to put them back together again by remembering the whole awareness and seeing the relation of the things that we have broken up. We create a synthetic whole. The synthetic whole we could call philosophy if we want to, but the pre-analytic whole, we can call religion.

RE —

LIGE —	BACK

TIE To tie back into the pre-analytic whole.

This pre-analytic whole is the seamless garment that Christ wears. Seamless, because it has not yet been analysed. This pre-analytic whole remains what it was before we started work on it. It is a continuum. It is not made of discrete parts. It is a continuum, a whole power, not atomistic, simply a field of Sentient Power. We have to assert both power and sentience of it because by power we mean cause — initiator of action. By sentience we mean that whereby we know that something has been initiated.

We must remind ourselves that we have these three modes.

The pre-analytic wholeness, which is the primitive awareness prior to the analytical method and it corresponds with the religious awareness of the mystical philosophers who denied the validity of separative intellective processes.

The we move from the stage of wholeness, we could call that pre-renaissance if you wanted to, the pre-renaissance mode of awareness is really pre-analytic. Then comes the renaissance which breaks the thing into bits and gives birth to empirical science. This science gets out of hand.

The parts become too many. So we have to start synthesising the findings of science again. It restores to us through basic form, namely mathematics and geometry, an awareness of the whole.

So we pass from: pre-analytic religion,

into scientific analysis,

and then philosophic synthesis.

The synthesis, because it is only possible to synthesise by means of similarities, and basic identities, is necessarily mathematical and geometrical. Because that which is identical in all forms is its geometrical possibility, its ultimate reduction to the sphere. That which is identical in all finite beings is their accountability — that they can be dealt with mathematically.

So a mathematico-geometrical analysis carried forward to its logical conclusion adds up to the principle of unity — a mathematical concept, and the sphere — a geometrical concept

1.	Science analyses.

2.	Philosophy synthesises.

3.	Religion apprehends immediately.

Immediacy.

When we say immediately, we mean without mediation. You simply grasp the thing by feeling. You do not do it by any external method. You don't measure it. You don't look at the external shape of it and then infer from it. The thing is an immediate apprehension by feeling identification. The Sentient Power becomes the object in order to know the object. This is the essence of religion — identification with the Godhead, and the essence of magic — identification with the power that one is pursuing.

This identification with the power that one is pursuing is simply a question of becoming aware of the fact of sentience and power in oneself. That is to become aware that one is aware and that one is in being aware, a power that can initiate changes. So this awareness that one is a power, this sentient apprehension of oneself as an initiating power, is the real meaning of religion and magic.

Magic.

Magic, of course, is the change of events by act of will and this can only occur where the being, which is the will itself, has become reflexively aware of itself as an initiating power.

Individuation.

Let's go back to our problem down below a little. We've got the two circles and the white paper represents the Infinite Sentient Power. It is a power that feels itself. When that power rotates, it feels that it is rotating. The power that is inside the rotation is now an individual. That is, it is in a state of dividuation. It is IN — DIVID. It is working in the manner called divided. Every individual is divided from other individuals by the fact of being an individual. In being individuated, being circumscribed, he has excluded from his own being all other beings. To finite by circumscribing is to limit the inside of a sphere but not the outside. It excludes infinity, it includes finity. In the act of circumscribing it brings into being a finite that immediately is exposed to stimulation from the Infinite. The Infinite is Sentient Power and this power is not static. The concept of the static belongs to the finite. Finite forces in opposition in equilibrium create the static. There is no static other than finite forces in equilibrium. The Infinite therefore, is not static. It is dynamic. Consequently it is continuously acting and it is acting upon the perimeter of this finite being. It is giving it a stimulus.

Stimulus Response.

We define irritability as the capacity of protoplasm to respond to a stimulus by modifying its action, the ability to retain a modification or memory of this stimulus, and the modification (memory) of its own reaction to the stimulus and the ability to modify its new behaviour in the light of the original experience and the memories.

So we have a stimulus coming to it.

The motion of the stimulus (every stimulus is motion added), goes inside the substance, the Sentient Power. It produces within it by the action of that substance, a configuration. This configuration is the content of consciousness for that finite being.

We must observe here that the stimulus that comes, whatever it is, is not known beyond the limit of the finite being by the finite. The finite knows it only insofar as it responds to the entering motion. So that its total content of consciousness is the form of the stimulus which it does not know in its pure form, if it is identified with the finite, plus its own reaction which mixes up with the incoming motion. So that what people call the external objective world is as much their work as it is externally, which is why you can hang an apple in the tree and nobody sees it.

If we now look upon this finite situation, a being, and we see that it is subject to stimulation from the dynamism of infinity, it can never respond infinitely to the Infinite, therefore it cannot deal with infinity from its own limitedness, from its own finity. Now there are other beings which are finite and when these come into collision they mutually stimulate each other and their irritability, which means their ability to run about (the IRR function means run about) whenever they are crucified, when stimulated, causes in them occasions of choice. When stimulated, each being can do something about it. It can react. It can react to the stimulus itself or to the stimulus plus the memory of all previous stimuli and all reactions to previous stimuli.

The ability to react to the stimulus as it is, is not found very often in adults. Children have it. They are called innocent when they have it. Very young children respond to a new stimulus (relatively new because the protoplasm is really millions of years old, but relatively new to that individuated consciousness) and have a new response to it which is not conditioned in them very markedly by individual records. We know that in fact it is conditioned by all sorts of records but not usually to such an intensity that they attain individual awareness of those responses. But when this stimulus comes, it always comes in to a being that is already configured.

We are talking about behaviour patterns of one being, being the occasion of responses by another being.

Let's simplify it.

Supposing that there's a being there that's been to university and studied triangles. Another one has been there and studied squares. Supposing that these two come into contact. The triangular one imparts a triangular motion to the other one. The square one imparts a square motion to the triangular one. The characteristic form of these motions is what is being called “irritation”. They do not fit exactly.

Supposing that we for a moment pretend that there is another being here and this being has a triangle in it of the same dimensions exactly and the same intensity as the other one. A has one and B has one. They are exactly the same. Supposing for the moment that they have no other configurations whatever. We now have two beings with identical configurations which existentially is impossible — therefore we know that we are talking abstractly. These two beings, if they were to exist, would not know of each other's existence, because they could not stimulate each other. Whatever the presence of the one presented to the other would already be in. There would be no factor of differentiation. Therefore such beings are useless to each other.

Suffering and Wisdom.

On the other hand, if a square being comes to a triangular being and stimulates it, the square does not fit the triangle. It's true that perhaps one line of it might be like the base of a triangle but because it has got a right angle instead of less than a right angle, its angles cannot vibrate in resonance with the triangular being. Consequently when the stimulus comes into the triangular being from the square, the triangular being is presented with something that it knows nothing about, which on the first occasion is not assimilable.

To assimilate is to take to similars. It has no similar to take it to.

It may have the base line and assimilate that but it can't assimilate with the triangle less than right angles, the right angles of the square. This it cannot do. This unassimilable form is called the irritating form. It is now aware that there is something that it has not yet suffered. To suffer is to be in passive relationship to. At this point it is at the point of decision. It has to make a choice. “Do I want to put up with this irritation in order to assimilate this new form and thus expand my awareness or do I dislike the irritation so much that I am going to run away from it and thus remain what I was in the first place?”

If this triangular being runs away from the square being and runs away from all other occasions of different stimuli that might hit it, it will remain what it was. It will be consistent. It will be itself. It will remain peculiarly identified with its own level of ignorance.

But if it wants to evolve into the level of omniscience, that is the awareness of all conceivable kinds of form, then it must WILL into situations that present it with forms different from the ones already assimilated. These differentiated forms will irritate the substance wherever it has not yet got a form. Luckily we know that if we repeat a stimulus to a being made of protoplasm, this protoplasm can adjust itself and can, given time, appropriate the form of the stimulus and characterise itself with it so that ultimately it makes this new stimulus energy and its peculiar character part of its own being.

Sophic Wisdom.

If we could comprehend the meaning of the sphere, geometrically and dynamically, comprehend all its inferences, we would immediately become omniscient because there is nothing other than the formal possibilities of the sphere geometrically. So that to comprehend all of the internal geometry of a sphere is to comprehend what is meant by wisdom, what is meant by the Sophic sphere of the Gnostics. What is meant by Sophia itself, what is meant by wisdom.

When we come into the state of being aware — because we have been cornered and presented with stimuli that are painful, that irritate us — when we become aware of this fact, and of the possibility of choice, and we are aware of the concept of development of the possibility of assimilating these things, then, with the aid of this concept of assimilation, we may lead ourselves to stand and assimilate. Without the concept of the validity of assimilation, without the concept of the possibility that we may assimilate all forms, we could not stand. This concept is a saving concept. It saves us running away from the painful situation. We can go into a situation, guarded, shielded by this concept. We can say, “This concept says that we must stand.” Either we run away forever from all stimuli and remain what we were in the first place, formless sentience, or we accept everything that comes to us and out of what comes we build for ourselves a structure.

The question says,

What do these behaviour patterns producing feelings of resentment signify?

We are saying that in our case at the moment we are making them signify something to us. These feelings of resentment arising from certain behaviour patterns are simply this:

Resentment is the same thing as sending things back where they came from. You don't want them.

RESENT MEANS ‘SEND IT BACK.’

You count the things that you have sent back.

Supposing that the square sends its squareness to the triangle and supposing that this particular triangular being does not want to assimilate it. It sends it back where it came from. It re-sents. It sends back the stimulus because it doesn't want to assimilate them. That is because it has not thoroughly comprehended the concept of the necessity of assimilation of all things before one can gain immortality.

As soon as one becomes aware that this assimilation of all forms is a necessity of the gaining of immortality, then one stops resenting. One deliberately assimilates. One sends nothing back. One does not give a rude word for a rude word, or an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth. One deliberately takes the stimulus and says, “Thank you for that, because it really rattled me. It startled many hairs inside and made me aware of the directions in which I must now work.”

This utilisation of the enmity of other beings, the bad behaviour patterns of other beings, and consciously utilising them is the same thing as having other people working for you for nothing. They don't even know that they are working for you. So they never come for wages. But if they are actually managing to irritate you, they are working for you. If you know it, you can employ more people than Henry Ford in his Hey-Day, and at no expense.

It then says,

What is the best way of overcoming these feelings of resentment and of making other beings reflect on their behaviour?

The answer is that unless we deeply love others, we don't want them to reflect on their behaviour. We want them to keep irritating us. This is very important.

What is the best way of overcoming their feelings in oneself?

There is only one way, and that is to see the absolute utility to us of these irritating stimuli. If we do not see their utility to us, we will continue to resent them. If we really can see that all irritants are food for our growth, we will not resent them. Where we feel resentment, we aught to make ourselves look at the concept of the necessity of irritation.

We don't want to overcome the feelings of resentment in oneself other than by this. Not by repressive methods, but by simply seeing that the irritant is working for us. It is a definite amount of energy inserted into our closed system characterising us in certain ways and moving us towards the Sophic sphere or the wisdom being that we ultimately hope to attain.

About Making Others Reflect On Their Behaviour.

It is best for quite a long time not to bother to make others aware so that they don't resent you

If you want others to reflect on their behaviour, you are robbing yourself of the energy of the stimulus that they have given you. This is called the higher selfishness. You must take their irritation, the energy that they have given you that irritates you and you must use this in order to characterise yourself. If you decide to reform them first, you will remain unreformed yourself, because there is only a finite amount of energy available for this reformation. It's like money and the Communists. If you took all the money off all the millionaires and distributed it to the Chinese they wouldn't have enough for a lolly each.

Therefore, don't have this concept of oneself as distributing largesse all over the place and teaching other people how to evolve.

Charity begins at home and so does evolution.

The nearest person at home is oneself.

Being selfish in this higher sense — when something irritates you, don't explain to another person how to avoid irritating you, don't explain to them how to avoid being irritated by your explanation, which is what will happen. Just take the thing, work on it and say, “what does it make me think about on the inside? This is where I must work. I mustn't bounce. I mustn't incline. I mustn't reject. I mustn't jump at a thing.” Find out what it is that makes you jump. Keep it quiet.

Knowledge, courage, silence.

Know what you are doing, have the courage to do it and shut up. If you don't shut up, you will lose the energy that you need to characterise yourself with.

The Virtue Of Silence.

Here is a finite being. The energy of a stimulus comes to it. If it can retain the energy, the energy will go round inside it and it will substantiate itself within this being. It will characterise that being and turn that being into a Mercurial being — a Mercury being, a Hermetic being, a Messiah being to itself. But only provided that it doesn't let it out.

If it has an inclination to say that, “it is a pity that that person should irritate me and be so guilty of irritating me and now that I know that know what irritation is all about I will take the energy available to me to point out to him that he is doing me a favour by irritating me and he is hastening my evolution and surely for his own sake he should hold it.”

This way it gets lost in the interspaces and disappears as heat. Hot air and rejection.

There is only one way of doing this and this is by knowing what to do, having the courage to do it (it needs a lot of courage to shut one's mouth when presented with an irritant stimulus). Why do you have to have courage to shut up? Because in fact the thing that makes you want to speak is fear. When a stimulus comes to you and makes you bounce to speak, you are speaking to defend yourself. You don't need to defend yourself, but you jump to defend yourself because you are afraid of misinterpretation. You are afraid of devaluation.

So when the irritant remark comes, the necessity arises within apparently, to speak, to stabilise the situation, to explain oneself to the other person so that the other person does not have an erroneous idea, because of course the other person must be led to the truth!

Take the energy in and have the courage not to defend yourself, because all explanation to other people is self-defence. Self-defence is aggression in the finite world. Aggression begets reaction. If you can possibly keep quiet a peculiar thing will happen, namely the ‘B’ part of this question, how can one make others reflect on their behaviour without calling up resentment in them?

The answer is — by shutting up, by doing nothing. It is this peculiar silence that makes a person who makes a remark calculated to hurt, calculated to harm, when the remark fails, then comes reflection in them. What they are thinking about is, “How did it miss? How can I improve the weapon so that it doesn't miss?” This way, you force reflection in them by doing nothing.

If you do something in return, you merely produce a mechanism of self-justification in them. If you do nothing, you make a search in them to find where they misfired and this way you are doing them a great service, because you are really accelerating their development — in pursuit of better techniques of hurting. The better techniques will ultimately add up to the creation of wisdom in them.

The Pearl and the Oyster

In the longer part of this question, which comes from the same man to another hand, we have the story of the pearl and the oyster. We are asked to anallise the word ‘oyster’. It's already been adequately done on this piece of paper. We'll do it again on this piece of paper, because all pieces of paper are indiscriminate. They don't care what you write on them. We are going to cut this word and observe that silence of course is the virtue of the oyster. Ostracisation of any person will be automatic if they dare to speak about these secret things.

OY —

S —

TER —	Lamentation

Read Hebraica is the name of god (yo, jo, the same thing as Jehovah, god).

The issue of the power of God.

God's Law (TORA).

The word ‘oyster’ tells us the nature of the law of the power of God.

“God's spiritual law” says the word oyster.

What is this Law?

Let us start off with the paper. Prior to creation there is an infinite continuum of non-differentiated Sentient Power. This Infinite Sentient Power is called the Godhead. It is higher than God who is an object of worship because it transcends the relation, “worshipper and worshipped.” The God that is worshipped is a projection of the worshipper. Both the worshipper and the worshipped are within the field of Sentient Power which is infinite. So the Godhead or source of the God is not the objective God. In the Gospel of John, you will notice that it says,

In the beginning was the word and the word was with the God and the word was a God.

The Greek tells you because it uses the definite article in one place and not in another, that the objective Logos God is not the Godhead. This Infinite Sentient Power, represented by the paper, because it is infinite is not finite. Because it is not finite, it has no object whatever of consciousness. It has no object for its sentience to apprehend. Consequently it is a pure, objectless sentience.

Because it is power, it can precipitate things. It precipitates the Logos. That is the macrocosmic sphere. This macrocosmic sphere is an irritant. It is the rejected stone that becomes the Messiah later. It is also the grain of sand that gets into the oyster. This sphere is that which will cause all of the infinity of power beyond it to reflect, to bounce off that closed sphere. It presents infinity with a problem.

PRO

B

LE

M	PIRA — reason

HOUSE

LINKED

IN SUBSTANCE.

This problem is that into which you can put a probe.

The Infinite ocean of Sentient Power is like the flesh of the oyster. This precipitated point is that irritant which will stop the Sentient Power motion going in without interruption. There's a great spinning wheel here and it stops that power getting inside and makes it bounce. Consequently there is inside, a zone of Sentient Power which, by the turning of this sphere constitutes an objective reality.

OB —

JECT —	ORB, SPHERE.

THROWN

This orb or Cosmic Logos is the rationalised stone or form or irritant, thrown within the Infinite field of the Godhead by the Godhead precipitating it in order to irritate itself. In other words to give itself a point of reaction. In Boehme's terminology this Logos God (GL using the Greek forms ), is the anti-stroke to God. The Son, the Christ, is called the anti-stroke to God the Father. He hits back at that which precipitated Him. The force from infinity pressing in is met by the force from the centre pressing out and generates a sphere hammered out from inside and out. This limiting sphere is called in Genesis, “The firmament”. The idea of the firmament is that which is hammered out from inside and outside of a sphere. This firmament is called “heaven”.

HEAVEN —	The equilibration of power

Where the forces of individuation press out against the forces of non-individuation and the forces of non-individuation press in, they have a limiting wall, the firmament or heaven. This constitutes the line of demarcation between the Infinite Godhead and the existential Logos or worshipped God. This God is worshipped by all the little gods inside. So Christ says,

Is it not written, ‘Ye are Gods?’

Men are little Gods. Every little sphere inside there is a little God. But the gods inside the big sphere don't all know that they are gods. Many of them have been hypnotised by demi-gods into thinking that they are not gods at all. The rule is “Be what you are”. If you are little gods, be little gods. If you are only men, be men. If you are animals, be animals and so on. First of all discover what you are before you start being it. You must penetrate to the meaning of your own being, your sentience, your awareness and your power, before you can discover what you are. What you are when you have examined it very, very carefully regardless of the shape of your ears or nose or whether your toes are in or out, is this:

1.

2.	You are power:

You are sentience:	that is, you can initiate change

that is, you know that you can initiate change.

These two things are factual for any being who sits down for a moment, or stands up for that matter and examines his own evidences. He is aware that he is able to initiate change, therefore he knows that he is awareness. He is power. He is a Sentient Power. This makes him a little god when he knows it. But every god is valid in its own right. Even the tiniest god is god.

If the little circle here knows that it is a reflexive self-conscious centre of the Infinite Godhead precipitated by the Infinite it can claim as sentient, self-determined power equal validity with the cosmic Logos. He can actually claim that he is equal with God — the Logos God. He cannot legitimately claim that he is spatially identical with infinity because the content of space does not belong to the Infinite. He can claim that he is essentially non-different from the Godhead and that as to his mathematico-geometrical possibilities he is identical with the Cosmic Logos. He can therefore claim equality with the Messianic Logos, with the Christ Logos, and Christ claims this for him because He says,

Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.

He does not require man to be less than He is but as much as He is. It's not good enough to be a Pharisee with good behaviour.

Except your righteousness exceed the Pharisees you will not get it.

You've got to be better than good.

There's good, better and best. Best is higher than better and good is not so bad either.

So any finite situation whatever constitutes an irritant occasion within the field of Sentient Power.

You are aware of something. Insofar as you are aware of any object whatever, that object is irritating you. If you can assimilate the full meaning of that object, it simply means that object is YOUR modality. YOU have created it and YOU have power to create and uncreate it where you are aware of the characterising factors involved. Where you are aware of your sentience and your power formulating itself so that you know just how you formulated this, at that point you know how to create that form. This confers upon you that creativity that was in you from the beginning which pre-analytically you did not know about but now following analysis and synthesis you do know about.

You know that your sentience is just the white paper underneath the scribble. This white paper is your power. When you become aware of that fact, instead of being hypnotised by the present form that you have adopted, then from this Sentient Power which is the sub-stratum of your form, you can conjure up, or evoke, further forms.

When we look at the word ‘pearl’, we again have an illustration of the supreme give-away that lies in language.

P —

EAR —	Point

Hear, O. Israel — The first commandment.

The ear is the organ of the reception of sound, of the Word, of the Logos. This same thing read Hebraica, is the RA or RAE of rulership. Insofar as one hears what is to be heard (the word Quabbalah means to receive orally), then one gains by assimilating what is heard, the power to rule the situation. In the last part of the word PEARL we have an anagram of the word ‘real’. This ‘real’ is simply the differentiation power and the linking power. The linking power ‘L’ is called God. The differentiating power ‘rae’ is God the Son. The reciprocal relation of both, the eggressing force from a very obvious symbol, is the Holy Ghost coming out.

By one differentiating (analytical) power and synthesising (tying together) power and playing these reciprocally, one into the other, reality establishes itself in the being. One discovers this by positing always in the continuously travelling NOW, not in the past or future. One posits one's sentience and power NOW, in the moment, in the situation. One tries to grasp the whole, the Gestalt, present it and immediately differentiate and tie together, both at once. This confers this ability. This ability (not a static little thing made) to see differences and similarities simultaneously in the travelling NOW is called the pearl. This is the pearl, the power to differentiate and synthesise simultaneously in the travelling NOW.

Quabbalah.

When we come to examine this concept of the Torah, the Law, Rabbis have said a long time ago that the law itself is dead. It would remain completely inert if it were not for the Quabbalah. This is an oral tradition. Secret things passed from the sphere of sentience itself though all its linear derivatives within it in the time process.

There is a secret tradition that says that this Torah, this Law, this Rota, this main artery of creative activity (AORTA), this centre of feeling generated a sphere of being is the key to all, providing that is interpreted. It has to be put into the lock. It has to be turned. In the Arabian Nights it is hidden in the word ‘SESAME’.

“Open sesame”, says Ali Baba.

ALI —

BABA —

SEE SAME —	God.

House. House of God.

Same means ‘seed’ and ‘to hear’ (the root SM in Samuel, etc.).

The seed is the sounding board. It is again this irritant grain. It is the sounding board on which the energies from the Absolute impinge. Then it responds by growing a shoot. The sun shines on the seed and then the life in the seed resounds within and then bounces out and grows. In every situation you should see the same. In the differences you should see the same.

There is always sentience. There is always power. Whatever formal changes there are, they are only modalities of a sphere and whatever intensities there are, they are expressible mathematically.

Too Be Or Not To Be.

Everything can be perceived through this geometrical, dynamic sphere as if we had it before our eyes in looking at anything. Many of the fairy tales and all of the great myths tell the same story all the time. They tell the story that bothered Hamlet, the story of to be or not to be? They tell the story of God who cannot cease to be what He is, that is Infinite, Sentient Power. The problem for Him is to be or not to be? That is to say, will He bind or not bind?

HAMLET	H —

M —

L —

T —	Power

Substance

Labouring

On the cross

He is saying, “To be or not to be?” This Absolute, Sentient Power is saying, “Shall I make a sphere or not make a sphere? If I make no sphere there is no problem. If I make no sphere, I am not doing something that I can do. Shall I do or not do?”

The essence of Absolute, Sentient Power is dynamism, is not static. By its very essential nature it is creative. To refuse to create would be to inhibit its own potential and the only ground for inhibition would be fear. Therefore it would be quite unethical of God to refuse to create.

So He precipitates for Himself this realm of being, this irritant sphere. He suddenly appears inside the sphere as Hamlet and His Father the Absolute beyond is dead. He has been poisoned.

By what?

By the irritant.

Where did that come from?

It came from the wife, the will, the feeling.

It is now married to the brother of the father because this is another of the same order. Now this WILL to existence is married and this Hamlet, this WILL to combat, is inserted into the time sphere and has to fight. It starts, and against this sea of troubles within the finite sphere it starts battling. Ophelia, who is a bit of a rationalist, goes crazy. Hamlet goes about slaughtering everybody. Old Polonius, the rationalising process, gives funny advice and gets killed for his trouble.

The whole drama of Hamlet is simply, like every other drama, the self-presented problem of the Absolute, precipitated as an irritant within itself. The Absolute knows that it is doing this upon itself. It is self-irritating. Its creation is finiting within itself and making irritants.

We had another question here, which ties in with this,

For what purpose on Earth, in Hell or in Heaven did God create man?

Reflexive Awareness.

The answer is that when this Infinite created this finite, it had to do it by taking the dynamic to its opposing term, to the static. The dynamic, taken to its opposing term is the production of the material world. The material grain, the material particle, is simply power from infinity pressing onto a centre and in self-opposition creating with one blow, a finite, a static, an irritant and a problem.

But this material world, made with these particles, once it is made, has to be gathered together. All the precipitated points created by the Infinite have to be brought together and integrated and formulated on a geometrical pattern. In other words all these primary points that science is concerned with, and electrons and protons and the other ‘trons’ have to be gathered together

into atoms,

into molecules,

into various compounds,

into substances organic,

into living organs.

Finally in the wonderful higher reaches of the human race, it has attained a very peculiar kind of reflexive process where, in those human beings that are orientated towards it, it becomes aware of its own source.

Where in a man there is awareness, even of the problem of origins, it is nothing other than the Sentient Power of the Absolute which has pressed into finity and then organised for itself an appropriate vehicle through which it can return reflexively to itself. So that in the person who is reflexively aware of his own sentience, his own power, this person is a true incarnate god. To become aware in that sense is to be a little god.

Glory.

To become aware in that sense is to be aware of what is meant by a little god and to have no erroneous ideas about it. It means that man is created, as the dogma might say, for the glorification of god. Glory, in its etymology, simply means being what one is.

This God, simply the creative power, is in process of vesting itself in beings which at the earth level are called human beings. These beings are having a process which is conducted by God within them. Because it is being conducted by him within them it is called “grace” because the individualised concept of oneself cannot do it. This process within, being conjured by the tradition and by the religious doctrine, is carrying itself through an evolutionary process to the point where God in man is aware that He is God.

Rub out man, rub out the point of reflexion, rub out creation and although God is God, God does not know that He is God in a reflexive sense. Therefore He moves towards incarnation which in its historic setting appears in His first-born, Christ, who is the centre to which the precipitation has occurred once for all first. Because all other occasions cannot be first, it is too late. What they can do is derive from that incarnation the example, the mode of approach, the impetus, the view of the possibility to become the same thing — reflexive centres of that Absolute Awareness.

Have we any particular points obscure?

Assimilation.

We have been talking about the Gestalt, the configuration. Supposing you get two people. You have a triangle in one and a triangle in the other. Here is yourself and you haven't got a triangle, but you have a nice big square. This one has a square, this one doesn't. A nice big square resonates, of course, so that A and B have a point of similarity, well established. But B and C have not got that point of similarity. The resonance relation across A and B through their similar squares is very strong so that A and B have what they call an affinity for each other. So that when A presents a dissimilar element, namely the triangle to B, B in the name of the already established relation with B in the square, B makes efforts to accept the triangle.

B might have an idea that a certain perfume is not nice because once he had a girl who was very horrid to him and wore that perfume. Then he finds the same perfume on another girl who is very nice. He has had no unpleasant association with her and he accepts this horrid perfume because it is presented along with something that is not horrid. In the other case B has no ground to accept the triangle from C because C has no similarity with B whatever.

It's a simple mechanism, where you can assimilate a horrid thing from someone it's only because you've got a good relationship with them on other levels.

If you want to grow bigger and better and move towards the Sophic sphere, the obvious thing is to learn to accept the irritant thing wherever it is, even if it happens to be in someone you DON'T like and to learn to assimilate the horrid thing in the person you DO like instead of just shelving it in the name of the part that you DO like, because there is a very grave danger of accepting the nice parts from somebody and secretly rejecting the horrid parts, keeping it secret.

This is quite common in the relation between men and women. They agree at certain levels not to mention other levels where they don't fit, “for the sake of the relationship”. Really they don't evolve well.

Wherever there is the capacity for assimilation, it is entirely a problem of form intensities. It cannot be anything else. When a stimulus comes to you, it is a definite amount of energy characterised in a definite way. If it is characterised in a certain way it is easily assimilated, if in another way, with difficulty or not at all. But it's always susceptible as to its form, of a geometrical analysis and as to its intensity of a mathematical analysis.

So all matters of love and hate and heaven and hell reduce themselves ultimately when analysed to a mathematico-geometrical problem, which doesn't mean that they don't feel nice and horrid as well.

Sin.

Does the SYM in sympathy relate to the ??????????

If you take this primary word SYN, and chase it about through various languages, the SN function simply means that there is an insertion of motion into a situation. Take it in the word synagogue and the word SYN in synthesis and the word SYN in all the other words of Greek origin where it means “the same”, and we take the same word SIN and the Germanic roots where it means “aim” we discover that SIN (SYN) simply means motion which is occurring and in the process cutting off or separating itself. Every finite motion in its finiting process is, when identified with by the sentience, a mode of cutting down on infinite awareness. As it is cutting down it is theologically called sin or separation from God, but it is also called sin Germanically as the aim to be attained, that is to say the process of individuation and integration, as an individual, it is also called sameness because it assimilates to itself all like motions.

So a synagogue is a place where separated peoples of the same idea pursue the same aim. Those things may be synthesised which are fundamentally the same.

Any finite aim or sin necessarily cuts you off for the period of the finite aim from the Infinite.

How can we remind ourselves in a daily situation of these things?

Wear a sheriff's badge.

Find something, anything that is a symbol. This is the whole purpose of the yantra magic and the mandala. We have a symbol, it's a nice one. We draw a letter H and we say that one of the sides of it is a pillar and that's BOAZ and that is Joachim of the freemasons. One is male and the other is female. We tie the two together by a cord, that could be the umbilical cord, they all derive from the same source and balancing on the middle of it, like naughty diabolos there is a serpent. He is talking to the sinister side, that is the female side, on which there is an Ionic column. This can be used when dealing with other people or when dealing oneself. It either represents one's own internal economy or the internal economy of the universe which includes other people.

So that whenever you find yourself in a situation you say, “What is the male or active in the situation, what is the female or passive, what is the stimulus (that is the serpent) and what aspect of the feeling or emotional nature is it stimulating, and what is the probability that the stimulus entering the female side of one's nature, the passive, feeling side what is the probability of it coming along and appearing in the male and dominating an idea? Get hold of a symbol and work through the symbol. Each symbol has a value. This brings us up to the level of considering ritual magic or the yantra systems of using diagrams to contain a tremendous amount of data not verbalised but verbalisable by simply defining the object.

Supposing that we draw for ourselves two triangles, that is the shield of David. Supposing that we know that this is not a six-pointed star but two triangles interlaced. We say that one of them is female and the other, male. They are so lapped over each-other that they are joined together on a central point. That central point is the heart. That means feeling. One triangle is based on the ground, that is female, earth. The other triangle is based in Logos, that is man. These two beings are two parts of any existential being and that any existential being has a material body and an intellect equipped with rational form. It has two inclining things and in the case of the lower one, if we say that this is conation, primary drive, then the other two inclinings leaning on each-other, supporting each-other are the ideational process and the affective or feeling process. In the man, he is based in the intellect and his inclining or mutually supporting sides are his feeling and will.

The man is vectored downward into the material world from the intellectual world and therefore he is a scientist and an empiricist.

The woman is vectored to heaven because she is so materialistic. Vectored to heaven means that she wants the best for herself when she sees it. “He needs must love the highest when he sees it”.

If we now bind this with a circle and assert that this is a human being. Now we have to take this mysterious symbol and we have to exalt the will about it. Lift the will up. This is an exercise of will.

To do it you analyse the meaning of it to yourself. This is meditation.

1.	Start feeling what it is like to be merely emotional and earth-bound, to want what you want when you want it. Try and release it. It is locked up in the depths of the sub-conscious. Have a little half hour of that and see how you like it.

2.	Then try and be perfectly reasonable in every conceivable way, which means, think mathematico-geometrical. Try that for half an hour.

3.	But thirdly put both together and simultaneously have a perfectly cold, mathematico-geometrical rational process and simultaneously want what you want when you want it. This is exercising simultaneously the various parts of your being.

To do this, you'll want a magic circle round you. Which means of course, that you'll want a room where nobody will come in and annoy you. That's your magic circle. Isolate yourself. Get away from interruptions for the time being, don't tell anybody where you've gone. Because as soon as you start work, there'll be a tremendous field whizzing around the room and people will come with cups of tea and see if you are all right. Don't tell them where you've gone otherwise they will come and interrupt your work. Because centres of activity drag in other centres of less activity.

Meditate on the symbol, but the essential part of all this process is that you must learn to charge with emotion the concept that you have. This is marrying the woman and the man.

The priest and the king must be tied in a tether before two virgins can live together.

Your king is your canniness, your geometrical, mathematical awareness. Your priest is your feeling. These two in their pure forms, pure feeling and pure intellection, put together and lifted to their highest level mean cosmic consciousness. To do it you must isolate yourself. You must become a Jew for the time being, the chosen people. You must exclude all the Goyen from your room, don't let any non-Jews in and concentrate fully on the work. It is called work because it is WORK. That is to say, you have to think very, very clearly and while you are thinking, you have to work yourself up like mad with your emotions. For this reason, lock the door on the inside and hide the key so that you don't get out.

If, when you are working very hard in this way, you work sincerely, you are bound to release from levels of consciousness, levels of sub-consciousness, and levels of un-consciousness, elements similar to the Platonic ideas, similar to dynamic forms from the Cosmic Sphere. These forms will resonate when you look at the symbol and emote about the it.

First you must analyse all its parts.

Then you must synthesise these parts into a whole. Look at it first without analysis — that's the Gestalt, a pre-analytic whole.

Now you analyse it and state verbally to yourself every meaning of every bit of it. That's the meditational process.

Then you hold it. Contemplate it. That's the Samadhi of the Yogis. The seed state. Treat it as a whole that has been analysed and restate it as a whole. But don't just hold it there passively. Emote about it. Drive every bit of energy you've got, not just some of it, into this seed. Keep at it. Don't be surprised if you get funny cracks in your nervous system and sparks shoot out of your ears. They may come out from anywhere. Don't be surprised and when you feel scared, say, “well, being scared of this kind of thing is natural.” Don't give up. You will. But don't.

Every time you start transcending the limits of the usual presentation in consciousness, what you call your individual awareness, you will undoubtedly get the wind up. You will become afraid. Try to fight through it. Don't fall back into your ordinary level. If you do, start again. Ride the mystical cosmic horse, because you've fallen off it. Don't be intimidated by levels of awareness that you are not used to. At first you will be, that's certain. Even people born in the sign of the Ram get intimidated at times. Do this with a symbol and remember, that emoting, deliberate, conscious will to enthuse (remember enthusiasm means in-GOD-ism, to enthuse is to get into the God). This symbol is very ancient. The Jews borrowed it. In their peregrinations in search of wisdom they found this symbol and they appropriated it as the shield of David.

Into that symbol as Carl Jung discovered, forces from the collective unconscious of the race are pouring. They are inhibited by civilisation and individuated private purpose. If you can break these bonds, this force from beyond will work through the symbol into your being. But it's not only what Jung thought it was, the collective unconscious of the race. It's far deeper than that. It is the dynamism of the Infinite itself which is configuring itself there as a symbol. That symbol is powerful, because that symbol is true. But it is only powerful for an existential individual who knows what it signifies and then deliberately emotes about it. You've got to get hot about it. Where you are indifferent to it and see it merely as a geometrical configuration, nothing will happen. Where you see it as a precipitation (apparently static) of this Infinite Sentient Power, then you will see that it is dynamic.

Talking this morning with what I call an agent, sometimes called a patient, looking at an armchair, the armchair looked to me like it was going like this. I asked this person to look at this chair.

She said, “It's just a chair”.

I said, “Is it still?”

She said, “Yes, it is still. you don't expect a chair to move”.

I said, “Just for a moment imagine that this chair is precipitated by intelligence. It is matter forced into ‘chair’ form”.

“Yes, I can do that”, she said.

“Next step. Imagine this matter doesn't like being a chair. It doesn't like being imposed on and sat upon by all sorts of people”.

She suddenly said, “I don't like that idea”.

“Why?”

“Well”, she said, “when you said that, it looked to me as if it was pulling away from me”. The chair had started to become dynamic. That's how Van Gogh saw a chair when he was painting them. That accounts for the direction of his brush-strokes, his technique. He was conceiving the universe as dynamic, a play of power, not static.

You could take anything whatever and deliberately conceive it to be a function instead of a static object. As soon as you can see it to be a function, something happens inside you. It does not matter whether the chair is really feeling afraid and trying to get away and disliking it. What really matters is what has happened to you when you present yourself with a dynamic concept as opposed to a static one.

First thing — the usual experience, panic. “I'd like the universe to be static so that I know where it is. I don't want the chair to have opinions, it might run away when I am about to sit down”.

We have to dare to allow the universe to be dynamic. We have to see it in terms of dynamism otherwise we will never graduate to the level of being a good poltergeist.

The universe is a modality of power. Insofar as we realise that we ourselves are Sentient Power, we can do something about our own evolution and we can free ourselves from the rubbishy impositions of other people.

Insofar as we believe that anything whatever is static, we are deceived, because we know nothing about a world external to us. We know only the modalities of our own substance. But these modalities are always dynamic. We are always concerned with stimuli which are motions, and responses which are motions. We are living in a dynamic world of stimulus response. All dynamism. All motion.

The concept of the static is a fabrication to confer upon us a feeling of security within the field of the finite. That security is an illusion. And in the name of that illusion of finite security, people, to preserve their lives, murder each-other, because they pursue the finite material as a pre-condition of their security. Therefore they accrete their finite material and defend themselves with it and defend it with their lives. Whereas their real security is in the recognition of the infinity of their sentience and power and in the lack of any necessity whatever to defend that which they most certainly are not, namely the finited, compressed image of their own activity.

The image is an imposition.

It is not the ultimate cause.

The Ultimate Cause Is The Sentient Power Itself.

Resentment. 2 E. Halliday

E. Halliday 3 Resentment.

by E. Halliday

resent - 237

JOHN BAILEY

2011-07-24

dad