ACCIDENT by Eugene Halliday
[Recorded at ‘Parklands’, Bowden, Cheshire]
1. … On our last occasion, when my friend, Gordon Smith, raised the problem of ‘accident’. … And I’d said, “There isn’t any!” Now, of course, everybody believes that there is. So I want to examine this rather carefully, because we tend to think there are accidents happening all around us every day. A hundred motorcars driving at eighty miles an hour in the fog … have an accident …a pile-up. Wonderful co-incidence of accidents
2. Now I want to go back to the fundamental idea: ‘Dualism is impossible’.
Remember our proof … of that? … I don’t need a volunteer to stand up and tell us, do I? What proves the impossibility of dualism? And because I don’t need anybody to tell us, I’ll ask Greta to do it. … Greta, why is dualism impossible?
3. Greta: God is ‘not two’.
4. EH: That’s a statement, that’s not a proof.
5. Greta: Well it’s what I take it. (Oh!) … You can’t have, you can’t …
6. EH: Why? …
7. Greta: Em …
8. EH: That’s what I … That’s what I like about it. … Help.
9. Greta: You can’t have a dualism
10. EH: No? … Why not?
11. Greta: If God is ‘One’ - and he isn’t even ‘One’ - if God is ‘All’, there isn’t, there isn’t anything else but that, so there can’t be two.
12. EH: That’s an ’if’, you said ‘if’.
13. Greta: That is it
14. EH: ‘That is it.’ …
15. Greta: With a full stop!
16. EH: That isn’t a proof, that’s a dogmatic statement.
17. Greta: Yes it is.
18. Can I have a proof? … Ah, another volunteer!
19. Audience member: If we were separate, I wouldn’t be able to hear you.
20. EH: That’s a better proof isn’t it? Let’s extend that universally. If there were more than one ‘basic reality’, it would have to be, absolutely, unlike each other in order to maintain their difference. And if they are absolutely unlike they could not communicate. … Right? ‘Absolute un-likes’ cannot inter-communicate. So there’s our proof: ‘Absolute un-likes’ cannot … cannot be conceived to be able to communicate.
21. To communicate they must have something in common.
22. Now as human beings we have two weird facts. One is the fact of our physicality; and the other is the fact of our ability to manipulate our physicality.
23. We have consciousness, whereby we are aware of our mental process; our emotive process; our physical process; and we the ‘physical fact’, that is very hard to get rid of, it imposes itself on us.
24. Now, ‘absolute un-likes can’t interact’, but our volition, our feeling, our thought, interact with our body. That means a body and consciousness can’t be fundamentally different. … Right? Consciousness and physicality cannot be fundamentally different. That is why we say that consciousness is a ‘catalyst’. Consciousness precipitates the world.
25. Now let’s examine this in relation to the idea of ‘accident’.
26. If dualism is impossible, then whatever happens must be caused by the ‘ultimate non-dual reality’. There cannot be an event that is not caused.
27. Now when we are talking about ‘accident’, what are we talking about? The word means, ‘something that falls to us’, just falls, ‘not in causative relation’. ‘accident’ means ‘ to falling’. Something falls, with no causal relation.
28. Pot of paint in the hand of man on top of ladder. Man on top of ladder not looking what he’s doing (5.00) spills some of the paint. The man underneath receives the paint and the paint falls on the man. The man on whom the paint falls considers it to be an accident, it has fallen on him and there’s no causal relation between the man on the ladder; the ladder; the paint; and the recipient of the paint.
29. Audience member: But there is, surely?
30. EH: Not if you believe in ‘accident’.
31. Now the man on the ladder … We did mention he’s a bit annoyed about being up the ladder anyway. That he sees a well-dressed man going underneath with a two-hundred pound jacket on. … “Well then it deserves ‘spotting a bit’.”
32. Now, if the ultimate reality is ‘non-duel’, then ‘sentience’ and ‘matter’ are not ultimately different. Everything that happens physically has another aspect to it: the aspect of consciousness; the aspect of intention; the aspect of volition. And we tend to hope that this isn’t true. We tend to hope that there are ‘accidents’. Now why do we like to think that ‘accidents’ exist?
33. Audience member: So that you can ‘pass the buck’.
34. EH: So you can ‘pass the buck’. Because the alternative is ‘continual watchfulness’ (Yes) about the situation’s possibilities.
35. Now the price of freedom is ‘eternal vigilance’. … Who likes that one? … Not many. … We occasionally hear it out of the mouths of drunken politicians.
36. Audience member: It’s the only way you’ll be alive.
37. EH: Yes. It’s the only way you can ‘guarantee’, because ‘guarantee’ means ‘Will’. The ‘gu’ in ‘guarantee’ means ‘Will’. Gu-arantee … means ‘Will’. Now (..?..) non-dualism. Therefore nothing whatever is absolutely disconnected from anything else.
38. Now, “The cause,” said Caesar, “is in my will.” The concept of cause is a blow struck. That word ‘cause’, for your dictionary owners, means, ‘a blow struck’. That ‘blow’ is an act of initiative. If non-dualism is true, then an act of will must affect total reality.
39. Now, wherever there is a condensation of that field of power - that Sentient Power that we call ‘God’ - wherever there is a condensation of it, there is a Will to ‘individuation’. The fact that our organs … we’ve all got, more or less, stomach, heart, lungs - in some condition or other; and therefore we have something in common with each other – similar organs. But are our pulse rates identical; is our digestive rate identical; do we deal with the same miraculously non-expensive slimming diet identically? … No!
40. So, although we have many, many, things apparently similar like stomachs, and hearts, and eyeballs, and things, they don’t operate identically. They are not under an over-riding ‘super control’ that makes them behave the way they behave. Somehow they are self-determined.
41. Let’s think about the word ‘self ‘ with a capital ‘S’ and with a small ‘s’. Now with a capital ‘S’, the ‘S’ means ‘infinite spirit’. ‘S’ has always been the glyph of the serpent. Our letter ‘S’ derives from a drawing of a snake. And that snake symbolizes free, undulatory, intelligent, motion.
42. Now when this motion goes about in infinity, it can either cross itself, or not. It can do a little meander, or it can translate from place to place, or rotate, or vibrate. It will translate, rotate, vibrate. Now these are limiting factors to the possibility of types of motion.
43. Now let’s look at the word ‘meander’. (10.00) ‘Me-ander’, all you German scholars, like Abel for instance. … Abel, what does ‘ander’ mean in German?
44. Abel: It means ‘other.’
45. It means ‘other’, that’s not an accident it is fact. The ander m… , ‘an’ mean ‘snake running’. ‘An’ and the name ‘Anna’ means ‘snake on the run’, not ‘rotating snake’. ’On’, ‘O-N’, is ‘rotating snake’: ‘An’ is a ‘running snake’- a snake that oscillates from side to side but does not close on itself. So ‘an-der’ means a ‘running snake’, and the snake is the type of sensuous, self-satisfying, pursuer. And the ‘D-E-R’ means discriminative activity. So that ‘an-der’, meaning ‘otherness’, means a travelling force, sentient force, which is discriminating in going along . The snake goes to the left, changes its mind, goes to the right, changes it’s mind – it’s oscillating while it goes along, in the process it is vibrating, and this is the meaning of the ‘der’ in ‘ander’. So ‘ander’, ‘other’, is very important. It means ‘discriminating to avoid being locked up’. Now ‘me-andering’ is obvious, it’s an objective state, ‘m’ for the substance, ‘e’ for the triple life. ‘Me’, ‘me’, you can all say that word. When you say it you are saying ‘substantial trine-life (Light?)’; a ‘three-fold life substance’. ‘Me-andering’ is me avoiding committal.
46. Now if I said, “me-onde,” that would not be avoiding committal because the ‘O-N’ means ‘serpent with tail in mouth’. ‘Self committal to self-development ‘ is ‘on-dev’. You use this same word for a waveform known to in French in the base. Is there a French female in the house that knows how to say ‘waveform’ in French? … Is there one? How do you say that weird little entity that is both a wave and a particle? … What is it?
47. Audience member: A wavicle.
48. EH: That’s not French is it? ….. Isn’t Hanukah in the house? ….. Pardon? …
49. Hanukah: I didn’t hear what you asked …
50. EH: Good, Good! That’s a confession! That’s usually true without the err, confession. What do you call a particle and a wave together in French?
51. Hanukah: Particule-onde
52. EH: Well the ‘onde’ part is the ‘wave’ which is funny, isn’t it? Because you’d expect the opposite; the ‘an’ is the running serpent, but when it gets it’s tail in its mouth, it becomes ‘on’, and that is the base of the French for ‘wave’.
53. Now light behaves in both part-icular, and wave, form – which is very peculiar. But we also behave in the same way. There is only one law absolute, the Torah of the Hebrews; the Tareeqah of the Muslims – it’s the same base, the same word. One law, and one only – ‘We either commit ourselves or we do not’. To ‘commit’ is to ‘bind ourselves to a certain kind of activity’, and ‘to dodge’ that is ‘to meander’ , … to ‘other’ oneself.
54. Now the difference between God, which is the Infinite Absolute, and a creature, is this: the Infinite Absolute is utterly void of ‘otherness’, there is no ‘otherness’ there. ‘Otherness’ belongs to the finite, created being.
55. When you say, “He is bothered,” ‘bother’ means ‘be other than’, to be ‘bothered’ is to be ‘othered’, it is to have inside us, quite simply, more than one.
56. Now when you say, “God is one,” you are saying, “He is not other-ing.” Whatever He Will to commit Himself too, that He does. ‘Purity of heart’ is to will one thing. More than one thing is ‘othering’ and ‘bothering’ oneself.
57. Now, if there is only one will, (15.00) in its purity, like the Will of the Absolute, there can be no ‘accident’ there, because everything that occurs, occurs because it is Willed, purely. And the Absolute is Infinite, and Infinity has nothing outside it that could interfere with it’s activity.
58. The Absolute Infinite is the only absolutely free motion, and it remains free unless it binds itself by a self-committal. It’s got to turn ‘an’ – the running serpent – into ‘on’ – the self-binding, rotating, serpent. A serpent is the symbol of ‘sensuous motion’. ‘Sensuous motion’ can go around without committal, or it can commit itself to objective existence, in order to experience the pleasure of objectivity, which is apparently a type of security.
59. Now imagine in the Absolute Infinite there can be no accident because nothing exists other than it, to befall it. So ‘Absolutely’ there is no ‘accident’, or possibility of it. There is only the Absolute Will, self-determinant in every way.
60. Now it says about man in the ‘Great Book’, that, “He is made in the image of God.” In consequence of which he has three things: intelligence; will; and speech. ‘Intelligence’ is what we call ‘sentience’, ‘will’ is ‘initiative’, and ‘speech’ you know – it is the power to express what your intelligence and will motivate themselves by.
61. Intelligence; will; speech: and when we do not verbalize what we do - when we do not speak - we are not terribly clear about what we are doing.
62. So we can talk about a baby before it’s born, when it’s sitting in the womb, and has not yet learnt to articulate words. We’ll call that baby ‘in its pre-verbal state’. So it cannot speak in our sense of the term. It may hear its mother speaking, because the voice of the mother vibrates through the amniotic fluid - affects the hearing apparatus of the child - and the child hears noises, but they are very muffled -through the body processes through which they come - and they are not clear, they are articulate. Yet we know, by pre-natal research, that nevertheless the babies do record things said while the baby is in the womb, but they’re not clearly recorded. If we pay attention very carefully we will find that we can actually recover things said by the mother or the father (in debate, or separately) from the child, from a pre-natal condition. But, not until the baby is born, and breathes, and takes the air and lets it out, and then manipulates its tongue and lips in certain ways, does it gain what we call ‘articulate speech’.
63. Now it’s got intelligence, and it’s got will. But until it’s born and it starts to manipulate its tongue and lips it does not articulate. But when it begins to do so it does a terrible thing on itself: in the act of acquiring the terms from its mother or father or both, or its educators – teachers, and governmental propaganda - as it does so it begins to focus on the terminology and to become subordinate to the words. Hence the statement, “To speak is to fall.”
64. When you speak … Notice the word ‘speech’ … How do you spell ‘speech’ – with a double ‘E’ ‘C-H; how do you spell ‘speak’ – with an ‘E-A - K’. you’re locking up your fundamental life activity. The ‘E’ is the triple form of life, the ‘A’ is the activity, the ‘K’ is the locking. So to speak is a spiritual power - serpentine sensuality - positing itself in a triple activity, locked up. “To speak is to fall.”
65. Now, babies do not get too much activity to not speak. They are battered by parents who put great faces into prams and say, “Goo, goo, goo,” and wonderful primal sounds. And they persuade, by all kinds of trickery, the baby to acquire vocabulary. And the vocabulary is a voice (‘voc’) collection (‘ab’), of willful affirmations: it’s a voc-ab-ule-AR-ehy (20.00), a ‘voice-will-collection-affirmation. The baby accepts the terms for its own ends, bends them to the best of its ability, misunderstands that its mother, or other teacher, and tries violently to avoid the committal that the parents and teachers are trying to impose upon it. But there is no ‘accident’ here, there is nothing no-causally ‘falling’ to the child.
66. The will of the parents to make this child articulate; the will of the teachers to make it obedient; the will of the government to reduce it to the level of citizen, these are willed, they are not ‘accidents’.
67. Now there is nothing in our non-dual universe that is not caused by intelligent will.
68. Now the ‘speaking’ is there, in the universe. Prior to the creation of the world that we know as gross material there is already primordial sound. Now you know the definition of ‘sound’ in physics. It’s an alternation of compression and decompression. The atmosphere is compressed, then released, and compressed, and released. It makes a noise like clapping. That definition of sound covers every noise that anything whatever makes, and as everything in the universe is vibrating there is no such thing as an absolutely silent being.
69. Now if I hold my hands flat like this and hit them, that makes a certain kind of noise, and if I curve them and do this, it makes another noise. That one says, ”Slap,” and that one says, “Slop.” If you listen carefully you will hear the vowel changes.
70. Now everything in the universe is vibrating in a characteristic way, determined by the structure of that thing. Structure is the formal way – that’s one stretcher, and that’s another stretcher. Structure is ‘stricture’ … restrained.
71. Nothing in the universe can exist without vibrating, and without rotating, and without translating. Three characteristic motions in everything, and this vibratory behavior is ‘sound’, and therefore the ancients wisely said that, “The fundamental power, causative of all things, is primordial sound.” In India you would call that ‘Shabra’; in Greek you would call it ‘Logos’; we call it ‘Cosmic Reason’, ‘Cosmic Intellect’. But it means quite simply this, that there is a closure – symbolized by Saturn, and a release – symbolized by Jupiter, and an alternation of those two, and this causes a spin , or rotation, encapsulation or en-sphering, and production of beings.
72. Now ‘to be’ is from the letter ‘B’ which is a labial closive ‘b’. You make a sphere in your mouth to pronounce ‘B’ and suddenly release it from the lips, and when that occurs you have demonstrated the very process whereby the universe comes into ‘B’-ing. ‘Being’ meaning ‘encapsulation’.
73. Now as soon as encapsulation occurs there is committal of a definite amount of sentient power to that condition of encapsulation, that is, to being. And as soon as ‘being’ come into existence, then there is the possibility of contingent relation. There is one being, there is another being, and they can strike on each other. And it is here there arises the concept of ‘accident’.
74. One sphere and another, A and B. They are going along. We’ll say the ‘A state’ is prior to the B (A comes before B). A is ‘absolute’ and B is ‘being’. Outside every sphere there is the Absolute Infinite, and the Absolute Infinite can knock upon the en-sphered condition we call ‘being’. … A for the ‘Absolute’, B for ‘being’ … The power outside any spherical form can knock on the walls of sphere.
75. Now from the point of view of the en-sphered sentient power, it may have had no (25.00) warning that this knock was coming. This is very important, because that sphere could be surprised, and would call the knocking on its wall ‘accidental’ ‘B-A’, the ‘B’ being encapsulated does not know that the Absolute outside it can, may, and probably will, knock upon the sphere.
76. Now the sphere is ignorant of the Absolute. ‘Ignorant’ means ‘willfully disregardant. In order to be, and continue in being, you must disregard the condition of the Absolute, because if you think about the Absolute, you’ll probably let go of your being. You can all do that for three seconds to prove the point. Please all think of the Absolute … Non-Being … Done it? … What have you got? … No Thing! … Because there is no ‘thing’ which is the Infinite Absolute. Can you predict it? … No … You cannot predict the behavior of an Infinite Power which is not in the condition we call ‘being’. But you cannot predict it – whatever it does you call ‘accidental’. Because it ‘befalls’ you. But is it accidental from the point of view of the Absolute? … No! … The Absolute Wills to push these spheres, which it has generated within itself, to push these spheres around without bothering to consult them. And they will interpret this, if unpleasant, “It’s an accident.”
77. But from the Absolute point of view there is no accident; but from the point of view of an en-sphered zone of ignorance, there is an accident. Mainly, whatever happens to it is an accident. But we can say, ”If we wish to avoid, so-called, accident, we must start to cease to be unconscious; we must stop being disregardant; we must stop being ignorant that the Absolute is really with us.
78. There’s an Islamic saying that says, “When you are living, live as if you can see God in everything. And if you can’t see him, nevertheless He sees you.”
79. Now imagine you are all living and breathing, and doing the best you can with what you’ve got. And you forget that actually you’re very body is a precipitate of an Infinite Sentient Power which is called ‘God’, and although you may forget God he doesn’t forget you. Because, if the Absolute Sentient Power forgot you, you would cease to exist. … You exist in virtue only of this centripetal focus upon you of the Absolute. The Absolute is focusing … on us, individually. And when it ceases to, we die; we disintegrate.
80. Did any of you see a marvelous film about slime molds?
81. Audience member: Yes.
82. EH: Oh, somebody did, that’s good. Well you say a perfect example there of the ignorance of the scientist. He was very, very, interested, but like the other scientists investigating the same phenomenon, he had no idea what was happening. He thought that they ought to seek the cause of the slime mold’s break-up and re-assembly. Now when there is food in the environment, this mass of slime – like a slug – breaks into little bits, individuals, and each individual goes around and eats whatever it individually finds. But when they have cleared a given environment of food, they all go back together and they make one lovely slug which goes about like one being. The micro-photography there was wonderful. They go about exactly like one being, with a front end (like a nosey bit), and they’ve forgotten all their differences. They are just like the ‘Mongol Hordes’ coming out of the Asiatic Plains. The same thing happened to them exactly, namely when there was a lot of food in their environment, they just stayed there and ate it, and when it became deficient they got together and invaded Europe, and frightened hell out of everybody. And there is still nervousness in the Russians today, in case they come back. And they behaved exactly like these slime molds. (30.00)
83. When there is plenty to eat for all of us at a party we don’t snatch custards out of each other’s mouths. But if the food is deficient, short, lacking, you will see eyes shining, and sidling, apparently accidently, towards the best éclair.
84. The same thing for the human being occurs to the slime mold, because there is only one law.
85. Now insofar as we know that a fully conscious being is not ignore-ant - that is, not willfully disregardant of anything whatever , for that being, there are no accidents.
86. Now if there are no accidents truly, obviously the best thing for us to do is become as conscious as we can, of as many things as we can, because the more we are aware of the possibilities the less ‘accident’ will happen to us, because ‘accident’ is merely a misinterpretation of the event.
87. As long as we know that every act is caused ultimately by the Absolute Infinite, and we adjust to that to remain awake, we are relatively free from ‘accident’.
88. Now … Western philosophy is a bit dull-witted, but the best of it has borrowed from certain oriental sources – mainly Asiatic - certain concepts. And the basic concept of all was the religious concept, which divided reality into two kinds - absolute reality, and relative reality. Absolute reality with a big ‘R’ (Absolute Reality – capital ‘A’, capital ‘R’ - that means the Absolute itself, is differentiating itself). But the small one (the ‘relative’) is two ‘R’s - ‘relative reality’. That means that the already broken up by the Absolute is further broken up by individual beings that have come to be by the Will of the Absolute. That Infinite Absolute, which we call God, differentiates the universe, and we are a product of the differentiation.
89. Now if we accept the differentiation Willed by the Absolute then we are true ‘Children of God’. We accept what is happening differentially. But if we then decide to be extra clever, and differentiate the already differentiated in ever new ways we complicate our lives more than we need, and become progressively more and more subject to ‘accident’.
90. Are we agreed that the distinction between the ‘Absolute’ and the ‘relative’ is valid. The ‘Absolute’ has no ‘otherness’; the ‘relative’ is all ‘otherness’.
91. Now as long as we are in the realm of ‘otherness’, we are battered by a multitude of stimuli, all of which tend to disrupt us, to break us into pieces, to destroy our fundamental unity.
92. Now you know our word for unity is ‘one’ isn’t it? O-N-E, that’s three letters, and we know there are three letters in the French, and the Italian, and the German, and various other languages, three letters in the Hebrew (echad) for ‘one’.
93. And what does it mean? It means that every ‘one’ is ‘three’. What are the ‘three’? Force-form-function. There is no being that is not ‘triple F’. Force; form; function.
94. Make a diagram of ‘triple F’ by simply drawing a circle, and then from the center to draw three legs at equidistance, like the Manx three legs, and then turn each one of those radius lines into an ‘F’ by putting two little marks going out from it’s side. You’ve now drawn a primal symbol of great power, which if you wear it to remind you – make a note of it in your book, and make another note in your mind - so that whenever you look at anything whatever you see the ‘triple F’ – force-form-function.
95. You never think that another being is other than that ‘triple’. (35.00). You never think of being which has form without function and without force. You never think there is a force with no form and no function. You never think there is a function with no force and no form. That means that when you are looking at another human being, in order to relate to that being you are required by your own intelligence to see force-form-function.
96. Now if it can’t get its own way immediately by force, what does it do? Change form and function. But if we fall into forgetfulness, we become lethargic - we drink through the waters of Lethe - and we forget that other people are actually ‘triple’, they are force-form-function, beings. But anything we do to them with our force, our form, our function, they have a response that they can make. And it may be that they don’t make it externally visible. They can have a ‘force’ response – that’s a will that doesn’t agree with yours; they can have a ‘form’ response – that’s an idea that doesn’t agree with yours; and they can have a ‘function’ response – namely they can do something that you didn’t expect.
97. There are no beings, from the most rudimentary amoeba mono-cell to the highest and most complex human genius, that are not ‘force-form-function beings’.
98. Now, if every act that is willed is not an ‘accident’, and dualism is impossible, the Infinite is a ‘triple’, the Infinite is force, and form. and function, and that is the meaning of that word ‘Logos’.
99. Now when you write an ‘L’, that means ‘light’, and when you write the ‘G’, that means ‘dark’ – the body: consciousness and the body – ‘L’ and ‘G’, Lambda and Gamma. And when you write the ‘S’, that is the outflowing function. So the word ‘Logos’ actually means ‘force-form-function’, where the force is the Lambda, is the consciousness. You’re at your most powerful where you are most conscious; you’re most vulnerable when you’re unconscious. So the force is equated with the letter ‘L’ there, which means ‘light’, which means ‘consciousness’, which is rather strange because you don’t think much of consciousness as force, you just tend to think it’s a kind of ‘mental enlightenment’, but you don’t realize it’s ‘force’. Because everywhere you go in your mind with consciousness you change - by the fact of consciousness - the function of your ideas. So we say consciousness is a catalyst.
100. Now a catalyst is something, that the presence of which causes other things to change but itself remains what it is. Consciousness causes changes of idea and activity, of form and function, but that consciousness does not cease to be consciousness. It remains exactly what it is. Consciousness is eternally what it is.
101. Now the function is temporally changing, but the cause of it - namely the consciousness - is the real power. And the form that it wills by focusing, to come to be, is the idea that governs the activity.
Now is there anybody here who believes that there is an ‘accident’ in the ordinary sense of the word? … … If there is, tell me. I’d like to discuss it from that particular aspect. Does anybody at all believe that there is an ‘accident’ in the ordinary sense of the term; an uncaused event that just occurs ‘out of the blue’?
102. Audience member: Well you see, there’s something I don’t quite understand. When you began the answer with some sort of an argument that, “Cutting of communication between ‘unlike’,” and then you say that, “In the ‘Absolute’ there is no ‘otherness’ in that field”, and, “the ‘relative’ is all otherness.” How then can there be communication between the ‘Absolute’ and the ‘relative’ … ….
103. EH: That’s perfectly easy; ‘otherness’ is a function of the Absolute. … All that you call ‘otherness’ is ‘differential function’ isn’t it? …
104. Audience member: So the otherness is relative (40.00) ultimately it’s ‘otherness’.
105. EH: Oh yes! … … The ‘otherness’ is the ‘Absolute’ ‘other-ing’, without altering its ‘Absoluteness’.
106. Audience member: If that is not … Is that not definable … ?
107. EH: Not in any way, no.
108. Supposing I wave my hand like this. Now is that hand waving in the same manner or different from that indication. … Is that indication identical with this?
109. EH: Audience member: Is the viewpoint of the listener here different from the point of view of the Absolute
110. EH: It’s the same. Therefore we talk about ‘dialectics’. Now dialectics is just to assert a pair of opposites to anything whatever: never accept one of the pair of opposites that’s determined.
111. ‘Othering’ is the way the ‘Absolute’ produces the universe. God says, “I was a hidden treasure, I desired to be known, therefore I created the world. And ‘hidden treasure’ meant to say He is Infinitely capable of ‘othering’ Himself. Because if He didn’t ‘other’ He was hidden. ‘Tremendous treasure’
112. Now ‘treasure’ means ‘tree-assure’; ‘triple-assurance’, force-form-function. When you’re not using them - when you’re in deep sleep you get the nearest to it – deep dreamless sleep, you’re not ‘othering’ are you?
113. Audience member: You’re not aware of the being.
114. EH: You’re not aware of your ‘othering’. Do you think you might be ‘othering on the quiet’? … You might. But what is it for you if you don’t know about it. Aren’t you [‘aid and dreasure’ (?)], there you are, lying in bed snoring. Oh no - that would be ‘othering’ … quietly. You are full of relational possibilities, and you’re asleep! Have you ever seen a beautiful male asleep? Not breathing noisily. Have you? That made you laugh. Have you seen one? Imagine the ‘Sleeping Beauty’ not dreaming, therefore not ‘othering’, but if you woke it up it could do something interesting … Mm? … Use a nudge at 3am, and he wakes up, and starts ‘othering’. … Yes? … And what would he be like if you didn’t give him the nudge, and he didn’t wake up, and he didn’t ‘other’? Nor did you. Nor did anyone else! There would be no ‘else’. What kind of a reality could it be, with no ‘othering’ in it? … Can you tell me? Can anybody describe for me the condition of Absolute Non-Otheringness?
115. Audience member: Anxiety … anxiety ….. Boredom.
116. EH: Boredom … That sounds like a masculine analysis. ‘Bore-dome’ – there is a ‘dome’ or situation waiting to be ‘bored’, … by an auger. It wishes to do a bit of augury … Yes? … When there’s nothing to ‘bore into’ what do you feel like Trevor?
117. Trevor: Restless.
118. Restless. You mean your boring implement is not ‘othering’ itself. … Pity …. Here’s that thing, there is only one law, there is no other law, it is called always the same name in disguise, in different ways, in different languages, nevertheless it is only one law. it’s the law of ‘the triple force-form-function’. Because you can’t have a force by definition, that doesn’t form itself and function; and you can’t have a function that is not a formed force; and you can’t have a form that is not a forcing function. Now that’s one law, which is three. That’s how one of our English poets said, in terrible disgust - I think it was Coleridge actually - he said ” I don’t like that fellow, he’s otherwise intelligent, but the dumb fellow is a Unitarian you know. He’s a Unitarian, he can’t grasp the Trinity. Thinking there is only one, not three.”
119. Now we cannot think about one without three. Because whatever we think of is a force-form-function, and in it there is no room whatever (45.00) for accident of any kind. Now there is plenty of room for ignorance misinterpreting events as accidents, like the men in the motors and the fog on the motorway – it’s an ‘accident’.
120. A woman came to see me in twenty minutes, and that twenty minutes normally occupied fifty minutes … comes from the other side of Blackpool … and it was thick fog … It was amazing she arrived at all. But she came in a very large Mercedes … “I’m so glad to be out of the fog, I hurried up because it’s so dangerous to be in fog.”
121. That was serious, she hurried up because it was dangerous to be in fog! … … “Get out of it as quickly as possible.” … … Was that an accident? … No, no! I think she bore a charmed life. … … …
122. Have we done enough about non-accidents as a possibility now? Because if, we have we can go on to private purpose. Can we go onto ‘private purpose’ now?
123. Audience member: Could I just ask you something first … (Yes) … About your statement, “If you have two things that are completely and utterly different … (Yes) … Then they couldn’t communicate” … (Right) … and that was a proof that there wasn’t duality … (Yes) … But just because they couldn’t communicate, does that prove their separate existence?
125. EH: It concludes you nothing about a separate existence (Fine! … That’s alright) . And what you cannot know about, for you, is a non-entity.
127. Audience member: So it’s really irrelevant then? Rather than (Well it’s irrelevant) .. They don’t exist
128. EH: Oh no, it’s a proof that they don’t exist. Because ‘to exist’ is always to an observer.
129. When we say ‘existence’ we are talking about ‘something perceived’. You know Bishop Berkley’s statement don’t you, ‘Esse est percipi’. ‘To be’ is ‘to be perceived’. That the actual Absolute Power, which we call ‘God’, when He focuses to perceive, He produces the thing that He focuses. It wasn’t there until He focused. Now we use the definition of ‘faith’ – ‘the power to put your foot down where nothing is, and in the act of putting it down, posit something to put it on’ That’s ‘power’. Consciousness itself posits its own object. First it makes ‘idea’, then it drives into the ‘idea’ – that’s the emotional charge - and then it drives into that, and it becomes an object. Idea–emotion–act, idea–emotion–act, again a ‘trinity’… … Right? … That’s alright? … Good.
130. Audience member: Could something … when you say the word ‘accident’, can you relate that to speaking being vibrational … (Yes) … Writing which is denser … (Yes) Emm .. if the ‘C-I’s and the consciousness in between … the ‘act’, the ‘act’ of the vibration first, the ‘C-I’… (You mean in ‘accident’?) Yes. …
131. EH: Well if you’re doing this print it ‘C-I-D’, because it comes from ‘Cadeve’ – ‘to fall’, and you know what a cad is don’t you? (Yes) What’s a ‘cad’?
132. Audience Member: Well, it was a person who was …is it from thinking of the, like Cad, it could be anything …Cad was a person who was … Emm … not a gentleman … (Not a gentleman.) … Yes ..
133. EH: Well actually in heraldry, to be a ‘cad’ is to be a cadent member of a family, and if you were, because there was so many other members of the same family, he might be nearer the throne. And then she fell away from the possibility of getting on the throne , because of the many between, he was called ‘cadent’ or a ‘cad’.
134. And the behavior of a man who was absolutely certain he was too far away to get on the throne was far worse than the one who was immediate claimant to the throne.
135. Audience member: An Absolute Cad
136. EH: An Absolute Cad! … You know when … Now our word ‘private’, and the word ‘privated’, ‘diminished’, ‘robbed’, have the same root. Now ‘private’ is ‘P-LA’ ‘meet’ – ‘going according to spin’. Now remember, you have an ‘an’ – a running serpent, and ‘on’ – serpent with tail in mouth. Now the serpent with tail in mouth – ‘on’ – is a ‘P-Ra’ function. That is phi-ratio – you all know what phi-ratio is don’t you? … What is it? 3.1416 etc. etc. etc. It’s the ratio of the radius to the circumference isn’t it? (Yes) And without the circumference, and without the circumference you couldn’t have phi-ratio; and without the circumference or en-sphering, you could not have ‘Pi-ra-vative’ purpose’, because ‘private’ means ‘to go in the manner of en-sphering’, and therefore as a separative individual.
137. Now surely ‘private purpose’ is about the most dim-witted thing anybody could have, and therefore all the great religions say, “Do away with ‘private purpose’. Don’t have ‘private purpose’, have ‘Universal purpose’. If you’re going to do any good, do it, with as many people as you can do it to. But for God’s sake be surreptitious about it.”
138. Jesus says, “Don’t pray loudly in public, they’ll bash you. … “Who the hell does he think he is, praying for me?” And your shins are in danger. You know, shins have got nerves in, especially to make them painful. It’s to stop you running about carelessly actually. We have posited nerves in the shinbone, and it should be called ‘sin-bone’ really, but it’s called ‘shin-bone’ because you ‘shine with realization’.
139. Have you ever run into a cast-iron railing … … with a shinbone? … The enlightenment! … That’s called ‘shin’ or ‘shine-bone’ Shinen’ to appear you see. Things appear under sharp pains that don’t appear, and that’s a warning against sensual submission to seduction. If you allow yourself to be stroked so that your consciousness is reduced, your vulnerability increases as your consciousness decreases. Now ‘private’ means, quite simply, you draw a line around you physically; mentally; emotionally, and believe, most stupidly, that no one else knows what you’re up to. You think everybody else is stupid, that they’re not watching you, so they haven’t rumbled your purpose, and actually everybody is watching everybody all the time, with different degrees of efficiency but, nevertheless, watching.
140. So ‘private purpose’ is a very good way of increasing ‘accident probability’ for oneself. The more private the purpose, the more ignorant one is of other people’s purposes. Because to be private in your own is to focus, to concentrate. And to concentrate is to deprive yourself of information beyond your zone of being. If you are so pre-occupied with ‘you’ and your experiences, you haven’t enough energy left to watch everybody else’s experience. So ‘private purpose’ deprives you of the consciousness that would, if you had it, make you efficient in the pursuit of your ‘private purpose’. So ‘private purpose’ is a ‘dialectical self-defeating’.
141. So that ‘private purpose’ and ‘accident’ are related very intimately: ‘accident’ increases as ‘private purpose’ increases. “I’m in a hurry. I’m going out. It’s foggy, but I’m in a hurry. I’m going out. I’ve got an appointment. It’s private. I could ring up and say,”Sorry, Foggy, can’t come,” ” But my ‘private purpose is so strong, that it forces me out - and I mean forces - it compels me out into the fog,, and I hurry up like mad because I’m in the fog and it’s dangerous, and I want to get to the beloved before I get killed … And I hope the beloved has got me insured! … … …
142. There’s not terribly much one can say about private purpose other than this – It is abysmally stupid; it is condemned by all the major religions without exception – and religions are not the inventions of idiots. They are the products of very, very, sensitive beings, who have observed the human race and how it defeats itself, and have made rules out of the observed self-defeating of egotism. All the founders of all the religions have observed the same thing. Like it says about Jesus, “He knew what was in man, therefor He did not trust him.” On that account he didn’t begin to believe in man, because he knew what was in man. (55.00) Namely: stupidity; negligence; selfishness; private purpose; indifference; and disregard for other people. Now with a few million of those … there’s bound to be trouble. In an ant colony you don’t find the same thing, you find marvelous co-operation. Some ants want to get from that side of a stream to that, so they climb up a tree, swing, make a bridge of ants, and then the others climb over that bridge. How would you like to hang there being a bridge … walked on by the others? Ants don’t mind: why do human beings mind? They have a row, they say, “You be the robe and I’ll walk over you.” “No it’s your turn to be the robe. I was the robe last time.” “No you weren’t, you’re lying, you never were the robe. Every time you dodge it.”
143. Audience member: But it’s attribulary isn’t it. Ants don’t have that vocabulary.
144. They have a vocabulary, a very subtle method, called ‘aroma therapy’. … This is another example of the ‘private purpose’ of human beings. Human beings are so privately stupefied, that they actually think that the animals have got no sense … Yes, they think that man is superior to animals. … Don’t they?
145. I was watching a weaver bird program last week, and the male bird builds a perfect nest, a spherical nest with a hole in the bottom so that the rain doesn’t go like this … … And it worked very, very hard with the straws … and it made a lovely nest and then it stood outside and went… Not bad …. like that … That was called the ‘display’ …. And the girl that had been doing nothing, sitting on the branch and watching him … And when he’d finished she went to it, went inside, and then came out, and then tore it to pieces. … Rotten weaving. … And he immediately went … If he doesn’t make that nest he won’t perpetuate himself through his children. … If she doesn’t like it she’ll take it to pieces. … Now have you seen anything cleverer than that in the human race. … … No! …
146. That’s why it says in the Koran very clearly, “ Man’s stupidity is so great he cannot see the intelligent demonstration amongst the animals.” That animals are intelligent in their way. And their intelligence comes from the same place that man’s intelligence comes from – namely ‘The Absolute’.
147. And we, through vocabulary complications of our own, and particularly through telling lies to ourselves, have come to believe that we are ‘the very reason of existence’. … We’re not. …
148. If we misuse the animal world, the vegetable world, the mineral world, it will degenerate, it will corrupt, and we will kill ourselves. … What? … No salmon in the Scottish rivers. … Someone’s pinched them. … No clear atmosphere, no rain without acid. Who’s doing it, the ants, the bees? No, the clever ones are doing it.
149. Now the whole thing is, in all major religions, there is only one religion, you can call it ‘Torah’; you can call it ‘Rota’; you can call it ‘Wheel’; you can call it ‘Being’; you can call it ‘Logos’; you can call it ‘Triumph of Yang and Yin’; call it what you like, there is one law – the law of ‘Force-Form-Function’; the law of ‘Consciousness, of Idea, of Activation’; the law of ‘Precipitation by Acts of Will’. That is the only law there is.
150. Now because the ultimate reality is a continuum, it follows, logically, that that continuum must have whatever it’s got distributed throughout itself. A continuum has no parts, so that whatever is in it anywhere is in it everywhere.
151. Now if there can occur anywhere whatever within that infinite field of sentient power, a single precipitate of one dot; one yod; one little letter; one anywhere, then by the law of the continuum, such can be produced everywhere. Every point of precipitation in the field presupposes that any other part of (60.00) the field can likewise precipitate itself. That’s why we said, “Let’s use capital ‘S’ and little ‘s’.
152. Now capital ‘S” means the infinite field itself as sentient; and the little ‘s’ means any individual point.
153. Now lets examine the name of Godin the Hebrew four letter form. There’s a ‘Yod’, there’s ‘Hey’, there’s a ‘Vav’, there’s a ‘Hey’; and the ‘Yod’ is an ‘I’, and the ‘Hey’ is really an aspirated ‘E’ triple – fifth letter, and it’s spelt ‘Yah’, and the third letter is a ‘V’, or an ‘O’, or a ‘U’, and the last letter is another ‘Hey’, or ‘E’ aspirate. It is saying, ”Form-Field-Drive-Field.” Idea; field – the field is the emotional charge; and then action; field.
154. I get an idea that I will make a fist, and I now get the idea that I will drive the fist - there’s the Yod – and the space around it - observe when I make a fist, the force in the field of my hand contracts, right? … Can my hand contract without that force? (No.) Right - So, when my hand contracts like that have I not demonstrated that a ‘field force’ called ‘extended hand’ contracts? (Yes) Right … I make a ‘Yod’, that’s the contracted hand, and it was the field, which is that ‘Hey’, that fifth letter, our letter ‘e’, triple, which is force-form-function. There it is. And now I’m going to change my will – having made it like that I will drive it through space. And that drive is the third letter. And when I drive it, am I driving it through a ‘field’? When I hold it contracted, my field is spherical? Yes? … Around the contracted fist…. But when I push it through space, haven’t I made my fist like a tube, and the phonetic for that tube is that letter, the sixth letter ‘Vav’. So the name of God means, ‘Yod” – idea; field of idea; ‘Vav’ – or driving force; and field of driving force. Now we put that together, it’s called ‘Tetragramaton , the four letter name of God.
155. Get an idea, push it. … Get an idea, then push it. This is the cause of all Jewish success in business – get an idea and push it. What does a Goy do? He gets an idea and he doesn’t push it. Why? Because he thinks, “Maybe somebody else thought about it. Maybe I’m wasting my time. Maybe already the fellow is at the office taking out a patent on this idea.” So he doesn’t do it.
156. Now the key to all success is whether a Mongolian conqueror, or Genghis Khan, or Tamerlane, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar … they get an idea and they push it!
157. The idea is the first letter; the push is the third letter; and the second and fourth letter are the field, or emotive charge, first on the idea, then on the push.
158. Now if you then take those four letters and write them, Yod, Hey, Vav, Hey … You often see it in paintings by the ‘Greats’, by Rembrandt and others, Shining away in the back of the picture, because it’s the key to existence. The very key to existence is in that name.
159. Now we’ll cut the name into two, and we’ll read it anti-Hebraica, that is, backwards to the way it’s been written. Because the Jews has already turned it round. And we now read it ‘H-U-H-I’, ‘a-hey-with-a –vov-and-a-hey-with-a-yod’. But now it means, ‘He-She’, ‘HeShe’. When you say ‘Hu’ it means ‘He’. ‘Hu’ is the Hebrew for ‘He’, and ‘Hi’, ‘H-I’, is the Hebrew for ‘She’.
160. So that mysterious four-letter name is identical in meaning with the Chinese ‘Yang-Yin’, ‘He’ and ‘She’.
161. Now who’s doing the driving Trevor? … (65.00) The female or the male?
162. Trevor: The male.
163. EH: The male. So ‘H-U’ which means ‘life-drive’, means ‘He’. But who’s got the idea it would be a good thing if he drove. (She) She! … You see…. …
164. That’s the Yidden mystery of that mysterious name. It says ‘Hu’ (remember that’s Hebrew for ‘He’), and ‘He’ (that’s Hebrew for ‘She’). ‘Hu-He’ made the universe, and ‘She-He’ made sure He made it! … …
165. Now how is it that wives are the best source of inspiration to their husbands? And why do they use a word that means ‘worn-out horse’ for what she does? … …
166. It’s true! … If men are not careful they will drive all over the place, like Mongol Hordes one at a time, in all directions. Like Stephen Laker once said, he rode madly across the pampas in all directions. Now that’s very ‘male’. Have you noticed that ladies? Have you noticed the men will go anywhere, it’s the way they are? … Have you noticed? Here, there, and everywhere.
167. Didn’t you tell me Joe, you were going on a world tour before you did anything else? (Yes). Did you get there? (No) … … Luckily there was a horse damager present …
168. Now let’s think about it very carefully, about that ‘nag’ – you know what a ‘na-ga’ is in Sanskrit? It’s a snake that insists on you committing yourself …’Na-Ga’ ..Yes? … It’s some wonderful (..?..) and ‘Na-Ga’s’ … and their wives .. They actually have wives, ‘Naginis’ … … It is the function of the female to make sure that in his rushing about, the husband that she owns shall arrive, at least some of the time, in the office where he swears he’s been all day … … And if she didn’t do that, he wouldn’t. … He’d hang around in a pub called the … what’s it …’The Town Hall’ I think. Full of Masons and things … All discussing important international affairs … Like whether Reagan did right to accept or not accept visiting a place where there were dead bodies of one-time Nazis. “Do you know, that’s a very momentous problem? “I don’t think we should go back to the office this afternoon. … We’re so well-in with the land-lord, he won’t throw us out at closing time.” … It;’s true!
169. Personally I’m glad I don’t drink. I’ve experimented with that and … it’s not good. …
170. Now let’s think about that very carefully. ‘Private purpose’ is the highest form of stupidity. Every religious teaching in the universe has always said so, and all the people that say they are religious have a secret ‘private purpose’ which they know is condemned by the religion that they profess to follow.
171. And what keeps them at their ‘private purpose’? It’s a very important question this.
172. Audience member; God.
173. God. It’s God that makes them stupid … Why?
174. Audience member: So that they will learn more from the world.
175. EH: So they’ll learn more. … It’s God that makes the Prodigal. It’s God that says to his Prodigal, “Why don’t you ask for your inheritance now. I mean, most people when they inherit have to wait for somebody to die. But I, thy Divine Father, am immortal. … If I don’t die how are you going to realize my will? …
176. So, fogged by this suggestion, the Prodigal son says, “Well give me the money now!”
177. “OK, go!” And he goes out and he finishes up with pigs. … But he’s got lovely stories to tell when he gets back, and God forgives all.
178. Did you know God will forgive you the more you’re stupid … … The more stupid you are, the greater the forgiveness of God. And that’s a terrible problem; I’ve been working on it for years. … … How do you become deliberately stupid to make more interesting stories? (70.00)
179. The more you try, the more intelligent you get … The more intelligent you get, the harder it is to make a stupid error. … … It’s a big twist, isn’t it? .. And in India, the Hindu God is called ‘Lila’ - ‘sport’. You hear it sees beings that want to exist, it gives them the energy to exist, and an appearance of free will, and intelligence, and speech, and then says, “Now, get on with it!” … And then he watches. … He’s the big eagle at the top of the tree watching. … Reading the little jackdaws on the lower branches … Pecking, and getting indigestion off green apples … He’s very interested. This is quite serious, this is not a myth; this is the actuality of reality. Infinite Intelligent Power has produced individual beings - some of which are us - and drives them to hormone trickery into a state of stupidity, so that they have lots of lovely adventures and finish up very, very,
wise. … And sad. … ‘Sad’ is a technical term meaning ‘spirit actively dividing’.
180. Now beforehand, you see this in a baby. The baby is not divided is it? Isn’t the baby, to begin with, just one – one impulse? To have its own way. If you say to the baby, ”What is this ‘own way’, which you want?” Can it tell you? … No. … It’s just an impulse, like that. Where is it from? … From God. He inserts the drive into the innocent to make him bang his head on the doorknob. And that’s part of the ‘Rahman Rahim’ – that’s part of the mercy and compassion of The Absolute. …
181. How do you like it? How do you like God – the All Merciful, All Compassionate?
182. So let’s think about that shall we, a little? …You’re going to think about these things. There are no accidents except to the relatively unconscious; and there is no ‘private purpose’ that is not willed to be private for that person to educate that person in more and more stupid involvements , so that eventually he can turn round and confess, “Verily, only God is God. – La Ilaha Illallah.” Did you know Divine Being other than the Divine Being. We are ‘relative’, it is Absolute. And if we admit it we become ‘Absolutely Relative’. …
183. Shall we think about that for a little. (73.13).