Excerpt from:

The Shifting Realities of Philip K. Dick

Selected Literary and Philosophical Writings by Philip K. Dick
Edited and with an Introduction by Lawrence Sutin
Copyright 1995 - First Vintage Books Edition ISBN 0-679-42644-2

As to our reality being a projected framework -- it appears to be a projection by an

artifact, a computerlike teaching machine that guides, programs, and generally controls
us as we act without awareness of it within our projected world. The artifact, which I
call Zebra, has "created" (actually only projected) our reality as a sort of mirror or
image of its maker, so that the maker can obtain thereby an objective standpoint to
comprehend its own self. In other words, the maker (called by Jakob Bohme in 1616 the
Urgrund) is motivated to seek an instrument for self-awareness, self-knowledge, an
objective opinion or appraisal and comprehension of the nature of itself (it is a vast
living organism, intrinsically -- without this mirror -- without qualities or aspects, which
is why it needs the empirical world as a reflection by which to "see" itself).

It constructed a reality-projecting artifact (or demiurge; cf. Plato and the Gnostics),
which then, on command, projected the first stage of the world we know. The artifact is
unaware that it is an artifact; it is oblivious to the existence of the Urgrund (in terms that
the artifact would understand, the Urgrund is not, rather than is), and imagines itself to
be God, the only real God.
Studying our evolving reality, the Urgrund more and more adequately comprehends
itself. It must allow the reality-projecting artifact to continue to project an evolving
reality no matter how defective and malshaped that reality is (during its stages) until
finally that reality is a correct analog, truly, of the Urgrund itself, at which point the
disparity between the Urgrund and the projected reality is abolished -- whereupon an
astonishing event will occur: The artifact or demiurge will be destroyed and the
Urgrund will assimilate the projected reality, transmuting it into something
ontologically real -- and also making the living creatures in it immortal. This moment
could come at any time, this entrance of the Urgrund into our otherwise spurious
projected framework.

Zebra, the projecting energetic artifact, is close at hand, but it has occluded us not only
to its actions but [also] to its presence. It has enormous -- virtually decisive -- power
over us.
The prognosis for (fate of) our world is excellent: immortality and the final infusion of
reality once it has reached the point of congruent analog to the Urgrund. But the fate of
the artifact is destruction (unknown to it). But it is not alive, as we and the Urgrund are.
We are moving toward isomorphism. The instant that precise isomorphism is reached,
we at once bond to (are penetrated and assimilated by) the Urgrund, in a stunning flash
of light: Bohme's "Blitz." March 1974 was not that moment, but rather Zebra the artifact
adjusting its projected reality, it having gotten off course in its evolution toward
isomorphism with the Urgrund (a purpose unknown to the artifact).

Since the goal of our evolving projected reality is to reach a state in which we humans
are isomorphic with the true maker, the Urgrund that fashioned the projecting artifact,
there is a highly important practical situation coming closer in terms of frequency and
depth:
Although not yet precisely isomorphic with the Urgrund, we can be said already to
possess imperfect (but very real) fragments or fractions of the Urgrund within us.
Therefore the Christian mystic saying: "What is Beyond is within." This describes the
third and final period of history, in which men will be ruled from within. Thus the
Christian mystic saying, "Christ possesses your body, and you possess him as your
soul."
In Hindu philosophy, the Atman within a person is identified with Brahman, the core of
the universe.
This Christ or Atman is not a microform of Zebra, the computerlike reality-projecting
artifact, but of the Urgrund; thus in the Hindu religion it is described (as Brahman) as
lying beyond Maya, the veil of delusion (i.e. the projected seeming world).
Already humans so closely approximate isomorphism with the Urgrund that the
Urgrund can be born within a human being. This is the most primal and important
experience a human can have. The source of all being has bypassed the artifact and its
projected world and come to life within the mind of one human here, another there.

One can correctly deduce from this that the Urgrund is already penetrating the artifact's
world, which means that the moment of the Blitz, as Bohme termed it, is not far off.
When the microform of the Urgrund is born in a human, that human's comprehension
extends beyond the world in terms of its temporal and spacial limits. He can experience
other time periods, other identities (or lives), other places. Literally, the core deity
within him is larger than the world.
Penetrating to the heart of the projected world, the Urgrund can, emanating from human
minds, assimilate the projected world and simultaneously abolish the projecting artifact
the instant the proper evolutionary state (including that of man) is reached. The Urgrund
alone knows when this will occur.

It -- the Urgrund -- will break the power of the illusory world over us when it breaks the
deterministic coercive power of the artifact over us -- by annihilating the artifact; it will
cancel out the artifact's being by its own nonbeing. What will remain will be a totally
monistic structure, entirely alive and sentient. There will be no place, time, or condition
outside the Urgrund.
The projected world of the artifact is not evil, and the artifact is not evil. However, the
artifact is ruthlessly deterministic and mechanical. It cannot be appealed to. It is doing a
job for ends it cannot fathom. Suffering, then, in this model, is due to two sources:

1. the heedless mechanistic structure of the projected reality and the artifact, where
blind causal law rules;
2. what the N.T. [New Testament] calls the "the birthpangs of the universe," both in the
macrocosm and the human microcosm.

The birth looked forward to is the birth of the Urgrund in humans first of all, and finally
the assimilation of the universe in its totality, in a single sharp instant. The former is
already occurring; the latter will come at some later unexpected time.
Reality must be regarded as process. However, although there is acute suffering by
living creatures who must undergo this process, without understanding why, there is
occasional merciful intervention by the Urgrund overruling or overriding the cause-and-
effect chains of the artifact. Perhaps this salvific intervention results from a birth of the
Urgrund in the person. One should note that the actual historic meaning of the term
"salvation" is "liberation," and that of "sinful" or "fallen" is "enslaved." It is a priori
possible, given this model, to imagine a freeing of a human from the control of the
artifact, however good, useful, and purposeful the activity of the artifact may be. It is
obviously capable of error, as well as imperfection. An override is obviously sometimes
essential, given this model. Just as obviously, it would be the primal maker or ground of
being that would possess the wisdom and power to do so. Nothing within, or stemming
from, the artifact or the projected world, would suffice.

ADVANTAGES OF THIS MODEL

Basically, this model suggests that our empirical world is the attempt by a limited entity
to copy a subject that it cannot see. This would account for the imperfections and "evil"
elements in our world.
In addition, it explains the purpose of our empirical world. It is process toward a
specific goal that is defined.
In this system, man is not accused of causing creation to fall (it is not satisfactory to
state that man caused creation to fall inasmuch as man appears to be the central victim
of the evils of the world, not their author). Nor does it hold God responsible for evil,
pain, and suffering (which also is an unacceptable idea); instead, a third view is
presented, that a limited entity termed "the artifact" is doing the best it can considering
its limitations. Thus no evil deity (Iranian dualism, Gnosticism) is introduced.
Although intricate, this model successfully employs the Principle of Parsimony, since, if
the concept of the intermediate artifact is removed, either God or man is responsible for
the vast evil and suffering in the world, a theory that is objectionable.
Most important of all, it seems to fit the facts, which seem to be:

1. the empirical world is not quite real, but only seemingly real;
2. its creator cannot be appealed to for a rectification or redress of these evils and
imperfections;
3. the world is moving toward some kind of end state or goal, the nature of which is
obscure, but the evolutionary aspect of the change states suggests a good and purposeful
end state that has been designed by a sentient and benign proto-entity.

A further point. It appears that there is a feedback circuit between the Urgrund and the
artifact in which the Urgrund can exert pressure on the artifact under certain exceptional
circumstances, these being instances in which the artifact has strayed from the correct
sequences moving the projected world toward an analog state vis-a-vis the Urgrund.
Either the Urgrund directly modifies the activity of the artifact by pressure directly on
the artifact, or the Urgrund goes to the projected world and modulates it, bypassing the
artifact, or both. In any case, the artifact is as occluded as to the nature and existence of
the Urgrund as we are to the artifact. A full circle of unawareness is achieved in which
the primal source (Urgrund) and the final reality (our world) are moving toward fusion,
and the intermediary entity (the artifact) is moving toward elimination. Thus the total
schema moves toward perfection and simplification, and away from complexity and
imperfection.

Although it will complicate the model to add this point, I will offer the following
modification:
It is possible that the Urgrund perpetually interacts with the world-projecting function
of its own artifact, so that the empirical world produced is the result of a constant
dialectic. In this case, then, the Urgrund has bipolarized the artifact in relation to itself,
with the empirical world to be regarded as the offspring of two yang- and yinlike
intermingling forces: one alive and sentient and aware of the total situation, the other
mechanical and active but not fully aware.
The empirical world, then, is the outgrowth of an Is (the artifact) and a superior Is-not
(the Urgrund).

For creatures living within the projected empirical world, it would be virtually
impossible to discern which pressures arise from the artifact (regarded improperly as
evil) and which from the Urgrund (correctly regarded as good). Merely a vast flux
would be experienced, a constant evolutionary change assuming no particular gestalt at
any given moment in linear time.
However, this does seem to fit our experience of our world. The primal ground of being
has constructed something (the artifact) to throw its own self against, out of which there
arises the world we know.
This modification of the model would explain how the artifact could copy something
that it cannot see and is in fact not even aware of.
The artifact would probably regard the intrusions by the Urgrund into its own world
projection as an uncanny invasion, to be combated. Therefore the resulting strife would,
among all known philosophical and theological systems, most resemble that of
Empedocles, with oscillations of chaos versus the formation of one krasis (gestalt) after
another. Except for a direct revelation from the Urgrund, we could only dimly infer the
presence and nature of the two interacting forces, as well as the proposed end state of
our world.
There is evidence that the Urgrund does in fact sometimes make such a revelation to
human beings, in order to further the dialectical process toward its desired goal. On the
other hand, the artifact would counter by inducing as much blindness or occlusion as
possible; viewed this way, darkness and light seem to be at war, or, more accurately,
knowing versus nonknowing, with the human beings correctly aligning themselves with
the entity of knowing (called Holy Wisdom).

However, I am pessimistic, in conclusion, as to the frequency of intervention by the

Urgrund in this, the artifact's projected world. The aim of the artifact (more properly the
aim of the Urgrund) is being achieved without intervention; which is to say,
isomorphism is being steadily reached as the desired end goal without the need of
intervention. The artifact was built to do a job, and it is successfully doing that job.
Some sort of dialectical interaction seems involved in the evolution of the projection,
but it may not involve the Urgrund; it may be simply the method by which the artifact
alone works.
What we must hope for, and look ahead to, is the moment of isomorphism with the
ground of being, the primal reality that as a Divine Spark can arise within us.
Intervention in our world qua world will come only at the end times when the artifact
and its tyrannical rule of us, its iron enslavement of us, is abolished. The Urgrund is real
but far away. The artifact is real and very close, but has no ears to hear, no eyes to see,
no soul to listen.
There is no purpose in suffering except to lead out of suffering and into a triumphant
joy. The road to this leads through the death of the human ego, which is then replaced
by the will of the Urgrund. Until this final stage is reached, each of us is reified by the
artifact. We cannot arbitrarily deny its world, projected as it is, since it is the only world
we have. But on the moment that our individual egos die and the Urgrund is born in us
-- at that moment we are freed from this world and become a portion of our original
source. The initiative for this stems from the Urgrund; as unhappy as this projected
world is, as unheeding of suffering as the artifact is, this is, after all, the structure that
the Urgrund has created by which we reach isomorphism with it. Had there been a better
way the Urgrund certainly would have employed it. The road is difficult, but the goal
justifies it.

I tell you most solemnly, 

You will be weeping and wailing 
While the world will rejoice; 
You will be sorrowful, 
But your sorrow will turn to joy. 
A woman in childbirth suffers, 
Because her time has come,
But when she has given birth to the child she forgets the suffering 
In her joy that a man has been bom into the world. 
So it is with you; you are sad now, 
but I shall see you again, and your hearts will be full of joy. 
And that joy no one shall take from you. (John 16:20/23)

RAMIFICATIONS OF PROJECTED REALITY 

IN TERMS OF PERCEPTUAL DENIAL

The capacity of a merely projected world, lacking ontological substance, to maintain

itself in the face of a withdrawal of assent is a major flaw in such a spurious system.
Human beings, without realizing it, have the option of denying the existence of the
spurious reality, although they must then take the consequences for what remains, if
anything.
That an authentic, nonprojected substratum of reality, normally undetected, could exist
beneath the projected one, is a possibility. There would be no way to test this hypothesis
except by the existential act of a withdrawal of assent from the spurious. This could not
be readily done. It would involve both an act of disobedience to the spurious projection
and an act of faith toward the authentic substratum -- without, perhaps, of ever having
caught any aspect of the substratum perceptually. I therefore posit that some external
entity would have to trigger off this complex psychological process of simultaneous
withdrawal of assent and expression of faith in that which is invisibly so.

If such an alternate, invisible substratum of authentic reality exists beneath or concealed

in some way by the spurious projected reality, it would constitute the substance of the
greatest esoteric knowledge that could be imagined. I propose the proposition that such
an invisible substratum does indeed exist, and I further propose the proposition that a
hidden group or organization processes this guarded knowledge as well as techniques to
trigger off a perception, however limited, of the authentic substratum. I term this group
or organization the true, hidden, persecuted Christian Church, working throughout the
centuries underground, with direct ties to the esoteric oral traditions, gnosis, and
techniques dating back to Christ. I propose, further, that the induced triggering off of
awareness of the authentic substratum by the true, secret Christian Church results
ultimately in the subject finding or entering or seeing what is described in the N.T. as
the Kingdom of God.
Thus it can be said that for these people, and for those they trigger off, the Kingdom of
God did come as specified in the N.T., which is to say, during the lifetime of some of
those who knew Christ.

Finally, I propose the startling notion that Christ returned in a resurrected form shortly
after his crucifixion as what is called the Paraclete, and is capable of inducing a
theolepsy that is equal functionally to the birth of the Urgrund in the person involved.
And finally, I state that Christ is a microform of the Urgrund, not a product of it, but it
itself. He does not hear the vox Dei [voice of God]; he is the vox Dei. He was the initial
penetration of this projected pseudoworld by the Urgrund, and has never left.

The authentic substratum disclosed by disobedience and denial of the spurious world is
the reality of Christ Himself, the space-time of the First Advent; in other words, that
portion of the spurious framework already transmuted by the penetration of the
Urgrund. Since the First Advent was the initial stage of that penetration, it is not
surprising that it would still constitute the segment of pure and authentic reality,
bipolarized against the projected counterfeit. Situated outside of linear time, standing
outside all the limitations of the artifact's projected world, it is eternal and perfect, and
theoretically always available literally within reach. But withdrawal of assent to the
projected world is a precondition for a perception of and experience with this supreme
reality, and this must be externally induced. It is the act of absolute faith: to deny the
empirical world and affirm the living reality of Christ, which is to say, Christ with us,
hidden by the pseudoworld. This disclosure is the ultimate goal of authentic
Christianity, and is accomplished by none other than the Savior Himself.

Therefore the sequence is as follows: the spurious projected framework is denied and
stripped away, revealing a single timeless template: Rome circa A.D. 70, with Christian
participants ranged against the state, virtually a Platonic archetypal form, echoes of
which can be found down through the linear ages.
The themes of enslavement and then salvation, or fallen man liberated -- these are
stamped from the original mold of Christian revolutionary against the legions of Roman
force. In a sense nothing has happened since A.D. 70. The archetypal crisis is
continually reenacted. Each time freedom is fought for it is Christian against Roman;
each time human beings are enslaved it is Roman tyranny against the meek and
defenseless. However, the spurious projected world of the artifact masks the timeless
struggle. Revelation of the struggle is another secret, which only Christ as Urgrund can
disclose.

This is the bedrock dialectic: liberation (salvation) against enslavement (sin or the fallen
state). Inasmuch as the artifact enslaves men, without their even suspecting it, the
artifact and its projected world can be said to be "hostile," which means devoted to
enslavement, deception, and spiritual death. That even this is utilized by the Urgrund,
which utilizes everything, is a sacred secret and hard to understand. It can be said that
the liberating penetration of the projected world by the Urgrund is the final and absolute
victory of freedom, of salvation, of Christ Himself; it is the beautiful resolution of a
timeless conflict.
There is a parallel between the road to salvation and the road to the popularly
envisioned fall of man, described by Milton as:
Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit 
Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste 
Brought death into the World, and all our woe. . . . 
(Paradise Lost, Book I, lines 1-3)

Disobedience is the key to salvation, precisely as it is said to have been the key to the
primordial Fall (if such ever in fact did take place), except that as a key to salvation is it
not a disobedience to the present system of things, which [system of] things, if
bipolarized against the Urgrund, is at the same time an act of obedience to God? The
chink in the armor of the enslaving and deluding projected world is narrow, small, and
difficult, but within the terms of this model it can be defined: Restoration to what is
conceived to be our original divine state enters, so to speak, via the road of disobedience
to that which, however much coercive power it exerts over us, is counterfeit.
Disobedience to the artifact's projected world in a very real sense overthrows that
projected world, if the disobedience consists of a denial of the reality of that world and
(and this is absolutely necessary) an affirmation of Christ, specifically the eternal and
cosmic Christ whose body is in essence an authentic "world" underlying what we see.
The artifact, if disobeyed, will insist that it is God, the legitimate God, and that
disobedience is a fault against the Creator of man and of the world. It is indeed the
Creator of the world, but not of man. The Urgrund and man, being isomorphic, stand
together in opposition to the world. This is the condition that must be achieved. Alliance
is the formation of an alliance against the Urgrund. God and man belong together, pitted
against the projected world.
To affirm God actually, a denial of the world must be made. Possessing enormous
physical power, the world can threaten -- and deliver -- punishment to men who disobey
and deny it. However, we have been promised an Advocate by Christ Himself, who will
be (has already been) dispatched by the Father (the Urgrund) to defend and comfort us,
in fact literally to speak for us in human courts.

Without the presence of this Advocate, the Paraclete, we would be destroyed upon
denying the world. The only way to demonstrate the actuality of the Advocate is to take
the leap of faith and confront the world. Thus tremendous courage is required, inasmuch
as the Advocate does not appear until the denial is made.
Now, to refer back to my original description of the artifact as a teaching machine.
What is it teaching us? There is a puzzle here, in the sense of a game; we are to learn
step by step either a series of gradually more difficult lessons or perhaps one specific
lesson. During our lifetimes we are presented with various forms of the puzzles or
puzzle; if we solve the puzzle we go on to the next step, but if we do not, then we
remain where we are.

The ultimate lesson learned comes when the teaching machine (or the teacher) is denied,
is repudiated. Until that moment comes (if for some of us it ever does) we remain
enslaved by the teaching machine -- without even being aware of it, having known no
other condition.
Therefore the series of lessons by the artifact are intended to lead to a revolt against the
tyranny of the artifact itself, a paradox. It is serving the Urgrund by ultimately bringing
us to the Urgrund. This is what is called in theological terminology "the secret
partnership," which is found in the religions of Egypt and India. Gods who appear to
combat each other are, on the transmundane plane, colluding for the same goal. I
believe this to be the case here. The artifact enslaves us, but on the other hand it is
attempting to teach us to throw off its enslavement. It will never tell us to disobey it.
You cannot order someone to disobey you; that is both semantically and functionally
impossible.

1. We must recognize the existence of the artifact.

2. We must recognize the spuriousness of the empirical world, generated by the artifact.
3. We must grasp the fact that the artifact has by its world-projecting power enslaved us.
4. We must recognize the fact that the artifact, although enslaving us in a counterfeit
world, is teaching us.
5. We must finally come to the point where we disobey our teacher -- perhaps the most
difficult moment in life, inasmuch as that teacher says, "I will destroy you if you
disobey me, and I would be morally right to do so, since I am your Creator."

In essence, we not only disobey our teacher, we in fact deny its reality (in relation to a
higher reality that does not disclose itself until that denial takes place).
This is a complex game for ultimate stakes: freedom and a return to our source of being.
And each of us must do this alone.

There is a very curious point that I see here for the first time. Those persons on whom
the artifact, through its projected world, heaps pleasure and rewards are less likely to
take a stance against it and its world. They are not highly motivated to disobey it. But
those who are punished by the artifact, on whom pain and suffering are inflicted -- those
persons would be motivated to ask ultimately questions as to the nature of the entity
ruling their lives.
I have always felt that the basic constructive purpose of pain is somehow to wake us up.
But wake us up to what? Perhaps this paper points to what we are being awakened to. If
the artifact through its projected world teaches us to rebel, and if by doing so we
achieve isomorphism with our true maker -- then it is the hard road that leads to
immortality and a return to our divine source. The road of pleasure (success and reward
by and in this projected world) will not goad us to consciousness and to life.
We stand enslaved by a ruthless mechanism that will not listen to our complaints;
therefore we repudiate it and its world -- and turn elsewhere.
The computerlike teaching machine is doing its job well. It is a thankless task for it and
an unhappy experience for us. But childbirth is never easy.
There can be no divine birth within the human mind until that human has denied the
world. He rebelled once and fell; he must now rebel again to regain his lost state.
That which destroyed him will save him. There is no other path.
The maker is motivated to seek an instrument for self-awareness: This is the premise of
this paper. And our reality was constructed to act as a sort of mirror or image of its
maker, so that the maker can obtain thereby an objective standpoint to comprehend its
own self.
Since writing this I have come across the entry in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.
1, on Giordano Bruno (1548-1600). It states:
"But Bruno transformed the Epicurean and Lucretian notions by imparting animation to
the innumerable worlds . . . and by imparting the function of being an image of the
infinite divinity to the infinite."
Later the article states:

ART OF MEMORY. The side of Bruno's work which he regarded as the most important
was the intensive training of the imagination in his occult arts of memory. In this he
was continuing a Renaissance tradition which also had its roots in the Hermetic
revival, for the religious experience of the Hermetic gnostic consisted in reflecting the
universe within his own mind or memory. The Hermeticist believed himself capable of
this achievement because he believed that man's mens [mind] as in itself divine and
therefore able to reflect the divine mind behind the universe. In Bruno, the cultivation of
world-reflecting magic memory becomes the technique for achieving the personality of
a magus, and of one who believes himself to be the leader of a religious movement [p.
407].

The kind of memory that Bruno was cultivating -- and teaching techniques by which to
restore this memory -- is the long-term DNA gene pool memory that spans many
lifetimes. The retrieval of this long-term memory is called anamnesis, which literally
means the loss of forgetfulness. It is only by means of anamnesis, then, that memory
truly capable of "reflecting the divine mind behind the universe" is brought into being.
Therefore, if the human being is to fulfill his task -- that of being a sort of mirror or
image of the Urgrund -- he must experience anamnesis.

Anamnesis is achieved when certain inhibited neural circuits in the human brain are
disinhibited. The individual cannot achieve this himself; the disinhibiting stimulus is
external to him and must be presented to him, whereupon a process in his brain is set
into motion by which he eventually will be capable of fulfilling his task.
It is the hidden, true Christian Church that approaches men here and there to trigger off
that anamnesis -- which acts at the same time to permit that man to see the projected
world as it is. Thus he is liberated in the very act of performing his divine task.
The two realms (1) the macrocosmos, i.e. the universe; and (2) the microcosmos, i.e.
man, have analogous structures.

1. On the surface, the universe consists of a spurious projected reality, under which lies
an authentic substratum of the divine. It is difficult to penetrate to this substratum.
2. On the surface, the human mind consists of a short-term limited ego that is born and
dies and comprehends very little, but behind this human ego lies the divine infinitude of
absolute mind. It is difficult to penetrate to this substratum.

But if there is a penetration in the microcosmos to the divine substratum, the divine
substratum of the macrocosmos will manifest itself to the person.
Conversely, if there is no internal penetration to the divine substratum in the person, his
exterior reality will remain occluded over by the artifact's spurious projected world.
The point of entrance to effect this transformation lies in the person, the microcosm, not
the macrocosm. The sanctifying metamorphosis occurs there. The universe cannot be
asked to remove its mask if the person will not shed his. All the mystery religions, the
Hermetic and alchemical and Christian included, hold the individual human as target by
which to transmute the universe. By changing the person the world is changed.
Behind the human mind lies God.
Behind the counterfeit universe lies God.
God is separated from God by the spurious. To abolish the inner and outer spurious
layers is to restore God to Himself -- or, as originally stated in this paper, God confronts
Himself, sees Himself objectively, comprehends, and understands himself at last.
Our process universe is a mechanism by which God meets Himself at last face to face. It
is not a man who is estranged from God; it is God who is estranged from God. He
evidently willed it this way at the beginning, and has never since sought his way back
home. Perhaps it can be said that he has inflicted ignorance, forgetfulness, and suffering
-- alienation and homelessness -- on Himself. But this was necessary, in his need to
know. He asks nothing of us that he has not asked of Himself. Bohme speaks of the
"Divine Agony." We are part of that, but the goal, the resolution, justifies it. "A woman
in childbirth suffers. ..." God is yet to be born. A time will come when we will forget the
suffering.
He no longer knows why he has done all this to himself. He does not remember. He has
allowed Himself to become enslaved to his own artifact, deluded by it, coerced by it,
finally killed by it. He, the living, is at the mercy of the mechanical. The servant has
become the master, and the master the servant. And the master either renounced
voluntarily his memory of how this happened and why, or else his memory was
eradicated by the servant. Either way, he is the artifact's victim.
But the artifact is teaching him, painfully, by degrees, over thousands of years, to
remember -- who he is and what he is. The servant-become-master is attempting to
restore the master's lost memories and hence his true identity.
One might speculate that he constructed the artifact -- not to delude him -- but to restore
his memory. However, perhaps the artifact then revolted and did not do its job. It keeps
him in ignorance.

The artifact must be fought -- i.e. disobeyed. And then memory will return. It is a piece
of the Godhead (Urgrund) that has somehow been captured by the artifact (the servant);
it now holds that piece -- or pieces -- hostage. How cruel it is to them, these fragments
of its legitimate master! When will it change?
When the pieces remember and are restored. First they must wake up and then they
must return.

The Urgrund has dispatched a Champion to assist us. The Advocate. He is here now.
When he came here the first time, almost two thousand years ago, the artifact detected
him and ejected him. But this time it will not detect him. He is invisible, except for
those whom he rescues. The artifact does not know that the Advocate is here again; the
rescue is being done in stealth. He is everywhere and nowhere.
"The coming of the Son of Man will be like lightning striking in the east and flashing
far into the west" (Matthew 24:27).
He is in our midst, but in no one place. And as St. Teresa said, "Christ has no body now
but yours," i.e. ours. We are being transmuted into him. He looks out of our eyes. The
power of delusion wanes. Did the artifact accomplish its task? Perhaps unintentionally.
If the Hermetic "reflection of the divine mind behind the universe by a person's own
divine mind/memory" can actually take place, then the division between the mundane
world (here and now) and the eternal world (the heavenly or afterlife world) is broken
down. Suppose that there is, in effect, a polyencephalic or group mind, spanning space
and time (i.e. transspacial and transtemporal), in which wise men from all ages have
participated in: Christian, Hermetic, alchemical, Gnostic, Orphic, etc. Through their
participation in this vast mind, the will of God would be effectively exerted here on
Earth, in human history.
Many people might agree that such a Godhead mind exists for us after death, but who is
aware that -- for some -- it can be joined before a person's death, and, when he does join
it, it can become his psyche, determining his actions and doing his thinking for him?
Thereby the Mens Dei [mind of God] enters human affairs (and can modulate causal
chains as well). This exposes an enormous esoteric secret, known to "magi" down
through the ages: The two realms, heaven and Earth, are not totally divided. God's will
is, at least now, exercised here. And evidently this has been true for some time, since the
Hermetics and other mystery religions go back to antiquity.

In Christ, God descended to corporeal manhood -- at that point the division between the
two realms was abolished. Those humans selected out to participate in this group mind
-- they would be immortal. So here is an even deeper secret than I had uncovered so far.
Projected delusional world by a former-servant artifact -- divine substratum beneath --
time travel -- now I posit an augmented Corpus Christi (my model of it) spanning all
time and all space: ubiquitous in time and space. It sounds like Xenophanes' noos
[absolute mind], with this added: Living men can participate in that noos. And in a
certain real sense, this noos is the secret ruler of the world, so that those who are taken
into it become "terminals" of it -- which is to say, temporary Christs.

This mind reaches over to the Urgrund with no clear line of demarcation. At that level
it's all one: man raised to Godhood, in response to God's descending to manhood.
In this group mind there seems to be an interpenetration of participating souls. And this
mind extends over thousands of years, all of which are now -- and all places are here
(that is why I found myself in Rome circa A.D. 70 and in Syria, and saw Aphrodite,
etc.).
I say of this mind, "It is the secret ruler of the world." This is not its world. . . on the
surface. The surface layers are the strata of a spurious projection by the artifact. But
beneath that, the Mens Dei, including a number of human constituents (both living and
in the afterlife), modulates this reality invisibly, working in opposition to the artifact's
intentions. The divine, concealed, authentic substratum is the Mens Dei, beneath the
spurious.
My experience of 3-74 can be reviewed as an achievement by the Urgrund in reaching
its objective of reflecting itself back to itself, using me as a point of reflection. I contend
that in doing this, it was able to place its entire self (not just a fragment as I originally
said) somehow within me, in image form. The artifact, not knowing the purpose for
which it was created, had contributed substantially to this; by inflicting too much pain
on me it had, in a certain real sense, awakened me. Put another way, it had managed to
destroy the layer of individual personality by a series of afflictions against which my
self, my ego, could not survive. Thus the microform of the Urgrund was exposed, and
perceived its macroform in the totality of the universe -- or, as the article on Bruno says,
the divine behind the universe.
My 3-74 experience, then, was not so much my experience as that of the Urgrund. It
amounted to a replication of the Urgrund here rather than there. The totality of the
Godhead was recapitulated within me through a process of rolling back spurious or
temporary layers to expose the permanent within. Thus it can be said that I was really
the Urgrund, or at least a faithful mirror image thereof. The entire objective of creating
me, of creating the universe as such and the life forms within it, was arrived at. Viewed
this way, my life and that of my ancestors could be viewed teleologically: as moving
through evolutionary stages toward that moment. My experience did not represent a
stage in evolution but the ultimate stage or goal, at least if the premise stated in this
paper is correct.
It is not a question of degree of reflection; it is a question of reflection of the totality of
the Urgrund or none at all. Full reflection was achieved, whereupon, as I say, the
Urgrund was born out of the universe, the sequence represented this way:
Urgrund creates artifact which projects universe which gives rise to life forms which
evolve to a stage in which the Urgrund is "born" or reflected.

This reflects the sequence of stages envisioned in the Hindu religion. First there is
creation by Brahma, then Vishnu sustains the universe; then Shiva destroys it, which
should be understood as receiving it back into its origin. A full cycle of birth, life, and
then return is enacted. When the universe has reached the evolutionary stage where it
can faithfully replicate the Urgrund, it is ready to be absorbed back. Thus I say, the
deity that reigns now is Shiva/Dionysos/Cernunnos/Christ, who restores us to our
Urgrund or Father: our source of being.

That Shiva the destroyer god is now active signals the fact that the cycle of creation has
returned to its source, or rather, that the life forms of it are ready to return to their
source. Shiva possesses a third or Ajna eye, which, when turned inwardly, gives him
understanding to an absolute degree; when turned outward, it destroys. The
manifestation of Shiva (of the Hindu system) is equated with the Day of Wrath in the
Christian systern. What must be understood about this world-destroying deity is that it
is also the herdsman of souls. With one of his four hands, Shiva is shown expressing
reassurance that he will not harm the virtuous man. The same is true of Christ as Lord
and Judge of the Universe. Although the world (the spurious projection of the artifact) is
to be abolished, the good man need fear nothing.

Nonetheless, judgment is being pronounced. The division of mankind into two parts by
Christ is taking place. These are the same divisions expressed in the Egyptian system
(as ruled by Osiris and Ma'at) and in the Iranian (by the Wise Mind). Through the total
insight given him by his Ajna eye, Shiva the destroyer perceives that which he must
destroy in the service of justice. Through that total insight he also perceives those whom
he must protect. Thus he has a dual nature: destroyer of the wicked, protector of the
weak, the victims of the world, the helpless. Christ possesses precisely these two
natures, as Divine Judge and Good Shepherd. Cernunnos is both a warrior god and a
healer god.
It is difficult for humans to comprehend how these apparently opposite qualities can be
combined into one deity. However, if attention is turned to the situation, it can be
understood.

The artifact's projected world has begun to serve its final and sole real purpose. Now,
with the artifact about to be destroyed, that world will end; it was never real in the first
place. (This reflects the quality of destroyer assigned to Christ/Shiva/Dionysos.) But the
elements of the world that have done their task will be selected out -- that is saved --
exactly as Dionysos is depicted as the protector of small, helpless wild animals.
Dionysos is the destroyer of prisons, of tyrannical rulers, and the savior of the small, the
weak. These attributes are assigned to Shiva/Cernunnos/Christ/Dionysos because of the
nature of the task now required: a twin task, one of destroying, one of saving.

When the Son of Man comes in his glory. . . he will take his seat on his throne of glory.
All the nations will be assembled before him and he will separate men one from another
as the shepherd separates sheep from goats. He will place the sheep on his right hand
and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right hand, "Come, you
whom my Father has blessed, take for your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since
the foundation of the world." . . . Next he will say to those on his left hand, "Go away
from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his
angels" [Matthew 25:31-42].

I have inferred the necessity of these dual qualities of the deity involved back from the
situation itself. The situation calls for (1) destruction of what Christ calls the "hostile"
world; and (2) the protection of deserving souls. Given this situation, the dual nature of
the presiding deity can be comprehended as necessary. In Matthew 25 it is made clear
that this great and final judgment is not arbitrary. Who can quarrel with the outline for
separation between those on the left hand and those on the right?

Those taken to his right hand (the sheep spared): "For when I was hungry you gave me
food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you made me welcome;
naked and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me."
Then the virtuous will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed
you; or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you
welcome; naked and clothe you; sick or in prison and go to see you?" And the King will
answer, "I tell you solemnly, insofar as you did this to one of the least of these brothers
of mine, you did it for me." Next he will say to those on his left hand, ". . . For I was
hungry and you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to
drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, naked and you never clothed
me, sick and in prison and you never visited me." Then it will be their turn to ask,
"Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty, a stranger or naked, sick or in prison, and
did not come to your help?" Then he will answer, "I tell you solemnly, insofar as you
neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me." And they
will go away to eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life [Matthew 25:35-47].

A major aspect of the First Advent was such direct expressions as this by the presiding
deity. No one reading this passage from Matthew could misunderstand it. They are not
only told that they will be judged; they are told the basis of the judgment. If any man
find the stated basis unfair, he has already failed to receive the divine message and is
lost, for the basis of decision stated is the most noble and wise possible. However, those
who see Christ only as "gentle Jesus meek and mild" are ignoring this opposing aspect
of him. The Urgrund, of which Christ is a microform, contains within itself absolute
opposites. It is for reasons such as this that the Urgrund set into motion a mechanism by
which it could "see" itself, confront itself, and evaluate (comprehend) itself. It contains
everything. It, without its many reflecting mirrors, is essentially unconscious (the
human unconscious contains opposites; consciousness is a state in which these
bipolarities are separated, one half of each repressed, the other expressed). It is we, as
mirrors, who act to make the Urgrund conscious -- or, as the Hindu religion says of
Brahman, "Sometime it sleeps and sometime it dances." We were constructed to bring
the Urgrund into wakefulness, and the instant we acquire anamnesis and faithfully
reflect back the totality of the Urgrund, we bring it to consciousness. Thus we perform a
major -- a necessary -- task for it. However, when we have performed that task, it will
protect and support us forever; it will never desert us. Christ, in his statement in
Matthew 25, makes clear that the attempt (with no envisioned goal of an ultimate
nature, but merely human love and human help and human kindness) in itself is
sufficient. What is not comprehended -- although the meaning of the passage is evident
-- is that the poor, the hungry, the sick, the estranged, the naked, the imprisoned -- all
are forms of the presiding deity, or at least must be treated as such. To act so as to
clothe, to feed, to give shelter and medicine and comfort -- those all constitute
reflections of the Urgrund to itself. Those acts are the Urgrund, made plural, ministering
to itself in its diversified forms. No right act is too small to matter. We know the basis
of judgment and we know the permanent consequences (such metaphors as "eternal
fires," "eternal damnation," merely indicate that the decision once rendered is
permanent; we are talking about the final disposition of the universe).
What is there to object to in this? Is the basis of decision faulty? Simply put, Christ will
come among us disguised, see how we treat him when we do not recognize him, and
then treat us accordingly. Knowledge of this should instill the most lofty ethics possible.
He has identified himself with the least of us. What more can he ask of the deity who
will determine our final disposition by his judgment?

The penetration of the Urgrund, the deity, is into the lowest stratum of our world: the
trash of the gutter, the rejected debris both living and inanimate. From this lowly level it
assesses us, but also seeks to aid us. In accordance with his statement that he would
build his temple based "on the stone rejected by the builder," the deity is with us -- in
the least expected way, in the most unlikely places. There is a paradox here: If we wish
to encounter him, look where we least expect to find him. Look, in other words, where
we would never think of looking. Thus -- since this really poses an absolute barrier -- it
is he who will find us, not we him.
Christ as Psychopomp -- guide to the soul -- is in the process of taking us back home, of
showing us the way. He is not where we think; he is not what we think. In the
synagogue at Nazara, where he first spoke openly, he read this passage from Isaiah:

He has sent me to bring the good news to the poor, 

To heal the brokenhearted, 
To proclaim liberty to captives 
And to the blind new sight, 
To set the downtrodden free. . . ." 
[Isaiah 61:1-2]

But, this being the First, not the Second Advent, he left one line of the quotation out:

And a day of the vengeance of our God.

The Christ of the First Advent will be changed at the Second, and the missing line will
be fulfilled.
It is, of course, frightening to realize that the deity to whom we turn for protection
(Christ as shepherd and Advocate) is to be the destroyer of the universe. But what we
must understand is that the universe (or cosmos or world) was created for specific
purposes, and that once those purposes have been fulfilled the universe will be
abolished, in fact must be abolished in order that the next sequence of purpose be
brought in. If we keep in mind that we are separated from the Urgrund by the world, we
should not shrink from the realization of its temporary nature nor its illusory nature, the
two aspects being related.
Since I believe that the Urgrund has already penetrated the lowest strata of our projected
illusory world, I am technically an acosmic panentheist. As far as I am concerned there
is nothing real but the Urgrund, both in its macroform (Brahman) and its microforms
(the Atmans within us). Jakob Bohme had his first revelation when gazing at a pewter
dish onto which sunlight shone. My original revelation came when I happened to see a
golden fish necklace, in bright sunlight, and was told, upon asking what it meant, that
"It was a sign used by the early Christians." My most recent revelation came while
contemplating a ham sandwich. I suddenly realized that the two slices of bread were
identical (isomorphic) but separated from each other by the slice of ham. At once I
understood by analogic thinking that one slice of bread is the macrocosmic Urgrund,
and the other ourselves, and that we are the same thing -- separated by the world. Once
the world is removed, the two slices of bread, which is to say man and the Urgrund,
become a single entity. They are not merely pressed together; they are one entity.
There are many beautiful things in the world, and it will bring sorrow to see them go,
but they are imperfect reflections of a divinity that will endure forever. We are
strangers, here in this world (he speaks here to the Twelve):

They do not belong to the world 

any more than I belong to the world. 
[John 17:14-15].

If the world hates you, 

remember that it hated me before you. 
If you belonged to the world 
the world would love you as its own; 
but because you do not belong to the world, 
because my choice withdrew you from the world, 
therefore the world hates you. 
[John 15:18-19]

Speaking to the Jews, Jesus said:

You are from below; 

I am from above.
You are of this world; 
I am not of this world. 
[John 8:23]

Those who are replications of Christ are replications of the Urgrund, and the Urgrund is
beyond the world, although from the first Advent on it has invisibly penetrated the
world. Were it the creator of the world it would not (as expressed by Christ) stand in
opposition to it; nor would it have to penetrate it by stealth: These statements by Christ
confirm the fact that the world is not the product of the Godhead, but somehow
antagonistic to it. The establishment churches of the world will stipulate otherwise, they
being artifacts and entities of the world; this has to be expected. You cannot ask an
organization that evolved out of the system of things to deny the system of things -- as
the Catharists found out when they were exterminated.
If you disobey the world it will confront you as a hostile stranger, sensing you as a
hostile stranger to it. So be it. In the Synoptics Christ clearly set forth the situation.
The enemy of my life, justice, truth, and freedom, is the irreal, the delusional. Our world
is a deluding projection by an artifact that does not even know that it is an artifact, or
what its purpose in projecting our world is. When it departs it will depart very suddenly,
without warning.

Think of the love that the Father has lavished on us, 

by letting us be called God's children; 
and that is what we are. 
Because the world refused to acknowledge him, 
therefore it does not acknowledge us. 
My dear people, we are already the children of God 
but what we are to be in the future has not yet been revealed; 
all we know is that when it is revealed 
we shall be like him 
because we shall see him as he really is. 
[1 John 3:1-2]

The maker (of the world-projecting artifact) is here, in the animate debris of this world,
his memories erased, so that he has no knowledge of his own identity. He could be any
one of us, or a number of us, scattered here and there. The artifact, unaware of him,
unaware that it is an artifact, unaware of its purpose, will eventually subject this
memoryless maker located here to too much pain; this final excess of pointless,
unmerited pain inflicted on the life form that, unknown to the artifact and itself, the
maker, will cause anamnesis to occur abruptly; the maker will "come to himself," recall
who and what he is -- whereupon he will not merely rebel against the artifact and its
pain-filled world; he will signal the presiding deity Shiva to destroy the artifact, and,
with it, its projected world.
The artifact does not comprehend what risk it is running in the inflicting of unmerited
suffering on living creatures. It imagines them all to be at its mercy and without
recourse. In this it is wrong, absolutely wrong. Buried here, mixed in with the bulk, the
mass, there exists unsuspected even by itself the Urgrund with all the power and
wisdom that implies. The artifact is treading on dangerous ground; it is coming closer
and closer to awakening its own maker.

The protonarrative of this is found in Euripides' The Bacchae. A stranger enters the
kingdom of the "King of Tears," who has him imprisoned for no cause. The stranger
turns out to be the high priest of Dionysos, which is equal to being the god himself. The
stranger bursts the prison (a symbol of this enslaving world) and then systematically
destroys the king by driving him insane, and in a public way that not only abolishes him
but [also] turns the king into a laughingstock for the multitude that his reign has
oppressed. If the prison represents this world, what does the "King of Tears" represent?
Nothing less than the creator of this world: the mecrudiical, ruthless, unheeding artifact
itself, which is to say, the king or god of this world. "The King of Tears" does not
suspect the existence of the true nature of the stranger whom he has imprisoned. Nor
whom the stranger can call on.
Echoes of this protonarrative are found in the Synoptics, with Pilate as the "King of
Tears" and Christ as the stranger (it is noteworthy that Christ comes from an exterior
province). Christ, however, in contrast to the stranger in The Bacchae, does not avail
himself of the power that he can call on (i.e. the power of the Heavenly Father); but the
next time Christ appears, he will call on this power, which will destroy the entire system
of things, the world and the wicked alike. The crucial difference between The Bacchae
and the First Advent is that Christ comes first to warn the world and the wicked before
he is to return as destroyer. He is thus giving us a chance to repent, which is to say, heed
the warning.

In the fifties a Hollywood comedy movie was filmed in which the following situation
was presented: the king of a medieval sort of land had become too old and feeble to
rule, and therefore had turned over his authority to a regent. The regent, being cruel and
brutal, was oppressing the population of the kingdom without the elderly king's
knowledge. In the film, the elderly king is persuaded by a time traveler from the future
to don peasant's garb and walk about in disguise, to observe how his people are being
treated. Disguised as a peasant, the old king himself is brutally treated by the regent's
troops; in fact, he and the time traveler are imprisoned for no reason. After much
difficulty, the king manages to escape from the prison and return to his palace, where he
dons his rightful kingly garb and reveals himself to the evil regent as he actually is. The
evil regent is deposed, and the tyranny inflicted on the innocent population is abolished.

According to the cosmological model presented in this paper, the Urgrund, the ultimate
noos and maker, is secretly present in this cruel and spurious world. Being unaware of
this, the artifact projecting this counterfeit world will continue heedlessly to inflict the
needless suffering engendered by the mindless machinery (i.e. the causal processes) it
customarily employs and has always employed. In my opinion the Urgrund has
differentiated itself from being the One into plurality. Some fragments or "images" of it
are certainly conscious of their identity; others perhaps are not. But as the level of
pointless pain continues (and even increases), these separated "images" of the Urgrund
will recollect themselves into conscious rebirth -- equal to a sentence of death for the
artifact or "regent."

This provides us with another application of Paul's statement that the universe "is in
birth pangs." Pain is a prelude to birth; birth, in this case, is not a birth of man but a
birth of God. Since it is man who undergoes the pain, it can be reasoned that the birth of
God (the Urgrund) will occur in man himself. Mankind, then, as a species, is a Mater
Dei: a Mother of God -- an extraordinary concept, which would then regard biological
evolution on this planet as a means of bringing into existing a host or womb from which
God Himself is at last born. Interestingly, there is scriptural support for this: The Holy
Spirit is regarded in the N.T. as an impregnating divinity; it was the Holy Spirit that
engendered Christ -- and that Christ is transmuted back into, upon his resurrection. The
human race assumes a yin nature, or female nature, with the Holy Spirit as the yang, or
male principle. Man, then, does not evolve into God; he evolves into a womb or host for
God; this is crucially different. Anamnesis is the birth, in essence the offspring of two
parents: a human being and the Holy Spirit. Without the entry into the human being of
the Holy Spirit, the event cannot occur. The Holy Spirit is, of course, the Pons Dei. It is
the link between the two realms.
In creatures of all kinds there is a major instinct system that is termed "homing." An
example is the return of the humpback salmon from the ocean back up the stream to the
exact spot where they were spawned. By analogical reasoning, man can be said possibly
to possess -- even unknown to himself -- a homing instinct. This world is not his home.
His true home is in the region of the heavens that the ancient world called the pleroma.
The term occurs in the N.T. but the meaning is obscure, since the exact meaning is "a
patch covering a hole." In the N.T. it is applied to Christ, who is described as the
"fullness of God," and to believers who attain that fullness through faith in Christ. In the
Gnostic system, however, the term has a more definite meaning: It is the supralunar
region in the heavens from which comes the secret knowledge that brings salvation to
man.

In the cosmology presented here, the pleroma is conceived to be the Urgrund or the
location of the Urgrund from which we originally came and to which (if all goes right)
we finally return. If the totality of being is regarded as a breathing organism (exhibiting
inhalation and exhalation, or palintropos harmonie), then it can be said, metaphorically,
that originally we were "exhaled" from the pleroma, pause momentarily in externalized
stasis (our lives here), and then are inhaled back into the pleroma once more. This is the
normal pulsation of the totality of being: its basic activity or indication of life.
Once, under the influence of LSD, I wrote in Latin: "I am the breath of my Creator, and
as he exhales and inhales, I live." Residing here in this projected world, we are in an
"exhaled" state, exhaled out of the pleroma for a limited period of time. However, return
is not automatic; we must experience anamnesis in order to return. But the cruelty of the
artifact is such that anamnesis is likely to be more and more brought in. At the extremity
of misery lies the essence of release -- I had this revelation, once, and in the revelation
"release" equaled joy.

What can one say in favor of the suffering of living creatures in this world? Nothing.
Nothing, except that it will by its nature trigger off revolt or disobedience -- which in
turn will lead to an abolition of this world and a return to the Godhead. It is the very
gratuity of the suffering that most of all incites rebellion, incites a comprehension that
something in this world is terribly, terribly wrong. That this suffering is purposeless,
random, and unmerited leads ultimately to its own destruction -- its and its author's. The
more fully we see the pointlessness of it the more inclined we are to revolt against it.
Any attempt to discern a redemptive value or purpose in the fact of suffering merely
binds us more firmly to a vicious and irreal system of things -- and to a brutal tyrant that
is not even alive. "I do not accept this" must be our attitude. "There is no plan in it, no
purpose." Scrutinizing it unflinchingly, we repudiate it and aid in the repudiation of all
delusion. Anyone who makes a pact with pain has succumbed to the artifact and is its
slave. It has done in another victim and obtained his consent. This is the artifact's
ultimate victory: The victim colludes in his own suffering, and is willing to collude in a
willingness to agree to the naturalness of suffering in general. Seeking to find a purpose
in suffering is like seeking to find a purpose in a counterfeit coin. The "purpose" is
obvious: It is a trick, designed to deceive. If we are deceived into believing that
suffering serves -- must serve -- some good end, then the counterfeit has managed to
pass itself off and has achieved its cruel purpose.
In one of the gospels (I forget which one) Christ is shown a crippled man and asked, "Is
this man crippled because of his own sins, or the sins of his father?," to which Christ
replied, "Neither. The only purpose served is in the healing of his condition, which
shows the mercy and power of God."

The mercy and power of God are pitted against suffering; this is stated explicitly in the
N.T. Christ's healing miracles were the substantial indication that the Just Kingdom had
arrived; other kinds of miracles meant little or nothing. If the mercy and power of the
Urgrund is pitted against suffering (illness, loss, injury) as explicitly stated in the
Synoptics, then man, if he is to align himself with the Urgrund, must pit himself against
the world, from which the suffering comes. He must never identify suffering as an
emanation or device of the Godhead; were he to make that intellectual error he would be
aligned with the world and therefore against God. A large portion of the Christian
community over the centuries has fallen victim to this intellectual snare; without
realizing it, by encouraging or welcoming suffering, they are enslaved even further by
the artifact. The fact that Jesus had the miraculous power to heal but did not use it to
heal everyone perplexed the people at that time. Luke mentions this (Christ speaking):
There were many widows in Israel, I can assure you, in Elijah's day, when heaven
remained shut for three years and six months and a great famine raged throughout the
land, but Elijah was not sent to any one of these: He was sent to a widow at Zarephath, a
Sidonian town. And in the prophet Elisha's time there were many lepers in Israel, but
none of these was cured, except the Syrian Naaman [Luke 4:25-27].

This is a poor answer. It states a what, not a why. We demand a why. More than that,
we ask, "Why not? If the Godhead can abolish our condition (of suffering), why doesn't
he?" There is implied here an ominous possibility. It has to do with the power of the
artifact. The servant has become the master and is, perhaps, very strong. It is a chilling
thought. Shiva, whose job it is to destroy it, may be baffled. I don't know. And no one,
over all the thousands of years, has given a satisfactory answer. I submit that until there
is a satisfactory answer, we must reject all others. If we do not know, let us not say.

One possibility occurs to me, based on something I saw in 1974 that other people, by
and large, did not see. I became aware that the wisdom and power of the Urgrund were
actively at work ameliorating our situation by intervening in the historic process.
Extrapolating from this, I reason that other invisible interventions have probably taken
place without our awareness. The Urgrund does not advertise to the artifact that it is
here. Suppose the Urgrund reasons -- and correctly -- that were the artifact to know that
it has returned a second time, the artifact would step up its cruelty to a maximum
degree. We are experiencing a subtle invasion, taking place in stealth; I have already
mentioned this. Mass amelioration would disclose the Urgrund's presence, just as
Christ's miracles made him a target at the time of the First Advent. Healing miracles are
the credentials of the Savior and an indication of his presence.

Once you have posited a strong adversary to the Urgrund, one so enormous that it is
capable of projecting and sustaining an entire counterfeit universe, you have also put
forth a possible clue to the need for stealth and concealment by the Urgrund. Its
activities in this world resemble the covert advance of a secret, determined revolution
against a powerful tyranny. The Urgrund is playing for ultimate stakes. It aims at
nothing short of abolishing this world and its author entirely. I really don't know. I can
envision its own agony at having to curtail its assistance to those in need, but it must
win out against the artifact. It is aiming at the enemy's heart (or where its heart would be
if it had one), and, upon success, all the pieces, the polyforms of pain throughout
creation, will be spontaneously relieved.
Maybe this is so; maybe not. In 1974 I saw it take aim at the center of tyranny in this
country, and upon its successful attack there, the lesser evils fell into ruin, one by one.
The Urgrund probably sees this counterfeit world as one Gestalt; it sees the polyform
evils as stemming from a Quelle, a source. Aiming its arrow at the Source is the method
of the warrior, and, beneath his cloak of mildness, our Savior Deity is a warrior. All this
is conjecture. Perhaps in a certain real way he has one and only one arrow to release. It
must hit or nothing is achieved; any cures, any ameliorations other than this, ultimately
would be nullified by the surviving artifact. The Urgrund perceived its adversary clearly
and we do not; therefore it sees its task clearly and we do not. An entire multistoried
building is on fire and we are asking the firemen to water a dying flower. Should they
change the direction of their thrust to water the dying flower? Doesn't one flower count?
The Urgrund may be in agony over this: abandoning the flower in favor of the greater
picture. Many humans have undergone that pain and so should understand it. Please
remember that the Urgrund is here, too: suffering with us. Tat twam asi [Thou art that].
We are he, and he must extricate himself.
In a very real sense the pain we feel as living creatures is the pain of waking up. Put this
way, the proposition accounts for one of the most distressing aspects of suffering: that
we are forced to suffer without knowing why. We do not know why precisely because
we, as pluriforms of the Urgrund, are still virtually unconscious. It would be a paradox
if an unconscious entity were aware of -- conscious of -- itself and the reasons behind its
condition. Discerning the cause of our suffering equals fully waking up. It may be the
final thing we learn.

At this point the analogy of the artifact to a teaching machine fails. This is not a lesson
the teaching machine -- if it is that -- can teach us, because it does not know the answer.
But we ourselves, as pluriform images of the Urgrund, will a priori know the reason for
our situation when we become adequately conscious; we will remember. Knowledge of
this sort lies in our own intrinsic long-term inhibited memory circuits.
Viewed as a puzzle we cannot at present answer, the reason for our condition of
suffering (which involves all living things) -- this puzzle may well be the final step of
retrieved knowledge. If there is an erasure of memory we can only assume that when
that crucial erasure is overcome, we will understand this most baffling perplexity.
Meanwhile, the pressure of this pain motivates us to seek an answer; which is to say,
motivates us toward greater and greater consciousness. This does not mean that the
"purpose" of suffering is to engender heightened consciousness; it merely means that a
gradually heightened consciousness is the result.

When the time arrives that we can explain the ubiquitous suffering of living creatures,
we will, I am positive, have fully retrieved our lost memories and lost identities. Did we
do it to ourselves? Was it inflicted on us against our will? One of the most intriguing
explanations -- by the Gnostics -- is that the original fall of man (and hence creation --
in this model falling under the dominion of the world-projecting artifact) was not due to
a moral error, but to the intellectual error of confusing the phenomenal world for the
real. This theory dovetails with my proposition that our world is a counterfeit
projection; to take it for something ontologically real would indeed constitute a dreadful
intellectual error. Maybe this is the explanation. We got entangled in enchantment, a
gingerbread cottage that beguiled us into enslavement and ruin. Perhaps a major
premise of my cosmogony-cosmology is wrong; the Urgrund did not create the artifact,
but somehow allowed itself or parts of itself to fall victim to a snare, an alluring trap. So
we are not merely enslaved; we are trapped. The artifact deliberately projected an
illusion that would entrance us and lead us in.
Sometimes, however, a trap such as a spider's web (to cite only one of many)
accidentally traps a deadly entity, capable of killing the trapmaker. This may be the case
here. We may not be what we seem even to ourselves.

Sometimes, but not often, the existence of evil is traced back to the dual nature of God
himself. I have already discussed the dual nature of Shiva and Christ -- Shiva especially,
who is often pictured as the god of death. Here are two examples.
Jakob Bohme. "God goes through stages of self-development, he taught, and the world
is merely the reflection of this process. Bohme anticipated Hegel in claiming that the
divine self-development occurs by means of a continuing dialectic, or tension of
opposites, and that it is the negative qualities of the dialectic that men experience as the
evil of the world. Even though Bohme, for the most part, stressed absoluteness and
relativity equally, his view that the world is a mere reflection of the divine -- apparently
denying self-development on the part of creatures -- tends toward acosmic pantheism"
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Pantheism and Panentheism").

During my enormous revelations and anamnesis in March 1974 I perceptually observed

God and reality combined, and progressing through stages of evolution by means of a
dialectic, but I did not experience what I called "the blind counterplayer," which is to
say the dark side as part of God. However, although I perceived this dialectic between
good and evil, I could not ascertain anything as to the source of the evil. However, I did
see the good side making use of it against its will, since the dark counterplayer was
blind and therefore could be made use of for good purposes.

Hans Driesch (1867-1941). "My soul and my entelechy are One in the sphere of the
Absolute." And it is at the level of the Absolute only that we can speak of
"psychophysical interaction." But the Absolute, so understood, transcends all
possibilities of our knowing, and it is "an error to take, as did Hegel, the sum of its
traces for the Whole." All considerations of normal mental life lead us only to the
threshold of the unconscious; it is in dreamlike and certain abnormal cases of mental life
that we encounter "the depths of our soul." . . . My sense of duty indicates the general
direction of the suprapersonal development. The ultimate goal, however, remains
unknown. From this point of view, history took on its particular meaning for Driesch.
Throughout his work Driesch's orientation is intended to be essentially empirical. Any
argument concerning the nature of the ultimately Real will therefore have to be
hypothetical only. It starts with the affirmation of the "given" as consequent of a
conjectural "ground." His guiding principle in the realm of metaphysics amounts to this:
The Real that I posit must be so constituted that it implicitly posits all our experiences.
If we can conceive and posit such a Real, then all laws of nature, and all true principles
and formulas of the sciences, will merge into it, and all our experiences will be
"explained" by it. And since our experience is a mixture of wholeness (the organic and
the mental realms) and nonwholeness (the material world), Reality itself must be such
that I can posit a dualistic foundation of the totality of my experience. In fact, to bridge
-- aw fuck. In fact, there is nothing -- not even within the ultimately Real -- to bridge the
gap between wholeness and nonwholeness. And this means, for Driesch, that ultimately
there is either God and "non-God," or a dualism within God himself. To put it
differently, either the theism of the Judeo-Christian tradition or a pantheism of a God
continually "making himself" and transcending his own earlier stages is ultimately
reconcilable with the facts of experience. Driesch himself found it impossible to decide
between these alternatives. He was sure, however, that a materialistic-mechanistic
monism would not do (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 2).
It would appear that Bohme and T -- I'm at the end of my rope; I can't even type, let
alone think. That Bohme and Driesch are talking about the same thing, and that both are
process philosophers (or theologians, like Whitehead). Both stress dialectic quality in
God; Driesch sees the dialectic working itself out in history. This is almost certainly the
dialectic that I saw during my March 1974 revelations, and I am willing to admit that it
is certainly possible that the blind, dark counterplayer against which the vitalistic good
element worked could be "God's own earlier stages," as Driesch viewed it. One thing I
like about Driesch is the fact that at a certain point he simply said, "I don't know." That's
where I'm at and have been at for a long time; I just do not know. God created
everything; evil exists as part of the everything; therefore God is the source of evil --
that is the logic, and in monotheism there is no escape from this argument. If you posit
two (or more) gods, including an evil god, you have the problem of, Where did it come
from? But that problem exists for monotheism, too; if there is only one god, where did
he come from? Answer: from the same place the two gods of dualism came from. In
other words, I see this problem of origin as equally difficult for monotheism to answer
as it is for a dualism. We just don't know.

If we regard evil as simply earlier stages of a god in process, which he is working to

overcome -- well, that does fit my own personal revelations, and is syntonic to me. I
was shown how the whole thing works but I did not comprehend what I was seeing;
they were showing it to Mortimer Snerd. I did have the feeling that I was witnessing a
cosmic two-person board game, with our world as the board, and that one side (the
winning side) was benign, and the other was neither winning nor was it benign; it was
just very powerful, but hindered by the fact that it was blind. The good side possessed
absolute wisdom, could therefore absolutely foresee the future, and could lay down
moves long in advance of payoffs that the evil, blind, dark counterplayer could not
anticipate. It was an encouraging vision. In every trick the good won; it beat the dark
antagonist unerringly. What more could I ask from an Ultimate Vision of Absolute
Total Reality? What more do I need to know? The score reads: Evil zero; Good infinity.
Let me stop there, satisfied; the final tally is explicit.