The Dilemma and the Pearl


Chapter 8, “The Dilemma and the Pearl,” begins with Preston Harold asking us what type of outlook we bring to the world around us – are we a “three” or a “four?”

Wolfgang Pauli says that two types of minds have battled through history: first, the thinking type that considers the quantitative relations of the parts to be essential – and secondly, the intuitive type that senses the qualitative indivisibility of the whole.

The first type mind is posed on the side of three. This type took its stand with Euclid, resting upon his well-known axiom: the whole is equal to the sum of the parts. This axiom, along with the rest of Euclidian geometry, dominated Western thought until the late 19th century. One might say that Euclidian geometry still dominates, for the revolution in mathematics that tumbled it from sacred pre-eminence has not yet seeped down to the layman’s level, and many students will learn first, by rote, Euclid’s axioms, imbedding in the subconscious mind these fallible statements which have been presented as unquestionable truth…

One might say that the three represents Rene Guenon’s “reign of quantity,” the historical manifestation of the descent from form (quality) toward matter (quantity), and the “nothing but-ness” of stark materialism. Tradition calls this period the Kali Yuga, the age of the demon, Kali, or the iron age.

Today, the second type of mind, posed on the side of four, insisting upon the qualitative indivisibility of the whole, regains much of the standing lost in recent centuries. As regards the sum of the parts in relation to whole being, scientists, dealing with one whole atom and the sum of its parts, have found that in the formation of a nucleus from protons and neutrons some of the mass of the particles apparently is converted to energy. The chemist sees that the combined action of several elements taken together is greater than the sum of them taken separately. Mathematicians working with transfinite number theory confront the concept that the whole can equal one of its parts. In short, one is forced to alter his concept that a discrete whole within the universe can be divided and its parts regathered to equal the sum of the whole…

Anyone wishing to look further into the “qualitative indivisibility of the whole” would do well to search out the works of the Goethean scientist Henri Bortoft. You can thank me later😉.


Of course both the three and the four have their place in our world but how do we go about regaining the balance between the two? This is what we will continue to explore in Chapter 8. Until next time, peace.

Trinity or Tetragrammaton?


At this point we are finishing up chapter 7 and getting ready to move on to chapter 8. In order to make the transition a smooth one, Preston Harold takes us from the mortal sin via blasphemy into pronouncing the name of God. I will leave the rest of this post to Harold as he transitions us so well.

That the mortal sin is nameless, that it is a derelict from the forgotten past which can be any sin a man has repressed or has been unable to forgive himself, rests upon Jesus’ contradictory words. He says any blasphemy will be forgiven – and He, Himself, blasphemed if “pronouncing the forbidden name of God” is to say, “Ani hu,” and if to say, “Ani hu,” is blasphemy.

The forbidden name of God is indeed a mystery. What is this name? The definition of blasphemy (from Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary) reads: “In Jewish law, cursing or reviling God or the king…pronouncing the forbidden name of God. See Tetragrammaton.” Tetragrammaton? “The four letters (variously written, without vowel points…) forming a Hebrew tribal name of the Supreme Being…too sacred to pronounce.” What is this mystery having to do with four “unpronounceable” letters, IHVH, or JHVH, etc.? Does the blasphemy rest in rendering the form of God in a four-dimensional concept such as consciousness can know? Could one state the forbidden name in numbers, for example:


Could this be “blasphemy” because although the equation might bespeak a four-dimensional concept, it does not coincide with the “odd-even” division of a light wave group and thus it cannot truly and fully satisfy life’s situation? Is there anything in the realm of physics and mathematics that might explain this mystery?

The answer is yes. But to solve the riddle one must enter into an argument that engages the scientific world. The gist of the argument can be very simply told: it hangs upon what Jung calls, “the dilemma of three and four,” and one may grasp its general outline in Jung’s work and that of the physicist W. Pauli…The “dilemma of three and four” deals with a very old dispute, but it is one that is examined to this day. Trinity or Tetragrammaton? Triad or Tetrad?

Until next time, peace.

The Mortal Sin

“The LORD God will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” –Ex 34: 7

The esoteric interpretation of this verse from Exodus is that the children, grandchildren, and future generations refer to future incarnations of an individual spirit. The “father” is one’s current life. The “sins of the father” are “punished” by having to be rectified in later incarnations, meaning one has not completed their personal cycle of birth and death by way of, as Preston Harold says, obtaining “matter of his own.” This matter is spiritual matter, a “quantum of light’s radiant energy.” Before each of us can obtain “matter of our own,” we must go through the trials of life. One of the greatest trials we can go through is committing a mortal sin. But as Preston Harold asked at the end of our last installment, “what is the mortal sin?”


In the view of this study, Jesus recognized that there will be one blaspheming of life itself which a man will be unable to forgive himself – this is the mortal sin. [Jesus] did not name this sin, because unto each is his own expression of it – it might be no more than kicking his dog: the sin as such has no name. In the great majority of cases, he is unable to forgive himself, because the sin is quickly repressed and forgotten; if not, he “spends his life” in remorse and dies still unable to forgive himself what he has done. Thus, in one way or the other Homo sapiens bears this unforgiven sin into the “world to come” which develops as his ego-group develops. Because man never recovers from infant amnesia, the newly stated ego-group does not and cannot know the name and nature of the sin he bears into the world at birth – thus, the sin cannot be forgiven in this life. For this reason, each man is committed to pay the wage of this nameless sin, each pays the wage that Judas paid – in one way or another he destroys himself: “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself…”

So here we see that no one can define a mortal sin except for the individual who commits it. No other person or institution can tell another human being exactly what a mortal sin is. Each person harbors it themselves in their own heart and mind. We can also glimpse from Harold’s words here the impetus for the doctrine of original sin. We all bear with us into this life something that needs to be rectified from our own previous life, or “Adam.”

As one’s work in this world draws to completion, Authority-Ego places upon the Judas-factor the burden of unknown sin. Through death the unknown sin is forgiven and the Judas-factor is redeemed. But as a person dies, he takes into the world to come another nameless, unknown sin that will command the price of death which the Authority-Ego and the Judas-factor will pay to redeem this evil. Because each person comes bearing his unknown, unforgiven sin, death is already stated in his being. Will man be forever in bondage to this wheel, to a nameless sin, to death?


Only with the resurrection body does original sin end.

Scripture says: “O death I will be thy plagues; O grave I will be thy destruction.” If this scripture be true, man will not forever lay down his consciousness in the grave. This study concludes that as long as man commits sins he cannot in consciousness and good conscience forgive himself, death alone can reduce to dust his psychic “cities” of sin and his corrupted flesh. But death returns him to life to try again to learn how to live without corrupting himself and others. In each life experience, man can and does have done with error as his lust is recast into empathy. In death an iota of his evil purchases a bit of pure matter. Thus in time he will regenerate himself – will don incorruptible flesh born of incorruptible consciousness guided in life by empathy. Man will be free of the grave, but he will not be absolutely free of death – which is to say, death will be in his life as sleeping and waking is to his present consciousness, or as inhaling and exhaling is to his present body.

Until next time, peace.

The Resurrection of Damnation

When one hears and thinks of the word “resurrection,” one’s mind tends to immediately think of other concepts that surround and reinforce it; eternal life, God’s victory over death, glory, celebration. All of these thoughts usually congeal around a positive attitude. But what happens if we actually view the concept resurrection not just through Easter, but through the eyes, mind, and teaching of Jesus?

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation. –John 5:28-29


From this statement of Jesus we can surmise that for some or many, resurrection may not be all it’s cut out to be. But who among us really believes that they will be part of the resurrection of “damnation?” We automatically assume that we are part of the “life” camp. Preston Harold may give us pause to question our certainties on this issue. He begins by giving us an excellent theology of inevitable sins within the context of life:

There is that in every person’s life that he knows to be damnable, knows to be corrupting… But all his sinning is not so easily bedamned, so wantonly forgot – nor can it be ceased, for there is not the will in him to have done with it at the time; even when what might be called “an episode of sin” is over, he cannot truly regret it – the experience has raised the level of his understanding and he would not possess less.  He can say of such sin only this: “I did it knowing it was wrong, but I cannot regret that I did it; I know now, however, that I could not bring myself to do this again because I know its cost to me and to others.” Such experience represents, in truth, a lesson learned.

But here is where the rubber hits the road. Harold goes deep:

But there are other deeds that even though they have brought new understanding, one must regret to the end of his life and in the very-depths of his being, saying of them, “god be merciful to me, a sinner,” as though to pray, “forgive me this terrible toll of life I have taken, toll of my own life and of another’s, for which I shall be bitterly sorry in every breath I draw now and forever.” Or he quickly represses and forgets the sin he cannot forgive himself – the sin that must await the resurrection of damnation.

…there are sins that blaspheme the preciousness of life itself – these are unforgivable because a man cannot bring himself to forgive himself: they sever his connection with his own Authority-Ego and still the voice of the ego-member in the world of selves, as Judas’ voice was stilled.


Jesus says…in part of a statement in itself contradictory: “I tell you, therefore, men will be forgiven any sin and blasphemy, but they will not be forgiven for blaspheming the Spirit. Whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will never be forgiven, neither in this world or the world to come.”

First, Jesus says man will be forgiven any sin and blasphemy. Then, any is contradicted – man is not forgiven for blaspheming the holy Spirit. Is the holy Spirit not life itself? Who can live without in some way at some time cursing or reviling life? Is true repentance of no account? What, exactly is the mortal sin?

It is this question we explore in the next installment. Until then, peace.

The Judas Factor: Part V


There is a strange prophecy that the Judas drama appears to fulfill. Scripture says:

“I will redeem them from death…repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.”

I have to admit that this prophecy from Hosea 13:14 never quite made sense to me. Why will the Lord redeem when repentance is hid from His eyes? It goes against every biblical “principal” of redemption, right? Preston Harold says:

The repentance of Judas is “hid” from the eyes of Jesus. The two die “in phase,” the one called good, the other called evil. Through his death Judas is redeemed – this is to say, he redacted to the realization of what he had done by making the greatest act of contrition, of repentance, a man can make when no reparation can be made, and thereby he redeems himself to some degree in the eyes of mankind. Because he took his own life to give expression to his unbearable remorse and grief, he cannot be regarded as utterly evil and inhuman – after the betrayal, he fulfilled his mission and then did a very human thing.


The subject of the redemption of Judas is covered in great detail in Ray Anderson’s masterwork, “The Gospel According to Judas.” Following Harold’s assessment of Judas’ repentance being hid from the eyes of Jesus, Anderson takes us on an imaginative conversation between the risen Christ and the deceased Judas, wherein Judas’ repentance can be confirmed. In this conversation we learn that Judas cannot accept Christ’s forgiveness because of his deep shame and remorse caused by his deed of betrayal. Jesus explains to Judas that the reason he feels such shame is because of his incredibly deep love for Jesus. In Judas’ shame and remorse lies his redemption. Judas need only accept the fact that he is redeemed; Jesus tells him to “Come home, all is forgiven.” Preston Harold confirms this viewpoint:

There is an ancient Jewish sect, Hasidism, which holds that “the essential unity of creation precludes the artificial separation of the sacred and the profane…destroying the boundaries which cut off the evil from redemption and secure the righteous in their pride.” This study concurs. Each person is both good and evil – each deals with his own of ALL’s evil, generating from it a “footstool for his feet,” as he loses one ego-member who “buys” a bit of earth, pure matter and thus pure evil, when he returns the “coin of the realm” he has taken.


Within each of us there lies a Judas factor. Wherein do we each find that “unforgivable sin” we commit against the Holy Spirit? For each of us it is different. Yet the fact is that nothing can or will separate us from the love of God – we need only believe and trust…

In the psychic domain is there a Judas factor, rejected by the ego-group, unforgiven even though, as Judas did, this member so repents his deed as to be unable to bear himself and thus “spends” his life in sorry reparation? In the view of this study there is a Judas-factor and it has a special task, but it is not this utterly repentant one that represents damnation in the ego-group. Everything in Jesus’ teaching leads to the concept that the sorrowing and repentant are forgiven, whatever they have done. He upbraids the “cities” wherein His mighty works were done because they repented not. He warns, “It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.” Authority-Ego is addressing His own strongholds – this is to say, Jesus, as symbol of it, could address none other than his own. Only the “crumbs” that fell from the table He spread could be gathered by any other than “Israel.”

Until next time, peace.

The Judas Factor; Part IV

At this point in Harold’s assessment of Judas and his role in the gospels, he makes a startling interpretation of a well-known scripture that has always been attributed to Jesus:

Judas, the despised, rejected of all, the one lost that the Scriptures be fulfilled, that nature’s supreme law might be fulfilled to the last iota – Judas, an utter revulsion to the elect upon whom fell the task of building Christianity – is he not the stone that the builders rejected? Scripture says:

The stone that the builders rejected is the chief stone now of the corner: this is the doing of the Lord, and a wonder to our eyes?…

The stone that the builders rejected is the chief stone now of the corner. Everyone who falls on that stone will be shattered, and whoever falls upon it will be crushed.


Although the early church used this Psalm as a prophecy of Jesus’ resurrection, Preston Harold gives us good reason as to why we might interpret it as referring to Judas.

A stone is matter. Matter is head of the corner of the building – the temple of life, the body. Most precious to man, the inherent and first necessity of life, is matter of his own. Yet this “stone” – flesh and its demands – is seen to be evil. Money is mammon’s symbol, and mammon is seen as evil. With matter and money Judas is completely identified. Was it not Judas upon who the crushing stone fell – was not the Judas drama the doing of the Lord?

It’s hard for me to argue with this reasoning. Yet a lifetime of interpreting this scripture as referring to Jesus presses back onto me. Harold continues:

As one views the whole picture, it would appear to say that there is one among the elect of consciousness, the superego, who gathers and disperses matter. At the command of Authority-Ego, this factor moves to convert this experience in life into “hard coin.” This member of the household that betrays to death can find solace only in death, but through its action One’s mission in life is completed and he gives back the “mammon” he has taken unto himself Jesus says:

And I tell you use mammon, dishonest as it is…

He who is faithful with a trifle is also faithful with a large trust, and he who is dishonest with a trifle is also dishonest with a large trust….So if you are not faithful with dishonest mammon, how can you ever be trusted with true riches? And if you are not faithful with what belongs to another, how can you ever be given what is your own?


Mammon is dishonest because matter is not what it appears to be – it is but a trifle of mass. Judas had been faithful with the “trifle” of keeping the purse; Jesus could depend upon him to be faithful in executing the large trust involved in His betrayal and its aftermath – essential to His work. This world’s wealth, or matter, is not actually man’s own, but God’s. In this stewardship man must prove himself capable of using wealth before he can be given true riches – matter of his own.

Until next time, peace.

The Judas Factor; Part III

Although scholars are divided on how Judas is characterized in the recently discovered Gospel of Judas, if approached from Preston Harold’s point of view the disputes may be lessened. These disputes are based upon how a few select words are interpreted.


Take, for instance, how the Greek word paradidomi is interpreted in the canonical gospels. Does it mean “betrayed” or “handed over?” Does it mean both? How one decides to interpret that word makes all the difference in how one interprets the character and destiny of Judas. If one takes Harold’s testimony into account, it is difficult not to interpret paradidomi the way that it was used in the first century up until the gospel accounts of Judas were written, that is simply as “handing over,” with no intimations of betrayal at all. Yet when the word is translated in the gospels in connection with Judas, it is always rendered as “betray.” Maybe that’s because Judas himself accounted his deed after the fact as a betrayal, not being able to live with himself.

In the accounts of the betrayal, there is implication that Jesus had discussed Judas’ role with him. Jesus announces that He is to be betrayed and describes the fate of the betrayer. Judas asks, “Surely it is not me, rabbi?” Jesus answers, “Is it not?” This suggests that Judas had been instructed, had not fully comprehended the implication in what he was to do, faltered when it came to him, and would have faltered when Jesus handed him the sop, save for Jesus’ command: “Be quick with what you have to do.”


This passage continues, “None of those at table understood why he said this to him; some thought that, as Judas kept the money-box, Jesus told him to buy what they needed for the festival or to give something to the poor. So Judas went out immediately after taking the bread.”

To add insult to injury to Judas, at this point in John’s gospel John tells us that “Satan entered into (Judas).” Of course this is true in the original Hebrew sense of the word “Satan,” which means not an evil entity, but rather is a title of one who initiates a trial and thus brings the protagonist to fulfill God’s calling as his true purpose. Yet Christian interpretation has heavily elucidated this phrase as a negative mark and stain upon Judas. Why this mark and stain doesn’t also pertain to Peter, whom Jesus Himself actually called Satan at one point, is beyond me. In fact, how we interpret Judas’ deed says nothing about Judas and everything about us and our acceptance of reality, for we are not really angry at Judas. He was just following instructions. We are angry at Jesus. We are angry that we need to die to ourselves. We are angry that Jesus actually did die to show us in no uncertain terms that it is truly the way. We want a king, an unquestioned ruler to confirm our biases and bless us with his undefeatable power. We want a power grab. But Jesus says “no” to this request and we hate Him for it. And so it’s so much easier just to make Judas the scapegoat for our hatred of Jesus and His way, no?

There seems no doubt that Jesus could have stopped Judas with a word, but Son of man must follow the path outlined by Scriptures….Judas appears to be the first to die in service to Jesus: Jesus outlined an action and gave Judas both the signal and the command to perform it. As Judas kissed Jesus to betray Him, Jesus called him, “Friend.” Would He have chosen this moment to be ironical, sarcastic, hypocritical?


Truth speaks truth. Jesus called Judas friend. At the last supper Jesus said: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” Moffatt translates Jesus’ words at the moment of betrayal, “My man, do your errand.” There was still a Scripture to be fulfilled – and Judas had an errand to do before it could be fulfilled – this Judas did before he killed himself. The prophecy reads:

…and I took the thirty silver pieces, the price of him who had been priced, whom they had priced and expelled from the sons of Israel; and I gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord had bidden me.

As the Lord had bidden me. The fulfilling of this prophecy bespeaks the interaction between Jesus and Judas. The money “bought” earth – “bought” matter.

Jesus did not have to bid Judas to hang himself. He knew he would be unable to live with himself after his act. As Judas acquits his role, a boundary is provided for Light’s action.

Until next time, peace.

The Judas Factor; Part II


To continue with our thread of thought from the last installment, we must remember that Preston Harold understands Jesus’ ministry as an enactment of the drama of light in the quantum realm. Harold tells us that

Jesus, Light, stays in consciousness long enough to determine the load upon the elect-ones, then retires into the unconscious domain. Jesus appears to have “fixed the load” upon Judas, to have cast him in the role of the one measure the system “loses” in the course of time.

The loss of this measure appears to be directly concerned with the acquisition of matter or the conversion of energy to matter, and the return of matter to the field or into a field, for Judas was involved with matter in keeping the purse, and he was handed the sop of bitter herbs or bread, “my body,” my matter, as the signal to collect his reward in silver – precious matter. Of his own volition, Judas finished himself – into matter, and the silver was returned to “purchase” a potter’s field.


It is incredible to me how accurately the drama of Jesus and Judas represents the activity of light and the quantum field. Once the parallels are uncovered as Harold masterfully does here, one cannot help but wonder at the precision of the symbolism with which the gospel writers conveyed the story. Judas’ purse and silver as his matter and his giving himself over to it; how could it be otherwise? The inevitability, the destiny of it all is stunning. Any thinking person cannot help but be moved, not just by the accuracy of the parallel here between science and religion, but also by the emotional toll placed upon Judas. Even Jesus stated that His handing over must take place, but woe to the one who does the deed: “And The Son of Man goes just as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom The Son of Man is betrayed; it would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” –Matt:26:24

The mystery of Judas touches many thinking men. (Ernest) Renan says:

“Without denying that Judas of Kerioth may have contributed to the arrest of his Master, we still believe that the curses with which he is loaded are somewhat unjust….if the foolish desire for a few pieces of silver turned the head of poor Judas, he does not seem to have lost the moral sentiment completely, since when he had seen the consequences of his fault he repented, and, it is said, killed himself.”

In our next post we will delve further into the inevitability and destiny of Judas’ deed. Until then, peace.

The Judas Factor; Part I

Jesus promised not heaven, but everlasting life. Life must be lived in the material realm which is shared by good and evil. In it they are reconciled through the one measure that both separates and rejoins the two frequencies that constitute light’s “household” or wave-group, providing a boundary for its action.

Preston Harold here reminds us that we don’t follow Jesus to go to heaven, but to gain everlasting life. And just to make sure that we don’t conflate everlasting life with a heaven beyond, he reinforces that there is no manifestation of life without matter. Scripture reinforces this thought in the Book of Revelation where John confesses to us that he saw a new heaven and a new earth, a new type of mind and a new type of body. The two separate frequencies of mind and body, good and evil, have been reconciled and rejoined through the one measure, Christ, who provides the boundary for the new Jerusalem. But the one measure, Christ, also separates. He doesn’t bring peace, but the sword. He sets the 2 against 3 and the 3 against 2. This is where Judas enters the picture.

In the material realm, the second law of thermodynamics reigns supreme – the law that says any physical system left to itself and allowed to distribute its energy in its own way does so in a manner such that entropy increase while the available energy of the system diminishes. These two aspects of the physical realm are dramatized in the strange play between Jesus and Judas.


If one reduces the diminishing effect of the second law to the smallest or simplest operation conceivable, he must show that one iota of the source energy of a system, or one representative of the energy of a system, must be made unavailable, or “lost,” as the cycle of one full operation is completed, or simply when the time has come. At Jesus’ death, the “system” the disciples represent, left to itself, diminishes by one as Judas dies, and an outside source of energy must be incorporated if another full cycle is to be completed.

Harold says St. Paul comes from the outside to fulfill this role, but what about Matthias? We don’t hear anything about Matthias after he is chosen to replaces Jesus. Regardless, I think we know what Harold is getting at here. And with that we will look forward to continuing our exploration of the Judas factor in the next installment. Until then, peace.

Deliver us From Evil: A House Divided


Preston Harold now confronts some of the strangest, and some of my personal favorite, sayings of Jesus.

Jesus saw that the destructive potential in man can be dealt with only as it is set against itself: i.e., as it becomes a house divided; thus, “I” come not to bring peace, but the sword, to set the household against itself; yet, “he who does not gather with me scatters” – the expanding and limiting frequencies are set to provide a boundary for expression. Jesus said, “This is an evil generation,” but He also said that life is being leavened, transformed through the working in and of the realm of God. It is from this generation – this bringing into being – that man prays to be delivered into life eternal, which must also mean into matter of his own under his own dominion.

That life is in the process in being set against itself even above and beyond mankind’s own conscious doing is shown by the wisdom inherent in biological forms. In his “The Harmony of the Human Body: Musical Principles in Human Physiology,” Dr. Armin Husemann expands on Jesus’ saying of setting a household against itself:


If we learn to walk with the legs and their earth rhythm this drama of the divided soul’s struggle for freedom on earth, we learn to comprehend the expression of the middle human being:

“Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three” (Luke 12:51).

Thus speaks the cosmic master builder who enters his house so that the human being can achieve freedom, can realize his true nature. In Luke’s gospel the Word turned flesh of the lungs speaks the physical rhythm of the fifth. In the lung the Word separates the physical unity which is created by the blood so that the ‘I’ can take the place of the blood and recreate the unity anew.

We will explore this statement of Jesus concerning the proportion of 2:3 in much greater depth when we come to the next chapter, but for now Preston Harold once again reminds us that to live is to deal with the reality of evil:

Jesus prays, “Deliver us from evil,” but this is not to say OF evil… Jesus’ teaching indicates that one cannot exclude or dispense with evil itself – man cannot be delivered OF it. Consider this parable:

When an unclean spirit leaves a man, it roams through dry places in search of ease. As it finds none, then it says, “I will go back to the house I left”; and when it comes it finds the house clean and all in order. Then off it goes to fetch seven other spirits worse than itself; they go in and dwell there, and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

For 43 years, Hank had successfully stuffed every feeling he'd ever had, until,of course, the morning when Fred asked if he could borrow a paper clip.
For 43 years, Hank had successfully stuffed every feeling he’d ever had, until,of course, the morning when Fred asked if he could borrow a paper clip.

The concept of repressions greatly empowered in latency and their strange return to the “house” of consciousness is presented here. Also presented is a psychic parallel to the theory of relativity, wherein coming to rest has no meaning: “A decrease of velocity relative to one frame is an increase relative to another frame.” But most important, Jesus presents the concept that evil cannot be cast out and thereby obliterated; therefore, it must be regenerated, recast – from its destructive potential man must pray to be delivered. Thus, Jesus’ prayer might be paraphrased: “Deliver us from evil: from the matter we are in, from flesh expressed by partial consciousness – deliver us to death that we may be reborn into eternal life in such flesh as complete consciousness will express and have dominion over, that true riches may be committed to our trust.” As for that in each man’s dominion which is spurious, wicked, it shall be recast as it is cast into “the furnace of fire” – into matter which is an “ever-burning” manifestation, but which is also a delight to man’s soul.

“Deliver us to death that we may be reborn into eternal life” is an apt meditation for us heading into this Good Friday and Easter Sunday. May we understand better and more fully commit to live and die the way that Jesus taught and showed. Until next time, peace.