January 30, 1980 -1-

Upon reading THE TAO OF PHYSICS (Capra) I have come to some conclusion about Valis other than those I endlessly recirculate; viz:

A unitary web in process, self-initiating, in which I participate and whose aspect as it pertained to me my mind determined, conscious, all times simultaneous. I was not outside it. It was everywhere. Its self-motivation was to me most striking (e.g. “pretextual” cause; no laws were imposed on it). It was equally conscious and aware throughout. Every part of it was perfectly linked together into a structure (kosmos). Yet, the whole structure was epiphenomenal, a magician’s trick, done for the sake of beauty, music and dance. It could “be” (appear) any way it wanted to anyone: different ways to different people. It took an infinity of forms, all of which came into being and passed away ([[ontoyon]] leaving only constants (phylogons) as parts of the structure – hence it was in flux like a self-perfecting organism. The complexity of the structure increased upward (i.e. toward the macro) and downward (toward the micro) with each passing second.

4:15 a.m.: I wasn’t seeing it and I wasn’t seeing a projection of my own brain. What I was seeing was a combination of end interaction between my brain and it, so that to some extent a unique local field came into existence; viz: I didn’t observe Valis but participated actively. Valis, then, is not it and not me, but rather it and me. So of course it mirrored back my own conceptions. This was due to participation in it. But this wasn’t just projection on my part. It was an interpenetration between it and me. The significance of this new insight is very great. So Valis was not me, but I helped shape its nature as it presented itself to me and mingled with me. This is not a matter of preconception

January 30, 1980 -2-on my part; it is an interpenetration. Hence “Thomas” took me over (its penetration of me).

Valis, then, is a syzygy of me and the whatever-it-is, but I can only know it in the fashion that I knew it; I can’t exclude myself as [[a]] participant in it.

It had the power to actualize my thoughts (mind, brain) so that I was outside myself and thus looking at my own mind interwoven with external reality; it conjured up a reality for me constructed in the image of my own mind. Thus it (Valis) has total creative power, in terms of bringing something into being (“He causes to exist whatever exists”). My mind was outside me.

Valis, then, is me made into a world (by the creator deity). He showed that he could conjure up an entire world based on my mind – infinite powers of creation. But Valis is not the creator deity; Valis is a fusion of me and the creator deity and thus applicable to me only.

By this power he can make me immortal. I now return to Xtianity; this is the esoteric Xtian gnosis.

So my belief system actually changes Valis as it changes. Hence with every new theory I come up with, Valis changes – not because it’s playing tricks or games but because my belief system is part of it – the intersection of two fields: me and not-me.

Hence (and this resembles a psychotic notion but isn’t) I have a certain control over my reality by thinking about it, but only because my mind links up with a greater mind. So in 3-74 there was an element of paranormal powers in me, probably allied to precognition. But I changed my outer reality.

This interpenetration of my mind and its explains the “too

January 30, 1980 -3-

obliging" quality of it. In fact the “too obliging” quality is a great clue to the real nature of my experience and of Valis.

This reveals the plurality world for what it is: an epiphenomenon of the mind! If it wasn’t, my mind could not have affected/altered it!

5:30 a.m. Each human brain is a different universe, literally, not metaphorically: vast spaces. I saw mine (i.e. my brain). Hermetic alchemy. So the vast spaces that I saw was my own inner space projected outward; it is greater than outer space.

I was interacting with reality at its deepest level below that of the plural epiphenomena; I joined with it (or became aware that I was already joined with it). It took the form of an open system biological organism model because it is; this is why it could interpenetrate me and me it. I can never know the not-me greater mind as it is in itself, since when I encounter it I actively participate in shaping the aspect it shows me. I do not experience it; I experience myself merged with it in syzygy. This is the issue Kant raised regarding the thing-in-itself; his arguments hold true here. This other mind probably appears only to me under the aspect I encountered; thus I can say little or nothing about its intrinsic nature. This is what has wrecked my attempt to analyze it for these six years; I overlooked the fact that I was a participant in it and not a detached observer outside it. I changed it by encountering it. It is significant that the boundaries of my mind and its mind are lost in such an encounter; we blur together into the syzygy. I’d like to conclude that this indicates isomorphism, but it does not. Nor can I even be sure which parts (elements, aspects) are from its mind and which from mine. All I can be sure of is: it was not all me.

2-29-80 -1-

Paul and original sin.

Paul is saying, Man after the Fall is still fallen. The Torah has not restored him to his pre-fallen state. This is the point Paul is trying to make; the Jews believed that the Torah, in particular the Decalogue, was sufficient for man’s needs, but Paul points out that the Torah doesn’t save; i.e. it doesn’t reverse the damage, the effects, of the Fall. Man stays as he is: blighted and occluded; what Paul calls “in a state of (original) sin.” Again, the Torah is for fallen man (1). It tells him first of all what not to do (“Though shall not” etc). How has this changed fallen man? Original sin is simply a term telling us that Adam alone did not fall but that all men fell with him and are fallen now. This is simply a statement of fact, unless you reject the doctrine –notion—of the Fall. But Judaism accepts that notion (1). Does Judaism believe that Adam’s descendents re-arose to a pre-fallen state after Adam’s death? No, of course not (1). Paul says, “The Law (Torah) can only condemn, can only convict of sin.” This is so. In itself it has no power to save; in fact Judaism is devoid of a concept of any method by which man can be restored to his pre-fallen state (1). It as a concept simply does not exist in Judaism. Man will stay fallen forever, abiding by the Mosaic Law (1).

Another objection. Let us concede that the theophany at Mt. Sinai took place, that the Torah was indeed handed down to Moses by YHWH. Well, let us compare it to Jesus’ teachings. We find that Jesus’ teachings are superior. Then if we regard Jesus as only a man and not God or the Son of God, we are faced with the impossible notion that a mere man, a prophet or preacher, could come up with a

(1) I am wrong; Rabbi Huz says that for Judaism there was no Fall (of course no original sin).

“Torah” or system of ethics-beliefs superior to what God came up with vis-à-vis Moses at Sinai. Well, since this is impossible, then perhaps a solution [[illegible characters?]] is to say that Jesus’ teachings are not superior to Mosaic Law. But they seem to us to be superior. But perhaps this is circular reasoning; we find them superior because we are Christians and have been taught them. But Rabbi Herz claims that the golden rule comes from the Torah (Liv. 19:18), so he admits the absolute superiority of Jesus’ basic ethical premise but claims that it came in the Hebrew Torah long before Jesus. Then Jesus was just repeating concepts already familiar to Jews; e.g. Hillel. But Jesus does not just state the golden rule; his system is complex, intricate, sophisticated, vast. He did not utter just the one statement found in Liv. 19:18. So where did his other sayings come from; especially the Sermon on the Mount? Again, if he is only a man he is more advanced in terms of ethical conceptions and propositions than YHWH! In my opinion if you conclude that indeed the Decalogue was given to Moses by God, then it follows from internal evidence, which is to say the teachings and system of Jesus, that Jesus was God or related to God in some way; for instance God’s Holy Wisdom, or as with Ptath in the Egyptian system, God’s “tongue.”

Finally, Jesus presented a system which went beyond making men truly moral –spotless of sin—but, more, restoring men to their pre fallen state (1), and here the issue lies, because it seems probable that only God could inaugurate such a system – unless you wish to take the argument that Jesus’ system does not in fact restore man to his pre-fallen state but only claims to. But [[illegible characters?]] Judaism does not even make this claim for the Torah.

(1) But if man did not Fall, then what was I restored to. The [[cut off by end of page in scan]]

Further, the Torah is frozen; it is an article of dogma for Judaism that there is no new Torah and there will never be, so by Judaism’s own dogma, Torah is frozen forever. Obviously, then, it has ossified. What Jesus represents is the living Torah, with new revelations; he is with us and can enter into dialog with us. He is flexible. Obviously if the original Mosaic Torah were ever to be superceded, this would be the ideal way for it to be superceded: by God incarnate as man.

It seems to me that the original Torah ossified and was then superceded by Jesus, the Christ, and then Christianity itself ossified around 1300 and was then superceded by the system of the Protestants, and that now we see an ossification of that; by reason of which we can expect a new revelation, a new theophany, perhaps the Parousia.

Also, if Jesus is Holy Wisdom, he existed before creation and does not represent a part of creation but the Godhead itself entering creation anew. Structurally, this makes perfect sense, but what is involved is not just further injunctions, admonitions and rules for fallen man, but a method by which fallen man ceases to be fallen man. Rabbi Herz does not speak of this when he contrasts Judaism with Christianity. He misses the central point of Christianity, and hence the central weakness of Judaism, or, as Paul puts it, the Law and the Law's inability to save. Judaism accepts the condition of fallen man and makes the best of it (by relying on the divine Torah revealed to Moses by YH WH). Christianity does exactly the opposite; it preaches man restored, the Second Adam who undoes --more than undoes--the work of the first Adam. (1) Judaism does not present

(1) Yet I have always rejected Paul’s doctrine of original sin, hence the Fall. Judaism teaches that Man is pure. Is this not my belief? Do I not share it?

an alternative system by which this is accomplished. In fact it is only upon studying Judaism --the writings which include the Torah and many glosses-- that I understand what Christianity does, by virtue of the contrast visible between them. Thus for the first time I can understand why Paul taught the doctrine of original sin. It was absolutely essential to stigmatize man's present and past condition (state) as that of Adam's and in no way an improvement on Adam's -- if this was not put forth as a premise, then what was next put forth, the idea of salvation, which is to say the restoration of man to his pre-fallen state, makes no sense. Man must be seen as fallen if man is to be seen as necessarily requiring salvation; otherwise, "Salvation from what?" Paul has made a daring leap of insight from the story of Adam's Fall to all mankind's condition -- to mankind's present condition. Paul says, “No one since Adam ever got back up to the pre-fallen state; hence we say, Adam deprived us all of that original state of felicity." What else could Paul say if he is to preach the doctrine of salvation through Christ? That the Torah restored man to his pre-fallen state? (1) But Judaism does not claim that the Torah does that; all Judaism claims for the Torah is that God has spoke to fallen man and told him what to do and what not to do. Man is still fallen. (1) Only Jesus the Christ has the power to restore man; only Jesus the Christ even claims that power or, what is more, conceives of that restoration taking place! What is so disheartening about Judaism is that under it man accepts his fallen state as eternal. And this means, Judaism is tacitly saying that Yes, we have all inherited Adam's sin, which is to say, Adam's fall; we fell with him and are fallen still, and our descendents as

(1) This whole article is based on the false premise that Judaism believes, like xtianity, in the Fall – it [[destroys? (word is cut off)]]

-5-

well.

So the claim of Jesus the Christ is original and revolutionary, but it must depend on an admission of man's fallen state which is a way of saying that man is born sinful; i.e. he is born fallen and does not fall individually during his particular lifetime according to his own deeds. All that Paul wants to do is lay the conceptual groundwork for the notion of salvation; the last thing he wants to do is condemn man. Paul has a remedy but to convince us to make use of the remedy he must point to the disease. Judaism has forgotten about the Fall when they regard man as a wonderous thing made in the image of God. Paul says, Yes we were so designed, but fell.

And if God ordained the Fall (in terms of punishment or curse) then it is logical that God and only God can reverse the condition and restore man. It is not likely that a system by a mortal human could accomplish this, because if it did, it would de facto place that mortal human at the level of Godhood. He would be as powerful as God. How, then, can Jesus not be God or anyhow the Logos or Holy Wisdom, i.e. God's Wisdom? For myself I can testify that through Christ, or so it would seem, I was in February 1974 restored to my pre-fallen state, thus giving me personal verification of the gospel of Christ, as well as the reality of his nature and power. It has taken me six years to come to understand that this is indeed what happened to me in the spring of 1974, but such was it, in fact. Thus I personally can reason back from my own salvation or restoration to the fall and to the ubiquity of the fall in terms of all men past and present, in terms, I mean, of course myself.

Now, to compare Christianity with the mystery religions: it seems to me that the existence of the Greco-Roman mystery religions indicates that non-Christians had begun to figure out the fact that man fell, especially the Orphics; which gives further verification to the probability of this primal catastrophe. It was the intent of the mystery religions to reverse the damage of the fall. There can be no question of this; we know this to be so. How well they did we don't know. But I can personally speak for the efficacy of Christianity, which is to say of Jesus Christ. Perhaps Judaism was indeed kinder to oxen, but Christianity at Paul's time had bigger goals: the reversal of the then-fate of all creation, which involves man and animals both. When man fell all creation fell with him as a result. The Torah makes this clear.

And the more the Torah is glorified and adulated the more severe the problem grows, because Judaism more and more forgets that man is fallen, i.e. debased and damaged, impaired and occluded. So it was necessary for Paul to go the whole way (at times) and to stigmatize the Law as either totally ineffective or downright evil -- which seems unnecessarily harsh until we realize what his purpose was. “The Law cannot save," Paul said, and he said it in every way and at every occasion possible. He went so far as to deny that it came from YHWH but said that “mere angels" handed it down, which (I believe) has no scriptural basis. He had to void the Jew·s faith in the salvific power of the Law in order to save the Jew. The Law did not save; it did not claim it could save; it drew ments minds away from the notion of fall and salvation

-7- intertwined.

Now the utter nobility of the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement makes sense to me -- now that I have some small grasp of Judaism, the basis of Christianity, its substrate. What could be more heroic than the idea that God who himself threw mankind down as punishment for man’s original transgression, so loved man that He gave His only begotten Son to redeem man? And under conditions of acute --supreme-- abasement and suffering? There is nothing in Judaism to equal this, and nothing in any of the other of the world's religions. Mani was martyred but he left no system of teachings as did Christ. Christ's teachings are his certification of Godhood, since they exceed in value the Mosaic Torah itself.

Again, Judaism has no mechanism for salvation. Yet their own Torah depicts man's Fall. Judaism cannot therefore deny that man is fallen, unless there was a restoration not depicted, or, possibly, it is supposed that the revelation at Mt. Sinai restored man, but I don’t see that claim made. Nor do I see it as implicit in the revelation to Moses that the Torah made man what he had originally been; it certainly did not return him to Eden (or as it is called Paradise). Yet when Christ restored me in 1974-5 I saw Eden; I saw the palm tree garden around me, although I did not know what it was. Also, I saw the black iron prison in which we now live (cf the First Book of Adam and Eve: the Cave of Treasures called "small and narrow” and a "prison," in contrast to the Garden from which they were expelled).

There is a great significance in the Christian concept of restoration in terms of God's wisdom and foreknowledge, lacking in

Judaism, and when a salvific framework is understood it is hard to justify, then, a system that excludes it. Presumably God foreknew that man would fall, and with man, creation itself. Are we to assume that God had no remedy planned for the situation? Or did he not foreknow and had no remedy? Neither of these possibilities is likely. It is much more logical that God would foresee and have, from the beginning, a remedy -- which in fact in Christianity he has: what Christians call the "felix culpa" situation, wherein the remedy is greater than the malady, so that in final terms the restoration outdoes the Fall and there is a net gain to the resulting system. If the awesome majesty, power and wisdom attributed to God in the Torah are taken as given, the preparation of divine remedy seems not only logical but inevitable. Having studied the Torah I find it hard, in view of the presentation of God contained therein, to believe that the cosmos and man having fallen. God could or would do nothing -- unless the Torah is considered a solution, which it is certainly not.

Thus there is an inner logic to Christianity in that its aspect of a new or second covenant with God seems to spring naturally from the Old Testament, in particular the Torah itself. It seems almost an insult to God to suppose that he would not or could not fashion a countermove to Satan's strategy; in Judaism Satan would seem to have been successful --whereas in Christianity he is undone. So the great theme of Christianity is the Fall and then Salvation through Christ, whereas in Judaism it is the Fall, and then the best made of it through divine theophany and revelation culminating

-9-in the Mosaic Law, in the Torah itself. But as a law the Mosaic law is not that superior to known man-made systems of law, and could have arisen naturally; whereas the teachings of Jesus bear no real affinity to the teachings of any man, except, perhaps, the wisdom of the Buddha (and even there it is a dubious comparison). If one examines the Mosaic Law and the "law” of Christ, what he calls his "yoke," one finds the second superior to the first, and one must conclude that if divinity is anywhere it lies with the second. In fact the "law" of Christ seems to refute much of the decalogue, and certainly strikes Christians as higher, in which case it is impossible for a Christian to imagine that the latter is God-given and the former not.

Finally, the Christian view of history is grand, in that it sees Fall and then the beginning of the salvific machinery of restoration culminating in the uniquely moving and beautiful First Advent, whereas for Judaism history begins wrong and never really gets much better; the Christian is dynamic, the Judaic somewhat, at least in comparison, static. There is nothing in Judaism but a vague notion that somehow "everything will end," whatever that may mean, and that there is a spirit or soul in men, but what becomes of it after death, if anything -- nowhere is the answer clear until Christianity enters, with its grounding in Zoroastrianism.

The ultimate triumph of Judaism in terms of eschotology appears to be the establishment of a national ethnic state, which really does not merit the term "religious" except that it is a theocracy. The Dutch had similar aims in the Thirty Years War, and they fought also for human freedom.

-end-

-10-From internal evidence (a study of his teachings) Jesus was the greatest of the Hebrew prophets, yet he was rejected by Israel. Why?

Because he depreciated the Torah. Only if he were God or the Son of God or Hagia Sophia --God's Wisdom-- could he claim the authority to do so. He did make this claim. God having established the Torah it could not be voided or superceded or amended by any man. Therefore Christ’s claim to divine kingship was essential if his teachings were to be accepted. The Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand that (the Arian Heresy). Mt 5:21: "You have learnt how it was said to our ancestors: 'You must not kill; and if anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court.' But I say this to you: anyone who is angry with his brother will answer for it before the court." Mt5:28: “You have learnt how it was said: 'You must not commit adultery.' But I say this to you… " Etc. Especially, this change: "You have heard it said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him.' Etc. This is all said by Jesus on his own authority. He could not amend and nullify the Law on any authority less than God's. Put another way, anyone who announced a nullification of the decalogue would de facto be blaspheming, in view of the authority of the Torah, and upon being brought before a Hebrew tribunal, for example the Sanhedrin, he would be boxed in by his own assertions. Note that Jesus says, "But I say this to you." He already claims the authority to supercede the Torah, and yet according

-11-

to the Rabbis the Torah as originally revealed cannot be amended nor nullified. Jesus says in Mt 5:17, "Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them." He then goes on to supercede the decalogue with a totally new ethical system, the like of which has never been seen. No one doubts that Jesus did this in such statements as Mt records in chapter 5. Do his statements fulfill the decalogue, or do they amend it? In any case, there is only one authority upon which such changes, however interpreted, can be based, and that is God's authority, so his later claim to be Kyrios, Lord, is already implied here. He will have to say that he is Kyrios or be crucified. If he says that he is Kyrios he may be rejected anyhow and be crucified. He has invited crucifixion by amending the Torah; he need do no more. The Torah is what Paul says it is: only able to condemn, to convict of sin, not save. There is a progression here that is logical: Jesus states an ethical system that supercedes the Law; Jesus says that he is Kyrios; Paul says that the Law cannot save. Once the sequence has begun it will go to its end.

This brings me again to Paul's doctrine of original sin which I have always found objectionable. What if it is interpreted as a failure of the Law (Torah) to save, not as an indictment of men? It is a way of declaring that indeed Jesus did bring a new ethical system which amounts to a repudiation of the Law. A Jew is placed in the situation where he must choose the Torah or Jesus and he cannot choose Jesus unless he chooses him as Kyrios: God or Son of God. There is no such thing as partial blasphemy.

-12-

Suppose, however, that Jesus had not started with a new ethical system and then declared himself Kyrios but had simply declared himself Kyrios. What would his credentials have been? At the time miracles were considered prima facia evidence of the presence of God, but this is not true for the modern world; however the total ethical system that Jesus announced is another matter. It would be very strange if the finest ethical system ever announced were the product of a liar or a madman; i.e. Jesus lied when he said he was Kyrios. or he imagined that he was Kyrios, etc. At this point, if Jesus' authority is called into doubt, whoever doubts it should then go on to doubt the divine authorship of the decalogue. It is pointed out by the Rabbis that the Torah's intrinsic nature point[[s]] to its divine authorship, it being advanced over any other system known in antiquity. This same argument, then, if used for the Torah must be used for Jesus, inasmuch as his system is to this very day unmatched in all the world. There is a further element in the case to be made for Jesus; viz: that his system seems to be the product of the mind of a single person, whereas it is possible that the Torah is the borrowed result of inter-cultural mingling as well as the product of many human minds, Hebrew minds, over an extended period of time. The argument, I think, for the divine authorship of Christian ethics is stronger than the argument for the divine --i.e. revealed--origin of O.T. ethics. In fact the O.T. ethics are not ethics at all but law; they are not internalized. The decisive feature in Jesus’ system is the involvement of the inner person; not just what he does but what he thinks and feels and desires. It is simply not the same kind of system as the Decalogue.

-13-

It is argued by the Rabbis that the two statements "You should not do to anyone who you would not have done to yourself" and “Do unto others as you would have done unto you" differ only in terms of semantics, that in terms of meaning they are interchangeable. This is not so. The first is a typical prohibition ordinance of the sort contained in the Decalogue. It is a "don't.” It is based on a notion of external law that forbids certain actions; it is a generalization of the summary of prohibitions. For example, "Thou shalt not push people in front of moving trains" does not mean the same thing as, "Thou shalt pull people out of the way of moving trains,” and even modern English common law makes this distinction; viz: You can be sent to prison or even executed for pushing someone in front of a moving train but you cannot be punished if you fail to pull someone out of the way of a moving train. The Rabbis either do not understand English common law and Roman law, for that matter, or choose to pretend that they do not understand these distinctions. By and large the difference between a law and an ethic is that a law tells you what you must not do (it is prohibitive) and an ethic tells you what you must do (it is a command). Jesus, then, does not substitute better laws for worse laws but internalized ethics for legal prohibitions -- which in itself is a quantum leap upward in the evolution of human life. The result is simply that the person becomes a law unto himself based on the system put forth by Jesus. He guides himself on the internalized basis of this system. At this juncture, the old world gives way to the new, and the O.T. to the N.T. The Rabbis either plead ignorance when in fact they know, or they[[,]] like their

-14-

Torah[[,]] have ossified at the level of two thousand B.C.E.

From a study of the original Torah it can be readily seen that unless it is susceptible to amendment, perhaps through precident, as is Roman and English law, it will spiral downward entropically, across the ages, and this is precisely what it has done. From the standpoint of entropy and negentropy, Jesus' system introduces new energy into the realm of moral precepts.

Jesus put the Jew in a difficult position. Israel had believed for centuries that the Torah came directly from God and therefore could only be amended by God. The God who had revealed to Moses the divine Torah had manifested himself in a striking theophany: lightning, thunder, dense clouds, a loud trumpet blast, and the necessity of setting up barriers to keep back the people, with such injunctions as, "Any man who touches the mountain must be put to death." The people of course were terrified. "Mount Sinai was all smoking, because the LORD had come down upon it in fire; the smoke went up like the smoke of a kiln…and the sound of the trumpet grew even louder." Against this commanding impression, Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey. He was the son of a rural carpenter, from a province out of which nothing good was said ever to come. He pits his ethical system against that revealed in the awesome theophany at Mt. Sinai and is destroyed.

When one considers the circumstances under which the original Torah was revealed to man, it is easy to understand why Israel would reject amendment by any human being whatever the system he offered in replacement. The circumstances of revelation, not the system itself, seems to be the legitimate issue. But in point of fact it is

not, although the argument for this is torturous. The circumstances will be the issue, legitimate or not. Jesus must prove that he is God if his system is to be accepted -- this without regard to the system itself. Hence the doctrine of the risen[[,]] Christ is crucial to the acceptance of the system, at least for antiquity. Today we could accept the system on its merits. It is accepted by countless people who deny the resurrection. On the other hand, no one who accepted the dogma of resurrection would deny the system, at least pro forma. Resurrection on the third day proved that the system of teachings did indeed originate from the same --or an equal-source as the Mosaic Law, the Torah. (Equal or superior; the Gnostics believed it was superior, and not the same source at all.) Today we really cannot fathom this unless we are acutely religiously inclined. Paul, however, knew that he could teach nothing of Christ unless he could affirm the resurrection convincingly. The fact of the growing acceptance of Jesus' teachings is due to the fact of an acceptance of the resurrection --initially-- and not due to a belief that the system was a superior system. I would argue that because it is a superior system Jesus probably was God, but in antiquity it would be the other way around; it was a superior system because Jesus was God. We overlook this.

But if Jesus were the Christ and did rise from the dead on the third day then the quality of theophany matched that of the former at Mt. Sinai. Everyone knows that only a man-god can rise from the dead. More, the body in which Jesus was resurrected was a different kind of body (this is central to Paul, and for good

reason; for essential reason. Were it a corporeal body a trick might have been involved, an accusation still made. What we today must realize is that the sudden, early spread of Christianity was emphatically and necessarily based on a widening conviction that Jesus had risen and in an incorruptable body. It is not within historic posibility that his ethical system would have caught on in the absence of this belief. The real story of Jesus is not, Here is someone with a superior ethical system but, Here is someone who rose from the dead in another kind of body and he has given us this system to live by. If you go back and analyze what happened at Mt. Sinai, whatever system this person, this god, God Himself, has given you, you will accept it; you must accept it or perish, because God gives life and God takes life; God and life and inseparable. By his resurrection Jesus showed his power to create ethical systems backed up by the primal ground of being. The system was inseparable from the existence of the universe. For example, if the LORD at Mt. Sinai had told Moses that the people were to boil chickens in their feathers --the chickens' feathers, not the people's-- it would have been as binding on them as the decalogue, as Thou shalt not kill. But what we have with Jesus is resurrection --proof of godhood-- yoked to the finest ethical system the world knows. So for us the argument can be turned around; we today can infer resurrection from the system, not the validity of the system from resurrection. It is a different world that we inhabit, now.

This is why the Torah contains the seeds of its own entropic destruction: it does contain what reasonable men understand to be mindless prescriptions. It is a vast hodgepodge and to follow every

tittle of it is to damage your sanity. This is not true of Jesus' system. This is why Paul rightly views Jesus' teachings as the spirit, and the Law as the letter. He has it right. He fully understands the difference between the Law and Christian teachings. Paul is a reasonable man. For example, it is not cruelty that causes him to taunt the Jews for caring about oxen; he is saying that the Law is mindless in its distinctions between obsessive ritual and pure substance. It is the Law because it was revealed. What we have here are the characteristics of a mechanical or slave entity, something below the threshold of consciousness. Paul as a Jew knew this very well. His analysis of the Law is flawless, and also blasphemy. We should take the latter into account in appraising him and what he says. Speaking as Paul spoke eventually cost him his life, and it cost the lives of many other people. Jesus foresaw this, and his own payment as well. Therefore no one can say that Jesus preached and Paul followed for practical reasons. They were pitted against Mt. Sinai, which represents absolute divine power, and against the Roman Empire, which is the embodiment of worldly, secular power. Thus Paul could speak of Christianity as a kind of foolishness greater in worth than the highest wisdom of men. ---

Out of ignorance I have made a basic error; I assumed that Judaism (although it did not know of original Sin) believed in the Fall; I thought this because Genesis seems very clear on this matter: Adam sins, and man is expelled from the Garden of Eden. Scripture seems clear to me on this point: we were supposed to dwell in Eden

-18-

but we disobeyed God and we were expelled into misery, and we still are expelled; Eden is guarded by cherubim with flaming swords (i.e. by angry angels). I never doubted that the story of the Fall could be explicitly seen in Genesis, but Judaism does not see it. Well, are we in the Garden? No. Were we supposed to be originally? Yes; that was the plan. Did we disobey and were expelled? Scripture clearly says so. I don’t see how Judaism can read Genesis any other way. "The Fall" means (1) Rebelling; and (2) Expulsion from Eden. These are not implicit in Genesis; they are explicit.

Another matter: the Tree of (eternal) Life, the eating of the fruit of which would make man like "us," like the Elohim. This is precisely the fruit that Jesus offers us. So even if you discard the notion of expulsion from Eden and the possibility of return, through Christ, you have this forbidden tree the fruit of which Christ now offers you ("Your ancestors ate manna in the wilderness and they are all dead. But I offer you the bread of eternal life which is my body; I am that bread," etc). Okay. I will reject the notion of original sin and the Fall; that man now is Fallen; I will go along with Judaism because I have always balked at the notion of original sin and I can see that the notion of original sin cannot be separated from the notion of the Fall, i.e. fallen man. But there is still the Tree of Life which was denied us and which Christ (I am told by the AI voice} stole. Stole to give to us; he got it through --smuggled it past-- the angels guarding Eden. In fact he restores us to Eden. Eden as place. And I will assume that the paranormal faculties conferred on me in 3-74 or disinhibited were not restored but were adventitious (contrary to

Calvin and the Book of Adam and Eve).

But the Book of Adam and Eve explicitly describes the paranormal faculties I acquired as those they had in Eden. This is too great a coincidence to be ignored. Still, I would like to reject Paul's notion of original sin; I think this is one of the best elements in Judaism in contrast to Christianity. But if I reject original sin I reject the Fall. Okay; I reject the Fall and I say, “Restoration" is not restoration at all but the bestowing of supernatural faculties through the fruit of the Tree of Life which is Christ, the eating of which makes us like the Elohim. Now that is certainly based on scripture.

Also, to get this fruit you return to the Garden; the purpose of returning you to the Garden is so that you can eat of this fruit, the fruit of the other tree of the two trees denied us -- stolen, as was the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil (the serpent's gift to us).

Wait; why, of course if man didn't fall --there was no Fall-- the Torah would be totally sufficient! So the doctrine of the Torah's inadequacy is tied in with the Fall, and the doctrine of its perfect adequacy is tied in with the denial of the Fall. I can interpret the Fall as punishment, with a removal of some human faculties and the occlusion (impairment) of others without the doctrine of sin; sin has nothing to do with it -- it is a punishment for stealing the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil --punishment by a dumb demiurge who wants to keep us enslaved -- as the Gnostics teach. So Gnosticism teaches the Fall without teaching original sin. And hereby the inadequacy of the Torah is logically supposed.

-20-

Then Judaism is even more occluded than Christianity, because by denying or ignoring the Fall Judaism has not realization that man has lost some of his faculties entirely and has had others occluded (impaired). The punishment by YHWH is totally successful, and part of the saving gnosis is contained in the Christian doctrine of the Fall because it permits us to comprehend that we are impaired -- deprived of some of our original faculties. So already, by believing in the Fall, Christianity has rolled back the cloud of enforced ignorance which the demiurge covered us with.

We fell, and the idea is to regain what we lost (1) in the way of faculties; and (2) return to Eden. "The Golden Age of humanity is not in the past but in the future," Rabbi Herz writes in his notes on Genesis. Well, and (3): the fruit of the Tree of (eternal) Life, which Christ specifically offers us.

Then I can see that conventional or orthodox Christianity in itself contains much of the saving gnosis, irrespective of Gnosticism. We fell; we lost Eden; we lost our faculties; Christ restores us (as Milton says; the doctrine of the Second Adam Who undoes the work of the first). Judaism knows absolutely nothing of this, of the events (loss of faculties) and aim (restoration). So of course the revelation at Mt. Sinai is considered adequate. And of course in Christianity it is not, and Christ must tell us, "But I say unto you –“ etc, and then so does. If you study Judaism and contrast it to Christianity you can see, for the first time, that Christianity is Faustian, that its real but covert message is “We were once as gods or as God, and Christ shall restore us,” ideas totally absent in Judaism, as is also absent the concept that the

-21-

Messiah would be the Son of God or God Himself as Christians believe about Jesus. This latter idea is logical given the former; God took away our brightness, our holy nature, and God has the power to restore it; Christ restores it; therefore Christ equals/is God.

So the doctrine of original sin is a method that permits Christians to believe all this without assigning any blame to God for man's Fall. In no sense did God do wrong in blighting, expelling and impairing and punishing man. Gnosticism sees this as a tactic and rejects it. The doctrine of original sin is only necessary if man alone is to hold the place of the guilty party, but the Gnostics are willing to blame God.

What is my opinion? Well, I have the statement of the AI voice: "Stolen secret." This is

absolutely Gnostic. Also, my "messenger" dream is Gnostic (as well as other elements; many, in fact). However, you have to become a dualist to be a Gnostic; you have to believe in two gods, not one. That’s the price you pay for abandoning the doctrine of original sin. Paul could retain his monotheism. The Gnostics can't, and don't want to.

Christianity is very wise; it stresses the remedy above the malady in its "felix culpa" doctrine -- which insures the positive or Faustian aspect of the belief-system, rather than the negative aspect (fallen, debased, sinful man… although many Protestants stressed the latter --but it is said of them that they went back to the O.T.; after all, kerygma or gospel means "good news," not "bad news"). The concept of "felix culpa" is not tangential to Christianity but cardinal. In a sense, everything is expressed here;

-22-

and what is most fascinating is that it gets God Himself off the hook re the idea that he planned badly. Before man fell, and God foreknew that he would, God had a remedy that exceeded the malady as was expressed in a recent satori I had. When I had that particular satori I was beginning to get to the heart of the true meaning of Christianity.

"Had there been no disasterous Fall, there might not have been an Incarnation.” Judaism rejects the notion of the Fall and as a result regards the doctrine of the Incarnation as blasphemy. The Fall and the Incarnation cannot (or are not) separated. Yes; so for Judaism there is a lot of noise and a bunch of rules, whereas we have the Savior.

Rabbi Herz: “The antidote to the poisoning of the human race by the serpent is found at Mt. Sinai." Could this be so? Have I made an error? Because "Sinai” could meant "Man is still in dialog with God and not cut off from him,” which is precisely my experience; I experienced a theophany, both visibly and audibly, which fits in with a view of man as still pure (having received the antidote; and the antidote still comes, directly from God; contrast this to Jesus in the N.T.: "No man has seen God.” But the Rabbis speak of humans seeing the Shekhina: “One Rabbi died; one went insane, one became irreligious, one escaped unharmed.")

Uh, Andy; less/look aroun' heah.

I did have in hypnagogic state these revealed words: “He has been transplanted and is alive" and I saw YHWH.

In Christianity there is a Mediator between God and man,

and yet (as I say in the outline of VALIS REGAINED) Elijah's theophany at Mt. Horeb (Sinai) shows that YHWH can modulate his appearance so as not to destroy the human percipient.

It was the O.T. that I read as a kid and prayed that God would speak to me. Not the N.T. God not Christ.

If God can/will modulate his theophanies so that they are endurable by humans, and there are such theophanies, what then is the need of a man-god Mediator? We can return to strict monotheism, as I spoke of in “Man, Android and Machine.”

And there was that “excluded from the centers of power" dream in which the AI voice identified itself as YHWH.

Have I not always believed that Paul's doctrine of original sin is terrible and not acceptable to me? That it has done harm in human history, dreadful harm, whatever the intent? And I figured out that the doctrine of the Vicarious Atonement --i.e. the purpose of the crucifixion-- rests on the doctrine of original sin.

In my revelations there are no N.T. designations, but at least three from the O.T. (YHWH

twice and St. Sophia, the latter identified by the Rabbis with the Torah).

I'm stuck. Paulline Christianity is unacceptable to me because of the doctrine of original sin. Gnosticism is unacceptable because it is bitheistic and unnecessarily complex. Judaism is unacceptable because it rejects Jesus' teachings. The only way out for me is to (1) Consider that YHWH still manifests himself to humans and that this was Valis; and (2) the Torah is alive, and this is what the plasmate was. I have some basis for believing these because when Valis' mind fused with my mind Valis seemed to be the author of all changes and

events in reality, and seemed to teach us as children (engramming); Valis seemed to have (1) prepared me for 2-3-74 by early-on engramming and (2) intervened vis-à-vis the Xerox missive to save me.

Also, Judaism opens the way for my viewing 3-74 in terms of Spinoza's immanent God, developed out of the Shekhina and the Cabala. A modified Spinozaism, that includes personality and pronoia and planning" Have I not said, “Transcendent deity is definitely out?" This would include Christianity and Gnosticism and of course theism. Not to mention (ugh) deism. Anyway, how could Valis be Christ, inasmuch as it is Christian dogma that Christ now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven; i.e. he is not here.

Ah. The doctrine of vicarious atonement is more repugnant to me than the doctrine of original sin. And, worst of all, is the idea (connected with the doctrine of vicarious atonement) that God would demand a sacrifice, i.e. the crucifixion, of his own Son which is to say Himself, which is nonsense, brutal and against all reason. There is no way I can be convinced that the notion of God demanding a ransom or slaughtered human or god-human sacrifice to redeem man is a reasonable idea; it is far more barbaric than the talion law of Judaism. Here is where I really balk, and since the doctrines of original sin and that of the vicarious atonement form a unitary view that is the very basis of Christianity -- well, it is beyond me, and I still say that Paul misuses Wisdom 3:1. We are not all dead, Ws says; only the evil think that (cf). If you want barbarism there you have it. Also, “This is my body; eat of it -- this is my blood; drink of it” although this is good mythic ritual practice I wonder if it can be sustain[[ed]] in the world of today; viz: eating the body of the dead god and drink-

-25-

ing his blood so as to acquire his powers. In any case it is as archaic a practice as talion law. The Romans, for instance, considered it cannibalism. It is obviously related to the worship of Dionysus, which is a very barbaric and ancient practice. So is Christianity that much of a reformation, a radical and revolutionary new version, of Judaism?

And then there is the merit of the accusation that Christianity despite all its protestations to the contrary departs from actual monotheism. Will Durant thinks it does. It seems to be based on the worship of Hermes Tristmegistos. A Greek/Egyptian worship.

Okay; now for the clincher. The EB macro article on Moses discusses the Hittite

Covenant and says that Moses realized that it was the model/basis for the covenant between Israel and YHWH. Among other lesser (to me lesser anyhow) aspects was this: God had come to the rescue of the helpless Hebrews in Egypt, so it was basic to the covenant between Israel and God that the Hebrews protect widows, orphans, the poor, the stranger, the disadvantaged, as God had protected them (Rabbi Herz points out correctly that this even included animals; “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox as he treadeth out the corn"). Nothing could enrapture me more; nothing could be closer to my own heart.

Interestingly (to say the least) the reason the AI voice gave for heaven's intervention on my behalf in 3-74 had to do with my aiding the kids at Covenant House; i.e. the weak and disadvantaged and helpless, which fits in with the Hittite Covenant. It is in fact a perfect replication of the Hittite Covenant.

-27-I can then go on to say with Dante that "God is the Book of the universe." After all, the

O.T. gives mention of Holy Wisdom having existed with God before creation and at the act of creation. And coming down from heaven to aid good men.

The situation is that in accepting the N.T. or parts thereof I do not have to give up the O.T.; they are not mutually exclusive. I can E accept the gospels and not Paul if I so wish.

3-2-80

THE ULTRA HIDDEN (CRYPTIC) DOCTRINE: THE SECRET MEANING OF THE GREAT SYSTEMS OF THEOSOPHY OF THE WORLD, OPENLY REVEALED FOR THE FIRST TIME.

So to explain 2-3-74 I draw on the Tibetian Book of the Dead, Orphism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Buddhism, esoteric Christianity and the cabala; my explanation sources are the highest -- which is good and which makes sense. But put another way, starting at the other end, have synthesized all these high sources and derived a single sensationally revolutionary occult doctrine out of them (which I was able to thin} up due to the addition of my 2-3-74 experience); the distillate expressed theoretically is, We are dead but don't know it, reliving our former real lives but on tape (programmed), in a simulated world controlled by Valis the master entity or reality generator (like Brahman), where we relive in a virtually closed cycle again and again until we manage to add enough new good-karma to trigger off divine intervention which wakes us up and causes us to simultaneously both remember and forget, so that we can begin our reascent back up to our real home. This, then, is purgatorio, the afterlife, and we are under constant scrutiny and judgment, but don’t know it, in a perfect simulation of the world we knew and remember -- v. UBIK and Lem's paradigm. We have for a long time been dying brains/souls slipping lower and lower through the realms, but the punishment of reliving this bottom-realm life is also an opportunity to add new good-karma and break the vicious cycle of otherwise endless reliving of a portion of our former life. This, then, is the Sophia summa of the 6 esoteric systems -- 7 if you count alchemy -- of the entire world. 8 if you count hermeticism. We are dead, don’t know it, and mechanically relive our life in a fake world until we get it right. Ma'at has judged us; we are punished, but we can change the balance… but we don't know we are here to do this, let alone know where we are. We must change the "groove" for the better or just keep coming back, not remembering nor reascending.