THE STUDY OF MAN

Lecture Seven - Last Things

I will start by making a distinction, which will be useful for what I have to say this evening. One can
make the distinction between a function and the use of a function, and the exercise of a function. Let us take the
case of seeing. We have our eyes, with which we see. They are our instrument for seeing. This instrument
would be useless to us if we had not the power to see if we were not the kind of beings that do see. If this
power is put out of action, then our eyes are useless to us. It goes out of action naturally and spontaneously
when we sleep, and we are not using our eyes. We can partially shut it off by closing our eyes. So, we can
clearly see that there is a distinction between the instrument of sight and seeing. What is not quite so easy is to
see that this power of seeing has something else to it, and that is that sometimes we exercise it and sometimes
we do not exercise it. We can decide to "look" and see what we look at. When we do this we are exercising the
power of seeing.

The power of seeing belongs to our experience; there is someone in us who is able to see. But this
power to see very often not exercised intentionally or by any decision of our own; on the contrary, our attention,
as we say, is "drawn" by what we are seeing, by what happens to impinge on our organ of sight that is our eyes.
We can say that in general, the way we live most of the time, and the way most people live, is that there is no
separation in them between seeing and the power of seeing and the exercise of this power. When this distinction
is not made, then this power is exercised mechanically. We are no more than seeing machines. Our own will is
dormant in the situation, we do not will to see, 'it sees' in us.

We can develop and improve the power of seeing by the practice of observation. Anyone whose
professional work requires that they should see certain things more clearly, be able to recognize and make
distinctions that would otherwise pass unnoticed, has to develop the power of observation. This power of
observation is the power of using this organ of sight.

It is the same with our other functions. We have an instrument of thinking. This instrument of thinking
has certain potential for its own development. In a newborn child it is almost latent; after a time it begins to
develop by the commerce with the external world. So the instrument of thought begins to become connected
with the power to think. But this ability or power to think, again, can be exercised or not exercised, and it can
even be developed quite apart from the exercise. This occurs by a kind of conditioning process by which
mental operations can be learned through training or through imitation, without calling upon that in us which
exercises the power of thought. Now, so long as we do not learn to exercise this power of ours, it remains
limited by what has already been put into it. In order to think in new ways, to think creatively, there has to be
the exercise of the power of thought, and not merely automatized mental operations. And it is the same with all
our different functions.

We can make this three-fold distinction, and if you will cast your minds back to the first lecture of this
series, you will see that this corresponds to the distinction I then made of function, being and will. Function is
the mechanism or instrument. It is in our Being, that we have these powers, which may either be latent or
active, weak or highly developed.

Will is that which exercises the powers. This is one way in which it is possible to define the word. It is
through the will that we are connected with our own functions, and our functions in turn with the present
moment in which we are living. When there is a complete situation, then the will, the being and the functions
are independent of one another so that the will is free to choose. The incomplete, or imperfect situation is that
in which the order of action is reversed. The functions take charge and the powers are no more than the
automatic working of the functions. They are exercised, not by our own will, but partly by the pressure of the
factors present in this moment; especially sensation, partly coming out or the past - memories and so on - partly
expectations and partly habits, all of which, as we say, 'move us to action'. If we are moved in that way we are
not exercising our own powers, but they are exercised for us by our environment and also by built-in habits of
our own functional mechanism.

You remember the analogy that is made, of man as an equipage, the horse, cart, driver and master and so
on, and the condition, which is .the reverse of the normal one for which man is intended, in which the cart drags
everything with it. This is the action of the external world on the body. The horses, that is the feelings, are
involved in the motion of the cart, the driver the mind and the master the "I" are carried along helplessly by the
parts of the equipage that should be serving them. This corresponds to the state of man when his functions are
being exercised for him by the pressure of the environment, by his habits and the rest. The right order is the
reverse of this: the will exercises the functions through these powers, and the powers themselves have been
developed in order to serve as an effective link between the will and the functions.

During this life of ours on the earth, this process of development and differentiation continues. In a
normal man it should be completed by the age of forty; that is to say, there should be the power to exercise his
functions with a developed being. For this reason it is sometimes said that the moment of birth of the soul is
normally at the age of forty, and that up to the age of forty it is normally a time for soul-formation. From the
age of forty onwards is the time of the soul's fulfillment. This is one of the traditional ways, as you know, in
which the development of the soul is described. In other representations, the soul is said to form between the
thirty-second and fortieth year, and if it lags far behind that, then soul-formation becomes difficult and may be
incomplete. These periods of time are for men; with women soul-formation follows different laws normally
connected with motherhood.

Now, we have to come, in this last talk, to the end of this process of life on the earth, and consider what
is going to happen to this complex human being. These three parts of man, his will, his being and his functions,
are not separable so long as he lives here on the earth; they can sometimes be differently related in the way I
have been describing, but they are always connected with one another. At the death of this physical body, the
functional mechanism is finished with; it disintegrates with the physical body. But the powers do not belong to
the physical body; they belong to the finer substances, which form his soul-stuff. And therefore this death,
which is called the first death, is a separation between the soul-stuff and the physical body, and the power of the
functions remain with the soul-stuff. In other words, although there are no longer eyes to see with, the power of
seeing remains, although there is no longer a brain to serve as an instrument of the thinking function, the power
of thinking remains.

This may seem strange, because we know that our seeing is intimately associated with the eyes. We
may accept that there is such a thing as vision without the eyes - what is called clairvoyant vision - but it is a
rare thing and one would hardly suppose that this is more important for man than the power of vision through
the organic instrument, that is, the eye. It is also, for example, commonly supposed that our mental processes
depend upon a certain conditioning of the nervous system, particularly the hemispheres of the brain, and that
also, in some way or another, our memories are deposited or printed as 'engrams' on the nervous mechanism.
Recent investigations from a physiological point of view have made this rather doubtful, and it is certainly more
than doubtful from the point of view that I am putting before you now. The finer energies of sensation and
consciousness become organized and as they develop, these powers learn. It is through this learning that
man's mind can deal with the complexity of the experiences through which man has to pass through his life.
This is 'knowing how'. We 'know how' through the soul-stuff. It is this that holds the powers of seeing, feeling,
thinking and the rest of it, and I think it is probably right to say that our memory is imprinted on the soul-stuff
and not a conditioning of the nervous system. We can lose our memory through damage to the soul-stuff, or by
damage between it and the functions. Memory can strangely be restored again; memory can even be
recognized where there is such extensive damage to the brain that one would expect nothing to be left and
preserved in it.

There are thus certain indications - if not clear evidence - that our memory does not depend upon the
brain, but rather upon the sensitivity and consciousness that forms this mind-stuff or soul-stuff. If that is right,
then it would follow that memory is not destroyed by death but it goes with the soul-stuff as it separates from
the physical body. But at the same time it also must be recognized that very much depends upon the degree 'to
which the soul-stuff is organized. If it has not been integrated in the way I spoke of in an earlier lecture -
through the stages of self-formation, to become a soul, then, although memories may be imprinted on it, and
various powers may be carried with it, it is not an integrated whole that is able to carry these memories and
these powers into a personal state of existence. Therefore, this would suggest that the condition of the soul-stuff
after death depends very much upon the way in which it has been used during life. If there has been no directed
intention, no purposeful living, but constant changing of aims and purposes, following conflicting desires, then
the soul-stuff remains disorganized and although it may have certain memories and the rest, it will be drawn
back into what I call the Soul-Stuff Pool without any coherent existence. If, on the other hand, it has been
organized, then this organization will survive, because the organization does not depend upon the organization
of the physical organism.

Before I go on to say more about the further deductions that we can make from these general principles I
have been defining for you regarding this three-fold nature of man, I want to speak about the conclusions we
should already draw about the latter part of our lives. It is quite sure that these three parts are differently related
to the larger Present Moment which contains our life from birth to death. Our bodily existence is an obligation
that we have to care for so long as we are involved in it, but it is only important for us in the kind of way that,
let us say a bus is important to us so long as it is taking us from our starting point to our destination. When we
leave it, we are no longer concerned with the maintenance of the bus. If we look upon our physical bodies in
this kind of way, we see that we are necessarily and obligatorily concerned with the maintenance and welfare of
this physical body so long as we require it as an instrument, but only to that extent. And this physical body
itself is dependent upon various external supports, various material supports. We require, not only to feed it,
but to clothe and house it and the rest, and these things have to be taken care of. There is also the selfhood
which is the link between the soul-stuff, the intermediary between the mind and the external world. It is
through the four different parts of the self that we deal with the world. Through the material self we know and
act upon the material world. Through the reactional self that we gain from our life the force to pursue our aims
and to go in a definite direction. These selves of ours depend on the external world; they are affected by
material things, by other people, by the conditions, which may not be known to us of the celestial influences
from day to day as they affect the divided self, the character and so on. But this interplay between the selfhood
and the world is limited to our existence in the physical body. Although it is necessary to have these selves in
us, these organizations of the soul and mind stuff in us, their role is completed when this body is left. Therefore
we should, as time goes on, withdraw our interest from these things upon which the activity of the selves
depend. For some people attachment to external supports is left early, for others it is very difficult to leave
because they are dependent upon the opinion of other people, upon what are called name and fame, upon
possessions, security and the rest of it.

As we prepare ourselves to leave this life, these factors should have a diminishing significance for us.
But there are other factors which though important throughout life become increasingly important at this stage.
They are those which permit the right organization of the soul-stuff. A certain degree of withdrawal from
activity is really necessary for the right crystallization, or organization of the soul. There are certain practices of
contemplation, of prayer, that have, among other purposes, also this purpose that they enable the soul to acquire
a complete and harmonious structure. There is also a return we have to make towards this world in which we
have been living. Those who grow older have gained experience from life. This experience can be of value
to those who are entering into this process. There should therefore be a natural and necessary commerce
between the old and the young.

These things are connected with the preparation for this moment of separation, when the debt of our
earthly existence: should have been paid and it is possible to put aside all the instruments connected with this
earthly existence in order to pass into a different state of existence. This is not rightly called a disembodied
state, because there remains an energetic structure, a structure made of finer energies in varying degrees of
organization and perfection. The word 'varying degrees' hardly conveys the extraordinary differences between
people in the condition of their soul-stuff. We see great differences in the functioning of people; what we do
not see are the invisible differences in the condition of the soul-stuff, unless a certain development of the power
of inward vision has come. When that kind of non-corporeal vision develops, then something begins to be seen;
and what is seen is the condition of the soul-stuff.

When the interest has been almost entirely confined to the material world, then the soul-stuff is almost
wholly identified with the material body and very little remains. But within that very little that remains, all the
capacities for experience are concentrated. This is a very terrible 'state of affairs. People should be able to
experience these distinctions. It has very strongly sometimes been born in on me, for example when, going to
the funeral of somebody I knew and becoming really aware how contracted, almost like a little nut with no
kernel, this soul-stuff had become, and how every possibility of experience had been really contracted into the
experience of material things. And at other times an extraordinary sense of almost unlimited openness and.
freedom in the liberation of the soul-stuff from the body. If any of you have become aware of these
extraordinary differences that there are in the condition after a short time - days or so - after death, when you are
able perhaps to appreciate and feel what is happening, then it is impossible not to take this stage of life more
seriously.

I do not want to dwell upon the less attractive features of dying after unfavourable conditions of life,
unfavourable because of one's own failure to respond to the possibilities that are open to us. . But, suppose, let
us think now, that there has been a formation of the soul-stuff that does correspond, more or less, to the normal
state of existence for man.

Now these powers are no longer limited by the particular instruments of this body. If there has been a
real formation of this power of thought, feeling, and particularly of sympathy and compassion, then this soul-
stuff has a corresponding state of existence. It is withdrawn from the temporal process, and therefore it is
rightly said to be in an eternal state. It corresponds to the state of the soul-stuff pool, which is also in the state
of potentiality, latency, not undergoing temporal change, or exchange, but yet able to have experience, and this
experience certainly corresponds to what has been stored up in the soul-stuff. Under favourable conditions it is
a state of bliss, beatitude. But at the same time it is a subjective state because there are not the instruments by
which these powers can be exercised. It is more like a dream state.

This state, although from the inside, that is, from the point of view of the centre of experience, it is
timeless, and therefore endless, objectively, it is in the whole process of the transformation of history. And
therefore it has also a duration, and then this duration is completed - and this depends upon the degree of
organization - then there comes a second separation. Most traditions speak about the second death, or
judgment. There is a fairly general agreement, based upon insights, or illuminations that people have had about
these states, that there are two distinct separations: the first is the one I have spoken of, the separation of the
soul-stuff from the physical body, and the second is that which comes when the results of the life on the earth
have worked themselves out in the form of subjective experience, and then either this soul-stuff returns into the
soul-stuff pool and the will, the Individuality, returns to its Source, or something different can happen and that
depends upon whether there has been the second transformation in man. That is, the transformation of will.
Hitherto I have been speaking only about the transformations of the energies, of sensitivity and consciousness,
which bring about the different states and organization of the soul-stuff, but there is also in man that which
exercises the powers. If there is an intention in life, that is, an aim is pursued, and also if that aim does
correspond to the real destiny of that particular individual, then it is this individuality that takes possession of
the soul-stuff. This is what is rightly called - and indeed only this - an immortal soul.

You must understand that a distinction has be made here between 'eternal' or 'timeless' states and
'immortal' or 'historical' states. If you remember I spoke in the second lecture about the present moment as
having extension in different directions, and I spoke here about what I called the Hyparchic Future.
 ETERNITY
S.S.P.

HYPARCHIC FUTURE

CAUSAL PAST DETERMINED FUTURE

LIVING PAST

I called one direction the Living Past, and I referred to the vertical directions of Eternity. The soul-stuff
pool would be located in the direction of Eternity. The body belongs to the time line and cannot penetrate
outwards in that direction, and therefore disintegrates within this present moment.

My own meditations on this theme have led me to connect the second death with what I have called the
dimension of Hyparxis. I have come to some very extraordinary conclusions about the nature of the Hyparchic
Future. This is a direction in which it is possible to get ahead of time, to outstrip time. This future, which is
reality, is not conditioned by the causes that impinge on our present moment because it has, as it were,
outstripped the causal sequence of events. My own belief is that there is such a region, or such a state of
existence, which is very hard indeed for our minds to grasp, because, whenever we think of something as
existing, we can hardly prevent ourselves from thinking of it as existing now. We can easily picture to
ourselves something 'existing in a different place, a thousand miles away, or a million miles away. But if it
exists, it still for us must exist now. If' you reflect upon it, you will see that this is nothing more than the result
of the way we talk. There is no reason at all to suppose that everything that exists, exists now. You can
become convinced, as I became convinced long ago, that the past exists, but the past does not exist now. If it
did it would not be past, it would be present. The past exists past. But it is possible to stretch out from the
present and enter into tree past, which is quite a different thing from bringing the past into the present. If we
say we can make contact with the past, we do so by a movement out of this present moment. And when we
talk of 'living in the past', we talk of something which is really possible, though the words are often used with
no meaning at all, referring just to a state of dreaming about the past. But when we talk about living in the
future, about entering into the future, then really we are speaking about something our minds can become
accustomed to only if we make a determined effort to rid ourselves of the idea that to exist must mean to exist
now.

If the future exists, then it is free from the limitations of the present. But not all of the future is equally
free from these limitations; some of the future, the one represented by the horizontal arrow is determined: it will
have to be as it is because there are causes that do not allow it to be; otherwise. But not all is determined by
causes, and not all will be determined by what is now. There is a free future, and this free future, at its extreme
limit the truly free future - is what I call the Hyparchic Future. That future is able to look at our present as we
look at the past, but look at it differently because we arc not able to be effectual in the past, but that future can
be.

According to my own belief, this Hyparchic. Future is what is meant by the difficult term 'The Kingdom
of Heaven'. This is what is reached by the second death; that is, there having been a separation from causal time
at the first step, there is the separation from the eternal condition, timeless condition at the second death, and
whatever is capable of living in the Hyparchic Future enters into that state. That is quite different from a state of
subjective experiencing, which is the state, which comes after the first death because it is a state where what
fundamentally remains is the will.
When I say this I speak of something of which I had a very clear insight myself, about eighteen years ago, and
could not afterwards have any doubt about this different kind of existence, which is an existence in which the
central element is the will, not the functional mechanism, nor the soul-stuff which is the link between the will
and the mechanism. When it is truly achieved it is a creative state. When the will is able to enter into that state,
it is able to make its own instruments and choose its own powers. This, of course, depends upon the hold
which this will has upon reality. It can only have this hold upon reality if it has the power through which it can
exercise, so that there has to be some union between the Individuality and the soul-stuff. That union, which
makes what I call the immortal soul. If it is lacking, then the Individuality returns to the Source from which it
came and its role is completed. It is not destructible because its nature is neither to be nor not to be. It is able to
go out of existence, which does not mean to become nothing. About that I cannot speak anyhow because it
would require too long and I am more concerned with the positive possibility, where there has been a com-
pletion, and in this state of completion the will retains its powers and is able, with these powers, to create its
own instruments, which includes its own body. It may be - I have to say 'it may be' because I have nothing
more than conjecture here - that this is a clue to the meaning of the phrase 'resurrection of the body'.

What I have been saying to you has developed out of what we do observe and find in our experience,
here in this life; that we do find in our experience that there are these three parts of our own nature and that they
obviously are differently related to our condition of existence here on the earth. You must remember that I was
led to the notions of eternity and hyparxis for quite different reasons connected with the nature of the physical
world. If we accept these notions and so enlarge our framework beyond the limitations of space and time - then
what I have said about the living Past and the Hyparchic future follow as logical deductions.

Something else though has to be said about the condition after the second death. One might suppose that
when the will separates, not only from the functions but also from any particular quantum of soul-stuff, that it is
then isolated and has to make fresh bodily instruments in order to come in contact with other wills. I am sure
that this is not how it is. In order to reach the-ultimate state of freedom in the Hyparchic Future, the will has to
coalesce, become united, with the Will that creates that domain, a Supra-personal Individuality. Theologically
one may think in other terms about it, but for our descriptive purposes we should say this, that the separate
personal-individual will cannot sustain the condition of existence in the Hyparchic Future; it has to gain great
strength through what it has gone through in life and after death, but it is still not able to sustain this condition
of freedom and creative power. It must be united with a Great Will in which other wills are united also.

There is a different condition, which we do not understand and which at this stage in the evolution of
mankind we do not even wish to understand. I speak about 'this stage of man's evolution' because we have just
passed through a long period - several thousand years - during which the status of the individual, the dignity and
the importance of the individual person, has been stressed, to some extent to the detriment of the notion of
union between individuals.

I believe that we are now entering a further phase of evolution in which union will be seen to se nearer
to the real destiny of man than separateness, and that it will begin to be seen that to become united in will with a
greater will than our own is really the necessary step in the fulfillment of our destiny.

There is another well-known phrase - a phrase often taken too lightly - of the 'Communion of Saints',
which is taken very often to mean brotherhood of all good people. I think this completely underrates the
significance of saintliness on the one hand, and of union on the other. The Communion of Saints is not just a
company of good people living happily together; it is a transformed mode of being. A mode in which many
wills have united without losing themselves in the process. This possibility of ceasing to be separate, and yet
not ceasing to be oneself does not arise except in the condition that I call the Hyparchic State, or the Hyparchic
Future. The nature of this is to make it possible for individuality to be preserved and yet separateness to be
transcended, or removed. This is not something that our minds can grasp, but I put it to you in order to
complete the representation of this further stage.
 I think it is important for us to consider seriously this hypothesis that there are two deaths, because, in
the long run, it is what will happen at the second death that is important. In past times, when the development
of human knowledge and experience did not allow the use of more precise language, this was referred to as the
'Day of Judgment', the time of the reckoning and so on. It was a picture occurring in future time, in the year so
and so, and the notions of the end of the age and things to come, were all interpreted and thought about as
belonging to future time. When one reads some of the most extraordinary and powerful sayings in the Gospel,
one sees that where there is an apparent reference to future time, sayings such as "I go to prepare a place for
you" make sense only if we interpret them as referring to the Hyparchic Future.
,
Because I said that what is really important is what will happen at the second death, one should come
back to this life here and ask oneself what prepares for the second death. Certainly there is a difference. It is
possible to prepare for the first death and not prepare for the second. For example, it is possible
to earn such merit in life that there will be, after the first death, a blissful state of existence, a paradisal state. It
is also possible, of course, to have acted in such a way as to bring on one self the very reverse of a blissful state
after the first death. But this does not touch the question, or the condition of the second death. The second
death is not concerned with the rewarding and punishing of the actions of this life; the second death is
concerned with the state of the will, and the state of the will is here, most directly, dependent upon the condition
of our own egoism.

It may seem strange to you to suggest that one could gain or one could acquire such merit as to have a
blissful existence and yet not be free from 'egoism. 'That is because we are thinking of egoism simply as
something wicked, bad, and so on,' But there is a. kind of ‘white’ egoism, which is the wish to be good, to earn
the rewards of goodness and the rest of it, but still not emptying oneself at the centre. If this is not done, then, at
the second death, there is not the possibility of entering into this state of union. And: therefore, rightly to
understand the way our lives should be lived in order to prepare ourselves for the two deaths, we have to realize
that it is not our actions but our will that determines what will happen at the second death. So long as we are
self-willed, self-centred our actions may be blameless, but we shall not be able to make the necessary act which
allows the personal will to be established in the Hyparchic Future.

This may be one reason for this apparently strange doctrine, or thought, in religion, about the
transformation that can occur at the moment of' death, for example, or almost at the moment of death to people
whose lives have been anything but meritorious. I call it a strange doctrine because it seems strange that what is
called 'deathbed repentance' can be a reality. It can indeed release the soul from egoism once and for all,
although it can-also be something very different. The reason why a simple act of repentance can change
the entire situation is that it refers not to the first death but the second. It is an act of will made by the Personal
Individuality at a moment when it is free from the limitations of the self-hood. If it is truly made in this way,
the Individuality will find itself in the Hyparchic Future. Certainly, between the first and second death, there
are accounts to be settled - a purification or purgation of the soul-stuff must occur to enable it to enter into the
Hyparchic State. Thus, the two doctrines, one of Karma expressed in the saying of St. Paul, "As a man soweth
so must he also reap" and one of Repentance, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" - are seen to be
compatible and consistent. One applies to the soul-stuff and the other to the Will.

You must understand that I have been telling you my own personal conclusions reached partly from
many years of meditation on these questions and partly from experiences or illuminations that I believe were
authentic. Nevertheless, you must not take what I have said in this or any of the lectures as authoritative: my
aim has been to communicate, not to teach. I sincerely hope that you will make full use of the response and
verification forms that you have received.