We live in times in which there is so much talk of weapons, whether bombers, battleships, tanks, flying bombs, hand grenades, machine guns, revolvers or bayonets. The noise and the clouds of smoke that arise from this culmination of sabotage and destruction are spreading far and wide, kilometres up into the atmosphere. Murders, bloodbaths and the death cries of entire peoples are resounding throughout the world. An avalanche of death is carving a path across the Earth. And the great problem for mankind in these times of suffering is inevitably: "What or who is this power to kill?"

Yes, it is certainly true that these phenomena are the outer garments in which the energies of war and fighting are clothed. But just because something manifests in one or other of these phenomena does not necessarily mean that it is in itself "evil" or war-promoting. "Capitalism" is not necessarily in itself "evil", on the contrary, true "capitalism" enables the "capitalist" to offer his neighbour far greater material help than absolutely any other being. He can donate millions of crowns to many different charitable causes.

"Politics" is in principle no different than the two preceding factors. It can in itself be an exuberantly energetic release of force that guides these factors so that they come into contact with the very highest moral basis. If we take a closer look at the principle of "politics" this will in itself have just as little to do with "evil" as the two previous principles. Indeed, it can even represent the highest idealism and have as its purpose the love of one's fellow human beings, just as it can of course also be an expression of the highest vanity and the desire to conquer and possess power, promoting subjugation by creating supremacy for certain beings and either open or camouflaged slavery for others. But something that can just as strongly be used in the service of "goodness" as in the service of "evil" or lack of love cannot be judged to be an evil phenomenon. Only that which causes the thing to be used in the service of "evil" can rightfully deserve such a judgement.

The fourth of the afore-mentioned phenomena, which under the term "business" rules almost exclusively the entire civilised world, is in itself or in its purest sense a principle that is also completely devoid of absolutely anything to do with "evil" or mental darkness. On the contrary, it is by nature an expression of nothing other than the eternal creator's own great main principle: "something for something", that is to say, "equal value for equal value". In this its purest sense "business" belongs to the very highest degree to what is "good". It actually maintains the equilibrium or eternal balance of the universe. In this pure state this principle makes all egoistic exploitation of other living beings impossible. By complying with the business principle no one gains life's blessings by being a parasite, or by living a life of luxury in wasteful, lazy indolence at the expense of other people's health and vitality and their natural claims to life, in such a way that causes these people to perish in a state of degradation, hunger and want. In those cases where the "business principle" is manifested merely in the form of camouflaged robbery and looting, that is to say, where this principle is used as a pretext for acquiring not "equal value for equal value" but "greater value for less value", the "businessman" in question has acquired an amount of value without paying for it. This amount is therefore stolen. And the "businessman" is not a "businessman" but a "thief". The fact that society protects this "robbery" by camouflaging it as "business" does not change the cosmic analysis of the principle. In the absolute sense all "business" transactions are in this way "robbery". And owing to the fact that this "robbery" is camouflaged as something that is morally acceptable, this "robbery" will furthermore in the cosmic sense be stamped as "deceit". Here more than anywhere else the words of the Saviour apply: "So, if you think that you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall."

It is quite obvious that a civilisation based on the authorisation of such robbery and deceit means that its individual members have to be almost exclusively "robbers" and "deceivers", and equally people who have been "deceived" or "robbed". Is not an extremely large part of our educational curriculum based on training each individual in precisely this "authorised system of robbery and deception", camouflaging it as "business"? – It is certainly not difficult to understand that such a civilisation cannot possibly endure, but has to disintegrate into war, mutilation, humiliation and ruin. Is it not a fact that culture after culture has disappeared, as new and more ingeniously worked out methods favouring this system of deception have been discovered, enabling the discoverer of such methods to throw out the society's existing culture? Do not countless heaps of rubble the world over tell the tale of the destruction of ancient great cities and civilisations that have long ago crumbled to dust? And what is it that is taking place before our eyes today? Is not the highest and most modern civilisation that has ever existed on Earth falling into ruins? Does not the world at present express the prevailing manifestation of the effects of the complete collapse of the authorised "business principle"? Is it not the sense of being the object of the highest possible form of "injustice" that, like a powerful hurricane raging across the Earth and using its very last ounce of ingenuity, is releasing everything it can contrive in the way of killing, murdering and mutilation? There is nothing that is more holy and sacrosanct. To wreak revenge, revenge and yet more revenge on the "criminals" and to obliterate them is the great wish that people have in common. In all camps, among all groups of people, on all battlefields or war zones, people are crying out for the "criminals", that is say their opponents, to be punished. There is only one great sense that is guiding mankind today and that is "the sense of being a victim", or the sense of being the object of blood-smeared injustice. Which of the warring factions would admit being animated by any other spirit, attitude or way of looking at things? Which of the warring factions cries out: "I have made a mistake, I will now make good all my offences, I will replace all that I, albeit with the protection and authorisation of civilisation and the authorities, have stolen from other beings, either openly or through deceit?" None. Only the "victor" can force the "vanquished" to acknowledge outward capitulation, but there exists no material power or terror that can cause the "vanquished's" "sense of being a victim" to capitulate. The feeling of being unjustly treated by the opponent grows to the degree that attempts are made, using torture, punishment or other powerful means, to wipe it out. And this brings us to the greatest form of power to be found anywhere in the universe, a power to which all the explosives, all the most ingenious means of killing, all the secret as well as known weapons in the world, must inevitably capitulate. This power is the power of the "mind". The "mind" is therefore a power that has the ability to vanquish all; it is the secret power behind weapons.

The principles of capitalism, militarism, politics and business are therefore not in themselves "evil" factors; they can just as well be used in the service of what is "good" as what is "evil". So, the "evil" or "good" element must be the secret power that rules and directs them. Since this power, as already mentioned, is the "mind", and this in turn is the combination of the living being's sensory perception and the resultant "ability to recognise", and this in its turn determines how the being exercises its will, it is therefore this ability to recognise that constitutes the most fundamental cause of whether the above-mentioned principles will unfold in favour of "good" or "evil".

But this recognition can be identical to knowledge that one has experienced personally and that therefore has the appearance of a "fact", or equally it might merely be an account delivered by other beings, which then can at most be a postulate, dogma or assumption, in those cases where it does not actually constitute correct "theoretical knowledge". As this acquiring of impressions of life and the surroundings through the senses forms the being's recognition and consequently its "mind", it becomes clear what a colossal range of "false" forms it is possible for this "mind" to consist of. A "mind" can therefore be nothing other than a concentrated combination of mere handed-down dogmas, accounts from other beings, postulates that the being instinctively feels drawn to and therefore becomes a "faithful" adherent of, even though they are quite cut off from possessing these acquired phenomena as realistic knowledge or fact. These can therefore be totally false without this altering in any way the being's attraction to them or belief in them. They will simply constitute its "mind" and without hindrance direct the way it exercises its will, which in turn will affect the way it relates to its surroundings.

This makes it apparent to us how the "mind" behind religion or the religious forces in human beings determines whether these forces are used in the service of "good" or "evil". In fact, religion can, as we have seen, be used in the service of "evil" even when this goes directly against the main teachings of the religion.

We are all in a way mental trees in the Godhead's great garden. And consequently, we must bear fruit. This fruit is what we call the "mind". The "mind" can therefore consist of many different kinds of fruit. Some of us can bear fruit that causes us to be downright destroyers or persecutors of the truth or that causes us to promote illusions and lies, or to create war, death, torture, mutilation or crucifixion, in the belief that this gives us great moral standing. Others can bear fruit that is immensely rich in blessings, promoting eternal truth, spreading life, power, joy and happiness or mental healing into every mind in which there would otherwise be suffering as a result of superstition, sorrow or troubles, thus making us into beings that are actually to a greater of lesser extent "one with Christ" or a world redeemer. The "mind" is the all-governing power behind the manifestations. It is the "mind" that makes us "evil" or "good". It is the "mind" that makes us construct the most refined and terrible murder weapons and instruments of mutilation, such as revolvers, machine guns, bombers, cannons, tanks, flame-throwers, poison gas and other technical and chemical products that destroy life. And it is the "mind" that causes us to use these phenomena either in the service of hate or of love. It is the "mind" that makes us instigate the most ingenious things that are of value to society, such as railways, steamships, aeroplanes, trams and cars, healthy and hygienic living conditions, hospitals, care for the infirm or elderly, the government, the judicial system, law and order etc. etc.

What then, is the "mind"? The "mind" is that very phenomenon in the living being that makes it a "living being". The "mind" is "life" itself. In turn, life consists of two phenomena: "creation" and "experience", and these two phenomena are in turn identical to what I, in my main work, Livets Bog, have called "life's basic answer no. 2", and expressed as "cause and effect". "Creation" cannot come about or be manifested without being "cause" and "effect". But as it is just as impossible for "effects" to come about without being the "cause" of new "creation", that will in turn be the "cause" of new "effects" and so on, "life" or the "mind" becomes an endless chain of manifestation or creation, an endless chain of experience, thereby confirming itself as "eternal" or "immortal". It is this "eternal" or "immortal" aspect of the living being that makes it manifest either as a being that brings about murder, suffering and misery, or as a being that is rich in blessings and that produces joy and happiness. It is the "eternal" aspect of the being that makes it either "evil" or "good", so that it either resembles the outer natural world and is one with the laws which govern the way Nature expresses itself, or it goes against Nature and its laws and is thereby in disharmony with the vast life in which one "lives, moves and has one's being". It is therefore the "mind" that is the cause of our sorrow and unhappiness, just as it is the cause of our highest happiness and bliss. Everything in our fate has its source in something or other in our "mind". But if our "mind" has such an all-encompassing role in our fate, indeed is our fate, then absolutely any view of ourselves as a "victim" living a life of "martyrdom" for which one or other of our fellow beings is responsible, is to the very highest degree tantamount to "superstition". It is not this or that being that is our real most fundamental "enemy". It is not this or that being that is the true "cause" of our "unhappiness", just as it is not this or that being that is the true "cause" of our fate appearing as "happy" and "blissful". How could it be? If we feel that something is a source of "unhappiness" or "happiness" it is not a question of our neighbour's behaviour towards us, it is not a question of what he is doing or not doing. The true "cause" of our sensing the thing as either "evil" or "good" is nothing other than our own "mind", that is to say our own appearance as, and identity with, eternal life's chain of "cause and effect". Owing to our identity with this it is absolutely impossible to experience "effects" that we are not ourselves the prior "cause" of. It is impossible for "effects" to come about without a prior "cause". If we are suddenly knocked down and robbed on a dark road, perhaps even wounded and mutilated, we have definitely been subjected to a whole series of "effects". And you may well say that in such a situation we would be totally innocent, the assault therefore being a "crime" that we have the right to "avenge" by causing the perpetrator to be "punished". And that is perfectly true within the judicial system that for the time being every civilised society is forced to adopt. Within the area that we are able to perceive and have command over, that is to say, to the extent that we can survey the mystery of life, things cannot be judged otherwise. But at the same time, it is a fact that the area on the basis of which the judgement is made is only an extremely small, local area in the immense interplay of forces that constitute the whole, which in this case is the robber's "eternal chain of cause and effect". This chain, due to its "eternal" existence, is identical to "infinity". But as we cannot see this in its entirety, only seeing a tiny microscopic section of it, how can we be sure that our judgement of the robber's behaviour is absolutely "just"?

This behaviour that became the "effects" in our fate, that is to say the chain of "cause and effect" in our life, is such an infinitesimally tiny part of the infinity of partly the robber's and partly our own "chain of cause and effect" that it is extremely likely that the event, when seen as a whole from a wider perspective, can be something completely different than the event it seems or is presumed to be when seen in this tiny local area, and which forms the basis of the "administration of punishment". If one sees merely one single letter of text in a large book of several thousand pages, there is no way of knowing which other letters in the book it is connected to, and the proper placing and meaning that it has in the book as a whole. It is therefore impossible for our judgement or perception of this letter to be a perfect or absolute assessment of the book itself, as we are in this case completely cut off from everything one needs in order to make such an assessment. Our judgement will merely reveal our own like and dislike of the letter. The letter might have an artistic beauty that is to our taste and we will admire and gain joy from it, or equally it might appear in a style that is absolutely not to our taste and it will therefore evoke our dislike in the form of disparaging remarks about the letter. In both cases our assessment or criticism of the letter has nothing whatsoever to do with the letter's real mission and its connection to the work in which it appears. It is therefore only how the letter relates to us, in other words the letter's effect on our "mind", that we adopt as a standard for measuring the purpose of its existence. Our criticism, our like or dislike of the letter, is our "mind's" reaction to it. But since this reaction, as we have said before, can just as well be a like as a dislike of the letter, regardless of the true purpose of its existence and necessity in the work in which it belongs, the whole problem is in reality not a question of the purpose, mission or absolute analysis of the letter but merely a question of the reaction of our own "mind" to the letter. And does this not present us with a clear picture of the reaction of our mind to the aforementioned robber, or to put it more precisely, to our neighbour? – Whether our neighbour's manifestation is to rob or to caress, this action cannot possibly be anything other than a tiny, microscopic part of the whole that makes up the infinite chain of "causes and effects" of his life or eternal appearance. The little incident that we have been subjected to, even though it might have caused us a lot of pain, can be a mere single "letter" in the great "book" that constitutes his eternal life and existence. And as this "book" is even larger, is in fact absolutely gigantic in relation to the book that we described earlier with several thousand pages – what are several thousand pages in a book that is infinite, in a book that is eternity itself – our judgement of our neighbour as a "robber" will thus not be an absolute judgement of our neighbour's true, highest self, or the divine "book" or "eternal work" he as a "living being" constitutes. Our judgement will merely reveal our reaction to the single little "letter" in this "eternal" work that our neighbour's robbery can, at the very most, be expressed as being.

That this neighbour did not in any way bring about the very first decisive "cause" or basis of us being subjected to the action that we call a "robbery", and the fact that we ourselves are thus the absolute primary cause that set it in motion, are facts that lie completely beyond the area of what we would normally acknowledge on an everyday, physical basis. That it was possible at all for our neighbour's action to make its way into our fate, that is to say into our own "chain of cause and effect", is due to the fact that we at some point or other, perhaps even in a previous life, have through our actions set in motion or formed this chain in such a way that it created the possibility of a collision with our neighbour's "chain or cause and effect". It is a demonstrable fact that we can be subject to – "effects". But as it is not possible for "effects" to come about without a prior "cause", there must actually exist a "cause" that brings us into the kind of situation in which our neighbour can rob us. This "cause" is not to be found in the "neighbour", owing to the fact that this same cause must have to have been already set in motion before we met this neighbour. But if the "cause" of our being robbed was already to be found in ourselves before we ever met the neighbour in question, it becomes clear that it is absolutely impossible for the neighbour to be the primary "cause" of our fate. And the same thing applies to every possible situation. Whatever our neighbour does to us he can never in any case whatsoever be the "primary cause" of our experience of him becoming mixed up in our own fate. Before this happens there always has to exist a "cause" that enables us to be the object of our neighbour's influence, whether that be robbery or caressing, hate or love. There has to be something that "causes" us to meet this neighbour or to come into contact with him. The fact that we have perhaps in no way sought him out but that he has sought us out does not alter the principle. If he has sought us out, even though we might not know each other at all, it can only be because we have released or given rise to something that attracts him or awakens his interest, whether in order to hate us or caress us.

As we have seen, the "primary cause" of our experiences can never in any situation whatsoever be found in anyone else but ourselves. Whatever form our life takes or whatever experiences we encounter, the situation will without fail be such that we are faced with the question: What has caused us to come face to face with precisely the originator of these events? For only that which is the "cause" of these events can be the true "cause" of these events becoming our fate. As this "cause" must have been set in motion before we met the events and their originator – if it had not, the meeting would never have taken place – it is therefore, as already pointed out, impossible for this originator to be the true originator or "primary cause" of our fate.

This "false belief" about their neighbour is therefore terrestrial human beings' greatest "evil". It is the "seed" of one's own unhappy fate, regardless of what particular form of unhappiness or unpleasantness this fate takes. If the human being manages to develop the ability to love his neighbour so that he can relate to him with one hundred percent love, it means that he will end up inhabiting a plane of existence in which it is just as impossible for illness and accidents to occur as it is for war, persecution or wounding of one's neighbour to occur on this plane. Such hundred percent love, of course, also includes ceasing to murder our fellow beings on the animal plane, so-called "animals". These beings are among the fellow creatures that God blessed after the creation, commanding them to be "fruitful and multiply and bring forth abundantly in the earth".

It is quite true that it is necessary for vegetarians to eat and enjoy vegetable food that lies slightly outside these prescribed limits, such as roots, leaves and stalks, and even in certain cases nuts, these being situations that are not entirely in contact with a hundred percent fulfilment of the divine commandment. But an "Adam" that for example ninety percent complies with this commandment is closer to his state of perfection and more in God's image than an "Adam" that ninety percent contravenes it. It goes without saying that the effects of such a situation are unavoidable. Was it not the effects of this "forbidden fruit" that meant that the Earth be "cursed", in other words be full of disharmony, pain and suffering?

The fact that terrestrial human beings are nevertheless gorging themselves on the organisms of their fellow animal beings, feasting on their flesh and blood, and have in fact in certain cases turned the killing of these fellow beings into an "amusement" or sport, by for example "hunting" and "fishing" for pleasure so that they are one hundred percent contravening the very "law of life", is also a case of the "mind" being the omnipotent power in the mentality of these "murdering-for-pleasure" beings. That these beings are covering up or camouflaging their superstitious beliefs or imaginary ideas that they are justified in killing, behind what is "common practice", "fashionable", "good manners" or so-called "culture" authorised by the majority, in the same way that they cover up so many other conflicts with or departures from the "law of life", makes no difference to the principle or to the absolute requirement that this law be fulfilled. The fact that the majority of people are contravening the "law of life" does not turn this contravention into a compliance, thereby removing the effects of the contravention, it merely turns the contravention into a power. The fact that those contravening the law are united in their contravention "authorises" the contravention. Each individual that contravenes the law thereby gains the power and thus the approval of the flock. Just think what happens when the "power" gives its seal of approval to the one who is contravening the "law of life", it gives its seal of approval to undermining the existence of perfected life itself. Is it not the approval and agreement of the flock that makes smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, eating flesh and blood and other animal products required phenomena or factors in what is seen as "good manners"? An isolated "non-smoker", "non-drinker" or "non-meat-eater" in the company of perhaps fifty people who comply with the aforementioned "good manners" and the "authorised" modern "culture" based on them, is almost the subject of these people's pity and compassion, that is, if he is not the object of their scornful jokes and laughter. In such company or among such a flock he is and will continue to be the "black sheep". Just think how much raw power is thus hidden in the modern "culture" and in what is authorised as "good manners".

As we have seen, the "mind" is therefore the absolutely all-governing power behind the exercising of the will. This applies not only in the purely physical area of how we relate to other human beings, it applies to the greatest possible extent to how we relate to "animals", that is to the "food" we eat. Everything we do is an expression of our "mind". But as the "mind" can be regulated by means of spiritual light, which means intellectuality and knowledge about things, "the one great thing that is needed" for present-day terrestrial human beings is nothing other than spiritual light, light and yet more light. This light is not merely knowledge of weights and measures, it is not a question of how far it is to the sun or how much the Earth weighs. It is not a question of what is current "common practice" or what is considered "good manners" or what the views of the "crowd" are concerning morality, just as it is not a question of how one's neighbour lives or what he does or does not do to you. It is a question of knowing how to comply with the "law of life" and being able to practice complying with it. But since the "law of life" cannot exist without at the same time being identical to the "law of our relationship to our neighbour", this "neighbour" also being identical to life, the formation of our entire fate or the possibility that we can obtain real happiness and joy in being alive, thus hangs exclusively on how we relate on an everyday basis to this "neighbour". His life is the field in which we plant the fruits or seeds of our "mind". This field will gradually become filled with lethal poisonous plants, a battlefield of war, death and mutilation, or it can become a divine garden abundant with beautiful trees, flowers and fruits that engender life and promote bliss, become a dwelling place for light, depending on whether our "mind", in relation to our "neighbour's" life or this field, is planted or sowed with hate or love.