6132. 'And said to him, We will not hide from [my] lord' means that it is well known to the internal. This is clear from the meaning of 'saying' as perception, dealt with above in 6063; from the representation of Joseph, to whom 'lord' refers here, as the internal, dealt with already; and from the meaning of 'not concealing from him' as being well known. The reason why 'not concealing' in the internal sense means being well known is that everything that exists and happens in the natural is well known to the internal; for the natural derives all that it is from the internal, from which therefore nothing can be hidden. Yet even so, the external sense, especially where it is historical, uses the kind of words that appear here. It is like when the Lord speaks to a person He first asks him about what is going on even though it is fully known to Him, as when the angel of Jehovah spoke to Hagar, Genesis 16:7-8; to Abraham, Genesis 18:9; and to Moses, Exodus 4:2. Nor can the external otherwise be content, for unless it declares something it does not think it can be known.

1919. That 'Abram said to Sarai' means perception is clear from what has been stated above in 1898. The perception which the Lord had was represented and is here meant by 'Abram said to Sarai', but thought which sprang from that perception is meant by 'Sarai said to Abram' - perception being the source of thought. The thought possessed by those who have perception comes from no other source. Yet perception is not the same as thought. To see that it is not the same, let conscience serve to 'illustrate this consideration.

[2] Conscience is a kind of general and thus obscure dictate which presents those things that flow in from the Lord by way of the heavens. Those things that flow in manifest themselves in the interior rational man where they are enveloped so to speak in cloud. This cloud is the product of appearances and illusions concerning the goods and truths of faith. Thought is, in truth, distinct and separate from conscience; yet it flows from conscience, for people who have conscience think and speak according to it. Indeed thought is scarcely anything more than a loosening of the various strands that make up conscience, and a converting of these into separate ideas which pass into words. Hence it is that the Lord holds those who have conscience in good thoughts regarding the neighbour and withholds them from evil thoughts. For this reason conscience can never exist except with people who love the neighbour as themselves and have good thoughts regarding the truths of faith. These considerations brought forward here show how conscience differs from thought, and from this one may recognize how perception differs from thought.

[3] The Lord's perception came directly from Jehovah, and so from Divine Good, whereas His thought came from intellectual truth and the affection for it, as stated above in 1904, 1914. No idea, not even an angelic one, is adequate as a means to apprehend the Lord's Divine perception, and thus this lies beyond description. The perception which angels have - described in 1384 and following paragraphs, 1394, 1395 - adds up to scarcely anything at all when contrasted with the perception that was the Lord's. Because the Lord's perception was Divine, it was a perception of everything in heaven; and being a perception of everything in heaven it was also a perception of everything on earth. For such is the order, interconnection, and influx that anyone who has a perception of heavenly things has a perception of earthly as well.

[4] But after the Lord's Human Essence had become united to His Divine Essence, and had become at the same time Jehovah, the Lord was then above what is called perception, for He was above the order which exists in the heavens and from there upon earth. It is Jehovah who is the source of order, and therefore one may say that Jehovah is Order itself, for from Himself He governs order, not merely, as is supposed, in the universal but also in its most specific singulars, for it is these singulars that make up the universal. To speak of the universal and then separate such singulars from it would be no different from speaking of a whole that has no parts within it and so no different from speaking of something consisting of nothing. Thus it is sheer falsity - a figment of the imagination, as it is called - to speak of the Lord's Providence as belonging to the universal but not to its specific singulars; for to provide and govern universally but not specifically is to provide and govern absolutely nothing. This is true philosophically, yet, strange to say, philosophers themselves, including the more eminent, understand this matter in a different way and think in a different way.