I'm referring to a kind of experience, a kind of, shall we say, state of consciousness,
 which seems to be as prevalent among human beings as measles.
 It's something that simply happens, and we don't know why it happens, and although there
 are all sorts of techniques which claim to be able to promote it, and which are more
 or less successful in doing so, and sometimes rather less than more, nevertheless there
 is this peculiar thing that happens to people, and it's been recorded as far back in time
 as we have any recording at all.
 And that is, coming over people the peculiarly convincing sensation that their ordinary sense
 of individuality, of personal identity, is transcended.
 And the individual suddenly feels an experience that, actually it could be described from
 a number of quite different points of view, but we could add up these dominant characteristics.
 That instead of the ordinary feeling that I as an individual confront a world that is
 foreign to me, that is not me, in this kind of experience I find myself to be of one and
 the same nature or identity as the world outside me.
 In other words, I suddenly feel no longer a stranger in the world, but as if the external
 world were my own body.
 The next aspect of the feeling is even more difficult to assimilate to our ordinary practical
 intelligence, but a very overwhelming feeling that everything that happens, everything I
 have ever done, everything anybody else has ever done, was part of a harmonious design.
 That there is no error at all, and that's the sort of thing I'm referring to.
 Now you see, I'm not talking about a philosophy, I'm not talking about a rationalization, some
 sort of theory that somebody cooked up in order to explain the world and make it seem
 a tolerable place to live in.
 I'm talking about a rather whimsical, unpredictable experience that suddenly hits people, and
 it includes this element of feeling the total harmoniousness of everything.
 Now I realize that those words can carry with them a sort of sentimental feeling, a sort
 of Pollyanna feeling.
 There are various religions in our society today which try to inculcate in you the belief
 that everything is a harmonious unity.
 You know, things like Christian science or the unity movement and so on, they want to
 make a kind of propaganda for one to believe, and through believing to feel, that everything
 is harmonious.
 Now to my mind that is a kind of pseudo-mysticism, because it's an attempt to make the tail wag
 the dog, to make the effect produce the cause.
 Because this sensation of things being harmonious is somehow never brought about by insisting
 to yourself that that is so, because when you do that, when you would say to yourself,
 all things are light, all things are God, all things are beautiful, etc.
 Actually by doing that, you're implying that they're not.
 Because you wouldn't be saying all this stuff if you really knew it to be true.
 So this thing, the sensation of a kind of universal harmony, cannot come to us when
 it is sought.
 When we look for it as something to be an escape from the way we actually feel, or to
 compensate for the way we actually feel, it's a thing that comes out of the blue.
 And when it comes out of the blue, just like hiccups come out of the blue, or something
 like that, it's overwhelmingly convincing.
 And it stands as, actually, the foundation for most of mankind's profound philosophical,
 mystical, metaphysical, and religious ideas.
 Someone in other words, to whom this sort of thing has happened, and as I said before,
 it strikes us as measles may strike us, someone to whom this sort of thing has happened, can't
 restrain himself when it has happened, and he has to get up and tell everybody about
 it.
 And at last he becomes the founder of a religion.
 Because people say, "Look at that man, how happy he is.
 What conviction he has, he has no doubts, he seems to be sure in everything he does."
 You see that's the wonderful thing about a great human being, he's like an animal or
 a flower.
 You see, when a flower buds and the bud goes pop and opens, it has no hesitation or doubts
 about it.
 But when a young woman appears in society as a debutante, you know, she's not quite
 sure if she's going to come off, and she appears on the stage of society with some
 doubts in her mind.
 Therefore all appearances of this kind are of a rather sickly nature.
 But when the bird sings, or the chicken's egg breaks, or the flower buds, there's no
 doubt about it at all, it comes forth.
 And so in the same way when somebody has an experience of this kind, he just has to tell
 everybody about it.
 Because you see, he sees everybody around him looking dreadfully serious, looking as
 if they had a problem, looking as if the act of living were extremely difficult.
 But from his standpoint, the person who's had this experience, he feels that they look
 funny, that they don't understand, that there isn't any problem at all.
 But he has seen from where he stands, you see, that the meaning of being alive is just
 being alive.
 That is to say, I look at the color of your hair and the shape of your eyebrow, and I
 understand that that is the point.
 That's what we're all here for.
 And it's so plain, and it's so obvious, and so simple.
 And yet here is everybody rushing around in a great panic, as if it were necessary for
 them to achieve something beyond all that.
 And the funny thing is, they're not quite sure what it is.
 But they are devilishly intent upon it, after that thing.
 And so, to the person in the state of consciousness, which I call mystical, that all seems very
 weird, very absurd.
 But it's not something that you criticize in an unkindly way.
 You don't say, "Those damn fools, those idiots."
 You say, "It's such a pity that they don't see it."
 Because although they are going around in this wildly ignorant pursuit, one of the funny
 things about it is that they don't realize that there is a dimension, a sense, in which
 their pursuit is magnificent.
 It's to give an obverse sense to the saying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what
 they do."
 Turn that into its opposite.
 Not forgive them, but give them a blessing, because they don't know what they do.
 Give them an honor.
 In other words, the intensely serious preoccupations and anxieties of mankind appear from this
 standpoint not to be foolishness, but to be a kind of marvel.
 In the same way, perhaps, as you could say, that the protective coloring of a butterfly,
 who has somehow contrived to make its wings look like enormous eyes, so that when a bird,
 who is about to devour this beast, is confronted by these staring eyes, the bird is a little
 hesitating as when you stare at somebody, they always take in a little bit of back.
 And so the butterfly appears to stare at the bird.
 And perhaps you see this phenomenon of the marvel of staring wings of the butterfly is
 in some way a result of anxiety, the anxiety to survive all the problems and struggles
 of natural selection.
 Nevertheless, in this intense struggle, we are unknowing poets.
 You see, one of the greatest ideas in the world that has ever been produced is, for
 my thinking, the Hindu idea that the world is a drama in which the central and supreme
 self behind all existence gets lost and involved and pretends, plays, that he or it or he/she
 or whatever you want to call it, is all the creatures that there are and gets totally
 involved.
 And thus you see, the more involved, the more anxious, the more finite, the more limited,
 the infinite manages to feel itself to be, the greater the artistry, the greater the
 depth of the illusion which is created, for you see, all art is in a way illusion.
 The art of the magician is the art of illusion, the art of misdirecting attention so that
 a magic seems to appear.
 And so in this way, the more there is anxiety, the more there is uncertainty, to that degree
 the play has succeeded in the same way as when you are watching an actual play or reading
 a novel or a movie, the more the author or the actors manage to grip you and to persuade
 you just for a moment that you are actually involved in reality, the more they have succeeded
 as artists.
 You may have a faint recognition in the back of your mind that this is after all only a
 play when you sit on the edge of your seat and you are sweating and your hands clutch
 the arms of the chair and the scene so grips you.
 That is magnificent acting and so the Hindus feel that the whole arrangement of the cosmos
 is something exactly like that.
 That when in the reality of actual life you are sweating it out and you are wondering
 whether this surgeon who has got to operate on you in a matter of life and death is a
 competent man or a charlatan, or whether the investment that you made is a good thing or
 whether it is going to make you lose your shirt, you see, all those matters of terrific
 crisis are exactly the same as when you are sitting in the theatre, sweating it out there.
 But now a far more convincing theatre has been arranged because, as the Hindus would
 say, that in you which is it, the basis of you, the thing that is real in you and that
 connects you under the surface with every other being that is alive, this is the player
 of the parts, this is the maker of the illusion, this is the player of the game which has got
 you involved in this mess and is living it up in the same way as those actors on the
 stage are living it up to convince you that this is a real situation.
 And this is very understandable because basically everybody loves to play this game, the game
 of hide and seek, the game of scaring oneself, running up behind yourself in the dark and
 saying "BOOM!"
 All children like to do this.
 And this is the most human thing.
 That's why we go to the play, to the movie, and why we read novels.
 And our so-called real life is from the position of the mystic an extension of the same thing
 because you see, he is the person who suddenly has realised that the game is a game.
 And that behind all...
 See if the game is hide and seek, or if the game is lost and found, everything to do with
 the hide side, or the lost side, is connected with where we as individuals feel lonely,
 impotent, put down, and so on.
 All the negative side of existence.
 I have tried to show you at various times that there's really one simple principle that
 underlies everything, and it's so simple it's funny.
 The principle is "All insides have outsides."
 Because you see, you don't know that the inside is inside unless there's an outside, and you
 don't know that the outside is outside unless there's an inside.
 Okay, then you as you ordinarily feel yourself are the inside.
 You are the animate, sensitive being inside the skin.
 That the inside of the skin goes with the outside of the skin.
 If there weren't the outside of the skin there wouldn't be no inside.
 And the outside of the skin is the whole darn cosmos.
 Galaxy, beyond galaxy, and everything, you see?
 And that goes with the outside, in the same way that front goes with back.
 So that if you wake up and understand that, you find that the two are one and the same
 identity, one and the same self, one and the same life.
 So that's the mystic's point of view.
 He finds that out.
 Now if I may switch, what is morals?
 In the sense in which I am using the term morality, or morals, it's a set of rules,
 analogous to the rules of language.
 Now it's perfectly obvious, isn't it, that we can talk to each other in English, only
 if there is mutual agreement among ourselves as to how to use the language.
 What words refer to what experiences, and what ways of stringing words together to be
 meaningful are to be used.
 And it's very much of interest that we don't have too much trouble in coming to this agreement
 about language.
 We don't find that the police have to enforce grammar.
 The school teacher, yes.
 For little children, the school teacher does sometimes have to enforce grammar.
 And say in an authoritative way, and in the old-fashioned schools with the aid of some
 implement of corporal punishment, that you use the correct grammatical forms.
 But when we grow up into adult life, we use these grammatical forms without much difficulty.
 And very rarely do the police have to enforce it.
 But it is otherwise with other arrangements that we have to make in common.
 Because just as we have to agree in order to communicate about language, we have to
 agree about, say, the rules of driving on the highway, the rules of doing business,
 the rules of doing banking, and so on and so on, the rules of family arrangements and
 whatnot.
 And these are actually rules of the same kind as the rules of grammar.
 But alas, this is not very often recognized, because the authority, the sanctions, the
 power behind these rules is different from the authority behind grammar.
 What I mean is this.
 If you transgress the rules of grammar, people will shrug their shoulders and say, "Well,
 he doesn't make sense.
 They won't summon the police."
 But if you transgress the rules of driving on the highway, or the rules of finances,
 someone is likely to summon the police.
 And so one sees the authority of the state as standing behind those rules.
 And there are other rules where our society sees standing behind them not the authority
 of the state, but the authority of the Lord God Almighty.
 So that if you transgress those rules, you're in danger not simply of going to jail, but
 according to your religious persuasion, of frying forever in hell, or on the other hand,
 of failing lamentably to be a real person.
 Now the problem is this, where the domain of
 mysticism and the domain of morals come into conflict.
 You see, throughout the all-known history of religion, the mystics have been suspect.
 In so far as religions have been the upholders of moral rules, as it were the guardians,
 the authorities, in the same way, for example, as the lexicographers or the grammarians guard
 the rules of grammar and expound upon them, so in the same way the priesthoods and the
 lawyers guard the rules of social behavior.
 But when into the domain of religion there appears the mystical experience, then the
 priests are very, very disturbed.
 Now you all know that in recent months in California, there has been a very strange
 outbreak in the most respectable of all churches, the Episcopal Church.
 Various congregations of the Episcopal Church have had a phenomenon called "Glosso La Lia,"
 and this means "speaking with tongues."
 If you will turn on your radio to any Negro revival meeting on a Sunday night, you will
 hear "Glosso La Lia."
 That is to say, when the preacher starts talking sensibly, but the congregation gets more and
 more enthusiastic and says, "I hear you!
 Amen!
 Yes, Lord!" and so on.
 And it works out the preacher so that by the time he's through, he's not talking sense
 anymore, he's just lulling.
 He's going through glorious nonsense.
 In other words, he's become a... all the dry theological categories have turned into not
 only poetry but beyond poetry into music.
 And he's just saying, "Hurray to everybody!
 Hurray to life!
 Hurray to the devil!
 Hurray to the devil!"
 You see, he's just going like that.
 And the congregation's behind him, and it's wonderful.
 You see, he's become at that moment, one in spirit with the universe, because that's what
 the stars are doing.
 The stars and bubbles, the galaxies, they're not making sense.
 See?
 They're making a colossal display of fireworks in the sky.
 "Hurray to everybody!"
 You see, it's like going like that.
 Well, it so happened that in recent months, various congregations of the Episcopal Church
 had outbreaks of this.
 The Bishop of California, when all this happened, Bishop Pike wrote an encyclical letter to
 his pastors and said, "With all due regard for everything, you know, we must not be too
 dogmatic, we must recognize always that the Spirit of God may work in mysterious ways
 that cannot be foreseen, and we should keep an open mind about all these matters."
 This was said in a very complicated way, for several pages.
 But then finally, when it came to speaking with tongues, in effect, this must not happen
 in the Episcopal Church.
 Yeah, I mean, in effect, this is what was said.
 It was said, you know, the iron hand was in a velvet glove.
 But this mustn't happen.
 [MUSIC PLAYING]
 [MUSIC PLAYING]
 [MUSIC PLAYING]
 [MUSIC PLAYING]
 You're listening to WFMU East Orange, WXHD, Mount Hope
 Heard Worldwide on the internet at www.wfmu.org.
 And we've been listening to the Alan Watts lecture, Mysticism
 and Morals.
 If you'd like some more information,
 you can write for schedule here.
 Send a self-addressed stamped envelope to WFMU,
 care of Alan Watts, PO Box 2011, Jersey City, New Jersey,
 07303.
 Or you can email WFMU at WFMU.org.
 Also, if you'd like to purchase these cassettes,
 you can go right to the Alan Watts website,
 which is alanwatts.com.
 Or if you don't have a computer, you can call 1-800-969-2887.
 And right now in the background is music from Go Team,
 which we're going to listen to for a little bit,
 and return back to the Alan Watts lecture, Mysticism
 and Morals.
 [MUSIC PLAYING]
 [MUSIC PLAYING]
 [MUSIC PLAYING]
 [MUSIC PLAYING]
 [MUSIC PLAYING]
 [MUSIC PLAYING]
 [MUSIC PLAYING]
 Now you see, this is characteristically,
 through the ages, being the attitude of priesthoods,
 of the guardians of law and order,
 or as they say in the Episcopal Church,
 everything should be done decently and in order.
 The guardians of this kind of thing
 have always been afraid of the spontaneous manifestations
 of the spirit.
 Not only of things like mysticism,
 but also of things like falling in love.
 They are very, very dangerous happenings.
 And so here is an absolutely astounding paradox
 comes about.
 And it goes like this.
 We know on the one hand, that human love is only genuine when
 it is felt in the depths of the heart.
 And we know that this is true, whether it
 be the love of man or whether it be the love of God.
 We are always looking for the genuine article, you see.
 We don't want someone to love us because they are forcing it.
 We want them to love us because they really do in their heart.
 Now you see, when you go back to the study of the history
 of the Hebrew religion underlying
 the history of Christianity, you will
 find this problem in this way.
 That you've got two traditions constantly compensating one
 against the other, playing each other off
 in the history of the Hebrew religion,
 the priestly tradition and the prophetic tradition.
 The priesthood is always concerned
 with the external observance of the laws.
 But the prophetic tradition is always concerned with,
 do you really mean what you do?
 They constantly condemn as a hypocrite,
 and you see in this sense, Jesus is the greatest of the prophets.
 They constantly condemn as a hypocrite,
 the person who obeys the law without meaning it.
 Maybe this man does not commit adultery,
 but the prophet says, if he has looked at a woman
 to lust after her, he has already
 committed adultery in his heart.
 So that if you really obey the law,
 you obey it with your feelings and not just outwardly.
 For as Jeremiah says, the day will
 come when no man shall anymore say to his brother,
 no God, that is to say, no the law of God,
 but they shall all know me.
 For I will write my law in their inward parts.
 The ideal, in other words, is people
 who do not simply obey and do the right things,
 but who want to do the right things, whose
 desires are transformed for the heart.
 To write the law in the heart means to change one's desire.
 So you see, what this comes to then
 is a peculiarly paradoxical situation,
 that you are required by law to be completely honest.
 And more than that, you are required by law
 to be loving and honestly loving.
 You must love God and love your neighbor honestly,
 not forcing it, not pretending to it, not being a hypocrite.
 You must really feel it.
 Now that, you see, is where the astonishing conflict
 occurs between the mystic and the moralist.
 For the moralist knows that he has to be more than a legalist.
 He has to be more than one who insists
 that the outward observance of the law be kept to.
 Luther said that the law which requires that inward compliance
 is the most terrible thing.
 He based a great deal of his philosophy on an attack,
 on the idea that one's own inner feeling could be commanded.
 Because you see, the moment you subscribe to the idea
 that your inner feeling should be commanded,
 you let yourself in completely for hypocrisy.
 If, you see, you tell another person that you love them,
 because you know you're supposed to love them,
 and in fact in your heart you don't love them, you're a liar.
 And therefore, the more you insist on that lie,
 the more you feel it's your duty to make your feelings over
 and to love that other person, the more you get yourself
 deeper and deeper and deeper into trouble.
 Because here, if anywhere, the truth will out.
 You will not be able to sustain the pretense.
 You will not have sufficient energy to go on pretending
 and making a kind of mock of the feeling of love.
 And you have at last, then, if you're honest, to say, I don't.
 It doesn't matter whether this is to some other human being
 or whether in a religious situation
 you have to sit back and look at the Lord and say,
 Lord, I don't love you.
 I think you're a bore.
 [LAUGHTER]
 You're demanding, you're authoritarian,
 you're domineering.
 Probably I ought to love you, but I'm sorry I don't.
 [LAUGHTER]
 Now, we think, you see, that an honest expression
 of our feelings would be disruptive of law and order.
 It wouldn't, not in the least.
 Actually, it would be contributive to it.
 Because if I say to somebody, look,
 I'm not doing this for you because I love you
 or because I like you.
 I'm doing it for you because the book says I must.
 Now, that puts it up to the other person, who
 has to look within himself and say, honestly,
 ought I to accept this favor from this person?
 [LAUGHTER]
 Or ought I to go about seeing how I could provide myself
 with these conveniences?
 He may say, I understand you don't like doing this,
 but excuse me, I'm in a terrible jam.
 And I will be most beholden to you if for a little while
 yet you will go against your feelings and help me out.
 See, that's a nice way of doing things.
 That's the kind of real understanding
 that we have to have.
 I was associated once with somebody in a business way
 who was a complicated person, who pretended always
 that he was a great idealist and that he was doing whatever he
 did for the benefit of mankind, for the furtherance
 of mutual understanding, for unselfishness and love
 between human beings.
 Actually, his dealings were ethically
 of a very shady character.
 And I couldn't get on with him because he wouldn't come clean.
 If he had said, look, I'm in a kind of a jam.
 And in order to get around this problem,
 we have to manipulate things thus and so.
 And I know this isn't very ethical,
 but that's what we have to do.
 I would have said, well, I'm entirely in agreement with you.
 But then he wouldn't have come on
 with this sort of pious line that
 was so sickening and offensive.
 He would have come on in a human way,
 and we would have understood each other.
 You see now how real honesty is a genuine basis of morals.
 Real honesty is always not pretending
 that your feelings are other than they are.
 We know, as we deal with situations practically,
 that we may have to do things that go against our feelings.
 And it's the same with helping people
 whom you don't like, you don't want to help,
 but on the whole, it's rather necessary to do so.
 But don't ever be dishonest in playing that your feelings are
 not what they are.
 Now, from this standpoint, we can perhaps
 understand something about the deep relationship
 between morals and mysticism.
 If we go back, you see, to the experience
 that I described as mystical, we see that it is the vision--
 I tried to put it fumblingly in the sense of the rightness,
 the harmoniousness of everything that you
 are from one moment to another.
 That in other words, human behavior, its ups and its downs,
 is no different in principle from the behavior of the clouds,
 or of the wind, or of dancing flames in the fireplace.
 As you watch the pattern of the dancing flames,
 they never do anything vulgar.
 Their artistry is always perfect.
 Ultimately, it is the same with human beings.
 We are just as much a part of the natural order
 as flames in the fire or stars in the sky.
 But this is only apparent to the person
 who is honest in the sense in which I have spoken.
 In other words, the person who is tied up
 with trying to pretend that his feelings are other
 than what they actually are.
 He can never see this, and he's always a troublemaker.
 He is the original hypocrite.
 The person who is unbelievably destructive
 is the person who pretends that he
 is a model of love and rectitude and justice, and in fact isn't.
 Because nobody really can be.
 But then superior altogether is what the kind of person
 I would call the loving cynic, who knows, of course,
 that everybody has his weakness and his price and so on,
 but isn't contemptuous for that reason.
 Incidentally, may I be so bold as to recommend a book,
 Memories, Dreams, and Reflections by C.G. Jung.
 Jung's autobiography, the life story of a man who,
 in my opinion, was a superb human being
 in this particular sense of thoroughly knowing
 his own limitations and of having a certain humor about him.
 A man who understood how to integrate
 into his whole being the devil in himself
 and the monkey in himself.
 So then, in the metaphysical sphere,
 the mystic is the one who feels that everything that happens
 is in some way harmonious, is in some way right,
 is in some way an integral part of the universe.
 Now, when we transplant or translate that
 into the moral sphere, the sphere of human conduct,
 the equivalent is this.
 There are no wrong feelings.
 There may be wrong actions in the sense of actions
 contrary to the rules of human communication,
 but the way you feel towards other people,
 loving, hating, etc., etc., aren't any wrong feelings.
 And so to try and force one's feelings
 to be other than what they are is absurd
 and furthermore dishonest.
 But you see, the idea that there are no wrong feelings
 is an immensely threatening idea to people
 who are afraid to feel in any case.
 And this is one of the peculiar problems of our culture,
 that we are terrified of our feelings
 because they take off on their own.
 And we think that if we give them any scope
 and if we don't immediately beat them down,
 they will lead us into all kinds of chaotic and destructive action.
 It's so funny that we in our Western culture today
 say that kind of thing,
 we who do more chaotic and reckless kind of action
 than anybody ever did.
 But if for a change we would allow our feelings
 and look upon their comings and goings
 as something as beautiful and as natural and necessary
 as changes in the weather,
 the going of night and day,
 and of the four seasons,
 we would be at peace with ourselves.
 Because what is problematic for Western man
 is not so much his struggles with other people
 and their needs and their problems
 as his struggle with his own feelings,
 with what he will allow himself to feel
 and what he won't allow himself to feel.
 He's ashamed to feel really profoundly sad,
 so much so that he could cry.
 It is not manly to cry.
 He's ashamed to loathe somebody
 because you are not supposed to hate people.
 He's ashamed to be so overcome with the beauty of something,
 whether it be a natural landscape
 or a member of the opposite sex,
 that he goes out of his mind with this beauty.
 Because all that kind of thing is not being in control, old boy,
 not kind of having your hand on the wheel.
 But it is because, you see, we don't go with that,
 that we are not in control,
 that we try to pretend that our inner life is different.
 So I think this is the most releasing thing
 that anybody can possibly understand,
 that your inner feeling is never wrong.
 That's to say, what you feel,
 it's never wrong that you feel that way.
 It may not be a right guide to what you should do.
 In other words, if you feel that you hate someone intensely,
 it isn't necessarily the right way of dealing with that feeling
 to go out and cut his throat.
 But it is right that you should have the feeling of hating,
 or of being sad, or of what, frightened, terrified, whatever it is.
 For you see, when a person comes to himself,
 he comes to be one with his own feeling.
 And that is the only way of being in a position to control it.
 It is in exactly this way that the sailor
 always keeps the wind in his sails.
 Whether he wants to sail with the wind,
 or whether he wants to sail against the wind,
 he always uses the wind.
 He never denies the wind.
 Well, it's exactly that same sense,
 that a person has to keep going with his own feeling.
 Whether he wants to act as the feeling obviously suggests,
 or act in a different way,
 he has to keep the feeling with him,
 because that's his own essential self.
 But when he attempts simply to sail against the wind,
 he's lost himself.
 He's become just a kind of empty mask,
 which hasn't got any real life behind it,
 and all its protestations of love and goodwill are hollow.
 So you see, it is in the most basic, simple situation,
 a mother has a child.
 She got it by accident, you know?
 And she thinks, "Oh, heavens, now I'm all tied up,
 full of responsibility and so on, I can't stand it.
 So I really didn't want to have it, and I...
 Oh, no, I mustn't think that thought."
 All good mothers naturally love their babies.
 And so when she gets the baby, she says,
 "Darling, I love you, but her milk is sour."
 And the baby gets the other message.
 And the baby's mixed up.
 And it would be much better if that mother said to the baby,
 "Listen, you're a pest and you're a nuisance,
 and I didn't want to have you around."
 Well, then they understand each other.
 Everything's clear.
 There's no confusion, there's nothing mixed up here.
 And two, when you feel somebody is a pest and a nuisance,
 and you really let it go and you tell them so,
 you're apt in a while to get a sense of,
 a kind of humorous feeling about it.
 That you can begin from telling them that they're a damn nuisance,
 and I wish you would just disappear and get lost.
 After a while, you say, "Yeah, you old bastard."
 You know, and it begins to have a kind of affectionate feeling to it.
 So, to sum up.
 What the mystic primarily feels
 is the divinity, the glory of whatever is.
 And when we apply that to the moral sphere,
 what is, is what one feels genuinely.
 And this must always be admitted, always allowed.
 It doesn't mean to say, let me emphasize this,
 it doesn't mean that we always are therefore compelled
 to act upon the basis of what we feel.
 That is to say, to kill the person we hate.
 Hatred does not necessarily lead to violence.
 It is unacknowledged hatred that leads to violence.
 Honest hatred can be expressed in much simpler ways.
 But the expression, the recognition,
 the acceptance of what is honestly felt
 is the moral equivalent of the vision
 that whatever exists is a manifestation of the divine.
 [BLANK_AUDIO]


{END}
Wait Time : 0.00 sec
Model Load: 0.66 sec
Decoding  : 2.86 sec
Transcribe: 4669.81 sec
Total Time: 4673.33 sec