===== Myth And Religion - 12 - Democracy In The Kingdom Of Heaven =====

Welcome to another talk from the Alan Watts Radio Series, number 5, Myth and Religion.
This is part one of a two-part program drawn from the Oriental Philosophy in the West seminar
recorded at the Cold Mountain Institute in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1969.
Here, Alan Watts asks the questions,
Does a monarchical religion make sense in a democratic society?
Is the idea of a divine patriarch still plausible?
It's called Democracy in the Kingdom of Heaven, Part 1.
Here's Alan Watts.
Now, as you know, this is the great discussion going on in what we call today the new theology,
the revolution within standard brand Christianity.
Because you see, for years and years, the clergy, the ministry of the various churches,
such as Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist, Congregational, Unitarian,
even in some cases, Disciples of Christ and Lutherans,
their theological seminaries have been discussing religion in terms utterly different
than you will normally hear from the pulpit.
And every graduate of an intelligent theological school
has a sense of intense frustration
as he has to get out to work
in a community or parish church
because he does not believe
what he is supposed to preach.
And this has, in a way, been true
for a long, long time.
Clergy, except in the Roman Catholic Church,
where the situation is somewhat different,
are very heavily controlled by the laity
because he who pays the piper calls the tune.
And therefore, they are in a state of constant frustration
because those who contribute most heavily
and therefore are most interested in the church
tend to be conservative-minded people
and they want that old-time religion.
Although, as a matter of fact,
what they call the old-time religion is really quite modern.
But still, that's what they want.
And there are people who, as I would say,
would tend to be conservative
in their whole attitude to life.
Because, you see,
people of a more liberal disposition
couldn't care less about going to church.
In the British Army,
they have a thing called church parade.
And there's a famous story about a drill sergeant
who got all the troops up for church parade
on a Sunday morning
and used to call out,
Catholics to the right,
Protestants to the late,
fancy religions in the middle.
And to the degree you see
that intelligent people in our culture
have any religion at all,
it tends to be a fancy religion.
Something in the new kinds of things
that may be unity,
Christian science,
Theosophy,
Buddhism,
Vedanta,
or some kind of special Protestant
offshoot,
such as the Fellowship Church in San Francisco
or the Community Church in New York
and things of that kind.
Very liberal,
very left-wing theologically.
So the new theology comes at this time
to a very large extent
because
A,
the clergy are fed up,
B,
Christianity has its back to the wall.
And the Pope knows this better than anybody.
And so hand in hand with this ecumenical movement,
there goes along a reconsideration
of what on earth it's all about.
Is there a God?
Is there God?
And a lot of people are boldly saying
that is to be abandoned.
As an English priest,
Father Maskell,
put it,
it is the basic assumption
of the secularist movement
in Christian theology
that life
is a journey
between
the maternity ward
and the crematorium
and that is what there is.
That's it.
And that,
and that only
is the life
that the
Christian religion
has to do with
and to encounter.
and therefore
more than ever
being a Christian
if it is an abandonment of God
or of the idea
that the universe
is supernaturally controlled.
The Christian religion
fastens itself
therefore
with peculiar
and increased fervor
to the figure
of Jesus of Nazareth.
As one wit put it,
there is no God
and Jesus Christ
is his only son.
Because you see,
what otherwise
makes you a Christian
is something strange
about Christianity.
in that
it shares with Islam
and Judaism
what we might call
theological imperialism.
Christians
are of even
the most liberal stripe
fervently believe
that their religion
is the best religion
and they will state it
by saying
either Jesus Christ
is the only son of God
that's an orthodox way
it is a matter of fact
it isn't really
an orthodox way
of saying it
but it's the way
orthodox people
do say it
or they will say
Jesus is the greatest
man that ever lived
the point is
that you make a commitment
to the following of Jesus
as an historical
personage
and for some reason
or other
people who commit
themselves
to this exclusive
kind of following
of Jesus
become exceedingly
obstreperous
because
they will either
damn other religions
outright
or far more
insidiously
damn them
with faint praise
old Buddha
taught some
very good things
you know
and we all
are indebted
to his great
moral principles
but
and then
comes this pitch
you see
for the sole
following of Jesus
as the Lord
and Master
head and shoulders
above all
well the trouble
with that
has always been
that
when you get
into a theological
argument
with a person
who is a Christian
you get into
a situation
where the advocate
and the judge
are the same person
that is to say
Jesus is judged
the best man
in the world
by the standards
of Christianity
because those
are the standards
with which
this kind
of person judges
and therefore
and you'll find
that people
who leap
to these judgments
usually don't
know very much
about any other
kind of religion
the courses
on comparative
religion
in theological
schools
are shockingly
superficial
and grossly
inaccurate
and
so this
is coming
to the front
now
you see
in order
to be
to belong
to the church
really
is to be saved
and to be saved
is to belong
to the innest
in-group
you have to have
an in-group
you see
if you want
to know
who you are
you have to
belong to something
say if you want
to distinguish
yourself
because you know
who you are
because of the
people who aren't
like you
there you get
a contrast
now this is
this is the
basic arrangement
for a church
so you see
if you want
to be in some
kind of an in-group
you must put
everybody else
beyond the pale
St. Thomas Aquinas
gave the show
away
actually
because he said
that the blessed
in heaven
will often walk
to the battlements
and look down
and delight
in the justice
of God
being properly
carried out
in hell
so
but you may not
believe in hell
you may be
very liberal
and after all
it's not nice
or sophisticated
nowadays
to believe
in everlasting
damnation
but we have
new words
for it
such as
failing to be
a real person
sinking below
the human level
or entering
into final
and irremediable
psychosis
all these are
new words
either for
damnation
or heresy
and
so
you join
and you know
you're saved
only
if somebody
else
isn't
if somebody
else
is
damn
very difficult
to believe
or even
to imagine
a state
of affairs
where everyone
and everything
is saved
you have to be
a mystic
even to think
about that
because it
requires
having a state
of consciousness
which transcends
oppositions
and you can't do
that along the line
of ordinary logic
you have to have
a new kind of logic
which takes over
at a certain point
and this logic
I'm using at the
moment
by pointing out
that damned
people and saved
people
need each other
they are in a
symbiotic relationship
with each other
they go together
in the same way
as the back
and the front
of something
because if something
has a front
it has to have
a back too
and so
the very fact
that fronts
and backs
go together
indicates
that there is
a unity
between
these two
opposed sides
so also
there is a unity
between the
damned
and the saved
and it's only
as you begin
to realize
that you need
the damned
people in order
to be saved
and that the
damned people
need the saved
people in order
to be damned
that you start
laughing about it
and that laughter
is very subversive
and it's
you know how it is
you're not supposed
to laugh in church
and not in courts
of law either
there are places
where laughter
makes people nervous
because it's supposed
to be a sign
of disrespect
now it may not
be so at all
Dante said
that the song
of the angels
in paradise
sounded like
the laughter
of the universe
but in church
especially any
rather more
serious kinds
of church
laughing is
very bad form
why
because if you
look at the
design of a
catholic church
you will notice
that it is based
upon the design
of the courtroom
of a king
and if you look
at a protestant church
you will see
that it is based
upon the design
of a law court
indeed the protestant
minister wears
exactly the same
robes as an
american judge
and all those
pews
and box-like
stalls
are the same
you will find
in the old-fashioned
court
with a witness box
jury box
and all that
kind of thing
but you see
the original idea
of the christian
church
these ancient
roman churches
are called a
basilica
that means
the courtroom
of a king
the throne room
the altar is
the throne of god
now in a courtroom
the king is very
nervous
because anybody
who takes it
upon himself
to govern
other people
and rule them
had better
watch out
and therefore
he always has
his back to the
wall
and he is
flanked by
attending guards
and high ministers
of state
and just so that
nobody will get
up and make
trouble
he has them
either on their
knees or flat
on their faces
when they come
into his presence
and of course
no one must laugh
they'll be laughing
at mr big
and so this was
the pattern
this was the model
upon which
the judeo-christian
idea of god
was based
it is a
political model
and the title
of god
is taken
from the
supreme
emperors
of persia
the dian khan
the king
of kings
the lord
of lords
and so
in the english
church
at morning
prayer
the clergyman
gets up
and says
almighty
and everlasting
god
the only ruler
of princes
king of kings
lord of lords
who dost from
thy throne
behold all dwellers
upon earth
most graciously
deign to behold
our gracious
sovereign lady
queen elizabeth
and all the royal
family
that's the picture
and the metaphor
you may not believe
literally
that god
sits on a throne
or even has a body
to put on one
or that he wears a crown
or that he has a beard
but the image
colors
your feeling
about the character
and imagery
is much more powerful
than intellectual
concepts
you may know
it says
in the prayer book
that god
is the spirit
without body
parts
or passions
omnipresent
to all places
eternal
through all time
and therefore
one thinks
as haeckel does
of the gaseous
vertebrate
or else
of an enormously
diffused
sea
of luminous
jello
filling all
time and space
everybody
uses images
but behind
those images
are the old
images
that influenced
us in childhood
and if you still
attend a church
and you use
that imagery
you still think
emotionally
you feel
towards god
as one would
if you took
it literally
so this political
model
of god
has dominated
the west
and the world
is related
to god
as subjects
to a king
or as artifacts
to a maker
we have of course
a ceramic
model
of the universe
because
it's said
in the book
of genesis
that god
made adam
out of the dust
of the ground
in other words
he made a clay
figurine
and then
blew
the breath
of life
into the nostrils
of the figurine
so that it came
to life
now
the hindus
don't have
that model
of the universe
to cope with
because
they don't
look at the universe
as god's creation
in the sense
of being an artifact
they look at it
as god's drama
because they see
the world
as acted
not created
god is
that which is
pretending to be
all this
and everybody
is really god
is a mask
of god
who is
playing
that he's you
but he's doing
it so well
that he's taken
himself in
because he's
the audience
as well as
the actor
it's a really
successful play
because the good
actor
although you know
a play
is just a play
a good actor
is going to try
and make you
think it isn't
he wants to
get you crying
he wants to
get you sitting
on the edge
of your seat
in anticipation
and god
as the best actor
has convinced
himself
completely
that the
act is real
the chinese
again have a
different model
their model
is an organic
one
it is a great
organism
it is alive
it grows
it is an
intelligent order
so those are
the three great
models of the
world
when the west
stopped believing
seriously in god
a long time ago
they however
retained the idea
of the world
as an artifact
and so we
graduated from
the ceramic
model of the
universe
to the fully
automatic model
which is
actual common
sense
for most
people living
today
i return to
the point
then that
the clergy
and the church
people don't
really believe
in god
in the old
fashioned sense
of the word
god at all
if they did
believe the
christian religion
in some of its
orthodox forms
seriously
they would be
screaming in the
streets
and even the
most far out
lunatic fringe
jehovah's
witnesses
are even more
or less polite
when they come
and call at your
house
because if they
really believed
that you were
going to hell
they would make
more fuss about
you than if you
had the
bubonic plague
but nobody really
takes it that
seriously any longer
and that means
they don't believe
in it
they know they
ought to believe
in it
in fact many
sermons are
exhortations to
have more faith
which means that
we all recognize
that we don't
really believe in
this and we
ought to
we feel very
guilty about it
we don't have
the moral strength
to believe in
this
but it isn't
only a matter
of moral strength
it's a matter
of being asked
to believe
what most people
feel is nonsense
that the world
is run
on the lines
of a state
how for example
can you be a
citizen of the
united states
having taken
an oath
that a republican
form of government
is the best
form of government
and believe
that the universe
is a monarchy
so what has
happened
is
intelligent people
have always
realized
that this
political model
for the cosmos
won't do
now actually
no serious
theologian
ever did believe
that god was
an old gentleman
with whiskers
on a golden
throne
never
what the bishop
of woolwich
says in his book
honest to god
you know
that there isn't
some sort of
someone out there
he
is very naive
in a way
because he could
have taken
huge quotations
out of
saint thomas
aquinas
out of the
great fathers
of the church
from oregon
from clement
of alexandria
from saint gregory
nazianzus
from saint john
of tabascus
from saint basil
the great
from saint augustine
from saint ambrose
from bernard of
clervaux
and albert the great
he could have
quoted all those
perfectly orthodox
very correct
theologians
and shown that
they never believed
in a god like
that with whiskers
and he could have
come forward
and said you see
this is a perfectly
orthodox book
and i'm not a
revolutionary
i'm just going back
to the real old
time religion
he didn't do that
and do you know
why
he told me
he never read
those writers
in theological
school
with ever so many
people
one of the reasons
why so many people
turned to an oriental
religion
was
that the level
the intellectual level
at which oriental
religions were first
presented in the west
was so much higher
than the intellectual
level at which
christianity was
presented
at the local church
if you lived in india
or uh
ceiland
of course
there would be
the local buddhist
monastery
and it would be
just as junky
as the stuff
was around
the local church
they don't tell
people all about
the great void
and how to practice
meditation
and those things
that's for specialists
the minority
all they care about
is gaining merit
mostly by making
contributions
to the clergy
for better circumstances
in your next life
or getting out
of evil karma
that's the real
thing
that popular buddhism
is about
but you see
the trouble in the west
is that everybody
is getting educated
there's a terrific
literacy
and therefore
uh
the public
has to be treated
as if it were
intelligent
you can't say
the public
be damned anymore
there's too many
intelligent people
now
let's look at the
lineup
what sort of a
situation is this
really
for my part
I would say
the god that is
dead
is this political
model god
however conceived
the divine
paternalistic
authority
who rules
the universe
and to whom
you as an ego
are related
as a subject
to a king
by analogy
see
now that one
just isn't holding
up
but what's the
alternative
especially
think about
what could be
an alternative
for western
people with a
christian background
what other
kind of god
could we have
well one possibility
is none
and this is what
people like
altizer
are discussing
he's on the
far left
of this new
theology
I would say
a man like
james pike
is on the
right
of the new
theology
he very
definitely
believes in
god
he's a
theist
but
he doesn't
believe in
anything with
whiskers on
it
nor does
he really
believe in
the political
model
are we going
to settle
then for
the fact
that the
universe
is just
what it
appears
to be
or
are we
going to
have a
very refined
conception
of god
which will
be called
it
instead
of he
that makes
a lot
of difference
very powerful
what pronoun
you use
or even
he she
the christian
scientists
talk about
the father
mother
it's sort
of complicated
people
feel that's
a little bit
weird
it is rather
simple
but then
when you
say it
does it
mean that
god is
something like
electricity
which doesn't
seem to have
any independent
intelligence of
its own
you can use
it intelligently
but it's just
energy
it does
something
go zoom
see
is that
god
is god
it
like that
or what
it's a
funny thing
but it's very
difficult to be
a complete atheist
real atheist
like in the
house of parliament
in england
when in 1928
the church of england
wanted a new
prayer book
a revised
prayer book
because the church
and the state
are inseparable
in england
and the houses
of parliament
had to vote
on whether this
prayer book
might be used
and somebody
got up and
said this is
perfectly ridiculous
an assemblage
which contains
a number
of atheists
voting on
the inner
politics
of the church
of england
and another
member got up
he said
oh i don't
think there are
any atheists
here
not really
we all
believe in
some sort
of a something
somewhere
now you see
in the theological
world
it just doesn't
do to believe
in some sort
of a something
somewhere
because one
thing that
theologians
detest
is vagueness
you should
listen to them
even no god
at all
because that's
clear and precise
no beating
around the bush
old man
you know
it's just
fuzzy thinking
to have
the great
universal mind
the undifferentiated
aesthetic continuum
that's all
some sort
of a something
somewhere
woolly thinking
either no god
or a god
with a definite
character
and a clear
moral will
and precise
standards
who will not
be pushed
around
the biblical
god
bowie
what do you
do you put
your mind
into two
watertight
compartments
one of which
you're abreast
of science
and the
modern world
and all
that kind
of thing
and the
other compartment
which simply
had nothing
to do
with that
is a completely
cut-off
thing called
religion
where you
believe in
absolutely
ludicrous
propositions
a lot of
people do
that
but a lot
of people
want a
religion
which is
difficult to
believe in
because that's
a kind
of a test
of faith
whether you
can swallow
it
you've been
listening to
democracy in
the kingdom
of heaven
part one
with alan watts
from the
alan watts radio
series number
five myth
and religion
for information
how to obtain
the radio series
on cassette
tape
call
1-800-969-2887
or you can
write to
the electronic
university
p.o. box
san anselmo
california
when you
call or write
please indicate
the name of
your local
station
now you
heard the
program
democracy
in the
kingdom of
heaven
from the
alan watts
radio series
number five
myth and
religion
again the
phone number
is
1-800-969-2887
that's
1-800-W-O
watts
the love
of wisdom
with alan watts
is produced
by the
electronic
university
i'm neil
harvey
thank you
for listening
welcome to
another talk
from the
alan watts
radio series
number five
myth and
religion
this is the
conclusion of
the two-part
program drawn
from the
oriental
philosophy
in the
west
seminar
recorded at
the cold
mountain
institute
in vancouver
british columbia
in 1969
in which
alan watts
compares
various images
of the godhead
in the light
of the world's
religious traditions
it's called
democracy
in the kingdom
of heaven
part two
here's alan watts
you put your
mind into two
watertight
compartments
one of which
you're abreast
of science
and the
modern world
and all that
kind of thing
and the other
compartment
which simply
had nothing
to do with
that
is a completely
cut off
thing called
religion
where you
believe in
absolutely
ludicrous
propositions
a lot
of people
do that
but a lot
of people
want a
religion
which is
difficult to
believe in
because that's
a kind of a
test of faith
whether you
can swallow
it
it's like
the story
about
abraham being
told to
sacrifice his
son isaac
and he was
about to
do it
because you
do what
you're told
it's a
test of
faith
people like
the security
of a
definite
religion
i mean
you've got
to believe
in and
this is
the truth
i was once
having an
argument with
a jehovah's
witness
and he
said don't
you think
that if
were really a loving God who was concerned about the human race, that he would provide us with an
infallible textbook that would tell us how to live, I said he would do nothing of the kind.
It would completely destroy the human mind. You know, you'd never have to think if that was the case.
So while there is that, here is then this possibility. See, is it to be no God? Is life
just this trip from the maternity ward to the crematorium, and that the issue of religion
is to improve that trip. That is to say, through social concern, through getting rid of poverty and
war and exploitation and disease, is that the whole business of religion or is there something else?
Those who take this view, which we will call the secularist position in theology, are of course
strongly influenced by contemporary philosophy, especially in that form which is called scientific
empiricism or logical positivism, which maintains that the idea of God is not a fallacy,
but is a meaningless idea. That, in other words, the proposition that there exists God,
of God, and that God is the origin and creator and governor of everything that is happening,
they maintain that those sentences are utterly devoid of meaning, as much so as if I were to say
everything is up. Because they will say no logical proposition can be made about all processes
whatsoever, because all propositions are labels on boxes, and you can't have the box containing all boxes,
because this box would have no outside, and therefore it wouldn't be a box.
So all propositions, all words, must refer to classes of some kind,
and you can't have the class of all classes. And also, they would say, the notion that there is a God
is meaningless because it doesn't help you to make any prediction. Or they can ask it in this way,
what evidence, supposing somebody could bring it forward, would completely satisfy you as disproving
the existence of God. And no believer in God can think of any evidence that would conclusively prove
that there wasn't a God. Just like psychoanalysts are completely incapable of thinking of any evidence
which would disprove the existence of the Oedipus complex. So they, on logical grounds, take this
position. And so, since many theologians are, in fact, influenced by modern philosophy,
take these arguments seriously, they would like to secularize the whole conception of religion.
Or, to put it in Bonhoeffer's words, have Christianity without religion. Well now, when you might say,
there is nothing to life except the trip between the maternity ward and the crematorium, that's what there is.
I've heard something like that before. When asked what is the Buddha, the Chinese master replied,
It's windy again this morning. Another Buddhist master, on his deathbed, wrote the poem,
From the bathtub to the bathtub, I have uttered stuff and nonsense. The bathtub in which the baby is washed
at birth, and the bathtub in which the corpse is washed before burial. All the time between, he said,
I was going yakety-yak. Now, what about those poems? Do they mean what they say? Well, not quite.
There's something different here, because they are based on a life devoted to the discipline of a very
particular kind of meditation, culminating in a completely shattering experience, which is very
difficult to talk about. But generally speaking, it is the encounter with eternity, with the eternal.
Not necessarily in the sense of that which goes on and on and on through time, but
the eternal is the timeless. That which transcends time is beyond measurement in terms of hours and days.
And when a person who is in that state of consciousness, or has been through it, looks at
the ordinary everyday world, it's true he sees the ordinary everyday world, as we see it,
but with a very, very extraordinary difference. And if we would have to put that difference into some
sort of Western Christian-influenced language, he would perhaps say, don't you realize that sitting
around here in this room, with our ordinary everyday faces and clothes and personalities,
we are sitting smack in the middle of the beatific vision, and that this sitting here in
this room is infinity and eternity precisely. It is it. And this is the beatific vision. This is God.
And it feels that way too. It really does. Or something like it. But in this kind of religion,
they still have temples, they have Buddhas, and they chant sutras, and offer incense, and ring gongs,
and all that kind of thing. But they're always saying that the highest religion,
really to get there, you have to kill the Buddha. Supposing a clergyman got up one day in the pulpit,
and said, every time you say Jesus Christ, you have to wash your mouth out. Or, if you meet God the Father,
kill him. If you meet God the Son, kill him. If you meet God the Holy Spirit, kill him. If you meet the
Pope, kill him. If you meet Saint Augustine, kill him. If you meet your father and mother, kill them.
Kill them all right away. All right. But what I've been saying is simply translating into Christian
terms a Buddhist teacher, talking about the year 800 AD. That's what he said. Only he put the Buddhist
names in where I put the Christian ones in. But I don't think this is what is happening in the movement of the
new theology. I think that what's happening there is that they are just getting rid of God. This is not
this other thing I'm talking about, which could be called the religion of no religion. You see,
if you, you could take this right into Christianity, because to the extent that every Christian is a Jew,
you who are supposed to believe in the Ten Commandments. And one of them says, Thou shalt not make to thyself any
graven image of anything that is in the heavens above, or the earth beneath, or the waters that are under the
earth, thou shalt not bow to them nor worship them. And that is what this thing I've been talking about is. It is a
destruction of idols. Because the most dangerous graven images are not those which are made of wood and stone.
They are those which are made of ideas. And it is well known to the great mystical tradition of the
world, all over the world, that the sort of supreme vision can only come when you have got rid of every
idea of God whatsoever. It would be like, as I've often used this image, cleaning a window on which
somebody has painted blue sky. Well, to see the sky, you've got to scrape off the paint. Well, you say,
my goodness, you shouldn't take that nice blue painting off. It's very good. It was done by a great
artist. See how pretty the clouds are. You mustn't do that, because we won't have in that blue sky
anymore. See? So, in that spirit, the great mystics have always ceased to cling to God. That is,
because the only God you can cling to is the idea of God. In order to discover God, you have entirely
to stop clinging. You, you see, why does one cling to God? For safety, of course. You want to save
something. You want to save yourself. I don't care what you mean by saved. Whether it just means feel
happy, or feel that life is meaningful, or, uh, you know, there's somebody up there who cares.
So, one clings. And if you don't cling to God, you cling to something else. The state, money, sex,
yourself, power. These are all false gods. But there has to come a state when clinging stops.
And only then does the state of faith begin. People who believe in God don't have any faith,
because they want something to hold on to. So, real faith is when you do not hold on to anything
anymore. In the Christian tradition, this is called the cloud of unknown. There is a book at that point,
written by a 14th century British monk, Anonymous. And he got it from Dionysus, the Areopagite,
who assumed the name of St. Paul's Athenian convert. He was a Syrian monk living in the sixth century.
Both Meister Eckhart, St. Thomas Aquinas, John Scotus Origina, and many other great medieval theologians
studied Dionysus, the Areopagite. He wrote a book called the Theologia Mystica, in which he explains
that in order to come to full union with God, you must give up every conception of God
whatsoever. And he enumerates them. Don't think that God is oneness, or threeness, or unity, or spirit,
or any kind of anything that the human mind can conceive. He is beyond all that. In what is called,
this is called apophatic theology. This is a Greek term contrasted with cataphatic.
When you speak cataphatically, you say what God is like. So this man, Dionysius, wrote two books. One
was called The Divine Names, and that was cataphatic theology. The other was called The
Mystical Theology, which is apophatic. Cataphatic, what God is like according to analogy. He is like a
father. We do not say God is a cosmic male parent, but God is in some respect like a father, like spirit.
Like we say nowadays, like man, it's like it's raining. You know, there's a certain relativity to
that statement. So this is the cataphatic language. The apophatic says what God is not.
And all those theologians in the following of Dionysius said the highest way of talking about God is in
negative terms. Just as, to use Dionysius's own image, when a sculptor makes a figure, he does it
entirely by removing stone, taking something away. So in the same way, St. Thomas Aquinas said,
because God, by his infinity, exceeds every idea to which the human mind can reach, the best way to
speak of him is by remotion. That is to say, by removing from our view of God every inadequate concept.
This is what the Hindus call neti neti, saying of the Brahman of the supreme reality, it is not this,
it is not this. But this intellectual operation of destroying concepts must go hand in hand with a,
shall we call it, psychological operation, which is ceasing to cling to any image whatsoever. Or
simply ceasing to cling. Now why? Well, because there's no need to. There's no need to cling.
Because when you were born, you were kicked off a precipice. And it was a big explosion. A lot of
other things are falling down with you, including some pretty large lumps of rock. One of them is
called the earth. And it won't help you to cling to the rocks when you're falling off the precipice.
It may give you an illusion of safety. But everything is falling. It's falling apart.
That's what the ancients said when all is transient.
All flows, in the words of Heraclitus. And you can't cling to anything. It's like grabbing at smoke
with a non-existent hand. That's all that clinging will ever achieve. All it does is make people anxious.
So when you come to the realization that you cannot cling to anything, that there is nothing to cling to,
there transpires an inner change of consciousness, which we can call either faith or letting go.
And then suddenly, the thing hits you. In Sanskrit, they put it this way. Tattvamasi means literally,
that art thou, or as we would say, you're it. And if you are God, then you can't have an idea of God
any more than you can chew your own teeth. You don't need one. The sun doesn't need to shine on itself.
Knives don't need to cut themselves. Your eyes don't need to look at themselves. What color is your head
to your eyes? It isn't black, is it? You can't see anything. Matter of fact, the way it feels inside
your head is what you call what it looks like outside. All these things you see outside are states
of the nervous system in the brain. That's how it feels. That's how it looks inside the head. And you
said, well, I thought that was what was outside. True. Same way. When the Zen master suddenly discovered
that carrying the pail, with water in it, was a miracle, he discovered that. He realized there
isn't anything except God. And boy, you don't, if you really know that, you see, you don't need to
have a religion. But you can have one, because it's a free world. I mean, if you want to try and
express this in some way, and all religion is pure gravy, after that. See? Any outward
manifestation of religion. You know, it's like a man with lots of money making some more.
Only it's quite unnecessary. But so, according to the very best theologians, it was never necessary
for God to create the world. It didn't add anything to him. He didn't have to do it. He was under no
compulsion. So he did it out of what, uh, Dionysus the Areopagite calls, uh,
hyperpleres. Or we would anglicize it. Hyperpleres. Superfulness. In other words, for kicks. I mean,
you know, we don't, we don't like using that language, but it's completely contemporary and
exactly right. Uh, that's what the Bible says. Only it puts it in a more sedate way. It says,
his majesty did it for his pleasure. Well, that's the way you talk about somebody who
is the king. This great Victoria said, you know, we are not amused. And, uh, it says in the book of the
Proverbs, that where the divine wisdom speaks, and speaks, you see, as an attribute of God, standing
aside from God. Sort of primitive polytheism. And wisdom says that in the beginning of the world,
her delight was to play before the divine presence. And especially to play with the sons of men.
The word in Hebrew is play. But in the King James translation, it is rejoice. Because that is a
more sedate word than play. You may rejoice in church, but not play. You may not have fun in church,
but you may rejoice. See the difference. So then, uh, the, the, the, the point of the matter is then,
there was no reason to make the world. And it was done for making celestial whoopee. That's why the
angels are laughing. They're just splitting their sides. Only, when you hear it in church,
everybody's forgotten what hallelujah means. It's allowing. Don't you see? Hallelujah. Hallelujah.
Uh, it's like, um, you know, it's just burble. And it's like bird song. Bird song isn't about anything.
It's just for kicks. Uh, why do you sing? Why do you like dancing? What's music for?
That's what this hallelujah is. So when nothing is being clung to, when one gets to that point,
everything blows up. This is what's meant by Satori in Zen. Sudden, uh, awakening. And you suddenly see,
good heavens! What was I making all that fuss about? Because here we are. It's what we've been looking
for all the time. And so it's right here. And, uh, that's, that's the thing. And you realize that,
that you, any, you basically, through and through, are all this. Only you got into a kind of a funny
illusion. I think that we get into that illusion, uh, in rather a complicated way,
through our upbringing as children. Uh, because that many little children know from the beginning,
what it's all about. Only they haven't got words to put it in. See, that's the whole problem with
child psychology. What child psychologist is ideally looking for is an articulate baby.
I can explain what it's like to be a baby. You never get there. By the time you teach, by teaching
the child to speak, you, you, you mess it up. You give it this language, and you can't think big
thoughts like that with this funny limited language. Especially with the words they start
children out with. And then finally, when they've got the poor thing completely hypnotized,
they tell it the most preposterous things. They tell it that it must be free. They say to you,
you child, are an independent agent, and you're responsible. See? Now, therefore, we command you
to love us. And, uh, you, we, in other words, we require that you do something which will please us
only if you do it voluntarily. Do you wonder people are mixed up? So, uh, but I'm afraid you
see that the new theology isn't on to this. The new theology really is serious about there not
being any God, and that the universe is therefore a rather pitiful predicament in which we've caught
has some compensations. But what all this is a continuation of the 19th century philosophy,
the fully automatic model, which is that this is an essentially stupid universe.
It's a mechanism. It is a gyration of blind energy in which human intelligence and values
happens to be a fluke, and a rather uncomfortable one. Because nature doesn't give a damn about us.
And so we have to fight it. And now all that is pure mythology. It is grossly unscientific.
And, uh, but most people believe it. It's common sense for today. But what an opportunity, though,
there is in the new theology, and in this whole ferment going on, to get them to see this other
point of view. And realize that when you get rid of God, you are all you are doing is you're destroying an idol.
And all idols must be destroyed respectfully. Not like those wretched, uh, Puritans who went
around destroying all the saints figures and the stained glass in the medieval churches. That was
disrespectful iconoclasm. Respectful iconoclasm would be, for example, every Easter Sunday the Bible
should be ceremoniously burned. Because if Jesus is truly risen from the dead, you don't need the Bible
anymore. He's around. Available. You don't need the books. You burn it up, ceremoniously, with great
respect. Because suddenly God doesn't take himself seriously. If he did, I shudder to think what would
happen. You've been listening to Democracy in the Kingdom of Heaven, part two, with Alan Watts, from
the Alan Watts radio series number five, Myth and Religion. For information on how to obtain the radio
series on cassette tape, call 1-800-969-2887. Or you can write to The Electronic University,
P.O. Box 2309, San Anselmo, California, 94979. When you call or write, please indicate the name of your
local station and that you heard the program Democracy in the Kingdom of Heaven, from the Alan Watts radio
series number five, Myth and Religion. Again, the phone number is 1-800-969-2887. That's 1-800-W-O-WATTS.
The Love of Wisdom with Alan Watts is produced by The Electronic University.
I'm Neil Harvey. Thank you for listening.


===== Myth And Religion - 13 - The Image Of Man Entire =====

Welcome to another talk from the Alan Watts Radio Series, No. 5, Myth and Religion.
This is part one of a two-part program in which Alan Watts explores different mythologies
by asking the question,
Are we the ceramic figure into which God has breathed life,
or are we the divine manifestation of the dreams of the Godhead?
Recorded at Pasadena City College on January 11, 1965,
it's called The Image of Man.
Part one.
Here's Alan Watts.
I want to start by giving what may be to many of you a new definition of the word myth.
As normally used, the word myth means an idle tale, a fable, a falsehood,
or an idea that's out of date, something untrue.
But there is another, older, and stricter use of the word myth,
whereby it doesn't mean something untrue,
but it means an image in terms of which people make sense of life and of the world.
Supposing, for example, you don't understand the technicalities of electricity,
and somebody wants to explain them to you,
he wants to explain about the flow of currents,
well, to do that, he compares electricity with water.
And because you understand water, you get some idea about the behavior of electricity.
Or if an astronomer wants to explain to you what he means by expanding space,
he'll use the metaphor of a balloon, a black balloon with white spots on it.
The white spots represent the galaxies.
And then if you blow up the balloon,
they all get further away from each other at the same speed as the balloon blows up.
Now, in neither case are we saying that electricity is water,
or that the universe is a balloon with white spots on it.
We are saying it's something like it.
And so, in the same way,
the human being has always used images
to represent his deepest ideas
of how the universe works
and what man's place in it is.
And tonight I'm going to discuss
certain aspects of two of the greatest myths
in this sense of the word
which have influenced mankind's thinking.
First of all, the myth
of the universe
as an artifact,
as something made,
as a carpenter makes
tables, chairs, and houses,
or as
a potter makes pots,
or as a sculptor
makes figurines,
and on the other hand
the image of the world
as a drama
in which
all the things in the world
are not made
but acted
in the same way
as a player acts parts.
For these are the two great images
which govern respectively
the religions of the West
descending from
Hebraism,
that is to say
Hebraism itself,
Christianity,
and Islam,
and on the other hand
the myth
which governs
those religions
which have had
their origin in India,
most particularly
Hinduism itself
and to a lesser extent
Buddhism.
And I want to make it
perfectly plain
before I go any further
that in talking about
these two great
religious traditions
in terms of images
I am talking about
the way they express themselves
at a rather popular level.
Sophisticated Christians
and sophisticated Hindus
think beyond images.
For example,
a Christian may think
of God
as the Father
but a sophisticated
and educated Christian
does not imagine
that God
is a cosmic male parent
with a white beard
sitting on a golden throne
above the stars.
Nor does a Hindu
imagine literally
that God
is the super showman
the big actor.
These images
are what it is like
not what it is.
And perhaps
when I get through
with discussing them
we'll be able
to ask the question
as to whether
any of these images
still make sense
to us
in this 20th century
when we have
a view of the world
so powerfully shaped
by Western science.
Now let me begin
then with a few things
about
the image of the world
and thus
the image of man
as it comes to us
from the Hebrew Bible.
It's said in the book
of Genesis
that
the Lord God
created man
out of the dust
of the earth
as if he had made
of Adam
a clay figurine
and then he blew
the breath of life
into its nostrils
and the figurine
became alive
and it's said
that the figurine
was made in the image
of God
for God
who is conceived
in this particular
image
as personal
as a living
intelligent spirit
creates in man
something like that
but you must note
very definitely
that this is a creation
as the potter
makes a pot
out of clay
for the creature
that the Lord God
has made
is not God
the creature
is something
less than God
something like God
but not God
and you will see
some very interesting
consequences
follow from this idea
of the world
as an artifact
what follows
from it is
that
the whole universe
is seen
as a marvelous
technical accomplishment
and if it is made
there must be
an explanation
of how it is made
and the whole
history
of western thought
has in many ways
been
an attempt
to discover
how the creator
did it
what were
the principles
what were the laws
laid down
what in other words
was the blueprint
that underlies
this creation
and this image
has therefore
persisted
throughout western history
and continues on
into a time
when very many people
do not believe
in Christianity
or Judaism
or Islam
they are
you might say
agnostics
or atheists
but they still
carry on
something of this
idea of the world
as an artifact
if you are a Christian
or a Jew
you believe that the world
is the artifact
the creation
of the intelligent spirit
called God
but if in this culture
you are an atheist
or an agnostic
you believe that the world
is an automatic machine
without a creator
something
which made itself
we might say
then that our
original model
of the universe
was the ceramic model
and the bible
is full of references
to God
as the potter
who makes the world
out of obedient clay
but when
western thinkers
in the 18th century
began to drop
the idea
of a personal God
they kept the idea
of the artifact
and so we could say
that after the ceramic model
of the universe
we got the fully automatic model
and still you see
underlying our way
of thinking about things
is the question
how are they put together
and if you want to find out
one of the obvious ways
to proceed
is to take them to pieces
everybody knows
that if you want to find out
how something is made
you unscrew the parts
and see
what the secret is
inside the box
and so
western science
in its beginnings
took everything apart
it took animals apart
it took flowers apart
it took rocks apart
and then when they got it
reduced to its tiniest pieces
they tried to find
methods of taking those apart too
so that we could eventually discover
what the very smallest
small things were
and so know
what building blocks
the creator
or the fully automatic model
used
in order to put it all together
hoping that
that would lead us
to an understanding
of how life works
man himself
in all this
was looked upon
as a creation
something made
only
there were some difficulties
about this
because
if you believe in the world
in accordance with the idea
of the fully automatic model
you've really got to admit
that man too
is fully automatic
in other words
he's a machine
rather than a person
man is something
in other words
that says
doffs its hat to you
and says
how do you do
I'm a person
I'm alive
I'm sensible
I talk
I have feelings
but you wonder
do you really
or are you just
an automaton
am I real
or am I just an automaton
the general result
of
the western image
of man
hasn't been quite that
what it's come down to
under the dispensation
of the fully automatic model
is this
we are
living beings
we're very sensitive
and inside the human skin
by an extraordinary fluke
of nature
there has arisen
something called reason
and there have also
arisen values
such as love
but this was a fluke
because it happened
inside a fully automatic universe
which is stupid
because it's merely automatic
you won't in other words
find anything really intelligent
outside human skins
and therefore
if that is so
the only thing
that people can do
if they want to
maintain
reason
and love
in this universe
is to fight nature
and beat
the stupid
external world
into submission
to the human will
and so
the war
against nature
is the great project
thus far
of western technology
because you see
each one of us
because we
we have
inherit
from
thousands of years
of history
a view of man
as something made
and almost
of a
sort of breath
breathed into a pot
of clay
or an image of clay
a kind of
each one feels himself
as a globule
of consciousness
or mind
living inside
a vehicle
called my body
and
since the world
outside that body
is stupid
we feel
estranged
from the world
when we find out
how enormous
the universe is
that makes us
as individuals
feel extremely
unimportant
and rather lonely
because you see
we consider ourselves
our basic image
of ourselves
is of a soul
or an ego
or a mind
all by itself
in its little house
looking out
at a world
that is strange
and that is not
me
I am therefore
a brief interval
of consciousness
between the darkness
and the darkness
and that
isn't too happy
I would like to be able
to believe that it was
more than that
if I could
so many of us say
if I could only
still believe
that there is
an intelligent
and eternal God
in whose eyes
I am important
and who has the power
to enable me
to live forever
that would be
very nice
but for many people
that's an extraordinarily
difficult
thing to believe
now I want to
contrast this
image of the world
with another
what I call
the dramatic image
as distinct
from the image
of the potter
or the ceramic image
and this will be
the presiding image
of Hinduism
their idea is this
that God
didn't make the world
like a technologist
but he acted it
that is to say
every person
and everything
for that matter
every tree
every flower
every animal
every star
every rock
every grain of dust
is a role
or part
which the Godhead
is playing
you must understand
of course
that the Hindu image
of God
is a little bit
different
from the Jewish
the Christian
and the Islamic
when I was a boy
little boy
I used to ask
my mother
interminable questions
and when she got
sick of it
she said
my dear
there are some things
in this life
that we're just
not meant to know
well I said
will we ever know
she said yes
if you die
and then go to heaven
God will explain it all
and so I used to hope
that on wet afternoons
in heaven
we would all be able
to sit round
the throne of grace
and say to the Lord
why did you do this
and why did you do that
and he would explain
every child in the west
asks his mother
how was I made
and nobody knows
but they know
likewise
if anybody
gets mentally deranged
and claims to be God
we always humor
such people
by saying
by asking them
technical questions
how did you make
the world
in six days
or if you're God
why couldn't you
change this plate
into a rabbit
but that is because
in our popular image
of God
God is the supreme
technocrat
he knows
all the answers
he understands
everything in detail
and could tell you
all about it
but the Hindus
don't think of God
that way
if you ask
the Hindu God
how did you create
the human body
he would say
look
I know how I did it
but it can't be
explained in words
because words
are too clumsy
in words
I have to talk
about things slowly
I have to string them out
because words
run in a line
and lines add up
to books
and books add up
to libraries
and if I explain
to you
how I made
the human organism
it would take
all eternity
for me to tell you
unfortunately
fortunately for me
I don't have to
understand things
in words
in order to make
them happen
nor do you
you don't have
to understand
in words
how you breathe
you just breathe
you don't have
to understand
in words
how to grow
your hair
how to shape
your bones
how to make
your eyes
blue or brown
you just do it
and somebody
who does understand
to some extent
may be a physiologist
he can't do it
any better
than you can
so that you see
is the Hindu idea
of divine omnipotence
and that is why
their images
of the gods
very often
have many arms
you'll often
see the god
Shiva
with ten arms
or the buddhist
Avalokiteshvara
with one thousand arms
and that is because
their image
of the divine
is a sort
of centipede
a centipede
can move
a hundred legs
without having
to think about it
so Shiva
can move
ten arms
very dexterously
without having
to think about it
and you know
what happened
to the centipede
when it stopped
to think
how to move
a hundred legs
it got all
balled up
so in this way
the Hindus
do not think
of God
as being
a technician
in the sense
of having
a verbal
or mathematical
understanding
of how the world
is created
it's done
in a simpler way
just like that
only if we had
to describe
the simple way
in words
it would be
very complicated
but God
in their idea
doesn't need
to do so
but the remarkable
difference is
that
the Hindu
doesn't
see any
fundamental
division
between God
and the world
the world
is God
at play
the world
is God
acting
now
how could you
possibly arrive
at such an idea
very simply
when
he tries to
think
why
there is
a world
at all
because
if you
think about it
it is
extraordinarily
odd
that there
is anything
it would have
been much
simpler
and required
a great deal
less energy
for there
would be
nothing
but here
it is
and why
well
what would
you do
if you
were God
or let me
put it
in a simpler
way
supposing
that every
night
you could
dream
any dream
you wanted
to dream
what would
you do
well
first of all
I'm quite
sure
that most
of us
would dream
all the
marvelous
things
we wanted
to happen
we would
fulfill
all our
wishes
and we
might go
on that
way for
months
besides
you could
make it
extraordinarily
rich
by wishing
to dream
75 years
in one
night
full of
glorious
happenings
but after
you had done
that for a
few months
you might
begin to
get a
little tired
of it
and you
would
say
what about
an adventure
tonight
in which
something
terribly
exciting
and rather
dangerous
is going
to happen
but I'll
know I'm
dreaming
so it
won't be
too bad
and I'll
wake up
if it
gets too
serious
so you
do that
for a
while
you
rescue
princesses
in distress
from dragons
and all
sorts of
things
and then
when you've
done that
for some
time
you say
now let's
go out
a bit
further
let's
forget
it's a
dream
and have
a real
thrill
ooh
but you
know you
wake up
and then
you get
after you've
done that
for a while
you get
more and
more nerve
until you
sort of
dare yourself
as to how
far out
you can
get
and you
end up
dreaming
the sort
of life
you're
living
now
why
does one
do that
why would
one do
that
the reason
the hindu
would say
is that
the basic
pulse
of life
the basic
motivation
of existence
is what
we call
the game
of hide
and seek
now you
see it
now you
don't
you see
everything's
based on
that
because all
life is
vibration
pulsing
light
is a
pulsation
of light
darkness
sound
is a
pulsation
of sound
silence
everything
is going
at various
speeds
and in
order
to have
say
it's
like
the
motion
of
a
wave
now
a
wave
consists
of
two
pulses
the
crest
and
the
trough
you
can't
have
crests
without
troughs
you
can't
have
troughs
without
crests
they
always
go
together
you
can't
have
hide
without
seek
you
can't
have
seek
without
hide
just
for
example
you
can't
have
here
without
there
you
can't
have
is
without
isn't
because
you
don't
know
what
you
mean
by
is
unless
you
also
know
what
you
mean
by
isn't
and
vice
versa
so
in
that
way
they
think
that
hide
and
seek
is
wakes
up
and
finds
out
who
that
was
a
relief
and
then
after
a
rest
period
in
which
everything
is
of
course
at
peace
starts
all
over
again
because
the
spirit
of
adventure
springs
eternal
now
then
the
Hindus
had
extremely
vast
ideas
of
space
and
time
for
their
period
in
history
and
they
have
the
4,320,000
years
a
period
called
a
kalpa
k-a-l-p-a
in
sanskrit
and
then
the
seek
part
that
is
to
say
let
me
put
it
this
way
the
dreaming
part
is
followed
by
the
waking
part
the
dreaming
is
the
hiding
where
the
godhead
imagines
that
it's
all
of
us
then
for
another
4,320,000
years
there's
a
period
of
awakening
and
then
at
the
that
again
begins
the
dream
now
the
dreaming
period
is
further
subdivided
into
four
stages
the
first
stage
is
the
longest
and
it's
the
best
during
that
stage
the
dream
is
beautiful
the
second
stage
is
not
quite
so
long
and
it's
a
little
unsettling
there's
an
element
of
instability
in
it
a
certain
touch
of
insecurity
in
the
third
stage
which
is
not
again
so
long
the
forces
of
light
and
the
forces
of
darkness
of
good
and
of
evil
are
equally
balanced
and
things
are
beginning
to look
rather
dangerous
and
in the
fourth
stage
which
is
the
shortest
of
them
all
the
negative
dark
or
evil
side
triumphs
and
the
whole
thing
blows
up
in
the
end
but
then
that's
like
the
bang
in
the
dream
and
so
then
there's
a
waking
period
before
the
whole
thing
starts
again
but
you
will
notice
if
you
compute
I
haven't
gone
into
the
mathematics
of
it
but
if
you
the
fundamental
principles
of
drama
consider
drama
here
is
a
stage
and
over
the
stage
here
is
what
we
call
the
proscenium
arch
and
out
there
is
the
audience
now
you're
supposed
to be
in
the
world
of
reality
let's
suppose
this
isn't
a
lecture
tonight
but
a
show
and
you
come
outside
into
the
show
and
you
know
you're
real
people
living
in
the
real
world
but
you're
going
to
see
a
play
which
isn't
real
there
are
actors
coming
on
the
stage
but
behind
the
scenes
here
they're
real
people
like
you
but
they
so
that
you
don't
see
them
that
way
they're
going
to
put
on
their
costumes
and
their
makeup
and
then
they're
going
to
come
out
and
front
here
and
pretend
to
various
roles
but
you
they're
weeping
or
roaring
with
laughter
because
he's
almost
persuaded
you
that
what
is
on
the
stage
is
really
happening
that
is
the
greatness
of
his
art
to
take
the
audience
in
and
of
course
in
the
same
way
the
Hindu
feels
that
the
Godhead
acts
his
part
yourself
enjoying
it
like
anything
because
you
mustn't
admit
it
that
would
give
the
show
away
now
it's
a
funny
thing
when
you
say
I'm
a
person
the
word
person
is
a
word
from
the
drama
you
know
when
you
open
a
play
that
is
the
script
you
see
the
list
of
the
actors
and
it's
called
dramatis
personae
the
persons
of
the
drama
and
the
word
person
in
latin
is
persona
that
means
through
sound
something
through
which
sound
comes
because
the
persona
in
greco-roman
drama
was
the
mask
worn
by
the
actors
and
because
they
acted
on
an
open
air
stage
the
mouth
was
shaped
like
a
small
megaphone
and
that
would
project
the
sound
so
the
person
is
the
mask
isn't
it
funny
now
how
we
forgotten
that
and
so
harry
emerson
fosdick
could
write
a
book
called
how
to
be
a
real
person
which
if
translated
literally
is
how
to
be
a
genuine
fake
because
in
the
old
sense
you
see
the
person
is
the
role
the
part
played
by
the
actor
but
if
you
forget
you
see
that
you
are
the
actor
and
you
think
you're
the
person
you're
enrolled
you're
bewitched
spellbound
enchanted
so then
look at
something else
about the
drama
and its
nature
in the
drama
there has
to be
a
villain
unless
of course
you're
acting
some kind
of a
non-play
which
doesn't
have
any
story
but
all
fundamental
stories
start
out
with
the
status
quo
where
everybody
saw
of going along and then something has to come in to upset everything and the interest of the play is
how are we going to solve it it's the same when you play cards supposing you're playing solitaire
you start by shuffling the deck and that introduces chaos and the game is to play order against chaos
so in the drama somebody has to be the villain and play the dark side and then the hero plays
against him if you want if you go to the theater for a good cry then you let the villain win and
you call it a tragedy if you go for a thrill you let the hero win if you go for laughs you call it
a comedy there are different arrangements then between the hero and the villain but in all cases
when the curtain goes down at the end of the drama the hero and the villain step out hand in hand
and the audience applaud both they don't boo the villain at the end of the play they applaud him
for acting the part of the villain so well and they applaud the hero for acting the part of the hero
so well because they know that the hero role and the villain role are only masks and so you see behind
the stage two there is the green room where after the play is over and before it begins the masks are taken
off and so the hindus feel that behind the scene that is to say in reality under the surface you are all
the actor marvelously skilled in playing many parts and in getting lost in the mazes of your own minds
and the entanglements of your own affairs as if this were the most urgent thing going
but behind the scenes in the green room you might say in the very back of your mind and the very depths of
your soul you always have a very tiny sneaking suspicion that you might not be the you that you
think you are the germans call it a hintergedanker a thought way way back in your head that you will
hardly admit to yourself because of course you've been brought up most of you if you were brought up
in the hebrew christian tradition it would be very wicked indeed to think that you were god
that would be blasphemy and oh oh oh don't you ever dare think such an idea
which of course is all as it should be because the show must go on until of course the time does come
to stop now you will see that this involves two quite different ways of dealing with the fundamental
question two fundamental questions one what is man that is who are you and in the hebrew christian answer
we more or less say well i'm me i'm alan watts i'm john doe i'm mary smith and i firmly believe i am
because i really oughtn't to think anything else ought i and that me is a finite ego or a finite mind
whatever that is on the other hand the hindu will say that the real self which he calls atman a-t-m-a-n
is what there is it's the works it's the which than which there is no witcher the root and ground of
the universe and of reality the next problem that this that where they differ so sharply
is well why have things gone wrong why is there evil why is there pain why is there tragedy
now the in the in the christian tradition you have to attribute evil to something else besides god
there god is defined as good
and he originally created the scheme of things without there being any evil in it but there was
a mysterious accident in which one of the angels called lucifer didn't do what he was told
uh man there was a fall of man man disobeyed he went against the law of god
and from this point evil was introduced into the scheme of things and things began to go wrong
that is to say against the will of the perfectly good creator now the hindu thinks in a different way
he feels that the creator or the actor is uh the author of both the good and the evil
for the reasons that i explained to you you have to have the evil for there to be a story
and in any case it isn't as if the creator had made evil and made someone else its victim
it isn't like saying god creates the evil as well as the good and poor little us are his puppets
and he inflicts evil upon us the hindu says nobody experiences pain except the godhead
you are not some separate little puppet which is being kicked around by omnipotence you are omnipotence
in disguise and so there is no victim of this no helpless uh defenseless poor little thing
even the baby with syphilis is the dreaming godhead now this makes people brought up in the west
extremely uneasy because it seems to undercut the foundations of moral behavior
and say well if if good and evil are created by god isn't this a universe in which just anything goes
i mean if i'm god in disguise surely if i realize that i can get away with murder
well think it through didn't i point out that in the game as the hindus analyze it the evil part has
one third of the time and the good part has two thirds what sort of a game do you want anyway
you will find out you see that all good games games that are worth playing and that arouse our interest
are constructed like this if you have the good and the evil equally balanced
the game is boring nothing happens it's stalemate the irresistible force meets the immovable object
on the other hand if it's all good and there's hardly any evil maybe just a weeny little bit of
a fly in the ointment it also gets boring just in the same way for example supposing you knew the future
and could control it perfectly what would you do you would say
let's shuffle the deck and have another deal
because for example when great chess players sit down to a match and it suddenly becomes apparent to
both of them that white is going to mate in sixteen moves and nothing can be done about it they
abandon the game and begin another they don't want to know there wouldn't be any hide in the game
any element of surprise if they did know the outcome so a game with good and evil equally balanced isn't a
good game a game with the positive or good forces uh clearly triumphant isn't an interesting game
what we want is a game where it always seems that the good side is about to lose i'm really serious danger
of losing but manages always to sneak out you know how it is in serial stories when they get the hero
at the end of an installment in some absolutely impossible position where it seems that uh he's
going to be run over by a train because he's tied with his girlfriend to the rails and you know somehow
in the next installment the author's going to get them out of the difficulty only he mustn't do it
too obviously because he won't go on reading the next installment so then what's necessary is
a system in which the good side is always winning but never is the winner where the evil side is always
losing but never is the loser that's a very practical arrangement for a successful ongoing game
which will keep everybody interested and you must watch this in practical politics every in group or
group of nice people needs an out group of nasty people otherwise they wouldn't know who they were
and you must recognize then that this out group is your necessary enemy whom you need he keeps you on
your toes but you mustn't obliterate him if you do you're in a very dangerous state of affairs so you
have to love your enemies in this sense regard them as highly necessary and to be respected chivalrously
we need the communists and they need us the thing is to cool it and play play what i call a contained
conflict when conflicts get out of hand all sides blow up oh of course i suppose then there's another deal
maybe a million years later now let me see if i can for a moment put these two visions of the world together
it seems that if you believe that christian hebrew islamic view that you can't admit the hindu view
because if you're a christian you the one thing you cannot believe if that's if you say you're at all
orthodox you're a orthodox protestant bible type or if you're a roman catholic you can't believe that you
are god and so that excludes hinduism apparently but let's go back to judaism for a minute
and ask this question if judaism is the true religion can christianity be true too no no because
there's one thing in christianity that the jew can't admit and that was that jesus christ was god
that is unthinkable for a jew that any man was was indeed god in the flesh all right second question
if christianity is the true religion can judaism be true too the answer is yes because all christians
are jews that is to say they have taken in the jewish religion lock stock and barrel in the old
testament into their own religion every christian is a jew plus something else which is his particular
attitude to jesus of nazareth now then let's play this game once again if christianity is true can
hinduism be true the answer is no for the reason that we've seen the christians will
say jesus of nazareth was god but you aren't i'm not now then if hinduism is true can christianity be
true the answer is yes because it can include it but how what would be the attitude of a hindu
to a very sincere and convinced christian he would say bravo absolutely marvelous what an act
here in this christian soul god is playing his most extraordinary game he is believing and really
feeling that he's not himself and not only that but that he is living only one life
and in that life he's got to make the most momentous decision imaginable
in the course of this four score years and ten he's got to choose between everlasting beatitude
and everlasting horror and he's not quite sure how to do it because in christianity there are two
sins to be avoided among others one is called presumption and that is knowing surely that you are saved
the other is called despair which is knowing surely that you're damned there's always a margin of
doubt about this work out your salvation in fear and trembling so you might say that this is preeminently
the gambler's religion imagine you know at some great casino late at night there is some marvelous
master gambler who's been winning winning winning all night and then suddenly he decides to stake his
whole winnings on whether the ball lands on red or black sensation everybody gathers from all over the
casino to watch this terrific gamble so in the same way the predicament in which the christian soul
finds itself is this colossal gamble which is saying this universe can possibly contain in it ultimate
tragedy there could be such a thing as an absolute final irremediable mistake and what a horror that thought
is and so the hindu is sitting in the audience fascinated by this christian's extraordinary reckless gamble
he says that's a beautiful game the christian doesn't know it's a game but the hindu suspects it is
and he's a little bit admiring it but not quite involved now you would say perhaps now you ought to be
involved give your whole self to this make an act of commitment you know once to every man and nation
comes the moment to decide in the strife tricks truth and falsehood for the good or evil side
then it is the brave man chooses while a coward stands aside etc that sounds great isn't it commitment
stand up and be counted it is a virtue but on the other hand you see another virtue what we call being a
good sport if your enemy in the battle of life is to be regarded as an absolute enemy who is pure evil
black as black could be you can't be a good sport and you can accord him no chivalry no honors of battle
you've got to annihilate him by any means possible fair or foul and that leads to some pretty sticky
situations especially when he has the means of annihilating you in just the same way but if on
the other hand in all contests you know that while you're going to take it seriously and regard it as
very important in the back of your mind in that little hintergedanker you know it is not ultimately
important although very important and this saves you this enables you to be a good player you may worry
about the word play because we often use the word play in a trivial sense oh you're just playing is life
you mean life is nothing but a game the hindus indeed call the creation of the universe the leela
or the game or the play of the divine but we also use play in other senses when you see hamlet which
is by no means trivial you are still going to a play in church the organist plays the organ
and in the book of proverbs it is written that the divine wisdom created the world by playing
before the throne of god play also you see has a deep sense when we say music even the music of bach
as a great master of what we call serious music is still playing and so in the deeper sense of play
the hindu sees this world as play and therefore that the intense situations personally socially
and so on that we are all involved in are seen not as bad illusions but as magnificent illusions so
well acted that they've just about got most of the actors fooled so that they've forgotten who they are
and man thinks of himself when he's been fooled as a little creature that comes into this world which
is all strange and foreign and he's just a little puppet of fate and he's forgotten that
the whole thing has at its root the self which is also yourself you've been listening to the
conclusion of the image of man with alan watts from the alan watts radio series number five myth and
religion for information on how to obtain the radio series on cassette tape call 1-800-969-2887
or you can write to the electronic university p.o box 2309 san anselmo california 94979
when you call or write please indicate the name of your local station that you heard the program the image
of man from the alan watts radio series number five myth and religion again the phone number is
1-800-969-2887 that's 1-800-w-o watts the love of wisdom with alan watts is produced by the electronic university
our music is by zakir hussein courtesy of moment records i'm neil harvey thank you for listening


===== Myth And Religion - 11 - Jesus His Religion =====

Some years ago, I had just given a talk on television in Canada
when one of the announcers came up to me and said,
you know, if one can believe that this universe is in charge of an intelligent and beneficent God,
don't you think he would naturally have provided us with an infallible guide
to behavior and to the truth about the universe?
And of course, I knew he meant the Bible.
I said, no, I think nothing of the kind,
because I think a loving God would not do something to his children that would rot their brains.
Because if we had an infallible guide, we would never think for ourselves.
And therefore, our minds would become atrophied.
It is as if my grandfather had left me a million dollars.
I'm glad he didn't.
And we have, therefore, to begin any discussion of the meaning of the life and teaching of Jesus
with a look at this thorny question of authority
and especially the authority of Holy Scripture.
Because in this country in particular,
there are an enormous number of people
who seem to believe that the Bible
descended from heaven with an angel in the year 1611,
which was when the so-called King James,
or more correctly authorized version of the Bible,
was translated into English.
I had a crazy uncle
who believed that every word of the Bible was literally true,
including the marginal notes.
And so whatever date it said,
it said in the marginal notes
that the world was created in 4004 BC
and he believed it as the word of God.
Until one day,
he was reading, I think, a passage in the book of Proverbs
and found a naughty word in the Bible.
And from that time on,
he was through with it.
You know, how Protestant can you get?
Now, the question of authority needs to be understood
because I am not going to claim any authority
in what I say to you.
Except the authority, such as it is, of history.
And that's a pretty uncertain authority.
But from my point of view,
the four Gospels
are, I think, to be regarded on the whole
as historical documents.
I'll even grant them miracles.
Because speaking as one heavily influenced by Buddhism,
we're not very impressed by miracles.
The traditions of Asia,
Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and so forth,
are full of miraculous stories.
And we take them in our stride.
We don't think that there are any sign
of anything in particular
except psychic power.
And we in the West
have, by scientific technology,
accomplished things
of a very startling nature.
We could blow up the whole planet.
And Tibetan magicians
have never promised to do anything like that.
And I'm really a little scared
of the growing interest in psychic power
because that's what I call psychotechnics.
And we've made such a mess of things
with ordinary techniques
that heaven only knows what we might do
if we got hold of psychotechnics
and started raising people from the dead
and prolonging life insufferably
and doing everything we wished.
In the whole answer to the story of miracles
is simply imagine that you're God
and that you can have anything you want.
Well, you'd have it for quite a long time.
And then after a while,
you say, this is getting pretty dull
because I know in advance
everything that's going to happen.
And so you would wish for a surprise
and you would find yourself
this evening in this church
as a human being.
So, I mean, that is the miracle thing.
I think miracles are probably possible.
That doesn't bother me.
And as a matter of fact,
when you read the writings
of the early fathers of the church,
the great theologians like St. Clement,
Gregory of Nyssa,
St. John of Damascus,
even Thomas Aquinas,
they're not interested
in the historicity of the Bible.
They take that sort of for granted,
but forget it.
They're interested in its deeper meaning.
And therefore,
they always interpret
all the tales like Jonah and the whale.
They don't bother even to doubt
whether Jonah was or was not
swallowed by a whale
or other big fish.
But they see in the story
of Jonah and the whale
a prefiguration of the resurrection of Christ.
And then even when it comes
to the resurrection of Christ,
they're not worrying about
the chemistry or the physics
of a risen body.
What they're interested in
is that the idea
of the resurrection of the body
has something to say
about the meaning
of the physical body
in the eyes of God.
That the physical body,
in other words,
is not something worthless
and unspiritual,
but something which is an object
of the divine love.
And so,
therefore,
I'm not going to be concerned
with whether or not
miraculous events happened.
It seems to me entirely
beside the point.
So I regard the four Gospels
as, on the whole,
as good a historical document
as anything else we have
from that period,
including the Gospel of St. John.
And that's important.
It used to be fashionable
to regard the Gospel of St. John
as late.
In other words,
at the turn of the century,
the higher critics
of the New Testament
assigned the Gospel of St. John
to about 125 A.D.
And the reason was just simple.
Those higher critics
at that time
just assumed
that the simple teachings
of Jesus
could not possibly
have included
any such complicated
mystical theology.
And therefore,
they said,
well,
it must be later.
Now, as a matter of fact,
in the text
of the Gospel of St. John,
the local color,
his knowledge
of the topography
of Jerusalem,
and his knowledge
of the Jewish calendar
is more accurate
than that
of the other three writers,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
And it seems to me
perfectly simple
to assume
that John recorded
the inner teaching
which he gave
to his disciples
and that Matthew,
Mark, and Luke
record the more
exoteric teaching
which he gave
to people at large.
Now,
what about then
the authority
of these scriptures?
We could take this problem
in two steps.
A lot of people
don't know
how we got the Bible
at all.
We Westerners
got the Bible
thanks to
the Catholic Church.
the Catholic Church
and members
of the Church
wrote the books
of the New Testament
and they took over
the books
of the Old Testament
which even by
the time of Christ
had not been
finally decided upon
by the Jews.
The Jews did not
close the canon
of the Old Testament
until the year
100 A.D
or thereabouts
at the Synod of Jamnia
and then they
finally decided
which were
the canonical books
of the Hebrew Scriptures
and embodied them
in the Masoretic text
the earliest copy
of which
dates from
the 10th century
early in the 10th century
A.D.
The books
to be included
in the New Testament
were not finally
decided upon
until the year
382 A.D.
again
at the Synod of Rome
under Pope Damasus.
So it was the Church
the Catholic Church
that promulgated
the Bible
and said
we are giving you
these scriptures
on our authority
and by the authority
of the informal tradition
that has existed
among us
from the beginning
inspired by the Holy Spirit.
So you receive
historically
the Bible
on the Church's
say-so
and the Catholic Church
insists therefore
that the Church
collectively
speaking
under the presumed
guidance
of the Holy Spirit
has the authority
to interpret
the Bible
and you can take that
or leave it
because obviously
the authority
of the Bible
is not
first of all
based
on the Bible
itself.
I can write a Bible
and state
within that book
that it is indeed
the Word of God
which I have received
and you are at liberty
to believe me
or not.
Hindus
believe
that the Vedas
are divinely revealed
and inspired
with just as much
fervor as any Christian
or any Jew.
Muslims believe
that the Quran
is divinely inspired
and some Buddhists
believe
that their
sutras
are also
of divine
or rather
a Buddhic
origin.
the Japanese
believe
that the ancient
texts of Shinto
are likewise
of divine origin
and who is
to be judge
if we are going
to argue
about this
as to which
version of the truth
is the correct one
we will always
end up
in an argument
in which the judge
and the advocate
are the same person
and you wouldn't want
that if you were brought
into a court of law
would you
because if I say
that well
thinking it all over
I find that Jesus Christ
is the greatest being
who ever came
onto this
this earth
by what standards
do I judge?
why obviously
I judge by the sort
of moral standards
that have been
given to me
as somebody brought up
in a Christian culture
there is nobody
impartial
who can decide
between all the religions
because more or less
everybody
has been
in one way or another
influenced by one of them
so if the church
says the Bible
is true
it finally comes
down to you
are you going to
believe the church
or aren't you?
if nobody believes
the church
it will be perfectly
plain won't it
that the church
has no authority
because
the people
is always
the source
of authority
that's why
de Tocqueville
said that
the people
gets what
government
it deserves
and so
you may say
well God
himself
is the authority
well
how are we
to show that
that's your opinion
well you say
well you wait and see
the day of judgment
is coming
and then you'll find out
who's the authority
yes but at the moment
there is no evidence
for the day of judgment
and it remains
until there is evidence
simply your opinion
that the day of judgment
is coming
and there is nothing else
to go on
except the opinion
of other people
who hold the same view
and whose opinions
you bought
so really
I won't
deny anybody's
right to hold
these opinions
you may indeed
believe
that the Bible
is literally true
and that it was
actually dictated
by God
to Moses
and the prophets
and the apostles
that may be
your opinion
and you are
at liberty
to hold it
I don't agree
with you
I do believe
on the other hand
that there is
a sense
in which the Bible
is divinely inspired
but I mean
by inspiration
something utterly different
from dictation
receiving a dictated message
from an omniscient authority
I think inspiration
comes
very seldom
in words
in fact
almost all
the words
written down
by automatic writing
from a psychic input
that I've ever read
strike me
as
a bit thin
when a
psychic
begins to try
and write
of deep mysteries
instead of
telling you
what your sickness is
or who your grandmother was
he begins to get superficial
and psychically communicated
philosophy
is never as interesting
as philosophy
carefully sought out
but divine inspiration
isn't that kind of communication
divine inspiration
is for example
to feel
for reasons
that you can't really understand
that you love people
divine inspiration
is
a wisdom
which it's very difficult
to put into words
like mystical experience
that's divine inspiration
and a person who writes out of that experience
could be said to be divinely inspired
or it might come
through dreams
through archetypal messages
from the collective unconscious
through which
the holy spirit
could be said to work
but
since
inspiration always comes
through a human vehicle
it is liable to be distorted
by that vehicle
in other words
I'm talking to you
through a sound system
and it's the only one now available
now if there's something wrong
with this sound system
whatever truths
I might utter to you
will be distorted
my voice will be distorted
and you might mistake
the meaning of what I said
now so therefore
everybody who receives
divine inspiration
and I'm using that
in a very loose way
you can mean anything you like
by divine
that's your option
but anybody who receives it
will express it
within the limits
of what language he knows
and by language here
I don't only mean
English, Latin, Greek, Hebrew
or Sanskrit
I mean language
in the sense of
what sort of terms
are available to you
what is
what kind of religion
were you brought up with
now you see
if you were brought up
in the Bible belt
you came out of Arkansas
somewhere
and that's all the religion
you knew
and you had a mystical experience
of the type
where you suddenly discover
that you are one with God
then you're liable to get up
and say
I'm Jesus Christ
and lots of people do
well
the culture that we live in
just can't allow that
there's only one Jesus Christ
and sort of
you don't look like
you were Jesus Christ
coming back again
because it's said in the scriptures
that when he comes back
there'll be no doubt about it
he'll appear in the heavens
with legions of angels
and you're not doing that
you're just
old Joe Doakes
that we knew years ago
and now you say
you're Jesus Christ
well he says
that when Jesus Christ
said he was God
nobody believed him
and you don't believe again
you know
you can't answer that argument
but you see
he says it that way
because he is trying to express
what happened to him
in terms of a religious language
which is circumscribed
by the holy bible
he's never read the Upanishads
he's never read the Diamond Sutra
he's never read the Tibetan Book of the Dead
or the I Ching
or the Lao Tzu
and therefore
there is no other way
in which he can say this
but if he had read the Upanishads
he would have had no difficulty
and nor would the culture
the society in which he was talking
have any difficulty
because it says in the Upanishads
we are all incarnations of God
only they don't mean by the word God
in fact they don't use that word
they use Brahman
they don't mean the same thing
that a Hebrew meant by God
because
the Brahman
is not personal
Brahman is
we would say
supra-personal
not impersonal
because that is a
negation
but I would say
supra-personal
Brahman is not he or she
has no sex
Brahman
is not the creator of the world
as something underneath and subject to
Brahman
but the actor of the world
the player of all the parts
so that everyone is a mask
which is the meaning of the word person
in which the Brahman
plays a role
and like
an absorbed actor
the divine spirit gets so absorbed in playing the role
as to become it
and to be bewitched
and this is all part of the game
into believing
I am that role
when you were babies
you knew who you were
psychoanalysts refer to that as the oceanic feeling
they don't really like it
but they admit that it exists
where the baby
cannot distinguish between
the world
and the way it acts upon the world
it's all one process
which is of course the way things are
but we learn very quickly
because we are taught very quickly
what is you and what is not you
what is voluntary
what is involuntary
because you can be punished for the voluntary
but not for the involuntary
and so
we unlearn
what we knew in the beginning
and in the course of life
if we are fortunate
we discover again
what we really are
that each one of us
is what would be called in
Arabic
or Hebrew
the son of God
and the word son of
means of the nature of
as when you call someone
a son of a bitch
or in Arabic you say
which means son of a dog
son of a donkey
so
a son of Belial
means an evil person
son of God
means a divine person
human being
who has realized union with God
now my assumption
my opinion
is that Jesus
of Nazareth
was a human being
like Buddha
like Sri Ramakrishna
like Ramana Maharshi
etc
who
early in life
had a colossal experience
of what we call
cosmic consciousness
now you don't have to be
any particular kind of religion
to get this experience
it can hit anyone
anytime
like falling in love
there are obviously
a number of you
in this building
who've had it
in greater or lesser degree
but it's found
all over the world
and when it hits you
you know it
sometimes it comes
after long practice
of meditations
and spiritual discipline
sometimes it comes
for no reason
that anybody can determine
we say it's the grace
of God
that there comes
this overwhelming conviction
that you have mistaken
your identity
that what you thought
what I thought
was just old Alan Watts
who I know very well
is just a big act
in a show
but what I thought
was in
that you know
me
was only completely
superficial
that I am
an expression
of an eternal
something or other
X
a name that can't be named
as the name of God
was taboo
among the Hebrews
I am
and that
I suddenly
understand why
exactly why
everything is
the way it is
it's perfectly clear
furthermore
I feel
no longer
any boundary
between what I do
and what happens
to me
I feel that
everything
that's going on
is my doing
just as my breathing
is
is your breathing
voluntary
or involuntary
do you do it
or does it
happen to you
so you can feel
it both ways
but you feel
everything like
breathing
and it isn't as if
you had become
a puppet
there is no longer
any separate you
there is just
this great happening
going on
and if you
have the name
in your background
you will say
this happening
is God
or the will of God
or the doing of God
or if you don't
have that word
in your background
you will say
with the Chinese
it is the flowing
of the Tao
or if you're a Hindu
you will say
it is the Maya
of Brahman
the Maya means
the magical power
the creative illusion
the play
so you can very well understand
how people
to whom this happens
feel genuinely inspired
because very often
there goes along with it
an extremely warm feeling
because you see
the divine in everybody else's eyes
when Kabir
a great Hindu Muslim mystic
was a very old man
he used to look around at people
and say
to whom shall I preach
because he saw the beloved
in all eyes
and could see
sometimes I look
into people's eyes
and I can look right down
and I can see that beloved
in the depths
of those pools
and yet the expression
on the face
is saying
what me?
that's the funniest thing
but there is everybody
in his own peculiar way
playing out
an essential part
in this colossal
cosmic drama
and
it's so strange
that one can even feel it
in people you thoroughly dislike
so
let's suppose then
that Jesus
had such an experience
but
you see
Jesus
has a limitation
that he doesn't know
of any religion
other than those
of the immediate near east
he might know something
about Egyptian religion
a little bit maybe
about Greek religion
but mostly
about Hebrew
there is no evidence
whatsoever
that he knew anything
about India
or China
and we
people who think
you know
Jesus was God
assume
that he must have known
because he would have been
omniscient
no
St. Paul makes it
perfectly clear
in the epistle
to the Philippians
that Jesus
renounced
his divine powers
so as to be man
let this mind
be in you
which was also
in Christ Jesus
who being
in the form of God
thought not equality
with God
a thing
to be hung on to
but humbled himself
and made himself
of no reputation
and was found
in fashion
as a man
and became obedient
to death
theologians call that
kenosis
which means
self-emptying
so
obviously
an omnipotent
and omniscient man
would not really
be a man
so even if you take
the very orthodox
catholic doctrine
of the nature of Christ
that he was both
true God
and true man
you must say that
for true God
to be united
with true man
true God
has to make
a voluntary
renunciation
for the time being
of omniscience
and omnipotence
and omnipresence
for that matter
now therefore
if Jesus
were to come
right out
and say
I am the son
of God
that's like saying
I'm the boss's son
or I am
the boss
and everybody
immediately says
that is blasphemy
that is subversion
that is trying
to introduce democracy
into the kingdom
of heaven
that is
you are a usurper
of the throne
no man
has seen God
now
Jesus
in his exoteric teaching
as recorded
in the synoptic gospels
was pretty cagey
about this
he didn't come
right out there
and say
I am the father
are one
instead
he identified himself
with the
Messiah
described
in the second part
of the prophet
Isaiah
the suffering servant
who was despised
and rejected of men
and this man
is the
the non-political
Messiah
in other words
it was convenient
to make that
identification
even though
it would get him
into trouble
but to his
elect
disciples
as recorded
in St. John
he came right out
and said
before Abraham
was
I am
I am the way
the truth
and the life
I am the resurrection
and the life
I am the living bread
that comes down
from heaven
I and the father
are one
and he who has seen me
has seen the father
and there can be no mistaking
that language
so the Jews
found out
and they put him to death
or had him put to death
for blasphemy
this is no cause
for any special
antagonism to the Jews
we would do exactly
the same thing
it's always done
thank you
It happened to one of the great Sufi mystics in Persia, who had the same experience.
Now what happened?
The apostles didn't quite get the point.
They were awed by the miracles of Jesus.
They worshipped him as people do worship gurus.
And it's, you know, to what lengths that can go, if you've been around Guruland.
And so the Christians said, okay, okay.
Okay, Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, but let it stop right there.
Nobody else.
So what happened was that Jesus was pedestalized.
He was put in a position that was safely upstairs,
so that his troublesome experience of cosmic consciousness would not come and cause other people to be a nuisance.
And those who have had this experience and expressed it during those times when the church had political power,
were almost invariably persecuted.
Gordiano Bruno was burnt at the stake.
John Scotus Origina was excommunicated.
Meister Eckhart's theses were condemned.
And so on, and so on.
A few mystics got away with it because they used cautious language.
But you see what happens.
If you pedestalized Jesus, you strangle the gospel at birth.
And it has been the tradition in both the Catholic Church and in Protestantism to pass off what I will call an emasculated gospel.
Gospel means good news.
And I cannot for the life of me think what is the good news about the gospel as ordinarily handed down.
Because look here.
Here is the revelation of God in Christ.
In Jesus.
And we are supposed to follow his life and example.
Without having the unique advantage of being the boss's son.
Now, the tradition, both Catholic and Protestant fundamentalist, represents Jesus to us as a freak.
Born of a virgin, knowing he is the son of God, having the power of miracles, knowing that basically it is impossible to kill him.
He is going to rise again in the end.
And we are asked to take up our cross and follow him, when we don't know that about ourselves at all.
So what happens is this.
We are delivered, therefore, a gospel which is in fact an impossible religion.
It's impossible to follow the way of Christ.
Alright.
Many a Christian has admitted it.
I'm a miserable sinner.
I fall far short of the example of Christ.
But do you realize?
The more you say that, the better you are.
Because what happened was, that Christianity institutionalized guilt as a virtue.
You see, you can never come up to it.
Never.
And therefore, you will always be aware of your shortcomings.
And so, the more shortcomings you feel, the more, in other words, you are aware of the vast abyss between Christ and yourself.
You will have your opportunity to speak in the question period, madam.
So, you go to confession.
And if you've got a nice, dear, understanding confessor, he won't get angry with you.
You'll say, my child, you know you've sinned very grievously.
But you must realize that the love of God and of our Lord is infinite.
And that, naturally, you are forgiven.
As a token of thanksgiving, say three Hail Marys.
And you know, you've committed a murder and robbed a bank and fornicated around and so on.
And the priest is perfectly patient and quiet.
Well, you feel awful.
I have done that.
To the love of God, I have wounded Jesus, grieved the Holy Spirit, and so on.
But you know, in the back of your mind, you're going to do it all over again.
You won't be able to help yourself.
You'll try.
But there's always a greater and greater sense of guilt.
Now, the lady objected that I was putting up a straw man and knocking it down.
This is the Christianity of most people.
Now, there is a much more subtle Christianity of the theologians, the mystics, and the philosophers.
But it's not what gets preached from the pulpit.
Grant you.
But the message of Billy Graham is approximately what I've given you.
And of all what I will call fundamentalist forms of Catholicism and Protestantism.
What would the real gospel be?
The real good news is not simply that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God,
but that he was a powerful Son of God
who came to open everybody's eyes to the fact that you are too.
And this is perfectly plain.
If you will go to the 10th chapter of St. John, verse 30,
there is the passage where Jesus says,
I and the Father are one.
And this is, there are some people who are not intimate disciples around,
and they're horrified.
And they immediately pick up stones to stone him.
He says,
Many good works I have shown you from the Father,
and for which of these do you stone me?
And they said,
For a good work we stone you not,
but for blasphemy,
because you being a man make yourself God.
And he replied,
Isn't it written in your law,
I have said you are gods?
He's quoting the 82nd Psalm.
Is it not written in your law,
I have said you are gods?
If God called them,
those to whom he gave his word,
gods,
and you can't deny the scriptures,
how can you say I blaspheme?
Because I said,
I am a son of God.
Well, there's the whole thing in a nutshell.
Because if you read the King James Bible,
that descended with the angel,
you will see in italics,
in front of these words,
son of God,
the son of God.
Because I said I am the son of God.
And most people think that the italics are for emphasis.
They're not.
The italics indicate words interpolated by the translators.
You will not find that in the Greek.
The Greek says a son of God.
So it seems to me here perfectly plain.
That Jesus is,
got it in the back of his mind,
that this isn't something peculiar to himself.
So when he says,
I am the way,
no man comes to the father but by me,
this I am,
this me,
is the divine in us.
which in Hebrew would be called
the Ruach Adonai.
This,
a great deal of made of this
by the esoteric Jews,
the Kabbalists and the Hasidim.
The Ruach
is the breath
which God breathed
into the nostrils of Adam.
It is differing from the soul.
The individual soul in Hebrew
is called
Nefesh.
And so we translate the Ruach
into the Greek
Pnefma
and the
Nefesh
into Psyche
or Psyche.
The spirit,
and you ask the theologian
what's the difference
between the soul and the spirit
and he won't be able to tell you.
But it's very clear
in St. Paul's writings.
So the point is that
the Ruach
is the divine
in the creature
by virtue of which
we are
sons of
or of the nature of God.
Manifestations of the divine.
This discovery
is the gospel.
That is the good news.
But this has been
perpetually repressed
throughout the history
of Western religion.
Because all Western religions
have taken the form
of celestial monarchies
and therefore
have discouraged
democracy
in the kingdom of heaven.
Until
as a consequence
of the teaching
of the German
and Flemish mystics
in the 15th century
there began
to be such movements
as the Anabaptists
the Brothers of the Free Spirit
and the Levellers
and the Quakers.
A spiritual movement
which came to this country
and founded
a republic
and not a monarchy.
And how could you say
that a republic
is the best form
of government
if you think
that the universe
is a monarchy?
Obviously
if God
is top on a monarchy
monarchy is the best
form of government.
But you see
ever so many citizens
of this republic
think they ought to believe
that the universe
is a monarchy
and therefore
they are always
at odds
with the republic.
It is from
principally
white
racist
Christians
that we have
the threat
of fascism
in this country.
Because you see
they have
a religion
which is militant
which is not
the religion
of Jesus
which was
the realization
of divine sonship
but the religion
about Jesus
which pedestalizes
him
and which says
only this man
of all the sons
of woman
was divine
and you had better
recognize it.
And so it speaks
of itself
as the church militant.
The onward
Christian soldiers
marching us to war
utterly exclusive
convinced
in advance
of examining
the doctrines
of any other religion
that is the top religion.
And so it becomes
a freak religion
just as it has
made a freak
of Jesus
an unnatural man.
It claims uniqueness
not realizing
that what it does teach
would be far more
credible
if it were truly
catholic
that is to say
restated again
the truths
which have been known
from time immemorial
which have appeared
in all the great
cultures of the world
but even
very liberal
protestants
still want to say
somehow
so as I suppose
to keep the mission
effort going
or to pay off
the mortgage
yes these other
religions are
very good
God has no doubt
revealed himself
through Buddha
and Lao Tzu
obviously
it is a matter
of temperament
you can be loyal
to Jesus
just as you're loyal
to your own country
but you are not
serving your country
if you think
that it's necessarily
the best of all
possible countries
that is doing
a disservice
to your country
it is refusing
to be critical
where criticism
is proper
so of religion
every religion
should be self-critical
otherwise
it soon
degenerates
into
a self-righteous hypocrisy
if then we can see this
that Jesus speaks
not from
the situation
of a
historical
deus ex machina
a kind of
weird
extraordinary event
but he is a voice
which joins
with other voices
that have said
in every place
and time
wake up man
wake up
and realize
who you are
now I don't think
you see
until
churches get
with that
that they're going
to have very much
relevance
you see
popular
Protestantism
and popular
Catholicism
will tell you
nothing about
mystical religion
the message
of the preacher
52 Sundays
a year
is dear people
be good
we've heard it
ad nauseum
or believe in this
he may occasionally
give a sermon
on what happens
after death
or
the nature
of God
but basically
the sermon
is be good
but how
as Saint Paul
said
to will
is present
with me
but how to do
that which is good
I find not
for the good
that I would
that I do not
and the evil
that I would not
that I do
how are we going
to be changed
obviously
there cannot be
a vitality
of religion
without vital
religious experience
and that's something
much more than
emoting over singing
onward Christian soldiers
but you see
what happens
in our ecclesiastical
goings on
is that we
we run a talking shop
we pray
we tell God
what to do
or give advice
as if he didn't know
we read the scriptures
and remember
talking of the Bible
Jesus said
you search the scriptures
daily
for in them
you think you have life
Saint Paul
made some rather
funny references
about the spirit
which giveth life
and the letter
which kills
I think the Bible
ought to be ceremoniously
and reverently
burned every Easter
we need it no more
because the spirit
is with us
it's a dangerous book
and to worship it
is of course
a far more dangerous
idolatry
than bowing down
to images of
wood and stone
because you can
nobody in his senses
can confuse
a wooden image
with God
but you can very easily
confuse a set of
ideas with God
because constructs
are more rarefied
and abstract
so with this endless
talking in church
we can preach
but by and large
preaching
does nothing but
excite a sense
of anxiety
and guilt
and you can't love
out of that
no scolding
no rational demonstration
of the right way
to behave
is going to inspire
people with love
something else
must happen
or we'll say
what are we going to do
about it
do about it
you have no faith
be quiet
even Quakers
aren't quiet
they sit in meeting
and think
at least some of them
do
but supposing we are
really quiet
we don't think
be absolutely silent
through and through
we say
well you'll just fall
into a blank
oh
never tried
I feel
I feel then
you see
that it's enormously
important
that churches
stop being talking
shops
they become
centres of
contemplation
what is contemplation
contemplum
it's what you do
in the temple
you don't come to the
temple to chatter
but to be still
and know
that I am God
and this is why
if the Christian religion
if the gospel of Christ
is to mean anything
at all
instead of just being
one of the forgotten
religions
along with Osiris
and Mithra
we must see
Christ as the great mystic
in the proper sense
of the word mystic
not someone who
has all sorts of
magical powers
and understands
spirits and so on
a mystic
strictly speaking
is one
who realises
union with God
by whatever name
this seems to me
the crux
and message
of the gospel
summed up
in the prayer
of Jesus
which St John
records
as he speaks
over his disciples
praying
that they may be one
even as you
father and I
are one
that they may be
all one
all
realise
this
divine sonship
or oneness
basic identity
with the eternal
energy of the universe
and the love
that moves the sun
and other stars
o name
need
or
to
the
earth
confess
that they may see
the earth
as they may be on this
in the world
and the zrob
that they may be on this


===== Myth And Religion - 09 - Not What Should Be, But What Is =====

I wonder what you mean when you use the word I.
I've been very interested in this problem for a long, long time,
and I've come to the conclusion
that what most civilized people mean by that word
is a hallucination.
That is to say, a false sense of personal identity
that is at complete variance with the facts of nature.
And as a result of having a false sense of identity,
we act in a way that is inappropriate to our natural environment.
And when that inappropriate way of action
is magnified by a very powerful technology,
we swiftly begin to see the results
of a profound discord between man and nature.
As is well known,
we are now in the process of destroying our environment
as a result of an attempt to conquer it and master it.
And we have not realized, therefore,
that our environment is not something other than ourselves.
In assuming that it is,
we have made a great mistake
and are now paying the price for it.
But most people would agree with the lines of the poet
who said,
I, a stranger and afraid
in a world I never made.
Because we have the strong sensation
that our own being inside our skin
is extremely different from
the world outside our skin.
That while there may be intelligence inside human skins,
and while there may be values
and loving feelings,
outside the skin is a world of mechanical process
which does not give a damn
about any individual
and which is basically unintelligent,
being gyrations of blind force
and so far as the merely biological world is concerned,
gyrations of libido,
which is Freud's word for blind lust.
There are many people
who say they don't believe that the world is like that,
but under the control
of a wise, just and beneficent God.
Although many people say
that they believe that to be the case,
very few people in fact believe that to be the case.
A great many people believe
that they ought to believe in God,
but they don't, actually.
Because the idea of God
as handed down
in popular Christianity and Judaism and Islam
has become implausible to most educated people.
They would love to believe it, but they can't.
And what has become the common sense
of the average person
is the avant-garde thinking
of the 18th and 19th centuries of the West,
which is the mechanical universe,
and most of them have not even caught up
in their common sense
with the universe of modern physics,
because we think about the world
in Newtonian categories
and not so much in the categories
of quantum theory.
Psychoanalysis, for example,
is a Newtonian conception
of our psychological mechanisms.
Notice that we speak
of unconscious mental mechanisms.
And think of the libido
in the same way as Ernst Haeckel
thought of the energy of the universe
as blind, unconscious.
Psychoanalysis is really
psychohydraulics
because of its analogy
between psychic energy
and the flow of water.
In all this,
the view of the 19th century
is that the human psyche,
the mind,
the ego,
the superego,
the id,
all this is basically
a mechanical functioning.
You see, the 19th century
strove
to take an objective attitude
to nature,
to be the very opposite
of what we presume
to call primitive animism,
the point of view
which sees everything as alive,
of people who hold converse
with animals and plants
and rivers and mountains
and stars.
That, said the 19th century,
is the pathetic fallacy,
the projection
of intelligent human characteristics
upon unintelligent entities
in nature.
We withdrew that projection
in the 19th century
and said,
let's look at everything
objectively
as it is.
And then we turned
that attitude
onto ourselves
and studied
human physiology
and human psychology
as object.
and when we discovered
ourselves
to be objects
we decided
that that was that
and the time
had come
for suicide.
Simply because
all objects
as the name implies
are, of course,
objectionable.
I found that phrase
which I thought
I had invented myself
in the writings
of Weston Labar
who is a great
anthropologist
but definitely
of the psychoanalytic school
who
share
this 19th century
philosophy
of so-called
scientific naturalism.
And he
uses the phrase
the objectionable
objective world.
And so you see
when everything
is deprived
of subjectivity
and regarded
as simply
a mechanism
as it were
with nobody home
then the world
is seen
as futile.
and we are
indeed
preparing
to destroy
the planet
with nuclear
energy
and other
processes.
Now I submit
that this
19th century
view
of the world
is pure
mythology
and not very
good mythology
at that
but that it is
fundamentally
based
on a
hallucination
that we have
about our
own existence.
it should be
obvious
that the
human being
goes with
the rest
of the universe
even though
we say
in popular
speech
I came
into this
world.
Now it is
not true
that you came
into this
world.
You came
out of it
in the same
way as a
flower comes
out of a
plant
or a
fruit
comes out
of a tree
and as
an apple
tree
apples
the solar
system
in which
we live
and therefore
the galaxy
in which
we live
and therefore
the system
of galaxies
in which
we live
that system
peoples
and therefore
people are
an expression
of its energy
and of its
nature.
If people
are intelligent
and I
suppose we
have to grant
that if
then
the energy
which people
express
must also
be intelligent
because
one does
not gather
figs from
thistles
and grapes
from thorns
but it
does not
occur
you see
to the
ordinary
civilized
person
to regard
himself
or herself
as an
expression
that we
cannot exist
except in
an environment
of earth
air
water
and
solar
temperature
that all
these things
go with
us
and are
as important
to us
albeit outside
our skins
as our
internal
organs
heart
stomach
brain
and so forth
now if
then we
cannot
describe
the
behavior
of
organisms
without
at the
same
time
describing
the
behavior
of
their
environments
we
should
realize
that we
have a
new
entity
of
description
not the
individual
organism
alone
but what
would now
be called
a field
of behavior
which we
must call
rather clumsily
the
organism
environment
you
go with
your
environment
in the
same
way
as
your
head
goes
with
the
rest
of
your
we
think
that the
feet
the
legs
the
behind
the
torso
all
that
is
somehow
irrelevant
but you
see
here's
this
truncated
face
that's
the
person
the
face
like we
say
put a
good
face
on it
save
face
a
front
and
oddly
enough
the
very
word
person
is
the
which
sound
passes
and
it
refers
to
the
megaphone
mask
worn
by
actors
in
greco-roman
drama
the
dramatis
person
the
list
of
the
characters
to
appear
in
the
play
is
originally
the
list
of
masks
that
will
be
worn
and
therefore
your
person
your
personality
your
face
is
your
mask
and
the
question
is
therefore
what
is
behind
the
mask
well
notice
that
the
whole
body
goes
with
this
face
you
do
not
find
in
nature
faces
arriving
in
the
world
sui
generis
they
go
with
a
body
but
also
bodies
do
not
arrive
in
a
world
which
would
be
for
example
a
plain
ball
of
that
will
not
grow
bodies
there
is
no
soil
for
bodies
there
is
no
complexity
of
environment
which
is
body
producing
so
bodies
go
with
a
very
complicated
natural
environment
and
if
the
head
goes
with
the
body
and
the
body
goes
with
the
environment
the
body
is
as
much
it
is
deceptive
of
course
because
the
human
being
is
not
rooted
to
the
ground
like
a
tree
a
human
being
moves
about
and
therefore
can
shift
from
one
environment
to
another
but
these
shifts
are
superficial
the
basic
environment
of
the
planet
remains
a
constant
and
if
the
human
being
leaves
the
planet
he
has
to
take
with
him
a
canned
version
of the
planetary
environment
now
we
of
this
upon
taking
thought
and
due
consideration
it
does
occur
to
us
yes
indeed
we
do
need
that
environment
but
in
the
ordinary
way
we
don't
feel
it
that
is
to
say
we
don't
have
a
vivid
sensation
of
belonging
to
our
environment
in
the
same
way
that
we
have
a
vivid
sensation
of
a
sensation
of
being
and
a
little
way
behind
the
eyes
and
since
we
feel
that
way
and
it
is
not
the
way
we
exist
this
is
why
I
call
it
a
hallucination
and
it
issues
in
these
disastrous
results
of
the
ego
which
according
to
19th
century
common
sense
feels
that
status
as
intelligent
fluke
so
the
geneticists
are
now
saying
and
many
others
are
now
saying
that
man
must
take
the
course
of
his
evolution
into
his
own
hands
he
can
no
longer
trust
the
wiggly
random
and
unintelligible
processes
of nature
to develop
him
society
and
that
sort
of
thing
now
this
I
submit
is
a
ghastly
error
because
human
intelligence
has a
very
serious
limitation
that
limitation
is
that
it
is
a
scanning
system
of
conscious
attention
which
is
linear
that
is
to
say
it
examines
the
world
in
rather
as
you
would
pass
the
beam
of
a
flashlight
across
a
room
or
a
spotlight
that's
why
our
education
takes
so
long
it
takes
so
long
because
we
have
to
scan
miles
of
lines
of
print
and
we
regard
that
you
see
as
basic
information
now
the
universe
does
not
come
at
us
in
lines
it
comes
at
in
which
everything
is
happening
all
together
everywhere
at
once
and
it
comes
at
us
much
too
quickly
to
be
translated
into
lines
of
print
or
of
other
information
however
fast
they
may
be
scanned
and
that
is
our
limitation
so far
as
the
intellectual
life
and
the
scientific
life
is
concerned
the
computer
will
greatly
speed
up
linear
scanning
but
it's
still
linear
scanning
and
so
long
as
we
are
stuck
with
that
form
of
wisdom
we
cannot
deal
with
more
than
a few
variables
at
once
now
what
take
music
when
you
play
a
Bach
fugue
and
there
are
four
parts
to
it
you
have
four
variables
you
have
four
moving
lines
and
you
can
take
care
of
that
with
two
hands
an
organist
using
two
feet
can
put
in
two
more
variables
and
have
six
going
and
you
may
realize
if
you've
ever
tried
to
play
the
organ
that
it's
quite
difficult
to
make
six
independent
motions
go
at
once
the
average
person
cannot
do
that
without
training
the
average
person
cannot
deal
with
more
than
three
variables
at
once
without
using
a
pencil
now
when
we
study
physics
we
are
dealing
with
processes
in
which
there
are
millions
of
variables
this
however
we
handle
by
statistics
in
the
average
age
of
death
is
however
this
prediction
does
not
apply
to
any
given
individual
any
given
individual
will
live
to
plus
or
minus
years
and
the
range
of
difference
may
be
very
wide
indeed
of
course
but
this
is
alright
the
guess
is
alright
when
you're
doing
large
scale
gambling
and
that's
the
way
the
physicist
works
in
predicting
the
behavior
of
nuclear
wavicles
but
the
practical
problems
of
human
life
deal
with
variables
in
the
hundreds
of
thousands
here
statistical
methods
are
very
poor
and
thinking
it
out
by
linear
consideration
is
impossible
with
that
equipment
then
we
are
proposing
to
interfere
with
our
genes
and
with
that
equipment
also
be
it
said
we
are
trying
to
solve
our
political
economic
and
social
problems
and
naturally
everybody
the
sense
of
total
frustration
and
the
individual
feels
what
on
earth
can
I
do
we
do
not
seem
to
know
a
way
of
calling
upon
our
brains
because
our
brains
can
handle
an
enormous
number
of
variables
that
are
not
accessible
to
your
glands
the
behavior
of
millions
of
cells
it
is
doing
all
that
without
thinking
about
it
that
is
to
say
without
translating
the
processes
it
is
handling
into
consciously
reviewed
words
symbols
or
numbers
now
when I
use
the
word
thinking
I
mean
precisely
that
process
translating
what
is
going
on
in
nature
into
words
symbols
or
numbers
because
both
words
and
numbers
are
kinds
of
symbols
bear
the
same
relation
to
the
real
world
that
money
bears
to
wealth
you
cannot
quench
anybody's
thirst
with
the
word
water
just
as
you
cannot
eat
a
dollar
bill
and
information
from
it
about
using
symbols
and
using
conscious
intelligence
scanning
has
proved
very
useful
to
us
it
has
given
us
such
technology
as
we
have
but
at
the
same
time
it
has
proved
too
much
of
a
good
thing
at
the
same
time
we've
become
so
fascinated
with
it
that
we
thought
about
talked
about
and
figured
about
that
is
to
say
with
the
world
as
it
is
described
and
the
difference
between
these
two
is
vast
and
when
we
are
not
aware
of
ourselves
except
in
a
symbolic
way
we
are not
related
to
ourselves
at
all
we
are
like
people
eating
menus
instead
of
dinners
and
that's
why
we
all
feel
psychologically
frustrated
so
then
we
get
back
to
the
question
of
what
do
we
mean
by
I
well
first
of
all
obviously
we
mean
our
symbol
of
ourselves
now
ourselves
in
this
case
is
the
whole
psychophysical
organism
conscious
and
unconscious
plus
its
environment
that's
your
real
self
your
real
self
in
other
words
is
the
universe
as
centered
on
your
organism
that's
you
say
let me
just
clarify
that
a
little
for
one
reason
what
you
do
is
also
a
doing
of
your
environment
your
behavior
is
its
behavior
as
much
as
its
behavior
is
your
behavior
it's
mutual
we
could
say
it
is
transactional
you
are
not
a
puppet
which
your
environment
pushes
around
nor
is
the
environment
a
puppet
which
you
push
around
they
go
together
they
act
together
in
the
same
way
for
example
if
I
have
a
wheel
one
side
of it
going
down
is
the
same
as
the
other
side
of it
going
up
when
you
handle
the
steering
wheel
of a
car
are
you
pulling
it
or
are
you
pushing
it
no
you're
doing
both
aren't
you
when
you
pull
it
down
this
side
you
are
pushing
it
up
that
side
it's
all
one
so
there's
a
push
pull
between
organism
and
environment
we
are
feeling
that
everything
that
is
happening
is
his
own
doing
or
the
opposite
of
that
feeling
and
he
isn't
doing
anything
but
that
all
his
doings
his
decisions
and
so
forth
are
happenings
of
nature
you
can
feel
it
either
way
you
can
describe
it
in
these
two
completely
opposite
ways
but
you're
talking
about
the
same
experience
you're
talking
about
experiencing
your
own
activity
and
the
activity
of
nature
as
one
single
process
and
you
can
describe
it
as
if
you
were
omnipotent
like
God
or
as
if
it
were
completely
deterministic
and
you
hardly
existed
at
all
but
remember
both
points
of
view
are
right
and
we'll
see
where
that
gets
us
but
we
don't
feel
that
do
we
ordinarily
what
we
feel
instead
is
an
identification
of
ourselves
with
and
that's
the
person
or
the
ego
you
play
a
role
you
identify
with
that
role
I
play
a
role
it's
called
Alan
Watts
and
I
know
very
well
that
that's
a
big
act
I
can
play
some
other
roles
besides
Alan
Watts
if
necessary
but
I
find
this
one
is
better
for
making
a
living
but
I
assure
you
it's
a
mask
and
I
don't
take
it
seriously
the
idea
of
my
to
be
holy
in
the
ordinary
sense
welcome
to
another
talk
from
the
Alan
Watts
radio
series
number
five
myth
and
religion
this
is
part
two
of
the
two
part
series
in
which
Alan
Watts
asks
the
question
is
the
traditional
western
idea
of
God
still
intellectually
plausible
recorded
in
Philadelphia
in
April
of
it's
called
not
what
should
be
not
what
might
be
but
what
is
here's
Alan
Watts
so
I
know
I'm
not
that
but
most
of
us
are
taught
to
think
that
we
are
whom
we
are
called
and
when
you're
a little
child
and
you
begin
to
learn
a
role
and
your
parents
and
your
peers
approve
of
your
being
that
they
know
who
you
are
you're
predictable
so
you
can
be
controlled
but
when
you
act
out
of
role
and
you
imitate
some
other
child's
here
everybody
points
the
finger
and
says
you're
not
being
true
to
yourself
Johnny
that's
not
you
that's
Peter
and
so
you
learn
to
stay
Peter
or
to
stay
Johnny
but
of
course
you're
not
either
because
this
is
just
the
image
of
you
it's
as
much
of
you
as
you
can
get
into
your
conscious
attention
which
is
precious
little
your
image
of
yourself
contains
no
information
about
how
you
structure
your
nervous
system
it
contains
no
information
about
your
blood
chemistry
it
contains
almost
no
information
about
the
subtle
influences
of
society
upon
your
behavior
it
does
not
include
the
basic
assumptions
of
your
culture
which
are
all
taken
for
granted
and
unconscious
and
you
can't
find
them
out
unless
you
study
other
cultures
to
see
how
their
basic
assumptions
differ
it
includes
all
kinds
of
illusions
that
you're
completely
unaware
of
that
time
is
real
and
that
there
is
such
a
thing
as
a
past
which
is
pure
hokum
but
nevertheless
all
these
things
are
unconscious
in
us
and
they
are
not
included
in
our
image
of
ourselves
nor
of
course
included
in
our
image
of
ourselves
is
there
any
information
about
our
inseparable
relationships
with
the
whole
natural
universe
so
this
when you
ask
a
person
what
did
you
do
yesterday
they'll
give
you
a
historical
account
of a
certain
number
of
events
in which
they
participated
and a
certain
number
of
things
which
they
saw
used
or
were
clobbered
by
but
realize
at once
that
this
history
leaves
out
most
of
what
happened
I
in
trying
to
describe
what
happens
to
me
this
evening
will
never
be
able
to
describe
it
because
there
are
so
many
people
here
that
if
I
were
to
talk
about
everyone
whom
I've
seen
what
they
were
wearing
what
color
their
hair
was
what
sort
of
expressions
they
had
on
their
faces
I
would
have
to
talk
till
doomsday
so
instead
of
this
rich
which is very rich indeed i have to attenuate it in memory and description to saying oh i met a lot
of people in philadelphia and there were men and there were women and lots of them were young and
some of them were old you know it's most utterly impoverished account of what went on so therefore
in thinking of ourselves in this way what i did yesterday what i did the day before in terms of
this stringy mangy account all i have is a caricature of myself and you know the caricaturist doesn't
draw you all in he just puts certain salient features whereby people will recognize you
they're sort of skeleton so we can we are as it were conceiving ourselves as a bunch of skeletons
and they got no flesh on them just a bunch of bones
and no wonder we all feel inadequate we're all looking for something to the future to bring us
a goodie we know we ought to have there's a golden goodie at the end of the line somewhere
there's a good time coming be it ever so way far away that one far off divine event to which all
creation moves we hope and therefore we say of something that's no good it has no future
i would say it has no present but everybody says it has no future now isn't that plainly ridiculous
here we are as it were psychically starved and always therefore looking for looking seeking seeking
seeking and this confused seeking is going on everywhere we don't know what we want
nobody knows what they want we say yes we think of what we want in vague terms pleasure money wealth
love um fulfillment personal development but we don't know what we mean by all that
if a person really sits down to figure out write a long essay 20 pages on your idea of heaven
it'll be a sorry production you can see it already in medieval art whether it did pictures of heaven
and hell hell is always much better than heaven although it's uncomfortable it's a sadomasochistic
orgy wowee you know hell is really rip roaring whereas all the saints in heaven are sitting
you know very very smug and demure like they were in church and you see also the multitudes of the
saved instead of this writhing wormy thing you can see all their heads which the artist has drawn to
abbreviate them just the tops of their heads in masses they look like cobblestone street
flattened out so what has happened then is this that our eye is an illusion it's an image and it is no
more ourself than an idol is the godhead but we say it can't be so because i feel i really exist
it isn't just an idea in my head it's a feeling i feel me well what is it that you feel
when you feel i i'll tell you what do you do when you were a child and still do when somebody says
pay attention like i said to you in school what do you do what is the difference between looking at
something and taking a hard look at it or between hearing something and listening intently what's the
difference what's the difference between waiting while something goes on and enduring it why the
difference is this that when you pay attention instead of just looking you screw up your face you frown
and stare that is a muscular activity around here when you listen intently you start doing some
squeezing around here when you will you grit your teeth or clench your fists when you endure or control
yourself you pull yourself together physically and therefore you get uptight you hold your breath you do all
all kinds of muscular things to control the functioning of your nervous system and none of them have
the slightest effect on the proper operation of the nervous system if you stare at things you will
rather fuzz the image than see them clearly if you listen intently by concentrating on muscles
around the ears you will be so much attending to muscles here that you won't hear things properly
and you may get singing in the ears if you tighten up with your body to pull yourself together
all you do is constrict yourself i remember in school i sat next to a boy who had great difficulty
in learning to read and what they always say to children is try if you can't do something it was try so
the boy tries and what did he do when he's trying to get out words he grunts and groans as if he were
lifting weights and the teacher's impressed the boy is really trying gives him b for effort
all he's doing
has nothing to do with it now we all make this muscular straining
with the thought that it's achieving psychological results the sort of psychological results it's
intended to achieve now all this amounts to is it's like you're taking off in a jet plane
you're gonna a mile down the runway and the thing isn't up in the air yet you get nervous
so you start pulling at your seat belt
that's what it is now that is a chronic feeling we have it in us all the time and it corresponds to
the word i that's what you feel when you say i you feel that chronic tension because when an organ
is working properly you don't feel it if you see your eye you've got cataract if you hear your ears
you've got singing in your ears you know getting in the way of hearing when you are fully functioning
you are unaware of the organ when you're thinking clearly your brain isn't getting in your way
actually of course you are seeing your eyes in the sense that everything you see out in front of you
is a condition in the optic nerves at the back of the skull that's where you're aware of all this
but you're not aware of the eye as the eye i'm talking about the optical eye
so when we are aware of the ego eye we are aware of this chronic tension inside ourselves and that's
not us it's a futile tension so when we get the illusion the image of ourselves married to a futile
tension you've got an illusion married to a futility and then you wonder why i can't do anything why i
feel in the face of all the problems of the world impotent and why i somehow cannot manage to transform i
now here we get to the real problem because we're always telling each other that we should be different
i'm not going to tell you that tonight why not because i know you can't be
nor can i that may sound depressing but i'll show you it isn't it's very heartening but everybody you
see who is at all sensitive and awake to their own problems and human problems is trying to change
himself we know we can't change the world unless we change ourselves if we are all individually selfish
we're going to be collectively selfish if we don't really love people and only pretend to somehow we've
got to find a way to love after all it said in the bible thou shalt love the lord thy god
and your neighbor as yourself you must love yeah we all agree sure but we don't and this is particularly
becomes appalling when we enter into the realm of higher things by which i mean spiritual development
everybody these days is interested in spiritual development and uh wisely because we want to
change our consciousness many people are well aware that this egocentric consciousness is a hallucination
and that they presume it's the function of religion to change it because that's what the zen buddhists and
yogis and all these people in the orient are doing they are changing their state of consciousness to get
something called satori or mystical experience or nirvana or moksha or what have you and everybody
around here is really enthused about that because uh you don't get that in church i mean there have been
christian mystics but the church has been very quiet about them but the average church all you get is
talk there's no meditation no spiritual discipline they tell god what to do interminably as if he didn't know
and then they tell the people what to do as if they could or even wanted to and then they sing
religious nursery rhymes and then to to cap it all the roman catholic church which did at least have
an unintelligible service which was which was you know it was real mysterious and suggested vast magic
going on they went and put the thing into bad english and they took away incense and they took away they
became a bunch of protestants and the thing was terrible so now all these catholics are at loose
ends as claire booth loose put it not to be a pun but she said you know it's no longer possible to
practice contemplative prayer at mass because you're being advised exhorted edified all the time and that
becomes a bore think of god listening to all those prayers i mean do have i mean talking about grieving
the holy spirit it's just awful people have no consideration for god at all so but in in pursuing
these spiritual disciplines yoga and zen and so forth and also psychotherapy there comes up a big
difficulty and the big difficulty and the big difficulty is this i want to find a method whereby i can change
my consciousness but the therefore to improve myself but the the self that needs to be improved is
the one that is doing the improving and so i'm rather stuck i find out the reason that i think i believe
say in god is that i sure hope that somehow god will rescue me in other words i want to hang on to my own
existence and i feel rather shaky about doing that for myself but i just hope there's a god who'll take
care of it or if i could be loving i would have a better opinion of myself i'd feel better about it i could
face myself as people say if i were more loving so the unloving me somehow by some gimmickry has to
turn itself into a loving me and this is just like trying to lift yourself off the ground with your own
bootstraps it can't be done and that's why religion in practice mainly produces hypocrisy and guilt
because of the constant failure of these enterprises oh people go and study zen and they come back and say
wow getting rid of your ego is a superhuman task i assure you it's going to be very very difficult to
get rid of your ego you're going to have to sit for a long time and you're going to get the sorest legs
it's hard work and all you wretched kids who think you're getting rid of your ego one
part or something or other and uh easy yoga you don't know what you're in for when it really comes
down to the nitty-gritty well you know the biggest ego trip going is getting rid of your ego and the
joke of it all is your ego doesn't exist there's nothing to get rid of it's an illusion as i tried
to explain but you still want to ask how to stop the illusion and who's asking i mean do you think in
the ordinary sense in which you use the word i how can i stop identifying myself with the wrong me
well the answer is simply you can't now the christians put this in their way when they say that mystical
experience is a gift of divine grace man as such cannot achieve this experience it is a gift of god and if
god doesn't give it to you there's no way of getting it now that is solidly true you can't
do anything about it because you don't exist well you say that's pretty depressing news but the whole
point is it isn't depressing news it is the joyous news there's a zen poem which puts it like this talking
about it me it means the mystical experience satori the realization that you are the eternal energy of
the universe like jesus did it says like this you cannot catch hold of it nor can you get rid of it
in not being able to get it you get it when you speak it's silent when you're silent it speaks now in
not being able to get it you get it because this whole feeling what krishnamurti is trying to explain
to people for example when he says uh why do you ask for a method there is no method all methods are
simply um gimmicks for strengthening your ego so how do we not do that he says you're still asking for a
method there is no method if you really understand what your eye is you will see there is no method
because this is so so sad but it's not this is the gospel the good news because if you cannot achieve
it if you cannot transform yourself that means that the main obstacle to mystical vision has collapsed
that was you what happens you can't do anything about it you're at your wit's end what are you going
to commit suicide but supposing you just put that off for a little while wait and see what happens you
can't control your thoughts you can't control your feelings because there is no controller you are your
thoughts and your feelings and they're running along running along running along just sit and watch them
here they go you're still breathing aren't you still growing your hair still seeing and hearing
are you doing that i mean is is breathing something that you do do you see i mean do you organize
the operations of your eyes and know exactly how to work those rods and cones in the retina if you do that
it's a happening it happens so you can feel all this happening your breathing is happening
your thinking is happening your feeling is happening you're hearing you're seeing the clouds are happening
across the sky the sky is happening blue the sun is happening shining there it is all this happening
and may i introduce you this is yourself this begins to be a vision of who you really are
and that's the way you function you function by happening that is to say by spontaneous occurrence
and this is not a state of affairs that you should realize i cannot possibly preach it to you because the
minute you start thinking i should understand that this is this stupid notion again that i should bring
it about when there is no you to bring it about see that's why i'm not preaching you can only preach
to egos all i can do is to talk about what is it amuses me to talk about what is because it's wonderful
i love it and therefore i like to talk if i get paid for it then i make my living and sensible people
get paid for doing what they enjoy doing so this is not on earth you see this is the whole approach
here is not to convert you not to make you over not to improve you but for you to discover that if
you really knew the way you are things would be would be sane but you see you can't do that
you can't make that discovery because you're in your own way
so long as you think i'm i so long as that hallucination blocks it and the hallucination
disappears only in the realization of its own futility when at last you see you can't do it
you cannot make yourself over you cannot really control your own mind see when we try to control
the mind a lot of yoga teachers try to get you to control your own mind mainly to prove to you that you
can't do it there's nothing you know a fool who persists in his folly will become wise so they what
they do is they speed up the folly and so you get concentrating and you can have a certain amount of
superficial and initial success by a process commonly called self-hypnosis and you can think you're making
progress and a good teacher will let you go along that way for a while until he really throws you with one
why are you concentrating see buddhism works this way buddha said if you suffer you suffer because
you desire and your desires are either unattainable or always being disappointed or something so cut out
desire so those disciples went away and they stamped on desire jumped on desire cut the throat of desire
and threw out desire but then they came back and buddha said but you are still desiring not to desire
they wanted how to get rid of that so when you see that that's nonsense there naturally comes over
you a quietness in seeing that you cannot control your mind you realize there is no controller
what you took to be the thinker of thoughts is just one of the thoughts
what you took to be the feeler of the feelings which was that chronic muscular strain is just one of the feelings
what you took to be the experiencer of experience is just part of the experience
so there isn't any
thinker of thoughts feeler of feelings we we get into that bind because we have a grammatical rule that verbs have to have
subjects and the funny thing about that is that verbs of processes and subjects and nouns which are supposed
to be things how does a noun start a verb how does the thing put a process into action obviously it can't
but we always insist that there is this subject called the knower and without a knower there can't be knowing
well that's just a grammatical rule it isn't a rule of nature
in nature there's just knowing like you're feeling it and i have to say you are feeling
it as if you were somehow different from the feeling when i say i am feeling what i mean is
there is feeling here when i say you are feeling i mean there is feeling there
i have to say even there is feeling i have to say even there is feeling what a cumbersome language we have


===== Myth And Religion - 10 - Spiritual Authority =====

Welcome to another talk from the Alan Watts Radio Series No. 5, Myth and Religion.
This is part one of a two-part program in which philosopher Alan Watts asks,
What is the source of spiritual authority?
And how do we empower our beliefs, our religion, and our gods?
Recorded in Chicago on New Year's Day, 1971, this is part one of Spiritual Authority.
Here's Alan Watts.
I may take the liberty of beginning by saying something about myself and my role in talking to you about philosophical matters
because I wanted to be understood perfectly clearly that I am not a guru.
In other words, I talk about what we call these things, and that comprises a multitude of interests concerning oriental philosophy, psychotherapy, religion, mysticism, etc.
I talk about these things because I'm interested in them and because I enjoy talking about them.
And every sensible person makes his living by doing what he enjoys doing.
And that explains me.
Now, in saying, therefore, that I am not a guru, that means also that I am not trying to help you or improve you.
I accept you as you are.
I am not out, therefore, to save the world.
Of course, when a stream, a bubbling spring, flows out from the mountains, it's doing its thing.
And if a thirsty traveler helps himself, well, that's fine.
When a bird sings, it doesn't sing for the advancement of music.
But if somebody stops to listen and is delighted, that's fine.
And so I talk in the same spirit.
I don't have a group of followers.
I'm not trying to make disciples.
Because I work on the principle of a physician rather than a clergyman.
A physician is always trying to get rid of his patients
and send them away healthy to stand on their own feet.
Whereas a clergyman is trying to get them as members of a religious organization
so that they will continue to pay their pledges,
pay off the mortgage on an expensive building,
and generally belong to the church, boost its membership,
and thereby prove, by sheer weight of numbers, the veracity of its tenets.
And my objective is really to get rid of you
so that you won't need me or any other teacher.
I'm afraid some of my colleagues would not approve of that attitude
because it is widely believed and said
that in order to advance in the spiritual life, whatever that is,
it is essential that you have a guru
and that you accord to that guru perfect obedience.
And so I'm often asked the question,
is it really necessary to have a guru?
I can answer that only by saying,
yes, it is necessary if you think so.
In the same spirit as it is said
that anybody who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.
Of course, there is more in that saying than meets the ear.
Because if you really are sincerely concerned with yourself
and are in such confusion
that you feel you have to go to a psychiatrist to talk over your state,
then, of course, you need to go.
Likewise, if you are in need of someone to tell you what to do
to practice meditation or to attain a state of liberation,
nirvana, moksha, or whatever it may be called,
and you feel that necessity very strongly,
then you must do it.
Because, as the poet William Blake said,
the fool who persists in his folly will become wise.
However, I do want to point this out.
What is the source of a guru's authority?
He can tell you that he can speak from experience,
that he has experienced states of consciousness
which have made him profoundly blissful,
or understanding, or compassionate, or whatever it may be.
And you have his word for it.
And you have the word of other people
who likewise agree with him.
But each one of them, and you in turn,
agree with him out of your own opinion
and by your own judgment.
And so it is you that are the source
of the teacher's authority.
And that is true whether he speaks as an individual
or whether he speaks as the representative
of a tradition or a church.
You may say that you take the Bible as your authority
or the Roman Catholic Church.
And the Roman Catholic following very often says
that the individual mystical experience
is not to be trusted
because of its liability to be interpreted
in a whimsical and purely personal way,
and that it has to be guarded against excesses
by the substantial and objective traditions of the church.
But those traditions are held to be substantial
and objective
only because those who follow believe it to be so.
They say so.
And if you follow it, you say so.
So the question comes back to you.
Why do you believe?
Why do you form this opinion?
Upon what basis does all this rest?
Well, of course,
almost everybody is looking for help.
Unless, when I was younger,
so much younger than today,
I never needed anybody's help in any way.
But there is this feeling
of a certain helplessness,
of being alone and somewhat confused
in an unpredictable,
wayward,
external world of happenings.
And this world of happenings
includes
an enormous amount of suffering,
tragedy,
and we wonder why we're here,
how we got here,
and in short,
what to do about the capital P problem
of capital L life,
to which should be added death,
because it seems to be certain
that we're all going to die,
and that death may be a painful process,
that those we love are going to die,
and so what about it?
Is there any way
in which we can become
masters of the situation?
Well, there are all sorts of ways
of trying
to escape from the human predicament
predicament of being
a lonely, isolated consciousness
in the midst of this enormous
and wayward not-self.
We can, of course,
try to beat the game
on a material basis
by becoming very wealthy
or very powerful.
we may resort
to all kinds of technology
to get rid of our sufferings,
hunger, pain,
sickness, and so forth,
but it will be noticed
that as we succeed
in these enterprises,
we're not satisfied.
In other words,
if you feel at this moment
that an increase in income
would solve your problems,
and you've got an increase in income,
this would give you
a pleasant feeling
for a few weeks.
But then, as you well know,
if that's ever happened to you,
the feeling wears off.
And you may stop worrying
about paying your debts
and start worrying
about whether you will get sick.
There is always something
to worry about.
And if you are very rich indeed,
you've still got the anxiety
about sickness and death
and also anxieties
about revolutions
and about whether
the Internal Revenue Service
will take it all away from you
or catch you
for cheating on your taxes
or put you in prison
for no good reason.
Now, there is always this worry.
And so you realize
that the problem of life
does not really consist
in your external circumstances
because you worry
whatever they are.
The problem consists in,
rather,
in what you call your mind.
Could you,
by some method,
control your mind
so that you won't worry?
And how on earth
would you do that?
Well,
there are those people
who tell you
that the best answer
is to think positive thoughts,
to be peaceful,
to breathe slowly
and hum gently
and get yourself
into a peaceful state of mind
by repeating affirmations
such as,
all is light,
all is God,
all is good,
or whatever it may be.
But unfortunately,
it doesn't always work
because you have
a nagging suspicion
in the back of your mind
that you're simply
hypnotizing yourself
and whistling in the dark.
What the Germans call
a hintergedanker,
which is a thought
concealed way,
way back
behind your intellect,
but it has
annoying persistence.
What if?
And so you realize
that this matter
of controlling the mind
is no superficial undertaking
because although
you may be able
to smooth the ruffles
of your consciousness,
there is beneath that
a vast area
of unconsciousness
which erupts
as unpredictably
as events
in the external world.
And so you consider
seriously
the possibilities
of psychoanalysis
to go down
and get into those depths
and see if oil
can be put
on those troubled waters.
And then, of course,
you get into
the guru business.
You have to go
to someone
against whose mirror
you can reflect
those aspects
of yourself
of which you are
not directly aware.
So as the process
goes on,
you find
there is something
awkward about all this.
And this awkwardness
can be expressed
in many different ways.
One of them
is this.
How on earth
are you to get
at yourself
to do something
about yourself?
Because it's a project
not unlike
trying to pierce
the point of the pin
with the point
of the same pin.
In other words,
if you feel
that you could do
with some sort
of psychological
or spiritual improvement,
obviously,
you are the character
who's going to have
to bring this about.
But if you are
the one who needs
to be improved,
how are you going
to accomplish
the improvement?
You're in the predicament
of trying to lift
yourself up
off the floor
by pulling at
your own bootstraps.
And as you all know,
that cannot be done.
And if you attempt
to do so,
you're likely to land
with a bang
on your fanny
and be lower down
than you were
in the first place.
So that problem
continually arises
and it has arisen
historically
in all the great
religious traditions.
We find it
in Christianity
in the debate
between St. Augustine
and Pelagius.
And Pelagius said
that if God
had given us
a commandment
to love him
and to love
our neighbours,
he would not
have done so
unless we could
obey it.
St. Augustine
counted and said,
yes,
but the commandment
was not given
in order for it
to be obeyed.
God never expected
that it would
be obeyed
because we were
incapable of loving
anyone but ourselves.
The commandment
was therefore given
to convince us
of our sinfulness
from which we
could be rescued
only by divine grace,
that is to say
by the infusion
of our souls
with a power
beyond them.
And that was
more or less
the doctrine
for which the church
settled.
The puzzle
has always been
therefore
how to get grace
because grace
is apparently
freely offered
to all
but some
people seem
to get it
and some don't.
With some
the medicine
takes
and with others
it doesn't.
Why?
Well,
apparently
you have the power
to resist grace
but if you do
you also have
the power
not to resist it.
We would like
therefore to know
how not to resist it
and to be obeyed.
And there you see
we are back
at exactly
the same problem
as which we began.
It's like saying
you must relax
damn you.
Let go.
Give in.
And I know
I ought to give in.
I know I ought
to let go
and abandon my will
to the divine will
but as St. Paul
put it so well
to will is present
with me.
But how to do
that which is good
I find not
for the good
that I would
I do not
and the evil
that I would not
that I do.
In other words
we all come down
to a basis
in ourselves
which we will call
first of all
since we are
in a Jewish temple
the Yetzir Hara
or the wayward spirit
which God is supposed
to have put
into the soul
of Adam
or in my translation
our element
of irreducible
rascality
where we are
all basically
scams
and if you
haven't found
that
you are very
unconscious
I know
all sorts
of people
who are full
of outward love
but of course
it always turns
up that they
need money
and when it
comes to money
the virtue
flies out
of the window
so we do
have that element
in ourselves
we know it
very well
and the question
is therefore
once again
how can it
be transformed
but if the
transformer
is the one
who is afflicted
who transforms
the transformer
it's the old
problem
of who guards
the guards
who polices
the policeman
who governs
the government
and it seems
perfectly
insoluble
for that reason
alone
that it is
a vicious circle
there is a
great deal
of talk
about two
selves
the lower
self
or ego
the higher
self
called the
spirit
or the
atman
and the
duty
of the
atman
seems to
be
to transform
the wretched
little ego
well sometimes
it does
but a lot
of times
it doesn't
so we ask
why doesn't
so and so's
atman
succeed in
getting
through
is his
ego
too strong
if so
who will
weaken it
is his
atman
too weak
and if so
why
for surely
aren't all
atmans the
same
the puzzle
remains
so let's
take a look
at what we're
trying to
accomplish
we're trying
to get
better
we are out
after that
type of
experience
which we
will call
the positive
the good
the light
the living
and to
get away
from the
negative
the evil
the dark
and the
dead
unfortunately
however
human
experience
human
consciousness
knows
by
contrast
we
are
equipped
with a
nervous
system
where the
neurons
either
fire
or don't
fire
all that
we are
aware of
is made
up of
an extremely
complicated
arrangement
of yes
and no
and by
recording
on magnetic
tape
impulses
there are
areas where
there is a
pulse
and there
are areas
where there
is not
a pulse
and by
so doing
we can
tape
almost
any
form
of
human
experience
in other
words
we can
put
colored
television
on
tape
so that
it is
all
reduced
to a
matter
of
yes
and
no
and you
will
understand
of course
that that
is the
philosophy
of the
Chinese
book
yang
or
positive
principle
and the
yin
or the
negative
principle
interestingly
enough
a latin
translation
of the
yijing
was read
by the
philosopher
leibniz
and from
this he
invented
binary
arithmetic
wherein all
numbers can
be represented
by zero
and one
and that
is the
number
system
used by
the
extension
of the
nervous
system
which is
based on
the same
principle
but you
see what
we are
trying to
do
we are
trying to
have
yang
without
yin
we are
trying to
arrange
a life
game
in which
there is
winning
without
losing
now how
can you
arrange
such a
state
of
affairs
a game
in which
everybody
wins
would end
up
as
W.S.
Gilbert
put it
when
everybody
is
somebody
then
no
one
is
anybody
if
we
are
all
equally
happy
it
is
impossible
to
know
that
we
are
happy
because
a
certain
flatness
comes
over
everything
if
we
lifted
up
all
valleys
and
lowered
all
mountains
we
should
have
the
sort
of
thing
they
are
attempting
to
do
the
biblical
prophecy
that
every
valley
should
be
exalted
and
every
mountain
laid
low
and
the
rough
places
made
plain
and
I'm
sorry
to
say
it
was
Isaiah
who
made
that
remark
but
the
same
Isaiah
also
said
something
that
at least
Christians
do not
often
quote
which
is
this
following
sentence
I
am
the
Lord
and
there
is
none
else
I
form
the
light
and
create
the
darkness
I
make
peace
and
I
create
evil
I
the
Lord
do
all
these
things
in
spite
of
which
everybody
is
busy
trying
to
unless
there
were
sinners
or
sages
unless
there
were
fools
and
there
is
no
way
out
of
that
dilemma
that
is
why
Buddhism
represents
existence
in terms
of a
wheel
called
the
bhava
chakra
the
wheel
of
becoming
of birth
and death
and
on the
top
of
that
wheel
there
are
deva
people
whom
we
would
and
at
the
bottom
of
the
wheel
there
are
naraka
or
tormented
people
in
purgatory
and
you
go
round
and
round
now
this
way
now
that
way
it's
really
like
a
squirrel
cage
where
you're
running
and running
to get
to the
top
and yet
you have
to run
faster
and
faster
to
stay
where
you
are
and
that's
why
there
is
always
seed
in
any
scale
of
either
worldly
or
spiritual
progress
the
more
you
have
the
haunting
feeling
that
you're
still
in
the
same
place
so
you
think
now
there
must
be
some
way
out
of
that
perhaps
there's
something
ambitious
and proud
and wrong
in aspiring
to be
enlightened
efforts
could
make
myself
into
a
buddha
or
a
saint
and
therefore
perhaps
the
thing
to
do
is
to
try
to
eliminate
all
desire
not only
the desire
for worldly
success
but likewise
the desire
for spiritual
success
for the
buddha
proposed
that
desire
was the
root
of
suffering
and therefore
suggested
to his
hearers
that if
they
or
clinging
they
might
cease
from
suffering
but
you
must
realize
that
the
so
called
teachings
of
the
buddha
are
not
doctrines
in the
sense
that
the
jews
and
the
christians
and
the
muslims
have
doctrines
they
are
proposals
they
are
the
opening
steps
in a
dialogue
and
if
you
go
away
and
try
not
to
desire
in
any
way
you
will
very
quickly
discover
that
you
are
desiring
not
to
desire
and
so
we
very
rapidly
come
to
a
situation
where
you
discover
that
with
regard
to
your
own
transformation
everything
you try
to do
about it
doesn't
work
it may
have
some
sort
of
temporary
success
to make
you feel
better
but
again
and
again
you
come
back
to
the
same
old
gnawing
problem
and
that
is
why
people
interested
in
spiritual
things
tend
to
move
from
one
sect
to
another
from
one
teacher
to
another
always
hoping
that
they
will
meet
one
who
has
the
and
immediately
think
of
it
and
so
you
come
to
the
dismal
conclusion
that
you
can
neither
achieve
what
you
want
to
achieve
that
is
to
say
liberation
from
the
alternation
of
the
opposites
by
striving
nor
can
you
achieve
it
by
not
striving
and
thereby
you
have
learned
that
you
cannot
concentrate
on
purpose
it's
like
trying
to be
unself
conscious
on
or
to
be
genuine
on
purpose
or
to
love
on
purpose
when
you
say
I
ought
to
love
well
that
puts
you
in
a
double
bind
and
we
say
of
a
person
well
he's
trained
himself
to
be
deliberately
unself
conscious
or
he
has
very
disciplined
spontaneity
but
we
believe
that
there
are
such
people
like
children
but
they
don't
know
how
interesting
they
are
and
when
they
find
out
they
become
brats
welcome
to
another
talk
from the
Alan Watts
radio
series
number
five
myth
and
religion
this is
the
conclusion
of the
two-part
program
recorded
in
Chicago
on
New
Year's
Day
in
Alan Watts
has been
exploring
the
question
what
is
the
source
of
spiritual
authority
he
now
discusses
the
suspension
of
judgment
as
a
prerequisite
of
faith
here's
Alan
Watts
for a
moment
that it
was your
privilege
to have
a brief
interview
with
God
in the
course
of which
you were
allowed
to ask
one
question
what
would
you
ask
now
you
would
have
to
think
this
over
very
carefully
because
this
golden
opportunity
would
come
try
God
out
with
a
zen
buddhist
koan
such
as
beyond
the
positive
and
the
negative
what
is
reality
and
the
Lord
would
turn
to
you
and
say
my
dear
child
your
question
has
no
meaning
and
you
wouldn't
have
the
insoluble
problem
of
trying
to
win
without
losing
now
as
long
as
you
can
keep
that
problem
you
will
be
busy
only
however
until
you
see
that
it
can't
be
solved
but
there
are
all
sorts
of
ways
of
presenting
that
problem
in
such
a
way
that
you
cannot
see
that
it's
meaningless
and
the
better
gurus
are
very
clever
at
bringing
these
ways
out
you
may
see
for
example
if
you
are
invited
to
practice
intense
concentration
that
after
a
while
you
find
yourself
thinking
about
concentrating
and
therefore
that
your
concentration
is
somewhat
divided
or
he
may
ask
you
why
are
you
concentrating. What is your motivation for this activity? And you find out that it's
your element of irreducible rascality. So, however, the teacher, once he's seen that
we've mastered that lesson, has something still more ingenious. He says, now you have
met, you've actually made progress, because finding out that you could not really concentrate
was valuable because it began to prick the illusion of your ego. But you've only got your
foot in at the door. Beyond this are many, many higher things to be learned, and you must
redouble your efforts. So, of course, you apply yourself all the more, again and again, on
all sorts of tricks that these old gentlemen can come out with. And you will keep at it
just as long as he can make you fall for it. But in the end, you see that it was all
tricks. As the great Zen master Rinzai said, well, after all, there was nothing much in
Obaku's Buddhism. And he went on to explain to his students that the art of Zen, or teaching
Zen, is like deceiving a child with an empty fist. You know how you can intrigue the child
by pretending you've got something very precious in your fist. And you can play a game for an
hour, provoking the child to ever greater enthusiasm to find out what you've got. And in the end,
the revelation is that there was nothing there. So many people say, in the course of their Zen
training, I realized there was nothing to realize. It was all there from the beginning.
Because, you see, standing opposite to the realization that you can't do anything about
it, equivalently that you can't do nothing about it, comes, of course, the awakening that
the reason for that is there is no you separate from you. In other words, when you try to control
your thoughts or control your feelings, there is no difference between the thoughts and
the controller. Because what you call the thinker is simply your thought of yourself. The thinker
is a thought among thoughts. And the feeler is a feeling among feelings. And trying to control
thoughts with thoughts is like trying to bite your own teeth. So you found that out. Well, then,
the other side of the picture is, of course, that if you do find that out, you discover that the
project of controlling yourself was unnecessary because you were yourself a Buddha from the very
beginning. That's what the Upanishads mean when they say, quite simply, Tatva Masi. You're it.
You, as you are. Now, how can you conceive that? Supposing you let your imagination go and really think through
what you would like to happen. Imagine the most gorgeous state of bliss that you can conceive, where there are
no worries, no anxiety, no haunting future with unpleasant consequences. You're in control of the whole
works and you're sitting on your lotus, perfectly content. And I ask you seriously, is that really
what you want? Are you quite sure that's what you want? Imagine now, let's get this situation straight.
You've got everything you want. You're in the highest possible spiritual state that you can conceive.
And yet, I haven't really surrendered myself, because I know it all. Something I don't know.
So please the surprise. You know what would happen? You would find yourself sitting here,
in this building, tonight, feeling exactly the way you feel. There's your answer. Because after all,
don't you have it all? Look, you have the feeling of yourself. But the feeling of self depends on their
being at the same time, a contrast, the feeling of other. The self has a certain sensation of being
in control of life to some extent, through voluntary action. The will seems to have a certain freedom.
And yet, on the other hand, there are limits to that. And it seems in the end, life sweeps us away,
and we are overwhelmed by the involuntary. And yet, the voluntary keeps popping up. New
voluntaries come into the world with every baby. So you see, you couldn't have the experience you call
being a voluntarily acting self, without the contrast of the involuntary happening.
Now, do you want to be without the involuntary happening? Do you want to get rid of that?
All right. If you get rid of it, you won't have the experience of the voluntary self.
Or would you like to turn it the other way around? Would you like to have the experience
of no voluntary self? And on the other hand, everything just happens. Well, then you say,
well, I'm not sure about that. Because then, I would feel at first that I was floating. See,
that I had no further responsibilities, that I was just walking on air. And we do get that feeling
sometimes. If you take the ideas of determinism and fatalism to their final conclusion, you do have
that sense of freedom from all responsibility, freedom from worry and care. And you float along
for a while, but it wears off. You don't somehow seem to be able to follow out that philosophy consistently,
especially if you have children. And somehow, a society begins to push on you to be responsible,
as it pushes on children to be responsible. And so this nagging duality keeps coming back.
But I cannot realize the nice, irresponsible condition of involuntary behavior, unless I have
the contrast of the possibility of the voluntary, and vice versa. What does that mean? Obviously,
it means that these two aspects or sides of our experience, which we can call the voluntary,
and the involuntary, the knower and the known, the subject and the object, the self and the other,
although appearing to be two, are indeed one. Because you can't have one without the other.
And when that state of affairs arises, you know at once that there's a conspiracy. That two things,
which look as different as different can be, are for that very reason the same. Now,
you can detect even under those actions of yours, which you call voluntary, the voluntary movement
of the muscles or of the mind, that there are processes which are not voluntary. You do not
will your blood to circulate. You do not control by intention the synapses in your nervous system,
and yet you would be incapable of any voluntary action unless those involuntary processes were going on.
So you see these two things go together, and you begin to realize something which is rather difficult
to do, that what you call your experience is a do happening. We don't have good words for this. We
have some words which have this sort of sense, like the word cleave, which means to stick together,
or to hold together, and also to split. And the word sacca in Latin means holy and accursed. And so I would
like to propose we all should find some word for a do happening, because it's all a do happening.
That's what Buddhists mean when they talk about karma. The word karma means action. And when something
happens to you, be it good or bad, they say it is your karma. That means quite simply, it is your doing.
But you say, I didn't mean to do that. No. One school of thought will explain it by saying, but you see,
you did something in a former life, or at a former time, which now has this consequence. But that's a very
superficial understanding of karma. You don't need to believe in reincarnation to understand karma. Karma is simply
that you don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. That with one aspect,
you are doing what you call the environment, and with the other aspect, you are doing what you call
the organism, the me, this living body. But as you cannot conceive, possibly, the existence of a living
body, with no environment, that is the clue that the two are basically one. Like the two poles of a magnet,
north is quite different from south, and yet it's all one magnet. So in precisely the same way,
you are both what you do, and what happens to you. So that you have a little game in which you play,
that what happens to you, that you're not responsible for. That's not you, see? You're only responsible for
this side of it, and then you can compete with the other side. What it's like is this. Get two knitting
pins, one in each hand, and have a fencing match with yourself. And really, sincerely, try to stick
the other hand. But that other hand must really, sincerely be trying to stick the first one, and also
to defend itself. It's like playing chess with yourself, you see? Now, it won't work. You'll come to
a sort of standstill, unless you decide for your right hand that that's the one that's really going
to win. But then you've broken the rule of the game, you see? Well, that's what we do. That's what
is called by both the Hindus and the Buddhists, avidya, ignorance, which really better means ignorance.
So what it comes down to, you see, is basically this, just in the same way that the authority of the
guru is your authority. You did. So the place where you are in life is where you've put yourself.
Just as on the surface of the sphere, every point may be regarded as the center of the surface.
So every place may be regarded as the true place, and everyone's in his true place. Everybody, in other
words, put it in what language you will, is the manifestation of the divine. Playing this game,
that game, and the other game. And you're not knowing it, if you don't know it, is part of the game.
Makes it all the more fun. Get lost. You say to yourself, and lost you get. Like children love to play
hide-and-seek. To get lost. Like we all like to go to a play, see a horror movie, and have the coal
shivers because we think the awful, awful is going to happen. Something is going to be seen on the screen
which we can't stand to see. Oh, won't that be a thrill if it happens? We all expose ourselves to that,
just as children and young people are always exposing themselves to dreadful things.
And the parents get absolutely, they get the heebie-jeebies. They think if it isn't getting
drunk, or driving hot rods, they take drugs. And that may ruin their sanity for life. How horrible
can it be? And if they don't take drugs, they'll do something else. Always to see how close to the
point of danger you can get. And most people who go in for racing cars usually end up in a crash.
And they know it. But the life is all the sweeter for being played dangerously. So I would say to those
among you who are the most deadheads, in the sense of unspiritual and square, if there are any here,
real stuffy people. Congratulations. You see, you're playing a very far out game.
See, you're so lost, you don't even know where you stood.
That's taking a gorgeous risk. Why, because of you, we might even blow up the planet.
How close are we going to get to that one? Just in the same way, as that car racer watches the needle
going up, up, up, up, up, up. There are these people feeling more and more and more righteous.
Determine that good shall prevail. Watching that needle go up, it's getting hotter and hotter and
hotter. And finally, they go out in a blaze of glory. And when the dust settles, that was the close
quick. I mean, that was quite a dream we've woken up from. See, where will we go next? See,
because that's the point, isn't it? That's why I would say that my function is liberative. I want
you to see that it's you. It's not me. It's not Swami so-and-so. It's not Buddha so-and-so. It's not
saint so-and-so. It's you. You do it. As Sir Edwin Armand put the words into the mouth of the Buddha,
you suffer from yourselves. None else compels. None other holds you that you live and die and
whir upon the wheel and hug and kiss its spokes of agony, its tire of tears, its navel of nothingness.
And when one of the old Zen masters went to his teacher and said, what is the way to liberation?
The teacher said, who is restraining you? He said, no one. If so, why should you ask for liberation?
It all bounces back to you. What do you want? Do you know what you want? Can you think it through?
Say exactly what you want. And invariably you'll get back to the place where you are. Because what you
say you want is always the symptom, the expression of what you are now. If then that is the case,
that it's all there because you're doing it. Why meditate? Why do anything of a so-called spiritual
nature? People don't understand really what meditation is. They take it up. Like they take
up psychotherapy or a course in weight reduction in order to be better. But if you do that, you are
not practicing what is called jhana or yoga or Zen. That's not it at all. Meditation is the one
human activity which has no purpose. Buddhas, who are supposed to have attained everything,
are invariably shown in some sort of meditation posture. Why should they meditate anymore? Because
that just happens to be the way that a Buddha sits when he sits. When he sits, he sits. When he walks,
he walks. He isn't going anywhere. He's just going for a walk. Because he digs. See, to dig, the very
word, is not merely to appreciate, but to penetrate. To go to the heart of the matter and to penetrate
the moment. To get right to the root of the moment is nowhere else than the center of you,
where you are. It's where you start this whole thing. So get, I mean, to get with yourself is
to get at the moment where you begin all this questioning. Where does the question come from?
Where does the desire spring from? Well, that's you. And that you is the point from which the whole
universe is created. Flowing back into the past like the wake of a ship. Wake doesn't drive the ship.
It's the ship that makes the wake. So here you are, producing it. Meditation is just sitting and
watching it happen. It's not done because it's good for you. It's done for fun. I might even say,
meditation is a fun thing. And if it isn't, you're not meditating. There's an awful game that
meditators play, which is competitive suffering. Now they go to some place where they sit for hours on
end until their legs ache and practically fall off. And then come back and brag about they sat through
all those hours of leg aching. Now it's very difficult to put down people who are suffering.
Because after all, one has a natural sympathy for pain. But I sometimes want to say, for goodness sake,
don't throw your suffering at me in that way and in that spirit. Don't brag about it. Don't one up me by
saying, well, I've suffered more than you have. People do things like that. They say, well, I'm more aware of
my shortcomings than you are. I'm more tolerant than you are. I recognize more than you do what a
rascal I am. So every kind of way of one-upping somebody else in order to play the game in which
I always win. So once we get into that kind of thing with the meditation scene, we get into hierarchies
and ranks and degrees and who has attained number seven, who has attained number nine. And the expert
guru will always put a stage higher than anyone anybody's thought of. It serves to see how far
your ambition will run. And so this goes on endlessly, endlessly, endlessly, until you suddenly wake up and
begin real meditation by realizing that you were there. That you do really meditate all the time
by virtue of existing all the time. Only you miss that eternal now by always looking for something next
minute, expecting a result. Now you can say, let me not expect a result because one does anything. And so you may
just as well sit and enjoy it. You've been listening to the conclusion of Spiritual Authority with Alan
Watts from the Alan Watts radio series number five, Myth and Religion. For information how to obtain the
radio series on cassette tape, call 1-800-969-2887. Or you can write to The Electronic University,
P.O. Box 2309, San Anselmo, California, 94979. When you call or write, please indicate the name of your
local station and that you heard the program Spiritual Authority from the Alan Watts radio series number five,
Myth and Religion. Again, the phone number is 1-800-969-2887. That's 1-800-W-O-Watts.
The Love of Wisdom with Alan Watts is produced by The Electronic University. Our theme music
is by Zakir Hussain, courtesy of Moment Records.


===== Myth And Religion - 14 - Sex And The Curch =====

I don't think I need to tell you that in a very special and peculiar way, Western man
is hung up on sex.
And the major reason for this is that he has a religious background quite unique among the
religions of the world.
I'm thinking specifically of Christianity and in a secondary way Judaism, insofar as Judaism
in Europe and the United States is strongly influenced by Christianity.
But Christianity is, of all religions in the world, the one uniquely preoccupied with sex.
More so than priapism, more so than tantric yoga, more so than any kind of fertility cult
which has ever existed on the face of the earth.
There has never, never, never been a religion in which sexuality was so important.
And there are certain very simple standards by which this can be judged.
In popular speech when you say of a given person that he or she is living in sin, you know very
well that you do not mean that they are engaged in a business to defraud the public by the sale
of, uh, badly made bread or, uh, anything of that kind.
You know that they're not, uh, setting up a check forgery business.
No.
People who are living in sin are people who have an irregular sexual partnership.
In the same way when you say something is immoral, uh, it pretty much means that it's
something sexually irregular.
I remember when I was a boy in school, we used to have a preacher.
He came to us every year, the same man once a year, and he always talked on the subject
of drink, gambling and immorality.
And I remember the way he rolled it round his tongue and it was very clear what immorality
was.
And also, I might point out that the present company accepted the Unitarian Church being
somewhat unusual.
Most churches in America and in England and in other parts of, uh, the Western world are,
frankly, sexual regulation societies.
They occasionally get excited about other moral issues, but really not very much.
In other words, when you ask what can people get kicked out of church for, let's supposing
you consider important ministers, bishops, priests, and so on, uh, they can live in envy,
hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness, and be in perfectly good standing.
But the moment anything about their sexual life becomes a little unusual, out you go.
And that's about the only thing you can go out for.
You study, for example, a Roman Catholic manual of moral theology.
These manuals of moral theology are technical books about sins of all kinds, just exactly
what they are, how they're done, how grave they are, for mostly for the advice of confessors.
And they're always arranged according to the Ten Commandments.
And, uh, when they get to the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, the volume expands
like this.
In fact, it occupies two-thirds of the whole book, all the details.
So we have, in a very special way, got sex on the brain, which isn't exactly the right
place for it.
Now, this needs going into, because it is not as simple as it looks.
There are really two roots of the whole problem.
One of them is the problem of why sexual pleasure of all pleasures, as a kind of really supreme
pleasure, is singled out for religious people to be particularly afraid of.
This is not only true in Christianity, I say Christianity emphasizes it in a certain way.
But in, uh, Asian religions also, especially in India, there is a prevailing view that if
you want to attain real heights of spirituality, the one thing you must give up is sexuality,
in the ordinary sense of, uh, genital sexual relationships with man or woman, as the case
may be.
And this reflects in part, you see, an attitude to the physical world.
Because it is, after all, through sexuality, that we have, along with eating, our most fundamental
relationship to materiality, to nature, to the physical universe.
And it is the point at which we can become most attached to the body, to the physical
organism, to material life.
That's one reason why it's problematic.
The other reason why it's problematic is more subtle.
And that is that sexuality is something which you cannot get rid of.
Do what you may, life is sexual, in the sense, for example, that you are either male or female.
There are various other gradations, uh, but basically they are forms of maleness and femaleness.
And also that every one of you is the result of sexual intercourse.
And this feature of life, uh, can be looked at in one of two ways.
You can say, on the one hand, that all man's higher ideals, his spirituality and so forth,
is simply repressed sexuality.
Or on the other hand, you can say that human sexuality is a manifestation, a particular form
or expression of what is spiritual, metaphysical, divine, or whatever you want to call it.
I hold to the latter view.
I don't think that religion is repressed sexuality.
I think, however, that sexuality is just one of the many forms in which, uh, whatever all
this is expresses itself.
But you see, if this thing is something you cannot get rid of, and if you realize that,
indeed, a way of life in which sexuality is in some way put down or repressed, is nonetheless
an expression of sexuality, then we come to a view of a religion in which sex is a very
special taboo, which is rather unusual.
It's normally said, you see, yes, that Christianity is a religion in which sex is taboo.
And this has simply no getting around it.
I know up-to-date ministers today are, think sex is all right.
It's perfectly okay if you're married and you've got a mature relationship with a woman.
Uh, it's all right.
And they kind of damn it with faint praise.
But if you read anything of Christian writings prior, shall we say, to 1850, to set a date
rather arbitrarily, you will find that it's not all right.
Not at all.
It's tolerated between married couples and strictly for the procreation of children.
But on the whole, to do without it is best.
As St. Paul put it, it's better to marry than to burn.
To burn with the fire of lust and ultimately to burn in hell.
But always, consistently, there is simply no getting away from it.
In all the writings of the Church Fathers, from St. Paul himself right through to St. Ignatius
Loyola or any of the great relatively modern, uh, leaders of Catholic spirituality.
Or you can look at Calvin, you can look at, uh, great Protestants, John Knox.
On the whole, sex is sin and sex is dirt.
And you can say very simply that this is all bad and something very wrong, but I want to
point out that there is another side to all this.
There is no way of making a hedge grow like pruning it.
There is no way of making sex interesting like repressing it.
And as a result of all these centuries of sexual repression and associating it with dirt,
the West has developed a peculiar form of eroticism.
But that is a, an aspect of this whole problem, which I don't think is really very profitable
to explore.
I just want to mention it in passing, that the whole attitude of anti-sexuality in the
Christian tradition is not as anti as it looks.
It is simply a method of making sex prurient and exciting in a kind of dirty way.
And I suppose is to be recommended for people who are not feeling very frisky and, er, need
to be pepped up.
The other side of the problem is much more interesting.
That is to say, er, the first thing I mentioned.
Why it is that there has been a problem for human beings about pleasure and we'll take sexual activity
as a supreme pleasure, as a supreme involvement of oneself with the body and with the physical world.
Why should there be a problem here?
Well, the point is simply, isn't it, that the physical world is transient, it's impermanent, it falls apart and bodies that were once strong, smooth and lovely in youth begin to wither and become corrupt and turn at last into skeletons.
And if you cling on to one of those and it suddenly turns into a skeleton in your hand, as it will
if you speed up your sense of time a little, you feel cheated.
And there has been for centuries a lament about this, that life is so short that all the beauties
of this world fall apart.
And therefore, if you are wise, you don't set your heart on mortal beauty, but you set your
heart on spiritual values that are imperishable.
Even that supposed tipler and rake Omar Khayyam says that the worldly hope men set their hearts
upon turns ashes or it prospers, and anon like snow upon the desert's dusty face, lighting
a little hour or two is gone.
And so don't bet on that horse.
And read any kind of spiritual literature you want to, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist,
all of them seem to emphasize the importance of detachment.
From the body, from the physical world, so that you won't be engulfed in the stream of
impermanence.
The idea being, you see, that to the degree that you identify yourself with the body and
with the pleasures of the body, to that degree you are simply going to be something that is
sucked away in the course of transiency.
So therefore, hold yourself aloof.
As in, for example, the advice of many Hindus in the practice of yoga, you are advised to
look upon all sensory experiences as something out there which you simply witness.
You yourself identify yourself with the eternal, spiritual, unchanging self.
The witness of all that goes on, but who is no more involved in it than, say, the smoothness
or the color of a mirror is affected by the things which it reflects.
Keep your mind like a mirror, pure and clean, free from dust, free from flaws, free from stain.
Just reflect everything that goes on, but don't be attached.
You will find this all over the place.
But it has always seemed to me that that attitude of essential detachment from the physical universe
has underlying it a very serious problem.
The problem being why a physical universe at all in that case.
If God has a man is in some way responsible for the existence of the creation.
And if this creation is basically a snare, why did he do it?
And of course, according to some theologies, the physical universe is looked upon as a mistake,
as a fall from the divine state.
As if something went wrong in the heavenly domain.
And causing spirits such as we are to fall from their high estate and to become involved with
animal bodies.
And so there is an ancient analogy of man, which runs right through to the present time.
That your relationship to your body is that of a rider to a horse.
Saint Francis called his body rather ass.
That you are a rational soul in charge of an animal body.
And therefore, where if you belong to the old fashioned school, you beat it into submission.
As Saint Paul said, I beat my body into submission.
Or if you are a Freudian, you treat your horse not with a whip, but with lumps of sugar.
Secondly, but still it's your horse.
Even in Freud, there is a very, very strong element of puritanism.
Read Philip Reif's book on Freud, the mind of the moralist.
And how he shows that Freud basically thought that sex was degrading.
But nevertheless, something biologically unavoidable, something terribly necessary, which couldn't
just be swept aside.
It had to be dealt with.
But there is, you see, that heritage of thinking of ourselves as divided.
The ego as the rational soul of spiritual origin, and the physical body as the animal component.
And therefore, all success in life, spiritual success, requires the spiritualization of the
animal component, the sublimation of its dirty and strange urges.
So that it's thoroughly cleaned up.
I suppose the ideal sexual relationship of such persons would be held on an operating table
under disinfectant sprays.
Now it is, of course, true that the physical world, its beauty, and so on, is transient.
We are all falling apart in some way or another, especially after you pass the peak of youth.
But it's never struck me that that is something to gripe about.
That the physical world is transient seems to me to be part of its splendor.
I can imagine nothing more awful than, say, attaining to the age of 30 and suddenly being frozen, in
that age for always and always.
You would become a kind of, we would all be a sort of animated waxworks.
And you would discover, as a matter of fact, that people who had that physical permanence
would feel like plastic.
And that is, as a matter of fact, what is going to be done about us, by technology,
in order to attain perpetual youth.
All the parts of us that decay and fold up are going to be replaced by very skillfully
manufactured plastic parts.
So that in the end, we will be entirely made of very, very sophisticated plastic.
And everybody will feel like that.
And everybody will be utterly bored with each other.
Because the very fact, you see, that the world is always decaying and always falling
away, is the same thing as its vitality.
Vitality is change.
Life is death.
It is always falling apart.
And so there are certain supreme moments, you see, at which in the body we attain superb
vitality.
And that's the time.
Make it then.
It's the moment, just like when an orchestra is playing, the conductor wants to get a certain
group of, say, violins to come in at a certain moment, and he's conducting, and he's got to
now make it.
And they all have to go, right now, you see?
Of course.
That's the whole art of life.
To do it at the right time.
To do it in time.
Like you dance or you play in time.
And so in the same way, when it comes to love, sexuality, or equally so, in all the pleasures
of gastronomy, timing is of the essence.
And then it's happened and you've had it.
But that's not something that one should look upon with regret.
It only is something regrettable if you didn't know how to take it when it was timely.
And this is really the essence of what I want to talk to you about.
Because you see, to be detached from the world, in the sense that Buddhists and Taoists and Hindus
will often talk about detachment, does not mean to be non-participative.
You can have a sexual life very rich and very full, and yet all the time be detached.
By that I don't mean that you just go through it mechanically and have your thoughts elsewhere.
I mean a complete participation, but still detached.
And the difference of the two attitudes is this.
On the one hand, there is a way of being so anxious about physical pleasure, so afraid
that you won't make it, that you grab it too hard, that you just have to have that thing.
And if you do that, you destroy it completely.
And therefore, after every attempt to get it, you feel disappointed.
You feel empty.
You feel something was lost.
And therefore, you want it again.
You have to keep repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, because you never really got there.
And it's this that is the hang-up.
This is what is meant by attachment to this world in an evil sense.
But on the other hand, pleasure in its fullness cannot be experienced when one is grasping
it.
I knew a little girl to whom someone gave a bunny rabbit.
She was so delighted with a bunny rabbit and so afraid of losing it, that taking it home
in the car, she squeezed it to death with love.
And lots of parents do that to their children, and lots of spouses do it to each other.
They hold on too hard.
And so take the life out of this transient, beautifully fragile thing that life is.
To have it, to have life, and to have its pleasure, you must at the same time let go of it.
Then you can feel perfectly free to have that pleasure in the most gutsy, rollicking, earthy,
lip-licking way, one's whole being taken over by a kind of undulated, convulsive ripple,
which is like the very pulse of life itself.
This can happen only if you let go.
If you are willing to be abandoned, it's funny that word, abandoned.
We speak of people who are dissolute as being abandoned.
But we can also use abandoned as a characteristic of a saint.
A great spiritual book by a Jesuit father is called Abandonment to the Divine Providence.
There are people like that who just aren't hung up.
They are the poor in spirit.
That is to say, they spiritually are poor in the sense they don't cling on to any property.
They don't carry burdens around.
They're free.
Well, just that sort of spiritual poverty, that let go-ness, is quite essential for the enjoyment
of any kind of pleasure at all, and particularly sexual pleasure.
Now, when I was a boy in school, I'll go back to this, because my experience may not be...
I don't know how typical it would be of children brought up in the United States in a religious
environment.
But my experience in England was quite fascinating about, you know, when one is baptized as a
child, and you don't know anything about it, and your godfathers and godmothers are your
sponsors.
Then there comes a time when you are about to enter into puberty, when you are confirmed.
When you undertake for yourself your own baptismal vows that were made on behalf of you.
And in England, confirmation into the Church of England, which is Episcopalian in this country,
confirmation is preceded by instruction.
And this instruction consisted very largely of lessons in Church history, because the British
approach to religion is peculiarly archaeological.
It is based on the great past, the great Christian saints and heroes.
And it's really quite interesting, because it somehow associates you, puts you in the tradition
of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and all that sort of thing.
But the time comes when every candidate for confirmation has a private talk with a school
chaplain.
And obviously in every process of initiation into mysteries, from time immemorial, there has
been the passing on of a secret.
And so there's a certain anticipation about this very private communication.
Because you would think, if you were being initiated into a religion, what the secret
consists of is some marvellous information about the nature of God, or the fundamental reason
for being, and so on.
But not so in this case.
The initiatory secret talk was a serious lecture on the evils of masturbation.
What these evils were, were not clearly specified.
And so, but it was vaguely hinted that ghastly diseases would result.
And so we used to, sort of in a perverse way, enjoy tormenting ourselves with imaginations,
as to what kind of terrible venereal diseases, epilepsy, tuberculosis, and the great Siberian
itch would result from this practice.
Now the extraordinary thing about it is this, that the very chaplain who gave these lectures
had in his own upbringing been given the same lecture by other chaplains, and this went
back some distance in history, I imagine.
And they all knew perfectly well that one of the characteristic behaviour patterns of adolescence
is ritual defiance of authority.
But you have to make some protest against authority, and in this you are in league with all your
contemporaries, your peer group.
And nobody of course would dream of giving anybody else away, because that would be to
be a tattletale, a skunk, definitely not one of the boys.
And so therefore, quite obviously, masturbation provided the ideal outlet for this ritual defiance.
because it was fun it was also an assertion of masculinity and it was very very wicked
so i've meditated on this sometime as to why the system continued
and i came to the realization that the christian put down of sex is an extremely mysterious thing
in the religious background of the western world we have in the main two traditions
one semitic and one greek so far as the semitic tradition is concerned
the material world and sexuality are definitely good things both jews and muslims
think that god's creation of beautiful women was a grand idea
in the arabic book which is their islamic version of the karma sutra known as the perfumed garden
the book opens with a prayer to allah which is a thanksgiving a very full detailed thanksgiving
for the loveliness of women with which allah has blessed mankind
and in the book of proverbs we are enjoined to enjoy our wives while they are young
but uh on the whole it is the semitic
belief that sexuality is justified solely for purposes of reproduction of the species
this uh makes it good in the eyes of god and sexual energy should not really be wasted for other
purposes that's the limitation put on it now on the other hand we have a greek tradition
which is peculiar in that it is strongly influenced by a dualistic view of the universe
in which material existence is conceived as a trap
as a fall into turgid clogging matter which is antagonistic to the lightness and freedom of the
spirit and therefore for certain kinds of greek religion among which we must name the orphic mysteries
the neoplatonic point of view and the late agnostic points of view being saved means being delivered
from material existence into a purely spiritual state from this point of view sexual uh involvement
is the very archetype of material involvement martyr mother matter matter are really the same word
and so the love of woman is the great snare this is intrudently a doctrine invented by men
and it goes back to the words of adam the woman that thou gavest me she tempted me
and i did eat now in the development of christian theology from approximately the time of saint paul
through the beginning of the renaissance it was universally held
that sex was a bad thing you should read saint augustine on this
he said that in the garden of eden before the fall reproduction took place
in just the same way and with just the same lack of excitement as one excretes
or passes water and there was no uh shameful excitation of the sexual parts
and uh the whole attitude of the church fathers in those centuries was that the virgin state
was immensely superior spiritually to the married state
and that sexual relationships were excusable only within the bonds of marriage and for the sole
purposes of reproduction and the manual the moral penitentiaries of the theologians of the middle ages
list all sorts of penances that must be said even by married couples who performed sexual intercourse
on the night before attending mass were still before receiving holy communion
and of course it must utterly be avoided on certain great uh church festivals so although in theory
marriage is a sacrament which somehow blesses this peculiar relationship
there is a definite attitude that it is after all dirty and not very nice
it is now you must realize too that in those days the institution of marriage was not what it is today
marriage at the time of the rise and development of christianity was a social institute institution
for alliances between families you did not marry the person of your own choice except under the most
peculiar circumstances you married the girl your family picked out for you and they thought it over carefully
from its political point of view as well as from the point of view of eugenics and uh whether this
was a good healthy girl and whether this was a good healthy man and they had an economic bargaining
about it and you married this girl you weren't necessarily in love with her
and it was perfectly well understood in the secular world that on the side uh you had other arrangements
uh you had if you could afford them concubines or even second and third and fourth wives
and these uh subsidiary wives were um there was a somewhat more choice open to you in getting those
then in the first one first one is definitely a family arrangement now that's the context of it don't
forget that so what the church was saying was only that woman should be your bedfellow
whose marriage has been arranged by paternal authority the idea of romantic love does not arise
in connection with marriage until the troubadour cults of southern france of provence in the late middle ages
when there begins to be this idea of the idealization of a woman as the inspiring
uh goddess almost of the knight errant dante's beatrice is the inspiring woman
who leads him to heaven now historians are not agreed as to whether the lady loves of the chivalrous
knights were in fact their mistresses or whether they were simply idealized women
but the influence of the cult of romantic love on the west was profound and it brought about a weird
combination of ideas one the notion of the married state being the only licit relationship in which
sexual uh play might be carried on and two the notion that the girl you marry should be the one you've
fallen in love with two more ill-adjusted ideas could hardly be put together because naturally when you
love someone very much indeed in the enthusiasm and ardour of youth you say things that are
hardly logical or rational you stand up before an altar and you say my darling my sweetheart my perfect pet
i adore you so much that i will live with you forever and ever until death do us part and that's the way
you feel at the time in a rather similar mood ancient peoples would hail their kings and say oh king live
forever obviously this was not literally meant they were just wishing him a long life but to live forever no
sir no mortal does that so the trouble was you see that when certain kinds of extravagant poetic expressions
got in the hands of people like augustine and tertullian who were rather influenced by roman literalness
they wrote it into the law books and so this amazing situation came about
but we still have not fully explored the subtlety of it let us consider certain periods when uh
this attitude of prudism towards sexuality was in us in an ascendancy nearest to our times
is the bourgeois uh revolution you might call it in victorian england and the united states
we all say victorian uh as an adjective to indicate grundyism uh extreme monogamy uh a definite
disgust for all things sexual and yet when we really go into the history of the victorian period
we find that it was an extremely lascivious epoch one has only to look at the lushness
of victorian furniture to realize that chairs are disguised women that the way even piano legs are shaped
i mean this kind of thing is throughout victorian art forms and the conduct of the british aristocracy
during that period beggared description people like freud and have a lock ellis made certain mistake
uh they said about the church and about religion in general that it was nothing but a form of sublimated
sex they said these people for curious reasons suppress sex and therefore it becomes a very powerful force
for them you must remember of course that they worked on a hydraulic analogy of human psychology that they
liken it all to a river if you damned it up it would burst the dam it doesn't actually follow that human
psychology is hydraulic but this is the metaphor they used now they said the church has repressed sex
but actually if you look at its symbolism it is nothing but an expression of sex
everything is reduced to libido as the fundamental reality
and the church replied it's nothing of the kind we deny this we think that this reduction of everything
to sex is just a way of uh attacking holy things and on the contrary we would say that people who are
fascinated with sex and make it their god are repressing religion now the problem in this debate everybody
missed the boat uh the church should have been in a position to say to freud well of course
thank you very much uh yes indeed our symbolism is sexual the steeples on our churches the uh vesicle
shaped windows and uh heraldic shields on which we put images of the crucifix or the virgin mother of god
so these are all quite plainly sexual but you see the sexual biology in its term reveals the mysteries of
the universe sex is not mere sex sex is a holy thing and is uh one of the most marvelous revelations of the divine
divine but imagine the church just couldn't say that if you look at tibetan buddhist iconography
their images or you look in hindu temples you will find things that europeans and americans have never
been able to understand here are images of buddhas and of the gods engaged in amazing diversions
with their female counterparts and everybody thinks that these are kind of dirty sculptures
now they're nothing of the kind they are saying to the people who look at them the play of man and woman
is on that level on the level of biology a reflection of the fundamental play of the cosmos
the play of the positive and negative principles of the light and the dark of the mental and the material
they all play together
and the function of sexual play is not merely the survival and utilitarian function of reproducing the
species as it is among animals to a very large extent what peculiarly distinguishes human sexuality
is that it brings the partners closer and closer to each other in an intense state of united feeling
in other words it is a sacrament the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace
bringing about love and so if that is peculiar to human beings it is perfect nonsense to degrade human sexuality
by saying it should only be carried on in the way that the animals do theirs because they have not yet
as it were evolved to the place where sex is the sacramental expression of man and woman's love
and this love in that sense is a kind of enthusiasm which means a being possessed by the divine
falling in love although considered by practical people to be a sort of madness
is actually the same sort of thing as the mystical vision
uh a grace and in its light we see people in their divine aspect when as the song says
every little breeze whispers louise uh there is a sort of extraordinary state of mystical intoxication
in which the ideal woman has become the goddess which is from one point of view what every woman is
if you see her with the scales of your eyes and likewise every man seen with the scales of her eyes
so what happened then as a result of this historical situation was mutual name calling
between between the proponents of religion and the proponents of uh scientific naturalism such as
freud and uh havelock ellis and in our own times albert ellis uh and people of that kind they've never got
together because they've never understood neither the church nor the opponents of the church have
clearly understood that the secret or unconscious motivation of sexual repression is to make it all
the more interesting and on the other side it has not been clearly understood that the sexual
biology and all that goes with it is a figuring forth on the level of biology of what the whole universe
is about ecstatic play so as a result there has been a kind of compromise today in ecclesiastical circles
sex is being damned with faint praise people are saying after all yes sex was made by god and we should
remember the jewish point of view and uh it is uh perhaps for something more than reproduction to bring
about the cementing of the marriage ties between husband and wife but still in practice it remains
the frightening taboo on the other hand the opposition to christian prudery goes overboard
and always moves in the direction of total license you see what's going on as a contest between the
people who want the skirts pulled down to the floor the people who want them pulled up to the neck
and you you know you've got to draw the line somewhere but the play between these forces is
where are we going to draw it well that's very exciting provide neither side wins i mean imagine
what it would be like if the libertines won and they took over the church so that on wednesday evenings
the young presbyterian group would meet for prayer through sex
every child would go to the school physician for a course in hygienics and they would have classes
and they have plastic models and all the children would do it in class in very clean hygienic
circumstances all sprayed with rubbing alcohol everything would be fine imagine how boring it would
all become so you see the people who say no modesty is important have something right about them but
they mustn't be allowed to get away with it but they mustn't be obliterated you see life works that way
let's take an entirely different analogy let's take a given biological group a species we'll call a
it has a natural enemy b now one day a gets furious at the natural enemy b and says let's obliterate it
and they gather their forces and they knock out their natural enemy well suddenly after a while they
begin to get weak they get overpopulated there's nobody around to eat up their surplus creatures
and they don't have to keep their muscles tensed against any enemy and they begin to fall apart
because they destroyed their enemy what they should do is cultivate the enemy that's the real meaning
of love your enemy there is such a thing as a beloved enemy and if you don't have a beloved enemy
in other words if the flies and the spiders don't go together you're going to be too many spiders
or too many flies and these balances uh keep the course of nature going well it's exactly the same
thing as between the libertines and the prudes they need each other and you should thank if you've got
a prudish father and mother you should be very grateful to them for having made sex so interesting
so don't defy them completely don't go around campus with placards bearing four-letter words
because that's going to spoil the show
so but every generation must react to the one before you see to keep this tension going
and it is by this tension this play of the opposites that we have the love that makes the world go round