This weekend is devoted to the future of religion, and I’ve introduced one kind of paradoxical gimmick into the series of seminars by saying that the best kind of future we can envisage is one in which we get rid of the idea of the future as a an area of experience which solves problems.
It doesn’t. Western man has been obsessed with history in a way that is quite unlike any other culture and has seen the course of human events as a series of progressive steps towards a goal in the beyond.
And you will see that this is absolutely basic to the theology of the Jewish and Christian religions as we now know them. Although it wasn’t necessarily always so, but they are absolutely wedded to the idea that the significance of human life has historical significance.
That is to say that the present has in itself no justification. It’s only justified what we do now in terms of the way in which it leads in some kind of progressive pattern towards tomorrow.
And therefore there is that to use Tennyson’s phrase. The one far off divine event to which all creation moves. And we may never enjoy that.
Maybe our children will, maybe our children’s children, although actually the result of this is going in exactly the opposite direction to that of its intention. Living in a historical society, the one far off divine event to which all creation moves is so far as anybody can see it. The explosion of a cobalt bomb which will get rid of all life on the planet. That’s history for you.
And therefore, the urgent task of today is to stop history and to do this by creating a diversion, a diversion from history.
Now, I’ve explained this in past seminars, but because some of you are here for the first time today, I’m just going to go over this briefly. Let’s suppose we get the sort of situation where you’ve got a gambling casino and there’s been a very dangerous game with high stakes going on for most of the night. And the stakes are getting higher and higher. And there’s a huge assemblage of people gathered around this table where the contestants are betting not only thousands and millions and billions of dollars, but they’ve finally brought out their nuclear weapons and they’ve said, I dare you to blow the scene up first. Wowee, what a gamble. Here, you know, it’s like in a powder magazine. You are sitting with a box of matches and say, if you don’t agree with me, I’ll drop the match and blow us both up.
So that’s the kind of game that’s been going on.
And it’s on a collision course. And no one can stop it because the mental set of the contestants is such that they can’t give up. Unfortunately, both of them believe in the life hereafter, in some funny way that perhaps the Russians don’t believe in the life hereafter, but they call the westerns. Christians tend to believe in it.
So once, many years ago, when Professor Uri of the University of Chicago gave a talk to the assembled Episcopal clergy of the Diocese of Chicago and raised all sorts of horrors about atomic bombs, an old man got up who was the bishop of the sufferer and bishop of Chicago, Bishop Randall, and said after the clergy had expressed great concern, I don’t know what all you people are so disturbed about, because all this man has told us is that we’re going to die.
And we knew that already. And as Christians, we are not afraid of death.
So the clergy got up and said, hey, all right, it’s all right for you. Bishop Randall, you’re an old man and you you don’t have the problems of us young people with children and families and all that kind of thing.
But you see, what a dangerous man, a man who believes in the life hereafter can be, because he can say, better be dead than red, because he believes in a future beyond the grave in which accounts will be settled and the rest will be proved wrong.
Now, I’m trying to indicate what I stand for myself as a sort of half baked representative of the traditions of the Orient, is not a future life beyond the grave in the ordinary sense of the word. But realization of the fact that our true life is timeless. That we don’t have a future in the sense that we will not carry over into future manifestations of our existence our personal memories about the will be future manifestations of our existence. Only we won’t know it. We will experience it again and again, just as we do now, without remembering any past. Because if we did carry over into the future and indefinite and indefinite memory, conscious memory of our past, we would be bored. We would say this is the same old thing over and over again, and we’ve had enough of it.
But nature, just as we have in our biology, our physiology and elimination system decides an eating system.
So in our psychology, we have a forgetting system as well as a memory.
And it’s equally important if you cannot erase if you cannot wipe the slate clean. That’s the whole. That’s the real meaning of the Christian idea of forgiveness, of the Jewish idea of the year of Jubilee. Forget it.
And then we can begin life anew and see this familiar world with the eyes of children, who find it all absolutely astonishing.
As we get older, we say, oh, well, ho hum.
We’ve seen the sun rise many times and therefore we need to forget. And that’s the mystery of death. And therefore, a style of life which sets the future always as the thing to be worked for.
It seems to me to be biologically, physiologically, psychologically unsound, because it’s always preparation and lacks the verve as well as the nerve to live now.
So then, this is one of the reasons today why the most extraordinary changes are going on in people’s thinking. See, basically, people really do know what’s good for them. They have an obscure unconscious sense. De Tocqueville once said a democracy is always right, but for the wrong reasons.And this is why our laws in the British and American tradition, are really so sane, insofar as they say, well, ultimately, the people must decide what they want. Nobody knows. No individual knows what is good for the people. The people themselves know they don’t know why, but they know in an obscure way.
And therefore, you will find at a moment when human survival is in jeopardy that there begins to be from, as it were, the grassroots of society.
A rumbling revolution that something’s got to be different.
And what has got to be different is, of course, that our consciousness has to be changed. That Western civilization and to some extent Oriental civilization has gone on these many centuries, with an experience of what it is to be alive, what it is to be human, what it is to be a person that is a hallucination.
Namely, that you are an independent center of consciousness and volition inside a capsule of skin looking out upon, as we say, confronting, a world that is not you, that is alien, and that insofar as that world is not a human world. And most of it isn’t, it is stupid, mechanical, blind.
Therefore, there’s the sense of intense hostility towards the external world and the idea of so much promoted by the Jewish and the Christian traditions that the valuable thing about being human is that you are a person.
We’ll go into that word person. But the idea is that the supremely valuable thing about human life is that you are an individual ego. And that by the force of your psychological effort and your independent will, you are going to control and transform the world. And therefore any point of view which puts down in any way the individual ego and its power to exercise mind over matter is repugnant to our cultural tradition.
This is very strong in the United States. I’ve often said, scratch an American and find a Christian scientist.
Someone who believes that you should not be in any way obligated to dependent upon the physical aids of life.
You if you if you’re in pain, if you had a headache. Well, you shouldn’t take aspirin. You should use your willpower or your faith or your something, you know, and overcome it that way. And these people are always blind to the fact that they do have to eat every day. There are all sorts of fantasies, a half baked Oriental notions, too, about people who definitely need to eat, who are surviving on one banana and a glass of water per day and sort of thing.
And that strikes the imagination of our cultures. What would be the ideal? That’s why we cook so badly. We do not eat with gusto like the French. We eat apologetically like the British.
So, this extraordinary fascination with the good of human life as being summed up in the ego and its energy and its independence is an idea that had something to be said for it.
But you can always have too much of a good thing.
Now, I must repeat something that is always necessary to understand. Anything I’m saying is that I exaggerate.
I, instead of being moderate and taking due consideration for all possible points of view whereby we come to a measured, mature and balanced view of things.
If you do that as a philosopher, nobody will listen to you.
So what you do is you make an exaggeration in a certain direction to balance and compensate an exaggeration that’s gone in the other direction.
So with our culture, the exaggeration has gone in the direction of the value, sacredness, of the ego. So I’m pitching the cause in the other direction and saying ego is a hallucination.
And that’s what’s the trouble with us, is that we believe in this and that therefore we in the possession of our enormous technology are fighting the external world and destroying it.
Look around in every direction. That’s lovely, Marin County is being destroyed. By smog, automobiles, tracks, dwellings, water pollution, air pollution. Disregard of the forests.
You could go a little further up north and take a take a plane ride to Seattle to see what’s been happening. It’s just terrible.
So, we then find ourselves in this situation that we have inherited religions which emphasize salvation in the future, beyond death, maybe, or the Jewish people don’t so much emphasize the idea of immortality.
Jewish people think of the messianic hope that the day of the Lord is coming, someday, when there will be a general knocking of heads together and.
The wisdom of Moses and Solomon will be vindicated.
But it’s all set for the future and therefore, in both the Jewish and the Christian traditions, mystical religion is suspect.
There are not many Jewish mystics. Yes, the Hasidim are a special sect, but among Christians, you will not find the mystical very much favorite. There are great Christian mystics, but the Catholic Church.
Always says of mystical experience that it is an extraordinary grace.
And they mean by using the word extraordinary extra, ordinary. That is to say, it is something of a peculiarity.
Like a miracle that safe to certain individuals outside ordinary Christianity, ordinary Christianity. Way back in. The fourth century def definitely rejected Gnosticism in favor of faith.
Knowledge was rejected. One should not have knowledge of divine things. One should believe.
Because wherever anybody claim to knowledge, they were in danger of the sin of spiritual pride.
But you can equally be proud of my faith is stronger and your faith makes no difference.
So, the emphasis in the whole of the Christian tradition in religion has been knowledge of God in terms of belief, belief and a revelation, belief in a dogma. And so Christianity has not only not encouraged, but actually suppressed any religious manifestation which emphasized the primacy of experience, of knowing the divine as distinct from believing in the divine Oriental religion, Hindu, Buddhist, is concerned not with belief at all.
Not with dogma, because it would say immediately. How can you express divine things in words?
All words are invalid when it comes to the ultimate reality. But it would say, on the other hand, the words may be invalid. There is the possibility of experiencing it.
And so the right experience, rather than the right belief, is the concern of Oriental religion.
So the the goal of the Buddhist and the Hindu is not salvation. It is liberation. Liberation in terms of an experience which is called Bodhi or Awakening. Samadhi or unity of consciousness. Moksha Liberation Nirvana. Letting go. That’s what it really means. Breathing out, letting go of your grasp on the breath of life.
Now, therefore, the religion’s so-called religions of the Orient have therefore become of extraordinary fascination to Western people since the 19th century.
Publishers are selling literally millions of books throughout the Western world on yoga, Vedanta, Zen, Daoism, especially to young people.
People under 25, if they have any pretensions to education at all, have read this about interest in. Because, as I said, they have, what Carl Rogers calls, positive growth potential. That is to say, knowing fundamentally when to get in out of the rain.
And that what need what is needed for Western culture, for technological culture, whether Western or Eastern. Is a new kind of human being. Not though, not as a moral necessity.
You know what we see when we talk about a new man in the Christian or in a Jewish context, it’s always in terms of the preaching.
That you should reform. You should take yourself in hand. You should talk seriously to yourself and be converted. It doesn’t work anymore.
Never did really work.
Because a person who is converted to an unselfish style of life by preaching is always a hypocrite.
Because he’s not really been changed. He’s trying to change.
He knows he ought to change. He feels guilty because of the style of life which he has lived in the past. And out of the energy of that sense of guilt, tries to reform.
But because he still experiences himself fundamentally as a separate ego.
All his new style of life is attempted love of other people, his morality, is a fake. And that’s why it is so true that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is why do-gooders create so much trouble.
That is why eventually the do-gooder results of violence.
And employs the police. To do for you what is good for you. To shoot you for your own best interest.
That’s where it ends up.
So therefore, Western religion, as we have known it in the standard brands of the Jewish and the Christian religions, is falling apart.
It is becoming of no interest, it’s becoming a joke. And it’s happening faster and faster and faster.
Despite the strong stance taken by the lunatic fringe of Protestantism, mostly in the southern and central United States, people like Jehovah’s Witnesses and hard-shell Baptists.
That has all become incredible. In fact, ministers, rabbis. Do not believe what they’re saying.
Some of them are honest enough to come out and say so. In talking about the death of God. If, for example, you really felt.
That, shall we say, a fundamentalist Protestantism is the truth. And the people who didn’t believe in Jesus Christ.
We’re going to fry in hell forever, and you really you really honestly believe that you would be screaming in the streets.
Because most of your friends. And not to mention your relations would be destined for eternal hellfire.
And you ought to be concerned about that. But they are not screaming in the streets.
They’ll say, issue polite warnings over a few radio stations tracked.
But even Jehovah’s Witnesses are reasonably well behaved and they knock at your door.
They don’t believe it. They think they ought to. They’re trying to con themselves into believing what they think they’re supposed to believe, but nobody does. Most of the clergy who’ve been through a sophisticated theological training and I’m thinking particularly of Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, congregation lists, Methodists and all respectable religions.
They don’t believe what they’re talking about. The great problem is that they think that the lay people want them to hand out the old time religion? And we’ll be offended and we’ll leave church if they don’t.
I like that joke in The New Yorker the other day, a couple of Episcopalian type clergy in the vestry with a collection plate, which is practically nothing in its.
And they’re shrugging their shoulders and say, well, well, back to the good old generalities.
See what’s happening is this. I’ve been very intimately involved with the problems of Bishop Pike, and his successor and the Episcopal clergy in this diocese, as I know them all rather well.
And they’re having a terrible time. The reason is this: they’re all very theologically sophisticated and extremely intelligent people, but they depend for their financial support on a very few wealthy individuals, most of whom are reactionaries. Therefore, by it, because of their liberal and far-out policies, they they’re losing their financial support.
You would think that they would by being so far out, recruit an enormous new following, of young people, forward looking people and so on, but they don’t because those people aren’t interested in the church at all. And therefore, they are completely falling between two stools. Why, for heaven’s sakes, aren’t those people interested in the church at all? There’s nothing that can be done about the church as far as I can see. Except let it evaporate.
Because by a curious principle, which we don’t really understand. Symbols and myth have a vitality, which is like by biological things. They are born and they die. And the mythology of the Judeo-Christian tradition is dead. God is dead in the sense of God, conceived as personal.
Father of the universe, who cares about you? And upon whom you can rely.
It was an excellent article on this by Rabbi Rubinstein from Pittsburgh and Playboy’s just recently. I think it was the June issue of Playboy. Because he made the point it was it was a surprising article, because when I started, I thought, oh, my God. Here’s this dreary old stuff. There is no God. And the Jewish, the Jews are still his chosen people.
The Christian version is there is no God and Jesus Christ is his only son. I thought this was what was going to come up, but it wasn’t. He switched towards the end of the article, and said now the death of God means the revival of mysticism, of the experience of the nothingness, which is the ground of the world. Or what Tillich called the ground of being. Now, of course, but he, in his article wouldn’t have carried weight with somebody who wasn’t theologically sophisticated. They would have thought he was saying, well, we ought to believe in nothingness instead of God not understanding the special theological meaning of the word nothings.
No thickness. Not nothingness in the sense is just ‘blah’.
But the notion that the ground of the world, which is your center and your being, as well as that of everybody and everything else, is not a thing in the same way that the diaphragm in the speaker is not a noise.
Very much there. But it’s not any of the noises that it makes. In a way, it’s all the noises it makes, but yet somehow something else.
And so naturally, therefore, we can have no concept because all our concepts are concepts of things, concepts of events. We can have no concept of God. What is the meaning of the death of God theology is that the conceptual God is dead.
Nobody can any more. Talk the human race into. Some sort of concept of God, because the development of Christianity, Judaism and so on through their theologies have come to the point where nobody is gonna buy that anymore, actually. Of course, the concept of God in the Jewish and Christian traditions, as in the Islamic tradition, is based on.
The conception of kingship in the ancient Near East, monotheism is political. It is the elevation to the universe of people like Hammurabi, of the Cyrus’s of Persia and of the pharaohs of Egypt and of King David.
And the title of God. King of kings..there’s collect in the Episcopal prayer, especially, say, in the Church of England, where, of course, the politics is a constitutional monarchy. Priest gets up and says. Oh, mighty and everlasting God, the king of kings, Lord of Lords, the only ruler of princes who dust from by throne behold as well as the former most graciously deign to behold our sovereign lady, Queen Elizabeth. You have plenty history with heavenly gifts, health and wealth, long, etc..
And so what you see is a court official addressing the throne.
So this time the title King of Kings was borrowed from the Persian Shah.
Cyrus was called the John Kahn, which means the king of kings.
And so that those royal honors, which the Jews didn’t believe should be given to Cyrus, although they they had a special liking for him because he liberated them from the Babylonians. So they they just transferred the titles of Cyrus to God. To Jehovah.
So we’ve been hung up for centuries, with this political theory of the government of the universe as a dictatorship, it and be a constitutional monarchy insofar as God suspends his omnipotence and allows you a certain degree of free will, only you’d better behave in the right way.
You must choose to love God, say.
Because if you don’t, there’s gonna be trouble. But it’s up to you. And I have a chance. It’s really a very funny system.
But as a result of that, the most curious things develop into.
Let me just take a little side tracked into legal theory in the United States of America.
How can you as members of a group of the United States, where you believe and you do solemnly swear that you believe this to be the best form of government. When I moved into this country, I had to.
Face the immigration officers and they sat on a important looking desk with Stars and stripes behind them, and they said, what do you think of the former government of the United States? Well, I said, I think it’s a very good form of government. [laughs] OK, so but when you actually become a citizen.
That was a later process. You renounce all other allegiances and you do solemnly swear. Cross your heart and hope to die. That the American flag represents the ideal form of government. And it’s a republic.
How, then, can you believe that the universe is a monarchy? You just can’t do that. One nation under God is an absolute contradiction. Because then when you say it’s under God, it’s not a republic anymore, it’s a monarchy.
So now what happens? You were. Our young man and you are called to the colors to fight.
And you find it against your conscience to do so.
You don’t believe in killing people.
What do you have to do? Well, this has been modified recently, but what you always had to do was to appeal over the head of the nation and the president to a superior authority, called the supreme being. They didn’t actually say God because they wanted to allow that. Not only Christians, but maybe some Mohammedans and people like that also might do this, and a few rationalists who believed in a supreme being like Woostya [sic].
But you had to, in other words, to accept the military view of the world that there’s a chain of command going down from the highest bus and you say to the commander in chief of the United States since President Johnson. I have word from a higher authority than you personally conveyed to me that I am not to fight in this war or any war.
And they have to say it because of freedom of religion. And it’s always complicated game. OK. You’re accepted. You don’t have to fight because you’ve appealed to a higher court.
So therefore, a Buddhist or a Dallas finds himself in a very funny position because he doesn’t like this word supreme being. Because he doesn’t view the universe as a military operation with a commander in chief or a monarch at the top. He looks at it as an organism in which all of us are, as it were, the arms of God, like the legs on a centipede. So there isn’t a chain of command. It doesn’t work that way.
Well, the courts have recently more or less decided the word supreme being can be taken extremely vaguely. Like the famous story of the House of Commons when they were debating in 1928 on the revision of the prayer book for the Church of England, somebody got up and said, it seems ridiculous that this house, which contains a number of atheists, should be debating on the whether the Church of England should have a new prayer book or not.
Somebody got up and said, Oh, I don’t think there are rarely any atheists [here]. We all believe in some sort of something somewhere.
There it is. Now, so the political theory of the universe as a monarchy, as a patriarchy simply does not make sense to people anymore.
It’s worn out, the view of the cosmos delivered to us by modern astronomy and modern physics.
It is so magnificent and so. Stones the mind.
That’s the real meaning. To be astounded.
A stone in everybody’s gonna get stones that it it just doesn’t jibe anymore.
We’ve seen it’s like style in works of art. You very well know when you listen to Shostakovich that it wasn’t written by Bach.
And when you look at the universe as revealed to us through modern science, you know, it wasn’t written by Jehovah.
It’s too big, it’s too amazing.
And some people just abandon everything and say, well. For heaven sakes, let’s let’s let’s keep control of this thing. Let’s not get stoned. Let’s say it was just a mechanism. See, it’s stupid. It’s just that just the thing going on, not going on like Newton’s village games.
And that’s simply self-defense. Against allowing your reason to be bulled over, by amazement at the nature of the world, of reality, of yourself, of your organism, of your brain, your nervous system, everything and control around here.
Oh, yes, we all understand what’s going on. It’s just nerves, just protoplasm, molecules, stuff.
We understand at all. This is a you know, this is a defense mechanism. So that doesn’t work.
That doesn’t appeal to anyone today. Monarchical theory of the world doesn’t appeal to anyone today. I mean, it’s it’s it’s fizzling. There are still a few people who dig it, but it’s on its way out.
So what’s gonna take its place? We see this fantastic growth of interest, therefore, in experiential as distinct from dogmatic religion. Now, I may have a slightly prejudiced position in this because I’ve been involved for years and years in trying to explain Oriental philosophy and religion to Western people, and therefore, naturally, it would have pleased me to think that all kinds of people were interested in this. But what I have today is a very odd feeling that I’m slightly alarmed that what I said has been taken so literally by young people.
And suddenly they really say you meant that. Yeah. You know, they’re coming on and though, hey, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. You say. Don’t take me too seriously.
But this is always the case.
When the older generation has taught the younger generation this, that and the other and the younger generation says, yeah. The older generation is now. Now, wait a minute.
We are not quite such good authorities, as you may have thought, because you see the amazing vitality with which a change comes to pass and you think, well, maybe it is immature and will overstep itself and is being a little bit unwise in this way and that way, it was ever thus.
Young people were always immoderate. You know, hurray!
Otherwise, they wouldn’t be young.
So, what I think. The death of God, movement in the existing churches, is something like this.
The individual clergy have at last got to be honest.
They can’t go on going through the motions and preaching a religion that they themselves don’t believe in. But they’ve got to make a jump. It’s not enough to say God is dead, and therefore life is nothing more than a trip from the maternity ward to the crematorium. And how in that interim, shall we apply some semblance of Christian principles? That’s what many of them are trying to wrestle with, what we call secularized Christianity or religion-less Christianity. To use the phrase of vote man and a bunch of money. Both man calls it the D mythologized Bible. I have tried to have this out the some of the important figures in this movement and notably the bishop of Woolwich.
And Hamilton and Alltisza [sic[
And there is a chance. Pike to. It isn’t that.
We’re saying, there is nothing at all that transcends. What we call common or garden reality.
As a matter of fact, what we call everyday reality is pretty much a myth.
Psychiatrist believe in it and in that effect have a sort of vested interest in maintaining that everyday life is dull.
That it’s just a matter of like a hospital where you’ve got scrubbed white tiles and bottles that clank and so on. And that’s that’s reality. You see, hard floorsMonday morning, rather depressing. Get on with your work.
That’s supposed to be the real world. Face it.
Well, that’s simply again, that’s a form of the same self-defense against the marvel of the real world.
As you know, the theory [that] it’s nothing but molecules.
It’s all nothing buttery.
Thing is, we don’t know what it is. And we are scared stiff to admit.
We don’t know that we are in the grip of a fantastic miracle and that the biggest miracle in the whole thing is what we call your-self.
That’s the thing you should be scared to death of. You just immediately, because what can it do can frighten itself. It can run up behind itself and shriek ‘boo’, move and jump out of its skin and go through all sorts of things. But fundamentally, what else is that?
It always has to look as if it wasn’t there. All that was out of control or that otherwise would be no fun.
So, what, what would be a very constructive thing to happen is if the death of God. Theology. Would. Ally itself with the ancient tradition of mystical theology which in both India and reasonably early Christianity. Would say every positive idea about God is wrong. See, they in Greek. You have two kinds of theological language. One kind is called cataphatic.
From Cata. Fehmi Fehmi is to speak.
So cata, the particle, means to speak according to, metaphor.
God may be spoken of according to he was like a father, but he is not a father. God is not a cosmic male parent, but we say God the father, because there is a certain analogy between God’s relationship to the world and the father’s relationship to his children. So to speak of God as power, as justice, as kingship, as light, as whatever was catafalque language. Then they said there is apophatic language.
Now Apo is a particle meaning away from. Away from, speaking so apophatic words are eternal.
Which means non-temporal in finite, unlimited, formless modulus, etc., etc. all those negative words are the apathetic language. And so these people held that the apathetic language was the truer language of the two. Even some Thomas Aquinas and nobody reads anymore said in order to speak of God, it is necessary to proceed. By the way of emotion. Because God, by his immensity, exceeds every concept which our mind can form and therefore we speak of God as limitless a tunnel in much the same way that a sculptor reveals an image by knocking stone away.
He doesn’t add anything, he just takes away, and the image is revealed.
So in the same way these mystics of the very ancient Christianity particularly Dionysus
Was actually Shankara. The great writer or nondualist Vedanta interpreter, actually, Shankara and St. Thomas Aquinas are just about contemporaries.
And if they had ever been able to meet, they would have understood each other perfectly. They talk the same language, they reasoned in the same way.
But Shankara went a little further over the precipice.
In. Not feeling the necessity to cling to any fixed conception of the divine. But there you see the point is now is not simply that you are getting rid of an idea.
And doing without as if it were an impoverishment. Getting rid of the idea of God is an enrichment. Because it opens you up to experience the reality instead of the idea.
I call it spiritual window cleaning. You take the image that you’ve painted of the sun off the glass.
And by getting rid of it, the sunlight itself can come into the room.
So by the act of getting rid of all idols, that is to say, intellectual images.
Of God that you cling to and think this makes me feel safe. This makes me able to go on living, etc.. There is nothing.
See. And when there is nothing to cling to.
No way of pinning it all down, pinning the universe down, pinning you down. That I say, well, I really know who I am now. That’s safe. Isn’t any such way.
So that’s that’s why, for example, a person who is neurotic, who is going through a psychotic crisis is actually in a very positive state if the doctors would get around to seeing it that way.
Because there are people who have the jitters because they don’t know who they are.
Anything might happen. How do I know I’m going to be able in the next five minutes to continue the mastery of the English language.
It’s just that I’ve been doing it all these years and I suppose it goes on. But I could very well talk myself into a great worry that I might not be able to do it. Then how would I earn a living? [laughs]
Would you see you never do. No, not really. Oh.
Because you don’t even know how you make a decision. How does your brain enable you to make an act that will, you know.
So the psychotic is the person on the edge suddenly realized how scary it all is.
So what then?
The guru does for a psychotic is saying, instead of you’ve got to be put away.
You’re dangerous, you’re awful, he says. Come on. Come on. Make it. Make it, make it. You’re just just getting warm.
Let go. Stop being frightened of insanity. Chaos plunge into it.
That’s the only way you’ll recover. That’s the act of faith.