{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

[Opening remarks missing]

... you will now understand why I told you last -- in the first place that religion is a power. Powers, as I say, cannot be really stored. They are in process all the time, or they cease to be powers. They are life itself -- like life itself. You cannot put them on ice. And therefore, prayer is an attempt to participate in the higher processes to which we have to look up, because you and I have to sleep, and have to lie dead and -- live mechanical lives, and do purposive things. But we know that all the time there is a more universal story of the world going on, which -- and we can miss the bus.

So we first felt -- found last time that invocation is the only way in which a man can get beyond the narrowing of his self-consciousness by his daily tasks. We said that by invocation -- prayers, that is the first -- the essence of prayer -- you can pray sufficiently by just invoking the name that is -- of the master of our destinies, and -- I probably mentioned this to you, that the original prayers of mankind have all just been long lists of names -- because every one of these names places the person who pronounces them, you see, in the right perspective. If you call God merciful, you deserve -- you need mercy. If you claim Him just, you expect justice. If you claim Him Father, you expect to be His child. So there is no name of any god -- who does not place the invoker. This is completely lost on modern man because modern man has in his thinking machine -- has completely forgotten that thought is very inferior to speech. The real power of the human being is in his -- the words that are spoken to him and that he speaks -- not in what he -- you think. That's just all dawn and dusk. If you consider what you have to say out loud to what you think, the only important things are what you say, or what you hear. And what you think is absolutely minor. Now that's of course against the whole dogma of modern, natural man, who thinks he's a natural beast, with cleverness, insight. I've never seen such an animal. I've always felt that all people wake up to alertness and are forced to think, because somebody speaks to them. Then they go home and ponder for special belief. You resent what your father told you, he scolds you. For 24 hours, you only think of justifications why he shouldn't have said that. And that you call thinking. And on it goes. We all think, gentlemen, after somebody has spoken to us or before we have to speak to somebody. Thinking is nothing but a storage room for speech.

Well, those of you who have taken other courses of me know this already. But in this connection, it becomes very clear, gentlemen, that the first connection of men with real life is speech. And that the first layer of speech is the invocation,

the name-giving. That you can name somebody, "You Fool," that makes you into a wise man, doesn't it? However -- how could you call somebody a fool if you have no judgment in the matter, you see, that you are wise? Or at least not less than a fool of -- than he? But in the same way, if you invoke somebody as "Mr.," you admit that somebody is Mr. In this wonderful chaos of equality in which you live, you have lost sight of the fact that all names place people in their proper place. And you cannot speak to anybody without receiving from him your place. For example, if you say to somebody, "Hello," and slap him on the shoulder, you treat him not only as your equal, but you think you are his equal.

There's a famous story of Gouverneur Morris, our first ambassador to Paris, who was a very rich gentlemen from New York. His father had been, as you may know, governor of New Jersey. His brother was Robert Morris, the great financier, who speculated on real estate in -- Washington, D.C. And Gouverneur Morris was the great enemy of Thomas Paine. You may have heard of -- hear -- of him. And on the other hand, being the enemy of the egalitarian Thomas Paine, he was also quite an overbearing young gentlemen. And so he took out a wager that he would allow himself to slap George Washington on the shoulder. And lo and behold! In 1779, when Washington was standing in front of a fireplace, and all his officers around him, Gouverneur Morris, member of Congress, walked in a slapped George Washington on the shoulder. And he said they could pay him anything, he would never repeat this deed. Because the look from Washington's eyes on -- was so that he --would have liked the earth opened and he would be swallowed up. But there you have the typical American invocation. You have to make sure that everybody else is your equal. That's why you slap him on the shoulder, or you say, "Hi, fellow, well met."

But gentlemen, even then, you place. I mean, the very fact that the other fellow is your equal, you see, is an attempt to find out who you are. This is completely lost on you, I know. But begin, perhaps to think -- 10 years from now, it will dawn on you, gentlemen, -- that your address of another person is important for your own development because it makes to you clear who you are. The other fellow, Mr. -- George Washington couldn't -- hadn't -- didn't have to have concern so much as -- he certainly looked through the insulting, impertinent attitude of Gouverneur Morris. And he knew what kind of a fellow Gouverneur Morris was.

The -- the egalitarian talk of the last 150 years has beclouded the thing, that even to be an equal is a discovery. It is a great thing for you, by being allowed to call everybody by his first name, and to speak of "Ike," to make sure that he isn't any better than you. This is a wonderful reassertion of your own personality, and you find out about yourself by mutuality. Gentlemen, we do nothing -- know nothing about ourselves, except in comparison to others. And the comparison is

done by ourselves. And insofar as you compare yourself to others, every one of your addresses in conversation is a prayer. It's a -- you will say that's nonsense. Yes, this is the secular cell, the secular reflection of prayer, because whenever you speak to your father, or whenever you assume authority over a little brat on the street, whom you try to comfort when he is crying, you all the time establish hierarchies of order. You can't help doing this. That's the essence, gentlemen, of exchanging names between each other. And that is the real power of speech.

I have perhaps -- well, it may help you -- this is not a sideline, because in your modern destruction of all linguistic power, and in your idea that you think -- I have never yet -- have still to find a Dartmouth undergraduate who can think. But you {still} think so, so I can't help it. This is your superstition.

Gentlemen, a full name, like "Father," -- in Hindu, it would have been -- sounded very great, {Petara} -- as you know originally the names were all more full. We say -- we say "Caesar," and they said "Kaisaros" in Greek -- Greece. So the names were the first forms of man's voicing his desire to learn where he stood in the universe. The nightingale does the same. He wants to find out whether her cry is heard -- or his cry. The {girl} nightingale who sings, as you know. Now, gentlemen, names plus intonation are the original layer of speech. And all names with their intonation try to reach another hearing, living being. They try to be heard. This is true of mathematics. If you say 2 and 2 is 4, that -- four apples of which you speak are not meant to be a -- shut-in to your conversation. You say to me, "two apples and two apples are four," but the apples don't listen. So you see already -- if you see these steps of speech, that the language of religion, which is invoking -- people's hearing, that this language is only concerned with the relation of speaker and listener; and your whole problem is, gentlemen, that you think that the relation of the spirit, or the relation of what you kindly call your mind, another superstition of the age, is a thinker and his object. That is your only relation, gentlemen, to the mental life. That's why it has shrunk to nothingness. Your relation is from a thinker to his object. You think I am the object of your thought when you go out and say whether I was stimulating or not. You have only met me if I was able to speak to you so that you had to listen to what I said. But if you called over -- back, and say, "This is stimulating," you have already made me into an object of your observation, what I am.

I had a friend for 30 years, who was a leading educator -- or is a leading educator in Germany, at least he calls himself this way -- and just to bear out my contention of name versus thought; he invited me -- we had stolen horses together and had done many youthful things in adult education, in workers' education, in military education 30 years ago, 35 years ago. He was an officer in the army in the First World War, as I was. Later we worked together, in workers' education. This man had the effrontery, sharing your prejudices, of the mind. He

invited me when I came to Europe to step into a course of his lectures on adult education, where he prepared future teachers of adult education -- 150 of them. I took over for four occasions, and he had time then to do something else, and so he was quite grateful to me. And I took them through the paces and showed them what now in this terrible state of Europe adult education might mean. And I thought I was working hand in glove with him. And I made four points very clearly, four steps, that had to fill the gap, which for all your generation exist, because you have no authorities of the last two generations. The people -- you have no people to whom you look up -- can look up, as to Lincoln. The first authority you have is Lincoln. That's a little -- long ago. And there is a tremendous gap of 90 years. And that's why you are so fatherless, and so without any guidance, because you are not impressed by Woodrow Wilson. You are not really impressed by FDR. The Republicans have seen to this. And now you have no authority. Your fathers don't impress you as having done right -- I mean, in general. You may have some individual good fortune that you are impressed by your father, individually, but the generations before you, since the industrial robber barons obviously are not very much of a lesson -- object lesson to you in virtue and in guidance. I think Mr. Harding isn't, and so on. Not even Grover Cleveland is today. Just small fry. So that's your way of trouble, gentlemen. You have no leaders in the spiritual sense, who did right in 1900 or did right in 1915 and so on.

Now, I explain this. That's not the story. The main story is that when I had done this, and had thought I had moved these people to listen to me and to walk with me and to come along, the next week, my friend came back and he stepped in. I said to him, "Now, here they -- I deliver you the -- these boys" -- and the girls, by the way, too -- "they are ready to go, they are raring to go. And what are you going to do?"

And he said, "I'm going to analyze you as an intellectual type."

And I've never forgiven him this, and I have broken my friendship with him. I said, "You are -- going to treat me as a corpse. And I have tried to live with you. And there is no bridge. There's absolutely no bridge.

He -- and he said, "But only big shots are analyzed by me, in this way."

I said, "I don't care. Then I am a dead big shot for you. And I wanted to be -- a living brother."

This is done all the time on any American campus, in the same manner. And it is awful and it destroys everything. And it is not done in the East, and it is not done in any living community, gentlemen. The other fellow cannot, after he has

spoken, be analyzed for what he is. You have either to follow him or you have to -- fight him. That's all you can do. I'm still alive.

There you see the difference between your approach and your use of the mind, gentlemen, and my approach of the mind, which is the religious approach. It's a power. I had to speak to these people, my brothers, "Come along." And the man sits down and says, "This is the man who calls his people -- the people his brothers." So he excluded me, or himself, or whatever you will, from the living community, which is your approach also to the comparative religion. That's why you said, "This is not -- no course in comparative religion," because you don't get what the Mexicans think. No, I can't give it to you, because you have no right to know what the Mexican thinks before I haven't frightened you to find out what you really think. It's impossible. I can't tell you about anybody else's life since you are dead. This is death. This man murdered me. As I say -- he thinks he's an educator. I said, "You are not an educator, you are a butcher."

That's how we have butchered the red Indians, having no access to their religion and their faith, being unable to integrate their mores. This is exactly what the Anglo-Saxon cannot do. He cannot speak to anybody as a brother. He -- the other has to behave. He is told what to do. Here. This is very central, gentlemen. Prayer means invocation, the willingness to learn from the other fellow who you are. Now you'll say, this is not -- and the other forms of language, gentlemen, are the gradual giving-up of the full intonation by which we turn hopefully to the other listening, and corresponding, and answering spirit. If you see mathematics, compared to names, gentlemen, this is absolute tonelessness. "Two and 2 is 4" hasn't to be pronounced. As you know, these mathematicians, these semanticists, these logical positivists, and so, they even boast of having eliminated all human speech and just having signs. They call themselves semanticists. They think language is not physical -- is not breath of life, but is just signs, { } -- up here. Now, language as we -- you know it, gentlemen, is the -- geological process of layers of gradual diminishment of tone. Mathematics is the most toneless speech. Naming is the full intonation. Grammatical forms, like the ship's anchor, where you have the genitive: "the ship's," the Anglo-Saxon -- Saxon genitive -- that's the grammatical form which is no longer in invocating the name, you see, but in speaking of it. So you have in Hindu, for example, in Sanskrit, in old Germanic language, and Latin and Greek the full flowering of grammatical forms. It's already less of intonation as a name, but still very rich. Then you get syntax. You get the Homeric speech, or the -- Beowulf, or the Chaucer where you have long sentences. Then you get the logical discussion, the argument. Each time a loss of tone, and an increase on -- of -- or an increase of estrangement from the people spoken to. That's why in church we still return to the old, full naming process in the responsory of the Psalms, where we together invoke the Lord. And that's still -- or again a return, an attempt to keep the full power of the first layer of speech,

of the invocation. That's why the Psalms are the backbone of the Protestant service. If there weren't the Psalms, it would be pagan service; if the faithful were not allowed in some form to invoke. If the minister would do everything and just be magic, black magic.

So if you see this, I add this to your -- to your -- facilitate the whole task, religion is the first layer of speech in its full power of intonation. Mathematics is the least powerful speech, because it does no longer intone at all. In complete correspondence of parallelism, gentlemen, to this loss of tone is the loss of address. Mathematics is not addressing anybody, and naming is. Naming is concentrating on the addressee. And mathematics is concentrating on objects. Now there is, of course -- these are extreme cases. But you will understand that to explain or to criticize religion by mathematics is rather ridiculous. You cannot -- you cannot -- you want to have a similar process, what would it be? Well, it's rather -- well, it would be like the man who uses the telephone, criticizing Mr. Bell for his invention. The man who invents the telephone -- allows you to telephone, you see, obviously cannot depend on your understanding of the telephone. He imparts his understanding to you, but you haven't imparted your understanding of the telephone to him. This may show you how dependent the mathematician is on the name-giving process, and how little the religious man depends on the mathematician, you see. He doesn't owe him any gratitude. But the mathematician owes him a lot of gratitude, because he owes it only to the name-giving process that mathematicians aren't murdered for producing hydrogen bombs. I think other civilizations would have executed Mr. Einstein, and Mr. Fermi, and all the rest, for witchcraft. We have decided not to do that. But it is a decision of the community, gentlemen, because we say they are honorable men. And we say they are free men. And we say that every man in this country is free to do as he pleases. Therefore we can't execute them. So the freedom of science, gentlemen, is the gift of the people who pray, but the freedom of the people who pray is never the gift of the scientist. This you have forgotten. Our scientists live by your and my -- good graces as laymen. We don't live by the good graces of the lay -- of the physicists. We live against their will, because they have produced the means of destroying us. This you cannot see. You have forgotten that physicists are specialists. And the man of prayer is the universal man.

Because gentlemen, remember -- now I come back to this trend of the last lecture. The last lecture I tried to show you that the power of religion is the -- in comprehension that the whole world at this moment is one world in movement of which the catastrophes, the changes, the transformations, you see, have to enter our will, or we are not only left behind -- we stop them from happening. You remember all our examples last time? Can you come back to this {fact}? We said the highest sphere of the -- religious process is our turning towards the universal history of the human race, the universal history of the globe is one

history. The catastrophes of mankind of the World War I and II are to be considered as one -- that's the first step to enter upon the full life. Can you remember? Now, because this is the universal life, gentlemen, of mankind, and not a specialist life, the first attitude and the primary attitude of religion always transcends any specialist, any peasant, any doctor, any jurist, any statesman. They have only government, or the United States or something. But your prayer is responsible for the Russians as much as for the Americans. For the meaning of World War II, for any nation, Indochina or Arabs, whereas if you vote, you only vote for the government of the United States, which at this moment is of not very great importance. No national government is of any importance after such a cataclysm, you see. It's very small fry. And you just look at the people in Washington, very small. And they are all over the world small. The world wars have suddenly dwarfed the stature of the statesmen of the world, gentlemen, because they are caught within such a tremendous global confusion, that what they can do -- exchange telegrams and send ties to each another. Very little. You feel that they are just as much cogs on the wheel as you and I are. I, at least, feel this. They are not important anymore. The Swiss watchmakers are much more important than Mr. Eisenhower in the White House, because production, economics, famine, unrest -- all these things, you see, they are all across the borders. No statesman can run after these influences and stop them. Even if he closed down Ellis Island, I mean. We haven't yet stopped the infiltration with the spirit of other -- from other countries. You can't stop it. It's impossible. The radio is there with all these short waves. We have the "Voice of America" even -- you see, even interfering with the Russians. They can't do as -- what they want. They can't. Nobody can. Which is perhaps very fortunate. But certainly, gentlemen, universal is the character of all religions.

Universal. Names are universal, gentlemen, and names are -- from the first day on been the universal language of mankind. You will say, "But there are only national languages." You don't know of any universal language. Some sentimentalists will say music is the universal language of mankind. This is not true, gentlemen. Invocation is universal, because all names are universal and belong to the international language of mankind. The word "Moses" is an Egyptian name. It is the name of the leader of the Jewish people, and it is the name in the Christian church and in the Mohammedan church and everywhere in the world. Moses is a worldwide name. Yet the root is Egyptian, the leadership is Jewish -- or Israelitic -- and the gist of the matter is that Moses, and Caesar, and Homer, and Lao-Tse and Confucius are worldwide names. Every name, gentlemen, a man uses in earnest, is meant to be valid for the whole human race. Names do not belong to Latin or German or English, or anything. And this again, you find in no textbook, gentlemen. What is -- are these textbooks on religion and on philosophy, on linguistics? Not even the facts do they respect, because they have such hatreds of -- haters of religion.

All names form the universal language of mankind. The word "Caesar," as you know, has become the word "Czar" in Russia, the word "Kaiser" in German. It just means that one man's name in Rome has created an office all over the world. Charlemagne, the word "Carolus," today in Hungarian, in Magyar Kira-- means -- Kiraly means "king." So imposing is the unity of the human race, gentlemen, that names are since time -- from Adam's times on -- have always had the ambition to impress the enemy, so that he must speak in awe, you see, of Hitler, or of Bismarck, or of Lincoln.

In the steppes of Russia, of Siberia, when Lincoln was murdered, there was a legend about this great man in America. The only connecting link between the Siberiacs and America is the name, Lincoln. Have you ever thought what this meant, that there is in every literature a quote from other -- people's names? Imagine what it means, that Shakespeare wrote a tragedy called Julius Caesar. It's to you all just nothing. It's just accidental, learnedness, or he wrote it because he was a student at Oxford. Yes, gentlemen! He wasn't a stu- -- because these Oxford peoples played such a tragedy with the Latin and Greek. Gentlemen, why do we have a liberal arts college? Because you cannot be a student in America if you are not in contact with the universal names -- history of the names of the human race. And since you are not in contact, and you only know the football coaches in New York for the last 20 years and do not know the name of the -- from the Old Testament any more, you are out of luck. You have lost your religion. You don't play -- pay any more attention to the universal names of the human race. As you know, actually there is a proviso in the -- under the school board in New York State that you cannot be appointed a teacher in New York City if you do not know the football coaches and the football winners of the last 20 years there. That's to -- the degradation of the human race to which we have slunk, in the era of mathematics, physics and chemistry. It's very understandable. Just the local boys, you see, are now invoked. The local boys, whom you couldn't forget quick enough. DiMaggio. Why not Formaggio?

Formaggio means cheese.

Gentlemen, you have never known that God had provided a universal language of the human race long before Esperanto and Volapk and all these nice modern international languages. But that's the language of power, the name of Christ, and the name of Moses, and Abraham. And this Esperanto is a commercial language for selling coffee, from the Brazilians to New York. And coffee is a substitute for spirit. It excites you, yes, but without any heat and any warmth. Very typical. These modern languages just show you the complete idiocy of these people. The only language that's already there are the great names. And they make a language from here, from the lower end, from shorthand, so to speak, of speech. Out of mathematics, they want to create a language. Mathemat-

ics is the attempt to get out of language, because you no longer speak to the apples or the chairs or the statistics, you see. You speak of them. And the {melons}.

Statistics. They are not addressed to anybody. As you know, the whole swindle of statistics. The only man who can under-- that's a good point, by the way, take it down, gentlemen -- the only man who really understands statistics is the man who has written them, who has made them. Only he knows what he excluded, and what he presupposed If you live -- read mathematics -- statistics, you are always taken in. Because math-- statistics only mean fully what they should mean to the man who made the conditions of the statistics, who made the simplification. You all are, however, today betrayed by statistics, as you well know. Everybody's taken in by statistics. It's the modern swindle. Modern black magic. The statistics. Read it -- all these advertisings of Look and Time and magazines, how they fool you with their $86 million and 95 million readers. And there's not a word of truth. Statistics. Because -- why is this true, gentlemen?

The figures have no carrier, and no speaker and no addressee, whereas names place you and the person to whom you speak in correlation. You can't say to somebody, "Father," if you don't admit that a father has a son. Now you say a lot when you say "Father," gentlemen. If you say "Lord," you are never without His commands. If you say "Father," you say, "I must take his place." That is, gentlemen, anybody who says "Father" is aware of the terrible fact that one day he has to take his father's place. Jesus was the first man who could call God "Father" because He took His place. At a moment in Golgotha there was not the father, but the son acting on the cross. And therefore, the son took over. That's what we mean by Christianity: the full responsibility of the son, which before was left to the gods, to the fathers in heaven. Zeus, you see, had no son in this sense. That is, somebody who takes, you see, steps in and by his sacrifice bridges the gulf between the government of the father, you see, in the first act and now in the second act.

Have you ever thought that the whole sonhood of God -- Jesus rests on this simple gap between the night when He prays, "If it can be, let this cup pass, if it -- however Thy will be done." And this negative, not being helped, not being preserved, he wins out. And so he can say gloriously, "My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" without upsetting the apple cart. In this one sentence, "Why hast Thou forsaken me?" the son takes over. And the act of the son, His act of faith in the believers, in the apostles, allows them to step in and follow Him, after -- after He has accepted the full bleakness of being left alone, hanging on the cross. There is no mitigation, gentlemen. God lets -- let Jesus die. And his brethren pulled Him out. The Church is the living divinity of man. The people who come to the rescue of a -- the first-born and say, "No. God's spirit was so fully on Him

and in Him that we recognize God in Him from now on, and we shall no longer," so to speak, "abandon His call. We'll follow Him. He is the king. He is the leader." It is all so simple that nobody in the church -- everybody tries to mention or to explain to you what has really happened there, gentlemen. The invocation of Jesus, of the Father, implied that you and I are the mature sons and no longer the children of this father. You see, you can be a child, and you can be a son. That's a great difference. You all only want to be children. That's not enough, gentlemen. But the son becomes the heir one day, and when the old man is not there, he takes over.

And that is the incredible inter-- meaning, gentlemen, since then the -- what the meaning of an invocation has become clear, gentlemen. All human names empower you to become one day the invoked. If you say, "Father," you also say that although you are a son now, you may one day to be -- have -- have to be a father. If a man speaks to his sweetheart, gentlemen, he discovers in himself his own feminine qualities. At the end, if there is no wife, if she dies, he will have to place his children in a position that they have a mother just the same, through him. His soul is so enlarged by the invocation that she and her virtues or the powers -- for the powers of her heart become known to you. Don't they? Anybody -- you know that if you long enough live with a person, and this person is absent, you represent this other person to strangers. You take not only his side, but you know that what the other person who is now absent represented -- deserves to be represented. It's a good thing. Any -- ask your parents, gentlemen. It's the general experience of married people, that they may be very critical of each other to their faces. But if the -- if they are at all married and loyal to each other, when the husband or the wife is absent those -- the partner that is present will always speak much more in the sense of the absent than in his own opinion. That is, if -- when my wife is in the same room, I may have my individual opinion, you see, and debate hers. When she is absent, I am very much concerned of representing her view right in the company.

That's a very deep secret, gentlemen, which any -- you must experience at least with friends. Which shows, gentlemen, by invocation, we unite. It's a first step of mutually inheriting the earth. It's a very strange process, gentlemen. Names are the way of incorporation. Will you take this down? Names are the way of incorporating ourselves into each other. The name which I give you reflects or jumps back, recoils on me, and in this very moment, we create a bridge. If I say, "Father, I at this moment admit that I am the son, but I become desirous of discovering the content of what it is to be a father." And it opens up to me. This is all understood, gentlemen. If you say to President Dickey, "President -- Mr. President," when you meet him, you begin to understand his function as president of Dartmouth College. That is the first step. If you only call him "Dickey," you say "I'm -- " I don't know, what is his -- the way you talk of him?

[unintelligible]

{John Sloane}. This is always a way of passing off your responsibility for his office. You, so to speak, say that's not the time for me to get serious and to learn something about the functioning of president of college, you see, so you say, "John Sloane." Is it that, what you said? But if you say, "President Dickey," you suddenly let him rise in front of you as having a terrible job, which he has. I don't envy him. The most boring job to comfort all these 3,000 students and 50,000 alumni. Whoo!

But gentlemen, just the same, let us stand in admiration before the process of invocation.

Now comes the second step. The order of the liturgy, the order in which -- or the consequence of any invocation is recognition of the other power, of the invoked power. That he has a realm to which we have -- be -- to be admitted by recognizing his power. If you say, "Thy will be done," you suddenly recognize that you are inside the situation of world catastrophe, of World War III, of hydrogen bombs, or whatever it is.

And so there's a second step, gentlemen, of which I can give you no better example as a sentence, my -- Mrs. Huessy read today to me. It's by a great Catholic of Spain, St. John of the Cross, one of the great religious thinkers of all ages. And he says there just one sentence. "La gloria {opprima}, a {quella} le {mira} quando nole glorifica": "The glory of God oppresses him who only stares at her without glorifying it -- her." The glory of God -- that is, the incredible power or universality of the creative process inside which we try to find our place is oppressive unless we give glory to Him. This explains you the second character of all divine service, of all religious behavior. To the invocation there is always added the praise. It is very hard for you to understand why we must praise the Lord. I wish I could say it -- make you see it as simply as St. John of the Cross here says it. If you see that you -- mountains, and earthquakes, and fires, and wars are upon you and me, and that's very miraculous that at this moment the Russians aren't marching in here, or we have a government in Washington, there's no riot, and the Puerto Ricans don't stab your sister at this moment in New York in an elevator, as they did to a friend of mine. If you are wondrous of a certain kind of cut-out island of peace within this incredible process of destruction, which we call the world -- nature is destructive, nothing but destructive -- if you wake up to the real facts of life and not to the nice pleasure-pond which you call Dartmouth -- the campus of Dartmouth college which is so unreal, because it looks as though excesses and drunkenness and vice were the exceptions, all covered up. If you look into the reality of your black souls, and your dirt and your obscenity, then you suddenly wonder that you participate in a -- certain

amount of freedom, and the glory is then something -- you have a choice. You either deny it: you say, "I do my purpose. I make a pile of a million dollars. I shall fulfill my life by making my career." And then you have dismissed the reality of the full life and you are in mathematics and in statistics and in the stock exchange and you have ceased to be anything but a specialist of your own purpose. You are no longer contained in the universe. Most people want to live that way. But the other choice is to voice constantly inside yourself your participation in the great process by praising it. Praise, gentlemen, is not a luxury. It is not an addition, but it is the first utterance of a human soul.

All peoples, gentlemen, believe it or not, before they any -- had any {codes of ethics}, before they had any law, before they had anything else, before they had folk songs, they did praise the Lord. Praising the Lord antecedes all your nice gossip and all your nice talk. And in fact, historically, if you come to my course in 58, I can show you there how the first people managed to have language reserved for prayer, how children and women wouldn't even learn to speak. They didn't need it. The only occasion to speak was when the people tried to find their place in the world, their peaceful place in the world by invocation. Language has been only created for the purpose of invocation. And all these languages, gentlemen, are -- simply later, so to speak, I wouldn't call them degenerations or decays, but cooling-off processes, as in geology, I mean. What you see of language today, or what you think of your own mind today is the cooling-off after thousands of years of heated speech. And of course we must have the same heated speech too if we still want to belong to the whole life of humanity. And you haven't. You have only this cooled-off speech. And that you think is what you call "detached," you see. So you are rootless; you are really detached. Completely detached, like a leaf from a tree, but I did -- don't think that was a recommendation. To be detached means to be worthless.

I have never understood why in this country the people who say, "Let's be detached" have not realized that by being detached, they become worthless. Only an attached individual is worth anything to the community. A detached individual isn't worth anything. He's worth some -- something for certain purposes, as a specialist. I need a specialist who doesn't -- who is able to climb up 106 stories of the Empire State Building without getting dizzy. So I'm very glad if he's detached enough not to get frightened there, you see. Just -- for this special purpose, of building up a high wall, it's very important that a man shouldn't get dizzy. If you call this detached.

So, gentlemen, the second step of all prayer is praising. Now, whom you praise -- you can praise the gods, you can praise the spirits, you can praise anybody. But you have to praise the power that -- otherwise it becomes oppressive. You will find people -- that people either praise the Lord or they poke fun at

Him. They are cynical about Him. There is nothing between atheism and active service, gentlemen. Except lukewarm, I mean, indifference, sure. But I prefer always the cynic who says, "There is no God," and "Let's defy him," and "To hell with all revelation and all religion," because he has still the knowledge that it is oppressive to be under such power. So he has to deny it if he doesn't affirm it. There's nothing third possible, gentlemen. The sentence of John the Cross has a tremendous consequence. "The glory oppresses him who stares at it, if he does not glorify it." In English, the word "glory" is very -- powerlessness. As you know, it is the splendor, the splendor, the shekhinah in Hebrew, the doxa in Greek. The whole aura, or the whole splendor around the manifestation of the divine government, of the unity of the world. And the man who says, I'm just a grain of sand within this vast universe" tries to say something of this type in a rather diluted form. That this -- he would say the big thing is the glory. Now obviously, it isn't the bigness of God, gentlemen, that forces us to glorify Him. That isn't His glory. That is the natural scientist's ridiculous distortion of the divine, that He's so big -- big because he has such a big world. I don't think that you and I can worship God because there are so many fixed stars or so many nebulae. I'm not impressed, to tell you the truth, by the firmament. Except that I -- no -- I will never understand it. So there is -- something mysterious, certainly. But the bigness, and that they tell me that it is 5 million years away or 500 million years away leaves me absolutely cold, because to me it makes absolutely no difference whether that's 100 thousand years away or 5 million light-years away or 500 million light-years away -- I don't care, to tell you the truth. I'm not -- is anybody impressed by these quantities? I always wonder. They always have a religious awe or -- these physicists over their own distances.

No, gentlemen, that there are -- is one student in -- out of a hundred who understands me, that fills me with great glory. That is very astonishing. It cannot be expected. That's very small, gentlemen. The small, still voice is the one that is so incredible. Think, that it took only perhaps 20 people to end the shooting in 1945 in which perhaps 25 million people were concerned. It's incredible. That one little -- that the human race has so much of order and so much of mutual understanding that 20 people could, so to speak, provide, you see, for an end of the hostilities. If you think about it, this is most astonishing. And after other wars, it hasn't been this way, gentlemen. And there were -- are whole army corps who would go on fighting. They wouldn't just heed, you see, the lesson. They would just -- like the werewolves. You may remember in 1945, it was said that the Germans might fight on in little bands. Gentlemen, that's much more normal that they should than that they shouldn't. But you are so spoiled by bigness, that you don't wonder. That one man can send a telegram and all the others, you see, listen to this very low-voiced telegram. It just won't do it.

This is just an example, gentlemen, where the glory of God really can be

found. It can only be found in the incredible smallness of the power that is needed to change the whole structure of the human society. It is very little that is needed. For example, how you can -- you -- how can you diminish a dictator, gentlemen? If there's one man who suddenly in his entourage thinks that he is funny. He has deposed the dictator. He has deposed the dictator, you see. That is, no dictator can stand anyone who doesn't take him seriously. And -- so there is a famous drama, you see, in which one little child just laughs at the emperor, you see. And the whole empire is in { }, because -- that's the condition, you see, of his power, that everybody is overawed. And as soon as one isn't -- hmph! -- nothing -- every -- the whole thing totters.

You will be surprised, gentlemen, but God is always in the baby; He is always small. God is not in the wits of the world, but in the -- your discovery that these great things, gentlemen, actually are changed by you. That it makes all the difference whether you are overawed. The Mennonite, who said the emperor of Austria and Hungary and the Holy Roman Empire is a very mighty man, but we are not impressed. We go to America and to the wilderness. At this moment, they are in Paraguay, people who left Europe in 1918. These are the people who change the world. The Puritans did the same when they came here, you see. That's why you have to remember these 50 surviving Puritans on the Mayflower, much more than all the indentured slaves and all the harlots that came to this country, you see. Because these 50 men believed that their changed -- into this country -- would change the constitution of Europe. And it did. It's so funny, you see. It did. They were utterly powerlessness -- powerless. Completely powerless.

So the glory of God, by glorification, gentlemen, gains. And by not being glorified, it is -- it is directly attacked. The funny thing is, gentlemen, that if we are silent about the gods, we depose them. This is very mysterious. And all religions are convinced that we have to speak up in order to live the good life. This is hard to explain, gentlemen. But you can perhaps explain it by what you do when you are in love. You must declare your love. And perhaps you take down this sentence, gentlemen. The declaration of one's faith is part of the faith itself, as a declaration of love is part of love itself, as the declaration of war is part of war itself. Great is what forces us to speak of it. That is great. And this again is lost. You think that here is the universe, that's running its course, and you have your thoughts about it. Gentlemen, the thoughts which you are thinking about the universe are the fruits of the universe. The universe forces you to think of it. So it's the universe that is so powerful that even the dead corpse, which you constitute, is made to think of it, is become aware of it. Wants to live into it, by your thought. So it isn't: here that there is a universe, and you think about it. You are in this universe, sir, aren't you? And inside this universe, it is so much alive that every one of us wants to participate by having his say about the universe. So it is like innumerable little points of electric lightning rods on a build-

ing. You are -- we all are those lightning rods on which the electric current can land. And we are forced to wake up to the fact that we are inside this universe -- this wonderful universe. And the universe is only the universe as soon as you wake up to it, and speak up. Then it is fully {its own}.

So gentlemen, God's -- reaches his own totality of power by either forcing you to testify to His existence, or to deny it. By denying Him, you do not deny Him totally, but you deny the full sphere, all the spheres. You cannot deny while you are denying Him that you deny -- that is, that you speak. But you say, "I speak," and that's in the third sphere, as we have seen. And you remain in the active sphere of purpose. And you limit the reality of which you speak to your purpose and to what we have called these three lower spheres of reality. The denier of God denies one-half of the world and emphasizes the other -- however you call it, three-fifths of the world. This is the reason, gentlemen, why invocation and the second thing, praise, is part of any religion all over the globe.

But now we already approach the decisive historic point of comparison. You can see now the content of the invocation, and the content of the praise may vary. Therefore you get the comparison that all the different religions may concentrate on a different chant, on a different psalm, and on a different invocation. You can name the gods differently. You can speak of one god or of many. That's obviously, you see, a variety which may happen. And you also can praise God for certain qualities for which you and I would not praise God, but other people have. You can praise God for a variety of reasons. And you can curse Him, or deny Him praise for reasons He should be praisable over.

The third thing, then, gentlemen, in any liturgy, is your contribution to the divine will. What can we do so that this vitality of the universe, which breaks open into us when we become aware of it, when our own consciousness testifies to its life, to its vitality, because it works -- worms itself into ourselves. What can we do? When we deny Him, when we don't give glory, we will be bent on our own will, on our own {self}, because nothing else is left. You can only do your purpose, or the divine purpose. You cannot live without any purpose. Somebody's purpose has to be done. An American businessman, I mean, most people do their women's bidding. But they have to do somebody's bidding.

The third thing, then, gentlemen, is always your -- the offertory. What do we offer? All religions offer something to God. Now, since He is at the moment in which we are afraid of losing our participation in the whole creation -- since He is not there, since in a moment of prayer, we feel that we are not at this moment in His plans, but we want to discover them, since we are only wrapped into our own bowel movements, or our own breathing, or our own disease, our own illness, or our own fear, or our own hunger, we cannot fulfill the whole purpose

of the universe at this moment. We are self-centered at this moment, we know -- we're missing something. So the offertory, gentlemen, tries to bridge the -- gap between my will and the divine will. You all know of conscience money. We know very well we should do something, but we don't want to do it, so we send $50 to the charity in New York. That is the offertory by which we bridge the gap between our will and God's will. Conscience money is the greatest sin, of course, of a rich country. Most people in this country will do anything to pay conscience money. That is so general. I mean, you can always trap yourself when you -- I think people will do the most unpleasant things, I mean, make real financial sacrifices. Conscience money is not just money. They will be nice to their motherin-law because they hate her. Conscience money. The one thing that would heal the breach would be if they could love their mother-in-law. This they cannot do, so they'll do all kinds of things. They'll sew doilies for her and so on. But it isn't love, you see. It's an offertory. It's a bridge between my will and the divine will. When they -- both cannot really be reconciled.

So most religions, gentlemen, fool the faithful and fool the gods by allowing offertories of all kinds. You know that they slaughtered hecatombs -- and a hundred bulls had to pay the price for the distinction between the divine will and my will. And sheep, and lambs, and all the fruits of the field. The first sacrifice, as you know, has been the huntsman's sacrifice. He takes the life of a lion or boar, and he's terrified, because he takes life. And so he offers the spirit the loins, and the bones, and the skin and all the things he cannot eat as a sacrifice.

Now this was said quite wrongly of mine. Just to wake you up, gentlemen. As you know, the first hunters gave to the spirit of the deer, the best. They did not eat that which they would have liked to eat most: the fat, and the things that at that time were unique and nourishing. So people are much better than I make them out, gentlemen. It isn't true that they left to the gods just the crumbs. The other way around. Man was so frightened by not fulfilling the will of God to keep life live -- and to keep it going -- that they really placated the gods with an offering of the very best pieces of the meat. I think that's very important. The oldest, most primitive tribes, gentlemen, placate the will of God and their own indomitable will to eat. And that's the first gap. And we enter here the first chapter of a comparison of religion, gentlemen, where the merely -- fact of the second phase, of organic existence, of the organic life in you and me, asks for a reconciliation between the will of the creator who has created this deer, you see, and these wild animals, and my necessity of eating. And you find that the hunters already have a complete religious service: invocation, praise and offertory. And that is the -- are the three -- I don't know if this is a complete -- but these three elements you will find in any divine service, in any religious power process. And I told you last time that prayer is religion and religion is prayer, and prayer is -- unfolds in these three processes of invocation, praise and offertory.

Now the animistic religion says that everything is alive and you yourself cannot live without stepping on somebody else's toes. If you break a flower, if you break a branch of his -- of a cherry tree and eat the cherries, life is taken, you see, and so you feel that you must give back to life something as an offertory. For you it is hard. I -- perhaps I told you the story that in a community near my home, my parents' home as they lived the last -- the end of their lives, last 10 years -- there was a firm routine that no fruit tree -- it was full of fruit trees -- it's in the plain of the Rhine, upper Rhine, very fruitful country -- that in this it's like the -- Okanagan Valley in British Columbia, just fruits -- or Imperial Valley, I should say. The ...

[tape interruption]

And since life is always in the minority against corpses and death, something has to be done to reconcile my desire to eat and the gods' desire to have life. This country, as you know, can only live by an offertory to God by -- forestation, by conservation. Otherwise we do not deserve to live. And we live over our means -- beyond our means at this moment. We eat more, we destroy more than we -- especially by our newspapers, by our pulpwood -- than we plant. As you know, we still have a minus in pulp production, because Canada has to furnish us with all this nonsense for our Boston Heralds. What a blessing it would be if we would offer The Boston Herald as an offertory to the gods.

I'm trying to -- to abbreviate my -- the march by taking you directly into the most primitive phase of religion. It contains all the elements of all religions, gentlemen. It's a power process by which man tries, in his small sphere, not to destroy the workings of the total sphere. Hunters are a very good example. Here is this man in his small neighborhood of his little forest. And he has to eat. But he knows that he interferes with the creation of life, the creation of the forest as a whole. So he's perfectly willing to do something that there might be deer next year. Well, our hunters, as you know, are only allowed to hunt for this reason 10 days in Vermont and four weeks in New Hampshire, you see, and except for their shooting some college professors, nothing happens. { } deer still { } here. That is, we have reconciled, by a certain legislation, the existence of deer and the existence of hunters. But the condition is that for the rest of the 11 months, they can eat something else. That's not -- no longer therefore a religious question, hunting, because these people can evade the issue. They don't have to eat deer. And therefore, you see, in serious life, the religion only comes in as a necessity. When you have to live 12 months a year on deer, then you can't help having a ritual about it. You and I, who eat turkey on Thanksgiving, have no longer anything to do with the real religion of hunters, you see, because you and I do not eat with necessity deer. You see the difference?

So, gentlemen, religion can never be based on pastimes like hunting, whether you bless the hunter at a religious ceremony as they did in -- here, when the season opened, there were 2,000 -- 1500 men receiving the blessing on the Catholic Church. It didn't help them. They didn't shoot anything. But still, it is -- that's just fancy. I mean, that's a luxury. It's very nice, but it hasn't the full institutional value of a real religion, gentlemen, you see. The Catholic Church, being universal, says, "All right, these old hunters' rites are very dear to me, no harm done. I don't think the blessing does any harm." But I don't like you to think that this is the origin of religion, you see. The origin of religion is a dilemma. That my purpose {is God's will}, but it is not able to fully telescope or to fully embrace the whole will of God. Can you see this? I -- I am allowed to live. I have been created. I'm hungry, you see. So I do take life, as the people on the lifeboat, when they finally begin to eat the weakest fellow in the company, you see, because they are exposed for 25 days on the ocean then somebody has -- you see, they want to survive. You cannot condemn these people. There is no animal to whom -- to which they can return -- turn, you see. Should they all die? You have heard these gruesome stories, I mean, of such people. You must understand that -- that this is serious, that man is in this terrible dilemma. And the -- the best you can only pray that you'll never be exposed to such a question. You see, we can only hope that we -- and you and I will never have decide -- to decide such a thing. Isn't that all we can hope for? So don't judge them. I don't think we can put ourselves into their shoes.

So gentlemen, in animism, life is to be taken and to be {respected}. The animists think that the woods are alive, and the trees are alive. You don't think -- you just think they are paper -- pulp, as you call them. Chips or -- or whatnot. But of course, an oak -- not only the live oak -- but all oak are alive to the first man. He doesn't think that he has more life really than the tree. And he has -- doesn't think that the animals have less life than he. And therefore, gentlemen, the problems of the first religion of the human race, of the primitive men in this country, of the red Indian, was one that was more or less limited to the stages of the organic life -- three, four, five -- and the great riddle, whereas the outer world he could not penetrate. The animistic religion, gentlemen, is not interested in the movements in the sky. The red Indians have no words for the constellation beyond the sun and the moon. No, they have no -- you see. And it's very late that they -- they learned it from the Spaniards. All primitive people all over the globe have no relation to astronomy. They don't look up to the stars. But they do talk to the water and the flowers and the trees and the animals. That is called animism, gentlemen, in which life, which has to be taken, competes with the deep faith of these same people that this life is the universal life. So the fifth stage, gentlemen, of life -- of reality, this what I call the catastrophical, the Saturnian -- comes to the animistic people also in the forms of life around them. Everything is alive. Not in the form of wars. These first, primitive people, you see, were

not really very much concerned with war. They could evade each other, which they also did. They're quite -- but the terrible thing is the huntsman in the woods -- he has to take life, and yet he's aware that wherever he is, everything is as much alive as he. So gentlemen, the problem of the animist is the gradation of life: what is more alive and what is less alive. Under what conditions can I take life?

In the animistic religion, gentlemen, the conflict is between life and life. In your religion, as you know, you are talked into believing that dead things are more important than living things. That's unknown to the animist. He has therefore very little to do with their -- your religion, your religious problems. Your car is much more a religious problem to you than it would -- with him the lion is a religious problem. It is no religious problem for you. You have a lion in a zoo. That's not a religious problem anymore. That's a plaything. So gentlemen, that's why we revive today the prehistorical people, because we can learn something from them. We can get out of our mechanical age by suddenly discovering their relation to the living universe. And that's why the future -- next 500 years, we'll all take up Indian customs and primitive man's ways in order to get out of your and my superstition that the problem of God's will and your will is your using oil and God having created the oil. That's a very different story from the question, God creating the redwood, or the lion -- and God creating you. Can you see the difference? One is -- redwood you can feel -- is yourself in a different form. But of metals and oil you can only say that they were made for us. There is no pity to be felt about their, you see, being used up.

To give you the application of the invocation, of the offertory and the praise in the animistic universe, you can only think -- have only to think that all the primitive men had to praise the animals for being their divine spirits. I -- if you went to the Disney film, "The Lost Prairie," have you seen it? "Vanishing Prairie." There was a very strange sentence which taught you more about the animistic religion than anything I could tell you. They give trails of the buffalo. And they said that these downtrodden trails to the watering places of the buffaloes led for centuries human beings to the water holes. Now gentlemen, you have heard of totemism, have you? Who has not? Well, totemism, gentlemen, is nothing what these naturalists tell you. It is the praise of the animals as our teachers. As our teachers. The totem is the recognition that these animals give life to us by directing our steps. The buffalo shows the watering hole. But if you ever have been in a virgin forest, or in an un-chartered country, then you learn that the water and the wild animals, the elk and the moose and the bear, allow man to organize political -- because man in a primitive state, as a naked being would be perfectly unable to have any political gatherings of any { } if the {guide} animals wouldn't pave the road. You and I couldn't possibly get through the big forest or the jungle, you see -- we had no bulldozers in those days -- unless we followed

the paths of these wild animals. And therefore, gentlemen, the totem animal has to be praised, because in his form the divine providence appears. What is so strange to you and me is very natural, if you ever have put yourself in the conditions of primitive, helpless naked man. He is led, he is guided, he is directed, and he is empowered by these huge animals, the mammoth, and the elephant, and the lion, who have paved the road so that these weaklings of human beings can say, "At the next full moon, we shall all meet at the watering hole of the buffalo." They couldn't have met otherwise, you see, if there hadn't been open roads through the woods and through the prairies as in this case, of the buffalo, you see, in the Disney movie.

{ }, gentlemen, it shows you that completely unrealistic character of the last century of prehistoric research where the men just said, "Religion is a superstition," that they did never collect the praise and the gratitude of these people with the cult of the totem. They said -- they just said in a very -- purely a superficial sense, people thought they were descendants from the wolf or the fox. That is absolutely untrue, because you find totems, always numerous totems, in one political unit. There's not one animal that is worshiped, you see. But according to the situation, obviously the beaver, or the otter could be worshiped for opening up the bridge across a water, you see, showing them how to get across the river and meet just the same. The political organization, gentlemen, of the first men was enabled by the pioneering of big animals -- or animals. They haven't even to be big.

So praise, offertory, and invocation goes together. The totem is invoked. The totem is praised. And the totem has to be reconciled when a member of his totem clan is killed, the offertory of the animal head, you see, the sacrifice has to be made. From the very first, gentlemen, the animistic religion therefore has many manifestations of the divine. It is poly-demonic, poly-spirited, many spirits. All however pointing to the same relation of man to this larger universe into which he has to make invasions, which -- into which he has to break, you see, in order to find his place. But on the other hand which he has completely -- is completely aware, that it is more comprehensive than his own place in the universe. This relation of my purpose, gentlemen, and the purpose of the whole -- I have only to remember -- {it's} the whole secret of religion.

So in the animistic religion, the invocation of the totems has two aspects. The offertory has two aspects, as we shall see, and the praise has two aspects. The invocation of more than one totem is an attempt to delineate the world -- the created -- the creation inside which we -- think to move. If you invoke only the fox, you would live in a fox-world, so to speak. God would look like a fox. But you begin to compose God, the divine spirit, out of the cleverness of the fox, and the power of the mammoth and -- or the elephant, and the voraciousness of the

tiger, and the fastness of a mouse, and therefore, poly-deism -- poly-spiritism or -- it has been called spiritism, or it has been called animism, as you know -- the many are betraying the understanding of the people of the one-ness. That's not a contradiction, you see. The great anxiety of all human beings who want to -- have the power of ruling the world, is omission. You all buy the Encyclopaedia Britannica so that you can't be fooled and only know all the words from A to B. You have also to get the volumes C to Z, which means that all man wants to know the world as a whole. From A to Z is more important than all the details between A and Z, you see. The main point that the accident that something is under Z, you see, doesn't lead you to believe that there is no such word under Z.

So gentlemen, the first relation of the invocation is we invoke in order to be complete. That was the reason why my -- we turn up out of our limited space into this fullness of all. So gentlemen, all animism tries to be complete in its invocation, as all religions. And the many names by which the ancestors of the totem, {the clan} are invoked are an attempt to make sure that nothing is forgotten. That's the first dictionary, gentlemen.

The first dictionary of a primitive group of man is just as much an ambitious dictionary as your Encyclopaedia Britannica. Don't believe that encyclopedic knowledge is not a part of your and my necessity to move in the real world. If you do not try to move in the real world, you will move into a too-narrow world and then you can't master it. And you can't do right. Please then, believe what you have learned to pooh-pooh poly-theism and so, as a primitive state, is an absolutely indispensable state. The first man could only find the wealth of religious experience and the wealth of his religious tasks if he carefully listed all the powers which he encountered and never was tired of giving a new name to another power. Gentlemen, in the Bible, it says that Adam named the things which betrayed some importance. And this you must now know, gentlemen, that to name the creatures around us was the first act of worship. It is invocation. We -- they did not have chairs, gentlemen, and mats. But they had spirits around them. The lion and the raven -- were not things on a -- you see, on a list of dead things, you see. But they gave them names. They gave them names, gentlemen. And don't mistake me. I mean names which -- by which they were called upon the raven. And say, "Come, Raven," as in the fairy tale, to this day, you see. They would speak to these animals. Now, we pray to God. Does He answer? Can He be seen? Yet, I think anybody who has prayed knows that God is very much there. In the same sense, gentlemen, they prayed to the eagle and to the raven. They were not superstitious. You are superstitious who list ravens in the catalogue of Mr. So-and -- Such-and-Such and your ornithological handbook, because you think that the raven will not take his revenge. As soon as you have catalogued all the birds in your handbook, they all have disappeared. They have died out. The result of modern science, with regard to animals is that unfailingly

that race which has been described carefully, disappears.

They don't -- seem to think that mere knowledge of their existence is good for their survival. And there must be a secret relation, gentlemen. The more you know of the animals, the more you kill them. The rest of the animals, as you know, is now pets and zoological -- I mean, specialties. I don't see any wildlife. The so-called wildlife in this country is only by the mercy of, you see, of conservationists, as you know. There is no wildlife in the United States. What they call wildlife is artificial wildlife, because we have for the last hundreds of years no longer spoken to the animals, but merely spoken of them.

If enough people speak of the Jews, or of the Negroes, gentlemen, and don't speak to them, the Jews end in concentration camps and in gas chambers. Or the Negroes are ostracized. Gentlemen, to speak of living beings and not to speak to living beings is irreligious. You can't go on speaking of the Russians. And you feel already that many Americans feel, "Let's go to Russia." They feel it's a moral issue now, after we have talked so much of the Bolsheviks, that some people must go and look at them, you see. Speak to them. I yesterday talked to a professor of Russian here in this college. And he said, "Oh, if only I could go there. I have such a bad conscience. I teach Russian. I've never been to Russia." That's immoral. That's animism. But that shows you that animism is not a superstitious religion, gentlemen. It's a part of the general religion of humanity. Life is under the tutelage of names and it is not under the murder of words. If you speak of living beings, without trying to talk to them, you kill them, or you are killed in the process. But it's war. And man has made war against nature for the last 400 years, because he has no longer spoken to the animals. Because all speech is only in the living universe, you see, given us to increase life. If it isn't used for this purpose, it destroys life. There is no neutrality possible. You either speak to the eagle and he lives. Or you speak of the eagle, and he will become a taxidermy.

And we have -- taxidermic wildlife today. That's all we have. And the anatomy, and the -- all the sciences we have created of the living is a -- mummification. We have made mummies of the whole universe. And now we are already proceeding and we show the pregnant woman from the inside to a curious audience. Do you think that there will be any fraternity or paternity left of a race which only wants to know the inner working of the human body, without any love and any connection with these people? It's impossible.

Knowledge, itself, gentlemen, without invocation kills. And the Americans kill their own soul every day by knowing more than they can love. Gentlemen, the old -- St. Francis and St. Augustine have said something very similar with regard to your knowledge. And it has something to do with animism: that man can only know as many things as he can love. Love means to speak to somebody. More

you cannot do when you love, you see. But you can only know whom you love. Now you say, of course, "I can know many things without loving them." I doubt it. Any physicist will bear me out and says he loves his electrons. He just makes them speak. That's a good physicist. It isn't the man in research who kills the electrons. It's your curiosity who think that you can know the electrons -- and using them for the army. All this may come too sudden on you, but I wanted to connect invocation, gentlemen, and knowledge very carefully. The living universe, gentlemen, can only be known inasfar as we are also willing to live with its parts, its members, and in -- by which we recognize that we are members of this living universe. And the more we try to know without speaking to the -- members of the universe, the more destructive our knowledge becomes. Man has as much knowledge as he has invoked love, or evoked love, you can also say.

I think that's a good rule to abide by. Thank you.