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

Student introduction: (Philosophy 58, May 6, 1954)

A few meetings ago, I gave you the elements created by our forefathers in antiquity. I split it up rather pedantically in 16 atoms, so to speak, of behavior: remember the warpaths, or the fortress, or the fence of the law, all of them implying some resistance against the outer world. But on the warpath, you are a warrior going into the jungle; in the fortress, you sit behind your sacred frontiers and think that this land is given to you, and ... Whereas in the -- in the warpath, you have no relation to the country on which you move: you just try to take -- to ambush your enemy. You march down from Canada into Massachusetts and destroy the village of the natives, as the French used to do. And you retire again, in the -- that is, on the warpath you do not occupy any part of the created universe as God-given territory. You move. In the fortress, you sit behind -- the -- the Egyptian desert, or the mountains around Babylon, or around the hills, the seven hills of Rome, and defend what you have to hold onto, because your whole life is settled. Your whole life is limited to one great service of the sky, down on earth, reflecting the will of the birds, the will of the sun, the will of the stars in this little square of land.

And I try -- tried to show you that all these were ways of life. And today I am trying to show you how all these ways were changed, where they opened to each other, as on a crossro- -- on the crossroads, and man became able to be in part a family man -- as we know it today, which you take for granted -- without going clannish, being in part a patriot of one's country without being isolationist; being in part a believer in the coming of the Lord in messianism, without sacrificing the arts and the sciences, and the buildings, and the property, and the ways of the -- old, just for the waiting of the coming of the Lord.

So the -- the whole lecture today must concentrate on the meaning of the word "way," w-a-y. When you think of your own righteous being, you think in terms of concepts, in terms of syllogisms, in terms of logic. You want to be logical, gentlemen. Living people do not do this. The Greek mind thinks that you sit back and take stock. And the way of the Greeks then, is a way of the armchair philosopher, of the ivory tower; and you can describe the ways of the Greek mind -- in which you indulge at this moment, during the four years in college -- as a way in which your body sits down at leisure -- as you sit here at this moment on your back haunches -- and looks around, and the mind wanders. The mind migrates. That is, if we start now to define the ways of life, which the way of Christianity or the way of our era had to integrate, we may define the Greek way, which it -- to you is more natural than any other way of life, as a way of the

mind only, the ways of the mind. The learned Greek, or philosophical term for this is "method." The word "method" means to have a way of dealing with things. The word "method" comes from Greek, methodos. And that means -- "hodos" is the word -- Greek word for "way." So what you call meth- -- a methodical thinker, or an objective thinker, or a reasonable thinker, is a man who knows the way of the mind, and how to travel on this way of the mind to reach satisfactory conclusions. And in this sense, you all think that to be on the right way means to use your mind in the right manner. The symbol of this is the seat, the chair. That is, the gravity of your body is excluded when your mind goes traveling, as I tried to tell you about the Greek mind.

So I begin my story of the ways of antiquity, by going backward, and by beginning with that kind of mind of which you all are addicts, quite naturally, because you have -- we have made you go to school for the last 20 years, and so you do not know any better than the mind has the right to think about the world, about the United Nations, about China, about Mr. McCarthy, why -- as your own existence is completely omitted from the picture. "Who are you, Mister," I would like to ask any of you, "that you have the right to deal with -- dabble in politics, and to make up your mind on things you haven't the slightest notion of?" But you all do this, all the time, 20 days a week, I would like to say. That is, far too often.

The Greek mind is a -- is on a way which is purely mental. The Greek way of mind is a method, a method of thinking, which does not include your real existence. You -- think that you can think right, without taking into consideration where you live, how your parents make a living, what supports you at this moment in this college. Well, whereas if I -- you were an existentialist, if I were not a Greek mind, I would say, "Well, whose bread I eat, who -- his praise I have to sing, you see, who supports me." So all the institutions which support you at this moment in life are in some way at this moment already agreed upon by you, because they support you, and you make use of them, and you presuppose their existence, and everything that this implies. Very complicated. By being at Dartmouth College, you write -- underwrite a number of tenets, you see, without your knowing it, because you are a member of an institution. But the Greek mind doesn't care. The Greek mind says, "My mind is free. I look at Dartmouth College as objectively as I would look at the rest of the world. The fact that I am enrolled in this college at this moment plays no part." The way of the mind, gentlemen, separates the mind from soul and body, from your loyalties, and from your food. And you know that Marxism is the great revolt against this Greek mind, by saying "I don't care what you think, Mister, I only care what you work, and who gives you to eat." It's a very -- reasonable revolt against such an exaggeration of the Greek mentality. But it is a -- a great possibility. And I don't wish to disparage at this moment the Greek mind, but I want to symbolize it by the

division of mind and body.

In the Greek mentality, gentlemen, the body occupies a definite place in space and time. You are a member of the United States, which is very limited on this globe. You live in 1954. You were perhaps born in 1935. That is, you also occupy a very limited period of time in the life of the mind on this globe. But you indulge in thinking that, because for 19 years there has entered some pass-by of spirit into your brain, that with the help of these 19 years of participation in the mental life of humanity, you can make up your mind about all of minds. You sit in judgement about Jesus or Moses. You say Moses has never lived. You say Homer was a rather poor poet. You say, "I don't read any more Edgar Allan Poe." Or you say that -- that Whittier after all is a very pure poet of hymns, and you don't sing them anymore. In other words, the strange thing about the Greek mind is that although your body obviously exists only for a very short time on this earth, isn't that true -- only 19 years at this moment, or 20 years -- you use this mind to sit in judgment over all other minds, all other times, and all other spaces. You call some other country barbaric. You say it is primitive, from the height of your refrigerator plant. And you are quite sure that you have a power to pass judgment with your mind on the physical universe.

This is very strange, if you come to think of it. It's a very extreme case on one way of life which is expressed by the chair. I am holding a chair on philosophy. I am in the Greek position then to be asked to pass judgment on other times and other spaces which I physically do not occupy, you see, but over which I am elevated, so to speak, you see, and allow you and me to have some insight into. But we all make use of this at times. As I said, it's an entertainment between serious decisions, which have physical consequences for ourselves. We try to gather information. We try to look around, as from a beacon, you see, as over the wild sea. And we can't do without it. The Greek world -- way of life, gentlemen, is necessary. It is limited, and it is symbolized by the division of mind and body: the body only being in a single space and a single time, and the mind trying to reach out in all times and all spaces. This is the paradox of the scholastic, the school-man's mind, of the student's mind, of the professor's mind, of the academic mind. And you -- we all have it. And -- and you can say that America is -- is absolutely possessed by this idea, that the mind can deal with all times and all spaces, and the body may have -- can be forgotten, because it's just too bad that it has to sit on its fannies in this definite one space here in Carpenter 13, where we are, obviously, as limited as all the people we try to judge, we try to understand, you see.

Once you wake up to this fact, you see that the Greek mind is impotent to change the world. There is a great saying, gentlemen, by the greatest historian of Greece. His name is Jakob Burckhardt. He was a Swiss, and I think you should

know this man, because he has said a very remarkable sentence -- or written it. He has written on world history, on Greek history, on the history of the Renaissance. His book on the Renaissance is still considered the best book on the Renaissance. And his guidebook through Italy, on the art of the Renaissance, is still the Bible for any man who ever travels through Italy. If you ever go to Italy, buy The Cicerone, as it is called; that is, the guidebook of Jakob Burckhardt to all the treasures of art in -- in Italy. It's the greatest book on the styles there to be found in the various arts. This man Burckhardt, in his Greek history of civiliza- -- history of Greek civilization makes one very simple remark. He said that the Greek mind has proven impotent to change one divine service, to break down one temple of Greece, to abolish one superstition. That is, all Greek philosophy, gentlemen, since it is objective, since it can only state that in 158 cities of Greece, there are 158 different constitutions, as Aristotle did, this is no power to say that one constitution is better than 157, and specially there is no way of saying, "Now is the time to do something about it!" The Greek mind has no time sense. And Jakob Burckhardt expressed it in this very simple way. He said, "The Greeks, although they rationalize and criticize the gods from beginning to the end," Homer already does it, you see, and Plato does it, and the tragedy does it, and they all -- the Stoa does it, "they were unable to change the bodily, physically anchored world," because the Greek mind has no way of descending from the universals, from the general principles, from the comparative idea of "give me all the facts," from what you call Encyclopaedia Britannica, encyclopedic thinking, thinking in a wide circle -- that is encyclopedic, you see -- into your own personal situation at home and say, "Now is the time to tell my mother that she must change her way with me." This you can never deduce from any generalization, you see. That the heart must tell you. The mind cannot. The mind can never tell anybody when to do anything. And the Greeks therefore, gentlemen, have never changed the physical universe. Please take this down. They have not been able to change the physical or the social universe. But they have been able to understand it, in all its particulars. And all modern science, as you know, owes the Greek the power to describe. There is no more wonderful way of describing plants, for example, or animals than in Aristotle. And the great Linnaeus, Carl Linnaeus, the Swede, who'd invented botany for the second time, in the 18th century, who is famous for his beautiful description of the rose, of the violet -- in a very pithy language, with a few words, giving the whole picture of this specific plant -- borrowed his style from Aristotle. We know that he learned Aristotle as a young boy by heart, so to speak, and then went one better and, so to speak, improved on Aristotle's style in describing plants. So the Greek mind, gentlemen, is descriptive and universal, critical and factual, everything you want to be: objective, encyclopedic, systematic, philosophical. But it is not creative in the sense that it can tell one little child to fold -- his hands and pray to God. This no Greek mind can do. Greeks -- the Greek must abolish all local and chrono- -- how would you say, temporal loyalties. The result of Greek thinking is always cosmo-

politan thinking, because you try to think for the universe. And there is the cosmos. And to be a cosmopolitan means to find yourself as a citizen of the whole, you see, and to say, "Well these smaller loyalties are just too petty for me to care for. I mean, I can really not stoop to think that -- that Rhode Island, Providence, and Plantations deserves my loyalty." So instead of becoming governor of Rhode Island and Plantations, you become professor at Harvard of Greek philosophy.

And now you see already the implications, gentlemen. The symbol of the chair is a very serious one. To hold a chair for a certain topic, means to be asked to think in generalities. And it is something you and I need for education, for entertainment, for information, for preparing action. It's a preparatory state, and it is an afterthought state. When action has occurred, we have to think about it, meditate about it. And before action starts, we have to prepare action. And that's the Greek mind. But if the Greek mind says this is the only way of life, we all will land on chairs, and we'll all get hemorrhoids.

Gentlemen, if you now go to the opposite extreme, and you ask yourself, you go to the Iroquois, or you go to the Sho- -- Shoshone Indians out West, or the Algonquins up North, or you go to the Amazonas people, { } tribes who live there on the upper sources of the Amazonas River, you wouldn't think of ever mentioning their having chairs. If they should have chairs, it would be a minor matter, an import -- article of import; at best they squat on the ground, as you know, like the Turks. And they don't sit in order to think. They dance, and they march, and they move in procession. And if you want to have the way of life of the tribesmen, you will think of processions. The Catholic Church, in marching outside the church buildings at -- at Corpus Christi, has the -- still one remnant of trying to emphasize a mind -- mentality, by your whole physical appearance in marching, in walking, in dancing, in a rhythmical movement. Or, and you go here to the Episcopal church, and say -- or the Catholic church, they march in, the whole choir, you see, with the minister leading. That's an attempt to say, "I think in walking. I think in marching. That's the best thinking I can do, because I'm fighting the enemy. I'm in -- symbolizing movement. I am in harmony with the spheric movements. It's a very beautiful feeling to be a good walker." And don't ever estimate, gentlemen, that the best things -- thoughts come to yourself in walking. If you are -- get stuck in your studies. Leave it! Don't sit down in Baker Library, or where it is. But walk, and you certainly will see things in a different light, because you are yourself in movement. And a person who is movement sees the world with a very different way from a person who sits down and looks at the world, you see, and sees only that the world moves. In a tribe, gentlemen, the world is standing, and I'm moving. So -- that's an exaggeration, but it is more or less the difference, that -- an Iroquois medicine man feels that he is dancing. He is at the -- at the crest of the wave. He is the wave that breaks over

the earth. And that's how the tribesmen really felt in their -- and we speak of waves of migration, of migratory tribes.

Gentlemen, these are -- is -- are not metaphors. That's true. Human beings can feel, if you go to an attack in a battle, you go over the parapet in waves. This is true, gentlemen. We are then creating the change and the movement, you see. That's the very opposite from the Greek mind. The Greek mind insists -- the very word "insists" is very good, you see -- insists on -- on standing still, himself. And the more he can be static, the better he can observe these things. Isn't that true? Whereas the tribesman feels that he knows the secrets of history, of what is to come, of what he should do, by first getting into the swing of things, you see, an get on the merry-go-round. And the more you swing, the more you know how all the other things should be moving, because you have the feel of the swing first created into your own limbs. This is very little, gentlemen. These are no metaphors. Please, you are so spoiled by the Greek mind, that now when I say that -- that the tribesman is thinking by dancing, you think I'm just joking. You think that's a metaphor. There's a simile. Well, gentlemen, all the professors of literature who talk to you about similes and metaphors and synonyms, they just don't know what life is. They are all Greeks. They think they should sit and look at these things. But that's not metaphor, when an Iroquois can only speak of rain and sun by feeling that he rains himself down on earth; by jumping, leaping up and down, he only can realize what he's talking about. Before, he doesn't know. How can you know what rain is, if you have never rained yourself? It's a very passive experience to see the rain fall on the roof, you see. But when I speak, gentlemen, I can feel -- sometimes, when I am eloquent -- that this is the rain, that this is a { }, that this is a downfall of eloquence on you. It's of course wasted, I know that. But still I have the experience of downpour. I have the experience of waste, too.

So please, begin to believe, gentlemen. What I'm trying to revive in you is the experience of the total man in you, and that includes these tribespeople. This includes these people who can, by dancing, realize creation.

A little story, gentlemen. In Windsor, Vermont, it is a little town. I have friends. And there was a late-born, little son in a family. The parents were quite old. And the youngest was only three years of age, or four years. I don't have -- don't recall -- Russell was his name. And Russell was taught by his mother, who was a good schoolteacher besides, that God created the world in six days, and when He had created it, He saw that it was very good. And he learned this. And the next day, the mother came out onto the garden and -- on Main Street. In Windsor, they have a very beautiful old house there. And he had dug up a little molehill of a -- of -- from sand, with his spade. And he was dance -- dancing around the molehill, crying -- or shouting, I should say -- with joy, "And God saw

that it was very good." That was his creation of the molehill. And that's not a metaphor, as you can see. But that's the only way in which he could absorb and assimilate the story he had been told, you see. He became the creator himself.

And you can say of the tribesmen that that's just what they did. What you call this --- the whole -- the ritual of tribal worship, gentlemen, is something you have to aspire at, because it's the exuberance by which you first realize what it is to be exuberant. You think you can sit down and define "exuberance," before you have been exuberant, if you're all the time only prosaic, and count your dollars and cents? It's impossible. Before you haven't wasted all your money on the second of the month already, which you only should spend on the -- in 30 days, you don't know what exuberance is. Exuberance is something -- some -- is a time when we spend more money than we have, for example, and more energy than we could possibly stretch on weekdays. And if you have never been in this divine mood, you -- I'm sorry for you. You are very prosaic, and you may become a certified bookkeeper, but that's all.

And all the social workers of America tell the poor people in this country that they must distribute their budget so that for 30 days it will carry them. And they must never get drunk, and never go spend their money. And so, of course, the result is that the -- in any decent family of self-respect under care of the social worker goes and has no money left on the second of the month, because they want first to exuberate, you see. Instead of the decent social worker who would say, "I know. You first must be enthusiastic, and inspired. And spend all you have on this. But think just that afterwards there will be a time where you will have also to eat and to drink. And then you get a reasonable budget -- 60 percent, you see, on pleasure, and 40 percent for real economics." That's by and large a reasonable budget in any good family.

But look what we have done to the world with the Greek mind, with the objective mind. And that's why the social workers are so funny. And all your social policies and all your economic thinking at Tuck School, it doesn't lead anywhere. Nobody ever lives that way, because they only act at one hour after another, destructively, objectively, factually; one hour is as good as any other. Gentlemen, do you -- go -- are you going to say to me that while you are shaving and that while you are under the shower, this as good an hour as you are allowed to spend at this moment with me? It is not. It is a better hour. And you have to respect it. And that's why you are after all shaving, getting up, so that you are able to be a student at Dartmouth and get such courses. And if you have not the courage to say that this time needs a greater energy and a greater investment than the 19 or 23 other hours of the day, I'm sorry for you. You can't be a student. But that's un-Greek. That's not destructive. That's not objective. That's not encyclopedic. But it is very, very human, gentlemen, and it has been experi-

enced by the most primitive men in the world, in their dances. That it is worth to give in their orgies, in the orchestration of life -- and "orchestra" means dancing -- on the dancing ground, to give their all. And later life will take care of itself. I mean, a person who cannot waste -- oh, I'll give you a practical story.

Friend of mine is psychiatrist. And he has a woman coming to him, deep melancholia. And he finds out that this woman is just ruining herself with ethical culture. And that she always thinks how she ought to feel. And her melancholia is nothing but the resistance of her inner being. She doesn't like certain things, but ethics command that she must like everything as it comes along, you see. So she has -- builds up, of course, inside this tremendous flow of tears and sorrow for herself, because she is not allowed up here, you see, ever to admit that anything makes her angry, or that anything is bad, or so, or that she hates a person. So she -- he explained the situation to the husband. He was quite reasonable. He is a normal being. And he said, "I'm going to borrow money so that we can go on a second honeymoon to Bermuda. And I know this would change everything, if my wife would really have a festive -- a festive time again with me."

Very reasonable. My doctor friend of course subscribed to this a hundred percent. And said, "Yes. It's worth the loan -- any ..."

It came to naught, because the wife said, "We can't run into debt." Wie? You see? So she prefers the {crematorium}. And the psychiatrist dropped the case after that and and said, "I wash my hands of this. There is nothing doing."

And that comes from your way of rational thinking, gentlemen. You cannot understand that you can only realize that part of marriage, in this special case, you see, which deserves to stand out and to hold you and carry you through all the dis- -- discrepancies, and all the idiosyncrasies of life, if you sacrifice for it, if you lift it up, and make it a special occasion in which you are dancing, gentlemen.

What is this, gentlemen, dancing? It's the opposite from the chair. In the chair, we condemn our body to follow its natural gravity. I'm not joking. You will see at the end that the symbols of the chair, and of the dancer have a tremendous significance for our whole Christian religion. But in the Iroquois' makeup, you want to be lifted up and overcome gravity. This woman, if she had allowed her husband to, you see, take out a loan in the bank, would have overcome the natural gravity of her thinking, you see, where 10 is 10, and 100 is 100 and 4 percent interest are 4 percent interest. And she didn't know that she can all -- could earn 50 percent interest by going to Bermuda on a -- on a credit, you see, because life would look different afterwards. She couldn't see it. She couldn't

become Iroquois. So she couldn't be healed. She could not change one way of life, of pagan antiquity, the clever way, the circumspect way, the New England way, the Yankee way, the savings bank way, you see, for the Savior's way, who said to Mary Magdalene that she did right to waste all the ointment on His feet, you see, and who -- who rebuked Judas Iscariot, the financial wizard, who said, "We could have bought so much other things for this oil which she wasted on the master's feet."

Now this -- that's the dancing, gentlemen. And you will take down perhaps this note, that standing, walking, dancing is a way of fighting gravity, of overcoming gravity, to allow us the experience of flight, of movement, of harmonious rhythm. He who doesn't move doesn't know what rhythm is. And he who doesn't know -- move, gentlemen, does not know that life is life, and not death. The Greek, even if he describes death -- life, still is describing death. The doctor who is just a Greek can only see the anatomy. That is, he can only see the dead things, you see. The doctor who wants to get his patient well again must know what it takes the patient to come to life, despite the threat of death, despite the onslaught of the disease, because the disease will bring about his death. So the doctor must side with the side of life, and must know what will enthuse this patient so that he rises to the occasion. For example, he will send a wire to the best friend of this patient and say, "Come, because your appearance will show this patient that it's -- it's worth living. And that will help him more than all the penicillin." But nobody does it in this country. Have you ever heard of a doctor, who instead of going to the -- Putnam's drugstore says to the -- tells -- sends a wire to the best friend of the person, the sweetheart and say, "You come." That would be good medicine, according to tribes -- tribal medicine. But not according to Greek medicine. It's inexplicable in Greek medicine.

Now the third symbol, gentlemen. We have the walking, the fighting, the dancing, and we have the sitting -- the chair philosopher. We come now to the worship in the temples of Egypt, in the temples of all the great empires. There people kneel. They kneel in worshiping the sun and the moon and the stars. And I want you to understand, gentlemen, that to kneel, which has completely gone out of existence in this country, is a normal attitude of human reverence and human worship. Reverence, of course, is not very much liked. The last reverent in this country are the ministers, you see, what is -- you see, some people are "Misters," and the people in the lower income class are -- "Reverends," that's all. But I mean, really, it is no -- now to -- very m- -- a distinction to be a reverend. But it was, at one time, because it meant that people took towards that which is to be revered the attitude of kneeling. That is, they distinguished high and low, upper and lower. We have some high-brow and low-brow, but in this country, as you know, we kneel before the low-brow. So the higher-ups are all -- over -- oben in Heaven kneeling and looking down to the low-brow, and beg- -- asking

for good weather from them. That's, by and large, the attitude of the American educated classes, to the -- to the populace.

But high and low are very strange terms, gentlemen, which can only be understood as -- in terms of reverence. This is nothing you find in nature. There is nothing high or low in nature, really, because you can always turn around and look down, or look up. What is high? And what is t- -- low, you see? It's really very seriously, gentlemen, that you have to consider that in any civilization, that to which you look up -- in this country, for example, Hollywood -- is revealed by some kneeling attitude. That is, you take what goes on in the so-called higher circles, or higher spheres, as the law. And you do not criticize. You withhold criticism, because they set the law. Somebody told me yesterday that he had always measured me by some other example of somebody who knew. And that he had learned only in a hard struggle that this would -- didn't do any good to compare. But we all do this, naturally, you see. We have some fixed point, which is high, which is our highest authority, you see. You -- I don't know whom you consider today the greatest wizard in America. Whom would you call the mo- -- the greatest spirit here in this ...? I don't know if you think of Mr. McCarthy, or Mr. Einstein, but one of the two, perhaps. And -- like the little girl, Lewis, you know, {Houdine}, from Burlington, Vermont, who was called to -- to the telephone to greet Mr. Eisenhower's brother. And he said, "Do you know who I am?"

She was six years old and she said, "Oh, yes. You are President McCarthy's brother."

Well, she had reverence, you see. This is a term again that is quite unknown. I'll give you another anecdote about reverence to show you that it is quite practical. There was a man, Harold Lasky, in England. Who has heard of this -- this man? Ja. And he was typical of the pink era. And he was a great friend of Oliver Wendell Holmes, the judge. And he was a leader -- a leading light of the left wing of the Labor Party in England. And one day he lunched with Ramsay MacDonald, who was a Laborite, too, but was -- had come around and governed England in 1931, and was a man of positive action. I think his son is still in the forefront. He was minister in the Labor government, the son of Ramsay MacDonald. You have heard of the old man, perhaps, too. And Lasky -- Harold Lasky and -- and MacDonald had lunch in Soho. Soho is a -- are quarters in London where you have lunch. And that's the best you can say of Soho. And they -- they quarreled on politics. And finally MacDonald said to Lasky, "The fault with you, Mr. Lasky, is you have no reverence."

And he certainly hadn't. He was one of these gruesome fellows who are -- always know better, and impertinence is their whole makeup. All his books are just impertinent. And -- and he's -- I -- I have always been scandalized by the

man. I think he's terrible. And the English, you know, they have so little mentality, so little brain that they are terribly impressed by these people. They don't act -- do anything about such people, but they let them do -- act. They are very -- very funny. So Lasky could play a certain part in England. He had no effect on -- but he was there and he -- they looked at him as -- as a funny creature.

Well, MacDonald was annoyed, like -- as from a wasp or a gadfly. And he said, "You have no reverence."

Now that is one-half of the story and you think, "Well, the old man was just a pompous ass, and he wanted reverence and he didn't get it, and so he was nervous and sensitive." That's only one-half of the story. And I happened to be able to follow this up. This story was told to me by one man, of course, who is a professor at Harvard now. And the other story was told me 10 years later by another man, Dartmouth graduate, who also is a professor at Harvard now, but -- but I think they hardly know each other. When this second man went to England from here to study at my advice, I asked him to do this. I said, "You go to the London School of Economics, but I only will persuade your father to send you there under one condition, that you do not listen to this rascal Lasky. He is an impertinent fellow and that's -- you have enough impertinence." He was the editor of The Dartmouth. "So this, the one thing you do not need, to be more brazen, and to talk about everything without knowing anything."

Well, since he depended on me for my persuading this father, who trembled in his shoes and wanted him to go to Yale, and said, "How can a man from Yale -- from Dartmouth go to London? That's just not done." I prevailed. He went to London, and of course he had promised not to take lectures with Lasky. When he came back, he confessed that he had gone to Lasky, of course he would. And -- but he said -- this was 1938 and 1939 -- and my talk -- my story of Ramsay MacDonald must have been dated in 1931-32. You know what this second man, who by now is -- has -- has made the grade and is a professor at Harvard Law School, what he said to me? In reporting on his impressions from Lasky. Of course, I asked him, "Now what did you get?"

"You know, it was strange. He was exactly as you told me he would be. But he always had one remark at least during every lecture I attended." They lecture very little in England, you know, once a week. One hour. "See, he always used to say, `At any one occasion, you must have reverence. You must have reverence.'"

So here, you see, that Mr. Lasky, in the process of getting -- becoming a dignitary himself, and a professor, and a leader, had inherited from Mr. MacDonald the recommendation. And although he had no reverence, he at least handed it on. And he asked the students to have reverence for him, Harold Lasky. "You

must have reverence." I think this -- these two pieces together really make a great story, because I think they prove one thing -- now quite seriously, gentlemen: that even the most -- Bill Cunningham's character has a weak hour in which he wants to be knelt before or kneel himself. That is, have reverence. Kneeling, gentlemen, is something that has gone out of existence in this country, and without which you cannot be. And if you kneel not before God Almighty, you will kneel before the golden calf. I have seen this happen in this course -- a Great Issue course two years ago, when the richest -- one of the richest men of this country gave a lecture, which was neither fish nor flesh; it was absolutely nothing. But all the students were deeply impressed, because this man was God. He had made money, married the richest heiress on the world, and so on. And I was very depressed, because this was certainly reverence wasted. It was the golden calf philosophy. That is, you can be -- take this down, gentlemen. We all kneel before something. The rationalist deals before -- kneels always before sex. The ra- -- will you take this down? The rationalist will always kneel before sex, because he cannot explain it, that anybody loves him. You will find that all the rationalist businessmen or philosophers will pay any price, and will be subservient to any woman who's good enough to -- open her bed to him. Fantastic. That's why the ancients depicted -- the Christians in the Middle Ages depicted Aristotle, you know, lying on the ground, as a quadruped, and being ridden by a whore, the famous {Lares.} Because he said -- they knew that Aristotle was so clever that the only miracle he couldn't explain was that somebody could love him, because no reason can ever explain that. Reason will kneel before affection. Hasn't to be sex. That's the one thing reason cannot explain. And therefore, gentlemen, atheism will always kneel before power. Hitler was worshiped as the golden calf of Germany, because, you see, the power -- a weak country in its -- in its defeat, you see, worships power, the one thing it hasn't. We all worship that which by our reasoning processes we cannot explain. And we kneel before it. And kneeling has to be reintroduced and perhaps you use the word "reverence," gentlemen. There is nobody without reverence, I assure you. And if you are all defiant, gentlemen, in the hour when the executioner tries to put you to the electric chair, or to Auschwitz in the gas chamber, you do kneel, and then kneel before the executioner and ask for his mercy, or you can kneel before God Almighty and say -- who gives you the power not to kneel before this wicked man who is going to execute you. But you have to kneel before one of the two.

This you do not know, gentlemen, because you have never been in need of kneeling, of trying to save the life of -- your sweetheart or your beloved. At that moment, you do kneel, whether to the medical art you kneel before, you think the doctor may think up an operation, or some such thing. And it's very hard to talk to you, gentlemen, because you do not nail -- know that you kneel. You decline to accept -- admit that you do kneel, somewhere in your mind. But -- we all do. We can only kneel before the living God, or between the golden calf --

before the golden calf. But you do kneel.

Now the Egyptians taught us reverence. There is no more piety than in these old best temple services, whether its the -- the holy lamb, or whether it's the apses of the cathedral, with its dusky light, you see, where the old -- women kneel down in reverence, you see, before the unknown, we all kneel, or we must kneel. And they have created this attitude of worship in reverence, which is not the same as the -- worship in ecstasy, as in the tribe. The tribesmen are ecstatic, you see, but the empire-builders have taught people to prostrate themselves. That's the opposite word, if you don't want to -- use the word "kneel." I prefer kneeling; it's not so learned, but it's a physical attribution of our body that you and I can kneel. And if you analyze for one moment this kneeling as a physiological thing, and don't despise the body, because I am not a Greek and God created our body for expressing His -- our spiritual allegiances, just as much as our mind -- if you accept this for one minute as my heresy, then I -- let me tell you that sitting and kneeling are complementary. When you kneel and when you sit, your body moves in the opposite manner. And look what you do to your legs, in both cases. They -- they move in the opposite angle, don't they? In kneeling, you stretch the knees forward. And in -- in sitting down, you bring your back down. So you fall forward in kneeling, and you go backward in -- in sitting. That's not accidental, because in -- in sitting backward and leaning backward, you want to get out of the situation, you want to be objective, you want to have distance, detachment. And in kneeling, gentlemen, we attach ourselves, we attach ourselves to the ground and we say it's sacred ground. And we kneel down in reverence. And so attachment and detachment are very clearly expressed by these two strange attitudes, which you can grossly imply in this manner, that would be the seating one and that would be the kneeling one.

We come now to the Jewish attitude. Jews do not kneel, except on Day of Atonement, because kneeling led to the abuse of kneeling before the statues of gods, or kneeling before the emperor, you see, as the priest-god; he himself is the God incarnate, so the Jews do not kneel. They do not sit. And they do not walk. Or they do all three occasionally, perhaps, I should say. One day in the year, they do kneel, as I said, of the Day of Atonement. But their soul, gentlemen, is unearthly, totally unearthly. The Greeks -- the Jews living in the future have as a nation -- has discovered the pure soul without the physical. But it is certainly not sitting down and taking stock, you see. But it's {soaring}. It's outside this world, in the sense that it's expecting the messianic hope. It's on the way out of this world. The highest day of the Jewish religion is celebrated in the day -- in the dress, as you know, in the shroud of the dying person. You have died to this world. And so you are lying, as in a coffin. So the horizontal line would be the most appropriate line, so to speak, to curl out the physical attitude of the Jewish faithful with regard to his God. God speaks to him and he is extinguished. He

fills him, He inspires him. The prophet is lying as one dead.

Now I'm not a designer. I always hope that in my lifetime there would come a painter, or a sculptor who would help me, gentlemen, to implement my -- these four great symbols of life. I put it very crudely. The walker, the lyer, the kneeler, and the sitter really exploit four different attitudes of our body which insinuate mental attitudes. The mind has its physical appearance. And I -- think we would come out of the abstract art very soon if the people would trust the senses and the body again -- the painters and the sculptors -- and would know that the spirit itself speaks through the body, because after {all}, what does a sculptor or a painter -- trying to express this spiritual meaning of physical appearances. Now 500 years ago, if he wanted to -- to paint a prophet, Michelangelo had to make -- give him a tremendous beard and a great gesture and book in his hands, because people thought that his -- the dress of the prophet and his gestures were the thing. But if you see that this is an attitude in which man can be transformed by his ex- -- by his inspiration, by his experience, the painters could perhaps take to real forms of nature. I knew one young painter who said that he felt that in all the bacteria, in all the little cells, of the cellular body, or the physiological, microscopical research, there were great secrets of -- of attitudes which the painter should reveal. He should -- he should take a leaf from all these forms, like leaves, and trees, and express spiritual truth in these forms, because they were eloquent. They were not just accidentals. They tried to express some -- some attitude of one -- perhaps of the lower spirits of the universe.

This leads me far at this moment. But I wanted still to suggest that these four attitudes deserve to be taken seriously. It is not necessary to -- to depict a king with a crown on his head, or a chieftain. If you have a -- a vigorous, walking man, he impresses you as having an attitude towards the universe, by which this universe is kept moving . He is in the center. How do you call the little thing we play with, with a whip, as a boy; I mean, keep it going.



(Top. Top.)



A top. A top. Yes. Sure. That's what I mean. We are tops. Let's have a break here.

[tape interruption]

We have made four points, gentlemen, that the word "way" is the only term in all four ancient ways -- civilizations which they have in common. The way of life of a tribesman, of a Greek, of a Jew, and of an Egyptian differ, but they all are on a way. The word "warpath" -- "path" is perhaps the most important word to express the fact that the path of the tribesman leads through the bush. It is a path whose features you even -- vestiges you try to obliterate. You read in -- in Leatherstocking, of course, that the skill of the tribesman is to discover a path which is kept down to a minimum of clarity, so that the enemy cannot find it. That we call a path. A path is a way, gentlemen, of the least ostensible evidence. A way -- a highway is a way in which the evidence, so to speak, is underlined, underscored. But they are all ways. The Egyptians tried to make the way a highway. The tribesman tried to keep the way a path. As in your youth, you try to be Boy Scouts and Pathfinders, because you want to imitate the tribesman. And in -- later, you get a -- too-big a car, and you drive on the six-lane highway. Then you have lived, you see, the Egyptian way.

The Greeks, gentlemen, invented the use of the word "way" for ways of the mind, for methods of thinking. And -- you may take this down, if anybody's interested. It's quite important that the poet, like Pindar, the great hymn-singer, for the Olympic victories, who was very physically minded, very -- in love with the athletes of his days, of course, because he was -- that's how he made his money, yet has already this frequent use of the word "way" or {keloitos} for the ways of thinking, for the ways of the mind. He already speaks of the crossroads of the minds, which confuse the righteous man so easily where he then misses out on the right way of thinking. Something you take for granted, after all is something that had to be discovered one day, gentlemen, that Main Street and East Wheelock can be used to describe mental processes. You will see how artificial this really is, you see, that this is a second experience. First you walk, after all, body and flesh, and body and soul along the road or through the jungle on some errand. And it is quite a long way {before} you discover that the mind can be treated, you see, to be on the road, or on the way. You all take these things for granted. My whole endeavor is to show you that they were not at the first -- in the beginning at all accessible to man. Such an artificial idea, the way of the mind -- that's the creation of the Greek -- of the Greek way of life, because the Greek way of life was a mental way of life, and not an ecstatic way of life, and not an attached way of life, not a reverential way of life. It was a critical way of life.

So the mind in the critical attitude is detached from the rest of the world, so that -- the only way it can move is inside itself. So the ways of the mind, you see, have this very dangerous attitude, you see, of being autonomous in one way,

free, but also arbitrary and self-centered. As you well know, your danger at your age is to become self-centered, because the mind is the thing that functions best in you. And it has a habit to be self-centered.

So the mental way of life is a self-centered way of life. The path through the jungle is least in evidence. The way of the temples is most clear, beautiful roads of procession. The first buildings already around the temples are highways, you see, to get up the corpse of the pharaoh into the pyramids, for example, you see. Tremendous -- hundred feet wide, these old roads already were. Roman roads are wonderful to this day.

The fourth way of the Jews is the way of God with man. That is a way which is miraculous. It takes everyone, so to speak, by his forelock and which cannot be seen. The way of the Lord, the way of righteousness, the way of truth. And it is explicitly said in Isaiah, as the announcement of the way -- of the new way which will unite always "Voice of him that cries in the wilderness, prepare you the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." So that's the future. That's the -- our own era, gentlemen. A way of ways. That is our era.

And let's now look into this Christian story a little bit. Look up Acts: 19th chapter, 19th verse. Wait a minute; 9th verse, I'm sorry, 9th verse.

"Divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude ..." Then Paul departed from them.

Now here, in a very shorthand manner, that way is the Church's. That is, gentlemen, you -- may have learned this in your Sunday school, but if not, please repeat it now, and take it down -- the original name for Christianity was "the way," and that's why the Methodists today still call themselves with this term "methodist," the people of the way. I told you that the Greek word "method," you see, meant the mental way. They should have not -- the Methodists should not -- never have called themselves Methodists, because that's too Greek. They should have called themselves "Hodists," because hodos is the Greek word for "the way," and it's the official name in the New Testament, gentlemen; 19:9 is one seat where we learned this, then 19:20 -- verse 23, you have another place, where it says, "And the same time there arose no small stir about that way." And the last, I -- you can give you here, of course it would have to be 24th chapter of Acts, 22nd verse, where the Roman great procurator, who -- before whom Paul has to render accounts, is interested -- 24th chapter of Acts, 22nd verse. "And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them." So again, you see that "that way" is a term -- technical term for what Christianity tried to be, a way of life.

The other place I may list, 16 -- 17. There are other in Acts where it is especially mentioned that the word "Christian" is very -- was very late. It came up in Antioch, and before the people were called Christians, they were all -- only called "people of -- that way." Nothing else. And I think we have to return to this, to get you out of your habit, to look at Christianity with some sentimentality enough to understand that it is the daily reintegration of four ways of life, as created in antiquity, the ways of the ecstatic tribesmen -- tribesmen, the way of the prostrating worshiper of the gods in the sky, the way of the contemplative Greek mind, with his mental meditation or contemplation, you see, his mind being the temple, so to speak, in which he worships the world, and the way of the Jew, like one dead in his shrouds expecting the coming of the Lord.

Four ways of life to be unified: that's the problem of our era, gentlemen. This has nothing to do with your allegiance to a church. You are in this era today, and you have to live it, whether you know it or not. In other words, gentlemen, there are nothing but Christians in our era, including the Jews and the Gentiles. By now, in 1954, you all have to solve this very problem: when to look backward, when to look forward, when to look upward, and when to look inward. And you can't get out of it. And you would like to. And we do not have to wait until you are good enough to confess, and to go to confession. You are in this ring. You may be too stupid to know it. You can blind yourself to your real way of life at this moment, and you go one way or two ways or -- instead of all four ways, instead of being a free agent between the four ways of life, you can be hipped on clannishness, and try to be in the social register, only, and do everything to live on Park Avenue. Then you are just nothing but a tribesman, and clannish. And you can only think that you meet people in the -- in the Porcelain Club or some equally stupid society, but -- {Porcellian}, pardon me -- and -- but we all are one way or the other, as this language has it, one way or the other, you see. And you are complete men if you know that these four ways are all the time inviting you, tempting you, inciting you, welcoming you, beckoning you, and that at every one moment, you have to decide on which of the roads to travel.

You would not believe me, however. By the way, this -- the prophecy of -- of Isaiah is one of the few sayings of the Old Testament that is actually quoted in all four Gospels. This way -- "Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." In other words, gentlemen, all the four Gospel writers had to take up the cue of the word "way" to make sure what they really were doing. They had to answer the ways of antiquity by the better way, the new way, the final way, or however you call it. I have looked this specially up and I find that in Matthew 3:3, in Mark 1:3, and you'll see this is quite important, in John 1:23 and in Luke 3:4, this prophecy of Isaiah is taken up. And as I said, there are very few places where all four Gospel writers, you see, feel bound to repeat the same.

But gentlemen, if you want to grasp the fact that the way of the Lord is the way of freedom between these four choices -- treasuring the old, treasuring the new, treasuring the inner -- speech of the heart, or trust -- treating, giving into the outer pressures of the physical or the natural world which we know as objective world -- this freedom between Greek and Egyptian, and -- and Iroquois and Jew was quite conscious to the fathers -- the founders of the Church. The four Gospels are written as freeing one of the four ways in particular. There has been much discussion about the origin of the four Gospels. There have been more Gospels tentatively written. Five, six, seven, as you may have heard; but there are only four Gospels indispensable, gentlemen, in order to turn towards the Greeks, the Jews, the tribesmen, and the Egyptians in saying that the old ways -- the old four ways -- have now to be superseded by the way of the Gospel.

So gentlemen, the four Gospels have four addresses, or four fronts. And what I want to do now, is to introduce you into this incredible fact that there couldn't be fewer Gospels, and there didn't have to be more. The minimum that had to be done was to say four times that this was a new way, because the people to whom the Gospel has to be brought live -- and lived at that time, of course, even more explicitly -- on these four different ways. And you per- -- can perhaps now see, gentlemen, that the Gospel is a specific way of turning around the old twisted way. You look at Matthew and you see that it begins with -- with the genealogy. The first book -- the first chapter of Matthew says, "I am the continuation of Genesis, the book of the generation of Jesus Christ." Now the book of the generation of Adam is the first book of the Old Testament, and so obviously the first Gospel was written to say, "There is more to say -- be said about Genesis. Man himself is now to be created -- recreated -- he has to be created; the perfect man has come." And now comes a long list of many paragraphs, and many people in the last 200 years especially have poked fun at the funny names, that -- this is the list of the "begats." You may have heard of the "begats" and that seems so funny. Gentlemen, the book of the tribes all insist, as you know, that the hero comes from somewhere, out of the dark, out of the bush, exorcised by the old tribe and begins a new tribe. I told -- I told you that the loss of tribal history is any memory of what preceded the founding of this tribe. All tribes are shrouded in an uncertain beginning. Suddenly there is a hero who has a band around him, gathers like Romulus and Remus, you see, a band of people around them and begin to live, and forget where they come from, create a new language, branch off, and conceal the branching-off point, conceal the growing point from which they sprang. All tribal history, you remember I made a point to show you that -- show that you would understand the importance of this, all tribal history conceals that which connects this tribe with all other tribes. Can you recall this? Who does not? This suppression of the way in which the expellee from one tribe has to branch out, you see, and found the next tribe.

Now the whole genealogy of St. Matthew is written around the dishonorable points of the genealogy of Christ. There are three whores in the story, three harlots, or two harlots and one near-harlot. The lady who married King David, the wife of Uria, who was slain in battle, you see, at the behest of the king so that he could marry the wife of this slain warrior. Not a very agreeable story. But a tremendous revelation. The veil is drawn away from the real facts of life. All mankind is one. And the suppressed points are the important points. And man must get the courage of self-criticism, self-introspection. He must not write, as your people do, genealogies for -- for money, you see, that you come from David Bruce from Scotland, or from King David of Israel, in so many generations. But you have to mention the -- the criminals from -- whom you also have come. Obviously in every family there is a skeleton in the -- in the closet, and they -- you never find this in those genealogies.

I had a friend who was president of the academy -- Medieval Academy of America, Mr. Ralph Waldo {Pram}. And he was one of these fancy guys who wanted to have a top-notch genealogy. And he went to great lengths to invent one, and he told me about it and he said, "You know, we -- I can trace it down to -- back to 1640 in England. And -- and then I have a family in Germany, 1538."

And I said, "What's the connection between those?"

"Oh there's no connection. But I hope there -- I -- one day I will find one."

So it's typical, I mean, typical dream of this man. The people in Germany in 1530, whom he wanted to have as ancestors were noblemen, and the man in 1614 was a shepherd in England, and he said to me, "You know, my guess is that the -- the man in -- in Germany, in Hildesheim, had so many children that one of them left for England and there he became a shepherd."

And I said, "Funny, but I thought that the ancestor of 1530, as far as you were -- told me was a canon of the Roman Catholic Church, and was not married."

But you do anything for the "begats."

Now gentlemen, the people who poke fun at the "begats" in the Bible are so funny, because they do not {poke} fun at their own desire to -- to have the begets in their own ancestry. The greatness of St. Matthew is, gentlemen, the complete indifference to excellency, distinction, or disrepute. The greatness of the genealogy is that there, for first time, the savior of the world is put in the light of the deficient pedigree. He is not said to come from Jove. He does not descend from Juno, or Artemis, or Apollo, or any of these fancy stories of the Greek genealogy. He doesn't come from the Manitou himself, or the Great Spirit,

or Wotan, or {Dorda}. Not at all. If you read the story, the greatness of the story is in its frankness. And the whole four Gospels, gentlemen, are written against the prejudices of the four ways of life, the splendor of any one of these four ways. And they have taken us into the abyss of truthfulness. And it is this, why the genealogy of Matthew to this day has long ago -- long anticipated psychoanalysis, because it brings out the repressed facts of history. {Well}, there's more to it. I can't go into this.

Now, you open St. Mark. The second Gospel. That's not written against the 12 tribes, and clannishness, and the tribal worship. That's written against the Egyptian, the Roman. St. Mark was a deacon of Peter in Rome. Peter, as an old man, probably in the year 54 of our era, or perhaps in 48, left Antioch, where he had been a bishop. He first lived 20 years in Jerusalem; then he went to Antioch, where the name "Christian" came up under him and with him. And then he became bishop in Rome. And in Rome, he held lectures -- sermons to the pagans, to this great, mundane city, where they worshiped the -- Jupiter and the sun, and the Egyptian ritual of Isis and Osiris, and many other such things, Bacchus, of course, and Dionysus. And Mark wrote down the teachings of Peter. And Peter knew -- know -- in having Matthew before him, had to cut out everything that was not fit for the Jews, but was for -- fit for people in the big capital of Rome. You cannot teach people in New York anything so serious as you can teach people in Vermont. The level of New York is, of all the big cities, always the lowest intellectual level you can have, because they live by sensations, and they have no memory. So you can sell them anything for today, because they don't remember what was true yesterday, and they have no idea that something must be true tomorrow. You are quite mistaken. You only think the intellectual standard is high in New -- in a city like New York. It is -- pretty poor -- it is absolutely superficial, you see, because it is never tested against the background of wrong time. What is true today in New York isn't true tomorrow.

But however this may be, the Roman Gospel of Peter is short. It had to excise all relations to the Old Testament, because the Roman people of course had no memory, just as a New Yorker today; whereas the tribesmen, of course, knew their Old Testament by heart, you see, having memorized it in their youth. These people on the spur of the moment in Rome had to be told what is what, now. So the whole Gospel of St. Mark begins directly, not with the genealogy of the whole story of the Old Testament, but: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God, as it is written in the prophets, behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way -- thy way before thee. Make this paths straight, prepare ye the way of the Lord." And on it goes, immediately with the baptism in the Jordan, which every pious citizen, you see, can strive for, for an immediate purification, a { } or something like that. No questions asked about his -- where he comes from, no denominational investigation, so to speak.

He is not clannish. He has not a long descent of spirits of the ancestors to worship, you see. There is no worship around the grave. But here is a man in his immediacy, uprooted in the big city. It is also in Peter's letter that he is crying out that Jesus is the morning star, rising in our hearts. That's a clear turn against the Egyptian star-lore, and the Roman star-lore, where you worship the morning star, you see, Venus, or Isis, you know the great star Sirius, rising in the star. Take this in the letter of St. Peter, together with Mark and you have a pretty simple starting point for understanding the interest of Peter in converting the Romans. The interest is: don't burden them with the Old Testament. Don't take these Roman, urbanized people through the whole act, but deal with them under the sun, as of today, you see, and free them from their solar- and lunar- and -- star-lore. But if you can do this, then you have gotten them moving.

Let me turn to Peter. You have Peter there? Letter to -- there are two letters to Peter, as you know, of Peter in the New Testament. Can anybody find this place? {Where}?

(Right after Hebrews.)

Oh, I know where the letter is. It isn't right after Hebrews; there's James in between. But I want to -- inside Peter the same thing, of the morning star. That is the great saying, because that is set in antithetical, you see, emphasis against what he found in Rome. Rome was at that time taking over the cult of Alexandria, and of Babylon, you see, and it was called in the New Testament "the great whore Babylon," for this very reason. So it is an anti-Babylonian sermon, which Mark has to deliver. And I want only to show you, Mark cuts out the references to the Old Testament and it concentrates on the purification of man's existence between Heaven and earth. And it introduces the -- the distinction between sky and Heaven on which the English language is built, you see, that sky is physical, and Heaven can still be understand -- stood spiritually. If you say "Heaven," you are not an Egyptian. But if you would worship the sky and the -- the stars in the sky, you would have fallen down from the Gospel of Mark and of the Letter -- from the Letter of Peter, you see. And you would have become a pre-Christian mind, again. Isn't that obvious? In the word "Heaven," as distinguished from "sky," we have an introduction of the influence of the Gospel of St. Mark into our present-day English language. Other languages don't have this privilege, by the way, and are handicapped.

Has nobody found it?


I want you to find it. I don't see why I should find it.


(Chapter 2, Verse 9.)

Oh no. It's similar. "... He has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." Of course you're quite right. That's already in this direction, but it comes then out much more sharply, because the word "morning star," as applied to Christ, who was humiliated, hanging from the cross, you see, in the darkness, when the earth was -- the sun went out of existence; as you know there was an eclipse of the sun, during His crucifixion, that is the incredible reversal of the natural worship, of the physical appearances in the sky, you see. The human heart is made the morning star, gentlemen, instead of these feeling -- unfeeling stones in the sky. Where is it?

(The Second Epistle, 1:19.)

Thank you. That's exactly it. And take this down, gentlemen, because it's the -- the Magna Carta of human freedom against astrology and against human freedom -- human enslavement by the natural elements. "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day -- dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." Now this day star is when you don Christ, when you put on Christ, as John Paul calls it. "And the day star arise in your hearts." Gentlemen, that's a tremendous sentence. It's only eight words, and it finishes a whole world of China, and Aztecs, and so, with an incredible simplicity. The day star -- you people, it says, of whom -- which you have worshiped in the sky, when it appears on July 19th, in a certain rotation of the heavens, you see, it rises at one time in your heart, when you become ripe and mature to die with Christ and to rise with Christ. "And the day star arise in your heart." If you don't forget this, gentlemen; you have learned a lot.

The second -- the third Gospel, gentlemen, Luke -- I -- let me please go on with this. And then I can say the final thing. Luke is written against the -- Israel. Not the tribes of Israel, but the -- the scribes of Israel, the prophet, prophetic Israel, because Luke -- somebody had also to tell the prophetics, the pious Pharisees, you see, who were great people, that their time was superseded, that the fulfillment of the law {was in order}.

You today read the New Testament in two wrong ways. One, with the fundamentalist view that the Pharisees were wrong and Christ was right. And you think that the Pharisees were hypocrites and so on. Then there is another, modern, ethical, cultural way in which you -- people have come to say, "Oh, the Pharisees were just as good as Jesus. They were excellent people; they were very

pious. And you should not say anything bad about the Pharisees." Both -- things, gentlemen, are the not the way in which the New Testament handles the situation. The -- New Testament is represented by -- Luke was a Jewish doctor, probably -- or who wrote certainly for the pious Jews. His point is that Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets. And so it all climaxes in the story how He never said that He was a Messiah, but let Pontius Pilate says this. It's a, so to speak, brief, Luke's representation of the mental health and chastity of Jesus, that Jesus was not a Greek magician running around, or a poet, or an inspired man, but that He was a receptacle of God's will, and that He fulfilled what the prophets had foretold of the Messiah.

So Luke is, has to convince the leading priests, the leading spirits, the prophetical element in Israel, so to speak, the John Baptists of the period. That is, the point is of Luke: don't mistake Jesus at His best for a prophet, because that would belong to the old, you see, dispensation of a mere Israel among the heathen. And don't mistake Jesus as a Greek genius, because that would make Him an offender against the law of Judaism. And of course, He had to be more than a Jew and more than a Greek if He was to be the Messiah. And -- Luke is -- is written with great delicacy in this -- on this point. And if you want to understand Luke, you must understand that it is written for people like the Jews, in a second state. It -- it's as you say in the first verse, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us ... It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thous hast been instructed." Gentlemen, what is this? It's a second Gospel for a man who is already a Christian. If you go to Sunday school, and this is all -- you must all become atheists, after a while. And you -- most of you do, because you have no second instruction. You have no alternate education. It is the belief of -- an elder in Israel is of course a mature belief, not that of a tribesman, of -- of Judah, or Levi, or just born into the fold, you see, and having this absorbed as a child. And it is not the rationalization of an individual free-thinker in Rome, who has to be convinced that astrology has to be replaced by a deeper faith in his own heart. But it is -- you may say that which is most lacking in your life, an initiation into the same thing, on a higher level, the second time. That's how Israel enters the world. Over the tribe and over the empire, as I have tried to show you, Moses, you see, and Abraham forego these first layers of consciousness, and wait for a greater will to be fulfilled. That's what Luke therefore makes his appeal to. By, "Here, Theophilus, I'm writing you this book not for you not as a child, as a {primitive}, you see, beginner in the faith, but for a second time, when you are irked already by this greater piety, this greater maturity, and then you are irked, perhaps, by the arrogance of Jesus, to say He's the Messiah, which is a very dangerous proposition.

Well, I can't go today into this, of course, but I wanted to s- -- tell you that you will understand Luke if -- and you will understand the Pharisees if you know that they are both purified from the dross of primitive living. Neither the Pharisees, gentlemen, nor the bishop of the Episcopal Church of New York today, Mr. {Sharon,} or whoever it is, are primitive. They still have to be converted to Christianity. That is, the Churches today represent the synagogue as of today. And again, the Gospel has to be written in such a way by Luke to say that the coming of the Lord is still to be expected. I mean, a church that would say, "Oh, we know all about it," you see, would go illegal, would go Old Testament. As you know, the danger of any church is to be just Jewish, that is, to be just the -- the sanctuary of old. And Luke sets out to say to Theophilus, "You have to appropriate this faith a second time. You have to read between the lines. You have to come to know a second time what is meant by what's already reached you."

Well, it shows the whole tension, gentlemen, between baptism and confirmation, or baptism and your own -- sacrament as the priest of the Lord in your own right. We are all priests, as well as we are baptized or initiated into our religion. And it is this tension, gentlemen, of the second coming of the spirit into your life, which distinguishes Luke from Mark. If you open Mark, it begins with Christ's baptism in the Jordan. And it's enough for these Roman citizens that they first are baptized. And so the simile is, "Get baptized as Christ." It's not very much, it's not the whole story. But of course, for the pagans, the Gentiles in the Roman world, it was the one thing that first had to be done. That's the first step of mission. But at the heart of heart of the true Israel, gentlemen, Luke had to speak quite a different language, because for these great Jewish prayers of the Psalms, these things had not to be said, that Mark had to say, you see, against these sun worshipers. These Jews did not worship the sun. They did worship the living God. They waited for the coming of the Messiah.

And so you must understand, gentlemen, that if you open Luke, you move into quite a different world. That's a world already of real faith already, and piety, but it's an unfulfilled world, a world that has forgotten that it must be impatient, that it must be pushing forward, you see, that there's something to fulfill every thing they allegedly pray for and they have ceased to really -- to expect.

So I have to stop here, I'm sorry, today. But bring the New Testament next time.