When you 
discover  chis, the desire to escape "merges" into 
the pain it - self and  vanishes. Discounting aspirin for the moment, you 
cannoc  remove your head from a headache as 
you can re- move your hand  f rom a flame. "You"  
equah  "head"  equals "ache." \,Vhen you accually 
see chat you are the pain, pain ceascs to be a 
motive, for there is no  one to be moved. lt 
becomes,  in the true  sense,  of no consequence. lt 
hurts -period. This, however, is not an experiment to be held 
in reserve,  as a trick,  for moments  of crisis. lt is a 
way of life. lt means being aware, alert, and 
sensitive to the  present  moment  al ways,  in ali 
actions  and relations  
98 THE  MARVELOUS  MOMENT  
whatsoever, beginning at this instant. This, in 
turn,  depends upon seeing that you have really 
no choice  but to be aware -becausf. : you cannot 
separate your - self from the present and you 
cannot define it. You  can, indeed, refuse to admit 
this, but only at the cost  of the immense and 
futile effort of spcnding your  whole  life 
resisting  che inevitable. Once chis is understood, it is really absurd to 
say that there is a choice or an alternative between 
thesc  two ways of life, between resisting the 
stream in fruit - less panic, ancl having one's eyes 
opened to a new  world, transformed, and ever 
new with wonder. The  key is undcrstanding. To 
ask how to do this, what is  the technique or 
method, what are the steps and  rules, is to miss 
thc point uttcrly. Mcthods are for  creating things 
which do not yct exist. '\Ve are con- cerned  here  
with  understanding  something  which  is 
-the present  momcnt. This  is not a psychological  
ar spiritual discipline for self-improvement. It is 
simply  being aware of chis present experience, 
and realizing  that you can neither define it nor 
divide yoursclf  from  it. There  is no rule  but 
"Lookl"  
lt is no mere poetic sentiment to say that, with 
the mind chus opened, we look into a new world, 
as ncw  as on the first <lay of creation "when the 
morning  stars sang together, and all the sons of 
God shouted  for joy." By trying to understand 
everything in terms  of mcmory, the past, and 
words, we have, as it were,  had our noses  in che 
guidebook  for most  of our lives,  
99 THE  WJSDOM'. OF INSECURITY  
and have never looked at the view. Whitehead's 
criti - cism  of traditional  education  is applicable  to 
our whole  way  of living:  
We are loo cxclusively bookish in our scholastic rou - 
line . . . . In thc Carden  of Eden  Adam  saw 1he animals  
before he namcd lhem:  in the tradilional systcm, chil - 
dren  named  lhe animals  before  they  saw  them.1  
In the widest  sense  of the word,  to name  is to 
in- terpret  cxperience  by the past,  LO translate  it 
into  tcrms of memory,  to bind the unknown  into 
the sys - tem  of thc known. Civilizcd  man  knows  
of hardly  any other  way  of understanding  things. Everybody,  everything, has to have  its label,  its 
number,  certifi - cate,  registration,  classification. What  is not classified  is irregular,  unpredictablc,  
and dangerous. Witqout  passport,  birth  
cenificate,  or membership  in sorne  nation,  onc's  
existence  is not recognized. If you do not agree  
with  Lhc capicalists,  they  call you a com - munist,  
and vice versa. A person  who  agrees  with  neither 
point of vicw  is fast becoming  unintelligible. That  
thcre  is a way  of looking  at life .apart  from  all 
conceptions,  beliefs,  opinions,  and theories  is the 
re- motest  of ali possibilities  from  che modern  
mind. If such  a point  of view  exists,  it can only  
be in the vacant brain of a moron. We suffer from 
che delusion  that  the entire  universe  is held  in 
order  by the cate - gories  of human  thought,  
feari n g that  if we do not 
1A. N. Whitehead,  Science  and the Modem  World. (Cambridge,  
1933) p. R19• 
100  THE  MARVELOUS  MOMENT  
hold  Lo thcm with  lhc utmost tenaciLy, cvcrything  
will vanish  into  chaos. We musl  repeat:  memory,  lhought,  languagc,  
and  
logic are csscntial  lo human  lifc. They are one  
half  of sanity. But a person, a socicly, which is only 
half  sane is  insane. To look at  life without words  
is  not  to lose the ability to form  words -lo think, 
remem - ber, and plan. To be silent is not to lose 
your tongue. On lhe contrary, Íl is only through 
silence that one can discover somelhing new lo 
talk about. One who  lalked  inccssantly,  without  
stopping  LO look  and  listen,  woul<l  repcal  himsclf 
ad nrmseam. Il is the same with thinking, which is really 
silcnt  talking. It is not, by itself, open  LO thc  
discovery of  anything new, for its only noveltics 
are simply rear - rangements o( old words ami 
ideas. There was a time  when language was 
constantly being cnrich cd by new  words -a time 
when men, like Adam, saw things bc - forc lhey 
named them. Today, almost ali 11cw words  are 
rearrangements of old words, for we are no longer  
thinking creatively. By chis I do not mean that we  
ought ali to be popping wiLh  inventions and 
revolu - tionary  discoveries. This  is  the -always  
rarc -powcr  o{ those who can boLh see lhe 
unknown and inlerpret  it. For most o( us,  the other  
half o( sanil y lies simply  in seeing and enjoying thc 
unknown, jusL as we can enjoy music wiLhout 
knowing eicher how it is writ - ten or how  the 
body  hears  it. Certainly  the revolutionary  thinker  must  go be- 
101 THE  WISOOM  OF INSECURITY  
yond thought. He knows that almost all his best 
ideas  come  to him when  thinking has stopped. He 
may  have strugglcd and struggled to understand a 
prob - lem in terms of old ways of thinking, only to 
find it  impossible. But when  thought  stops  from  
exhaus - tion, the mind is open to see the problem 
as it is-not as it is verbalized -and at once  it is 
understood. But going beyond  thought is not reserved  to 
men  of genius. lt is open to ali of us in so far as "the 
mys - tery of life is not a problem  to be solved,  but 
a real - ity to be expcrienced." lt is given  to many  
to be secrs, but to fcw to be prophets. Many can 
listen to  music, but fcw can perform and composc. Bm you  cannot even listen if you can  hear only  in 
terms  of the past. What should we make of one of 
Mozart's  symphonies  if our cars  were  attuned  only  
to the music of tom -toms? Wc might gct the 
rhythms, but  aJmost nothing of the harmony and 
mclody. In other  words, we should fail to discovcr 
an essential elcmem  of the music. To be able  to 
hcar,  much less write,  such a symphony men  had 
to discover  new  noises - the vibrations of catgut,  
the sound  of air  in a tube,  and che hum of a 
plucked wire. They had to discover  the whole 
world of tone, as something entircly dificr - ent 
from  pulse. If I can only conccivc pulse,  I cannot appreciate  
tone. J f I can think of painting only as a way of mak - 
ing colorc<l photographs without a camera, I can 
see nothing  but incptitude  in a Chinese  
landscape. We 
102 THE  MARVELOUS  MOMENT  
learn nothing of very much importance when  it 
can be explained entirely in terms of past 
experience. If  it were possible to understand ali 
things in terms of  what we know already, we 
could convey the sense of color to a blind man 
with nothing but sound, taste,  touch,  and  smell. If this is true  in the various  arts and sciences,  it 
is a 
thousand times more true when we come to the 
un- derstanding  of life in a larger  sense  and want  
to have  sorne knowledge of the ultimate Reality, 
or God. lt  is surely absurd to seek God in terms 
of a precon - ccived  idea of what God is. To seek 
thus is only to find what we know already, which 
is why it is so easy  to deceivc oneself into ali 
manner oE "supernatural"  experiences and 
visions. To believe in God and to  look  for the God 
you believe  in is simply  to seek  c o n- firmation of 
an opinion. To ask for a revelation of  God's will, 
and then to "test" it by rcference to your  
preconceived moral standards is to make a 
mockery  of asking. You kncw the answer alrcady. Sceking for  "God" in this way is no more than 
asking for the  stamp of absolute authority and 
certainty on what  you believe  in any case,  for a 
guarantee  that the un- known  and the future  will 
be a continuation  of what  you want to rctain from 
thc past -a biggcr  and better  fortress  for "l." Ein 
/este  Burg.1 
If we are open  only  to discoverics  which  will 
ac- 
cord with what we know already, we may as 
well  stay shut. This  is why  the marvelous  
achievcments  of 
103  TIIE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
scicnce and 1echnology are of so little real  use to 
us. It is in vain  that  we can predict  and control  the 
course of evcms in chef uture, unlcss we know how 
to live in the present. It is in vain that doc1ors 
prolong  life if we spend Lhe cxLra  time being 
anxious Lo livc  still longer. 1t is in vain that 
engineers devise faster  and casier mcans of travcl 
if thc new sights  that wc  scc are mercly soned and 
undcrstood in tcrms of old  prejudices. lt is in vain 
that we get the powcr of thc  atom if wc are just to 
continue in thc rnt of blowing  peoplc  up. Tools such as these, as well as the too Is of 
languagc  ami thought, are of real use to men only if 
they are  awake -not lost in the dreamland of past 
and future,  but in the closest touch with that point 
of expericnce  where rcality can alone be 
discovered: this moment. Hcre life  is alive, vibrant, 
vivid, and  prcscnt,  con- taining depLl1s which we 
have hardly begun to ex - plore. But to scc ami 
understand it at ali, the mind  must not be dividcd 
into "I" and "this experience." Thc moment must 
be what it always is-ali that you  are and ali that 
you know. In this house there is no  room  Cor thee  
and me! 104   
 
 
VI 1. T HE T R A NS FO R I AT l O 1 
OF L I F E   
 
TH E  W H I T E  !\fAN  F,\N C I E S   H l !\I S E L F   AS  A  l ' R A C T I C A L  
person who wants to "get results." He is 
impatient  with  theory,  and with  any discussion  
which  < l o e s  n ot immcdiately get clown to concrete 
applications. This  is why the behavior o( Western 
civilization might be described,  in  general,  as " 
fuch  Ado About  'oth- ing." The propcr mcaning 
o( "theory" is not idle  speculation but vision, 
and it was rightly said that  "whcre  there  is no 
vision  the people  perish." But vision  in this sense  < l o e s  not mean  clreams  
and ideals for the future. lt means understanding 
of life  as it is. of what we are, and what we are 
doing. With - out such  understanding  it is 
simpl}'  ridiculous  to 
talk of being practica! and getting rcsults. lt is 
like walking busily in a fog: you just go rouncl and 
round. You do not know  where  you are going. nor 
what  re- sults  you  really  want. To minds that think in this way, what we 
have  discussecl so far may secm  too theoretical. These ideas  are all very  wcll,  but do they  w o 1 k? Yct 
I must  ask, "What do you mean by work?" The 
usual "working  test"  of a philosophy  is 
whether  it makes  people  THE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
better and happier, whether it results in peace, co- 
operacion, and prosperity. Yet chis is a 
meaningless  criterion without much "theorctical" 
undcrstanding. What do you mean by happiness? What are ··bcucr"  pcople bettcr for? About what 
will you co-operate? What  will you do with  pcacc  
ancl  prosperity? The answer  to these  qucstions  depends  entirely  
on 
what we are and what we actUally wanc now. If, 
for example, we want at the same time both peace 
and isolation,  brotherhood and security  for "I," 
happi - ness and permancnce, our wants are 
contradictory. Their  results,  howcver  practica! we 
may  be about  getting thcm, will be funher 
contradictions. le is the old story of wanting to 
have your cake and eat it-to which the only 
possible conclusion  is that you put it in your 
stomach  and keep  it there  umil  you have  violcnt  
indigcstion. 1f wc muse  be nationalists  and have  a 
sovereign  
state, we cannot also expcct to havc world peace. If wc want to get everyching at che lowest 
possible cost,  we cannot expect to get the best 
possible quality, the  balance  between  the two 
being  mediocrity. If we make it an ideal  Lo be 
morally superior, we cannot at the same  time avoid 
self-righteousness. lf we cling  to belief in God, we 
cannot likcwise have faith, since  faith  is not 
clinging  but lctting  go. When we have made up our minds as to what 
we do want,  thcre remain  indeed  many  practica! and technical  problems. But thcre  is no point  at 
all in 
106  THE  TRANSFORMATION  OF LIFE  
discussing these uncil we havc made up our minds. There  is, in turn,  no possibility  of making up our  
minds so long as they are splil in two, so long as "I"  
am onc thing ancl "expcrience" another. lf thc mind  
is the directivc force bchind aclion, che mind and its  
vision of life muse be healed befare action can be  
anyching  but conflict. Something must therefore be said about the healed  
vision of life which comes with foil awareness, for it  
involvcs a decp Lransformation of our view of the  
world. As well as words can describe it, this trans - 
formation consists in knowing and fceling that the  
world  is an organic  unity. In the ordinary way, we "know" this as a matter of  
information but do not feel it to be true. Certainly  
most pcople fccl separare from everything that sur - 
rounds them. On the onc hancl therc  is mysclf, and 
on che othcr the rest of thc univcrse. I am not rooted  
in the earth  like a tree. I raule around  indepencl - 
ently. I seem to be thc centcr of everything, and yet  
cut off and alone. I can feel what is going on inside  
my own body, but I can only guess what is going on 
in othcrs. My conscious rnind  rnust have  its roots  
and origins in the most unfathomable depths of be- 
ing, yet it fecls as if it lived ali by itsclf in this cight  
little  skull. Nevertheless, the physical reality is that my body  
exists only in relation to chis universe, and in fact I 
amas  attached  to it and dependent  on itas a leaf on  a 
107   Tl-!E WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
trce. I fcel cut off only because I am spliL wilhin 
my- self, becausc I try Lo be divided from my own 
feel- ings and sensations. ,,vhat I feel and scnse 
thcrefore  seems  forcign  Lo me. And on being aware 
of Lhc un - rcality of this division, thc univcrse <loes 
not sccm  foreign  any more. For I am what I know; what I know is I. The scnsa - 
tion of a house across the street or of a star in 
outer  space is no less I than an itch on the sole of 
my foot  oran idea in my brain. In another scnse, I 
am also  what  Ido not know. I am not aware of my 
own  bra in as a brain. In just the samc way,  I am 
not aware of the house across the street as a thing 
apart from my  sensation of it. 1 know my brain as 
thoughts and feel - ings , and I know the house as 
scnsations. In the same  way and sense that I do 
not know my own brain, or  thc house  as a thing -
in-itself,  I do not know  the private  choughts  in 
your  brain. But my brain, which is also 1, your brain and 
the thoughts within  it, as well as the house across 
the street,  are ali forms  of an  inextricably  
interwoven  process callcd the real world. Conscious or uncon - scious ofitas I may be, it is 
all I in the sense that the  sun, the air, and human 
socicty are justas vital to me as my brain  or my 
lungs. Jf, then,  this brain  is my 
brain -unaware of it as I am-the sun is my sun, 
the air my air, and society  my society. Certainly I cannot command  the sun to be egg - 
shaped,  nor force  your  brain  to think  
differently. 1 
108   THE  TRANSFORMATION  OF LJFJ -: 
cannot see the inside of Lhe sun, nor can I share your  
prívate  feclings. Yet ncither  can I change  the shapc  
or structurc of my own brain, nor havc a scnsation of  
itas a contraption likc a cauliílowcr. 1311t if my brain  
is noncthclcss  I, thc sun  is I, thc air  is I, and socicty,  
of which  you are a mcmber,  is also  1-for ali thcsc  
things  are j usl  as csscntial  to my existcncc  as my 
brain. That there is a sun apart from my sensation of it is 
an infcrencc. Thc fact that  I havc a brain,  though  I 
cannot  sce Íl, is likcwisc  an infcrencc. \Ve know  
about  thcsc  things  only  in thcory,  and not by irn- 
mcdiatc  expcricnce. ílut this "externa)"  world  of 
theorctical  objccts  is, apparendr,  just as much  a 
unily  as che "interna!'' world  of expcrience. From  
expcricnce  I infcr that  it exists. And  bccause cxpcri - 
encc is a unity -I am mr sensations -1 must  likcwisc  
infcr that this thcorctical univcrsc  is a unity, that  mr 
body  ancl  the worlcl  fonn  a single  proccss. Now  thcre  havc  bccn  manr  theorics  abom  the 
unity  o( thc uniYcrse. But che)'  have  not delivercd  
human  beings  from  the isolinion  oí cgotism. from  
conílict, and  from  thc fear of lifc. bccausc  thcrc  is a 
world of diITcrcncc bctwccn an  infercncc anda fccl- 
ing. You can rcason that thc 11nivcrsc is a unity with - 
out fccling it  w be so. You  can cstablish  thc thcory  
that your body is a movcrncnt  in an unbrokcn  proc - 
ess which  includcs  al! suns  ancl  stars,  and yet con- 
tinuc  to (ce! scparatc  and loncly. For thc fccling  will 
!Ofj TIIE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
not correspond  to Lhe theory  umil  you have  also  
discovered the unity of inner experience. Despite 
all theories, you will fcel that you are isolated 
from life  so long  as you are divided  within. Bue you will ceasc to fecl isolated when you 
rccog - nize,  for example,  thaL you do not have a 
sensation  of che  sky: you are that sensation. For all 
purposcs of  feeling, your scnsation of the sky is 
che sky, and there  is no "you"  apart  from  what  you 
sense,  fcel,  and know. This is why the myslics and 
many of the pocts  givc frequent uttcrance to thc 
fecling that they  are "onc wilh the Ali," or "unitcd 
with  God," or, as Sir Edwin  Arnold  cxprcssed  it-  
Foregoing  sel{,  the universc  grows  l. 
Sometimes,  indeed,  this feeling  is purcly  senti - 
mental,  the poet  being  "onc  with  ature"  just so 
long as  she is on her best  behavior. J live 1 1 o t i 1 1 myself,  but I  l 1 l ' C o 1 1 1 e  
Porlio11  o/ thal a r o 1 1 1 1 d  me; and to 
me 
I-Iigh niotwtains  are II f eeling,  but the hum  
Of huma11  cities  torlllrc:  I can see 
Nothing to loalhe  i11 nature,  saue  to 
be A /inh  reluctant  i11 a (leshly  chai11,  
Classcd  amo11g  creat11rcs,  when  t11e  soul ca11  
fice, And with  thc sky, the peah,  thc heaui11g  plain  
0/ occan,  or thc stars,  mi11gle  1 a 1 1 d nol in v a i 1 1 . This rural rapturc  from  Byron  is quite bcsidc  the 
point. He has only come to tcrms with nature to 
the extent  that  he has bcfricnded  his own  human  
nature. 110  THE  TRANSFORMATION  OF LIFE  
The fly likes  thc sweecness  of the honey,  but not its 
stickiness,  which  makes  him 
A link reluclanl in a fleshly chain,  
Classed  amo11g  crealures. The  sentimentalist  does  not look  into  the depths  of 
nature  and sec 
Sluggish  existences  grm:ing  lhere,  suspended,  or 
slowly  crawling  clase  lo the botlom:  ... The leaden -eyed  shark,  the walrus,  lhe turtle,  the 
hairy  sea-leopard,  an(l  the stíng -ray,  
Passio11s  there,  wars, p11rsuits,  lribes -sight  in lhose  
ocea11  depths -breathing  thal  thick  breathing  air. Man has to discover that everything which he be - 
holds in naturc -the clammy foreign -feeling world of  
the ocean's depths, che  wastes of ice, the reptiles of  
the s,vamp, thc spiders and scorpions, the deserts of 
lifeless  plancts -has its countcrpart within  himself. He is not, then, at onc with himsclf until he realizes  
that th is "undcr  sidc"  of nature  and thc fcel ings  of 
horror  which  it gives  hirn  are also  "I." For ali the qualities which we admire or loathe in  
che world aronnd us are reflections from within - 
though from a within that is also a beyond, uncon - 
scious, vast, unknown. Our fcclings abouL the crawl - 
ing world of thc wasps' nest and thc snakc pit are  
fcclings about hiddcn aspccts of our own bodics and 
brains, and of ali thcir potcntialities for unfamiliar  
crceps and shivers, for unsightly diseases, and un - 
imaginable  pains. 1 1 1 TIIE  WISDUl \l OF JNSECURITY  
1 do not  know ,rhether it is true,  but it is said  that  
sorne of the great sages and "holy men" havc an ap• 
parently supernatural power over beasts ancl reptiles  
which  are always  dangerous  Lo ordinary  monals. lf 
this is true. it is ccrtainly because they are able  to livc  
at pcace with thc "beasts and reptiles" in themselves. They need  not call the wild  elcphant  Ilehcmoth  or 
the sca-monster  Leviathan;  they  address  them  fa- 
miliarly  as "Long -Nose"  and "Slimy." Thc sense of unity with  the "J \11" is not,  however,  
a ncbulous  state  oí mind, a son  of trance,  in which  
all íorm and dis1 inction  is abolishecl, as  if man ancl  
the universe  merged  into  a luminous  mist  of pale  
mam·e. Justas process ancl  form, energy and mattcr,  
myself ancl  experience,  are names  for, an<l  ways  of 
looking at. the same  thing -so one and many,  unity  
and multiplicity,  idcntity  and differencc,  are not 
mutually  exclusive  opposites:  they  are ench  othcr,  
much as  thc body  is its vnrious organs. To discover  
that  the mnny are  the one, and  that  1he one  is thc 
many,  is to realize  that  both  are words  and noises  
repn:scnting  what  is al once  obvious  to sense  and 
fecling. ancl  an enigma  10 logic  and description. ,\ young  man  in search  of spiritual  wisdom  pul 
hirnscl f  u nder  thc instruction  o( a cclcbrated  holy  
man. Thc sage madc him his personal auendant, ancl  
aftcr sorne  months  the young man  co,nplained  that  
thus  far he had received  no instruction. •·,vhat  do 
you mean!" exclaimcd  the holy  man. "Whcn  you 
11!! THE  TRANSFORMATION  OF LIFE  
brought  me my rice,  didn't  I eat it? When  you 
brought me my tea, didn't 1drink it? Whcn you made  
salutations to me, didn't l return  them? vVhen  havc  
I ever ncglected to give you instruction?" "I'm afrai<l  
1 don't  unclerstand,"  said  thc young  man,  totally  
mystified. "When you want to see into it," answcrcd  
the sage,  ··see into it dircctly. When you  begin  tO 
think  about  it, it is altogether  missed." Plucki11g  chrysa11them11ms  along  the East fence;  
Cazing  i11 silence  al tite sot1lhern. hil/s;  
The birds  {lying  home  in pairs  
Through  the soft mou11tai11 airo/ d u s k - 
[11 these  thi11gs  there  is n deeJJ  meaning,  
But when  we are aboul  to ex/n-ess it, 
ll'e rnddenly  forget  the words. The mcaning  is nol the contemplative,  twilight,  
ancl,  pcrhaps,  superficially  iclyllic  acrnosphere  be- 
loved  of Chinese  pocts. This  is already  exprcsscd,  
ancl the poct does not gild the lily. He will  not, like 
so many Western poecs, turn philosopher ancl say 
that he is "onc with" the flowers, the fence, the bilis,  
ancl thc birds. This, too, is gilding the lily, or, in his 
own Oriental idiom, "putting lcgs on a snake." For 
when you really undcrstand thaL you are what you 
scc ancl know, you do not run around thc country - 
side  thinking,  "l am all this." There  is sirnply  "ali 
this." The  feeling  that  we stand  face -co-face  wilh  thc 
113  THE  WJSDOl \t OF INSECURITY  
world, cut off and set apare, has the grealest  
inAuence  on thought  and action. Philosophers,  for 
example,  oflen  fail to recognize  that  their  remarks  
about  the universe apply  also  to themselves  and 
lheir  remarks. If the univcrse  is 111caninglcss,  so is 
thc statcment  that it is so. If this world is a vicious 
trap, so is ics ac - cuser,  and thc pot is calling  the 
kcttle  black. In the scrictest  scnse,  we cannot  actually  think  
about lifc an<l  realicy  at ali, bccause  this woulcl  
have  to includc  thinking  about  thinking,  thinking  
about  thinking about thinking, and so ad 
infi11it11111. One  ca11  only  auempt  a rational,  
descriptive  philosophy  of thc univcrse on the 
assumption  that one is totally  separate  from  it. Bue 
if you and your  thoughts  are pan of this  univcrse,  
you cannot  stand  outsidc  them  to describe  thcm. This is why  ali philosophical  and theological  systcms  
must. ulti111atcly  íall aparl. To "know"  reality you  
cannot stand outside  it and  define  it; you muse  
cnter  into  it, be it, and fccl it. Speculativc  philosophy,  as we know  it in the 
West,  
is almost cncirely a symptom of the divicled mind, of  
man  trying  to stand outside  himsclf ancl  his cxperi - 
ence in arder to vcrbalizc :111cl define it. [e is a 
vicious  circlc,  likc cvcrything dsc which  che dividecl  
mind  attcmpts. On che othcr hancl, thc rcalizalion that che mind is  
acLUally  undividccl  must  havc  a corresponcling and 
cqually  far-rcaching  influcnce  on thought  and 
accion. 114  TI IE TRANSFORJ \f ATION  OF LIFE  
As the philosopher tries to sLand outside himself and  
his thoughL, so, as we  have seen,  the ordinary  man  
lries  to sLand  outside  himsclf ami  his cmolions  and 
scnsations,  his feelings  ancl  cksircs. Thc rcsulL  is a 
fantastic  confusion  and misdirccLion  of conduct  
which  discovcry  of Lhc mind"s  unity  musl  bring  to 
an end. So long as  the mind is splil, lifc  is perpcLUal  con- 
ílict,   tension,   frustration,  and clisillusion. uffering  
is pilcd  on suffering,  fcar on fcar,  and borcclom  on 
boredom. Thc more thc íly strugglcs lo gct out of the  
honcy, thc fas ter he is sLUck. U nclcr thc prcssurc o( so  
much strain and  (ULility,  it is no ,rnndcr at ali that  
men seek rclcasc  in violence ancl sensationalism, and  
in the rccklcss  exploitation  of lhcir bodics,  lheir ap - 
petites,  thc malerial  world,  and thcir  fcllow  mcn. What this must add lO die ncccssary and unavoidable  
pains  of existencc  is incalculable. BuL thc undividcd  mind  is f1 ce from  this Lcnsion  
of nying al\\'ays  to stand ouLside oneself and  LO be 
clscwhcrc Lhan hcre and now. Each  momcm  is lived  
completely,  ancl  therc  is Lhus  a scnsc  o( fulfillmcnt  
and complctcness. Thc dividcd  mind  comes  Lo lhe 
dinner  lablc  and pecks  at onc dish  aflcr  anochcr,  
rushing  on wiLhout  digcsting  anything  to find  onc 
bctter  than  thc last. lt fincls  nothing goocl,  becausc  
there  is noLhing  which  it really  Lastes. \Vhcn,  on thc oLhcr  hand,  you realizc  Lhat  you THE  WISJ)OM  OF INSECURITY  
live in, that in<leed you are this moment now, and no  
other,  that  aparl  from  this there  is no past  and no 
(ulllre,  you must  relax and  tasle  lo lhe full, whether  
il be pleasurc  or pain. At once  it becomes  obvious  
why d1is universc exists, why conscious bcings havc  
bcen  produced,  why  sensitive  organs,  why  spacc,  
time,  and change. The  wholc  problem  of justifying  
naturc,  of trying  to make  life mean  something  in 
tcrms  of its future,  disappears  uttcrl)' . Obviousl )' , it 
ali exists  for this moment. Il is a dance,  and when  
you are dancing you are not iment  on getting somc - 
whtrc. You  go round  and rouncl,  bul nol undcr  thc 
illusion  that  you are pursuing somcthing,  or flccing  
from  che jaws  o( hell. How  long  havc  thc planets  bccn  circling the sun? Are they gctting anywhere. and do thcy go fastet and  
fastcr  in orcler  to arrive? How  oftcn  has the spring  
rcturncd to l11c earth? Docs it come faster and fancicr  
cvery year,  lO be surc  to be bcllcr than  last spring. and to hurry on its way to che spring that shall out - 
spring  all springs? The mcaning ami purpose of dancing is che dance. Likc music, also,  it is fulfilled  in cach  inomcnt of its 
coursc. You do not play a sonata in order to rcach thc 
final chord, and  if lhc  meanings o[ things  wcre  si1n - 
ply in ends,  coinposcrs  would  writc  nothing  but 
finales. It might,  however,  be obscrvcd  in passing  
that  the music spcciall)'  charactcristic  of our  culture  
is progrcssivc  in sorne  respects,  and docs  at times scc111  
116  THE  TRANSFORJ \·(ATION  OF LIFE  
to be dccidedly on  its way to a future climax. But 
whcn it gcts thcrc, it does not know what to do with  
itself. Beethoven, I3rahms, and ·wagncr werc particu - 
larly  guilty of working up to colossal climaxcs and  
conclusions,  and then  blasting  away  at thc samc  
chord over and ovcr again, ruining the moment by  
bcing  rcluCLant  to lea ve it. When each  momcnt bccomes ;rn  cxpectation  lifc 
is dcprived  of fulfillment,  and dcath  is dreaded  for 
it sccms that herc cxpectation must come to an end. Whilc thcre is lifc thcrc is hopc -and i( onc lives on  
hope, dcath is indeed thc encl. But to thc undivicled  
mind, dcath is another momcnt, complete like evcry  
mom ent, and cannot yicld its sccrct unlcss lived to  
the full -  
 
A11d  l laitl  me <1011111  with  a will. Dcath is che epit0me of thc truth thac in cach mo- 
ment wc are thrust into the unknown. Herc ali cling - 
ing to security is compclled to ceasc, and wherever  
thc past is dropped away and safety abandoned, life  
is rencwed. Dcath is the unknown in which all of us  
livcd  bcfore  birth. Nothing is more crcativc than dcath, since it is the  
whole  sccret  of li(e. I t mea ns that the pase must  be 
abandoncd,  that  the unknown  cannot  be avoidcd,  
that  "l" cannot continue, and  that  nothing can  be 
ultimatcly  fixed. \o\fhen  a man  knows  this,  he lives  for 
117  THE  WISDOM  OF INSEClJRITY  
the first  time  in his life. By holding  his breath,  
he loses  it. By letting  it go he finds  it. U11d so  lang tiu  das nichl  
hast,  Dieses:  stírb  und  
werde,  
Bisl clu 11ur  ein trübcr  Gasl  
Auf der dtmklen  Erde. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Gocthc,  We,t -ostlicher  1Jiva11. "As long  as you do not know  
huw  10 die and come to life again. you are but a sorry travcler 
on this  dark  canh." 118  
 
V I 11. C RE A T I V E f  O R AL 1T Y 
 
IT IS PERHAPS  A l'ARAOOX  TO TALK  ABOUT  CREATIVE  
morality. For "morality"  is derived  from a word  
meaning custom and convemion, and the 
regulation  of life by rules. But morality has also 
come to mean  the working of lovc in human 
rclations, and in this  sensc wc can speak of a 
morality which is creative. St. Augustinc 
describcd itas , "Love, and do what you  will." Dut 
the problem has always bcen how to !ove  what  
you do not like. lf morality is che art of living togcther, it is 
clear  that rules, or rathcr techniques, have a 
place in ic. For many of the problems o[ a 
community are tech - nical problems -the 
distribution of wcalth and popu - lation, the 
proper managemcnt of natural rcsourccs,  thc 
organization of family life, the carc o[ the sick  
and disablcd, and the harmonious adaptation of 
in- dividual  differences. The moralist is therefore a technician who is 
con- sultcd on thesc problems as one consults an 
architect  on building a house or an enginecr on 
erec1ing a  bridge. Likc medicine, shoe -making, 
cookery, tailor - ing, farming, and carpentry, living 
together rcquires  a ccrtain "know -how." le 
demands the acquisition  and  use of certain  
skills. Dut the moralisc  has,  in practice,  bccomc  
much  
119 THE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
more than a technical consultant. He has become 
a scold. From his pulpit or his slUdy he 
harangues the  human  racc,  issuing  praise  and 
blame -mostly blame  
-likc fire from thc mouth of a dragon. For people 
do not take his advicc. Thcy ask how it is best to 
act under such -and-such circumstances. He tells 
them,  and they secm to agree that he is right. But 
then they  go away and do something different, for 
thcy find his  advice too difficult or have a strong 
desire to do the  oppositc. This happens so 
regularly that the moralist  loses his temper and 
begins to cal! them bad names. Whcn this has no 
effect, he resons to physical vio- lence, 
implcmenting his ad vice with policemen, pun - 
ishmencs,  and prisons. For the community  is i L S own 
moralist. lt elccts and pays judges, policemen, 
and preachers, as if to say, ··when I am difficult, 
please  kick  me." At first sight the problem seems to boíl down 
to this: Morals are for avoiding an unfair 
distribution  of pleasure and pain. This means 
that  sorne indi - viduals must get less pleasure 
and more pain. As a rule, these individuals will 
only submil to the sacri - f-ice under the thrcat of 
still more pain if they do not  co-operate. This is 
based on the assumption that  cvery man is for 
himsclf , and observes the interests  of che 
community only to the extent that thcse are  
obviously  his own  intereses. From  this,  moralists  have  evolved  the theory  
that  
man  is basically  selfish,  or that he has an inherent  
bias  
120  CREATIVE  MORALlTY  
towards evil. The "natural" man lives for one 
motive:  to protect his body from pain and to 
associate it with  pleasure. I3ecause he can only feel 
with bis own body,  he has littlc interest in the 
feelings of other bodies. Thercforc he will only 
take intercst in olhcr bodies  under the stimulus 
of rewards and punishments, that  is, by an 
exploitation of his self-interesc in rhe inter - ese 
of the community. Happily, thc problem is not quite so simple. For among thc things that give man pleasure 
are rela - tions with othcr human beings -
convcrsalion, eating  wgecher, singing, dancing, 
having children, and co - operation in work 
which "many hands make light." lndeed, one of 
the highest pleasures is to be more or less 
unconscious of one's own existence, to be ab - 
sorbed in interesting sights, sounds, places, and 
peo- ple. Conversely, one of the greatest pains is 
lo be  self-conscious, to feel unabsorbed and cut 
off from  che community  and thc surrounding  
world. But chis  whole  problem  has no solUlion  whíle  
we 
think abouc ic in cerms of the pleasure -pain 
motiva - tion, or, indeed, in terms of any 
"motivation" at all. For man has a moral problcm, 
which other commu - nity -living animals do not 
have, for the very rcason  lhat he is so much 
concerned with motives. lf it is  true thac man is 
ncccssarily motivated by the pleas - ure-pain 
principie, there is no point whatsoever in 
discussing human conduce. Motivate<l conduce is 
dc- termincd  conduct;  it will be what  it will be, 
no mat - 
1 Z 1 Tf-lE WISOOM  OF INSECURITY  
ter what anyone has to say about it. There can be 
no creative morality unless man has the 
possibility of  freedom. This is where the moralists make their 
mistake. H they want man to change his way of 
life, they must  assume that he is free, for if he is 
not, ali the raging  and protesting in the world will 
make no difference. On the other hand, a man 
who is acting from the  fear of a moralist's 
threats or from the lure of his  promises  is not 
making  a free act! If man  is not free,  thrcats and 
promises may modify his conduct, but  they will 
not change it in any essential respect. If he is free, 
threats and promises will not make him use  his 
freedom. The meaning of freedom can nevcr be grasped 
by the divided mind. If I feel separate from my 
experi - ence,  and f rom the world,  freedom  will 
seem  to be  the extent to which I can push the 
world around,  and fate the extent to which the 
world pushes me around. But to the whole mind 
there is no contrast  of "I" and the world. There 
is just one process act- ing, and it <loes 
everything that happens. It raises my little finger 
and it creates earthquakes. Or, if you  want to 
put it that way, / raise my liulc finger and  also 
make earthquakes. No one fates and no one is 
being  fated. Of course  this is a strange  view  of frcedom. We are 
accustomed  to think  that,  if there  is any freedom  
at 
122  CREATIVE  MORALITY  
all, it resides, not in nature, but in the separale 
hu- man  will  and  its power  of choice. But what  we ordinarily  mean  by choice  is not 
free- dom. Choiccs are usually decisions 
motivated by  pleasure and pain, and the divided 
mind acls with  the sole purpose of getting 'T' 
into pleasure and out of pain. But the best 
pleasures are those for which  we do not plan,  
and the worst  part  of pain  is expect - ing it and 
trying to get away from it when it has  come. You cannot  plan  to be happy. You can plan  to exisl, 
but in themselves existence and non -existence  
are neither plcasurnble nor painful. l am cvcn 
as- surcd by doctors that there are circumslances 
under  which  dearh  can be a highly  pleasant  
expericnce. The sense  of not being  free  comes  from  trying  
to 
do things which are impossible and cven 
meaning - less. You are not "free" to draw a 
square circle, to  livc without a head, or to stop 
ccrtain rellex actions. Thcse  are not obstacles  to 
freedom;  they  are the con- ditions of frccdom. I am 
not free to draw a circlc if  perchance ic should 
turn out to be a square circle. I  am not, thank  
heaven,  free to walk  out of doors  and lcave my 
hcad at home. Likewise I am not free to  live in 
any moment but this one, or to separate my - sclf 
from  rny feelings. In short  I am nol free when   I am 
trying lo do something contradietory, such as to  
move without changing posirion, or to burn my 
fin- ger without  feeling  pain. 123 THE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
On che orher hand, I am free, che world process 
1s free,  to do anything which  is not a 
contradiction. The question then arises:  is it a 
comradiction,  is it impossiblc,  10 act  or to decide 
without  pleasure as  the ultimate aim? The theory 
that we must  incvit - ably  do what  gives  us the 
greater  pleasure  or the lesser pain, is a 
meaningless asscrtion based on ver - bal confusion. To say that I decide to do something  because it 
pleases me says only that I decide to do it  because 
I decide to do it. lf "pleasure"  is defined  in the 
beginning as "what I prefcr," then what I prcfer  
will always be plcasurc. If I prefer pain, like a mas - 
ochist,  then  pain  will be pleasure. l n shon,  the 
the- ory begs the question at the start by saying 
that pleas - ure means what we <lesire:  therefore 
anything that  we desire  is pleasure. But I fall straight  int0  contradiction  when  1 try 
to 
act and decide in ordcr to be happy, wben  1 make  
"being plcased" my future goal. For the more my 
ac- tions  are directed  towards  future  pleasures,  
the more  1 am incapable of enjoying any 
pleasures at ali. For all pleasures are present, and 
nothing save complete  awarencss of the prcsem 
can even bcgin to guaran - Lee flllure happincss. I 
can act in order to eat tomor - row, or takc a trip to 
the moumains next week, but  there is rcally no 
way of bcing certain that this will  make me happy. On the contrary, it is common cx- periencc that 
nothing ruins a "pleasure" so muchas  watching  
yoursel(  in the midst  of it to scc whether  
121 CREATIVE  MORALITY  
it pleases you. You  can only  live in onc  moment 
at a time, and you cannot think simultancously 
about  listening to thc wavcs and whethcr you are 
enjoying  listening to the waves. Comradictions  of 
this kind  are the only  real  typcs  of action  
without  frcedom. There  is anothcr  thcory  of detcrminism  which  
states that ali our actions are motivated by 
"uncon - scious mental rncchanisms," and chat for 
this reason  even  the most spontaneous  dccisions 
are not free. This is but anothcr cxample of split -
mincledncss, for what  is the difTerence  between  
"me"  and "mental  mechanisms"  whcther  
conscious  or unconscious? Who is being moved by 
these processes? Thc notion  that anyonc is bcing 
mocivatcd comes frorn  the per - sisting illusion of 
·•r." The real man, the organism - in-relacion -to-
thc-univcrse, is this unconscious moti - vation. And 
because he is iL, he is not bcing moved  by it. In 
othcr words, it is not motivation;  it is sim- ply 
operation. Moreover, thcr c is no "unconscious"  
mind distinct  from  the conscious,  for the "uncon - 
scious" mind  is conscious,  though  not of itself, 
just as che eyes  see but do not see themselves. There remains the supposition that che whole 
op- eration,  the whole  process  o( action  which  
is man - 
and-univcrsc,  is a determined  series  of evcnts  in 
which  every  evcnt  is the inevitable  result  of past  
causes. We cannot go  into  this problem  exhaustively or  
even  adequacely. But it is perhaps  enough  to 
realize  
125 THE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
for the moment Lhat this is one of the biggest 
"open  questions"  of science,  which  is far from  
reaching a decision. The idea LhaL the past 
deLermines the pres - ent can be an illusion o[ 
language. Ilccause we must  describe the prescnt  in 
terms of the past,  it would  seem  that  the past  
"cxplains"  the present. To say "how"  something 
happened,  wc describe  the chain  of events  of 
which  it seemed  to be a part. Thc botLle smashed. It fell to the floor. I lct it go. My fingcrs  were slippery. I had soap 011 my  
hands. Is it lcgiLimate to put the word  "because"  
between  these statements? We do so as a rule, for 
we can make  the safe  bet that  if I !et go of the  
boule,  it will fall to the floor. But this <loes  not 
prove that  I caused it  to fall, or that it must  havc 
fallen. Evcnts  look in - evitable in retrospect 
because when  they have hap- pened,  nothing can 
change  them. Yct the fact that  I can make safc 
bets could prove cqually  well  that  events  are not 
determined  but consislenl. In other  words, che 
universal process acts freely and sponta - neously 
at every  moment,  but tends  to throw  out events  in 
regular,  and so predictable,  sequcnces. Howevcr  ti.,is  issue  may  be decided,  thc 
undivided  mind  cenainly  has the feeling  of 
freedom,  and cer- tainly  brings  into  the moral  
sphere  a way  of life which  has all  che marks of 
free and  creative  action. It is easy  to see  that  
most  of the acts  which,  in con- vencional  morals,  
are called  cvil can be traced  to the divided  mind. By far the greater  part  of thesc  acts  
126    CREATIVE  MORALITY  
come  from  exaggerated  desires,  desires  for chings  
which are not even remotely necessary for che 
health  of mincl and bocly, granting that "healch " is 
a rela - tive term. Such  outlandish  ancl  insaciable  
desires  come into bcing because man is exploiting 
his appe - rites  to give  thc ·'J" a sense  of security. I am depressed, and want to get 'T' out of this 
de- pression. The opposite of clepression is 
elation, but  because depression is not elation, I 
cannot force my - self to be elated. l can,  however,  
get drunk. This  makes me wonderfully elatccl, and 
so when rhe next  depression arrives,  I have a 
quick cure. The subse - quent deprcssions have a 
way of getting deeper and  blacker,  because  I am  
not digesting  the depressed  state ancl  eliminaling 
its poisons. So I nced  ta ger  even drunker to 
drown them. Very soon I begin ro  hate  mysclf for 
getting so drunk,  which  makes me  still more  
deprcssccl -and so it gocs. Or pcrhaps  l have  a largc  family,  and am living  
in 
a mortgagcd housc on which I have spent ali my 
sav- ings. I have to work hard at a job in which I 
am not  particularly  imerested  in arder  to pay the 
bilis. I don't mind working so much, but l keep 
wondering  what  will happen  if I get sick,  or if a 
war  comes  and I am draftecl. I would rather not 
think about these  things, so I walll  to gct  "l" out 
of this worry. For I  am surc that I shall get sick if it 
goes on. Bue it's so  hard to stop, and as this makes 
sickness more certain,  the worrying  digs  deeper. I must  fincl  relief  from  
127 THE  \\I ISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
Lhis, and so in dcspernlion  I begin  Lo "play the  po- 
nies,"  trying to offset  the worry  with  the daily  hope  
thaL  my horse  may  win. And  so il goes. The  conventional  moralisl  has nothing  LO con- 
tribute  to these  problcms. He can point  out thc 
frighcf ul  effects of alcoholism anc! gamb!ing,  bul 
that  is simp!y  more  fue! for depression  and worry. He can promise  rewards  in hcaven  for suffering  pa- 
ciencly endured, but thal, LOO, is a gamble of a kind. He can attribuce the c!epression or Lhe worry to the  
social sysLem, and urge Lhc unfonunates LOjoin Lhc  
revoluLion. In short,  he can eiLher frighten  the "I" or encour - 
agc it, in one case  making  Lhe individual  run away  
from himself, and  in the other making him run after  
hirnsc!f. He can paint  glowing  pictures  of the vir- 
Lues and encourage oLhers  LO find sLrcngth  in the ex - 
arnplcs  of great  men. He can succeed  to the 
extcnt  of arousing the most vigorous eífons Lo 
imitate saim - liness, to curb che passions,  and LO 
practice rescraint  and charity in action. Yel none of 
this brings anyone  LOfreedom, for behind ali  thc 
imitation and the dis- cipline  there  is still motive. lf I am  afraid,  my effons  lo feel and act bravcly  
are moved by che fear,  for I am afraid  of fear,  
which  is sirnply ro say that my e[ons to escape from 
what  I am are moving  in a circle. Beside  the 
examples  of saints  and heroes  I fecl ashamed  that  I 
amount  ro nothing,  and so I begin  co practice  
humility  because  
128 CREATIVE  MORALITY  
of my wounded pride, and charity beca use of my 
self- love. The urge is ever lo make 'T' amounl to 
some - lhing. I must be right, good, a real  person, 
heroic,  loving, sclf•effacing. I efface myself in 
order LO assert  myself,  and give  myself  away  in 
order  LO keep  my- self. The  whole  thing  is a 
contradiclion. The Christian mind has always been haunted 
by the feeling that the sins of the saints are worse 
than  the sins of the sinners, that in sorne 
mystcrious way  the one who  is struggling  for 
salvation  is nearer  to 
hell and to the heart of evil than Lhe unashnmed 
har- lot or thief. It has recognized  that the De vil  is 
an an - gel, and as pure spirit is not really 
interested in the  sins of che  flesh. The sins after  
the Devil 's heart are the intricacies of spiritual 
pride,  the mazes of self - deception,  and che subtle  
mockeries  of hypocrisy  where  mask  hides  behind  
mask  behind  mask  and reality  is lost altogethcr. The would -be saint walks straight into thc 
meshes  of this web because he would become a 
saint. His "I" finds the deepest security in a 
satisfaction  which is  the more  intense  for being so  
cleverly  hidden -the satisfaction of being contrite  
for his sins, and con - trile for taking pridc in  his 
contrition. In such an involved vicious circlc the 
masks behind masks are  infinite. Or, to put it in 
anothcr way, he who ,vould  stand outside himself 
to kick himself, must then kick  the self that  stands  
outside. And  so forever. So long  as there  is the motive  lo  becomc  
somc - 
129 THE  WISOOM  OF INSECURITY  
thing, so long as the mind believes in  the 
possibility  of escape from  what it is at this 
momenc,  there can  be no freedom. Virtue will be 
pursued  for exactly  Lhe same reason as vice, and 
good and cvil will alter - naLc  as che opposice 
poles  of a ingle  circle. The  "saine" who appcars 
LOhave conquercd his self-love  by spiricual 
violence has only concealed it. His ap - parent 
success convinces  others  that  he has found  the 
"true  way,"  and they  follow  his example  long  
enough for the course to swing to its oppositc 
pole,  when license becorncs Lhc inevitable 
reacLion to pu - ritanism. Of course it sounds as if it were the most abject  
fatalism to have to admit that I am what I am, and  
that  no escape or division  is possible. lt seems  
that  if I am afraid, then  I am "stuck"  with  fcar. But in  fact I am chained LOthe fear only so long as 
I am try - ing LOget away from iL. On the other 
hand, when I do noL try to get away I discover 
thaL there is noth - ing "stuck" or fixed about the 
reality of the moment. When I am aware of this 
feeling without naming it, without  calling  it "fear,"  
"bad,"  "negative,"  etc.,  it changes instantly in Lo 
something else, and life moves  freely ahead. The 
fceling no longer perpetuates  it- self by creating  
the feeler  behind  it. Wc can perhaps see now why the undivided 
mind  is not moved  into  those escapes  from  the 
present  which  are usually  called  "evil." The  
further  truth  Lhat  the undividc<l  mind  is aware  
of experience  as a 
130   CR.E.ATIVE  MORALITY  
unily,  of the world  as icself,  and that  the whole  na- 
ture  of mind  and awarcness  is to be one with  
what  it knows, suggests a statc that would usually be 
called  lovc. For the love  that exprcsscs  itsclf in 
crealivc ac- tion is somcthing much  more than an 
emotion. lt is not something  which  you can ''fccl"  
ancl  "know,"  remcmber  ancl  define. Lovc  is the 
organizing  and unifying principie which makes  the 
world a universc  ancl  che clisintegracccl  mass a 
community. lt is the very  essence  ancl  characccr  o[ 
mind,  and becomcs  manifest  in action  when  thc 
mind  is wholc. For the mind  nwsl  be intcrestecl  or absorbed  in 
somcdling, justas a minor must always be 
reAecting  somcthing. When it is not trying to be 
intcrcsted  in itself -as if a mirror  would  reílect  
itself -it must  be intcrested,  or absorbed,  in other  
people  and things. Thcrc is no problcrn o(  how  to 
lovc. We lovc. \Ve are !ove,  and the only  problcm  
is the direction  of 
!ove, whether ic  is to go straight  out like sunlight, 
or to try to turn  back on  itsclf  like a "candle  under  a 
bushel." Released  from  the circle  of attempted  sclf-love,  
che mind of man  draws  thc whole  universe  into  its 
own unity as a single dcwclrop secms Lo contain  thc 
entirc  sky. This,  rather  than  any mere  emotion,  is 
che power  and principie  of free  action  and creativc  
morality. On the other  hand,  che morality  of rules  
and regulations  bascd  on rcwards  and punishments,  
even  when  these  are as intangible  as the pain  o[ 
guilt  
131 THE  WISOOM  OF JNSECURITY  
and the plea.sure of self-respect, has no relation to  
free action. It is a way of ruling slaves by "benevo - 
lent exploitation" of lheir illusions, and, however 
far pursued,  can nevcr  lead  to frcedom. Where  there  is lo be creative  aclion,  it is quite  
beside  the point  to discuss  what  we should  or 
should  not do in order  to be right  or good. A 
mind  Lhat  is single  and sincere  is not interested  
in being  good,  in conducting  relations  with  other  
peoplc  so as to live up to a rule. Nor, on the othcr 
hand,  is it interested  in being  free,  in acting  
perversely  just to prove  its indepcndence. Its 
interest  is not in itself,  but in the people and  
problems of which  it is aware;  these  are "itself." It 
acts,  not according  to the rules,  but ac- cording  to 
the circumstances  of the momcnt,  and the "well"  it 
wishes to others  is not security  but liberty. Nothing is really  more  inhuman  than  human  re- 
lations bascd on morals. When a man  givcs bread  
in order  to be charitable,  lives  with  a woman  in 
order  to be faithful,  eats  with  a Negro  in order to  
be un- prejudiced,  and refuses  to kill in order  to 
be peace - ful, he is as cold  as a clam. He does not  
actually see  the other  person. Only  a little  less 
chilly  is the be- nevolence  springing  from  pity,  
which  acts  to remove  
suffering  because  it finds  the sight  of it disgusting. But thcre  is no formula  for generating  the au- 
thentic warmth  of love. It cannot  be copied. You 
cannot talk yourself into it or rouse it by sttaining 
at the emotions  or by dedicating  yourself  
solemnly  to 
132 CREATIVE  MORALITY  
the servicc  of mankind. Everyone has }ove, but it 
can only come out when he is convinced of the 
impossi - bility and the frustration of trying to 
love himself. This conviction will not come 
through condemna - tions, through hating 
oneself, through calling self - love ali the bad 
namcs in the univcrsc. It comes only  in the 
awarcness  that  one has no self to lovc. IX. RELIGION  REVIEWED  
 
W E DEGAN  THIS  DOOK  WITH  THE  ASSUMPTION  THAT  
science and scientific philosophy givc no gi -ounds 
for religions  belief. We did not argue  the point,  
but took it as the  point of departure. We adopted  
the prevalent view that the existence of God, of 
any ab - solutes, and of an eternal order beyond 
this world is  without  logical  support  or meaning. We accepted  the notion that such ideas are of no 
value for scien - tific prediction, and  that  all known  
events  can be explained more simply without 
them. At che same  time, we said that religion  had 
no need  to oppose  this view, for almost all the 
spiritual traditions rec- ognize  that  there  is a 
stage  in man's  development  when  belief -in 
contrast  to faith -and its securities  have  to be left 
behind. To this point,  Ido not think  that  we have  
claimed  
anything which cannot be verified by experiment, 
or asserted  anything which  seriously  conflicts  
with  a scientific view of the world. Yet we  have  
now come  to a position from which the principal 
ideas of re - ligion  and traditional  metaphysics  can 
once  more  becorne  imelligible  and meaningful -
not as beliefs,  but as valid  symbols  of 
experiencc. Science  and religion  are talking  about  the same  
universe,  but they  are using  different  kinds  of 
lan- 
135  THE  WfSOOM  OF fNSECURITY  
guage. In general,  the statements of science have  
to do with  the past and the future. The scientist  
de- scribes events. He tells us "how"  things happen 
by giving us a detailed account  of what  has 
happencd. He finds that events occur in various 
frequencies and orders, and on this basis he 
makes bets or predictions  in the light of which we 
can make practica! arrange - ments and 
adaptations to  the course of events. To make  
these bets,  he does  not need to know about  God  
or eternal  life. He needs  to know  the past - what  
has happened  already. On thc other  hand,  the statements  of rcligion  
have  
to do with the present. But both religious and sci- 
entific people are under the  impression  that 
religion  is more concerned with the past.and the 
future. This  is a natural  misunderstanding,  
because  religion  seems to make assertions about 
h°'v this world  be- gan and how it will end. It has 
long been connected  with prophecy, which is 
surcly the same thing as pre- diction. It states that  
this world was made by God,  and that he made it 
for a pu,rpose which will be ful- filled in the 
distant future,  in "the  life of the world  to come,"  
It insists,  furthermore,  that  man has an immortal  
soul,  and prophesies  that  it will survive  his 
physical  death  and live everlastingly. The scientist  therefore  seems justified  in saying  
that such  predictions  cannot  be verified,  and that  
they are made with precious little reference to 
past  events  known  to have  happened. When  he 
tries  to 
136  RELIGION  REVIEWEO  
discover the grounds upon which these 
predictions  are made, he finds them emotional 
rather than ra - tional. Religious people hope or 
believe that these  things  will be true. Ncvertheless, in the history of every important 
re- ligion  there have been those who 
understood reli - gious ideas and statements in a 
very different way. On the whole, this has been 
more true of the East  than of the West, though 
Christian history contains  a long list of me n and 
women who could have talked  on common 
ground with  orthodox  Hindus  and  Buddhists. From this other and, we think, deeper point 
of view, religion is not a system of predictions. Its 
doc- trines have to do, not with the future and 
the ever - lasting, but with che present and the 
eternal. They  are not a set of beliefs and hopes 
bul, on the con - trary, a set of graphic symbols 
aboul present experi - ence. Traditionally, these symbols are of two kinds. One  describes the religious way of 
understand ing the present in the form of 
concrete images and stories. The other 
describes it in an abstraer, negative lan - guage 
which is often similar to the language of aca- 
demic philosophy. For convenience, we can call 
thesc  two kinds of symbol the religious and the 
metaphy - sical. Bue we must remember that 
"metaphysic" in this sense is not speculative 
philosophy. lt is notan  attempt  to anticípate  
science  and give  a logical  de- TJ-IE WISOOM  OF INSECURITY  
scription of the  universe and  its origins. It is a 
way  of representing  a knowledgc  of the present. Reli - gious symbols are spccially characteristic of 
Chris - tianity, Islam, and Judaism, whcreas 
doctrines of thc Oriental  type  are more  
metaphysical. We said that sciencc and rcligion are both 
calking  about the same world, and throughout this 
book we  have never been concerned with 
anything but every - day life, wilh things which can 
be seen, felt, and ex - perienccd. We shall  thereforc  
be told,  by religio us critics, that we are rcducing 
rcligion to "naturalism,"  that we are identifying 
God with  naturc, and mak - ing a mockery  and 
travcsty  of religion  by taking  away  "its essential  
supernatural  content." But when  you ask theologians  what  thcy  mean  
by 
the " supcrnatural," thcy burst immediately into 
sci- entific  language. They  talk about  a God  having  
"concrete  reality clistinct  from  this universc,"  and 
speak of him in tcrms of past history and future 
pre- dictions. They insist  that  thc supernatural  
world  is not of the same  "ordcr" as thc universe 
studied by  science, but exists on anothcr plane of 
being invisi - ble to our natural  scnses. lt begins  to 
sound  likc somcthing psychic, something of the 
same order as  the phcnomena of tclepathy,  
clairvoyancc, and clair - audiencc. Yet this is naLUralism  purc  and simple;  it is 
even  
pseudo -science. For science and naturalism are 
not necessarily  conccrned  only  with  things  
visible  to the 
138  RELIGION  REVIEWED  
senses. No one has seen electrons or quanta, nor 
been  able to construct a sensual image of curved 
space. lf psychic phenomena exist, there is no 
reason to sup - pose that they cannot be studied 
scientifically, and  that they are not simply 
another aspcct of "naturc." Indeed,  science  is 
concemed  with  innumerable  things which 
cannot be experienced with the senses,  and 
which  are not present  to immediate  experience  
-for example,  the entire  past,  the process  of 
gravity,  
the nature of time, and the weights of planets 
and stars. These invisible things are inferred 
from im - mediate experience by logic. They are 
hypotheses  which seem to give a reasonable 
explanation of ob - served events. The 
theological God is exactly the same thing -a 
hypothesis accounting for ali experi - ences. When a theologian makes such a hypothesis 
he uses the methods of scicncc and enters the 
field of  scicnce. He must expcct, thereforc, to be 
qucstioned,  examined,  and criticized  by his 
fellow naturalists. But the difference between the natural and 
the supernatural can be understood in a 
simpler and  much more useful way. lf "nature" is 
the province of  science, we can say that nature is 
this world as it is named, measurcd, and 
classificd. Nature is che world  which thought has 
analyzcd and soned into groups  called "things." lt has, as we saw, given things an  identity by 
naming them. lt distinguishes motion  from  
stillness  by comparing somerhing  which  moves  
139  THE  WISDOM  OF INSECURIT \' 
rapidly in relation to something which moves 
slowly,  though  both  move. Thus the whole world of nature is relative and is  
produced by  thought and comparison. Is the head  
"really"  distinct  from  the neck? Why shouldn't  we 
have  made  the "thing"  called  head  include  the 
"thing" called neck, justas it includes the nose? It is 
a convention of thought that head and neck are 
two things instead of one. In this sense, the 
ancient meta - physicians are perfectly right when 
they say that the  whole universe is a product of 
the mind. They mean  the universe  of "things." On thc other hand, the supernatural and 
absolute  world  consists  of the mysterious  reality  
which  we have so namcd, classified, and divided. This is not a  product of the mind. But there is no 
way of defining  or describing what  it is. At every  
moment we are  aware  of it, and it is our 
awarcness. We feel and sense it, and it is our 
feelings and sensations. Yet try - ing to know and 
define it is like trying to make a  knife cut itself. What is this? This is a rose. But "a rose" is a noise. What is a noise? A noise is an impact  of air wavcs 
on the eardrum. Then a rose is an im - pact  of air 
waves  on the eardrum? No, a rose  is a rose  
... is a rose  is a rose  is a rose  .... Definition is simply making a one -to-one 
corrcs - pondence betwecn groups of sense data 
and noises,  but because noises are sense data, the 
attempt is ul - timately  circular. The  real  world  
which  both  pro- 
140  TIIE  WISDOM  OF INSECURlTY  
Otherwise, we can use the negative, 
metaphysical  language about this undefined 
reality. It is che in - finite,  not thc definite. It is the 
eternal,  thc ever - present, not the past and future, 
not the convcntions  of thought  and time. It is the 
unchanging  in the sensc  that the idea of changc is  
but another word,  anothcr definition, which the 
rcality called changc  surpasscs. Obviously,  if all 
movcmcnt  is relacive,  therc is no absolute 
movement. It would be mean - inglcss to say that 
ali bodies in the universe are mov - ing uniformly 
at ten thousand miles pcr minute, be - caus e "ali" 
has cxcludcd any othcr body with respect  to 
which  they  could  be said  to move. Mctaphysical  language  is negative  bccause  it 
is 
trying to say that ,vords and ideas do not explain 
re- ality. lt is not trying to persuade us that reality 
is something likc a boundlcss mass of transparent 
jelly. lt <loes not spcak of sorne  impalpable 
abstraction,  but of this vcry world in wh1,h we 
live. This expe - riencc  which we call things, 
cc,1.ors, sounds, smells,  tastes, forms, and weights 
is, in itself, no thing, no  form,  no number,  no 
nothing -but at this moment  we behold it. Wc are, 
then, beholding thc God which  traditional  
doctrines  call che boundless,  formless,  infinitc, 
eternal, undivided, unmovcd, and unchang - ing 
Rcalily -the Absolute  behind  che relativc,  the 
Meaning  behind  thoughts  and words. 1   
Naturally  
1This  is likewisc  what  Vedanta  doctrine  temu  the Sclf. the 
atman,  transcending  ali expcricnced  ""things." RELICION  REVIEWED  
the Meaning is meaning -less because, unlike 
words,  it does not have meaning but is 
meaning. By itself,  a tree is mcaningless, but it 
is the meaning of the word  "tree." It is easy to see that this kind of language, 
whether  in its religious or metaphysical forms, 
can lead to ali manner of misunderstanding. For when the mind is  divided, and 'T' wants to 
get away from present ex - pericnce, thc whole 
notion of a supernatural world is  its happy 
hide -out. The "I" is resisting an unhappy  
change, and so clings LOthe "unchanging" 
Absolute,  forgetting that this Absolute is also 
the "unfixed." When life provides sorne bitter 
experience, the "I"  can only support it with che 
guarantee that it i s part  of the plan of a loving 
Father -God. But this very  guarantee makes  it 
impossiblc  Lo realize  the "love of  God," which, as 
is well known, requires che giving  up of "l." 
The misunderstanding of religious ideas is 
vividly  illustrated in what men havc madc of the 
doctrine of  immortality, heaven, and hell. But 
now it should be clear that eternal lifc is the 
realization that the pres - ent is thc only rcality, 
and that past and future can  be distinguished  
from  it in a convcntional  scnse  alone. The  
moment  is the "door  of heaven,"  thc 
.. straight  and narrow  way  that  leadeth  unto  life,"  
be- 
cause therc is no room in it for the scparate 
··1." In  th is cxperience  there  is no one 
expericncing  the ex- pcrience. The  "rich  man"  
cannot  get through  this  
1 43 THE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
<loor  because  he carries  too much  baggagc;  he is 
clinging  to thc past  and the future. One might quote whole pages from the spiritual  
litera tu re of ali times and places tO  show that 
eternal  life has becn understood in this sensc. Thc 
follow - ing from  Eckhart  will sufficc:  
The Now -moment in which God made the first man and  
the Now -moment  in which  the last man  will disappear,  
ancl  the Now -moment in which  l am spcaking are ali one 
in God, in whom  there  is only onc Now. Lookl The per- 
son who livcs in  the light oí God  is conscious ncither of  
time  past  nor of  time  to come  but only  oí onc ctcrnity. . . .
The-Wisdom-of-Insecurity_by_Alan_Watts.txt
Summarize the following text section accurately and concisely. Maintain specific details and numerical information, and use anti-repetition mechanisms:

        When you 
discover  chis, the desire to escape "merges" into 
the pain it - self and  vanishes. Discounting aspirin for the moment, you 
cannoc  remove your head from a headache as 
you can re- move your hand  f rom a flame. "You"  
equah  "head"  equals "ache. " \,Vhen you accually 
see chat you are the pain, pain ceascs to be a 
motive, for there is no  one to be moved. lt 
becomes,  in the true  sense,  of no consequence. lt 
hurts -period. This, however, is not an experiment to be held 
in reserve,  as a trick,  for moments  of crisis. lt is a 
way of life. lt means being aware, alert, and 
sensitive to the  present  moment  al ways,  in ali 
actions  and relations  
98 THE  MARVELOUS  MOMENT  
whatsoever, beginning at this instant. This, in 
turn,  depends upon seeing that you have really 
no choice  but to be aware -becausf. : you cannot 
separate your - self from the present and you 
cannot define it. You  can, indeed, refuse to admit 
this, but only at the cost  of the immense and 
futile effort of spcnding your  whole  life 
resisting  che inevitable. Once chis is understood, it is really absurd to 
say that there is a choice or an alternative between 
thesc  two ways of life, between resisting the 
stream in fruit - less panic, ancl having one's eyes 
opened to a new  world, transformed, and ever 
new with wonder. The  key is undcrstanding. To 
ask how to do this, what is  the technique or 
method, what are the steps and  rules, is to miss 
thc point uttcrly. Mcthods are for  creating things 
which do not yct exist. '\Ve are con- cerned  here  
with  understanding  something  which  is 
-the present  momcnt. This  is not a psychological  
ar spiritual discipline for self-improvement. It is 
simply  being aware of chis present experience, 
and realizing  that you can neither define it nor 
divide yoursclf  from  it. There  is no rule  but 
"Lookl"  
lt is no mere poetic sentiment to say that, with 
the mind chus opened, we look into a new world, 
as ncw  as on the first <lay of creation "when the 
morning  stars sang together, and all the sons of 
God shouted  for joy. " By trying to understand 
everything in terms  of mcmory, the past, and 
words, we have, as it were,  had our noses  in che 
guidebook  for most  of our lives,  
99 THE  WJSDOM'. OF INSECURITY  
and have never looked at the view. Whitehead's 
criti - cism  of traditional  education  is applicable  to 
our whole  way  of living:  
We are loo cxclusively bookish in our scholastic rou - 
line. In thc Carden  of Eden  Adam  saw 1he animals  
before he namcd lhem:  in the tradilional systcm, chil - 
dren  named  lhe animals  before  they  saw  them. 1  
In the widest  sense  of the word,  to name  is to 
in- terpret  cxperience  by the past,  LO translate  it 
into  tcrms of memory,  to bind the unknown  into 
the sys - tem  of thc known. Civilizcd  man  knows  
of hardly  any other  way  of understanding  things. Everybody,  everything, has to have  its label,  its 
number,  certifi - cate,  registration,  classification. What  is not classified  is irregular,  unpredictablc,  
and dangerous. Witqout  passport,  birth  
cenificate,  or membership  in sorne  nation,  onc's  
existence  is not recognized. If you do not agree  
with  Lhc capicalists,  they  call you a com - munist,  
and vice versa. A person  who  agrees  with  neither 
point of vicw  is fast becoming  unintelligible. That  
thcre  is a way  of looking  at life. apart  from  all 
conceptions,  beliefs,  opinions,  and theories  is the 
re- motest  of ali possibilities  from  che modern  
mind. If such  a point  of view  exists,  it can only  
be in the vacant brain of a moron. We suffer from 
che delusion  that  the entire  universe  is held  in 
order  by the cate - gories  of human  thought,  
feari n g that  if we do not 
1A. N. Whitehead,  Science  and the Modem  World. (Cambridge,  
1933) p. R19• 
100  THE  MARVELOUS  MOMENT  
hold  Lo thcm with  lhc utmost tenaciLy, cvcrything  
will vanish  into  chaos. We musl  repeat:  memory,  lhought,  languagc,  
and  
logic are csscntial  lo human  lifc. They are one  
half  of sanity. But a person, a socicly, which is only 
half  sane is  insane. To look at  life without words  
is  not  to lose the ability to form  words -lo think, 
remem - ber, and plan. To be silent is not to lose 
your tongue. On lhe contrary, Íl is only through 
silence that one can discover somelhing new lo 
talk about. One who  lalked  inccssantly,  without  
stopping  LO look  and  listen,  woul<l  repcal  himsclf 
ad nrmseam. Il is the same with thinking, which is really 
silcnt  talking. It is not, by itself, open  LO thc  
discovery of  anything new, for its only noveltics 
are simply rear - rangements o( old words ami 
ideas. There was a time  when language was 
constantly being cnrich cd by new  words -a time 
when men, like Adam, saw things bc - forc lhey 
named them. Today, almost ali 11cw words  are 
rearrangements of old words, for we are no longer  
thinking creatively. By chis I do not mean that we  
ought ali to be popping wiLh  inventions and 
revolu - tionary  discoveries. This  is  the -always  
rarc -powcr  o{ those who can boLh see lhe 
unknown and inlerpret  it. For most o( us,  the other  
half o( sanil y lies simply  in seeing and enjoying thc 
unknown, jusL as we can enjoy music wiLhout 
knowing eicher how it is writ - ten or how  the 
body  hears  it. Certainly  the revolutionary  thinker  must  go be- 
101 THE  WISOOM  OF INSECURITY  
yond thought. He knows that almost all his best 
ideas  come  to him when  thinking has stopped. He 
may  have strugglcd and struggled to understand a 
prob - lem in terms of old ways of thinking, only to 
find it  impossible. But when  thought  stops  from  
exhaus - tion, the mind is open to see the problem 
as it is-not as it is verbalized -and at once  it is 
understood. But going beyond  thought is not reserved  to 
men  of genius. lt is open to ali of us in so far as "the 
mys - tery of life is not a problem  to be solved,  but 
a real - ity to be expcrienced. " lt is given  to many  
to be secrs, but to fcw to be prophets. Many can 
listen to  music, but fcw can perform and composc. Bm you  cannot even listen if you can  hear only  in 
terms  of the past. What should we make of one of 
Mozart's  symphonies  if our cars  were  attuned  only  
to the music of tom -toms. Wc might gct the 
rhythms, but  aJmost nothing of the harmony and 
mclody. In other  words, we should fail to discovcr 
an essential elcmem  of the music. To be able  to 
hcar,  much less write,  such a symphony men  had 
to discover  new  noises - the vibrations of catgut,  
the sound  of air  in a tube,  and che hum of a 
plucked wire. They had to discover  the whole 
world of tone, as something entircly dificr - ent 
from  pulse. If I can only conccivc pulse,  I cannot appreciate  
tone. J f I can think of painting only as a way of mak - 
ing colorc<l photographs without a camera, I can 
see nothing  but incptitude  in a Chinese  
landscape. We 
102 THE  MARVELOUS  MOMENT  
learn nothing of very much importance when  it 
can be explained entirely in terms of past 
experience. If  it were possible to understand ali 
things in terms of  what we know already, we 
could convey the sense of color to a blind man 
with nothing but sound, taste,  touch,  and  smell. If this is true  in the various  arts and sciences,  it 
is a 
thousand times more true when we come to the 
un- derstanding  of life in a larger  sense  and want  
to have  sorne knowledge of the ultimate Reality, 
or God. lt  is surely absurd to seek God in terms 
of a precon - ccived  idea of what God is. To seek 
thus is only to find what we know already, which 
is why it is so easy  to deceivc oneself into ali 
manner oE "supernatural"  experiences and 
visions. To believe in God and to  look  for the God 
you believe  in is simply  to seek  c o n- firmation of 
an opinion. To ask for a revelation of  God's will, 
and then to "test" it by rcference to your  
preconceived moral standards is to make a 
mockery  of asking. You kncw the answer alrcady. Sceking for  "God" in this way is no more than 
asking for the  stamp of absolute authority and 
certainty on what  you believe  in any case,  for a 
guarantee  that the un- known  and the future  will 
be a continuation  of what  you want to rctain from 
thc past -a biggcr  and better  fortress  for "l. " Ein 
/este  Burg. 1 
If we are open  only  to discoverics  which  will 
ac- 
cord with what we know already, we may as 
well  stay shut. This  is why  the marvelous  
achievcments  of 
103  TIIE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
scicnce and 1echnology are of so little real  use to 
us. It is in vain  that  we can predict  and control  the 
course of evcms in chef uture, unlcss we know how 
to live in the present. It is in vain that doc1ors 
prolong  life if we spend Lhe cxLra  time being 
anxious Lo livc  still longer. 1t is in vain that 
engineers devise faster  and casier mcans of travcl 
if thc new sights  that wc  scc are mercly soned and 
undcrstood in tcrms of old  prejudices. lt is in vain 
that we get the powcr of thc  atom if wc are just to 
continue in thc rnt of blowing  peoplc  up. Tools such as these, as well as the too Is of 
languagc  ami thought, are of real use to men only if 
they are  awake -not lost in the dreamland of past 
and future,  but in the closest touch with that point 
of expericnce  where rcality can alone be 
discovered: this moment. Hcre life  is alive, vibrant, 
vivid, and  prcscnt,  con- taining depLl1s which we 
have hardly begun to ex - plore. But to scc ami 
understand it at ali, the mind  must not be dividcd 
into "I" and "this experience. " Thc moment must 
be what it always is-ali that you  are and ali that 
you know. In this house there is no  room  Cor thee  
and me. 104   
 
 
VI 1. T HE T R A NS FO R I AT l O 1 
OF L I F E   
 
TH E  W H I T E. \fAN  F,\N C I E S   H l. \I S E L F   AS  A  l'R A C T I C A L  
person who wants to "get results. " He is 
impatient  with  theory,  and with  any discussion  
which  < l o e s  n ot immcdiately get clown to concrete 
applications. This  is why the behavior o( Western 
civilization might be described,  in  general,  as " 
fuch  Ado About  'oth- ing. " The propcr mcaning 
o( "theory" is not idle  speculation but vision, 
and it was rightly said that  "whcre  there  is no 
vision  the people  perish. " But vision  in this sense  < l o e s  not mean  clreams  
and ideals for the future. lt means understanding 
of life  as it is. of what we are, and what we are 
doing. With - out such  understanding  it is 
simpl}'  ridiculous  to 
talk of being practica. and getting rcsults. lt is 
like walking busily in a fog: you just go rouncl and 
round. You do not know  where  you are going. nor 
what  re- sults  you  really  want. To minds that think in this way, what we 
have  discussecl so far may secm  too theoretical. These ideas  are all very  wcll,  but do they  w o 1 k. Yct 
I must  ask, "What do you mean by work. " The 
usual "working  test"  of a philosophy  is 
whether  it makes  people  THE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
better and happier, whether it results in peace, co- 
operacion, and prosperity. Yet chis is a 
meaningless  criterion without much "theorctical" 
undcrstanding. What do you mean by happiness. What are ··bcucr"  pcople bettcr for. About what 
will you co-operate. What  will you do with  pcacc  
ancl  prosperity. The answer  to these  qucstions  depends  entirely  
on 
what we are and what we actUally wanc now. If, 
for example, we want at the same time both peace 
and isolation,  brotherhood and security  for "I," 
happi - ness and permancnce, our wants are 
contradictory. Their  results,  howcver  practica. we 
may  be about  getting thcm, will be funher 
contradictions. le is the old story of wanting to 
have your cake and eat it-to which the only 
possible conclusion  is that you put it in your 
stomach  and keep  it there  umil  you have  violcnt  
indigcstion. 1f wc muse  be nationalists  and have  a 
sovereign  
state, we cannot also expcct to havc world peace. If wc want to get everyching at che lowest 
possible cost,  we cannot expect to get the best 
possible quality, the  balance  between  the two 
being  mediocrity. If we make it an ideal  Lo be 
morally superior, we cannot at the same  time avoid 
self-righteousness. lf we cling  to belief in God, we 
cannot likcwise have faith, since  faith  is not 
clinging  but lctting  go. When we have made up our minds as to what 
we do want,  thcre remain  indeed  many  practica. and technical  problems. But thcre  is no point  at 
all in 
106  THE  TRANSFORMATION  OF LIFE  
discussing these uncil we havc made up our minds. There  is, in turn,  no possibility  of making up our  
minds so long as they are splil in two, so long as "I"  
am onc thing ancl "expcrience" another. lf thc mind  
is the directivc force bchind aclion, che mind and its  
vision of life muse be healed befare action can be  
anyching  but conflict. Something must therefore be said about the healed  
vision of life which comes with foil awareness, for it  
involvcs a decp Lransformation of our view of the  
world. As well as words can describe it, this trans - 
formation consists in knowing and fceling that the  
world  is an organic  unity. In the ordinary way, we "know" this as a matter of  
information but do not feel it to be true. Certainly  
most pcople fccl separare from everything that sur - 
rounds them. On the onc hancl therc  is mysclf, and 
on che othcr the rest of thc univcrse. I am not rooted  
in the earth  like a tree. I raule around  indepencl - 
ently. I seem to be thc centcr of everything, and yet  
cut off and alone. I can feel what is going on inside  
my own body, but I can only guess what is going on 
in othcrs. My conscious rnind  rnust have  its roots  
and origins in the most unfathomable depths of be- 
ing, yet it fecls as if it lived ali by itsclf in this cight  
little  skull. Nevertheless, the physical reality is that my body  
exists only in relation to chis universe, and in fact I 
amas  attached  to it and dependent  on itas a leaf on  a 
107   Tl-. E WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
trce. I fcel cut off only because I am spliL wilhin 
my- self, becausc I try Lo be divided from my own 
feel- ings and sensations. ,,vhat I feel and scnse 
thcrefore  seems  forcign  Lo me. And on being aware 
of Lhc un - rcality of this division, thc univcrse <loes 
not sccm  foreign  any more. For I am what I know; what I know is I. The scnsa - 
tion of a house across the street or of a star in 
outer  space is no less I than an itch on the sole of 
my foot  oran idea in my brain. In another scnse, I 
am also  what  Ido not know. I am not aware of my 
own  bra in as a brain. In just the samc way,  I am 
not aware of the house across the street as a thing 
apart from my  sensation of it. 1 know my brain as 
thoughts and feel - ings, and I know the house as 
scnsations. In the same  way and sense that I do 
not know my own brain, or  thc house  as a thing -
in-itself,  I do not know  the private  choughts  in 
your  brain. But my brain, which is also 1, your brain and 
the thoughts within  it, as well as the house across 
the street,  are ali forms  of an  inextricably  
interwoven  process callcd the real world. Conscious or uncon - scious ofitas I may be, it is 
all I in the sense that the  sun, the air, and human 
socicty are justas vital to me as my brain  or my 
lungs. Jf, then,  this brain  is my 
brain -unaware of it as I am-the sun is my sun, 
the air my air, and society  my society. Certainly I cannot command  the sun to be egg - 
shaped,  nor force  your  brain  to think  
differently. 1 
108   THE  TRANSFORMATION  OF LJFJ -: 
cannot see the inside of Lhe sun, nor can I share your  
prívate  feclings. Yet ncither  can I change  the shapc  
or structurc of my own brain, nor havc a scnsation of  
itas a contraption likc a cauliílowcr. 1311t if my brain  
is noncthclcss  I, thc sun  is I, thc air  is I, and socicty,  
of which  you are a mcmber,  is also  1-for ali thcsc  
things  are j usl  as csscntial  to my existcncc  as my 
brain. That there is a sun apart from my sensation of it is 
an infcrencc. Thc fact that  I havc a brain,  though  I 
cannot  sce Íl, is likcwisc  an infcrencc. \Ve know  
about  thcsc  things  only  in thcory,  and not by irn- 
mcdiatc  expcricnce. ílut this "externa)"  world  of 
theorctical  objccts  is, apparendr,  just as much  a 
unily  as che "interna. '' world  of expcrience. From  
expcricnce  I infcr that  it exists. And  bccause cxpcri - 
encc is a unity -I am mr sensations -1 must  likcwisc  
infcr that this thcorctical univcrsc  is a unity, that  mr 
body  ancl  the worlcl  fonn  a single  proccss. Now  thcre  havc  bccn  manr  theorics  abom  the 
unity  o( thc uniYcrse. But che)'  have  not delivercd  
human  beings  from  the isolinion  oí cgotism. from  
conílict, and  from  thc fear of lifc. bccausc  thcrc  is a 
world of diITcrcncc bctwccn an  infercncc anda fccl- 
ing. You can rcason that thc 11nivcrsc is a unity with - 
out fccling it  w be so. You  can cstablish  thc thcory  
that your body is a movcrncnt  in an unbrokcn  proc - 
ess which  includcs  al. suns  ancl  stars,  and yet con- 
tinuc  to (ce. scparatc  and loncly. For thc fccling  will. Ofj TIIE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
not correspond  to Lhe theory  umil  you have  also  
discovered the unity of inner experience. Despite 
all theories, you will fcel that you are isolated 
from life  so long  as you are divided  within. Bue you will ceasc to fecl isolated when you 
rccog - nize,  for example,  thaL you do not have a 
sensation  of che  sky: you are that sensation. For all 
purposcs of  feeling, your scnsation of the sky is 
che sky, and there  is no "you"  apart  from  what  you 
sense,  fcel,  and know. This is why the myslics and 
many of the pocts  givc frequent uttcrance to thc 
fecling that they  are "onc wilh the Ali," or "unitcd 
with  God," or, as Sir Edwin  Arnold  cxprcssed  it-  
Foregoing  sel{,  the universc  grows  l. Sometimes,  indeed,  this feeling  is purcly  senti - 
mental,  the poet  being  "onc  with  ature"  just so 
long as  she is on her best  behavior. J live 1 1 o t i 1 1 myself,  but I  l 1 l'C o 1 1 1 e  
Porlio11  o/ thal a r o 1 1 1 1 d  me; and to 
me 
I-Iigh niotwtains  are II f eeling,  but the hum  
Of huma11  cities  torlllrc:  I can see 
Nothing to loalhe  i11 nature,  saue  to 
be A /inh  reluctant  i11 a (leshly  chai11,  
Classcd  amo11g  creat11rcs,  when  t11e  soul ca11  
fice, And with  thc sky, the peah,  thc heaui11g  plain  
0/ occan,  or thc stars,  mi11gle  1 a 1 1 d nol in v a i 1 1. This rural rapturc  from  Byron  is quite bcsidc  the 
point. He has only come to tcrms with nature to 
the extent  that  he has bcfricnded  his own  human  
nature. 110  THE  TRANSFORMATION  OF LIFE  
The fly likes  thc sweecness  of the honey,  but not its 
stickiness,  which  makes  him 
A link reluclanl in a fleshly chain,  
Classed  amo11g  crealures. The  sentimentalist  does  not look  into  the depths  of 
nature  and sec 
Sluggish  existences  grm:ing  lhere,  suspended,  or 
slowly  crawling  clase  lo the botlom:. The leaden -eyed  shark,  the walrus,  lhe turtle,  the 
hairy  sea-leopard,  an(l  the stíng -ray,  
Passio11s  there,  wars, p11rsuits,  lribes -sight  in lhose  
ocea11  depths -breathing  thal  thick  breathing  air. Man has to discover that everything which he be - 
holds in naturc -the clammy foreign -feeling world of  
the ocean's depths, che  wastes of ice, the reptiles of  
the s,vamp, thc spiders and scorpions, the deserts of 
lifeless  plancts -has its countcrpart within  himself. He is not, then, at onc with himsclf until he realizes  
that th is "undcr  sidc"  of nature  and thc fcel ings  of 
horror  which  it gives  hirn  are also  "I. " For ali the qualities which we admire or loathe in  
che world aronnd us are reflections from within - 
though from a within that is also a beyond, uncon - 
scious, vast, unknown. Our fcclings abouL the crawl - 
ing world of thc wasps' nest and thc snakc pit are  
fcclings about hiddcn aspccts of our own bodics and 
brains, and of ali thcir potcntialities for unfamiliar  
crceps and shivers, for unsightly diseases, and un - 
imaginable  pains. 1 1 1 TIIE  WISDUl \l OF JNSECURITY  
1 do not  know,rhether it is true,  but it is said  that  
sorne of the great sages and "holy men" havc an ap• 
parently supernatural power over beasts ancl reptiles  
which  are always  dangerous  Lo ordinary  monals. lf 
this is true. it is ccrtainly because they are able  to livc  
at pcace with thc "beasts and reptiles" in themselves. They need  not call the wild  elcphant  Ilehcmoth  or 
the sca-monster  Leviathan;  they  address  them  fa- 
miliarly  as "Long -Nose"  and "Slimy. " Thc sense of unity with  the "J \11" is not,  however,  
a ncbulous  state  oí mind, a son  of trance,  in which  
all íorm and dis1 inction  is abolishecl, as  if man ancl  
the universe  merged  into  a luminous  mist  of pale  
mam·e. Justas process ancl  form, energy and mattcr,  
myself ancl  experience,  are names  for, an<l  ways  of 
looking at. the same  thing -so one and many,  unity  
and multiplicity,  idcntity  and differencc,  are not 
mutually  exclusive  opposites:  they  are ench  othcr,  
much as  thc body  is its vnrious organs. To discover  
that  the mnny are  the one, and  that  1he one  is thc 
many,  is to realize  that  both  are words  and noises  
repn:scnting  what  is al once  obvious  to sense  and 
fecling. ancl  an enigma  10 logic  and description. ,\ young  man  in search  of spiritual  wisdom  pul 
hirnscl f  u nder  thc instruction  o( a cclcbrated  holy  
man. Thc sage madc him his personal auendant, ancl  
aftcr sorne  months  the young man  co,nplained  that  
thus  far he had received  no instruction. •·,vhat  do 
you mean. " exclaimcd  the holy  man. "Whcn  you 
11. THE  TRANSFORMATION  OF LIFE  
brought  me my rice,  didn't  I eat it. When  you 
brought me my tea, didn't 1drink it. Whcn you made  
salutations to me, didn't l return  them. vVhen  havc  
I ever ncglected to give you instruction. " "I'm afrai<l  
1 don't  unclerstand,"  said  thc young  man,  totally  
mystified. "When you want to see into it," answcrcd  
the sage,  ··see into it dircctly. When you  begin  tO 
think  about  it, it is altogether  missed. " Plucki11g  chrysa11them11ms  along  the East fence;  
Cazing  i11 silence  al tite sot1lhern. hil/s;  
The birds  {lying  home  in pairs  
Through  the soft mou11tai11 airo/ d u s k - 
[11 these  thi11gs  there  is n deeJJ  meaning,  
But when  we are aboul  to ex/n-ess it, 
ll'e rnddenly  forget  the words. The mcaning  is nol the contemplative,  twilight,  
ancl,  pcrhaps,  superficially  iclyllic  acrnosphere  be- 
loved  of Chinese  pocts. This  is already  exprcsscd,  
ancl the poct does not gild the lily. He will  not, like 
so many Western poecs, turn philosopher ancl say 
that he is "onc with" the flowers, the fence, the bilis,  
ancl thc birds. This, too, is gilding the lily, or, in his 
own Oriental idiom, "putting lcgs on a snake. " For 
when you really undcrstand thaL you are what you 
scc ancl know, you do not run around thc country - 
side  thinking,  "l am all this. " There  is sirnply  "ali 
this. " The  feeling  that  we stand  face -co-face  wilh  thc 
113  THE  WJSDOl \t OF INSECURITY  
world, cut off and set apare, has the grealest  
inAuence  on thought  and action. Philosophers,  for 
example,  oflen  fail to recognize  that  their  remarks  
about  the universe apply  also  to themselves  and 
lheir  remarks. If the univcrse  is 111caninglcss,  so is 
thc statcment  that it is so. If this world is a vicious 
trap, so is ics ac - cuser,  and thc pot is calling  the 
kcttle  black. In the scrictest  scnse,  we cannot  actually  think  
about lifc an<l  realicy  at ali, bccause  this woulcl  
have  to includc  thinking  about  thinking,  thinking  
about  thinking about thinking, and so ad 
infi11it11111. One  ca11  only  auempt  a rational,  
descriptive  philosophy  of thc univcrse on the 
assumption  that one is totally  separate  from  it. Bue 
if you and your  thoughts  are pan of this  univcrse,  
you cannot  stand  outsidc  them  to describe  thcm. This is why  ali philosophical  and theological  systcms  
must. ulti111atcly  íall aparl. To "know"  reality you  
cannot stand outside  it and  define  it; you muse  
cnter  into  it, be it, and fccl it. Speculativc  philosophy,  as we know  it in the 
West,  
is almost cncirely a symptom of the divicled mind, of  
man  trying  to stand outside  himsclf ancl  his cxperi - 
ence in arder to vcrbalizc :111cl define it. [e is a 
vicious  circlc,  likc cvcrything dsc which  che dividecl  
mind  attcmpts. On che othcr hancl, thc rcalizalion that che mind is  
acLUally  undividccl  must  havc  a corresponcling and 
cqually  far-rcaching  influcnce  on thought  and 
accion. 114  TI IE TRANSFORJ \f ATION  OF LIFE  
As the philosopher tries to sLand outside himself and  
his thoughL, so, as we  have seen,  the ordinary  man  
lries  to sLand  outside  himsclf ami  his cmolions  and 
scnsations,  his feelings  ancl  cksircs. Thc rcsulL  is a 
fantastic  confusion  and misdirccLion  of conduct  
which  discovcry  of Lhc mind"s  unity  musl  bring  to 
an end. So long as  the mind is splil, lifc  is perpcLUal  con- 
ílict,   tension,   frustration,  and clisillusion. uffering  
is pilcd  on suffering,  fcar on fcar,  and borcclom  on 
boredom. Thc more thc íly strugglcs lo gct out of the  
honcy, thc fas ter he is sLUck. U nclcr thc prcssurc o( so  
much strain and  (ULility,  it is no,rnndcr at ali that  
men seek rclcasc  in violence ancl sensationalism, and  
in the rccklcss  exploitation  of lhcir bodics,  lheir ap - 
petites,  thc malerial  world,  and thcir  fcllow  mcn. What this must add lO die ncccssary and unavoidable  
pains  of existencc  is incalculable. BuL thc undividcd  mind  is f1 ce from  this Lcnsion  
of nying al\\'ays  to stand ouLside oneself and  LO be 
clscwhcrc Lhan hcre and now. Each  momcm  is lived  
completely,  ancl  therc  is Lhus  a scnsc  o( fulfillmcnt  
and complctcness. Thc dividcd  mind  comes  Lo lhe 
dinner  lablc  and pecks  at onc dish  aflcr  anochcr,  
rushing  on wiLhout  digcsting  anything  to find  onc 
bctter  than  thc last. lt fincls  nothing goocl,  becausc  
there  is noLhing  which  it really  Lastes. \Vhcn,  on thc oLhcr  hand,  you realizc  Lhat  you THE  WISJ)OM  OF INSECURITY  
live in, that in<leed you are this moment now, and no  
other,  that  aparl  from  this there  is no past  and no 
(ulllre,  you must  relax and  tasle  lo lhe full, whether  
il be pleasurc  or pain. At once  it becomes  obvious  
why d1is universc exists, why conscious bcings havc  
bcen  produced,  why  sensitive  organs,  why  spacc,  
time,  and change. The  wholc  problem  of justifying  
naturc,  of trying  to make  life mean  something  in 
tcrms  of its future,  disappears  uttcrl)'. Obviousl )', it 
ali exists  for this moment. Il is a dance,  and when  
you are dancing you are not iment  on getting somc - 
whtrc. You  go round  and rouncl,  bul nol undcr  thc 
illusion  that  you are pursuing somcthing,  or flccing  
from  che jaws  o( hell. How  long  havc  thc planets  bccn  circling the sun. Are they gctting anywhere. and do thcy go fastet and  
fastcr  in orcler  to arrive. How  oftcn  has the spring  
rcturncd to l11c earth. Docs it come faster and fancicr  
cvery year,  lO be surc  to be bcllcr than  last spring. and to hurry on its way to che spring that shall out - 
spring  all springs. The mcaning ami purpose of dancing is che dance. Likc music, also,  it is fulfilled  in cach  inomcnt of its 
coursc. You do not play a sonata in order to rcach thc 
final chord, and  if lhc  meanings o[ things  wcre  si1n - 
ply in ends,  coinposcrs  would  writc  nothing  but 
finales. It might,  however,  be obscrvcd  in passing  
that  the music spcciall)'  charactcristic  of our  culture  
is progrcssivc  in sorne  respects,  and docs  at times scc111  
116  THE  TRANSFORJ \·(ATION  OF LIFE  
to be dccidedly on  its way to a future climax. But 
whcn it gcts thcrc, it does not know what to do with  
itself. Beethoven, I3rahms, and ·wagncr werc particu - 
larly  guilty of working up to colossal climaxcs and  
conclusions,  and then  blasting  away  at thc samc  
chord over and ovcr again, ruining the moment by  
bcing  rcluCLant  to lea ve it. When each  momcnt bccomes ;rn  cxpectation  lifc 
is dcprived  of fulfillment,  and dcath  is dreaded  for 
it sccms that herc cxpectation must come to an end. Whilc thcre is lifc thcrc is hopc -and i( onc lives on  
hope, dcath is indeed thc encl. But to thc undivicled  
mind, dcath is another momcnt, complete like evcry  
mom ent, and cannot yicld its sccrct unlcss lived to  
the full -  
 
A11d  l laitl  me <1011111  with  a will. Dcath is che epit0me of thc truth thac in cach mo- 
ment wc are thrust into the unknown. Herc ali cling - 
ing to security is compclled to ceasc, and wherever  
thc past is dropped away and safety abandoned, life  
is rencwed. Dcath is the unknown in which all of us  
livcd  bcfore  birth. Nothing is more crcativc than dcath, since it is the  
whole  sccret  of li(e. I t mea ns that the pase must  be 
abandoncd,  that  the unknown  cannot  be avoidcd,  
that  "l" cannot continue, and  that  nothing can  be 
ultimatcly  fixed. \o\fhen  a man  knows  this,  he lives  for 
117  THE  WISDOM  OF INSEClJRITY  
the first  time  in his life. By holding  his breath,  
he loses  it. By letting  it go he finds  it. U11d so  lang tiu  das nichl  
hast,  Dieses:  stírb  und  
werde,  
Bisl clu 11ur  ein trübcr  Gasl  
Auf der dtmklen  Erde. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Gocthc,  We,t -ostlicher  1Jiva11. "As long  as you do not know  
huw  10 die and come to life again. you are but a sorry travcler 
on this  dark  canh. " 118  
 
V I 11. C RE A T I V E f  O R AL 1T Y 
 
IT IS PERHAPS  A l'ARAOOX  TO TALK  ABOUT  CREATIVE  
morality. For "morality"  is derived  from a word  
meaning custom and convemion, and the 
regulation  of life by rules. But morality has also 
come to mean  the working of lovc in human 
rclations, and in this  sensc wc can speak of a 
morality which is creative. St. Augustinc 
describcd itas, "Love, and do what you  will. " Dut 
the problem has always bcen how to. ove  what  
you do not like. lf morality is che art of living togcther, it is 
clear  that rules, or rathcr techniques, have a 
place in ic. For many of the problems o[ a 
community are tech - nical problems -the 
distribution of wcalth and popu - lation, the 
proper managemcnt of natural rcsourccs,  thc 
organization of family life, the carc o[ the sick  
and disablcd, and the harmonious adaptation of 
in- dividual  differences. The moralist is therefore a technician who is 
con- sultcd on thesc problems as one consults an 
architect  on building a house or an enginecr on 
erec1ing a  bridge. Likc medicine, shoe -making, 
cookery, tailor - ing, farming, and carpentry, living 
together rcquires  a ccrtain "know -how. " le 
demands the acquisition  and  use of certain  
skills. Dut the moralisc  has,  in practice,  bccomc  
much  
119 THE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
more than a technical consultant. He has become 
a scold. From his pulpit or his slUdy he 
harangues the  human  racc,  issuing  praise  and 
blame -mostly blame  
-likc fire from thc mouth of a dragon. For people 
do not take his advicc. Thcy ask how it is best to 
act under such -and-such circumstances. He tells 
them,  and they secm to agree that he is right. But 
then they  go away and do something different, for 
thcy find his  advice too difficult or have a strong 
desire to do the  oppositc. This happens so 
regularly that the moralist  loses his temper and 
begins to cal. them bad names. Whcn this has no 
effect, he resons to physical vio- lence, 
implcmenting his ad vice with policemen, pun - 
ishmencs,  and prisons. For the community  is i L S own 
moralist. lt elccts and pays judges, policemen, 
and preachers, as if to say, ··when I am difficult, 
please  kick  me. " At first sight the problem seems to boíl down 
to this: Morals are for avoiding an unfair 
distribution  of pleasure and pain. This means 
that  sorne indi - viduals must get less pleasure 
and more pain. As a rule, these individuals will 
only submil to the sacri - f-ice under the thrcat of 
still more pain if they do not  co-operate. This is 
based on the assumption that  cvery man is for 
himsclf, and observes the interests  of che 
community only to the extent that thcse are  
obviously  his own  intereses. From  this,  moralists  have  evolved  the theory  
that  
man  is basically  selfish,  or that he has an inherent  
bias  
120  CREATIVE  MORALlTY  
towards evil. The "natural" man lives for one 
motive:  to protect his body from pain and to 
associate it with  pleasure. I3ecause he can only feel 
with bis own body,  he has littlc interest in the 
feelings of other bodies. Thercforc he will only 
take intercst in olhcr bodies  under the stimulus 
of rewards and punishments, that  is, by an 
exploitation of his self-interesc in rhe inter - ese 
of the community. Happily, thc problem is not quite so simple. For among thc things that give man pleasure 
are rela - tions with othcr human beings -
convcrsalion, eating  wgecher, singing, dancing, 
having children, and co - operation in work 
which "many hands make light. " lndeed, one of 
the highest pleasures is to be more or less 
unconscious of one's own existence, to be ab - 
sorbed in interesting sights, sounds, places, and 
peo- ple. Conversely, one of the greatest pains is 
lo be  self-conscious, to feel unabsorbed and cut 
off from  che community  and thc surrounding  
world. But chis  whole  problem  has no solUlion  whíle  
we 
think abouc ic in cerms of the pleasure -pain 
motiva - tion, or, indeed, in terms of any 
"motivation" at all. For man has a moral problcm, 
which other commu - nity -living animals do not 
have, for the very rcason  lhat he is so much 
concerned with motives. lf it is  true thac man is 
ncccssarily motivated by the pleas - ure-pain 
principie, there is no point whatsoever in 
discussing human conduce. Motivate<l conduce is 
dc- termincd  conduct;  it will be what  it will be, 
no mat - 
1 Z 1 Tf-lE WISOOM  OF INSECURITY  
ter what anyone has to say about it. There can be 
no creative morality unless man has the 
possibility of  freedom. This is where the moralists make their 
mistake. H they want man to change his way of 
life, they must  assume that he is free, for if he is 
not, ali the raging  and protesting in the world will 
make no difference. On the other hand, a man 
who is acting from the  fear of a moralist's 
threats or from the lure of his  promises  is not 
making  a free act. If man  is not free,  thrcats and 
promises may modify his conduct, but  they will 
not change it in any essential respect. If he is free, 
threats and promises will not make him use  his 
freedom. The meaning of freedom can nevcr be grasped 
by the divided mind. If I feel separate from my 
experi - ence,  and f rom the world,  freedom  will 
seem  to be  the extent to which I can push the 
world around,  and fate the extent to which the 
world pushes me around. But to the whole mind 
there is no contrast  of "I" and the world. There 
is just one process act- ing, and it <loes 
everything that happens. It raises my little finger 
and it creates earthquakes. Or, if you  want to 
put it that way, / raise my liulc finger and  also 
make earthquakes. No one fates and no one is 
being  fated. Of course  this is a strange  view  of frcedom. We are 
accustomed  to think  that,  if there  is any freedom  
at 
122  CREATIVE  MORALITY  
all, it resides, not in nature, but in the separale 
hu- man  will  and  its power  of choice. But what  we ordinarily  mean  by choice  is not 
free- dom. Choiccs are usually decisions 
motivated by  pleasure and pain, and the divided 
mind acls with  the sole purpose of getting 'T' 
into pleasure and out of pain. But the best 
pleasures are those for which  we do not plan,  
and the worst  part  of pain  is expect - ing it and 
trying to get away from it when it has  come. You cannot  plan  to be happy. You can plan  to exisl, 
but in themselves existence and non -existence  
are neither plcasurnble nor painful. l am cvcn 
as- surcd by doctors that there are circumslances 
under  which  dearh  can be a highly  pleasant  
expericnce. The sense  of not being  free  comes  from  trying  
to 
do things which are impossible and cven 
meaning - less. You are not "free" to draw a 
square circle, to  livc without a head, or to stop 
ccrtain rellex actions. Thcse  are not obstacles  to 
freedom;  they  are the con- ditions of frccdom. I am 
not free to draw a circlc if  perchance ic should 
turn out to be a square circle. I  am not, thank  
heaven,  free to walk  out of doors  and lcave my 
hcad at home. Likewise I am not free to  live in 
any moment but this one, or to separate my - sclf 
from  rny feelings. In short  I am nol free when   I am 
trying lo do something contradietory, such as to  
move without changing posirion, or to burn my 
fin- ger without  feeling  pain. 123 THE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
On che orher hand, I am free, che world process 
1s free,  to do anything which  is not a 
contradiction. The question then arises:  is it a 
comradiction,  is it impossiblc,  10 act  or to decide 
without  pleasure as  the ultimate aim. The theory 
that we must  incvit - ably  do what  gives  us the 
greater  pleasure  or the lesser pain, is a 
meaningless asscrtion based on ver - bal confusion. To say that I decide to do something  because it 
pleases me says only that I decide to do it  because 
I decide to do it. lf "pleasure"  is defined  in the 
beginning as "what I prefcr," then what I prcfer  
will always be plcasurc. If I prefer pain, like a mas - 
ochist,  then  pain  will be pleasure. l n shon,  the 
the- ory begs the question at the start by saying 
that pleas - ure means what we <lesire:  therefore 
anything that  we desire  is pleasure. But I fall straight  int0  contradiction  when  1 try 
to 
act and decide in ordcr to be happy, wben  1 make  
"being plcased" my future goal. For the more my 
ac- tions  are directed  towards  future  pleasures,  
the more  1 am incapable of enjoying any 
pleasures at ali. For all pleasures are present, and 
nothing save complete  awarencss of the prcsem 
can even bcgin to guaran - Lee flllure happincss. I 
can act in order to eat tomor - row, or takc a trip to 
the moumains next week, but  there is rcally no 
way of bcing certain that this will  make me happy. On the contrary, it is common cx- periencc that 
nothing ruins a "pleasure" so muchas  watching  
yoursel(  in the midst  of it to scc whether  
121 CREATIVE  MORALITY  
it pleases you. You  can only  live in onc  moment 
at a time, and you cannot think simultancously 
about  listening to thc wavcs and whethcr you are 
enjoying  listening to the waves. Comradictions  of 
this kind  are the only  real  typcs  of action  
without  frcedom. There  is anothcr  thcory  of detcrminism  which  
states that ali our actions are motivated by 
"uncon - scious mental rncchanisms," and chat for 
this reason  even  the most spontaneous  dccisions 
are not free. This is but anothcr cxample of split -
mincledncss, for what  is the difTerence  between  
"me"  and "mental  mechanisms"  whcther  
conscious  or unconscious. Who is being moved by 
these processes. Thc notion  that anyonc is bcing 
mocivatcd comes frorn  the per - sisting illusion of 
·•r. " The real man, the organism - in-relacion -to-
thc-univcrse, is this unconscious moti - vation. And 
because he is iL, he is not bcing moved  by it. In 
othcr words, it is not motivation;  it is sim- ply 
operation. Moreover, thcr c is no "unconscious"  
mind distinct  from  the conscious,  for the "uncon - 
scious" mind  is conscious,  though  not of itself, 
just as che eyes  see but do not see themselves. There remains the supposition that che whole 
op- eration,  the whole  process  o( action  which  
is man - 
and-univcrsc,  is a determined  series  of evcnts  in 
which  every  evcnt  is the inevitable  result  of past  
causes. We cannot go  into  this problem  exhaustively or  
even  adequacely. But it is perhaps  enough  to 
realize  
125 THE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
for the moment Lhat this is one of the biggest 
"open  questions"  of science,  which  is far from  
reaching a decision. The idea LhaL the past 
deLermines the pres - ent can be an illusion o[ 
language. Ilccause we must  describe the prescnt  in 
terms of the past,  it would  seem  that  the past  
"cxplains"  the present. To say "how"  something 
happened,  wc describe  the chain  of events  of 
which  it seemed  to be a part. Thc botLle smashed. It fell to the floor. I lct it go. My fingcrs  were slippery. I had soap 011 my  
hands. Is it lcgiLimate to put the word  "because"  
between  these statements. We do so as a rule, for 
we can make  the safe  bet that  if I. et go of the  
boule,  it will fall to the floor. But this <loes  not 
prove that  I caused it  to fall, or that it must  havc 
fallen. Evcnts  look in - evitable in retrospect 
because when  they have hap- pened,  nothing can 
change  them. Yct the fact that  I can make safc 
bets could prove cqually  well  that  events  are not 
determined  but consislenl. In other  words, che 
universal process acts freely and sponta - neously 
at every  moment,  but tends  to throw  out events  in 
regular,  and so predictable,  sequcnces. Howevcr  ti. ,is  issue  may  be decided,  thc 
undivided  mind  cenainly  has the feeling  of 
freedom,  and cer- tainly  brings  into  the moral  
sphere  a way  of life which  has all  che marks of 
free and  creative  action. It is easy  to see  that  
most  of the acts  which,  in con- vencional  morals,  
are called  cvil can be traced  to the divided  mind. By far the greater  part  of thesc  acts  
126    CREATIVE  MORALITY  
come  from  exaggerated  desires,  desires  for chings  
which are not even remotely necessary for che 
health  of mincl and bocly, granting that "healch " is 
a rela - tive term. Such  outlandish  ancl  insaciable  
desires  come into bcing because man is exploiting 
his appe - rites  to give  thc ·'J" a sense  of security. I am depressed, and want to get 'T' out of this 
de- pression. The opposite of clepression is 
elation, but  because depression is not elation, I 
cannot force my - self to be elated. l can,  however,  
get drunk. This  makes me wonderfully elatccl, and 
so when rhe next  depression arrives,  I have a 
quick cure. The subse - quent deprcssions have a 
way of getting deeper and  blacker,  because  I am  
not digesting  the depressed  state ancl  eliminaling 
its poisons. So I nced  ta ger  even drunker to 
drown them. Very soon I begin ro  hate  mysclf for 
getting so drunk,  which  makes me  still more  
deprcssccl -and so it gocs. Or pcrhaps  l have  a largc  family,  and am living  
in 
a mortgagcd housc on which I have spent ali my 
sav- ings. I have to work hard at a job in which I 
am not  particularly  imerested  in arder  to pay the 
bilis. I don't mind working so much, but l keep 
wondering  what  will happen  if I get sick,  or if a 
war  comes  and I am draftecl. I would rather not 
think about these  things, so I walll  to gct  "l" out 
of this worry. For I  am surc that I shall get sick if it 
goes on. Bue it's so  hard to stop, and as this makes 
sickness more certain,  the worrying  digs  deeper. I must  fincl  relief  from  
127 THE  \\I ISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
Lhis, and so in dcspernlion  I begin  Lo "play the  po- 
nies,"  trying to offset  the worry  with  the daily  hope  
thaL  my horse  may  win. And  so il goes. The  conventional  moralisl  has nothing  LO con- 
tribute  to these  problcms. He can point  out thc 
frighcf ul  effects of alcoholism anc. gamb. ing,  bul 
that  is simp. y  more  fue. for depression  and worry. He can promise  rewards  in hcaven  for suffering  pa- 
ciencly endured, but thal, LOO, is a gamble of a kind. He can attribuce the c. epression or Lhe worry to the  
social sysLem, and urge Lhc unfonunates LOjoin Lhc  
revoluLion. In short,  he can eiLher frighten  the "I" or encour - 
agc it, in one case  making  Lhe individual  run away  
from himself, and  in the other making him run after  
hirnsc. f. He can paint  glowing  pictures  of the vir- 
Lues and encourage oLhers  LO find sLrcngth  in the ex - 
arnplcs  of great  men. He can succeed  to the 
extcnt  of arousing the most vigorous eífons Lo 
imitate saim - liness, to curb che passions,  and LO 
practice rescraint  and charity in action. Yel none of 
this brings anyone  LOfreedom, for behind ali  thc 
imitation and the dis- cipline  there  is still motive. lf I am  afraid,  my effons  lo feel and act bravcly  
are moved by che fear,  for I am afraid  of fear,  
which  is sirnply ro say that my e[ons to escape from 
what  I am are moving  in a circle. Beside  the 
examples  of saints  and heroes  I fecl ashamed  that  I 
amount  ro nothing,  and so I begin  co practice  
humility  because  
128 CREATIVE  MORALITY  
of my wounded pride, and charity beca use of my 
self- love. The urge is ever lo make 'T' amounl to 
some - lhing. I must be right, good, a real  person, 
heroic,  loving, sclf•effacing. I efface myself in 
order LO assert  myself,  and give  myself  away  in 
order  LO keep  my- self. The  whole  thing  is a 
contradiclion. The Christian mind has always been haunted 
by the feeling that the sins of the saints are worse 
than  the sins of the sinners, that in sorne 
mystcrious way  the one who  is struggling  for 
salvation  is nearer  to 
hell and to the heart of evil than Lhe unashnmed 
har- lot or thief. It has recognized  that the De vil  is 
an an - gel, and as pure spirit is not really 
interested in the  sins of che  flesh. The sins after  
the Devil's heart are the intricacies of spiritual 
pride,  the mazes of self - deception,  and che subtle  
mockeries  of hypocrisy  where  mask  hides  behind  
mask  behind  mask  and reality  is lost altogethcr. The would -be saint walks straight into thc 
meshes  of this web because he would become a 
saint. His "I" finds the deepest security in a 
satisfaction  which is  the more  intense  for being so  
cleverly  hidden -the satisfaction of being contrite  
for his sins, and con - trile for taking pridc in  his 
contrition. In such an involved vicious circlc the 
masks behind masks are  infinite. Or, to put it in 
anothcr way, he who,vould  stand outside himself 
to kick himself, must then kick  the self that  stands  
outside. And  so forever. So long  as there  is the motive  lo  becomc  
somc - 
129 THE  WISOOM  OF INSECURITY  
thing, so long as the mind believes in  the 
possibility  of escape from  what it is at this 
momenc,  there can  be no freedom. Virtue will be 
pursued  for exactly  Lhe same reason as vice, and 
good and cvil will alter - naLc  as che opposice 
poles  of a ingle  circle. The  "saine" who appcars 
LOhave conquercd his self-love  by spiricual 
violence has only concealed it. His ap - parent 
success convinces  others  that  he has found  the 
"true  way,"  and they  follow  his example  long  
enough for the course to swing to its oppositc 
pole,  when license becorncs Lhc inevitable 
reacLion to pu - ritanism. Of course it sounds as if it were the most abject  
fatalism to have to admit that I am what I am, and  
that  no escape or division  is possible. lt seems  
that  if I am afraid, then  I am "stuck"  with  fcar. But in  fact I am chained LOthe fear only so long as 
I am try - ing LOget away from iL. On the other 
hand, when I do noL try to get away I discover 
thaL there is noth - ing "stuck" or fixed about the 
reality of the moment. When I am aware of this 
feeling without naming it, without  calling  it "fear,"  
"bad,"  "negative,"  etc. ,  it changes instantly in Lo 
something else, and life moves  freely ahead. The 
fceling no longer perpetuates  it- self by creating  
the feeler  behind  it. Wc can perhaps see now why the undivided 
mind  is not moved  into  those escapes  from  the 
present  which  are usually  called  "evil. " The  
further  truth  Lhat  the undividc<l  mind  is aware  
of experience  as a 
130   CR. E. ATIVE  MORALITY  
unily,  of the world  as icself,  and that  the whole  na- 
ture  of mind  and awarcness  is to be one with  
what  it knows, suggests a statc that would usually be 
called  lovc. For the love  that exprcsscs  itsclf in 
crealivc ac- tion is somcthing much  more than an 
emotion. lt is not something  which  you can ''fccl"  
ancl  "know,"  remcmber  ancl  define. Lovc  is the 
organizing  and unifying principie which makes  the 
world a universc  ancl  che clisintegracccl  mass a 
community. lt is the very  essence  ancl  characccr  o[ 
mind,  and becomcs  manifest  in action  when  thc 
mind  is wholc. For the mind  nwsl  be intcrestecl  or absorbed  in 
somcdling, justas a minor must always be 
reAecting  somcthing. When it is not trying to be 
intcrcsted  in itself -as if a mirror  would  reílect  
itself -it must  be intcrested,  or absorbed,  in other  
people  and things. Thcrc is no problcrn o(  how  to 
lovc. We lovc. \Ve are. ove,  and the only  problcm  
is the direction  of. ove, whether ic  is to go straight  out like sunlight, 
or to try to turn  back on  itsclf  like a "candle  under  a 
bushel. " Released  from  the circle  of attempted  sclf-love,  
che mind of man  draws  thc whole  universe  into  its 
own unity as a single dcwclrop secms Lo contain  thc 
entirc  sky. This,  rather  than  any mere  emotion,  is 
che power  and principie  of free  action  and creativc  
morality. On the other  hand,  che morality  of rules  
and regulations  bascd  on rcwards  and punishments,  
even  when  these  are as intangible  as the pain  o[ 
guilt  
131 THE  WISOOM  OF JNSECURITY  
and the plea. sure of self-respect, has no relation to  
free action. It is a way of ruling slaves by "benevo - 
lent exploitation" of lheir illusions, and, however 
far pursued,  can nevcr  lead  to frcedom. Where  there  is lo be creative  aclion,  it is quite  
beside  the point  to discuss  what  we should  or 
should  not do in order  to be right  or good. A 
mind  Lhat  is single  and sincere  is not interested  
in being  good,  in conducting  relations  with  other  
peoplc  so as to live up to a rule. Nor, on the othcr 
hand,  is it interested  in being  free,  in acting  
perversely  just to prove  its indepcndence. Its 
interest  is not in itself,  but in the people and  
problems of which  it is aware;  these  are "itself. " It 
acts,  not according  to the rules,  but ac- cording  to 
the circumstances  of the momcnt,  and the "well"  it 
wishes to others  is not security  but liberty. Nothing is really  more  inhuman  than  human  re- 
lations bascd on morals. When a man  givcs bread  
in order  to be charitable,  lives  with  a woman  in 
order  to be faithful,  eats  with  a Negro  in order to  
be un- prejudiced,  and refuses  to kill in order  to 
be peace - ful, he is as cold  as a clam. He does not  
actually see  the other  person. Only  a little  less 
chilly  is the be- nevolence  springing  from  pity,  
which  acts  to remove  
suffering  because  it finds  the sight  of it disgusting. But thcre  is no formula  for generating  the au- 
thentic warmth  of love. It cannot  be copied. You 
cannot talk yourself into it or rouse it by sttaining 
at the emotions  or by dedicating  yourself  
solemnly  to 
132 CREATIVE  MORALITY  
the servicc  of mankind. Everyone has }ove, but it 
can only come out when he is convinced of the 
impossi - bility and the frustration of trying to 
love himself. This conviction will not come 
through condemna - tions, through hating 
oneself, through calling self - love ali the bad 
namcs in the univcrsc. It comes only  in the 
awarcness  that  one has no self to lovc. IX. RELIGION  REVIEWED  
 
W E DEGAN  THIS  DOOK  WITH  THE  ASSUMPTION  THAT  
science and scientific philosophy givc no gi -ounds 
for religions  belief. We did not argue  the point,  
but took it as the  point of departure. We adopted  
the prevalent view that the existence of God, of 
any ab - solutes, and of an eternal order beyond 
this world is  without  logical  support  or meaning. We accepted  the notion that such ideas are of no 
value for scien - tific prediction, and  that  all known  
events  can be explained more simply without 
them. At che same  time, we said that religion  had 
no need  to oppose  this view, for almost all the 
spiritual traditions rec- ognize  that  there  is a 
stage  in man's  development  when  belief -in 
contrast  to faith -and its securities  have  to be left 
behind. To this point,  Ido not think  that  we have  
claimed  
anything which cannot be verified by experiment, 
or asserted  anything which  seriously  conflicts  
with  a scientific view of the world. Yet we  have  
now come  to a position from which the principal 
ideas of re - ligion  and traditional  metaphysics  can 
once  more  becorne  imelligible  and meaningful -
not as beliefs,  but as valid  symbols  of 
experiencc. Science  and religion  are talking  about  the same  
universe,  but they  are using  different  kinds  of 
lan- 
135  THE  WfSOOM  OF fNSECURITY  
guage. In general,  the statements of science have  
to do with  the past and the future. The scientist  
de- scribes events. He tells us "how"  things happen 
by giving us a detailed account  of what  has 
happencd. He finds that events occur in various 
frequencies and orders, and on this basis he 
makes bets or predictions  in the light of which we 
can make practica. arrange - ments and 
adaptations to  the course of events. To make  
these bets,  he does  not need to know about  God  
or eternal  life. He needs  to know  the past - what  
has happened  already. On thc other  hand,  the statements  of rcligion  
have  
to do with the present. But both religious and sci- 
entific people are under the  impression  that 
religion  is more concerned with the past. and the 
future. This  is a natural  misunderstanding,  
because  religion  seems to make assertions about 
h°'v this world  be- gan and how it will end. It has 
long been connected  with prophecy, which is 
surcly the same thing as pre- diction. It states that  
this world was made by God,  and that he made it 
for a pu,rpose which will be ful- filled in the 
distant future,  in "the  life of the world  to come,"  
It insists,  furthermore,  that  man has an immortal  
soul,  and prophesies  that  it will survive  his 
physical  death  and live everlastingly. The scientist  therefore  seems justified  in saying  
that such  predictions  cannot  be verified,  and that  
they are made with precious little reference to 
past  events  known  to have  happened. When  he 
tries  to 
136  RELIGION  REVIEWEO  
discover the grounds upon which these 
predictions  are made, he finds them emotional 
rather than ra - tional. Religious people hope or 
believe that these  things  will be true. Ncvertheless, in the history of every important 
re- ligion  there have been those who 
understood reli - gious ideas and statements in a 
very different way. On the whole, this has been 
more true of the East  than of the West, though 
Christian history contains  a long list of me n and 
women who could have talked  on common 
ground with  orthodox  Hindus  and  Buddhists. From this other and, we think, deeper point 
of view, religion is not a system of predictions. Its 
doc- trines have to do, not with the future and 
the ever - lasting, but with che present and the 
eternal. They  are not a set of beliefs and hopes 
bul, on the con - trary, a set of graphic symbols 
aboul present experi - ence. Traditionally, these symbols are of two kinds. One  describes the religious way of 
understand ing the present in the form of 
concrete images and stories. The other 
describes it in an abstraer, negative lan - guage 
which is often similar to the language of aca- 
demic philosophy. For convenience, we can call 
thesc  two kinds of symbol the religious and the 
metaphy - sical. Bue we must remember that 
"metaphysic" in this sense is not speculative 
philosophy. lt is notan  attempt  to anticípate  
science  and give  a logical  de- TJ-IE WISOOM  OF INSECURITY  
scription of the  universe and  its origins. It is a 
way  of representing  a knowledgc  of the present. Reli - gious symbols are spccially characteristic of 
Chris - tianity, Islam, and Judaism, whcreas 
doctrines of thc Oriental  type  are more  
metaphysical. We said that sciencc and rcligion are both 
calking  about the same world, and throughout this 
book we  have never been concerned with 
anything but every - day life, wilh things which can 
be seen, felt, and ex - perienccd. We shall  thereforc  
be told,  by religio us critics, that we are rcducing 
rcligion to "naturalism,"  that we are identifying 
God with  naturc, and mak - ing a mockery  and 
travcsty  of religion  by taking  away  "its essential  
supernatural  content. " But when  you ask theologians  what  thcy  mean  
by 
the " supcrnatural," thcy burst immediately into 
sci- entific  language. They  talk about  a God  having  
"concrete  reality clistinct  from  this universc,"  and 
speak of him in tcrms of past history and future 
pre- dictions. They insist  that  thc supernatural  
world  is not of the same  "ordcr" as thc universe 
studied by  science, but exists on anothcr plane of 
being invisi - ble to our natural  scnses. lt begins  to 
sound  likc somcthing psychic, something of the 
same order as  the phcnomena of tclepathy,  
clairvoyancc, and clair - audiencc. Yet this is naLUralism  purc  and simple;  it is 
even  
pseudo -science. For science and naturalism are 
not necessarily  conccrned  only  with  things  
visible  to the 
138  RELIGION  REVIEWED  
senses. No one has seen electrons or quanta, nor 
been  able to construct a sensual image of curved 
space. lf psychic phenomena exist, there is no 
reason to sup - pose that they cannot be studied 
scientifically, and  that they are not simply 
another aspcct of "naturc. " Indeed,  science  is 
concemed  with  innumerable  things which 
cannot be experienced with the senses,  and 
which  are not present  to immediate  experience  
-for example,  the entire  past,  the process  of 
gravity,  
the nature of time, and the weights of planets 
and stars. These invisible things are inferred 
from im - mediate experience by logic. They are 
hypotheses  which seem to give a reasonable 
explanation of ob - served events. The 
theological God is exactly the same thing -a 
hypothesis accounting for ali experi - ences. When a theologian makes such a hypothesis 
he uses the methods of scicncc and enters the 
field of  scicnce. He must expcct, thereforc, to be 
qucstioned,  examined,  and criticized  by his 
fellow naturalists. But the difference between the natural and 
the supernatural can be understood in a 
simpler and  much more useful way. lf "nature" is 
the province of  science, we can say that nature is 
this world as it is named, measurcd, and 
classificd. Nature is che world  which thought has 
analyzcd and soned into groups  called "things. " lt has, as we saw, given things an  identity by 
naming them. lt distinguishes motion  from  
stillness  by comparing somerhing  which  moves  
139  THE  WISDOM  OF INSECURIT \' 
rapidly in relation to something which moves 
slowly,  though  both  move. Thus the whole world of nature is relative and is  
produced by  thought and comparison. Is the head  
"really"  distinct  from  the neck. Why shouldn't  we 
have  made  the "thing"  called  head  include  the 
"thing" called neck, justas it includes the nose. It is 
a convention of thought that head and neck are 
two things instead of one. In this sense, the 
ancient meta - physicians are perfectly right when 
they say that the  whole universe is a product of 
the mind. They mean  the universe  of "things. " On thc other hand, the supernatural and 
absolute  world  consists  of the mysterious  reality  
which  we have so namcd, classified, and divided. This is not a  product of the mind. But there is no 
way of defining  or describing what  it is. At every  
moment we are  aware  of it, and it is our 
awarcness. We feel and sense it, and it is our 
feelings and sensations. Yet try - ing to know and 
define it is like trying to make a  knife cut itself. What is this. This is a rose. But "a rose" is a noise. What is a noise. A noise is an impact  of air wavcs 
on the eardrum. Then a rose is an im - pact  of air 
waves  on the eardrum. No, a rose  is a rose. is a rose  is a rose  is a rose. Definition is simply making a one -to-one 
corrcs - pondence betwecn groups of sense data 
and noises,  but because noises are sense data, the 
attempt is ul - timately  circular. The  real  world  
which  both  pro- 
140  TIIE  WISDOM  OF INSECURlTY  
Otherwise, we can use the negative, 
metaphysical  language about this undefined 
reality. It is che in - finite,  not thc definite. It is the 
eternal,  thc ever - present, not the past and future, 
not the convcntions  of thought  and time. It is the 
unchanging  in the sensc  that the idea of changc is  
but another word,  anothcr definition, which the 
rcality called changc  surpasscs. Obviously,  if all 
movcmcnt  is relacive,  therc is no absolute 
movement. It would be mean - inglcss to say that 
ali bodies in the universe are mov - ing uniformly 
at ten thousand miles pcr minute, be - caus e "ali" 
has cxcludcd any othcr body with respect  to 
which  they  could  be said  to move. Mctaphysical  language  is negative  bccause  it 
is 
trying to say that,vords and ideas do not explain 
re- ality. lt is not trying to persuade us that reality 
is something likc a boundlcss mass of transparent 
jelly. lt <loes not spcak of sorne  impalpable 
abstraction,  but of this vcry world in wh1,h we 
live. This expe - riencc  which we call things, 
cc,1. ors, sounds, smells,  tastes, forms, and weights 
is, in itself, no thing, no  form,  no number,  no 
nothing -but at this moment  we behold it. Wc are, 
then, beholding thc God which  traditional  
doctrines  call che boundless,  formless,  infinitc, 
eternal, undivided, unmovcd, and unchang - ing 
Rcalily -the Absolute  behind  che relativc,  the 
Meaning  behind  thoughts  and words. 1   
Naturally  
1This  is likewisc  what  Vedanta  doctrine  temu  the Sclf. the 
atman,  transcending  ali expcricnced  ""things. " RELICION  REVIEWED  
the Meaning is meaning -less because, unlike 
words,  it does not have meaning but is 
meaning. By itself,  a tree is mcaningless, but it 
is the meaning of the word  "tree. " It is easy to see that this kind of language, 
whether  in its religious or metaphysical forms, 
can lead to ali manner of misunderstanding. For when the mind is  divided, and 'T' wants to 
get away from present ex - pericnce, thc whole 
notion of a supernatural world is  its happy 
hide -out. The "I" is resisting an unhappy  
change, and so clings LOthe "unchanging" 
Absolute,  forgetting that this Absolute is also 
the "unfixed. " When life provides sorne bitter 
experience, the "I"  can only support it with che 
guarantee that it i s part  of the plan of a loving 
Father -God. But this very  guarantee makes  it 
impossiblc  Lo realize  the "love of  God," which, as 
is well known, requires che giving  up of "l. " 
The misunderstanding of religious ideas is 
vividly  illustrated in what men havc madc of the 
doctrine of  immortality, heaven, and hell. But 
now it should be clear that eternal lifc is the 
realization that the pres - ent is thc only rcality, 
and that past and future can  be distinguished  
from  it in a convcntional  scnse  alone. The  
moment  is the "door  of heaven,"  thc. straight  and narrow  way  that  leadeth  unto  life,"  
be- 
cause therc is no room in it for the scparate 
··1. " In  th is cxperience  there  is no one 
expericncing  the ex- pcrience. The  "rich  man"  
cannot  get through  this  
1 43 THE  WISDOM  OF INSECURITY  
<loor  because  he carries  too much  baggagc;  he is 
clinging  to thc past  and the future. One might quote whole pages from the spiritual  
litera tu re of ali times and places tO  show that 
eternal  life has becn understood in this sensc. Thc 
follow - ing from  Eckhart  will sufficc:  
The Now -moment in which God made the first man and  
the Now -moment  in which  the last man  will disappear,  
ancl  the Now -moment in which  l am spcaking are ali one 
in God, in whom  there  is only onc Now. Lookl The per- 
son who livcs in  the light oí God  is conscious ncither of  
time  past  nor of  time  to come  but only  oí onc ctcrnity. Section summary: 

Please summarize this lengthy passage while maintaining accuracy and breviTy. Note:
* Avoid repetition. * Focus mainly on main points
* Highlight critical concepts

Section VI starts discussing creativity, emphasizing **direct perception** (**non-conceptuality**) vs indirect representation via labels/think-ing ("_"). An internal struggle ensues due to conflicting demands & expectations (_ego_-related). Some examples illustrate the consequences, including societal norms and behaviors. Now, regarding spirituality,

There isn’t explicit mention, BUT IT SEEMS THERE ARE REFERENCES AND ALLUDGES. Some hints suggest exploring consciousness/insecurity/universal connection. Feel free to adjust format/style suggestions. Final output length approximately 150 – 180 characters. ).
The author believes that the concept of a "you" and "head" is an illusion and that one cannot separate themselves from their own experiences.
What is the author's perspective on the concept of a "you" and "head"?
The author believes that reality is a single, undivided process, and that the concept of a separate "I" is an illusion. He argues that this is not a philosophical or scientific concept, but a way of life.
What is the author's view on the nature of reality and the universe?
The author argues that true freedom and morality come from being aware of the present moment and accepting the unity of the universe. He believes that the concept of "freedom" and "motive" is an illusion, and that the traditional moral system is based on a misunderstanding.
What is the author's stance on the concept of freedom and morality?
The author believes that science and religion are not separate entities, but are both concerned with the same world. He argues that the traditional view of science and religion is based on a misunderstanding and that they should not be seen as separate or distinct.
What is the author's view on the relationship between science and religion?
The author believes that traditional morality and religious ideas are based on a misunderstanding and are not in line with the present moment. He argues that the concept of God is also an illusion and that the idea of a separate "I" is a barrier to understanding the universe.
What is the author's perspective on the concept of morality and the nature of God?