lirik lagu alan watts - the book, chapter 1
chapter one
inside information
just what should a young man or woman know in order to be “in
the know”? is there, in other words, some inside information, some
special taboo, some real lowdown on life and existence that most
parents and teachers either don’t know or won’t tell?
in j-pan it was once customary to give young people about to be
married a “pillow book.” this was a small volume of wood-block prints
often colored, showing all the details of s-xual intercourse. it wasn’t just
that, as the chinese say, “one picture is worth ten thousand words.” it
was also that it spared parents the embarr-ssment of explaining these
intimate matters face-to-face. but today in the west you can get such
information at any newsstand. s-x is no longer a serious taboo
teenagers sometimes know more about it than adults
but if s-x is no longer the big taboo, what is? for there is always
something taboo, something repressed, unadmitted, or just glimpsed
quickly out of the corner of one’s eye because a direct look is too
unsettling. taboos lie within taboos, like the skins of an onion. what
then, would be the book which fathers might slip to their sons and
mothers to their daughters, without ever admitting it openly?
in some circles there is a strong taboo on religion, even in circles
where people go to church or read the bible. here, religion is one’s own
private business. it is bad form or uncool to talk or argue about it, and
very bad indeed to make a big show of piety. yet when you get in on
the inside of almost any standard-brand religion, you wonder what on
earth the hush was about. surely the book i have in mind wouldn’t be
the bible, “the good book”—that fascinating anthology of ancient
wisdom, history, and fable which has for so long been treated as a
sacred cow that it might well be locked up for a century or two so that
men could hear it again with clean ears. there are indeed secrets in the
bible, and some very subversive ones, but they are all so m-ffled up in
complications, in archaic symbols and ways of thinking, thatchristianity has become incredibly difficult to explain to a modern
person. that is, unless you are content to water it down to being good
and trying to imitate jesus, but no one ever explains just how to do that
to do it you must have a particular power from god known as “grace,”
but all that we really know about grace is that some get it, and some
don’t
the standard-brand religions, whether jewish, christian
mohammedan, hindu, or buddhist, are—as now practiced—like
exhausted mines: very hard to dig. with some exceptions not too easily
found, their ideas about man and the world, their imagery, their rites
and their notions of the good life don’t seem to fit in with the universe as
we now know it, or with a human world that is changing so rapidly that
much of what one learns in school is already obsolete on graduation
day
the book i am thinking about would not be religious in the usual
sense, but it would have to discuss many things with which religions
have been concerned—the universe and man’s place in it, the mysterious
center of experience which we call “i myself,” the problems of life and
love, pain and death, and the whole question of whether existence has
meaning in any sense of the word. for there is a growing apprehension
that existence is a rat-race in a trap: living organisms, including people
are merely tubes which put things in at one end and let them out at the
other, which both keeps them doing it and in the long run wears them
out. so to keep the farce going, the tubes find ways of making new
tubes, which also put things in at one end and let them out at the other
at the input end they even develop ganglia of nerves called brains, with
eyes and ears, so that they can more easily scrounge around for things to
swallow. as and when they get enough to eat, they use up their surplus
energy by wiggling in complicated patterns, making all sorts of noises
by blowing air in and out of the input hole, and gathering together in
groups to fight with other groups. in time, the tubes grow such an
abundance of attached appliances that they are hardly recognizable as
mere tubes, and they manage to do this in a staggering variety of forms
there is a vague rule not to eat tubes of your own form, but in general
there is serious compet-tion as to who is going to be the top type of tube
all this seems marvelously futile, and yet, when you begin to thinkabout it, it begins to be more marvelous than futile. indeed, it seems
extremely odd
it is a special kind of enlightenment to have this feeling that the
usual, the way things normally are, is odd—uncanny and highly
improbable. g. k. chesterton once said that it is one thing to be amazed
at a gorgon or a griffin, creatures which do not exist; but it is quite
another and much higher thing to be amazed at a rhinoceros or a giraffe
creatures which do exist and look as if they don’t. this feeling of
universal oddity includes a basic and intense wondering about the sense
of things. why, of all possible worlds, this colossal and apparently
unnecessary mult-tude of galaxies in a mysteriously curved sp-ce-time
continuum, these myriads of differing tube-species playing frantic
games of one-upmanship, these numberless ways of “doing it” from the
elegant architecture of the snow crystal or the diatom to the startling
magnificence of the lyrebird or the peac-ck?
ludwig wittgenstein and other modern “logical” philosophers have
tried to suppress this question by saying that it has no meaning and
ought not to be asked. most philosophical problems are to be solved by
getting rid of them, by coming to the point where you see that such
questions as “why this universe?” are a kind of intellectual neurosis, a
misuse of words in that the question sounds sensible but is actually as
meaningless as asking “where is this universe?” when the only things
that are anywhere must be somewhere inside the universe. the task of
philosophy is to cure people of such nonsense. wittgenstein, as we shall
see, had a point there. nevertheless, wonder is not a disease. wonder
and its expression in poetry and the arts, are among the most important
things which seem to distinguish men from other animals, and
intelligent and sensitive people from morons
is there, then, some kind of a lowdown on this astounding scheme of
things, something that never really gets out through the usual channels
for the answer—the historic religions and philosophies? there is. it has
been said again and again, but in such a fashion that we, today, in this
particular civilization do not hear it. we do not realize that it is utterly
subversive, not so much in the political and moral sense, as in that it
turns our ordinary view of things, our common sense, inside out and
upside down. it may of course have political and moral consequences,but as yet we have no clear idea of what they may be. hitherto this inner
revolution of the mind has been confined to rather isolated individuals;
it has never, to my knowledge, been widely characteristic of
communities or societies. it has often been thought too dangerous for
that. hence the taboo
but the world is in an extremely dangerous situation, and serious
diseases often require the risk of a dangerous cure—like the pasteur
serum for rabies. it is not that we may simply blow up the planet with
nuclear bombs, strangle ourselves with overpopulation, destroy our
natural resources through poor conservation, or ruin the soil and its
products with improperly understood chemicals and pesticides. beyond
all these is the possibility that civilization may be a huge technological
success, but through methods that most people will find baffling
frightening, and disorienting—because, for one reason alone, the
methods will keep changing. it may be like playing a game in which the
rules are constantly changed without ever being made clear—a game
from which one cannot withdraw without suicide, and in which one can
never return to an older form of the game
but the problem of man and technics is almost always stated in the
wrong way. it is said that humanity has evolved one-sidedly, growing in
technical power without any comparable growth in moral integrity, or
as some would prefer to say, without comparable progress in education
and rational thinking. yet the problem is more basic. the root of the
matter is the way in which we feel and conceive ourselves as human
beings, our sensation of being alive, of individual existence and ident-ty
we suffer from a hallucination, from a false and distorted sensation of
our own existence as living organisms. most of us have the sensation
that “i myself” is a separate center of feeling and action, living inside
and bounded by the physical body—a center which “confronts” an
“external” world of people and things, making contact through the
senses with a universe both alien and strange. everyday figures of
speech reflect this illusion. “i came into this world.” “you must face
reality.” “the conquest of nature.”
this feeling of being lonely and very temporary visitors in the
universe is in flat contradiction to everything known about man (and all
other living organisms) in the sciences. we do not “come into” thisworld; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. as the ocean “waves,”
the universe “peoples.” every individual is an expression of the whole
realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe. this fact is rarely
if ever, experienced by most individuals. even those who know it to be
true in theory do not sense or feel it, but continue to be aware of
themselves as isolated “egos” inside bags of skin
the first result of this illusion is that our att-tude to the world
“outside” us is largely hostile. we are forever “conquering” nature
sp-ce, mountains, deserts, bacteria, and insects instead of learning to
cooperate with them in a harmonious order. in america the great
symbols of this conquest are the bulldozer and the rocket—the
instrument that batters the hills into flat tracts for little boxes made of
ticky-tacky and the great phallic projectile that blasts the sky
(nonetheless, we have fine architects who know how to fit houses into
hills without ruining the landscape, and astronomers who know that the
earth is already way out in sp-ce, and that our first need for exploring
other worlds is sensitive electronic instruments which, like our eyes
will bring the most distant objects into our own brains.)(1) the hostile
att-tude of conquering nature ignores the basic interdependence of all
things and events—that the world beyond the skin is actually an
extension of our own bodies—and will end in destroying the very
environment from which we emerge and upon which our whole life
depends
the second result of feeling that we are separate minds in an alien
and mostly stupid, universe is that we have no common sense, no way of
making sense of the world upon which we are agreed in common. it’s
just my opinion against yours, and therefore the most aggressive and
violent (and thus insensitive) propagandist makes the decisions. a
muddle of conflicting opinions united by force of propaganda is the
worst possible source of control for a powerful technology
it might seem, then, that our need is for some g*nius to invent a new
religion, a philosophy of life and a view of the world, that is plausible
and generally acceptable for the late twentieth century, and through
which every individual can feel that the world as a whole and his own
life in particular have meaning. this, as history has shown repeatedly, is
not enough. religions are divisive and quarrelsome. they are a form ofone-upmanship because they depend upon separating the “saved” from
the “d-mned,” the true believers from the heretics, the in-group from the
out-group. even religious liberals play the game of “we’re-moretolerant-than-you.” furthermore, as systems of doctrine, symbolism, and
behavior, religions harden into inst-tutions that must command loyalty
be defended and kept “pure,” and—because all belief is fervent hope
and thus a cover-up for doubt and uncertainty—religions must make
converts. the more people who agree with us, the less nagging
insecurity about our position. in the end one is committed to being a
christian or a buddhist come what may in the form of new knowledge
new and indigestible ideas have to be w-ngled into the religious
tradition, however inconsistent with its original doctrines, so that the
believer can still take his stand and -ssert, “i am first and foremost a
follower of christ/mohammed/buddha, or whomever.” irrevocable
commitment to any religion is not only intellectual suicide; it is positive
unfaith because it closes the mind to any new vision of the world. faith
is, above all, open-ness—an act of trust in the unknown
an ardent jehovah’s witness once tried to convince me that if there
were a god of love, he would certainly provide mankind with a reliable
and infallible textbook for the guidance of conduct. i replied that no
considerate god would destroy the human mind by making it so rigid
and unadaptable as to depend upon one book, the bible, for all the
answers. for the use of words, and thus of a book, is to point beyond
themselves to a world of life and experience that is not mere words or
even ideas. just as money is not real, consumable wealth, books are not
life. to idolize scriptures is like eating paper currency
therefore the book that i would like to slip to my children would
itself be slippery. it would slip them into a new domain, not of ideas
alone, but of experience and feeling. it would be a temporary medicine
not a diet; a point of departure, not a perpetual point of reference. they
would read it and be done with it, for if it were well and clearly written
they would not have to go back to it again and again for hidden
meanings or for clarification of obscure doctrines
we do not need a new religion or a new bible. we need a new
experience—a new feeling of what it is to be “i.” the lowdown (which
is, of course, the secret and profound view) on life is that our normalsensation of self is a hoax or, at best, a temporary role that we are
playing, or have been conned into playing—with our own tacit consent
just as every hypnotized person is basically willing to be hypnotized
the most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against
knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently
separate, independent, and isolated ego. i am not thinking of freud’s
barbarous id or unconscious as the actual reality behind the façade of
personality. freud, as we shall see, was under the influence of a
nineteenth-century fashion called “reductionism,” a curious need to put
down human culture and intelligence by calling it a fluky by-product of
blind and irrational forces. they worked very hard, then, to prove that
grapes can grow on th-rnbushes
as is so often the way, what we have suppressed and overlooked is
something startlingly obvious. the difficulty is that it is so obvious and
basic that one can hardly find the words for it. the germans call it a
hintergedanke, an apprehension lying tacitly in the back of our minds
which we cannot easily admit, even to ourselves. the sensation of “i” as
a lonely and isolated center of being is so powerful and
commonsensical, and so fundamental to our modes of speech and
thought, to our laws and social inst-tutions, that we cannot experience
selfhood except as something superficial in the scheme of the universe. i
seem to be a brief light that flashes but once in all the aeons of time—a
rare, complicated, and all-too-delicate organism on the fringe of
biological evolution, where the wave of life bursts into individual
sparkling, and multicolored drops that gleam for a moment only to
vanish forever. under such conditioning it seems impossible and even
absurd to realize that myself does not reside in the drop alone, but in the
whole surge of energy which ranges from the galaxies to the nuclear
fields in my body. at this level of existence “i” am immeasurably old;
my forms are infinite and their comings and goings are simply the
pulses or vibrations of a single and eternal flow of energy
the difficulty in realizing this to be so is that conceptual thinking
cannot grasp it. it is as if the eyes were trying to look at themselves
directly, or as if one were trying to describe the color of a mirror in
terms of colors reflected in the mirror. just as sight is something more
than all things seen, the foundation or “ground” of our existence and ourawareness cannot be understood in terms of things that are known. we
are forced, therefore, to speak of it through myth—that is, through
special metaphors, -n-logies, and images which say what it is like as
distinct from what it is. at one extreme of its meaning, “myth” is fable
falsehood, or superst-tion. but at another, “myth” is a useful and fruitful
image by which we make sense of life in somewhat the same way that
we can explain electrical forces by comparing them with the behavior of
water or air. yet “myth,” in this second sense, is not to be taken literally
just as electricity is not to be confused with air or water. thus in using
myth one must take care not to confuse image with fact, which would be
like climbing up the signpost instead of following the road
myth, then, is the form in which i try to answer when children ask
me those fundamental metaphysical questions which come so readily to
their minds: “where did the world come from?” “why did god make
the world?” “where was i before i was born?” “where do people go
when they die?” again and again i have found that they seem to be
satisfied with a simple and very ancient story, which goes something
like this:
“there was never a time when the world began, because it goes
round and round like a circle, and there is no place on a circle where it
begins. look at my watch, which tells the time; it goes round, and so the
world repeats itself again and again. but just as the hour-hand of the
watch goes up to twelve and down to six, so, too, there is day and night
waking and sleeping, living and dying, summer and winter. you can’t
have any one of these without the other, because you wouldn’t be able to
know what black is unless you had seen it side-by-side with white, or
white unless side-by-side with black
“in the same way, there are times when the world is, and times when
it isn’t, for if the world went on and on without rest for ever and ever, it
would get horribly tired of itself. it comes and it goes. now you see it;
now you don’t. so because it doesn’t get tired of itself, it always comes
back again after it disappears. it’s like your breath: it goes in and out, in
and out, and if you try to hold it in all the time you feel terrible. it’s also
like the game of hide-and-seek, because it’s always fun to find new
ways of hiding, and to seek for someone who doesn’t always hide in the
same place.”god also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing
outside god, he has no one but himself to play with. but he gets over
this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. this is his way of
hiding from himself. he pretends that he is you and i and all the people
in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the
stars. in this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of
which are terrible and frightening. but these are just like bad dreams
for when he wakes up they will disappear
“now when god plays hide and pretends that he is you and i, he does
it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he
hid himself. but that’s the whole fun of it—just what he wanted to do
he doesn’t want to find himself too quickly, for that would spoil the
game. that is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we
are god in disguise, pretending not to be himself. but when the game
has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and
remember that we are all one single self—the god who is all that there
is and who lives for ever and ever
“of course, you must remember that god isn’t shaped like a person
people have skins and there is always something outside our skins. if
there weren’t, we wouldn’t know the difference between what is inside
and outside our bodies. but god has no skin and no shape because there
isn’t any outside to him. [with a sufficiently intelligent child, i ill-strate
this with a möbius strip—a ring of paper tape twisted once in such a
way that it has only one side and one edge.] the inside and the outside
of god are the same. and though i have been talking about god as ‘he’
and not ‘she,’ god isn’t a man or a woman. i didn’t say ‘it’ because we
usually say ‘it’ for things that aren’t alive
“god is the self of the world, but you can’t see god for the same
reason that, without a mirror, you can’t see your own eyes, and you
certainly can’t bite your own t–th or look inside your head. your self is
that cleverly hidden because it is god hiding
“you may ask why god sometimes hides in the form of horrible
people, or pretends to be people who suffer great disease and pain
remember, first, that he isn’t really doing this to anyone but himself
remember, too, that in almost all the stories you enjoy there have to be
bad people as well as good people, for the thrill of the tale is to find outhow the good people will get the better of the bad. it’s the same as when
we play cards. at the beginning of the game we shuffle them all into a
mess, which is like the bad things in the world, but the point of the
game is to put the mess into good order, and the one who does it best is
the winner. then we shuffle the cards once more and play again, and so
it goes with the world.”
this story, obviously mythical in form, is not given as a scientific
description of the way things are. based on the -n-logies of games and
the drama, and using that much worn-out word “god” for the player, the
story claims only to be like the way things are. i use it just as
astronomers use the image of inflating a black balloon with white spots
on it for the galaxies, to explain the expanding universe. but to most
children, and many adults, the myth is at once intelligible, simple, and
fascinating. by contrast, so many other mythical explanations of the
world are crude, tortuous, and unintelligible. but many people think that
believing in the unintelligible propositions and symbols of their
religions is the test of true faith. “i believe,” said tertullian of
christianity, “because it is absurd.”
people who think for themselves do not accept ideas on this kind of
authority. they don’t feel commanded to believe in miracles or strange
doctrines as abraham felt commanded by god to sacrifice his son isaac
as t. george harris put it:
the social hierarchies of the past, where some boss above you
always punished any error, conditioned men to feel a chain of
harsh authority reaching all the way “up there.” we don’t feel this
bond in today’s egalitarian freedom. we don’t even have, since dr
spock, many jehovah-like fathers in the human family. so the
average unconscious no longer learns to seek forgiveness from a
wrathful god above
but, he continues—
our generation knows a cold h-ll, solitary confinement in this
life, without a god to d-mn or save it. until man figures out the
trap and hunts… “the ultimate ground of being,” he has no reasonat all for his existence. empty, finite, he knows only that he will
soon die. since this life has no meaning, and he sees no future life
he is not really a person but a victim of self-extinction.(2)
“the ultimate ground of being” is paul tillich’s decontaminated
term for “god” and would also do for “the self of the world” as i put it
in my story for children. but the secret which my story slips over to the
child is that the ultimate ground of being is you. not, of course, the
everyday you which the ground is -ssuming, or “pretending” to be, but
that inmost self which escapes inspection because it’s always the
inspector. this, then, is the taboo of taboos: you’re it!
yet in our culture this is the touchstone of insanity, the blackest of
blasphemies, and the wildest of delusions. this, we believe, is the
ultimate in megalomania—an inflation of the ego to complete absurdity
for though we cultivate the ego with one hand, we knock it down with
the other. from generation to generation we kick the stuffing out of our
children to teach them to “know their place” and to behave, think, and
feel with proper modesty as befits one little ego among many. as my
mother used to say, “you’re not the only pebble on the beach!”
anyone in his right mind who believes that he is god should be
crucified or burned at the stake, though now we take the more charitable
view that no one in his right mind could believe such nonsense. only a
poor idiot could conceive himself as the omnipotent ruler of the world
and expect everyone else to fall down and worship
but this is because we think of god as the king of the universe, the
absolute technocrat who personally and consciously controls every
details of his cosmos—and that is not the kind of god in my story. in
fact, it isn’t my story at all, for any student of the history of religions will
know that it comes from ancient india, and is the mythical way of
explaining the vedanta philosophy. vedanta is the teaching of the
upanishads, a collection of dialogues, stories, and poems, some of
which go back to at least 800 b.c. sophisticated hindus do not think of
god as a special and separate superperson who rules the world from
above, like a monarch. their god is “underneath” rather than “above”
everything, and he (or it) plays the world from inside. one might say
that if religion is the opium of the people, the hindus have the insidedope. what is more, no hindu can realize that he is god in disguise
without seeing at the same time that this is true of everyone and
everything else. in the vedanta philosophy, nothing exists except god
there seem to be other things than god, but only because he is
dreaming them up and making them his disguises to play hide-and-seek
with himself. the universe of seemingly separate things is therefore real
only for a while, not eternally real, for it comes and goes as the self
hides and seeks itself
but vedanta is much more than the idea or the belief that this is so. it
is centrally and above all the experience, the immediate knowledge of
its being so, and for this reason such a complete subversion of our
ordinary way of seeing things. it turns the world inside out and outside
in. likewise, a saying attributed to jesus runs:
when you make the two one, and
when you make the inner as the outer
and the outer as the inner and the above as the below …
then shall you enter [the kingdom]….
i am the light that is above
them all, i am the all
the all came forth from me and the all
attained to me. cleave a [piece of] wood, i
am there; lift up the stone and you will
find me there.(3)
today the vedanta discipline comes down to us after centuries of
involvement with all the forms, att-tudes, and symbols of hindu culture
in its flowering and slow demise over nearly 2,800 years, sorely
wounded by islamic fanaticism and corrupted by british puritanism. as
often set forth, vedanta rings no bell in the west, and attracts mostly the
fastidiously spiritual and diaphanous kind of people for whom
incarnation in a physical body is just too disgusting to be borne.(4) but
it is possible to state its essentials in a present-day idiom, and when this
is done without exotic trappings, sanskrit terminology, and excessive
postures of spirituality, the message is not only clear to people with nospecial interest in “oriental religions”; it is also the very jolt that we
need to kick ourselves out of our isolated sensation of self
but this must not be confused with our usual ideas of the practice of
“unselfishness,” which is the effort to identify with others and their
needs while still under the strong illusion of being no more than a skincontained ego. such “unselfishness” is apt to be a highly refined
egotism, comparable to the in-group which plays the game of “we’remore-tolerant-than-you.” the vedanta was not originally moralistic; it
did not urge people to ape the saints without sharing their real
motivations, or to ape motivations without sharing the knowledge which
sparks them
for this reason the book i would p-ss to my children would contain
no sermons, no shoulds and oughts. genuine love comes from
knowledge, not from a sense of duty or guilt. how would you like to be
an invalid mother with a daughter who can’t marry because she feels she
ought to look after you, and therefore hates you? my wish would be to
tell, not how things ought to be, but how they are, and how and why we
ignore them as they are. you cannot teach an ego to be anything but
egotistic, even though egos have the subtlest ways of pretending to be
reformed. the basic thing is therefore to dispel, by experiment and
experience, the illusion of oneself as a separate ego. the consequences
may not be behavior along the lines of conventional morality. it may
well be as the squares said of jesus, “look at him! a glutton and a
drinker, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!”
furthermore, on seeing through the illusion of the ego, it is
impossible to think of oneself as better than, or superior to, others for
having done so. in every direction there is just the one self playing its
myriad games of hide-and-seek. birds are not better than the eggs from
which they have broken. indeed, it could be said that a bird is one egg’s
way of becoming other eggs. egg is ego, and bird is the liberated self
there is a hindu myth of the self as a divine swan which laid the egg
from which the world was hatched. thus i am not even saying that you
ought to break out of your sh-ll. sometime, somehow, you (the real you
the self) will do it anyhow, but it is not impossible that the play of the
self will be to remain unawakened in most of its human disguises, and
so bring the drama of life on earth to its close in a vast explosion.another hindu myth says that as time goes on, life in the world gets
worse and worse, until at last the destructive aspect of the self, the god
shiva, dances a terrible dance which consumes everything in fire. there
follow, says the myth, 4,320,000 years of total peace during which the
self is just itself and does not play hide. and then the game begins
again, starting off as a universe of perfect splendor which begins to
deteriorate only after 1,728,000 years, and every round of the game is so
designed that the forces of darkness present themselves for only one
third of the time, enjoying at the end a brief but quite illusory triumph
today we calculate the life of this planet alone in much vaster
periods, but of all ancient civilizations the hindus had the most
imaginative vision of cosmic time. yet remember, this story of the
cycles of the world’s appearance and disappearance is myth, not science
parable rather than prophecy. it is a way of ill-strating the idea that the
universe is like the game of hide-and-seek
if, then, i am not saying that you ought to awaken from the egoillusion and help save the world from disaster, why the book? why not
sit back and let things take their course? simply that it is part of “things
taking their course” that i write. as a human being it is just my nature to
enjoy and share philosophy. i do this in the same way that some birds
are eagles and some doves, some flowers lilies and some roses. i realize
too, that the less i preach, the more likely i am to be heard
(1) “i do not believe that anything really worthwhile will come out of the
exploration of the slag heap that const-tutes the surface of the moon. . . . n0body
should imagine that the enormous financial budget of nasa implies that astronomy is
now well supported.” fred hoyle, galaxies, nuclei, and quasars. heinemann
educational, 1966
(2) a discussion of the views of theologian paul tillich in “the battle of the
bible,” look, vol. xix, no. 15. july 27, 1965. p. 19
(3) a. guillaumont and others (trs.), the gospel according to thomas. collins
1959. pp. 17-18, 43. a recently discovered coptic m-n-script, possibly translated
from a greek version as old as a.d. 140. the “i” and the “me” are obvious references
to the disguised self
(4) i said “mostly” because i am aware of some very special exceptions both here
and in india
Lirik lagu lainnya:
- lirik lagu scotch - vs das x vr vbt11
- lirik lagu xx/\/\e - 2000
- lirik lagu adolfo urias - muchacha bonita
- lirik lagu george jones - womanhood
- lirik lagu baracka flacka flames - hit 'em up
- lirik lagu huczuhucz - niemożliwe
- lirik lagu virtuoso - god of thunder
- lirik lagu zona ganjah - meditaciones en conciencia
- lirik lagu fashawn - boy meets world
- lirik lagu lalla hansson - anna & mej (me & bobby mcgee)