(Before the session Jane and I went over the questions remaining on the list we had prepared for Chapter Twenty. “I hope Seth will just do those chapters on religion and reincarnation, and get them over with,” she said. We’ve realized for some time that Jane is sensitive to those subjects, particularly religion; she had strict training in that field as a youngster. Coupled with that, however, she developed a very strong, literal, religious drive on her own. She is well aware that such an early environment leaves its marks, even though she had left her church by the time she was nineteen….

Now: The questions on religion and reincarnation will be answered in due time, as mentioned. I will deal with several of your other questions also along with the text. Therefore we will begin the next chapter, called: “The Meaning of Religion.”

THE MEANING OF RELIGION

(Long pause at 9:02.) The Sinful Self shows itself in a period of transition from its religious to scientific format in science fiction or fantasy in particular, where you can almost trace the translation of religion’s self, tainted by original sin, to the Darwinian and Freudian concepts of the flawed self, bound to destruction one way or another, propelled by the unbridled unconscious or evolutionary defect. [...]

[...] When you fear that man will most certainly destroy himself through his misuse of technologies, then you are expressing the same feeling in different form expressed by the religious attitude—only religion’s devils are turned into technological devices. [...]

(Long pause at 9:13.) The use of the Frankenstein monster and so forth in television dramas, and the merging of strong destructive tendencies intermixed with the psychic abilities in current psychic horror stories, shows again the potent mixture of religion’s Sinful Self and science’s flawed self. [...]

[...] There were other religions in other times that held a sway over civilizations for far longer periods. There were changes, but in general the religions of the Egyptians and the ancient Greeks are cases in point. The longevity of those religions and their effects upon those ancient civilizations are certainly not taken by “modern men” as proof that those religions had any basis in fact. [...] Those religions had as great an effect upon their cultures as Christianity has had upon your own.

Because of the beliefs of religion, the child expected God to show his power through some disastrous act by which sinners would be punished. That child’s life already carries the marks of her beliefs about religion, God, power, and mainly in the belief that nature is a tool in the God’s hands—to be used against man at any time.

The Eastern religions exaggerated the importance of unity, almost losing the concept of individuality in the process. As popularly understood, Eastern religions can lead to spiritual exhaustion, as the individual tries to level himself out, again, so to speak — and the popular understanding of a religion is far more important than the priests or the gurus understand it, for people directed their lives by following their own versions. [...]

[...] Largely speaking, yet in the terms of this discussion, Christianity and ancient Roman religions dealt mainly with the individual, and particularly Christianity overlooked the large unity of being. [...]

So some Americans have become tired of this badge of individuality, and they are ready to throw it over, either to fundamental Christianity, which is again rising, or to a number of various Eastern religions. [...]

In all religions, those that you did not officially adopt in your society, what you would think of as the female religions predominated. [...]

Your ideas of sexuality follow both your religions and your sciences, then, for you have created each. [...]

[...] Regroup your ideas so that you automatically think of sexuality in relationship to your religions and sciences. [...]

[...] Religion per se, however, is always the external facade of inner reality. [...] In the most real terms, religion should include all of the pursuits of man in his search for the nature of meaning and truth. [...]

[...] To the extent that a man feels that his religion expresses such inner experience, he will feel it valid. Most religions per se, however, set up as permissible certain groups of experiences while denying others. [...]

[...] No new religion really startles anyone, for the drama has already been played subjectively.

[...] The Speakers predated the emergence of any religions that you know, and the religions of the Speakers arose spontaneously in many scattered areas, then grew like wildfire from the heart of Africa and Australia. [...]

[...] It should change current religion’s ideas considerably. [...]

Some very old religions understood the hallucinatory nature of the devil concept, but even in Egyptian times, the simpler and more distorted ideas became prevalent, particularly with the masses of people. [...]

[...] The inceptions of almost all religions have been involved one way or another with these schizophrenic episodes.

[...] The trouble is that while such religions can also inspire people to acts of great sympathy, heroism and understanding, their existence rests upon drastic misreadings of the nature of reality.

If the major religions have been touched, then there have also been numberless smaller cults and sects throughout history into the present that bear that same stamp of great psychological power and energy, coupled with an inborn leaning toward self destruction and vengeance.

Now in the back of your mind, and you may yell at me later, conventional religion is symbolized by the Catholic religion because of its fantastic organization. [...] He did not give much, but he gave, and he gave because any religion must pay tribute to the inner knowledge of the self and the true inner knowledge does not come in through the front door. [...]

Now conventional religion requires tribute and so the men came to you at the door. [...] The conventional religions were symbolized as St. Paul to you. [...]

[...] Is it legitimate whether spoken about in conventional terms through religion, or is it legitimate in the terms spoken about in this room, or is it legitimate in any terms at all? [...]

[...] The plays themselves, then, the religions that sweep across the ages — these are merely shadows, though helpful ones. [...] All religions, therefore, while trying to catch “truth” must to some large degree fear its ever eluding them.

[...] Now give me a moment, and we will begin by resuming our chapter on religion. [...]

(9:25.) By that time, all religions will be in severe crisis. [...]

[...] “I feel something about religion. [...]

[...] And the last thing I’d expected of Jane tonight was any material on religion from Seth. [...]

Jewish shepherds represented the placenta that was meant to be discarded, for it was Jewish tradition that nourished the new religion in its early stages before its birth. [...]

(Long pause.) Since ancient times religion has tried to help man understand the nature of his own subjective reality — but religion has its own dark side, and for this reason religion unfortunately has fostered fear of the spontaneous.

(Long pause.) In the past, and in large areas of the world now, many important decisions are not made by the individual, but by the state, or religion, or society. In this century several issues came to the forefront of American culture: the exteriorization of organized religion, which became more of a social rather than a spiritual entity, and the joining of science with technology and moneyed interests. [...]

Organized religion felt threatened; and if it could not prove that man had a soul, it could at least see to it that the needs of the body were taken care of through suitable social work, and so it abandoned many of the principles that might have added to its strength. [...]

[...] So those who felt that religion had failed them looked anew to science, which promised — promised to — provide the closest approximation to heaven on earth: mass production of goods, two cars in every garage, potions for every ailment, solutions for every problem. [...]

[...] The book was based on the idea that nature was against man; and that religion was man’s attempt to operate within that unsafe context. The feelings I was getting went even further, that religion or science or whatever weren’t attempts to discover truth—but to escape from doing so, to substitute some satisfying tale or story instead. [...]

[...] Whenever science or religion seeks the origin of the universe, they search for it in the past. [...]

(9:31.) In certain terms, science and religion are both dealing with the idea of an objectively created universe. [...]

I will purposely avoid using the word “God” because of the connotations placed upon it by conventional religion. [...]

[...] She explained that it was disturbing for her “because the whole thing is an example of how a mad visionary can lead his people to destruction in the name of religion.” Involved in her feelings, of course, are her own youthful conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church; these led to her abandoning organized religion by the time she was 18. [...]

They tried various religions, and in the light of their opinions of themselves their earlier advantages seemed only to damn them further. [...]

[...] It would make Americans question the nature of their society, of their religions, their politics, and their beliefs.

“All religions are distortive. [...] Religion has been the cause of much prejudice and cruelty, but the bombs over Hiroshima were not caused by the Catholic Saint Teresa showering down any roses. Science is apt to turn into another religion, if it has not done so already. The distortions in science and religion have been truly disastrous. [...]

[...] But that knowledge has been taken into various religions and doctrines that have grown up about it until it is almost unrecognizable. [...]

[...] You may run from one religion to another, or from religion to science, or vice versa. [...]

Organized religion has committed many important blunders, yet for centuries Christianity provided a context accepted by large portions of the known world, in which experience could be judged against very definite “rules” — experience once focused, chiselled, and yet allowed some rich expression as long as it stayed within the boundaries set by religious dogma.

(Pause.) Now in medieval times organized religion, or organized Christianity, presented each individual with a screen of beliefs through which the personal self was perceived. [...]

In the world of religion, however, you are already tainted by original sin: “The mark of Cain” is symbolically upon your foreheads. [...]

According to other religions, you may be “earthbound” by the “gross desires” of your nature, “bound to the wheel of life,” condemned to endless reincarnations until you are “purified.” [...]

So, dear reader, look at the law as it stands in this country with somewhat more kindly eyes than you have before — for it at least legally establishes a belief in your innocence, and for all of its failings, it protects you from the far more fanatical aspects, say, of any religion’s laws.

[...] Any unfortunate situations in the fields of medicine, science, or religion result not from any determined effort to sabotage the “idea,” but instead happen because men often believe that any means is justified in the pursuit of the ideal.

(Pause, then all intently:) Religion and science alike denied other species any real consciousness. [...]

(Pause.) This is carried through in economics, politics, medicine, the sciences, and even the religions. [...]