Lecture XXXVIII (Nr. 0509)

[504] SAME QN: You said last semester one should not disturb a person who is living in the state of the unbroken myth. Now you say you should distinguish between the literal and the symbolic. How do you reconcile [this]? PT: I say only if the child asks the question, is this really true?, then he is not any more in the state of unbroken myth. That is a very simple answer. That is what I mean. You shouldn't introduce that ARTIFICIALLY, the question. But if the question is there, from whatever destiny it comes, then nothing can be done about it; you have togo [sic.]. QN: [--about the Business School and ultimate concern]--- Are they just concerned about finding ultimate concern in business---or the Law School, etc.---or is there a hunger for a deeper ultimate concern, and that is why they invited someone from the theological faculty? PT: Yes--- deeper expression--- in the realm of the ultimate, there is nothing deeper and less deep.

It is or is not ultimate. But the expression can be very traditional and conventional, and can be very deep. And I agree sometimes with you that such invitations are given in order to find deeper, more adequate, more powerful EXPRESSION of that [?] in the ultimate concern. But don't confuse the ultimate concern itself with the expression of it! The holy is always holy, but the way of the encounter is always different, and the way of the encounter can be as profound as it is in Is [sic.] Isaiah 6, and it can be very superficial as it is in the Pharisee who goes into the Temple in order to boast before God. I mean these are different forms of encounter, but the holy is the holy, the ultimate is the ultimate.