10107. And the bread that is in the basket. That this signifies the appropriation of celestial good from the Lord, is evident from the signification of “eating,” here bread, as being appropriation (as just above, n. 10106); from the signification of “bread,” as being the good of love and charity (n. 2165, 2177, 3464, 3478, 3735, 3813, 4217, 4735, 4976, 5915, 6118, 9323, 9545); and from the signification of a “basket,” as being the external sensuous (n. 9996). From this it is plain that by “eating the bread that was in the basket” is signified the appropriation of good from the Lord in externals. The breads which were in the basket were unleavened breads, unleavened cakes, and unleavened wafers, and by these are signified goods purified, both internal and external (n. 9992-9994). When therefore “bread in the basket” is spoken of, there are signified all these goods in the external sensuous, and the external sensuous is the ultimate of man’s life, containing all the interior things together in itself. (That the external sensuous is the ultimate of man’s life, see n. 5077, 5081, 5094, 5125, 5128, 5767, 6183, 6311, 6313, 6318, 6564, 7645, 9212, 9216, 9730, 9996; and that, being the ultimate, it contains all the interior things, see n. 6451, 6465, 9216, 9828, 9836, 10044)

5094. The butler and the baker. That this signifies concerning the sensuous things of both kinds, is evident from the signification of a “butler,” as being the sensuous subordinate to the intellectual part (see n. 5077); and from the signification of a “baker,” as being the sensuous subordinate to the will part (n. 5078). That these were rejected by the interior natural has been said above (n. 5083, 5089). Be it known, however, that it was not the sensuous things themselves-namely, those of the sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch-that were rejected, for from these the body lives; but it was the views or thoughts, and also the affections and desires, from them. Objects from the world enter into the external or natural memory of man through these sensuous things on the one hand, and objects through rational things on the other. These objects separate themselves in his memory. Those which have entered through rational things take a more interior place, but those which have entered through the sensuous things have a more exterior place; hence as before said the natural becomes twofold, interior and exterior.

[2] The interior natural is what is represented by Pharaoh the king of Egypt, but the exterior natural by the butler and the baker. What the difference is may be seen from their respective views of things, or thoughts, and the conclusions thence derived. One who thinks and concludes from the interior natural is so far rational as he imbibes what enters through the rational; but one who thinks and concludes from the exterior natural, is so far sensuous as he imbibes what enters from sensuous things. Such a man is also called a sensuous man, but the other a rational man. When a man dies he takes with him all the natural; and such as it has been formed with him in the world, such it remains; insofar as he has become imbued with what is from the rational, insofar he is rational; and insofar as he has become imbued with what is from the sensuous, so far he is sensuous. The difference is that insofar as the natural has drawn and appropriated to itself what is from the rational, so far it looks at as beneath itself the sensuous things of the exterior natural, and insofar it has dominion over them, deeming worthless and rejecting the fallacies thence derived, whereas insofar as the natural has drawn and appropriated to itself anything from the sensuous things of the body, so far it looks at rational things as beneath itself, deeming them worthless and rejecting them.

[3] For example, the rational natural man can comprehend that man does not live from himself, but by an influx of life through heaven from the Lord; but the sensuous man cannot comprehend this, for he says that he plainly feels and perceives that life is in himself, and that it is idle to speak contrary to the evidence of the senses. As another example: the rational natural man comprehends that there is a heaven and a hell, whereas the sensuous man denies this, because he does not apprehend that there is any purer world than that which he sees with his eyes. The rational natural man comprehends that there are spirits and angels who are unseen; but the sensuous man does not comprehend this, supposing that to be nothing which he does not see and touch.

[4] As still another example: the rational natural man comprehends that it is the part of an intelligent man to look at ends, and to foresee and to dispose the means to some ultimate end. When he looks at nature from the order of things, he sees that nature is a complex of means, and he then perceives that a Supreme Being of intelligence has disposed them; but to what ultimate end he does not see unless he becomes spiritual. On the other hand the sensuous man does not comprehend that there can be anything distinct from nature, thus neither that there can be any Entity which is above nature. What it is to understand, to be wise, to look at ends, and to dispose means, he does not apprehend unless it is called natural; and when it is called natural, he has an idea of these operations like that which an artificer has of an automaton. From these few instances it may be seen what is meant by the interior natural and the exterior natural, and also what by sensuous things being rejected; namely, not the rejection of the things of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, in the body, but of the conclusions therefrom concerning interior things.