4366. 'And Esau said, I have much, my brother; let what is yours be yours' means a tacit acceptance, in order that in this way He might instill the affection for good that develops out of truth. This becomes clear from this refusal to accept what was offered, in that it really implies a willingness to take it; for Esau went on to accept it. One sometimes refuses an offer when in fact accepting it, to the end that affection may be instilled. That affection is also increased by such a refusal and so advances from the thought of what is good to the desire for it. Man is led by the Lord in the spiritual life by means of things that are virtually the same as those by which one leads others in everyday life. In everyday life it is quite normal to refuse an offer so that the one who makes it may do so with affection, thus not simply because he has thought of making it but also because he desires to do so. Should the offer not be accepted the ultimate intention would perish, and therefore that intention incites the one making the offer to think more intently about it and so to make it his heart's desire.

[2] The reason why this procedure is not apparent in the spiritual life as it is in everyday life is that the people with whom good is being joined to truths, that is, who are being regenerated, are few; and what is more, the few who are being regenerated neither reflect on nor are able to reflect on such matters as they do not know what spiritual good is because they do not know what charity is and what the neighbour is in the genuine sense. And because they do not know these things they cannot have any interior conception about truth which is the truth of faith. In addition to this they set the spiritual life and everyday life so far apart from each other that they do not dare to infer from everyday life any notion about the spiritual life. They are totally unaware of the fact that these correspond to each other and that the spiritual life is represented within everyday life; indeed some do not even allow any comparison to be made. But the fact of the matter is that no notion of the spiritual life can be had except from the things which belong to everyday life. Once everyday life is taken away therefore spiritual life falls to nothing, until at length belief in the existence of it remains no longer. This is made perfectly clear by the fact that people no longer have any belief in the idea that spirits and angels mix with one another as men mix, or that they converse with one another, reason with one another just as men reason, though in a far more perfect way, about what is honourable and decent, about what is just and fair, and about what is good and true. Even less belief exists in the idea that spirits and angels can see, hear, and find out about one another, combine into communities and live together, besides many other things.

5094. 'The cupbearer and the baker' means regarding both kinds of sensory powers. This is clear from the meaning of 'the cupbearer' as the sensory powers subordinate to the understanding part of the mind, dealt with in 5077, and from the meaning of 'the baker' as the sensory powers subordinate to the will part, dealt with in 5078, which, as stated above in 5083, 5089, were cast aside by the interior natural. But it should be realized that the actual powers of the senses were not cast aside - that is to say, sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, for the life of the body is dependent on these - but the insights or thoughts, as well as the affections and desires, that are dependent on them. Objects belonging to the world enter a person's external or natural memory by way of his senses on the one hand and by way of his rational thought on the other. These objects then divide themselves off from one another in that memory; those entering through rational thought place themselves in a more internal position, whereas those entering through the senses do so in a more external one, as a consequence of which the natural comes to have two parts - the interior part and the exterior - as has also been stated above.

[2] The interior natural is what 'Pharaoh king of Egypt' represents, while the exterior natural is what 'the cupbearer and the baker' represents. The nature of the difference between the two becomes clear from the different ways they look at things, that is, from their thoughts and their conclusions based on those thoughts. The person who uses the interior natural to think with and to form conclusions is rational, and is so insofar as he has absorbed what comes to him through rational thought; but the person who uses the exterior natural to think with and form conclusions is governed by his senses, and is so insofar as he has absorbed what comes to him from sensory evidence. Such a person is called one governed by his senses, whereas the other is called one who is rational-natural. When a person dies he has the entire natural with him; and its form remains the same as that which it took in the world. He is also rational-minded to the extent he has absorbed ideas from rational thought, but sensory-minded to the extent he has absorbed ideas from his senses. The difference between the two is that, to the extent it has absorbed ideas from rational thought and made them its own, the natural looks down on the senses belonging to the exterior natural and controls them by disparaging and casting aside illusions formed by the senses. But to the extent that it has absorbed ideas formed by the bodily senses and made them its own the natural looks down on rational thought by disparaging this and casting it aside.

[3] An example of the difference between the two may be seen in the ability of the rational-natural man to comprehend that no one's life is self-existent but that it comes to him through an influx of life from the Lord by way of heaven, and the inability of one governed by the senses to comprehend the same. For the latter says his senses tell him and he can plainly see that his life is self-existent and that it is pointless to contradict the evidence of the senses. Let another example be given. The rational-natural man comprehends the existence of a heaven and a hell; but one governed by his senses denies the existence of these because he has no conception of another world purer than the one he sees with his eyes. The rational-natural man comprehends the existence of spirits and angels who are not visible to him; but one governed by the senses cannot comprehend the same, for he imagines that what he cannot see or touch has no existence.

[4] Here is another example. The rational-natural man comprehends that it is the mark of an intelligent being to have ends in view, and with foresight to be directing means towards some final end. When he looks at the natural creation from the point of view of the order of everything, he sees the natural creation as a complex system of means and realizes that an intelligent Supreme Being has given them direction, though to what final end he cannot see unless he becomes spiritual. But a person governed by his senses does not comprehend how anything distinct and separate from the natural creation can exist or how some Being superior to the natural order can do so. He has no notion of what exercising intelligence, exercising wisdom, having ends in view, or giving direction to means may be unless all these activities are being spoken of as natural ones; and when they are spoken of as such, his idea of them is like that of one who is designing a machine. These few examples show what is meant by the interior natural and the exterior natural, and by the powers of the senses being cast aside - not sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch in the body, but the conclusions reached by these about interior matters.