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.

5077. 'The cupbearer of the king of Egypt' means among the things of the body which are subject to the understanding Part of the mind. This is clear from the meaning of 'the cupbearer' as the external or bodily senses that are subordinate or subject to the understanding part of the internal man, dealt with in what follows below; and from the meaning of 'the king of Egypt' as the natural man, dealt with below in 5079. Since the cupbearer and the baker are the subject of the narrative that follows and these mean the external senses belonging to the body, something must first be said about these. It is well known that the external or bodily senses are five in number - sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch - and also that these constitute the entire life of the body. For without those senses the body has no life at all, for which reason also when deprived of them it dies and becomes a corpse. The actual bodily part of the human being therefore is nothing else than a receiver of sensory impressions and consequently of the life resulting from these. The part played by the senses is the principal one and that by the body the instrumental. The instrumental without its principal which it is fitted to serve cannot even be called the body that a person carries around while living in the world; but the instrumental together with its principal, when they act as one, can be called such. The two together therefore constitute the body.

[2] A person's external senses are directly related to his internal ones, for they have been given to a person and placed within his body to serve his internal man while he is in the world and to exist subject to the sensory powers of that internal man. Consequently when a person's external senses begin to rule his internal ones he is done for. When this happens his internal sensory powers are regarded as no more than servants whose function is to reinforce whatever the external senses imperiously demand. When this is the state in which the external senses operate, order in their case has become turned around, a situation dealt with immediately above in 5076.

[3] A person's external senses are, as stated, directly related to his internal ones, in general to the understanding and to the will. Consequently some external senses are subject or subordinate to the understanding part of the human mind, others are subject to the will part. One sensory power specifically subject to the understanding is sight; another subject to the understanding, and after that to the will also, is hearing. Smell, and more especially taste, are subject to both simultaneously, while the power subject to the will is touch. Much evidence could be introduced to show that the external senses are subject to the understanding and the will, and also to show how they are subject; but it would take up too much space to carry the explanation so far. Something of what is involved may be recognized from what has been shown at the ends of preceding chapters about the correspondence of those senses.

[4] In addition it should be recognized that all truths that are called the truths of faith belong to the understanding part, and that all forms of good which are those of love and charity go with the will part. Consequently it is the function of the understanding to believe, acknowledge, know, and see truth - and good also. But the function of the will is to feel an affection for that truth and to love it; and whatever a person feels an affection for and loves is good. But how the understanding influences the will when truth passes into good, and how the will influences the understanding when it puts that good into effect, are matters for still deeper examination - In the Lord's Divine mercy those matters will be discussed at various points further on.

[5] The reason 'the cupbearer' means the senses subject or subordinate to the understanding Part of the internal man is that everything which serves as drink, or which is consumed as such, for example, wine, milk, or water, is related to truth, which feeds the understanding and so belongs to the understanding. Also, because the external or bodily senses play a ministering role, 'a cupbearer' therefore means those senses or what is perceived by them. For in general 'drinking' has reference to truths which feed the understanding, see 3069, 3071, 3168, 3772, 4017, 4018; the specific meaning of 'wine' is truth deriving from good, or faith from charity, 1071, 1798, while 'water' means truth, 680, 2702, 3058, 3424, 4976. From all this one may now see what 'the cupbearer' means.