Having completed the two cycles of legend to which she has devoted her career so far, Anne Rice gives us now her most ambitious and courageous book, a novel about the life of of Christ the Lord based on the gospels and on the most respected New Testament scholarship.

The book's power derives from the passion its author brings to the writing, and the way in which she summons up the voice, the presence, the words of Jesus who tells the story.

This new introduction appears in the paperback edition of the book, released November 1st, 2006:

This book seeks to present a realistic fictional portrait of Our Lord in Time.  It is rooted in the faith that the Creator of the Universe became human in the person of Jesus Christ and “dwelt among us.”  The magnificent mystery of the Incarnation is accepted and affirmed as fact. Scripture is the inspiration for the emotions and powers of the Child Jesus as they are envisioned here.   History as well as the gospels is the source for this picture of a world in which Our Lord might have lived, as a little boy, in war and in peace, from day to day.

Ad majorem Dei gloriam. July 12, 2006

Discussion Questions:

1. Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt is told in Jesus' voice. What advantages does the first-person narration offer the author? How does it contribute to the novel's emotional resonance? How does it influence the way the novel unfolds?

2. What other literary devices does Rice use to bring the story to life for the contemporary reader? Discuss, for example, her use of imagined conversations and her descriptions of the family's interactions.

3. The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke recount the story of Jesus' birth, the flight to Egypt, and the family's return to Israel. Does Rice take liberties with these biblical versions in her retelling? To what extent does her account echo the Gospels in both content and tone?

4. Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt focuses on a period in Jesus' life not described in the New Testament. How realistic is Rice's portrait of Jesus as a young boy? How do the miracles he performs–killing and reviving Eleazer [pp. 4—7]; alleviating Cleopas' pain [p. 48] and rescuing him from death [p. 99]; and restoring sight to the blind man [pp. 279—80] –reflect feelings and wishes typical of a seven-year-old?

5. Throughout the book, Jesus questions Mary and Joseph, Cleopas, and rabbis and scholars in hopes of discovering the secret of his birth. What do the answers he receives from the various adults reflect about their relationship with Jesus, their understanding of the truth, and their own self-interests and philosophies?

6. What role does Cleopas play in his nephew's life? Why does he defy Mary and Joseph and reveal what he knows about Jesus' conception and birth [p. 45—47]? What other function does he serve in the plot? What insights do his opinions [p. 68, p.74, and p. 211, for example] give into the political situation in Israel? Is his point of view understandable in light of the history of the Jews as it is presented in the novel?

7. What makes Rice's portraits of Mary and Joseph effective? What did you admire most each of them? Are there flaws in the decisions they make?

8. Discuss the internal conflicts Jesus experiences as he pieces together the stories he hears and tries to reconcile them with his own his unsettling thoughts and fears. Do they make you feel differently about Jesus' humanity? His divinity?

9. Jesus' immersion in Jewish culture and traditions is an important aspect of the novel. What is the significance of Rice's focus on Jesus as a Jew? What insights does it give into Jesus' teachings and his ultimate mission on earth? Is the message relevant to the religious tensions in the world today?

10. Did reading Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt deepen your understanding of the origins of Christianity? Do you think readers' reactions to Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt are inevitably influenced by their personal religious beliefs and heritage?

11. In the author's note, Rice discusses her extensive research and offers a critique of recent New Testament scholarship. Do you agree with her criticism of the current "fashionable notions about Jesus" [p. 309]? Have you read articles or books that support her argument that many writers "scholars who have apparently devoted their life to New Testament scholarship, disliked Jesus Christ" [p.314]? Do you think that Rice's background and her strong Catholic faith affect the conclusions she draws?

12. Rice, who is best known for her books about vampires, expresses the hope that "Jesus will be as real to you as any other character I've ever launched into the world we share" [p. 321]. If you have read her other books, do you think that she succeeded in this goal? Whether or not you are familiar with her previous works, discuss your reactions to the following quotation: "After all, is Christ Our Lord not the ultimate supernatural hero, the ultimate outsider, the ultimate immortal of them all?" [p. 321].



Reviews:


BELIEFNET.COM has named CHRIST THE LORD as The Best Spiritual Book of the Year! Read the article here.

Kirkus
(STARRED)

A riveting, reverent imagining of the hidden years of the child Jesus.

Attacked by a vicious bully, seven-year-old Yeshua employs uncanny powers to drop his assailant onto the sand and then to bring him back to life. It's the remarkable beginning of the 26th novel by an author whose pulpy vampire chronicles hardly prepare us for a book so spiritually potent as this. Following Jesus and his family's journey from Egyptian exile to their ancestral home, it recasts Bible stories (the Magi's visit, the presentation at the temple) in the detailed context of Jewish rebellion against Herod Archelaus, the impious ruler of Israel. A cross between a historial novel and an update of Tolstoy's The Gospel in Brief, it presents Jesus as nature mystic, healer, prophet and very much a real young boy. Essentially, it's a mystery story, of the child grappling to understand his miraculous gifts and numinous birth. He animates clay pigeons, causes snowfall and dazzles his elders with unheard-of knowledge. Rice's book is a triumph of tone -- her prose lean, lyrical, vivid -- and character. As he ponders his staggering responsibility, the boy is fully believable -- and yet there's something in his supernatural empathy and blazing intelligence that conveys the wondrousness of a boy like no other. Rice's concluding Author's Note traces the book's genesis to her return to Catholicism in 1993, her voracious reading -- a mountain of New Testament scholarship, the Apochrya, the ancient texts of Philo and Jospephus -- and her passionate search for Jesus of the Gospels. With this novel, she has indeed found a convincing version of him; this is fiction that transcends story and instead qualifies as an act of faith.

Joins Nikos Kazantzakis's The Last Temptation of Christ and Endo's A Life of Jesus as one of the bolder re-tellings.

(Kirkus Reviews, October 1, 2005)

__________

Library Journal

Rice, Anne. Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt. Knopf. Nov. 2005. c.321p. ISBN 0-375-41201-8. $25.95.

A novel narrated by Jesus of Nazareth from the author who has spent decades writing about vampires may strike many as strange, but Rice brings the same passion to her colorful account of the young Jesus and his quest to understand his strange powers (turning clay pigeons into live birds, bringing a dead child back to life). As in her other books, Rice has extensively researched the historical context in which she writes, here drawing on the Gospels and respected New Testament scholarship. The story opens with seven-year-old Jesus and his family living in Egypt where Jesus is the prize pupil of the scholar Philo. Joseph (Jesus has been carefully taught not to call him Father) decides adamantly that the family must return to their Jewish homeland in Israel. On the journey to Nazareth, Jesus continues to experience supernatural abilities and tries to come to terms with what they mean. Rice's Jesus is childlike but divine, wise beyond years yet wondering who he is and why he is different from other boys. In her attempt to breathe life into a historical religious figure, Rice's superb storytelling skills enables her to succeed where many other writers have failed. Whether or not her literary conversion will be accepted by her fans and critics alike remains to be seen. Highly recommended for all collections. [See Prepub Alert, LJ 7/05.]

-Tamara Butler, Bryant & Stratton Coll. Lib,
Buffalo, NY

(Library Journal, November 1, 2005)

__________

Jason Raia

"Dear Ones, for an interesting review of CHRIST THE LORD by Jason Raia, please go to intellectualsinc.blogspot.com

--Anne" 

__________

CompulsiveReader.Com

"Dear Ones, below is Donna Denn's new review of Christ the Lord from CompulsiveReader.Com. --Anne"

A review of Christ the Lord by Anne Rice

When you think of the writing of Anne Rice, of course you think of vampires and witches. I've read and loved those stories for years, right along with a legion of fans. They deal with the supernatural along with a wonderful feeling of history. So, given that supernatural aspect, you don't at first equate Jesus with the supernatural, do you? Or maybe you do.

Reviewed by Donna Denn

Christ the Lord
by Anne Rice
Hardcover: 336 pages
Publisher: Knopf (November 1, 2005)
ISBN: 0375412018

I've just finished turning the last page on this book, and wanted to sit down and write while everything was still fresh in my mind. There's so much here to absorb, to think about. Out of everything she's written, I think this book is the one that Ms Rice has put the most of herself in. I'll be honest with you. After reading about (and loving) vampires and witches all these years, I was VERY curious about what would happen in CHRIST THE LORD. I'm so glad I read it.

If I had to choose one word to describe this book, I could choose amazing, but I don't think that would do it justice. Surprising, unexpected, ambitious and compelling all come to mind. But I'll tell you what: when this comes out on November 1st, read it for yourself and let me know what you think. I'd be glad to discuss it with you.

When you think of the writing of Anne Rice, of course you think of vampires and witches. I've read and loved those stories for years, right along with a legion of fans. They deal with the supernatural along with a wonderful feeling of history. So, given that supernatural aspect, you don't at first equate Jesus with the supernatural, do you? Or maybe you do. Miracles do have a supernatural quality to them.

In CHRIST THE LORD Out of Egypt, you'll find a familiar story told from a unique viewpoint: that of Jesus himself. His curiosity and bewilderment of his own beginnings seems so human, especially in a young boy. His family and daily life are brought forth in a way that lets you see what his life must surely have been like. We begin with Jesus at the age of seven. He is aware that he has a power to make things happen and questions why Joseph and Mary won't explain what happened at his birth. By the time you turn the last page, he's been told who he is. The effects this has on him ring true, that this is how Jesus himself would have reacted. Jesus' relationships with those in his family are well developed, the characterizations well thought out.

I think perhaps one of my favorite sections in the book is the story of when Jesus disappeared for three days at the temple. Here is a telling of the tale that lends itself to the emotions that Jesus would have felt and will involve you on an emotional level as well.

And oh, those last words of this story (or at least this part of the story). Those words will stay with you.

The research that's gone into this story is extensive. It's easy to see that an insatiable mind is behind the words that bring this volume to life. Each page brings you the smells and sights and sounds of the life of the Christ child, rendered with care and commitment. At the end of this story, you'll find a section called Author's Note. Read it! Here Anne explains what led her to commit herself to writing this.

I always find it fascinating to hear (read) what an author thinks about what they've written, or why they've decided to write the things they do. Not only has this book had an impact on me, but the explanations behind it did as well.

One can't think of Anne Rice without thinking of New Orleans. With recent events, it'll be meaningful to revisit those old friends of mine, those books that have come before with Lestat or with the Mayfairs. They have given me hours of reading pleasure. I remember when I finished THE WITCHING HOUR. I hugged that wonderful hardcover to me and wanted to read it all over again, right then.

Mark your calendars for November 1st. That's when CHRIST THE LORD goes on sale. This is one you won't want to miss.

About the Reviewer: Donna "Diamond" Denn works at a Hastings store in the book department, and loves her job. Books are an addiction for her, and she participates in a number of reading groups online, and runs an online fantasy reading group. She also knits, crochets and works on the garden as sidelines, but books are her first love.

Thanks to CompulsiveReader.Com for posting permission.

__________

Urban Think Bookstore
www.urbanthinkorlando.com

Reviewed by Jim Crescitelli, Manager

Some will say "Anne Rice has done it again. Brava!" And others will say "what the heck has she done NOW?" In any event, she's provoked comment and debate—much of it from people who have not yet read Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, her new book. Part of a new series on the life of Jesus Christ, Anne is on a mission to inform and enlighten her readers, and in a very unusual way.

Anybody can wrap their minds around vampires and demons and witches, as it's all part of our fascination with preventing the end of life via any means—or sustaining it toward any end, so to speak. In these times, however, what with factions claiming the American flag and pinning it securely to the shoulder with a crucifix, and opposite factions wanting the two symbols to exist separately, any mention of Jesus Christ can practically be guaranteed to set teeth on edge.

Not Anne. She has decided to present us with Jesus in the first person, employing real and hypothetical situations and using the words a seven-year-old might have spoken back in the first century. It’s remarkable, and presents a fresh spin on the Gospel story we are all familiar with. She captures beautifully his conundrum: he can do certain mysterious things, and people treat him in special ways… but he does not understand why. Nobody in his huge family, besides dropping numerous hints, will tell him the truth. The relationship between Jesus and his mother is beautifully delineated, as is Joseph’s special place in Jesus’ cosmos. And the extended family will delight you.

Full of good humor and fascinating descriptions of landscapes and towns and life as it was lived 2000 years ago, Anne’s new book is a departure from what we’ve come to expect from her busy pen. The prose here is cool and clean and full of light. Not intensely packed with detail (though I am a fan of the highly-descriptive novels such as Anne has delivered to us), the prose in Christ the Lord leaves room for the message she wants to share with her readers—a message which is elaborated upon in an openhearted Author’s Note. Don’t miss this challenging new book!

Thanks to Urban Think! for posting permission.

__________

Conciliar Press Blog (by John Stamp)

When Shelly took off to go to a retreat in Danville over the weekend, I swung by Borders and picked up Anne Rice's newest novel, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt. Her book fascinates me for any number of reasons, not least of which is her return to her childhood faith. My heart rejoiced that the Prodigal Daughter found her way back to the house of the Father! I had never read any of her creepy vampire books. I am no fan of horror books or movies. Even watching old black-and-white Abbot and Costello meet Wolfman movies terrifies me.

When I finished the book late Saturday afternoon, I was amazed. The novel is quite a tour de force. Here are some initial impressions. Your mileage of course may vary.

Historical accuracy

Anne Rice has carefully done her homework. I read her Author's Note first (starting page 305), mostly because I wanted to know how she wrote this novel. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but there's a bunch of background information I should have known but didn't. For example, I didn't know anything -- or maybe I've forgotten, I'm nearly 50 -- about Herod Archelaus except that he was Herod's son. But being a wise technical writer, I did a Google search and found a great website that satisfied nearly every niggling historical question I could think of. Check out the Livius website and some of the embedded links for more information about various historical characters mentioned in the novel. I just mentally added Josephus to my already impossibly long reading queue.

Speaking of the Author's Note, given the amount of stuff she's read, I'm amazed that Anne Rice has managed to avoid stepping on dangerous theological landmines in her faith or in her novel. In that vast morass of current "Jesus" scholarship, she's figured out the lay of the land, that is, which nut cases to avoid. She favorably mentions the scholars I like (Luke Timothy Johnson, Martin Hengel, Charlotte Allen, N.T. Wright), so what's not to like?

Blessed Virgin Mary

Eastern Orthodox readers should love the book; conservative evangelical Protestants cursed with historical amnesia almost certainly won't. The Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM) is indeed perpetually virgin, in Anne Rice's telling. So while the Christian Booksellers Association (CBA) crowd will run backwards and snort in horror, the historical irony is that John Calvin and Martin Luther -- both decent evangelicals themselves -- wouldn't be offended in the least in Rice's portrayal of the BVM as perpetually virgin. In fact, they would be horrified at how American evangelicalism has cut itself off from Christian conciliar origins.

Mystery and miracle

I liked how slowly the story of Jesus unfolded as a seven year old boy. In one sense, the entire novel is an extended meditation on St Luke's wondrous words: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man." (Luke 2:52)

Anne Rice demonstrates a certain apophatic restraint in how the young Jesus comes to understand Who He Is. Eastern Orthodox readers who can appreciate mystery ("I will not speak of Your mystery to Your enemies") will certainly appreciate how certain characters (for example, Elizabeth, the mother of John the Forerunner) only discloses certain revelations when it's appropriate to do so. Characters just don't blabber out profound mysteries. Holy mysteries are treated with respect.

Some quirks emerge in Rice's novel. Maybe it just shows how wacko I have become that I loved them. I didn't mind Elizabeth sending John to live out with the Essences after she dies. I didn't mind Joseph, the BVM, and Jesus living in Alexandria and meeting Philo the famous Jewish philosopher! Later, Cleopas, one of the uncles of Jesus, even presents two manuscripts of Philo to a rabbi in Nazareth as a gift. I was charmed. Finally, I didn't mind Jesus performing certain miracles when he was a kid. They really do make sense in the context of the novel. If I can swallow the Protoevangelium of St James, a couple of pseudepigraphical miracles (from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) shouldn't give me theological indigestion. It wasn't that long ago stories like that gave me The Willies. Maybe this is proof positive that I'm not a Fundamentalist Bible Banger anymore after all!?!?!?

I must admit that it took me nearly 121 pages before I could fully suspend my disbelief. But then Anne Rice snagged me hook-line-and-sinker.

A Jewish Jesus

What I liked best about the novel is just how Jewish Jesus is. The Jewishness of Jesus in Anne Rice's writing is carefully depicted, right down to some of the gentle humor. (But don't expect any Woody Allen or Mel Brooks jokes!) The character of Jesus is molded in the context of living first-century Judaism. This is where Anne Rice's historical research paid off in spades. For example, Jesus is certainly trilingual, and maybe even quadri-lingual. He knows Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and perhaps even a smattering of Latin.

Chapter 17 especially enchanted me. Rice describes the young Jesus meeting three rabbis in the Nazareth synagogue for the first time. The oldest rabbi throws out a series of trick questions to the young Jesus, to test His knowledge of the Law and the Prophets. The Q+A scene is wonderful. Immediately I thought of young Reuven Malter before Reb Saunders in Chaim Potok's magnificent novel, The Chosen. Anne Rice really did a great job of emphasizing the sheer Jewishness of Jesus. The young Jesus she depicts could have been Danny Saunders or David Lurie, other characters out of the novels of Chaim Potok (of blessed memory).

Chalcedonian Christology and Human Free Will

Maybe it's fortuitous that I'm also reading through Fr John McGuckin's book on St Cyril of Alexandria right now. There are many critics of Chalcedonian Christology who think how we describe Jesus of Nazareth as one person in two natures has actually retarded Christological reflection. These critics regard St Cyril and his heritage as a Christological "dead end!" Part of the problem is we Westerners have inherited a view of the private self that I'm not persuaded stands up to scrutiny (For hints at an alternative, see Philip Cary's fascinating Augustine's Invention of the Inner Self ). Fiction writers think they have to describe a tortured Jesus to make the story credible to modern readers.

In an Orthodox Writers email list that I belong to, someone bravely admitted she had trouble making sense of humanity of Jesus, because she couldn't fathom how God could be truly human without being sinful. As I remember, she concluded the problem is with us--we aren't truly human. Sin isn't natural to the human condition. But if there's any writer in the world of fiction capable of portraying the realization dawning on the young boy Jesus just exactly Who He Is, I think Anne Rice has nailed it.

Theologically, this strikes me as a very tricky proposition, not easy to depict without sounding maudlin or falsely sentimental or for that matter heretical (for example, Ernest Renan or D.H. Lawrence or Nikos Kazantzakis). Fiction writers have a hard time depicting a human Jesus unless he's homosexual or married or otherwise conflicted. Albert Schweitzer's classic work, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, describes one 19th century theologian after another who fell into the trap of creating a "Jesus" in their own flawed image.

One way we might measure Anne Rice's achievement is to assess whether she has successfully depicted a human Jesus with a genuinely natural will, but not a gnomic will. Maybe it's easier to understand what St Maximus means by paraphrasing gnomic will as an opinionated will .. Modern men and women are forced to have opinions on nearly every object under the sun, yet St Maximus insists that Jesus didn't have any opinions. Jesus didn't have to deliberate when facing milestones in His life. He simply chose the will of His Father.

Our problem is, we post/moderns can't imagine a truly human Jesus without a gnomic will. Yet it's part of the dogmatic history of the Eastern Orthodox Church which we owe to St Maximus the Confessor when we insist that Jesus Christ possesses two natural wills, one divine and one human, but not a gnomic will.

This dogmatic truth is difficult enough to understand theologically. It may well be impossible to depict in a novel. But I think Anne Rice may have pulled it off. It's a theological paradox (but no less accurate) that the truly free person is not someone who is tormented by dilemmas of choice. Sophie of Sophie's Choice most certainly is not a free person. The truly free person doesn't spend her time wringing her hands in anguish over the multitude of possible choices! Yet we cannot imagine any other version of free will other than a supermarket of choices.

But the Eastern Orthodox dogmatic tradition thinks otherwise. We fall back on having to make difficult choices because we simply don't know what is our highest good. Ignorance begets Vacillation, and Vacillation is the father of Deliberation. Ironically, our inability to choose, the very process of deliberation -- Should I choose A or B? Or maybe C? -- shows us just how unfree we really are. Having a multitude of choices is its own set of problems. We're not as free as we think we are if we have difficulty choosing what is right and good. Quite frankly, it's bizarre to think of sheer choice in and of itself as being Our Highest Good.

In Anne Rice's novel, the young Jesus comes to realize He shouldn't make it snow or stop raining willy-nilly. He understands at an early age that He must only do what the Father wills. Admittedly, this is a very difficult truth to hear and do. Like Jesus, we should seek to give up our opinions and deliberations. Perfect freedom is only in obedience to the will of the Father. All else is slavery to the forces of darkness.

Thanks to John Stamp for permission to post.

__________

Review by 
Jim Delmont, PhD
Omaha City Weekly
Adjunct Faculty in History, University of Nebraska at Omaha

Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt    by Anne Rice. Knopf. $25.95. 322pp.

I once chided Anne Rice, in a World-Herald review of the movie, “Interview with the Vampire,” that she was wasting her considerable talent on vampire books (18 at the last count) – and now, wonder of wonders, she has done a literary about face, and is doing a series of books on Jesus, books that reflect a renewed Christian commitment on her part.

The change in direction hasn’t hurt financially, as “Christ the Lord,” out just four weeks, is already number seven on the New York Times fiction bestseller list. A 17-page author’s afterward explains the journey back to Christianity by a fallen-away Catholic. The death of her beloved husband, Stan Rice, after 41 years of marriage, had something to do with it. So did her “obsession” with Jesus and the first century events surrounding him. Wading through tons of New Testament scholarship, she rejected the “skeptical” scholars (Jesus Seminar, etc.) and found truth in the works of the brilliant New Testament scholars Paula Fredriksen, Creighton University’s Bruce Malina, and others, including N.T. Wright. After that, “I consecrated myself and my work to Christ.”

This journey is not quite as unusual as it might first appear, for Rice also admits, “Every novel I’ve ever written since 1974 involved historical research.” And she prefaced “The Vampire Armand” with a passage from the Gospel of John (20:17). Previously, in the Vampire Chronicles, she explored the dark side. Now she is entering the realm of light – though her experience on the dark side provides chills when evil is encountered by the young Jesus, as in a dream sequence in Nazareth when he confronts the Prince of Chaos.

Anne Rice set herself a high bar: a novel about Jesus, narrated by the seven-year-old Christ himself, moving from Alexandria, Egypt, to Jerusalem, to Nazareth. Impressively, she brings it off.

Her success here is due to both research and passion. She plunges the reader into a Jewish culture against a Greco-Roman backdrop, painting a vivid historical canvas. Jesus is surrounded at all times by relatives – this clan observes every ritual and is infused with faith based on the Hebrew Bible and reflecting first century Mediterranean folk ways. Historical dialogue is notoriously difficult to write (as I found out when I penned a New Testament play), so she keeps conversations familiar but dignified. No slang here. Nor does she take liberties with Christian scripture. The infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke are scrupulously observed, with some explanatory filler (cousin John the Baptist was deliberately sent as a youth to the Essenes, Mary had been dedicated to the Temple as a child as one of the women who would weave the ever-changing giant veils of that Jerusalem Temple).

She adds that Jesus exercised his powers as a child, drawing on charming stories from apocryphal religious literature, including the tale of Jesus turning clay sparrows into real birds (which also made its way into the Koran in two places, surah 3:49 and surah 5:110). Matthew’s excursion into Egypt (which Matthew modeled on the childhood of Moses – no on else reports it) is rendered literally here, as are the Zoroastrian Magi. When, in Alexandria, the angel tells Joseph, Jesus’ stepfather who has children by a previous marriage, that they should return to Palestine, the narrative begins.

Fancifully, Rice adds that Jesus studied with the great Alexandrian scholar, Philo, and was fluent in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. There is a lot of historical information: sprinkling for the Passover, cleansing in pools, every day food items, burial practices, prayer rituals, the way people dressed, and a skillful weaving in of historical events – including the terrible Temple riots under Herod’s son, Archelaus, to which the young Jesus is an eye-witness. The Romans are humanized and respected, Jewish zealots presented as brutes, ordinary people as pious. Jesus’ clan displays deep religiosity, but keeps scrolls of Homer and Plato, too. The rabbis seem very real, as real as the plastering, cooking, cleaning, illnesses, weaving and other everyday events and habits.

The narrative is simple and to the point: regarding a dead man, it states simply, “No soul in him.” This first volume is a platform, a foundation, for those to follow. There are aspects of myth and fairy tale (the sparrows) and it unlikely that Jesus of Galilee ever visited cosmopolitan Alexandria, much less lived there, but the author of “The Queen of the Damned” has always been a good storyteller and that skill is maintained here, too.

Jesus gradually becomes aware of who he is, helped along by revelations from his step-brother, James, and eventually, reluctantly, from his mother. There are some jolts (Joseph joins a crowd who kill a rapist), but the book remains fresh, original, pious and readable.

A talented and popular writer has turned in a new direction.

__________

Anne Rice Provides An Outstanding Read for both Christians and Non Christians to Learn From

By Fred R. Eichelman, Ed. D. For Point North Outreach

Like many readers, I was familiar with the name Anne Rice through her vampire stories. Then this past Summer we saw a series of great interviews on TV about a wonderful change in this author‚s life. She had rejected Christianity as a young woman and now after a successful career as a novelist has reclaimed her faith in God and Jesus Christ.

Back in the eighties I had reviewed a couple of her books sent me by a local newspaper. While not a fan of vampire stories I was struck by how deeply she researched her background material, equally as much a historian as a novelist. I found her writing very literate with a superb style for narration and dialogue. Now she has turned her attention to the greatest challenge an author can face, to tell the story of our Lord in a factual and convincing way that goes beyond the usual.

Christ The Lord: out Of Egypt is written as told by Jesus during his seventh and eighth years of life. It begins in Alexandria Egy! pt and is told as a child would who seeks to learn about his origin, who He is and why He is here. His parents and relatives seem overly protective and He has to piece together tidbits and hints about where and how He was born. The book chronicles the family returning to Nazareth and visiting Jerusalem. It is a Jerusalem very much in turmoil with rebels opposing King Herod and the Romans.

Ms. Rice goes into a great deal of detail about Israel during the first century, the ceremonies and customs of the Jews at that time, and you get a picture of a people very studied in scripture. The author is faithful to the Four Gospels, supported by her notes at the end and the list of sources used.

Those who have been concerned about the Dan Brown DaVince Code distortions of the life of Christ will find this book a faithful witness that Christ is indeed our Lord.

As a novel the story is riveting and her characterizations are well handled. On a personal note I really appreciated Joseph, Mary‚s husband, who is give the credit as the idea man to have raised the young Jesus. Also a great joy is the whole Christmas story as put together by the young Jesus enabling the reader to visualize the event more clearly than even the most beautiful pageants on stage or film. As before, I found her writing to be excellent in regard to narration and dialogue, even more so now.

This change in the life of Anne Rice has come about at an important time in our history as we need books like this when there are so many forces working against the Christian world and Western civilization.

There is added good news for us as Christ The Lord: Out Of Egypt is just the first of a series and we have more to look forward to from Ms. Rice.

__________ Anne Rice's New Novel Brings the Boy Jesus to Life
BY BOB REEVES/LINCOLN JOURNAL STAR
11/06/2005

"Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt" by Anne Rice, Knopf, 322 pages, $25.95

Don't be turned off by the opening scene of Anne Rice's new novel "Christ the Lord."

Seven-year-old Jesus gets so angry at a young bully on the streets of Alexandria, Egypt, that the miscreant falls down dead.

A few pages later, Jesus uses his miraculous power to bring the boy back to life. That sounds very much like one of the apocryphal stories that have been discounted by scholars for portraying a vindictive Jesus inconsistent with the Christ of the Gospels.

But please don't set this book aside because of its bizarre beginning. Rice, author of the best-selling "Interview with the Vampire," has created a very credible and orthodox picture of the boy Jesus that fills many missing pages of Scripture.
In an author's note, Rice tells how all her novels have been steeped in historical research. A fallen-away Catholic who eventually came back to the church, Rice said her decision to write about Jesus grew out of an obsession with the origins of Christianity.

"I wanted to write the life of Jesus Christ. I had known that years ago," she writes. "But now I was ready. I was ready to do violence to my career. I wanted to write the book in the first person. Nothing else mattered.I consecrated the book to Christ."

The result obviously is based on extensive research about the social and political milieu of first-century Palestine and Galilee. The Jesus she creates will appeal to readers from a wide perspective.

Imagine what it would be like to be the son of God, born as a human child and growing up in a loving human family. He must go through the process of questioning and exploring the world around him with the innocence of any child.

So it's perfectly believable that we find the boy Jesus wondering about his origins and destiny, wondering why no one wants to talk about the strange incidents surrounding his birth, such as angels appearing to shepherds and sages from the East following a star. We also can understand why Joseph, whom Jesus knows is not his real father, wants to keep the boy "hidden" until the time is right.

The novel begins with Jesus and his family living in the Street of the Carpenters in Alexandria, a huge, bustling city second only to Rome. They then return to the Holy Land to find themselves in the midst of an insurrection being put down with bloody force by the Roman armies.

They take refuge in their old house in Nazareth, where they become known as the "Egyptian gang," working as carpenters rebuilding the nearby city of Sepphoris that was laid waste in the fighting.

In the midst of all this violence we find Jesus trying to make sense of the cruel world around him while being nurtured by his mother, Mary, Joseph and an extended family of uncles, aunts and cousins.

Mary's attitude of childlike trust, Joseph's caution and practicality and even the rivalry with his half-brother James are all elements that help make Jesus who he is.

One of the most vivid characters in the book is Jesus' uncle Cleopas, known as "the talker," whose opinions about everything from the greediness of the temple money changers to the security provided by the Roman occupation plant seeds of Jesus' future teachings.

Some of the most beautiful scenes are when Jesus is lying in the grass, enjoying the wind, birds and wildflowers, experiencing complete and utter peace.

"I didn't have sense enough to know it, but these moments on the grass under the tree had been the first time in my whole life that I'd ever been alone," Jesus says. It recalls the many times in the Gospels when the adult Jesus prays alone - perhaps recapturing that joy and oneness with the universe he experienced in the meadows of Galilee.

The book concludes with Jesus on the verge of puberty, finally coming to understand his divine purpose.

He realizes he was "born to die" yet also "sent here to be alive- to breathe and sweat and thirst and sometimes cry. And everything that happened to me, everything both great and small, was something I had to learn! There was room for it in the infinite mind of the Lord and I had to seek the lesson in it, no matter how hard it was to find."

It seems inevitable that having created such a vibrant Jesus, Rice won't be able to stop telling his story. I'm already waiting for the sequel.

__________

LETTER FROM FR. COCUCCI

From Anne:

"Hello Guys, Let me share with you this letter from Fr. Joe Cocucci regarding my new novel. I'm profoundly grateful to have this response from one I so deeply respect. Take care and love, Anne."

20 August 2005

Mrs. Anne Rice
[address redacted] 

Dear Anne,

Now that I’ve had time to digest Christ the Lord I thought I'd share with you some reflections on the book, which I think may be the best you’ve written to date.

What you’ve done in Christ the Lord is nothing short of incredible.  Your synthesis of biblical and extra-biblical scriptures, an extensive knowledge of the historical and geographical landscapes, and a lifetime of reflective wrestling with faith and trying to know the person of Jesus has resulted in an engaging and ambitious narrative.  I’m used to criticizing novels, Anne; I used to write for the now defunctBest Sellers and I’ve taught English literature.  I find little to criticize here; I'm very impressed.

You’ve developed a distinctive ability to speak in other peoples’ voices, and because of this the novel’s dialogues have a real immediacy -- not just in the Jesus who narrates but in each character encountered along the way.  I was especially intrigued by young Joseph Caiaphas, James and Cleopas – they all came to life so vibrantly that I began to daydream about who might play them in a film version!

As to the potential effect of Christ the Lord on readers: those who already know and love Jesus will find images and scenes to feed and deepen their prayer; those who know little of Jesus may be attracted and enticed to draw closer to him; those who do not know him at all or who up to this point have resisted him may find themselves wanting to learn more about him.  No matter where one stands in relationship to Jesus, he or she will not stand in exactly that same space after reading your book.  You’ve actually done some great work for the Kingdom!  I find the possibility of your fan-base becoming more acquainted with Jesus Christ a tremendously good thing, and most likely the reason God gave you such prodigious talent in the first place.

Thank you for giving me the privilege of being part of your journey. I look forward to seeing where we go next!

Sincerely, in Christ the Lord,

Rev. Joseph MPR Cocucci
Director of Priestly and Religious Vocations
Diocese of Wilmington

Chapter Four
The Theory of Reflection
Pratibimbaviidah
In the ordinary worldly course, sound is reflected outwardly
in ether and inwardly in the ear. Touch is reflected outwardly
in air and inwardly in the skin. Form is reflected outwardly in
fire and in a mirror and inwardly in the eye. Taste is reflected
outwardly in water and inwardly in the tongue. Smell is reflected
outwardly in the earth and inwardly in the nose. These
reflections, however, are just like the reflections in a mirror.
They only take place individually. All five re_flections are not
available at once; only one thing is reflected in each. In a mirror,
form is reflected. Touch can not be reflected in a mirror nor
can taste, smell, or sound. A mirror will only reflect form. It is
only in Supreme God Consciousness that you find all five
reflected at once. In fact, although these ·reflections are experienced
individually in all of the sense organs-sight in the eye,
sound in the ear, etc.-these reflections could not even be
observed if consciousness were not there. Awareness is needed
and this is found in consciousness, not in the organs.
The universe, therefore, is reflected in the mirror of consciousness,
not in the organs nor in the five gross elements.
These are merely tattvas and cannot reflect anything. The real
29
KASHMIR SHAMSM "The Secret Supreme"
reflector is consciousness. In consciousness, however, you see
only the reflected thing and not the object that is reflected. That
which is reflected (bimba) is, in fact, sviitantrya. This whole
universe is the reflection of sviitantrya 1 in God Consciousness.
There is no additional class of similar objects existing
outside of this world that He reflects in His nature. The outside
element, that which is reflected, is only sviitantrya. The infinite
variety which is created is only the expansion of sviitantrya.2
You can understand this by taking the example of cause and
effect. When a potter makes a pot, he takes clay and gives form
to that clay with his potter's instruments, such as a stick, a
string, and the potter's wheel. Within the potter's creative
activity, two kinds of causes can be distinguished. There is the
material cause, which in Sanslqit is called upiidiinakiira1Ja.
This is that cause that travels with the effect. It cannot and does
not become separated from the effect. Second, there is the formal
cause, which in Sanskfit is called nimittakiira,:za. The formal
cause does not travel with the effect. The material cause is
the potter's clay and the formal cause is the potter himself and
his stick, string, and wheel. In the ordinary worldly course, the
object which is reflected (bimba) seems to be the cause of the
reflection (pratibimba) because the reflection cannot exist
without that which is reflected. We have seen, however, that all
reflection is really a reflection in God Consciousness. If the
object reflected is really the cause of the reflection, then what
kind of cause is it? Is it the material cause, which travels with
1 SvGtantrya Sakti is one with God Consciousness. There are not two elements,
such as the mirror and the object which is reflected in the mirror.
The reflecteda nd the reflection are one. The mirror,w hich is the absolutely
independent will of God (sviitantrya), is God Con~sciousness.
2 yadvapik aranamk iiicit bimbatven.a..
• Tantriiloka: IIl;SO
30
The Theory of Reflection (Pratibimbaviida/:1)
the effect, or is it the formal cause, which does not travel with
the effect? It cannot be the material cause because that would
mean that there is something outside of God Consciousness
which travels to become part of the effect which is the reflection.
It is our theory in Saivism that nothing can exist outside
of God Consciousness. There cannot, therefore, be any agency
which is separate from God Consciousness and which travels
with the cause because if it is separate from God
Consciousness and therefore from the effect, it would not exist.
If the reflection of some object is existing in the mirror of
God Consciousness, then what is that reflection a reflection of?
We have seen that if the object which is reflected were to
remain outside of God Consciousness, then it would not exist.
There can be nothing, therefore, which is outside to be reflected
in the mirror of God Consciousness. There is only the mirror.
There is no external cause which has gone into the reflection
which is the effect. There is only the mirror of God
Consciousness.
But what then is the cause of this reflection? Sviitantrya is
the mirror. Sviitantrya,. the absolutely independent will of God,
is the cause of this reflection. Unlike ordinary reflection which
we experience in the world wherein an object can be distinguished
as the cause of that reflection, in God Consciousness
only the reflection exists and not anything that is separate and
reflected (bimba). In this causality, sviitantrya is the formal
cause (nimittakiira!Ja), not the material cause (upiidiinakiira!
Ja), of the reflection. It does not travel from the cause
into the effect because, as I have explained, there is no cause
which could be separate from God Consciousness. It is His free
will that He wills and what He wills appears in the: mirror of
His Consciousness. It is simply His will (sviitantrya). In reality,
only the reflection exists and not anything that is reflected.
This universe, therefore, is found in the reflector of God
Consciousness, not through the agency of anything of which it
31
KASHMIR SHAIVISM "The Secret Supreme"
is a reflection (bimba) but through His sviitantrya, where the
universe is contained in seed form. Sviitantrya is the seed of
everything. Everything exists in the mirror of God
Consciousness with sviitantrya as its cause.
The theory of reflection (pratibimbaviida) is meant for
advanced yo gins. This theory teaches them how to be aware in
their daily activities, while talking, while walking, while tasting,
while touching, while hearing, while smelling. While they
are performing all of these various actions, they see that all of
these actions, move in their Supreme Consciousness. Their
vision, their perception, heretofore limited, becomes unlimited.
The mode of their actions becomes absolutely unique. They see
each and every, action in their God Consciousness. They exist
in the state of sadiisiva. Each and every action of their life
becomes glorious. This is the awareness that comes from the
practice of pratibimba.
32
Chapter Five
The Explanation of the Means
Upayas
The meaning of the Sanskfit word upiiya is "means." The
word upiiya in Kashmir Saivism is used to indicate the means
to enter into Universal God Consciousness from individual
consciousness. Our Saivism proclaims that there are three
means for entering into Universal God Consciousness: siimbhavopiiya,
the supreme means; siiktopiiya, the medium means;
and ii,:iavopiiya, the inferior means.
S' iimbhavopiiya
Siimbhavopiiya, the supreme means, functions in miitrikiicakra,
pratyiihiira, and pratibimbaviida. The definition given
in the "Miilin1vijayottaratantram" for siimbhavopiiya is "the
one who preserves thoughtlessness." By preserving thoughtlessness,
that is, riot having thoughts and maintaining the continuity
of that thoughtlessness, and by the grace of the Master,
one enters into that transcendental consciousness where he
finds that this whole universe has come out from sentences and
sentences from words and words from letters and letters from
33
KASHMIR SHAIVISM "The Secret Supreme"
that real "I" which is Parama Siva. Here, one finds that this
whole universe is reflected in his own consciousness and that
it is reflected from within rather than from without.'
Siimbhavopiiya is called icchopiiya because it originates
from icchii sakti and because it is that means which exists in
the state of the meant. In siimbhavopiiya, there are no means to
travel upon. It is the meant. There is nowhere to go. You must
reside only in the meant. The rest is automatic. Here, only the
grace of your Master is necessary. It must be realized, however,
that you yourself must come to this point where you reside
in the meant and this you do by maintaining the continuity of
thoughtlessness. Up to this point, therefore, there is still something
to be done. When you reside only in the meant, it is then
the grace of your Master that carries you. You must reach that
state where only your Master shines for you. This means that
you must merge in your Master's consciousness. In this state,
you do not exist; only your Master exists. Masters select disciples
for this upiiya who are highly developed in awareness.
U:ntil then, they will not be accepted by the Master for this
upiiya. In this upiiya, the Master functions more than does the
disciple.
In our Kashmir Saivism, we say,
, svamuktimatre kasyiipi
yiivadvisvavimocane I
pratibhodeti khadyotaratnatiirendu
siiryavat II
1 akirilciccintakasyaivgau nJ.I).p3.r atibodhatal)I.
jayate ya]:,s amiivesaJ:s, iimbhavo 'siivudiritaJ:I, I
Tantraloka: XIII:159
Miilin1vijayottaratantram; II; V23
/ 34
The Explanation of the Means (Upaya)
"A light bug shines only for himself, jewels
shine not only for themselves but for a few
others also, the stars shine for even more, the
moon shines for still more, and the sun shines
for the whole universe. In the same way, he
who is established in the sambhavopaya state
shines like the midday sun for the whole universe."
As the light bug has sufficient light to show his own body,
there are those yogins that are sufficient only for themselves;
they cannot help anybody else. There are also yo gins, who like
jewels, shine so that their light illumines those that are near.
Those yogins that shine like stars illuminate even more with
their light. Those that shine like the moon illumine still more.
But the Saivaite yogi, established in sambhavopaya, is just like
the sun-he lights the whole universe. •
~iiktopiiya
Siiktopiiya is that upiiya which functions by the means of
energies.· Saktopiiya is called jniinopaya, because it is the
means which originates fromjnana sakti, the energy of knowledge.
Here, the aspirant is more important than .the Master
because he must make himself capable of receiving the
Master's grace, He must work to develop great velocity of
awareness until he reaches the "feet of the Master." By this I
do not mean the Master's physical feet. "Being at the feet of
the Master" means reaching that state where the aspirant is
capable of receiving the grace of the Master. Those who reach
that state are said to be at the feet of the Master.
In siiktopiiya, the yogi does not have to recite mantras or use
his breath to be aware or concentrate on any particular spot. He
has only to see and concentrate on that Supreme Being that is
35
KASHMIR SHAIVISM "The Secret Supreme"
found in two actions without actions. In the "Vijiiana Bhairava
Tantra," this is called centering.2
In siiktopiiya, centering can be practiced between any and all
actions and or thoughts. In centering, the yogz must develop
great velocity of awareness. Great velocity means firmness of
awareness. Awareness must not become loose. If the yogi's
awareness becomes loose, he will be forced out of siiktopiiya
into the lowest upiiya, iil}avopiiya. He will lose the right to
tread on the path of siiktopiiya. In his practice, there must be
continuity in the cycle of his awareness. Only by maintaining
an unbroken chain of awareness will he be able to discover the
reality between any two thoughts or actions. The practice of
centering is meant to function between any two actions or any
two thoughts. He can center between any two thoughts or any
two movements, between one thought and another thought,
between waking and dreaming, between one step and the next
step, between one breath and the next breath. All actions and
all thoughts are the proper framework for the practice of siiktopiiya.
The siiktopiiya yogz must simply insert continuous
awareness in the center of any two actions or thoughts. If his
awareness is faulty and is not unbroken, then he falls and enters
into the lowest upaya, iil}avopaya.
Al}avopiiya
Al}avopaya is concerned with al}u, the individual soul.
Al}avopiiya is that upiiya, which functions by the process of
concentrating on ucciira (breathing), karal}a ( organs of sensa-
2 "madhyarisl amiiSrayet."
Vijfia.DBa hairavaT antra;V erse 61
36
The Explanation of the Means (Upiiya)
tion), dhyiina ( contemplation), and sthiina prakalpanii ( concentrating
on a particular place).
The word ucciira means "breathing," actually concentration
on the breath. Concentration on the breath is the essential element
of the practice of cakrodaya. In practicing cakrodaya you
have to continue breathing deeply and find the point, the center
between the two breaths, the incoming breath and the outgoing
breath. This is the ending point, the beginning point, and
also the center of the span of the breath. In cakrodaya, however,
the beginning and ending points of the span of the breath are
predominant. This is ucciira, concentration on the breath. It can
be either with sound or without sound.
Kara,:za means "organ" and, in particular, it means "sense
organ." Concentrating on kara,:zam eans having and maintaining
one-pointedness through vision or any other sense organ. In
kara,:zat,h e sense of sight is predominant. For example, in concentrating
on kara,:za through the sense of sight, you have to
look at a particular thing. You must go on looking without
blinking your eyes. You should go on seeing that one point
with unbroken awareness. And when that point vanishes, and it
should and will vanish when you enter into that vastness of the
center, that is the end. If you were to practice concentrating on
kara,:zat hrough the sense of hearing, then you would listen to
some sound and continue listening and repeat that sound again
and again. You can also practice by concentrating on some
taste or some particular sensation of touch. In kara,:za,y ou cari
employ all the five organs of sensation, however; with the
senses other than sight, you must remain aware of where the
sensation first arises. This is the way of kara,:ia in ii,:zavopiiya
and, in the long run, this creates one-pointedness.
The word dhyiina means "contemplation." It is anoth~r
mode in ii,:zavopayaD. hyiina is contemplation on some point.
There are different forms of dhyiina. For example, you -Je
practicing dhyiina when you contemplate on the lotus in your
37
KASHMIR SHAMSM "The Secret Supreme"
heart, or on the meaning of some mantra 3 such as the mantra
"so' ham" or the mantra "iliva." This is a_ higher form of
ii,:zavopiiya because it is contemplation without any shape,
without any form. If you were to contemplate on Lord Siva as
having a particular form, a particular shape, that is a lower
form of ii,:zavopiiya. It is contemplation with form.
Therefore, any time in meditation that you have mantra,
then you have dhyiina. And along with dhyiina, you can also
adjust kara,za and ucciira, but not in the beginning.
Sthiina prakalpanii means concentration on some paiticular
place. The higher form of sthiina prakalpanii, which is a practice
in higher ii,:zavopiiya, is that practice where you discover
where each aspect of reality is found in the span of the breath.
You see where the devas are residing, where the lokapiilas are
residing, where is the location of dawn, where is the location
of morning, where is the location of midday, where is the location
of sunset (sandhyii), where is the location of midnight,
where is that location which is the time when the sun moves
toward the northern side, and where is that location which is
the time when the sun moves to the south. These are all sthiina
prakalpanii, and these are the particular points you have to
concentrate on, and discover in the course of your breath.4 The
practice of sthiina prakalpanii is simply to see the vastness of
the universe in one breath.
The second and lower form of sthiina prakalpanii, which is
a practice in lower iinavopiiya, is where you concentrate on dif-
3 All mantras have meaning.
4 In the practice of sthiina praka/panii, there are points in the breath which
you must concentrateo n. In the practiceo f ucciira, therei s no need to concentrate
on each and every point in the passage of the breath. In this practice,
you concentrate on only one point.
38
The Explanation of the Means (Upiiya)
ferent points in the body. These particular places for concentration
are divided into three. One place for concentration is
between the two eyebrows (bhrumadhya). The second place
for concentration is the pit of the throat (ka,:itha kupa). And
the third place of concentration is the heart (hridaya).
All of these processes, ucciira, kara,:ia, dhyiina, and sthiina
prakalpanii, are called the upiiyas of jfva, the means of the
individual, and they exist in ii,:iavopiiya.
A,:iavopiiya is the means found in the world of duality and
is known as bhedopiiya. The means which exists in the world
of mono-duality, in the world where duality and nonduality
exist together, is !siiktopiiya and is called bhediibhedopiiya.
That means which exists in the world of pure monism (abheda)
is !siimbhavopiiyaa nd is called abhedopiiya.
Siimbhavopiiya is also called icchopiiya, as it is the means
which exists in icchii !sakti. The means which exists in jniina
!sakti is !siiktopiiya t\lld is called jniinopiiya. A,:iavopiiya is
called kriyopiiya because it is the metins which is found in
kriyii !sakti.
The difference between ii,:iavopiiya,! siiktopiiya,a nd !siimbhavopiiya
is this. In ii,:iavopiiya, the strength of your awareness
is such that you have to take the support of everything as
an aid to maintaining and strengthening your awareness.
Though you concentrate on the center, you must take the support
of two things for concentrating on that center. In !siiktopiiya,
your awareness is strengthened to the extent that only
one point is needed as a support for your concentration and
that point is the center. In !siiktopiiya,y ou begin with the center
and then become established there. In !siimbhavopiiya,t he
strength of your awareness is such that no support is needed.
You are already residing in the meant. There is nowhere to go,
just reside at your own point. The rest is automatic.
It is important to realize that though there are different
upiiyas, they all lead you to the state of one transcendental
39
KASHMIR SHANISM "The Secret Supreme"
consciousness. The difference in these upiiyas is . that
iil}avopiiya will carry you in a long way, siiktopiiya in a shorter
way, and siimbhavopiiya in the shortest way. Although the
ways are different, the point to be achieved is one.
Anupiiya
Beyond these three upiiyas, siimbhavopiiya, siiktopiiya, and
iil}avopiiya, there is another upiiya. Although it is not actually
an upiiya, yet it is mentioned in Kashmir Saivism. This upiiya
is called anupiiya. The word anupiiya means "no upiiya."
Thoughtlessness is called siimbhavopiiya. One-pointedness is
called siiktopiiya. Concentration on and with the support of
mantra and breathing and all other elements is called
iil}avopiiya. Above all of these is anupiiya. In anupiiya, the
aspirant has only to observe that nothing is to be done. Be as
you are. If you are talking, go on talking. If you are sitting, go
on sitting. Do not do anything, only reside in your being. This
is the nature of anupiiya. Anupiiya is attributed to iinanda sakti
of Siva and is also called iinandopiiya.
40

Chapter Three
The Theory of the Alphabet
M iitrikiicakra
Miitrikiicakra is the theory of the alphabet. This theory
teaches us that the whole universe is created by God, Lord
Siva, as one with, and not separated from, His own nature. He
has created this universe in His own Self as the reflection of
His sweet will. The creation of this universe is the outcome of
this reflection. In Saivism the sweet will of God is known as
icchii sakti, the energy of will. It is through His will that the
reflection of the universe takes place in His own nature. This
reflection, however, is not like that reflection which takes place
in an ordinary mirror, where the mirror is the reflector and that
which is reflected in the mirror is external to it. The reflection
of the universe, which takes place in Lord Siva's own nature,
is like the reflection which takes place in a cup-shaped mirror.
Here, Lord Siva takes the form of a cup and puts another cup
in front of His nature. And in that second cup, which is inseparable
from Him, the reflection of the universe takes place.
This universe, as I explained earlier, is contained in the thirty-
six elements, the thirty-six tattvas. And from the point of
view of descending, first comes siva tattva, then sakti tattva,
then sadiisiva tattva, then isvara tattva, then suddhavidyii tattva,
then miiyii tattva, and so forth. Yet the reflection of the uni-
15
KASHMIR SHAIVISM "The Secret Supreme"
verse does not take place in this descending manner, from siva
tattva to maya tattva, etc. Rather, it takes place in a reverse
fashion. The reflection of the universe takes place from prithvi
tattva, the element earth, to sakti tattva, from the lowest to the
highest, not from the highest to the lowest. Just as in the ordinary
course of experience when you see your face in a concave
mirror, your head will appear as down and your body will
appear as up. In the same way, this whole universe begins from
sakti tattva, but it is experienced as beginning from prithvi tattva.
The lowest element earth is reflected first and then the element
water, then fire (agni), then air (vayu), and so on, up to
sakti tattva.
And so, even though the real way in which the universe is
expanded is from siva tattva to sakti tattva and so on, this
reflection makes you feel as if the lowest element, earth, is
reflected first. And this is due to the fact that it is reflected. It
is the reflection that makes you feel this way because this
reflection is an inseparable reflection. There is no mirror outside
separate from, that which is reflected in the mirror. In the
ordinary course of life, you experience that which is reflected
in the mirror is at one place and the mirror, which is the reflector,
is at another. In the reflection of the universe, however, the
reflected and the reflector are inseparable. It is Siva and His
Sakti, the energy holder and His energy, His energy of will.
Lord Siva, the reflector of this whole universe, is full of five
energies, and these five energies are cit sakti, the energy of
consciousness; ananda sakti, the energy of bliss; iccha sakti,
the energy of will; jnana sakti, the energy of knowledge; and
kriya sakti, the energy of action.
These five energies are represented in the sixteen vowels of
the Sanskrit alphabet: a, a, i, f, u, ii, ri, ri, Ii, Ii, e, ai, o, au, riz,
IJ, which comprise siva tattva.
16
The Theory of the Alphabet ( M atrikiicakra)
The first letter of the Sanskrit alphabet, a, represents cit
sakti, the energy of consciousness of Lord Siva. The second
letter of the Sanslqit alphabet, the letter ii, represents iinanda
sakti, the energy of bliss of Lord Siva. Cit sakti and iinanda
sakti, the energies of consciousness and bliss, are totally inseparable.
Where there is consciousness (cit), there is bliss (iinanda),
and where there is bliss, there is consciousness. Here, at
this stage, the universe has not yet taken shape. It is only residing
in iinanda sakti, the energy of bliss.
After cit sakti and iinanda sakti comes icchii sakti, the energy
of will. Icchii sakti is represented by the third and fourth letters
of the alphabet, the letters i and i. You must understand that
icchii sakti is not. desire-it is will. It is wrong understanding
to think of icchii sakti as the energy of desire. It is the power of
will. And this icchii sakti takes two forms: unagitated and agitated.
In its unagitated form, icchii sakti resides peacefully in.
its own nature and is represented by the letter i. Next, the agitated
formation of icchii sakti takes place. This state is represented
by the next letter ·of the alphabet, the letter i. This is the
state of agitated will. In this state, Lord Siva's will is agitated
but not in such a way that it is separated from His own nature.
It remains as residing in His own consciousness and bliss, cit
and iinanda.
At this point the apprehension takes place in Lord Siva's
consciousness that if I go forward, if I move onwards, I may
lose my own nature. And this apprehension takes place in
jniina sakti, the energy of knowledge of.Lord Siva, and is represented
in the next two letters of the alphabet, the letters u and
ii. The first of these two letters, the letter u, is called unmeea.
The word unmeea indicates that the universal existence is
about to begin, it is just forthcoming. It has not yet begun, it is
not yet created, it is about to be created. And when He begins
to create the universe, He becomes apprehensive and this
17
KASHMIR SHAIVISM "The Secret Supreme"
apprehension is known as unatii, which means "lessening."
This state is represented by the letter ii. It is that state in which
Lord Siva has the, foreboding that His cit sakti and iinanda
sakti may be decreased if He continues to move out to create .
the universe. This feeling keeps Him at a standstill and prevents
His moving forward.
He, therefore, discards the universe. He separates the universe
from His own nature and resides in His own cit sakti and
iinanda sakti, consciousness and bliss. This state, wherein Lord
Siva has rejected the universe and is Only residing in His own
nature of consciousness and bliss, is represented by the next
four vowels of the alphabet, the letters ti, ri, Ii, and lz. The state
that these four vowels indicate is that state where the Supreme,
filled with consciousness and bliss, resides in Hi_s own nature.
He does not move out. Because of this, there is no possibility
of the universe coming into manifestation. Here the manifestation
of the universe totally stops. Hence, these four vowels, ri,
rz, li, and Ii, are called amrita bija, which means "residing in
His own bliss (iinanda)." At this stage, there is no thought of
creating ·the universe. These four vowels do not create anything.
The state of Lord Siva which these four vowels represent
is known as aniisrita :SivaA. niisrita siva refers to that Siva who
has not accepted the existence of the universe in His own
nature. In this state, Lord Siva resides in His own nature forever.
The apprehension "If I create this universe I may lose My
own nature" is known as iinatii. It came out from the agitated
state of the jniina sakti of Lord Siva. Yet the first two energies
of Lord Siva, cit sakti and iinanda sakti, the energies of consciousness
and bliss, do not recognize this apprehension. These
two energies are at ease. They understand that to create this
universe is only the glory of His nature; therefore, why be
1pprehensive? There is no question of apprehension arising in
18
The Theory of the Alphabet ( Miitrikiicakra)
Lord Siva. Why, therefore, should He be frightened about coming
out? Coming out or going in is the same to Him. As these
two energies, cit sakti and iinanda sakti, have this understanding,
therefore, they begin anew to create this universe.
So cit sakti and iinanda sakti, the energies of consciousness
and bliss, which are represented in the vowels a and ii, create
contact with icchii sakti, the energy of will, which is represented
in the vowels i and i and create the letter e. And then simultaneously
cit sakti and iinanda sakti contact e and give rise to
the letter ai. And when cit sakti and iinanda sakti come in contact
with jniina sakti, the energy of knowledge, represented in
the letters u and ii, they create the letter o. And when simultaneously
cit sakti and iinpnda sakti contact the letter o, they give
rise to the letter au. So when a or ii come in contact with i or i,
the letter e is created. And when a or ii come in contact with
the letter e, the letter ai is created. In the same way, when a or
ii comes in contact with u or ii, the letter o is created. And when
a and ii come in cont<1cwt ith o, the letter au is created.
These four letters, e, ai, o, au, which were created by the
contact of cit sakti and iinanda sakti with icchii sakti and jniina
sakti, represent the four states of kriyii sakti, the energy of
action of Lord Siva. The first state of the energy of action,
which is represented by the letter e, is called asphufa (not
vivid) kriyii sakti. In this state, the energy of action is not clear.
In the next state of kriyii sakti, which is represented by the letter
ai, the energy of action becomes sphufa (vivid). In the third
state of kriyii sakti, represent_ed by the letter o, the energy of
action becomes sphufatara (more vivid). And in the fourth and
final movement and state of kriyii sakti, represented by the letter
au, the energy of action becomes sphufatama (most vivid).
So the energy of action has four states as represent~d in the letters
e, ai, o, and au. And in these four states, the energy of
action begins as not vivid (asphufa kriyii sakti), then becomes
19
KASHMIR SHAIVISM "The Secret Supreme"
vivid (sphuta kriya sakti), then more vivid (sphutatara kriya
sakti), and finally most vivid (sphutatama kriya sakti). In this
energy of action, the reflection of the whole universe talces
place. Although this universe is reflected in His total energy of
action, yet this reflection has taken place primarily in His
fourth energy of action, which is represented by the letter au.
Th,e fact is, however, that even though this whole universehas
been created, the nature of His Self, which is full of consciousness
and bliss, has not been lessened at all. Nothing has
happened. He is only residing in His own point. This state of
Lord Siva is represented by the letter m (anusvara). The letter
m, therefore, shows that the existence of Lord Siva has not
moved from His own nature, even though this whole universe
is created in His Self.
The reflection of the universe, which has· been explained
earlier as being in the form of a cup-shaped mirror, is represented
by the sixteenth letter of the Sanskfit alphabet, visarga,
the letter /J. In devanagari script the letter !J ta!ces the form of
the two points of the colon":." And these two points of the visarga
(:) represent the two cups in which the reflection of the
universe talces place. These two points are known as siva bindu
and sakti bindu.
I have explained that the Sanskfit vowels, from the letter a,
which is anuttara, to the letter /J, which is visarga, are siva tattva.
The remainder of the alphabet is sakti tattva, the universe
of thitty-five tattvas. And this universe is the reflection of His
svatantlya. It is not created, it is a reflection. You may ask, if
they are not created, then how is each succeeding letter produced?
Are they produced just by reflecting against the letter
or are they produced from within their own self? The answer
is, they are not produced in either of these ways. Actually, it is
the reflection of svatantlya that gives rise to each succeeding
letter. In cit sakti, ananda sakti, iccha sakti, jnana sakti, and
kriya sakti, the svatantrya of Lord Siva is reflected. All of the
20
The Theory of the Alphabet ( M atrikiicakra)
elements (tattvas) are a reflection of the five energies of Lord
Siva. No element escapes these five energies. Everything
comes out from these five energies. It is His sviitantrya that,
from these five energies, first come the five mahiibhutas, and
then come the five tanmiitras, and then come the five karmendriyas,
and so on. And in each of these energies all of the five
energies exist. For example, in cit sakti, all the five energies, cit
sakti, ananda sakti, icchii sakti, jiiiina sakti, and kriyii sakti, are
present. At the same time, you should understand that although
in one energy all the energies are present, only one energy is
predominant. So five energies into five energies is twenty-five
and these are the first twenty-five tattvas, from prithvi to
puru$a.
The five mahiibhutas, which are the five consonants from
na to ka, are produced by cit sakti (anuttara) and iinanda sakti,
which are one and are the letters a and ii, when mixed with His
five energies. That reflection where His cit sakti is predominant
is iikiisa ( ether) and this is the letter na.l The reflection of
His iinanda sakti is viiyu (air) and this is the letter gha. The
reflection of His icchii sakti is agni (fire) and this is the letter
ga. The reflection of His jiiiina sakti is ja/a (water) and this is
the letter kha. And the reflection of His kriyii sakti is prithvi
( earth) and this is the letter ka.
The five tanmiitras, which are the consonants from iia to ca,
are produced by icchii sakti, the letters i and i, when it is mixed
with the five energies. That reflection where His cit sakti is
predominant is sabda, the residence of sound, and this is the
letter"iia. The reflection of His iinanda sakti is sparsa, the residenc~
of touch, and this is the letter jha. The reflection of His
1 Sakti tattva is a reflection of Siva tattva. The reflective flow, therefore, is
in each case from the last letter to the first letter, e.g., from ha_ to ka, and
the order of the consonants is reversed.
21
KASHMIR SHAIVISM "The Secret Supreme"
icchii sakti is rfipa, the residence of form, and this is the letter
ja. The reflection of His jniina sakti is rasa, the residence of
taste, and this is the letter cha. And the reflection of His kriyii
sakti is gandha, the residence of smell, and this is the letter ca.
The five karmendriyas, which are the five consonants from
,:ia to fa, are produced by the letters ri and rz, which is
anasritasiva, in conjunction with the five energies. The five
jniinendriyas, which are the five consonants from na to ta, are
produced by the same tattva through the letters Ii and Ii.
The five karmendriyas are reflected as follows. The reflection
where His cit sakti is predominant is viik, the organ of
speech, and this is the letter ,:ia. The reflection of His iinanda
sakti is pii,:ii, the organ of action, and this is the letter t;lha. The
reflection of His icchii sakti is piida, the organ of locomotion,
and this is .the letter t;la. The reflection of His jniina sakti is
piiyu, the organ of excretion, and this is the letter {ha. And the
reflection of His kriyii sakti is upastha, the active organ of sex,
and this is the letter fa.
The five jniinendriyas are reflected in the following manner.
The reflection where His cit sakti is predominant is ghrii,:ia, the
cognitive organ of smell, and this is the letter na. The reflection
of His iinanda sakti is rasanii , the cognitive organ of taste, and
this is the letter dha. The reflection of His icchii sakti is tvak,
the cognitive organ of touch, and this is the letter· da. The
reflection of His jniina sakti is cak$u, the cognitive organ of
sight, and this is the letter tha. And the reflection of His kriyii
sakti is srotra, the cognitive organ of hearing, and this is the
letter ta.
Jniina sakti, which is the letters u and fi, when mixed with
the five energies, produces the five elements manas, buddhi,
ahamkiira, prakriti, and puru$a, which are the five consonants
from pa to ma. That reflection where His cit sakti is predominant
is puru$a, the limited self, and this is the letter ma. The
reflection of His iinanda sakti is prakriti, nature, and this is the
22
The Theory of the Alphabet ( Matrikacakra)
letter bha. The reflection of His iccha sakti is ahamkara, ego,
and this is the letter ba. The reflection of His jiiana sakti is
buddhi, intellect, and this is the letter pha. And the reflection of
His kriya sakti is manas, mind, and this is the letter pa.
The six internal states of puru$a, which are maya, kala,
vidya, raga, kala,and niyati, are reduced to four by combining
niyati with raga and kala with kala. The four limitations which
result from these combinations. correspond to the next four
semi-vowels. The limitations kala and kala, which are the limitations
of time and creativity, correspond to the letter ya.
Vidya, limited knowledge, corresponds to the letter ra; raga
and niyati, the limitations of attachment and space, to la; and
maya, the element of self ignorance and objectivity, corresponds
to va.
• It cannot be said that these limitations are created by the
energies of Lord Siva as they represent the internal state of
puru$a, These limitations, therefore, are called antaf}stha
because they reside inside puru$a, one's own limited self. They
are the internal state of limited puru$a,
The four tattvas-suddhavidya, isvara, sadasiva, and
sakti-are also not created by the energies of Lord Siva.
Instead, they are the swelling of the heat of His own nature.
Suddhavidya, which is the state of aham-aham /idam-idam (II/
this-this), is the letter sa. lsvara, which is the state of idamaham
(this-I), is the letter $a, Sadasiva, which is the state of
aham-idam (I-this), is the letter sa. Sakti, which is the state of
a ham (I), is the letter ha. This is the reason that these four letters
in grammar are called U$ma, which means "the heat of His
own nature." They are the expansion of the state of unlimited
Being and, as such, are attached to the unlimited state of
puru$a, which is the expansion of that state of unlimited Being.
The great Sanskrit grammarian PiiI_lini also explains the
alphabet as we do in our Saivism.
23
KASHMIR SHAIVISM "The Secret Supreme"
akuhavisarjaniyiiniim ka,;fhaf:t /
The place where the following le_tters are produced is the
throat:
a, ii, ka, kha, ga, gha, na, ha, f:t
icuyasanam talu /
The place where the following letters are produced is the
soft palate:
i, z, ca, cha, ja, jha, iia, ya, Sa
rifura$ii,;am murdha /
The place where the following letters are produced is the
head:
ri, ri, fa, fha, (ja, (jha, ,;a, ra, $a
litulasiiniim dantii/:t /
The place where the following letters are produced is the
teeth:
Ii, ff, ta, tha, da, dha, na, la, sa
upiipadhmiiniyiiniimo$fhau /
The place where the following letters are produced is the
lips:
u, ii, pa, pha, ba, bha, ma, upadhmiiniya2
iiamana,;aniiniim niisikii ca /
The place where the following letters are produced is the
nose:
iia, na, 1Ja, na, ma
edaitof:t ka,;fhatiilu /
The following letters are produced by the throat and palate:
e, ai
2. upadhmiinlyai s use~ in the recitationo f mantras in the Vedas.
24
The Theory of the Alphabet ( Matrikiicakra)
odauto~ ka,:itho~{am/
The following letters are produced by the throat and lips:
o, au
vakiirasya danto~tham /
The following letter. is produced by the teeth and lips:
va
jihviimilliyasya jihviimillam /
From the root of the tongue is produced:
jihviimilliya3
niisikiinusviirasya /
From the nose is produced:
m -anusviira
The aim of miitrikiicakra is to function with the first and the
last letter in either· the way of Siva or the way of Sakti. To function
in the way of Siva, take the first letter a which is the first
step of Lord Siva in the creative. field, and combine this with
the last state of Lord Siva, the letter ha, which is the resting
place and the last letter of miitrikiicakra. This also corresponds
to Pa!).ini's concept of pratyiihiira. Take the first letter along
with the last letter and you will find that all of the letters are
existing therein. The whole universe of!etters falls within these
two letters.
According to the rules of Sanskp.t grammar, we then, after
combining the letters a and ha, have to append the letter m on
the end and this creates the mantra of Lord Siva, the mantra
aham.4 The letter m has a special significance. It indicates that
this whole pratyiihiira, which is contained in the letters from a
to ha, and which has produced the one hundred and eighteen
worlds, the thirty-six elements, and the five circles (ka/iis), has
3 The guttural class of consonants uttered from the root of the tongue.
4 Ahariz is the mantra of Universal "I."
25
KASHMIR SHAIVISM "The Secret Supreme"
in reality created ·nothing. It is just one point. This is the significance
of the letter m, which is anusviira.
The way of Sakti is the way of energy. The difference
between Sakti pratyiihiira and Siva pratyiihiira is that in Sakti
pratyiihiira, two Saktis combine and create a world of their
own. Sakti is actually the existence of created Being. Siva is
the creator. Here, Sakti wants to become independent of Siva.
To do so, She must create a world of Her own. It is like what
happens with bees. When the queen bee stops creating eggs,
then the worker bees, without mating, create eggs of their own.
This is the mating of Saktis. Siva is put aside and Sakti combines
with Sakti to create their own world, which is the expansion
of Saktis. And this creation takes the first letter of the consonants,
the letter ka, which is the first letter of the Saktis and
combines it with the last letter of the Saktis, the last consonant,
the letter sa5 and produces the mantra of Sakti, the mantra k:fa.
In the kingdom of miitrikiicakra, there exists three kinds of
visargas, three kinds of flow. These three visargas are known
as siimbhava visarga, siikta visarga, and ii,:iava visarga.
The first visarga exists at the stage of iinanda sakti, and is
represented by the letter ii. This visarga is known as siimbhava
visarga. The mode of this visarga is said to be cittapralayal}.
The word cittapralayal} indicates that state where your mind
does not function, where only thoughtlessness exists. Here the
mind does not work at all. This is the thoughtless flow. This
siimbhava visarga is also known as para visarga, the supreme
visarga. This supreme visarga is concerned with Siva.
The second visarga is known as siikta visarga. It is also
5 The letter "ha" is not part of this creation of the Saktis because ha is a
letter which is attached to Siva and, therefore, Sakti does not recognize
her naturew· ithout Siva. The letter ha is apara visarga, the gross visarga
of Lord Siva.
26
The 'f!leory of the Alphabet ( Miitrikiicakra)
known as pariiparii visarga, the highest cum lowest or medium
visarga. This visarga is represented by the last letter of the
vowels, the letter 1J which in grammar is also designated as visarga!
J. The mode of this visarga is called cittasambodhaiJ.
CittasambodhaiJ indicates that state where awareness is maintained
in one-pointedness.
The third and last visarga is called iiJJava visarga. It is also
known as aparii visarga!J, the lower or inferior visarga. It is the
visarga of the individual (nara!J ). This visarga is attributed to
the letter ha, the last letter of the Sanskμt alphabet. The mode
of this visarga is called cittavisriintiiJ. The word cittavisriintiiJ
indicates that state where the mind rests in concentration,
where the mind takes a permanent seat in concentration.
27

Long after Sage Durvasa was first initiated into Shaivism by Lord Shiva on Mount Kailash, the Lord felt the need to explain it in greater detail to make it easily understandable to larger masses of spiritual seekers of varying intellectual levels and occupational pursuits. This caused Lord Shiva to reincarnate himself in the form of four successive masters in Kali Yuga, namely (1) Erakanātha, also known as Shivanāndanātha, (2) Vasugupta, (3) Somānandanātha, and (4) Shambhunātha, the Guru of Abhinavagupta, the last in the lineage of masters of Kashmir Shaivism (also known as Trika philosophy) of the medieval times. All these masters assumed human forms only for our benefit, for our spiritual enlightenment, which alone guarantees liberation from the vicious circle of transmigration (samsāra) and total deliverance from the suffering attending thereon.   Pratyabhijñā System Shri Somānandanātha was the first and the foremost to teach the Pratyabhijñā School of thought, the highest within the Trika System of philosophy (more popularly known as Kashmir Shaivism). This System is best suited to seekers with a higher intellectual level and purity of mind. Pratyabhijñā System rests basically on the principle of recognition – recognition of the perfect identity of the individual soul i.e. Shiva. Jīva is none other than the peerless Shiva Himself who, in His state of exuberance of bliss (ānanda) has, of His own sovereign will (svātantrya) manifested Himself in the multitude of forms, each with distinctly different characteristics in terms of powers as well as functions, i.e., Shiva in his manifest form (in immanence) assuming limited powers and functions characteristic of jīva, retaining at the same time His transcendental nature. The Pratyabhijñā System does not advocate the methods and means of vikalpa kṣaya (eradication of thought constructs or withdrawal of the senses of perception from their respective objects of perception) nor does it endorse the adoption of techniques, which lead to the expansion of powers of perception in terms of their range and depth to experience thereby their innate universal character. Instead, the individual needs to directly realize his identity with the Highest Reality and to BE IT. ‘Being it’ implies directly recognizing his true nature i.e. Supreme Consciousness, and to instantaneously resume the powers as well as functions characteristic of Lord Shiva. The former consists of Lord Shiva's (i) cit śakti (supreme consciousness) (ii) ānanda śakti (infinite bliss) (iii) icchā śakti (sovereign will), (iv) jñāna śakti (omniscience) and (v) kriyā śakti (omnipotence); whereas the latter, comprises His five universal functions (pañca krtya) namely (a) creation of the phenomenal world (sṛṣti), (b) sustenance thereof (sthiti), (c) its dissolution (samhāra), (d) the concealment of His true nature (pidhāna) and (e) the revealing of His true nature (anugraha) e.g. oneness of the manifest world of objects and the transcendental aspects of his Supreme Consciousness. In other words, it amounts to remaining in the full awareness of one's real nature (pañca krtya anusaraṇa). Once that happens, you are there. There is nothing else to do. If every moment you are aware of what you are doing, you are there. You have to closely watch your own thought process and get used to identifying the moment when a new thought construct arises (initial act of creation – sṛṣti); how long it continues (sustenance – sthiti) in terms of its depth and detail; and when it terminates (identifying the moment of its dissolution – saṁhāra) i.e. when in the process of perceiving, the subjective awareness disappears and when the same reappears. In each and every act of this world, one has to closely watch the moments of replication of the fivefold acts (pañca kritya) of Lord Shiva. In the course of time, one will realize that he has not suffered any loss of glory in terms of God-consciousness, be it lordly powers or universal functions. This is taught in Pratyabhijñā, which rests on the basic principle of recognition of the absolute identity of man and God. All means and methods (upāyas) are redundant here. The perfect identity between jīva (the limited being or the soul-in-bondage), and Paramātman (the supreme soul), leaves no room for any impurities in the so-called jīva who is none other than Shiva Himself. The so-called impurities have no independent existence to be able to cause any impediments. While explaining the Pratyabhijñā Sāstra, founded by his own Guru Shri Somānanda, in his own commentary called Vimarsinī, Shri Utpaladeva quotes a typical illustration of Pratyabihjñā as described here. Think of a young maiden girl of marriageable age, whose marriage has already been fixed with someone possessing a suitable family background, educational achievements, and other enviable qualities. She has, without seeing or meeting the would-be spouse, developed a passionate love for Him. Both may even be in correspondence through letters or personal messengers. Imagine a situation when, by chance, the two meet somewhere (like a place of pilgrimage or any public place). Even though the man of her dreams stands right before her and vice versa, neither recognizes the other, at least on the basis of their respective assessments through correspondence or verbal descriptions of their physical personalities and qualities of head and heart by someone else. The meeting turns out to be just ordinary without yielding any joy or excitement characteristic of a meeting between two lovers. Suddenly, someone knowing both and their anticipated relationship turns up on the scene and reveals their respective identities. The whole scenario changes dramatically. Their hearts are flooded with joy of love; their bodies and minds experience surges of deep satisfaction, and each rejoices in the occasion like never before. Utpala, in his Vimarsini, deduces that likewise in the case of an earnest seeker, often his own spiritual teacher provides him the necessary inspiration at the spur of the moment, which makes him identify and enjoy and recognize those blessed occurrences of boundless peace and transcendence. That is how the principle of Pratyabhijñā Śāstra of Kashmir Shaivism was instilled in the heart of Utpaladeva by his teacher, Shri Somānanda. This approach of reality is, however, applicable to only those spiritual seekers who have the highest ability and need not resort to any particular upāyas (means or methods). For such people, however, who need to resort to one or the other specific upāyas because they are relatively less qualified in terms of purity of mind and intellect, they are recommended to adopt other means or paths.   Kula System For the next lower grade of sādhakas, i.e. those who are not qualified for Pratyabhijñā, Lord Shankara (Shiva) has assumed the form of the Kula System. The Kula System propounds the thought of totality of energies, which in turn, is based mostly on Śāmbhava upāya and to a lesser extent on Śākta upāya, the former being more predominant. Briefly, this system advocates the technique of 'yoga in action' explained by me on a previous occasion. This approach of the Kula System does not envisage retreating into solitude, like chosen places of meditation, shutting off all lights, resorting to prāṇāyāmas (practicing of breath control) and thereby enjoying induced moments of quietude popularly known as samādhi. The school of Kula System was first established by Macchandanātha for those not suited outright for Śāmbhava upāya, let alone qualified for Pratyabhijñā. Kula stands for the totality of energies. For example, when a person is busy listening to someone's voice or music, he cannot simultaneously talk to someone else, nor can he undertake other activities like discerning seriously and performing other tasks simultaneously with the same efficiency. The Kula System precisely teaches how one can deploy all his organs of action and senses of perception at the same time with maximum efficiency, as is characteristic of Lord Shiva, who is all-pervading. The tongue will continue talking as well as tasting food and analyzing the same, smelling various fragrances and distinguishing each one from the other through the nose, perceiving various objects with the eyes at the same time, and keeping track of other events like touch through the skin and sense of tactility all at the same time. This involves mastering the art of maximizing the efficiency of all sense perceptions and organs of action simultaneously with full awareness of one's real nature. That ensures the establishment in Yoga of Action. Remember the quote: "sarva śakti cetasa darshanāt yaḥ yoga pathena madhyataḥ". The Kula System thus trains a seeker to overcome the limitation of using one channel of energy at a time, thus leading to deprivation of his inherent freedom of will, knowledge, and power of action, all of which are contrary to his true nature. The Kula System, on the contrary, teaches exactly how to use all faculties at the same time and thereby release his svātantrya Śakti to accomplish anything he desires, while remaining centered in his self-awareness. This approach was initially found by Shri Macchandnātha and later on propounded in greater depth and detail by Acharya Śāmbhunātha, the Guru of Bhagavatpada Shri Abhinavagupta Ācarya. This system of Kula technique ultimately leads one to the mindless state (unmanā bhāva) where his sovereign will operates at a universal level with no consideration for any individual desire. Individual desires just don’t exist there. Once established in that exalted state of consciousness, one experiences perfect control over the totality of energies (śakti cakra). This practice leads him to shed off all his limitations and restore his full mastery of the totality of energies. At his mere will, he has everything at his command. Naturally, one does not harbor any individual or personal desire; and universal desire is no desire. Instead, it is cosmic in character and as such is a mere reflection of God-consciousness. At such an advanced level, this yogi becomes qualified for Śāmbhava upāya, a step lower than the established yogi. This technique is also known as Viśvavyāpī Yoga (the Yoga of universal pervasion).   Krama System Yet lower than the above is the Krama System of thought suited to the lower grade of spiritual seekers. Krama System essentially rests on the principle of succession or sequence, also called Krama theory. This involves an investigation into how and what causes the supreme consciousness to descend to the level of limited being (i.e. jiva or soul-in-bondage) and his retrieval i.e. to his ascending back to his original state of glory viz. the ultimate state of reality. The principle of succession or sequence is threefold in nature, and it operates in terms of space, time and form. In other words, the Krama System rests on these three concepts, those of space (deśa), time (kāla) and form (rūpa) of the object of perception. This system is also known as Kālī Śāstra. The Krama System advocates deep concentration on all three concepts. For example, take the case of our own breathing. One inhales a breath, and then he exhales the same. One has to mark how long he breathes in (pūraka), how long it takes to exhale (recaka), and how long the in-between pause (kumbhaka) is. This needs unbroken awareness on the part of the seeker to discern fully the natural duration of the incoming breath (apāna vāyu) and the outgoing breath (prāṇa vāyu), and the duration times of the two in-between pauses at the commencement and termination of each of the two viz. inhalation and exhalation, which together constitute one full cycle of breath. In particular, one has to develop perfect awareness of the pause time (sandhi or junction), which provides a peephole to the realm of pure consciousness marked with intense peace and tranquility. This concerned practice in the Krama System ultimately leads one to the state of transcendence (akrama padavī). Akrama padavī is synonymous with Lord Shiva's state of transcendence. It is that state which is beyond space, time, and form. Once one enters into that state, he virtually crosses the barriers of space, time, and form. So one needs to fully understand the concepts, analyze their nature in terms of their range (deśa), duration (kāla), and repeatedly recognize the pause time (junctions), thereby gaining entrance into the Ultimate Reality i.e., Shiva. This was first taught by Airakanātha, also known as Shivānandanātha, the author of Shri Kālikā Stotra. The Krama System is of course, very ancient, and historically it precedes the period during which Pratyabhijñā Śāstra was revealed by Shri Somānanda and later on elaborated by Shri Utpala Deva in his Vimarsini on Śiva Dṛṣṭi. The technique of Krama is based partly on Āṇava upāya and partly on Śākta upāya. The āṇava state lasts throughout the initial period of practice when the seeker resorts to concentration on space, time, and form. Once he starts overstepping them, he automatically enters into Śāktopāya. When he becomes firmly established in spacelessness, timeless-ness, and formlessness, he is further elevated and becomes qualified for Śāmbhava upāya.   Spanda System There is yet another school of thought in Kashmir Shaivism that is ranked as the fourth in order of merit, viz, the Spanda School of thought. It is comprised of Śākta and āṇava upāyas. The Spanda School of thought rests on the principle of movement – movement forming the basis of the revelation of one's nature – any kind of movement, not necessarily physical movement. Consider the case of a hand at rest. Even when it does not move, it is still invested with the power of moving. If that power were not there, it would be a dead man's hand. It is obvious that though it’s not moving externally, the power of motion exists, and some movement is still going on within the veins of the hand. We are all aware that during the interval of two successive heartbeats, how fast the blood rushes throughout our capillary system, though not perceived by our naked eyes. Imagine it traverses through 72,000 major and minor veins by the time the heart beats once. Thus, the soul reveals its power of movement. This becomes more and more clearly revealed through appropriate methods of concentration on different forms of movements, making it possible to ultimately discern the changeless state of Spanda Śakti. One such illustration, often observed by us, is provided by an electric fan. Once it is switched on, the blades start rotating and at increased speeds, even though they rotate so quickly, yet the objects behind the moving blades remain distinctly clear; the blade in motion allows full view of the still objects in the background. The Spanda System thus lays emphasis on the acceleration of the sense perceptions involving movement so intensely that the underlying changeless (movement-less) state of Spanda comes into clearer and still clearer perception. The one-pointedness of concentration constitutes the key to our discernment of the changeless state of Spanda right amidst the process of intensely fast-occurring perceptions. In the case of the fan at maximum speed, we clearly see only the space in which the blades move, certainly not the blades. Besides, we hear the sound caused by the continuous air displacement as well as the mechanical sound of the equipment. Thus, the more intense the effort of concentration, the greater the chances of one's entrance into yogic trance, which is the state of motionlessness characteristic of Lord Shiva, the highest state of quietude (nispandata). Thus, all forms of motion (activity), like the processes of sense perceptions and activities through our organs of action, will ultimately get transformed into that sublime state of motionlessness and hence unbroken awareness. This System of Spanda thought was evolved by Shri Vasugupta, who himself got it from Lord Shiva through the Shiva Sutras engraved on the huge boulder named Shankar Pal in Dachigum National Park, Kashmir, India.

SVĀTANTRYA ŚAKTI IS THE CAUSE So, in the reflection of the universe, the substitute cause of this reflection, is His [Lord Shiva’s] free svātantrya śakti. By His free will, this reflection has taken place in the mirror of Consciousness, but there is not any reflected object (bimba), because everything is in the mirror of Consciousness. This kongari (fire pot) is in the mirror of Consciousness, and the reflection of this kongari is also in the mirror of Consciousness – this and this, both. So everything, whatever exists in this universe, is only a reflection in the mirror of Consciousness. And by the attribution of inserting the reflection – pratibimba – He becomes one with the reflection (the reflected becomes one with the reflection). So, in the mirror of Consciousness, the reflection takes place by His own sweet will, not by the grace of any reflected object, but by the force of His own svātantrya śakti. When a sādhaka [aspirant] feels that this whole universe, which is expanded variously in the universe, then, he sees, he observes, that this whole universe which is expanded, fully, completely, is only a reflection in one’s own consciousness. For instance, if he observes this whole universe as the reflection in the mirror of consciousness, he experiences at the same time that this whole universe is my own nature from Śiva to earth; all these thirty-six elements are one with me, and this whole universe to be only one body, one body of his Conscious Being. By this process of contemplation he becomes viśveśvara, he becomes the master of universe. So, Lord Śiva has put forth the explanation of the mode of pratibimba (reflection), and the mode of darpaṇa (mirror), just for this purpose that our mohaḥ (our illusion) will disappear. Bas, here ends the Pratibimabavāda. [ END OF CHAPTER FOUR ]   Extracts from Bodhapañcadaśikā (fifteen verses of wisdom) by Abhinavagupta    स एव भैरवो देवो जगद्भरणलक्षणः । स्वात्मादर्शे समग्रं हि यच्छक्त्या प्रतिबिम्बितम् ॥४   sa eva bhairavo devo jagad-bharaṇa-lakṣaṇaḥ / svātmādarśe samagraṁ hi yacchaktyā pratibimbitam  // 4 //   This whole universe is created by God in his own nature, i.e., just as you find the reflection of the universe in a mirror. So this whole universe is created just like as the whole universe you feel in a mirror. It is just the reflection of Lord Śiva. This whole universe is just pratibimba [reflection], it is not in such a way created that it is separate from Lord Śiva. It is created as a city is found in a mirror. BRUCE P: But there is no city separate from the mirror; there is only the city on the mirror? SWAMIJI: City on the mirror, there is no separate city.  In place of a separate city there is svātantrya, by ‘his freedom’ he has created this whole universe in his own nature. JOHN: Just like a reflection in a mirror. SWAMIJI: Yes.   And that which gives reflection is not the universe, it is the svātantrya of Lord Śiva. By svātantrya he has created this universe in his own nature. Do you understand sir? So this outside universe is created just for the sake of realizing his own nature. That is why it is called Śakti. This whole universal state is called Śakti, this is the means to realize ones own nature. BRUCE P: But without Śakti, Śiva did not realize . . . ? SWAMIJI: Śiva cannot be realized.  Śakti is the source to realize Śiva! BRUCE P: Yes, but you said that, “this was created so that he could realize his own nature.” Before creation what was he?  SWAMIJI: No, the knowledge was there, but it was centralized in his own nature. But he wants that nature to be recognized by himself, yes.  So how can he recognize?  He must become ignorant first, then he can recognize. BRUCE P:  Why should he want to recognize . . . why should he want to? SWAMIJI:  It is svātantrya [Lord Śiva’s independent freedom].  Because if he does not recognize it, what is the fun of the universe? Universe is created just to recognize his own nature. JOHN: Just for fun. SWAMIJI: Just for fun, yes . . . it is svātantrya. This is why in Shaivism this is svātantrya vāda [theory of svātantrya] everywhere. If he were only Śiva . . . he was there, he was in his full splendor of God consciousness, but when fullness has overflowed, you know what happens afterwards? He wants to remain incomplete, he wants to appear as incomplete, just to achieve completion.  So this is the svātantrya, this svātantrya has created this whole universe.  So in the universe there is ignorance, and for ignorance you want to get rid of that ignorance. And there is a way, there is a way, that in the activity of the world you will meditate and bas, reach the state of God Consciousness. So this is the fun of svātantrya. And at the moment he realizes his nature from ignorance to knowledge, he experiences at that very moment that, it was already there! This is the proof, this is the proof of his being already filled with knowledge, in ignorance also!  In ignorance also, when this ignorance vanishes from that individual, he experiences and this memory comes in his mind, “that it was already there, it was already there.” This memory comes at the time of knowledge, at the time of existence of God Consciousness. ERNIE: So there was never really any separation at all? SWAMIJI: No, there was never . . . separation seems to be by svātantrya [His independent free will].   And only Lord Śiva can just ignore his own nature totally, altogether, by his own svātantrya. For instance, see in a rock, “where is the existence of Lord Śiva?” In a rock there is nothing, it is just a rock. BRUCE P: That is what he sees? SWAMIJI: Yes, he wants to disconnect his God Consciousness altogether in his creation, and see that it is not disconnected. Although it is disconnected, it is not disconnected. In real sense it is not disconnected.  If you are life-full, how can you become without life? You cannot! But he can, Lord Śiva can become without life; altogether just disconnected totally from God Consciousness – He can do it! So it is atidurghaṭa kāritā is attributed to Lord Śiva only. And it is a supreme way of acting . . . this kind of drama is a super-drama.  For instance, you can play parts – but with life – you cannot play the part of a rock.  Can you play a rock in that drama, in that screen? In that screen you cannot play the part of a rock. BRUCE P: No. SWAMIJI: Lord Śiva can become a rock. So he is, etadeva svātantryam, so he is perfectly independent, perfectly glorious, and perfectly intelligent.  This is the intelligence!   Intelligence is not that you will play the part of lady. Intelligence is, you will play the part of a rock, you will play the part of a tree – this is intelligence!  And this kind of intelligence is found only in the state of Lord Śiva and nowhere else. This is the reality of Kashmir Shaivism as explained by Abhinavagupta.   एवमस्य स्वतन्त्रस्य निजशक्त्युपभेदिनः । स्वात्मगाः सृष्टिसंहाराः स्वरूपत्वेन संस्थिताः ॥९   evam-asya svatantrasya nija-śakty-upabhedinaḥ  / svātmagāḥ sṛṣṭi saṁhārāḥ svarūpatvena saṁsthitāḥ  // 9 //   So, asya svatantrasya, this Lord Śiva who is svatantra, ‘all round independent’; this variety of creations (sṛṣti) and the variety of destructions (saṁhāra) are existing in his own nature (svarūpa), and at the same time existing in its own way, which is ignorance. In the field of ignorance, the field of ignorance is also there. And at the same time, it is why our masters have explained to us to meditate; ‘to meditate to find out what a rock is’. When you meditate, then a rock will become universal; then there is nothing, there is no problem. When there is only a rock there is a problem, when there is only Bruce there is a problem, when there is only John there is a problem. When John will come to know that he is Universal, there is no problem.  It is why meditation is produced for realizing the reality of God Consciousness in Shaivism. So this sṛṣṭi-saṁhāra, this ‘creation’ and ‘destruction’,  is done in two ways, i.e., creation in the cycle of knowledge and creation in the cycle of kriyā – it is ‘in action’. BRUCE P: But what is the purpose of action? SWAMIJI: It is svātantrya, it is play. BRUCE P: To realize himself? SWAMIJI: No, it is just his own play. So it is a trick, it is a trick – it is not destroyed at all – it is a trick to appear as if it is destroyed. ERNIE: This is the play. SWAMIJI: This is the trick, this is play.  He is tricky – Lord Śiva! ERNIE: But, you know, so many people in the west have an idea that God is compassionate, and all-loving, and all-understanding. But if you have an idea that God creates and destroys your ignorance, and if you are suffering because you are ignorant, for whatever reasons, then that position is not able to . . . SWAMIJI: No, when it is realized then there will be no difference; you won’t feel any difference in being compassionate and in the absence of compassion. JOHN: But there’s nobody for God to be compassionate to . . . SWAMIJI: No . . . JOHN: . . . only to himself? SWAMIJI:  . . . at that moment. He transcends; these limited boundaries of dualistic ways of thought, he transcends at the time of knowledge. When once you realize that experience of the true position, then there is no . . ERNIE: . . . no problem. SWAMIJI:  For instance, if there is only ‘One Being’ . . . if there is only one Being – if you once realize there is only one Being in the universe – they are not separate beings; if they are not separate beings where there is the problem? ERNIE: Yes, but I am in ignorance and I don’t realize that, then I have a problem. SWAMIJI: Yes, you have to perform rituals, you have to perform good character, conduct, and all the rules and regulations of śāstras. When once you realize that, when you come to that point of realization – then you are ignorant, and at the same time you are not ignorant. ERNIE: I have both these qualities? SWAMIJI: There, at the point of knowledge. ERNIE: Knowledge, yes. SWAMIJI: Then the problem is solved. Because everything is good there. Because at the place of God Consciousness, at the state of God Consciousness, everything is good, everything is divine, there is nothing bad. Bad is only created to feel the goodness, to get a good taste of goodness. ERNIE: Contrast. SWAMIJI: Yes. BRUCE P: So, a little bad is good for one? SWAMIJI: Yes, in some place. Because from that goodness everything has come out . . .  bad, good, and everything has come out.  At the place of God consciousness, at the state of God consciousness, everything is good, everything is divine, there is nothing bad. It is the embodiment of goodness, embodiment of purity, embodiment of divinity.   THE CYCLE OF BONDAGE AND LIBERATION   But in fact these two cycles of bondage and liberation; the cycle of bondage is concerned with that 'not knowing cycle'; that is when you don’t know what you are doing, when you don’t know where you are established – that is the cycle of bondage. And that the cycle of knowledge, liberation (what is that?), when you come to understand that it is only a trick, it is the play of Lord Śiva and nothing else. Nothing has happened, nothing is lost, nothing is gained.  When nothing is lost, nothing is gained, there is nothing right . . . and in that cycle you must understand that, you should not attach that kind of understanding in this cycle, in the cycle of ignorance. Do you understand what I mean?  This is Shaivism! But you must come to understand this, because it is misunderstood by many people. This theory of Shaivism is misunderstood and you begin to [imagine you have] become Śiva.  And this misunderstanding also too . . . ERNIE: Is a trick! SWAMIJI: . . . is found in the divinity of Lord Śiva. ERNIE: But, what is misunderstood about Shaivism, in this point? SWAMIJI: No misunderstood that, “I am Śiva.” ERNIE: But I don’t understand, that’s what . . . ? SWAMIJI: No, you don’t understand . . . ERNIE: Yes, I don’t understand that? SWAMIJI: . . . you don’t understand that you are Śiva, so you are not Śiva!  But according to the theory of Shaivism you are Śiva!  Then you come to this conclusion “that you are Śiva!” ERNIE: Where is the misunderstanding? SWAMIJI: Because you are not actually Śiva, you have not achieved that state. DENISE: So it is a mistake to think that you are Śiva, if you haven’t actually realized you are Śiva? SWAMIJI: No, if you have not actually realized Śiva. DENISE: You shouldn’t go around thinking that you are Śiva . . . is that right? SWAMIJI: No. You should always elevate yourself, you should always think “that you are Lord Śiva”, but don’t boast of this. DENISE: Don’t tell anybody SWAMIJI: If you tell anybody, it means that you are not Lord Śiva. So you should not announce!  Announcing shows, proves, that you are not actually Śiva. ERNIE: So if you don’t announce, but let us say you keep it a secret to yourself? SWAMIJI: No, you must understand . . . (laughs . . .), you must actually understand it, not till then. Till then it is all a joke. ERNIE: No, but I am trying to figure out how does one know? SWAMIJI: Huh? ERNIE: How does one know when one is fooling oneself and when one is real? SWAMIJI: You will come to know yourself. Because you will be blissful, you will be always blissful.   kairliṅgaistrīṅguṇān . . . (Bhagavad Gīta 14.21)    When something bad happens to you, you won’t get worried; when something good happens to you, you wouldn’t get excited – then – if you realized it. BRUCE P: In pain you will be blissful? SWAMIJI: In pain also you will be peaceful.  And you must come to know, and you have to see in yourself that, ‘you are situated in this way.’  If you are not situated in this way and say that, “I am Lord Śiva, I am Lord Śiva,” someone will slap you and make you understand that you are not Lord Śiva, you are just . . . with one slap. ERNIE: This is a big problem? SWAMIJI: This is a big problem.  And you have to find out yourself, where you are situated. ERNIE:  Or with masters guidance? SWAMIJI: Yes. It happens by the grace of Lord Śiva, or by the grace of master, or by the grace of śāstras. [ END OF EXTRACT ]

TERRY GROSS, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. My guest, James Franco, has written and directed a new movie called "The Disaster Artist." That's about the making of the 2003 film "The Room." "The Room" is a movie that's been called the "Citizen Kane" of bad movies. "The Disaster Artist" is based in part on a book of the same name about the making of "The Room." The co-author, Tom Bissell, describes "The Room" as a movie made by an alien who has never seen a movie but has had movies thoroughly explained to him.

"The Room" has developed a cult following through midnight screenings around the country. People laugh at how ineptly made it is and how strange the leading man's performance is. That actor, Tommy Wiseau, also wrote, directed, produced and financed "The Room." James Franco plays Wiseau and befriended him during the making of "The Disaster Artist." But Wiseau remains a mystery man with an unplaceable accent, which he says is from New Orleans but is clearly not.

Earlier this year, James Franco starred in season 1 of the HBO series "The Deuce" playing two roles, identical twins. We'll talk about that later. Let's start with the scene from the 2003 film "The Room." Tommy Wiseau plays Johnny whose girlfriend, Lisa, has been cheating on him with his best friend. In this scene, Johnny is upset and deeply wounded because Lisa has accused him of hitting her. He's walking through the door to the roof of his building where he meets his friend Mark.

(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "THE ROOM")

TOMMY WISEAU: (As Johnny) I did not hit her. It's not true. It's bull [expletive]. I did not her. I did not. Oh, hi, Mark.

GREG SESTERO: (As Mark) Oh, hey, Johnny, what's up?

WISEAU: (As Johnny) I have a problem with Lisa. She says that I hit her.

SESTERO: (As Mark) What? Well, did you?

WISEAU: (As Johnny) No, it's not true. Don't even ask. What's new with you?

SESTERO: (As Mark) Well, I'm just sitting up here thinking, you know? I got a question for you.

WISEAU: (As Johnny) Yeah?

SESTERO: (As Mark) You think girls like to cheat like guys do?

WISEAU: (As Johnny) What makes you say that?

SESTERO: (As Mark) I don't know. I don't know. I'm just - I'm just thinking.

WISEAU: (As Johnny) I don't have to worry about that because Lisa's loyal to me.

SESTERO: (As Mark) Yeah, man, you never know. People are very strange these days.

GROSS: Now that you've heard that scene from "The Room." Listen to this scene from "The Disaster Artist" about shooting that scene. Seth Rogen plays the script supervisor who's directing the scene and has to keep giving Tommy Wiseau his lines because Wiseau can't remember them.

(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "THE DISASTER ARTIST")

SETH ROGEN: (As Sandy) Action.

JAMES FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) What line? What (unintelligible) line?

ROGEN: (As Sandy) I did not hit her. It's not true. It's bull [expletive]. I did not hit her. I did not. Oh, hi, Mark.

FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) OK.

ROGEN: (As Sandy) Action.

FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) What is the line?

ROGEN: (As Sandy) I did not hit her. It's not true. It's bull [expletive]. I did not hit her. I did not. Oh, hi, Mark. Scene 112, take 13, mark it, action.

FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) I did not hit her. I - OK, OK. Line?

SETH ROGEN AND UNIDENTIFIED ACTORS: (As characters in unison) I did not her. It's not true. It's bull [expletive]. I did not hit her. I did not. Oh, hi, Mark.

ROGEN: (As Sandy) Take 17. Action.

FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) I hit her.

ROGEN: (As Sandy) No. Do you want to change the line?

FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) Script is script. Script stays the same.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: (As character) You're doing great, man. We'll get there.

ROGEN: (As Sandy) Action, action, action, action.

FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) You have to say it loud. I can't hear in here. Say action so I can hear.

ROGEN: (As Sandy) OK.

GROSS: So that was a scene from "The Room" and a scene from the new film "The Disaster Artist." James Franco, welcome back to FRESH AIR.

FRANCO: Thank you so much, Terry.

GROSS: So I know...

FRANCO: This is my third time.

GROSS: It is.

FRANCO: I don't know if you remember, but this is my third time.

GROSS: But who's counting? (Laughter) Oh, I'm so glad you remember. So I think a lot of our listeners know "The Room," but a lot of our listeners don't. So I'm going to ask you to describe "The Room" for people who haven't seen it. Like, what's your short version of the description?

FRANCO: Right. OK, well, first of all, just to say, my movie "The Disaster Artist" is about the making of "The Room," which is an actual movie. It is not the Brie Larson, Oscar-winning movie, "Room." It's...

GROSS: (Laughter) That's right.

FRANCO: ...Something else that was written and directed by and stars this man named Tommy Wiseau, who also financed it at the tune of $6 million. Now, it does not look like it was made for $6 million - looks like it was made for about $60. It came out in 2003. And Tommy intended it to be a great drama. He wrote on the original poster that it was a Tennessee-Williams-level drama. It's a very simple story. If I told you the plot, it's basically - you know, Tommy casts himself as this guy Johnny.

Maybe I should say, first, the kind of magic behind "The Room," you know, is due to Tommy Wiseau. There are three mysteries to Tommy - where he's from 'cause he sound - he sounds like this, you know, which would suggest like Eastern Europe by way of France and trying - I don't know - maybe dialect coaches and failing at that. But he say he from New Orleans - he all-American guy.

The second mystery is his age. He was at least in his late 40s when he made "The Room" but claimed that he was in his 20s. And then - where he got the money - the $6 million dollars, which is the darkest mystery. I mean, the other two, you just sort of see through this thin - the thin facade.

But the money - he claims that he made it, you know, selling denim at his own little shop. And every time I've questioned him about that, he's - he, you know, adamantly insists that he made it through selling Levi's jeans. And I'd be, like, Tommy, come on, you know how many jeans that is? He's like, James, you embarrass yourself. You don't know anything about retail. And I'm like, OK. I don't (laughter) - all right, fine.

So, anyway, the - real quick, the plot of "The Room" is this guy who - oh, by the way, you can look him up online, but he looks sort of like the mix between, like, a vampire and a pirate and Michael Jackson or something like that.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANCO: And he has, like, long black hair that looks like it's dyed with magic marker and...

GROSS: And has never been washed (laughter).

FRANCO: Yes. And so he casts himself as Johnny, this - you know, the great guy, all-American guy. And basically, the plot of the movie is his girlfriend and his best friend have an affair and betray him. And - spoiler alert - he commits suicide at the end. And that's kind of it.

But that says nothing about all the bizarre, you know, creative decisions - the weird side plots about drug dealers that have - that never show up again, mothers-in-law who say they have breast cancer and then never mention it again - you know, just bizarreness. And almost as if - some people have described this movie as the best worst movie ever made or the "Citizen Kane" of bad movies.

GROSS: So to make your movie about the making of "The Room," you had to basically study everything that makes "The Room" weird and unintentionally funny - the writing...

FRANCO: In a way.

GROSS: ...Acting, the edits, the use of music - because you had to reproduce some of it in addition to telling the behind-the-scenes story.

FRANCO: Yes. But here's the thing - yes, yes. But if all we had was "The Room" and we were just sort of like, let's make a movie on that, it would - we would, at best, probably, be able to make a spoof. In fact, what we had was this book, "The Disaster Artist," that was written by Greg Sestero, who was the other actor in "The Room" and Tommy Wiseau's best friend, and also written by this great journalist, Tom Bissell...

GROSS: Tom Bissell, yeah

FRANCO: Yeah - who was incredible - an incredible writer. And so I think one of the, you know, the smartest things Greg Sestero ever did was to get Tom to co-write this book with him because it's an incredible book. And that's actually how I came to this whole project. I read the book right when it came out about four years ago. I saw it on the New York Times Book Review. And it's a Hollywood story, but it's unusual and unlike any other. And I love Hollywood stories. And so as - like before I was halfway done, I was like, oh, this is for me. So that's all to say we had more than just "The Room." We had...

GROSS: Well, you had even more than that. You had tapes.

FRANCO: (Laughter) Yes.

GROSS: You had tapes that Tommy Wiseau made like his - like audio journals.

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: Tell us about those tapes.

FRANCO: OK, well, so Tommy knows I have them. OK, so let's just say that up front like...

GROSS: Did he give them to you? Or did...

FRANCO: No. Tommy did not - Tommy did not give them to me...

GROSS: How did you get them?

FRANCO: Greg gave them to me. So Tommy calls them now (imitating Tommy Wiseau) the secret tape. I know you have secret tape.

GROSS: Can I just stop right there? For people just tuning in, James Franco keeps lapsing in and out of Tommy's accent. So if he occasionally sounds odd to you, that is why. He's lapsing - he's going in and out...

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: ...Of Tommy Wiseau's accent.

FRANCO: Not only am I lapsing into the accent. I almost can't help it. I just - it's sort of like a virus. It's just in me now. But (laughter) - so it'll come out every once in a while. So 20 years ago, five or six years before he made his magnum opus, "The Room," he was in LA trying to make it as an actor, going to acting school. And so he would drive around in his car and talk to himself on a mini tape recorder. And it's amazing material. As an actor, you couldn't ask for anything more. It was - it's as if I had the running inner monologue of the guy I was playing.

And in fact, it was even more valuable in this case because Tommy Wiseau is the master rewriter of history because when he was making "The Room," I think he was completely sincere. He was aiming for Brando and James Dean and came out with something completely different. But when he realized that people were laughing at his film, he then rewrote the whole - you know, his whole script and claimed...

GROSS: The script of his life, not the script of the movie.

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: Yeah.

FRANCO: Yes, yes, meaning - yeah, meaning he came out and said, oh, I intended it to be comedy, whereas in fact he had kept it in theaters on his own dime for two weeks to qualify for the Oscars. So he had been aiming for this great dramatic movie. He had said, you know, before, yeah, people will see my movie, and they will not be able to sleep for two week; they'd be so disturbed. And - but then people laughed at it. And so he then said, yeah, I intended to be comedy. And now what he says about "The Room" is, you know, "The Room" is a safe place. You can laugh; you can cry. Do whatever you like. Express yourself. Just don't hurt yourself.

So I couldn't very well go to Tommy now and say, what were you like when you were making "The Room"? 'cause he wouldn't give me anything real, you know? He'd just be like, yeah, I intended it to be comedy. So these tapes became even more valuable. They were sort of the truth. And it was a - like, a time capsule of the man from the time that he was making "The Room."

Even though "The Room" resulted in - you know, it was such a kind of wacky bat, you know, conventionally bad thing, we're showing that the passion behind it is no different than the passion of, you know, Francis Ford Coppola or of James Dean or me, James Franco. Like, everybody has the same level of passion. It's just that I guess Tommy had zero self-awareness, you know, when he was making it.

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is James Franco. He stars in and directed the new movie "The Disaster Artist," which is about - behind the scenes of the making of "The Room." And it's about the person who made "The Room." "The Room" is a 2003, like, midnight cult-classic film. And he also stars in the HBO series "The Deuce." We'll be back after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF VIJAY IYER'S "BLACK AND TAN FANTASY")

GROSS: My guest is James Franco and his latest project is starring in and directing the new film "The Disaster Artist" and he's also in the HBO series "The Deuce." The first season is over, but it's still on demand on HBO.

OK, so I just want to play another short scene from "The Room." So this isn't James Franco's movie about the making of "The Room." This is from "The Room" itself. And so we're going to hear Tommy Wiseau as Johnny finding out that his girlfriend doesn't want to be with him anymore.

(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "THE ROOM")

WISEAU: (As Johnny) You shouldn't have any secrets from me. I'm your future husband.

JULIETTE DANIELLE: (As Lisa) You sure about that? Maybe I'll change my mind.

WISEAU: (As Johnny) Don't talk like that. What do you mean?

DANIELLE: (As Lisa) What do you think? Women change their minds all the time.

WISEAU: (As Johnny, laughter) You must be kidding, aren't you?

DANIELLE: (As Lisa) Look; I don't want to talk about it. I'm going to go upstairs and wash up and go to bed.

WISEAU: (As Johnny) How dare you talk to me like that. You should tell me everything.

DANIELLE: (As Lisa) I can't talk right now.

WISEAU: (As Johnny) Why, Lisa? Why, Lisa? Please talk to me, please. You're part of my life. You are everything. I could not go on without you, Lisa.

DANIELLE: (As Lisa) You're scaring me.

WISEAU: (As Johnny) You're lying. I never hit you. You are tearing me apart, Lisa.

DANIELLE: (As Lisa) Why are you so hysterical?

WISEAU: (As Johnny) Do you understand life? Do you?

GROSS: I don't know it's...

FRANCO: (Laughter).

GROSS: You can tell somebody is, like - that Wiseau's trying somehow to just channel some kind of emotion, but it's all just so out of sync. He doesn't seem to really understand human emotion either as a person, judging from how you portray his story, or as an actor. Tommy just seems, like, delusional.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: Do you think he has, like, a psychological or cognitive disorder? Is that a weird question? Is that OK to ask that?

FRANCO: (Laughter) Yeah, it's OK to ask me. I - it sort of, like, gets a little tricky because if I thought he was sort of, like, suffering - you know what I mean? - if I thought like, oh, man, he needs to be locked away and - 'cause he needs serious help, I - that's something I take very seriously. And I don't think that. I think, you know, he's living his life. He's got a community. And he's not hurting anyone, and he's not hurting himself. I think - you know, I think he's fine.

But yeah, I think he's got a disorder that's sort of on the spectrum that maybe a lot of actors have, that I have to a certain extent, of like, thinking - you know, there's this weird thing that happens in Hollywood and probably happens everywhere where it's like, if I make it into the movies, I will be saved; I will be happy. And I think in Tommy's case - 'cause I do think he was a very lonely guy - that one of the things he was seeking with this movie and also making it with his best friend, Greg, was friendship, a community, love. And I think in a weird way, he got that. When he shows up to these screenings, he does have a community. People are chanting his name.

I know what you're going to say (laughter). Like, yeah, but it's not genuine or whatever. Yeah, he has to do a certain amount of mental gymnastics to translate the laughing and the applause that he gets at those screenings into, like, just pure applause or, you know - but it's still something.

What happened with my movie - at the first screening - the first public screening at South by Southwest, which was also the first time that Tommy ever saw the movie 'cause he didn't want to watch it in private for whatever reason, is we showed it there. It turned out to be an incredible screening, standing ovation. I kept looking down the row at Tommy to see how he was going to react. He was wearing his (laughter) shades in - you know, while watching the movie. I couldn't tell what he thought of the movie. We went up on stage to do a Q&A after - me, my brother and Seth Rogen. We were hesitant to bring Tommy up because we didn't know what he was going to think. He famously said, of the book that our movie's based on, the book only 40 percent true. And we're like, well, he could very well not like our movie because we based the movie on the book. And, you know, we don't want to have an awesome screening and then have Tommy come up and say, well, you know, that movie not true and, you know, whatever. And so we didn't bring him up.

And then this guy came up from the audience and asked a question. Then he said, oh, by the way, I play the real Chris R in "The Room," which is this just side character - this drug dealer named Chris R. (Laughter) They ask Tommy like, why is his name Chris R? Can't we just call him Chris? He's like, no, his name Chris R. He drug dealer - Chris R. (Laughter) And I'm like OK. So he's like I played the real Chris R. Can I have a picture? And Seth Rogen's like, yeah, dude, come on up here. So Chris R came up on stage. And I look out in the audience at Tommy. And he's like 15 rows back, but I can see like this darkness - this dark cloud descending on him. And I don't - and I still haven't talked to him. I don't know if it's because he's jealous that Chris R is up there or that he just hated the movie.

And so I just - I was like, Tommy, come up. Tommy, come up on stage. And he won't come up. And so then the audience in Austin all stood up and started chanting his name - Tommy, Tommy. And - just like in our movie. And he - you know, that's basically what he wanted. So he comes up. And we still didn't give him the mic because I still didn't know what he was going to say. And it's my biggest regret. And I step off stage finally, and I'm like, all right, Tommy, what do you think? And he goes, well, yeah, I approve 99.9 percent. And I'm like wow. And would you - what's the .1 percent? And you think he's going to say, well, you know, I have - that - I never said that - or whatever. And he goes - director to director, he goes, yeah, James, I think you should look at lighting in beginning of movie.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANCO: And I'm like, oh, man. Yeah, I'll tell my cinematographer to watch "The Room" for pointers. But then we realize only later that he had been wearing his shades through the whole movie.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANCO: So it's like, yeah, of course, the lighting's off. But here's my big point - is I realized in that screen - I only realized later. When they were cheering for him, that - they were cheering his story. You know, they were cheering him on and, you know, the will it took to get his movie made because we made Tommy sympathetic. That was our aim in the movie - in my movie, "The Disaster Artist." And that was the first time in Tommy's entire life that he heard unadulterated, unironic applause for his story. And that - just thinking about that, it moves me right now to say that. Like, he got it. He finally got what he wanted.

GROSS: My guest is James Franco. He directed and stars in the new movie "The Disaster Artist." We'll talk more after a break. And linguist Geoff Nunberg will tell us his word of the year. I'm Terry Gross. And this is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you're just joining us, my guest is James Franco. He directed and stars in the new movie "The Disaster Artist." And if you watched "The Deuce," you know he played two characters in that HBO series, which is set in Times Square on 42nd Street in the early '70s, just at the very beginning when the mob is moving in and opening up massage parlors and when porn is starting to become a little aboveground and just not underground and starting to be shown in porn theaters. And you play two characters. One of them is a bartender who gets involved with the mobsters and kind of against his will gets involved with the massage parlors. He doesn't want to be involved in - you know, working in a sex trade industry. But he's kind of getting, you know, pushed into it. And you also play his brother...

FRANCO: Frankie.

GROSS: ...His twin brother - identical twin brother who is kind of happy to get involved with the mobsters because that's where the money is.

FRANCO: (Laughter).

GROSS: And he's just a real professional troublemaker. He's a gambler who's always in debt and always in trouble and always looking to his brother, Vince, to kind of bail him out.

FRANCO: Wow, you really are a fan of the show.

GROSS: Oh, it's a great series.

FRANCO: You watched it? (Laughter).

GROSS: Yeah, I really like it (laughter). So I want to talk to first a little bit about playing two twin brothers.

FRANCO: Yeah, yeah.

GROSS: Like, you had to figure out - you and the director had to figure out some distinguishing characteristics so that I, watching it, could tell which character I was watching. Part of it was the clothing because they dressed a little bit differently. What else did you do as an actor?

FRANCO: Yeah, so when a single actor plays twins, there's a lot of ways you can go. Like, you can make them - their look distinct - you know, like one could have a mustache, and one doesn't. You know, you can - you know, one has like long hair. And one, you know, is bald or whatever. You know, there's things you could do just physically to differentiate them and - which is, you know, completely legitimate way to go. I think we settled on making them sort of similar, like real twins, although we knew from the start that their personalities were very distinct.

And the mustache, that sort of was just a practical thing because I hate - there's one thing that I hate. And I'm sure most actors hate - is like glued-on facial hair. It's even worse than just like facial prosthetics, like I wore in "The Disaster Artists" - like I had two-and-a-half hours of prosthetics in "The Disaster Artist." That was not nearly as bad as just a fake mustache. And so we decided that they would both have mustaches so that I could just grow a mustache. And they would both have it.

And then we just decided, you know, you'll be able to just tell the characters apart by their personalities. And as an actor, it was like - and maybe as a slight egomaniac or whatever (laughter), like it was a dream come true. And I thought of it almost as getting to play the Harvey Keitel and the De Niro roles from "Mean Streets," you know.

GROSS: No, absolutely. I thought of the De Niro character in "Mean Streets" right away when I saw...

FRANCO: Oh, yeah.

GROSS: ...Your character.

FRANCO: For sure.

GROSS: And then you have a great shot in the first episode. It's a totally "Taxi Driver" shot where you're walking down the street. And all these like marquees are behind you. Like that's the poster for "Taxi Driver."

FRANCO: Oh, yeah.

GROSS: So you directed two episodes of "The Deuce." And in one of the episodes, there's a scene in which the Maggie Gyllenhaal character, she plays a sex worker or prostitute who's trying to transition into actually making pornography because it's seems like safer and more lucrative and way more interesting and comfortable. And so...

FRANCO: Yeah, I mean - yeah, go ahead.

GROSS: The question is as part of your research did you have to go back and watch a lot of period porn - just to get a sense of like, what is it these characters are making? What is it they're watching? What's like the sex environment of the time?

FRANCO: Yeah, it's the early days of American porn. "Deep Throat" was, you know, obviously the big hit and kind of was the birth of the American porn industry. In the early days, compared to now, it was sort of innocent. There was a bubbliness to it. There was - you know, and they were trying to tell stories. And something like "Deep Throat" did play in more mainstream cinemas. And so, you know, they learn things. Like, you know, it's mostly a male audience. Cut the guy's head out. Don't show the guy's face - you know, and all these things. And cut out the story. People don't want this story. Just cut to the - you know, the juice - sorry for that, (laughter) no pun intended - and that kind of thing. But, yeah, at the time, you know, the early '70s - and, oh, there's a lot of hair - a lot of pubic hair.

GROSS: Oh, and chest hair really.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: Right, different times (laughter).

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: So anything else with your filmmaker's take on the porn of the period - just like from a filmmaker's point of view? How it looked to you?

FRANCO: I mean, it's shot on film. There's...

GROSS: As opposed to video.

FRANCO: Yeah, there's no - there's hardly any fake breasts. But, you know, the moves...

(LAUGHTER)

FRANCO: The moves are basically the same. It's sort of kind of how it's always been.

GROSS: Was it kind of confusing when you were directing yourself in two different parts in "The Deuce"?

FRANCO: That, yes, was a little bit of a - it spun my head a little bit. Like basically, you know, playing twins and then directing yourself as twins is - you know, it's just sort of an extension of directing. And the way, you know, Bryan Cranston described it - I worked with him. He's such a great guy. And he said on "Breaking Bad," when he did it, like as a director, you're already doing the work. You're breaking down the scenes. You're talking to your cinematographer about how you want to capture it. You understand what you want to get out of each scene so that by the time you're shooting, and you step in front of the camera as an actor, you already are really clear on what you want to get from the scene as a director. And so being the actor is just an extension of that.

So then playing twins, you just sort of do that twice over where, you know - surprise, surprise - you know, I'm not actually playing both twins at once. So like I go in, block it out as the director, then act it as one twin and then, you know, make the move to change over from Vincent to Frankie, at this time, so that the cinematographer is now turning the lights around. And they'll be spending enough time so that I can quickly change over to Frankie and not waste any set time and come back and then do the scene from the other side.

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is James Franco, and he stars in the HBO series "The Deuce." Season one is over, but you can watch it on demand. And also he directed and stars in the new film "The Disaster Artist." We'll be back after a short break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF CLAUDIA ANN SODARO'S "PASSION")

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you're just joining us, my guest is James Franco. He starred as two characters in the HBO series "The Deuce." And now he stars in and directed the new movie "The Disaster Artist," which was basically the behind-the-scenes story of the midnight cult film "The Room."

So I want to ask you about your movie from a few years ago, "The Interview," 'cause it seems very timely, sadly, right now. In "The Interview," you played a celebrity journalist. And you host a program. And as it turns out...

FRANCO: I was playing one of you.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: That's right.

FRANCO: I was like, - that character Dave Skylark in "The Interview" was sort of like the Tommy Wiseau, like...

GROSS: (Laughter).

FRANCO: Me to Tommy Wiseau is you to Dave Skylark.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: That's really funny. So it turns out Kim Jong Un is a fan or so he says.

FRANCO: Yes. Yes.

GROSS: And so he invites your character Dave Skylark...

FRANCO: (Laughter).

GROSS: ...To interview him. And so Dave Skylark thinks, like, this is my ticket to, like, big time...

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: ...Journalism. I'm going to do it.

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: And Seth Rogen is his producer. He's a little skeptical of, you know - but they go, and they do it. And meanwhile, the CIA says, and while you're there, assassinate Kim Jong Un.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: Here's some ricin. You could just slip it when...

FRANCO: (Laughter).

GROSS: ...When you shake his hand and...

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: ...Assassinate him with that 'cause it's that...

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: ...It's that poisonous.

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: And so what happens instead is that your character has this kind of, like, bromance with Kim Jong Un. They spend the day together, and they play basketball.

FRANCO: (Laughter).

GROSS: And they drink margaritas, and they hang out with attractive women.

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: And they...

FRANCO: They sing Katy Perry together.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: They sing a Katy Perry song and have a great time together. So your character doesn't want to assassinate Kim Jong Un because he's so kind of smitten with him.

FRANCO: (Laughter) So silly.

GROSS: But in the end, he realizes that the whole thing is a facade. And Kim Jong Un is a bad man.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: And...

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: ...The assassination happens. We see his head or his whole body explode. I forget which.

FRANCO: Yeah. (Laughter) Both I think.

GROSS: Meanwhile, North Korea's reaction to this - Kim Jong Un's actual reaction to the release of the movie is, do not release it or there will be trouble.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: And they threatened - there were threats against theaters. There were threats to Sony.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: Sony...

FRANCO: Sony was hacked.

GROSS: Sony was hacked.

FRANCO: We don't know - I guess we don't know officially if it was...

GROSS: We don't know if officially...

FRANCO: ....North Korea or not.

GROSS: Exactly.

FRANCO: But Sony was hacked. Yeah.

GROSS: Exactly. But I think we were basically told it was pretty much North Korea.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: And Sony basically released it as an on demand - a video on-demand thing so that people wouldn't have to, you know, feel like...

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: ...They were risking their lives to see it in a theater. This whole time - throughout that whole period, I was thinking, what is going through James Franco and Seth Rogen's minds? So I can ask you now, what was going through your mind during that period when all this really bad stuff was happening attached to the movie? It's a comedy. You know, it's just a - it's funny. It's a comedy.

FRANCO: It's bizarre. Yeah. It was so bizarre. And I think, you know, we'll go down in Hollywood history. I mean - and so in being in the middle of that was - as you can imagine - confusing. Seth and I were sort of in the dark for a while. Like, nobody was telling us what decisions they were going to make. We were sort of learning things as they came out in headlines. And then, you know, so we learned, oh, they're pulling the movie from the theaters and, you know, all this stuff. And so I was sort of in the dark.

And then I went home for the holidays. I was staying in a hotel with my grandma. And every morning, we'd have breakfast together and there - and there's a TV in the hotel. And inevitably, you know, something about "The Interview" would come up. And then one day, it was, like, Obama came out and made a statement. And he said, you know, they should play it in the theaters. Don't be, you know, back down. We don't back down to threats like this. And he said - and it was my big moment - he said, and I love Seth Rogen. I love James Flacco.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANCO: I was like, no. It's Franco. No. And I keep hoping I'm - maybe this is the interview with Terry - the great Terry Gross - that Obama will actually hear and come out and say, OK, it's James Franco. I made a mistake.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: But were you feeling, oh, my God, is this my fault? Is the hack my fault - like, if people are hurt?

FRANCO: Well, it's a - it was such a tricky thing. And that's what people were, you know, like - I think even, like, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney came out and said, you need to watch this. They - I don't think they had seen "The Interview" at this point. Maybe they wouldn't have said this, but they were like, you need to watch this movie as a - your patriotic duty.

GROSS: (Laughter).

FRANCO: And, you know, so it was a really confusing - and Clooney - a lot of people were coming out and saying, you know, this, you know, keep it in theaters. This is - you know, we don't back down. And it became a really strange thing. And, you know, when we - there was a point before we made the movie where we were, you know, saying, like, OK, should we make it the real guy? Should we use the name Kim Jong Un or should we just make - should we just sort of suggest it's the guy?

And the strange and crazy thing - it's almost like, you know, "The Disaster Artist" in this sense where we weren't really making things up when we were kind of making jokes about North Korea or just showing how it was. Like, that was strangely all based on things we read or things that had come out of reportage that had come out of North Korea. And then, you know, the idea that maybe he's not a great guy - like, I don't think we were going out on a limb there, you know. Like, these threats of nuclear war - like, I don't - you know, I don't know if we were going out on a limb. It was sort of like, yeah, maybe somebody should sort of make a comment on this. Like, and...

GROSS: So...

FRANCO: ...In making no comparison in, like, moviemaking, you know, skill or anything like that, but, you know, "Dr. Strangelove" is a comedy about nuclear war - like, atomic war. Like, I felt like, yeah, we were falling in that tradition. I thought - what I thought was, oh, we're doing what comedy does best. We are slipping you a pill coated in candy except that then it became this much bigger thing. It was supposed to be, you know, this sort of comedy that had political, you know, underpinnings. Instead, it just became completely political. And I think that prevented people from really actually seeing the movie for what it was because I still - I think it's a great comedy.

GROSS: I think it's really funny. The only question I'd have about where should the line be is at the end when we see Kim Jong Un actually kind of blow up, like, get blown up, blown apart. And I was just wondering like...

FRANCO: Maybe that was (unintelligible) bridge too far.

GROSS: Yeah. I was wondering if you ever had any second thoughts about that.

FRANCO: I mean, there were second thoughts. You can read about all of it in the Sony hack. Like, the original cut had his face exploding in a much more gruesome explicit way. And then the one concession was - and this is long before the Sony hack. But you can just read about it in the emails of the Sony hack that we had - they had to cover his face exploding with like flames so that it wasn't as gruesome.

But - you know what, Terry? Maybe you're right. Maybe that was the step too far. I don't know. I kind of doubt that anything would have happened differently with this hack if we - if he didn't get killed. I kind of doubt that. But maybe that was too far. I don't know.

GROSS: So here's my other question. Like, did it make you feel kind of like the power of movies - the unintended power of movies that make you think about movies in any different way than you'd ever thought about them before just in terms of like...

FRANCO: For sure. I mean, I always believe in the power of movies and in, a basic sense, like, what I think they can do. And what I always try to do, because I don't normally make political movies - I mean, not that I'm against them. Like, one of my favorite movies is "All The President's Men." But they show us to ourselves. You know, like Shakespeare said it. You're holding up a mirror to life. It's - that's my favorite thing about movies.

But then, you know, something like "Brokeback Mountain" or, you know, a movie I was a part of, "Milk" - like it starts to turn the consciousness of the country. You know, what art does the best, like, understand another - understand somebody who's different than us. When it does that, that's, you know, also so beautiful. And that's what literature does. That's what all great art does. And then, in the case of the interview, that's, you know, it was crazy. It's unprecedented in the history of movies like that.

GROSS: (Laughter) Yes, it is.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: James Franco, it's just been wonderful to talk with you again. Thank you so much.

FRANCO: I love it so much. And I remember all of our interviews, and I hope we can do more.

GROSS: James Franco directed and stars in the new movie "The Disaster Artist." After we take a short break, linguist Geoff Nunberg will tell us his word of the year. This is FRESH AIR.

TERRY GROSS, host:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross.

My guest, James Franco has been very busy. He has two new films, "Howl," in which he plays the young Allen Ginsberg; and "127 Hours," which opens in November and is based on the true story of a hiker who had to amputate his own arm after it was caught under a boulder.

Franco's also attending two schools: Yale University and Rhode Island School of Design. In the past few years, he's been studying art, film and writing. He has a new collection of short stories that will be published later this month.

Franco got his start on the TV series "Freaks and Geeks," he co-starred in Spiderman, starred with Seth Rogen in the comedy "Pineapple Express," and in the movie "Milk," he played Harvey Milk's boyfriend. While making "Milk," he met the directors of a documentary about Harvey Milk. Those directors, Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, directed "Howl."

The film centers around Ginsberg's first published poem, Howl, a ground-breaking work that evoked Walt Whitman, but with the stories, language and rhythms of what became known as beat poetry. Here's Franco from the opening of the film, playing Ginsberg reading the first lines of "Howl" in his first public reading at the Six Gallery.

(Soundbite of film, "Howl")

Mr. JAMES FRANCO (Actor): (As Allen Ginsberg) I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical, naked, dragging themselves through the Negro streets at dawn, looking for an angry fix, angel-headed hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night, who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high, sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of cold-water flats floating across the tops of cities...

GROSS: After the poem "Howl" was published in 1957, it became the subject of an obscenity case. The poem's publisher, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, was charged with selling obscene material.

The film "Howl" revolves around the reading of the poem, the courtroom trial and an extended interview with Ginsberg in which he talks about the experiences that led to the poem. Here's another section of the poem about being in Rockland, a psychiatric institution Ginsberg was sent to after he was arrested as an accessory to crimes committed by friends who were junkies and had stored stolen goods in Ginsbergs apartment. As a condition of his release, he pleaded psychiatric disability and agreed to be treated for homosexuality.

During his eight months in the hospital, he met Carl Solomon, who was being treated for depression and who is the person Ginsberg is addressing in this section of "Howl." Here's James Franco.

(Soundbite of film, "Howl")

Mr. FRANCO: (As Ginsberg) Im with you in Rockland, where you will split the heavens of Long Island and resurrect your living human Jesus from the superhuman tomb. Im with you in Rockland, where there are 25,000 mad comrades all together singing the final stanzas of the Internationale.

Im with you in Rockland, where we hug and kiss the United States under our bed sheets, the United States that coughs all night and wont let us sleep. Im with you in Rockland, where we wake up electrified out of the coma by our own souls airplanes roaring over the roof. Theyve come to drop angelic bombs. The hospital illuminates itself, imaginary walls collapse. O skinny legions run outside. O starry-spangled shock of mercy, the eternal war is here. O victory forget your underwear, were free.

GROSS: That's James Franco, portraying Allen Ginsberg in the new film "Howl," and in that scene, he's reading an excerpt of "Howl." Well done.

Mr. FRANCO: Thank you.

GROSS: I mean, there's no film here unless you can convincingly get Allen Ginsberg's cadences because so much of the film revolves around you reading the poem "Howl."

So, what was it about Allen Ginsberg's voice that really stuck out to you, that made you think, okay, this is what the voice is, this is what I built the voice around?

Mr. FRANCO: I guess, you know, he has a bit of a New Jersey accent. I guess that's what it is, or, you know, it's kind of an East Coast thing. And there is a alternation he alternates between kind of great exuberance and I guess, you know, this kind of sympathetic tone, you know, depending on what section he's reading. And so I tried to find out how he'd be responding to each section and then, you know, deliver it accordingly.

GROSS: How familiar were you with Allen Ginsberg's poems before preparing to make the movie?

Mr. FRANCO: I was pretty familiar. I'd read a fair amount of them when I was younger. It seems that people of a certain age, you know, young people, especially young men, usually come across the Beats. And me and my friends, I and my friends certainly did, and so...

GROSS: What did it mean to you when you read them?

Mr. FRANCO: Well, it's funny. I'm actually in a class right now at Yale where we're - it's about the Beats and about, it's about literary coteries. So, its about the Beats and about McSweeney's and Dave Eggers. So I'm re-reading all of those books that I read for the first time when I was in high school.

And I think what really struck me was how, you know, there were these young guys and they were, you know, looking for a new way of writing. Most of them had gone to Columbia or some other Ivy Leagues. And they had great teachers, but they were trying to break away from what they had learned in school and were looking for new ways.

And they really had no models. So they were just supporting each other and encouraging each other and thats how they made it, or thats how they found these new ideas. And so, I think that was really inspiring for me as a young man and that idea of just the search and having, you know, artistic friends around that could support me, and maybe that would be enough.

GROSS: So your part in the movie alternates between reading the poem "Howl" and being interviewed, and we don't see your interviewer. You're there alone on screen, talking alone into a reel-to-reel tape machine as the interview is being recorded.

So, is this gathered from different transcripts of interviews, or is this based on one interview with Ginsberg?

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah, so I guess there was a lost interview that he gave to Time, I think back in the '60s. And Ginsberg had been in Tangiers, and they flew him out to Rome, and he gave this interview, and it was lost. They didn't I guess it was too racy, and they didn't - they never published it.

And no transcripts exist but Epstein and Friedman decided that they were going to use that idea for this interview, and it would be the lost interview. But the way that they created this interview was they compiled, you know, bits from interviews that Ginsberg had given his entire life. Everything that I say in those interviews, you know, everything that is said in the courtroom scenes, all of those are based on, you know, things that people actually said.

GROSS: Okay, so I want to play an excerpt of the interview. And this is him talking about something that happened between him and his therapist that changed his life. So, heres my guest James Franco, in a scene from "Howl," in which he's being interviewed.

(Soundbite of film, "Howl")

Mr. FRANCO: (As Ginsberg) In San Francisco, I had a year of psychotherapy with Dr. Hicks(ph). I was blocked, I couldnt write. I was still trying to act normal. I was afraid I was crazy. I was sure that I was supposed to be heterosexual and that something was wrong with me.

And Dr. Hicks kept saying, what do you want to do? What is your heart's desire? So, finally I said, well, what I'd really like to do is to just quit all this and get a small room with Peter and devote myself to my writing and contemplation and (BEEP) and smoking pot and doing whatever I wanted.

He said: Why don't you do it, then? I mean, what'll happen if I grow old and I have pee stains in my underwear, and I'm living in some furnished room, and nobody loves me, and I'm white-haired and I have no money and bread crumbs are falling on the floor? And he said, ah, don't worry about that. You're very charming and lovable, and people will always love you.

What a relief to hear that. I very soon realized that it was all a fear trap, just illusory.

GROSS: James Franco as Allen Ginsberg in an excerpt of the new film "Howl." So we've talked a little bit about getting the voice for Allen Ginsberg. What did you to do try to look like him because you're not the first person who comes to mind when you think of what Allen Ginsberg looked like. And most of us, when we think of what Allen Ginsberg looked like, think of him in his later years, as opposed to when he was in his 20s, because he wasn't as visible then.

I mean, you got the glasses. You got his trademark glasses from the period.

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah, that was key. Well...

GROSS: Did that help, having the glasses?

Mr. FRANCO: It certainly helped. Well, I had a similar reaction when they asked me to do it. Actually, Gus Van Sant was the first person to bring the project to my attention.

I was in the middle of filming "Milk" with Gus. And Gus is an executive producer on "Howl," and he said, you know I knew Rob and Jeff because they had, you know, worked on the documentary, "The Times of Harvey Milk," which, you know, we all watched to prepare for "Milk."

And so I knew who they were, and Gus said, you know, they have a movie about Allen Ginsberg and they want you to play Allen. And I thought, really? Because, you know, like I said, I loved the Beats. I had been reading them since I was about 15. And I - ever since I got into acting I always dreamed about, you know, doing a movie about the Beats. But I never thought that I would play Allen. I always thought, well, sure, I'll be Kerouac or Cassady. And - but I was being offered Allen.

And so I thought, well, will I be of service to this movie playing Allen? I mean, can I really do that? And so I did, you know, I went back and looked at some of the photographs of young Allen and then I thought, well, it's not that far. You know, young Allen, most people think, you know, when they think of Ginsberg, they think of the older Ginsberg, the heavier and balder and bearded Ginsberg. And that wouldve been a stretch. But the younger Ginsberg is actually kind of close to my build. We have similar, you know, coloring. And he had hair.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: And so, and by coincidence, I was hosting "Saturday Night Live" at the time, and they had just won an Emmy for makeup. So I brought in a picture of young Ginsberg. I brought it to the makeup department, and I said, hey, you guys, you know, make people look like other people all the time. How would you, if I was going to do a sketch on SNL about Ginsberg, how would you make me look like this?

And they said, well, actually, it's not that hard. You just kind of comb your hair over, and you definitely need the glasses. His ears stick out a little bit more than yours. So they kind of pushed my ears out. And it was like, oh, voila. It was almost enough.

And so I told Rob and Jeff about the ear thing. And so for half of the movie, we didn't have any prosthetic built at that time. So we just put, like, some weird Play-Dough behind my ears and stuck them out.

And that was kind of it. I mean, I had to get the mannerisms down, but the look was pretty good.

GROSS: My guest is James Franco. He's starring in the new film "Howl." More after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: My guest is James Franco, and he stars as Allen Ginsberg in the new film "Howl."

Now, "Howl" is I think the fourth movie that you've made that is based on real people. You have the James Dean made-for-TV movie that you did, playing Harvey Milk's boyfriend in "Milk," playing Allen Ginsberg in "Howl," and now you're also in the forthcoming film, "127 Hours," playing Aron Ralston, a hiker in a canyon in Utah who is pinned by a boulder that has fallen on his arm and he can't get his arm out, and so he has to amputate his arm. It's a true story and, God, a really gruesome one.

This is directed by Danny Boyle, who directed "Trainspotting" and "Slumdog Millionaire." And I'll tell you, if somebody came to me and said, we want you to star as this guy who is, like, pinned down by this boulder, he has to, you know, cut off his arm, I'd say I'll pass, thank you very much for thinking of me.

Mr. FRANCO: Why, Terry?

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: You know, I don't even want to imagine enduring that.

Mr. FRANCO: Well, what role would you want to play?

GROSS: Oh, I'd play Ginsberg.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: Okay, all right.

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: So why did you want to put yourself through the kind of agony, mental agony, that you'd have to experience acting this role?

Mr. FRANCO: You know, I actually was very attracted to the challenge of doing a movie that, you know, involved being isolated for all that time. And it's, it was unique not only because I don't work with you know, for most of the movie, I'm not working opposite other actors.

But I'm in one spot. And so it's not even like "Castaway," where he had that whole island to walk around on. Like, I'm in, I'm just in this canyon and I can't, you know, I can't move.

And on paper, and especially, you know, working on a project like this with Danny Boyle, it all sounds, you know, really great and, like, exciting, kind of new kind of filmmaking. But that doesn't necessarily translate into a movie that people want to go and watch.

And so - and I was aware of that, and Danny was certainly aware of that. And that was kind of the challenge that he wanted to take on, you know, and if you know his films, theyre not slow films. They all have pace, they all have great energy. And hes very interested in making movies that are full of life.

I guess, you know, the making of the movie was really, you know, a case of Danny and I and the DPs and the writer and everyone, you know, really working together to make this very static situation into something incredibly dynamic. And I...

GROSS: Yeah, I've read reviews that say yes, it's hes pinned by this boulder but its really very entertaining. I havent seen the movie yet, Ive seen Howl. But I havent seen 127 Hours.

Mr. FRANCO: I have to say, it's a very unique film experience. I mean, I...

GROSS: So here's what I want to know. Like, what is it like to wake up every morning when you're shooting the film and say, whats ahead of me today - oh yes, pain? I endure a lot more pain.

Mr. FRANCO: Well, I didnt think I would go crazy. Danny kept warning me before we did it, he's like, yeah, James, you're going to go crazy. I think he wanted to prepare me. But yeah, he'd say yeah, James, I think you're going to go a little crazy in this canyon.

And he prepared for that in some ways. You know, we had a it was an incredibly fast shoot. I worked six-day weeks. Danny worked seven-day weeks for two months because there were two DPs. And so Danny would just, you know, switch between the crews. And I think Danny designed it that way because he knew not only would I go a little crazy, the whole crew would go a little crazy just working under those conditions.

But on one hand, I had an incredible experience cause I was working with Danny Boyle and then these two incredible DPs, Anthony Don Mantle(ph) and Keekey Chadiak(ph). And so I was working with, you know, all these guys that I loved and I had a great relationship with all of them.

But yeah, I was stuck in you know, we shot a lot of it on a set, but the set was not like a normal set. You know, usually if you shoot on a stage, you build a set so that it can be taken apart so, you know, cameras can move in for different angles that, you know, you normally wouldn't get at a real location.

But they didnt build the set this way. They built it so that it couldnt come apart. And so, really, I was isolated every day in this set, and the way that it kind of worked, a lot of times it was easier to just stay in the set while they, you know, would change the camera setups.

And so, for the first month of shooting, I actually didn't even, I didn't see half of the crew. I just saw, like, I really just saw the DPs because they operated the cameras and then heard Danny's voice over this little speaker that they'd built into the wall of the canyon.

And it kind of did drive me a little crazy. I think one of the things that saved me was I was still in school at the time. And so I had all this reading I had to do for school. So I'd bring my books and stash them under the boulder.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: And between setups, I would read my books, and I think that helped me a little bit.

GROSS: So what's the difference between what you saw when you were cutting off your arm in the film and what is actually in the film, what you see when you see yourself in the film?

Mr. FRANCO: What do mean, like...

GROSS: When you were doing the shoot, and you were amputating your arm, what's difference between what you saw on the set and what we see in the film?

Mr. FRANCO: Well, obviously I didn't really cut my arm off. Although, there were some scenes where, you know, the character tries, he makes many attempts to cut his arm off and do various things to get out.

And in some of the takes, Danny asked me to just kind of saw at my arm with a dull blade, like, you know, because the that was the thing is, you know, Aron had a knife, but it was a dull because he had never used a knife before. He had never needed it before, and so he never even thought to sharpen it.

And so there were times when he attempted to saw his arm off with a dull blade. And Danny said, well, why don't you just try and do it?

And so there were times when I was doing it on my own arm, and that led to, you know, some minor permanent damage because, you know, they built, you know, these great effects guys, they built this arm that had all the, you know, musculature inside and veins, you know, all the veins were in place and nerves. And so I really could just go at it.

And the way we shot it is, you know, we did like these 20-minute takes for you know, and we did that throughout the movie. You know, we'd do these very, very long takes. And so and we did that for the amputation scene.

And so I was just cutting away, and, you know, the arm was going through. And I actually, Danny told me afterwards that the effects guy was saying to him, you know, whispering in Danny's ear, like, you know, hes not going to be able to make it all the way through. You know, there's certain things in there that are, you know, going to prevent him from cutting all the way through.

So but I actually did. I went all the way through, and I surprised him and everyone. And actually, the first time I went through the arm, I fell back and, you know, fell on my back, or my butt. And so I actually made it through. And I think part of that take is in the film.

GROSS: James Franco will be back in the second half of the show. His new films are "127 Hours," which opens next month, and "Howl," which is in select theaters.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Im Terry Gross back with James Franco (technical difficulty) in the TV series "Freaks and Geeks," then co-starred in the films "Spiderman," "Pineapple Express" and "Milk." He's starring in two new movies, "Howl," in which he plays (technical difficulty) Allen Ginsberg and "127 Hours," in which he plays a hiker who has his (technical difficulty) after it is pinned under a boulder.

GROSS: Youve been making these movies while studying at Columbia, NYU, Brooklyn College, now youre studying in two places, the Rhode Island School of Design and Yale. It's like the college version of extreme sports or something. Do you know what I mean...

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: ...doing like so many different colleges. How come so many?

Mr. FRANCO: Well, now I, you know, I kind of narrowed it down. It's not - the schedule isn't quite like that right now. But, yeah, the past two years I was at a lot of places. And I guess I just thought, you know, yeah, I am a little, I have an addictive personality and when...

GROSS: Do you? Do you?

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah. I think I do. So if there's something I like its hard for me to, you know, say, to not engage with it fully and to the - I guess to the point of doing, you know, physical harm to myself or whatever or mental harm. But, on the other hand, I loved it and I was, you know, by going to all those places, I got to work with, you know, all of my favorite writers and, you know, I got to work with great filmmakers and, you know, do projects that I'm very, very, very proud of.

GROSS: Now you have a new book of short stories that's going to be published in mid-October.

Mr. FRANCO: Mm-hmm.

GROSS: Are these stories from writing that you did basically for writing assignments in your various college writing courses?

Mr. FRANCO: Yes. I started writing that book way back in, I dont know, about five years ago when I was at UCLA and I was working with Mona Simpson.

GROSS: Mm-hmm.

Mr. FRANCO: And I started writing some pieces that would eventually form, you know, that book in her classes and then I did a creative thesis with Mona and my thesis was a very early draft of this book. And then I went to New York and studied with people like Amy Hemphill and Michael Cunningham and Jonathan Lethem and Gary Shteyngart, and Ben Marcus, and I brought in other pieces that would go into the book in, you know, into their classes and I then worked on them also on a one-on-one basis on this book. And so eventually, yeah, all those pieces came together and I put the book together.

GROSS: So there is a short passage I'd like you to read from the book. And this is a section in which a girl, whose father kind of wants her to be a mathematician like he is, gets a job that she finds boring, so she starts just getting paper from the trash and drawing. Would you read that?

Mr. FRANCO: Yes. (Reading) I drew rainbows, and people, and cities, and guns, and people getting shot and bleeding, and people having sex. When I got tired I just drew doodles. I tried to draw portraits of people that I knew. My family always looked ridiculous, but funny because the pictures resembled them, but not enough. Then I drew all these things from my childhood, like Hello Kitty and Rainbow Brite and My Little Pony. I drew my brother's G.I. Joes. I made the My Little Ponys kill the G.I. Joes.

I drew hundreds of pictures and they were all bad. I wasn't good at drawing. It was also a little sad to draw so much because I could see everything that was inside me. I had drawn everything I could think of. All that was inside me was a bunch of toys, and TV shows, and my family. My life was boring. I only had one kiss, and it was with my gay cousin, Jamie.

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: That's James Franco, reading from his new collection of short stories, "Palo Alto Stories."

I thought that was a really interesting passage because I think every young writer or painter actually goes through that, of kind of putting out everything that's inside them but there isn't much inside them yet.

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: Because they're young and unformed.

Mr. FRANCO: Right.

GROSS: And I'm wondering if as a writer you experienced what this person experience when they were trying to draw.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: Yes, in more ways than one. I actually did work at Lockheed.

GROSS: Oh, really, because your father is a mathematician.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah. And so I did work there, although this is a female character who is a young woman who has very different, you know, life circumstances than I did, but I let her work at Lockheed like I did. And, but I did do a lot of drawing when I was young and a lot of, you know, I tried to write and, you know, I tried to do a lot of things.

And actually, when I first started writing this book, before even I started working with Mona, I'd write a lot of things about - that were kind of based on myself and who I was when I was a young person. And, I dont know, it was - I just hated it. It was just so full of like self-pity and it was just way too sensitive and, you know, who wants to read that? And so, yeah, what I did is I just - I think maybe one thing that I learned from acting is you can go out and explore other people and there's a way to get to know other people intimately. And hopefully, you know, you can take on their voice and their worldview and their life circumstances and then, you know, turn it into something else, turn it into a performance or turn it into a piece of writing. And so that's kind of how I worked on a lot of these stories.

GROSS: There's another - I'm sure there's many parallels nevertheless between the stories and your life. And many of the stories are about kids in trouble for drinking for getting into car accidents while drunk, for - a few things along those lines. And one of the kids in one of your stories is arrested after a drunk driving accident and becomes a ward of the court for a while.

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: And the judge makes him a ward of the court and threatens him with juvenile hall if he so much as jaywalks. And then he has to make a supervised apology and then do 60 hours of community service. Now the last time you were on FRESH AIR, you mentioned that because I forget of which thing that got you in trouble, you had briefly become a ward of the state. So I'm sure there's some parallels between this story and your life.

Mr. FRANCO: Yes. Well, I'm sure you or whoever else is interested can go through and pick out a lot of...

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: ...a lot of similarities between, you know, these character's experiences and my own. And that's, you know, that's one thing that you do as a writer or an artist of any sort, you use pieces of your own life.

GROSS: My guest is James Franco. His collection of short stories, "Palo Alto," will be published later this month. He plays Allen Ginsberg in the new film "Howl."

Coming up, we'll talk about a surprising chapter in Franco's acting career, playing the artist and serial killer Franco on ABC's soap opera "General Hospital."

(Soundbite of ABC's "General Hospital")

Mr. FRANCO: (as Franco) You cut your hair. You hurt yourself. Are you okay?

Unidentified Actress: (as character) What are you doing here?

Mr. FRANCO: (as Franco) Well, I just came to deliver the last six roses. I see you put the other 60 in a vase. Nice display, very artistic.

Unidentified Actress: (as character) What do you want?

Mr. FRANCO: (as Franco) I'm very fond of the number 66. I just like saying it, 66, sounds dirty.

Unidentified Actress: (as character) Why would you send these flowers to me?

Mr. FRANCO: (as Franco) You and I spent some very special time together. I hope you haven't forgotten.

Unidentified Actress: (as character) No. Of course, not.

Mr. FRANCO: I told you, I think about you. I have. And I know that you want to be loyal to your boyfriend and I respect that. Loyalty is hard to come by these days. I just hope that our performance didnt damage your relationship.

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: My guest is James Franco. He plays Allen Ginsberg in the new film "Howl."

So I'm afraid we're going to run out of time soon and I want to be able to ask you about the time that you spent acting on "General Hospital..."

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: ...which was such a surprise to everybody. You are such a good actor and I think a very serious actor, even though youve done comedies, youve done them really well...

Mr. FRANCO: Thank you.

GROSS: ...so I consider that part of serious acting.

Mr. FRANCO: Right.

GROSS: And not to cast dispersions on soap operas, but it's just a different style, you know?

Mr. FRANCO: Mm-hmm.

GROSS: So why did you want to do an afternoon soap, and was it their idea or your idea to do this?

Mr. FRANCO: Oh, it was my idea.

GROSS: What did you want out of it?

Mr. FRANCO: Well, at first I wasnt quite sure. All I knew was that it would be interesting. I had been discussing the idea with this artist named Carter, he's a friend of mine and I collaborate on different projects with him. And we were going to do a movie called "Maladies," that he was going to direct and I was going to act in. I was going to play a character that was formerly a soap opera. And that just got us talking about oh, what if I actually was on a soap opera? Wouldnt that be interesting? People would be surprised, nobody would expect it, and it's also kind of - it's, you know, it's a different kind of entertainment and acting and not necessarily and, you know, I mean yeah, people can look, you know, often look down on soap operas as inferior kind of entertainment, but I was thinking in a different way at that point.

I had just read this book by this guy name Carl Wilson, who has since become a friend of mine and he wrote this book about Celine Dion. And he, you know, wasnt a fan of Celine's, but he decided that he was going to investigate why. Why does he feel superior to Celine's music? And he didnt come to any definite conclusions but he figured out that well, Celine's music means something to some people and gives a lot of people, I dont know, strength, hope or whatever you get from music. But it's working for some people.

And so he decided to suspend his judgment and stop looking down on Celine just because she doesnt speak to him. And so that's kind of the mindset I was in at that time and I thought well, why not? Ill just try being on a soap opera.

And so my manager represents Steve Burton, who is one of the stars of "General Hospital." And so he had some connections to "General Hospital" and he called them up and said that I wanted to be on the show. And they were very excited to say the least and they called me up and they said, James, its so great that you want to be on this soap opera. What do you want to do? You can do whatever you like. So I said I wanted the character to be an artist and I wanted him to be crazy and that's what I told them.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: And I wanted their version of that. And they gave me the best - I mean they gave me more than I could've asked for. And...

GROSS: And they named the character Franco.

Mr. FRANCO: And that was their idea, yeah. They asked if they could name the character Franco. And I guess that sounds, to some people that could sound just like lazy, you know, like they were being lazy, but actually I thought it was incredible because it just - it worked with the fact that nobody understood why I was on that show.

And so already I think people going and seeing me on that show are asking themselves, why is he there? What is he doing there? And it was as if I was a little bit of an imposter. But then if you add the, you know, the fact that people are addressing me by my name, Franco, it just pulls you kind of it pulls you out of it, you know, even further. And so it was all - it was building this weird relationship to the show where it was almost commenting on itself. And then...

GROSS: A kind of performance art for you almost.

Mr. FRANCO: Well, yeah, and then it kind of developed into that. But then the writers, you know, I love working with them. They - and because soap operas, you know, have to do a show a day, they generate so much material. And so because of that, they were able to start writing things that spoke to this performance art aspect of it in this very strange way. And so it's as if the character Franco almost knows that he's on a soap opera and so they were writing to that. And then I started filming all of the whole process. And then they would have - and then they'd respond to that and have the character Franco on the show start filming himself and so we just got into this crazy kind of vortex of, I dont know, this weird meta-world of commentary.

GROSS: So tell me something that you learned from acting on an afternoon soap opera?

Mr. FRANCO: So yeah, so then there was just the pure experience of acting on a soap opera that was also extremely interesting. They have to, you know, you go through material a lot quicker on a soap opera, but not only that, I was still in school and so I had to act - I had to do even more material than they normally do in a single day because they would do all my material on one day a week. I guess they, it was on a Fridays and I guess they started calling it Franco Fridays because I'd fly in from New York.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: I'd get on, I'd wake up at like 4:30, go to the airport, land in L.A. at about 10:30, go to the studio and then we'd work for like 12 to 14 hours until, you know, about two in the morning. And I would do about I guess 70 to 80 pages of material a day. And usually they only, if they get it, theyll only do one take. But that's not just - it's not just one take per setup. They have four cameras going. So that means one take per scene. So you just learn the lines, do it, boom, on to the next scene. So its a really, its kind of exhilarating if you get into the pace of it.

GROSS: Kind of like theater almost.

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah. Yeah.

GROSS: Like youre on live. Yeah.

Mr. FRANCO: It's very close to how they would do the old like "Playhouse 90" or "Kraft Theatre"...

GROSS: Right. Right.

Mr. FRANCO: ...you know, television shows in a way.

GROSS: Well, I'd love to keep talking, but youre going to be late for class and...

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: And then I'm afraid you'd be accused of being a celebrity because you were doing media instead of being in class, so semi-apologies if youre a couple of minutes late.

Mr. FRANCO: I will. I will.

GROSS: And, so just one more thing, do you have insomnia and do you use those hours to just keep working?

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: Is your day longer than mine?

Mr. FRANCO: I dont have insomnia.

GROSS: Yeah.

Mr. FRANCO: As you can see on TMZ, I can sleep anywhere and...

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: I really can sleep anywhere. Although now I'm much more wary about sleeping in public because I'm sure another picture of me will bring a lot of -of sleeping will bring a lot of money.

GROSS: It was a picture of you sleeping class, which is, I think, youre referring to?

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah. It's actually not class. It's a late night lecture - an optional lecture at the art school that I was not required to be at, so I wasnt, you know, sleeping in class or wasting my opportunity in class. I was at an optional thing, so I think I had every right to sleep in if I wanted to.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: But I, yeah, I can sleep anywhere. I just have a lot to do so I tend not to sleep.

GROSS: James Franco, it's been great to talk with you again. Thanks so much.

Mr. FRANCO: Thank you, Terry.

GROSS: James Franco plays Allen Ginsberg in the new movie "Howl," which is playing in select cities and is available on video on demand. His film "127 Hours" opens next month. Franco's selection of short stories "Palo Alto," will be published later this month. You can find clips from "Howl" and read an excerpt of his new book on our website, freshair.npr.org.

Coming up, Maureen Corrigan reviews a new translation of "Madame Bovary."

This is FRESH AIR.

A CONVERSATION WITH BARACK OBAMA - TRANSCRIPT

October 20, 2006
JOHN SHATTUCK: Thank you. Good evening and welcome to the John F. Kennedy Library. I’m John Shattuck, CEO of the Kennedy Library Foundation. And on behalf of our Board of Directors, many of whom are here tonight and Tom Putnam, the Acting Director of the Kennedy Library, we are just delighted to be able to host tonight’s very special Kennedy Library Forum.

Before introducing our guest of honor, who in a typical way I could say needs no introduction, but I’m going to give him one anyway, I’d like to thank the institutions that make these forums possible, starting with our lead sponsor, Bank of America. We’re also very grateful to Boston Capital and its President, our Board member Jack Manning, who is here with us tonight. Thank you Jack. Also, the Lowell Institute, the Corcoran Jennison Companies, and our media sponsors, The Boston Globe, NECN and WBUR, which broadcasts all Kennedy Library forums on Sunday evenings at eight.

Tonight is a banner night for the Kennedy Library. As a presidential library, we are proud to attract speakers who are making headlines. But the headlines this week about tonight’s speaker tell us that he may be poised, not just to make news, but to make history. Our Guest of Honor is on this week’s cover of Time Magazine. His name is on the lips of Democrats and Republicans across the nation. And his new book, The Audacity of Hope, published this month and now on sale in our book store, tells us about a brand new form of political leadership.

It’s a great privilege to welcome Senator Barack Obama to the Kennedy Library.

[applause]

Senator, you are described by the New York Times as, and I quote, “That rare politician who can write, and write, and write movingly and genuinely about himself.” And your story is extraordinary. As this week’s cover article in Time tells us, and I quote, “Senator Obama’s father was from Kenya, and his mother from Kansas. The Senator has told the story in brilliant, painful detail in his first book, Dreams of My Father, which may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician,” and I end-quote.

A central theme of the book is that Barack Obama learned from an early age how important it was to bridge the many divides of the world in which he grew up, which is the same world as the one in which we all live today.

At Harvard Law School, he was the first African American to be elected President of the Harvard Law Review. He was chosen for that prestigious position, not only because he was near the top of his class, but also because he had a unique ability to win over conservative and liberal students alike.

As one of his classmates told Time magazine this week, most of the class were liberals, but there was a growing conservative presence, and there were fights between right and left about almost every issue. Barack won the election because the conservatives thought he would take their arguments into account.

After graduating from law school, Senator Obama entered public service. He started as a community organizer and a civil rights attorney in Chicago, representing victims of employment and housing discrimination and teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.

In 1997, he was elected to the Illinois Senate, where for the next seven years, he played a leading role reaching across party lines on difficult issues to achieve results.

He forged coalitions of Democrats and Republicans to help working families, creating programs like the state earned income tax credit that provided over 100 million dollars in tax relief for lower and middle income families.

He pushed through a bipartisan expansion of early childhood education, and he worked with law enforcement officials to enact legislation requiring that all interrogations and confessions in cases involving the death penalty be videotaped.

On the national stage, he spoke out early against the war in Iraq, and he supported the war in Afghanistan. Here in Boston, he electrified the Democratic National Convention two years ago in a key note address that charted the common ground that unites all Americans.

“We worship an awesome God in the blue states,” he said, “and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states, and we’ve got gay friends in the red states. There is not a black America, and white America, and Latino America, and Asian America, there’s the United States of America.”

Elected in an Illinois landslide to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Senator Obama is now in a position to project his special brand of political leadership on the national level; leadership based on consensus building, not slashing and burning; leadership based on listening to opposing views and responding with fact and truth, not destruction distortion; a brand of leadership, I might add, in great demand but very short supply in our political life today.

Senator, again, it’s a great privilege to have you here.

[applause]

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

SHATTUCK: To moderate this evening’s forum, we’re also privileged to have one of our nation’s leading commentators, Bob Herbert of the New York Times. Bob has been a star, as many of you know, at other Kennedy Library forums, and we’re pleased to welcome him back here tonight.

Bob joined the Times as an Op-ed columnist in 1993. And twice a week he helps us understand what’s important in politics and our national life. Bob Herbert began his career with the Newark Star Ledger, where he became a city editor. Before joining the Times, he was a national correspondent for NBC, a founding panelist on Sunday Edition, the weekly discussion program on WCBS, and the host of Hot Line, a weekly issues program on New York Public Television.

He’s won many awards for his reporting and commentary, including, recently, the American Society of Newspaper Editors Award for Distinguished Commentary. Please join me in welcoming Barack Obama and Bob Herbert to the stage of the Kennedy Library.

[applause]

BOB HERBERT: Senator, it’s an honor to have you here. I know we’re on a tight schedule, so we’re not going to waste a lot of time. Members of the audience will see people coming around with pencils, and we’re going to take some written questions. And if we have time, we’ll answer a few at the end of the interview.

I noticed upstairs, I’m looking at the pictures of President Kennedy, and I recalled from your book that you were born, if I’m not mistaken, in the year Senator Kennedy was inaugurated. Is that right?

OBAMA: That is correct.

HERBERT: Wow. Are you getting enough attention lately?

[laughter]

OBAMA: Well, the first thing I have to say to everybody is I’m sorry I’m late. I had forgotten how wonderful Boston weather is this time of year, and we were delayed in a holding pattern over the skies for about half an hour, and an hour back in New York. But I appreciate everybody taking the time to-- and everybody’s patience.

HERBERT: Let’s start with the war in Iraq, which is going horribly, and which seems to be the big topic in the upcoming elections, and we’re very close to them. You were not in favor of the war, but you have not called for a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops. So what should the United States do in Iraq? And, if the Democrats take control of either or both Houses of Congress, what could the party do to move us toward a more acceptable solution?

OBAMA: Well, as you mentioned, Bob, in fact we talked before I was elected, and at that point, I had made my position clear. I thought that the war was not based on reason and fact but rather on ideology. And unfortunately, most of my worst fears came to pass.

My view had been at the time, and continues to be, that once we were in, we had some obligations to try to stabilize the situation. And so, over the last year, as I’ve watched conditions to continue to deteriorate-- and I made a visit to Iraq in January-- my view was let us see if we can give this political process a chance and try to buck up the capacity of the Iraqi government to create some order.

It’s my view at this point, and I’ve been saying this now for several months, that there is no military solution possible in Iraq at this point, that what you have is a political problem that is going to have to be solved, to a large degree, by the Iraqis themselves.

And so, to my mind, it makes sense for us to now begin a phased withdrawal. Originally, I believed that withdrawal should have started by the end of this year. Now it’s unlikely that we can execute that that quickly.

But I think early next year, the President should sit down with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and say, “How do we do this in a way that causes the least threat to our troops and maintains some semblance of stability, whatever is left in Iraq, but sending a strong signal to the Iraqis that they are going to have to make a determination-- do they want to live as Iraqis in a unified national government? Are they Kurds, Shiites, Sunni first? And force them to make some political decisions about what’s going to happen.”

The second thing I think the President needs to do is to gather up all the regional powers, including Iran and Syria who, to some degree, are enjoying watching us flounder there, but will not enjoy millions of refugees if Iraq collapses completely, and to them say, “You have to take some ownership over the process as well, the international community, but particularly, the Arab states in the surrounding region.”

And I think if we send a signal that we are not interested in permanent bases, we are not going to attempt to police a civil war, that we can provide support for whatever plans emerge from those discussions. But we are not going to be able to impose our will in Iraq by ourselves, then we can make some progress.

Now keep in mind-- and I’ll finish up with this-- part of the reason I thought this was a bad idea was because, at this stage, I don’t think there are any good options. I think there are bad options and worse options. And there are risks in a phased withdrawal, because one can argue that, as bad as the situation is now, it could conceivably, in the short term, get worse.

The problem is the alternative, which is to continue on a course that we’re on at this point, where what we’re seeing, typically, is when U.S. casualties get high, the administration pulls back troops into the large consolidated basis. The situation deteriorates, we send them back in. And so this month, now, we’re seeing a huge spike in U.S. casualties. That kind of pattern is unsustainable. It’s not serving our national security interests, and I think the American people have made it, at this point, made it clear that that is not a burden that they wish to bear.

HERBERT: And is there a role for the Democratic Party, if you take one of the Houses of Congress, to move the administration or the country along?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think the politics of this election are not only going to embolden the Democrats, somewhat belatedly, but I think are also going to cause a lot of soul-searching among those Republicans that remain in Congress. I’m confident at this point that the House is going to go Democratic. I think the Senate is going to be close.

[applause]

I know this is a non-partisan event, but feel free to applaud.

[laughter]

And as a consequence, the Democrats are going to be in a position, now, to, at the very least, hold hearings and provide the kind of oversight that we have not been able to initiate because committee chairmen have essentially refused. That, in and of itself, would put pressure on the administration to make a different set of decisions.

But I think, more fundamentally, the albatross around the Republican Party’s neck in this election is going to cause them to step back and say, “We’re going to have to figure out a new way of doing business.” And the commission that is co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton may provide, if not the administration, at least Republicans in Congress the cover to start rethinking what their position is going to be.

HERBERT: One more question on Iraq, but this also relates to our obligations as citizens. Not too long ago, I went to Tennessee to interview an American soldier who had been sent to the combat zone three times. He went to Afghanistan and then served two year-long tours in Iraq.

And he made the point that it’s a very small percentage of Americans who are bearing the burden and making the sacrifices for this war. Most of us are free to go about our daily business. You can go shopping, go to the mall, do whatever it is you need to do, and it’s only a tiny sliver of the population that’s enduring the suffering. That seems fundamentally unfair, and I’d like to know what your views are about that.

OBAMA: Well, I think it raises two points. The first and most immediate point is that, in fact, the burden of this war has been borne by a small segment of the population. And, to some degree, that’s the only reason that we went in there in the first place. Had there been a draft, we would not have launched this war, I think that’s fair to say.

In fact, one could argue that we wouldn’t even need a universal draft if there was a rule that all members of Congress’s children were eligible for the draft, there would not have been--

[applause]

[laughter]

--We would not have gone in.

We can’t have that conversation in the midst of war. It’s too volatile for us to start thinking about how are we structuring our military, and what does an all-voluntary force mean relative to a universal service requirement. But I think it’s one that we should initiate in times where we can be more reflective and less passionate.

HERBERT: But isn’t it likely, at a time when we can be more reflective, meaning a time when we’re not at war, that we won’t have that conversation?

OBAMA: Well, I would like to start a conversation, and this brings me to, I guess, the larger point about what citizenship means, and what are our obligations to each other, and how do we create a stronger link between the decision-making in Washington and the daily experience of people’s lives?

And this is not just true in foreign policy, the same is true with respect to the economy. This week we saw the Dow go over 12,000 points. If you’re walking down Wall Street, the economy looks great. If you go to Decatur, Illinois or Galesburg, Illinois, or Peoria, Illinois, the economy looks very different. And the reason is because the top 1% is seeing their incomes rise about 500% over the last decades, and the average working stiff has seen their wages and salaries flat lined.

The top 1% is much more likely to participate politically than the other 99%, and so we had these distortions in terms of how decisions are made in Washington. I don’t have a magic solution to it, but part of the reason I wrote this book was to suggest that there have to be ways for us to re-engage the citizenry around the project of American renewal, both domestically and internationally.

And the first step in that, I think, is to restore some mechanisms for honest debate, because the problem with the Iraq war was the debate was dishonest. The problem with our foreign policy right now is that we have posed the problem as either we’re belligerent and the military is the only solution to any national security threats that we have; or, conversely, that we have this vague multilateralism, kum ba yah approach-- at least, that’s how it’s characterized in the press and in our politics. And what we have to do is to say those choices are inadequate.

And we have to return to the kind of serious policy discussions that characterize, for example, after World War II, when Acheson and Marshall and Truman sat down and said, “What are our options?” given a threat that, by all accounts, I think, historically, one would argue was far more dangerous than the threats that we face now from terrorism. I mean, we had nuclear bombs pointed at every major city in the United States.

And yet we were able to negotiate that, because there was not only among policy-makers a sense of seriousness and honesty about the nature of the threat, how we were going to approach it, and so forth, but also among the population, at least in the early years.

I write about it in the book that the Marshall Plan involved an enormous PR campaign to explain to people why it made sense for us to invest in Europe, and why it made sense for us to build the kinds of alliances that ultimately shaped NATO and allowed us to lock in Japan as a long-term ally in Asia.

That kind of a conversation, I think, is one that can’t just be left to the wise men in Washington but has to be something that the population as a whole is engaged in.

HERBERT: Now the book-- and I have to say, it really is a terrific book. Usually, if I’m doing interviews--

OBAMA: He’s got to say that.

[laughter]

HERBERT: Now, usually, you kind of go out of your way not to look like you’re trying to promote the book, but this really is an excellent book. And you’ve titled it The Audacity of Hope. But, you know, we’re in a pretty tough environment right now. We’ve got this war that we just talked about, which is going badly.

You’ve mentioned the stock market. Well, the Dow is at record highs, but a lot of working people are feeling economically insecure, the poor have been literally left behind, and Americans are worried about things like terror and the spread of nuclear weapons. We’ve got tragic situations like Darfur.

A lot of people are really depressed. You seem very optimistic. You’ve titled your book The Audacity of Hope. Tell us why we should be hopeful. Make the case for hope right now.

OBAMA: Well, first of all, where I got the title from, some of you remember I actually used the line in the speech that I gave here in Boston. But I actually pilfered it from my pastor. I’m making this confession publicly.

[laughter]

He gave a sermon… My pastor’s name is Jeremiah Wright, he’s the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ on the south side of Chicago. And he gave a sermon about 18 years ago. I was a young community organizer.

And the south side of Chicago-- this particular region is the far south side of Chicago-- had been devastated because steel plants had shut down. This was right when the rust belt was rolling through the Midwest. And there had been massive layoffs, and the communities had been devastated. People were out of work, there was a lot of racial conflict and racial turnover in the area, crime was on the increase, usual maladies facing inner-city schools.

And he delivers this sermon that had a very simple premise. He said, “You know, it’s actually sometimes easier to be cynical. It’s easier to feel hopeless. It doesn’t require much from each of us. What’s audacious, what requires risk, is to be hopeful, to believe that despite what we see around us, what is, there is this other thing that’s possible, what could be.”

And that idea stuck with me and, I think, characterized what not only I’ve ended up finding most valuable in my faith, but also, I think, described an aspect of the American character that’s pretty fundamental. I mean, there’s a reason why, in that speech, I talked about slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; or immigrants coming from distant shores, not really knowing what it was that they were going to find when they arrived in America, but believing somehow across that ocean, there’s something else.

And as rough as our history has been, somehow, we’ve continued to have that stubborn optimism that things can be better. And as a consequence of that, the trajectory of this nation, I think, has been in favor of justice and freedom and equity.

As bad as things are now, they were worse at many times in our history, certainly worse for people who looked like you and me, worse for the women in this audience, worse for poor people before there was any safety in that. And in each juncture, there were a bunch of people who decided, “You know what? It’s possible for us to come together and solve these problems.”

And so the basic theme of the book is that most of the challenges we face-- healthcare, education, the problems we face in terms of globalization, foreign policy, dilemmas as a consequence of rogue states and nuclear proliferation and terrorism-- none of these problems are easy. All of them, though, are amenable to good decision-making, common sense, practicality and improvement. And if we can focus our politics around what our common values are and our common ideals are, then it’s possible for us to make progress, although progress will always be imperfect.

HERBERT: Now one of the things you stress in the book-- it’s a theme throughout-- is what you feel is the need to reach out to people who hold opposing views to your own, to try and understand what the other side is talking about, even if you don’t agree with it, to reach across the aisle, Democrats, Republicans, etc.

But that’s not what I want to ask you about right now. I want you to put your partisan hat on. And we’re very close to the election, and why is it—looking from the perspective of the American people, your constituents-- why is it important, in your view, for Democrats to do well in the upcoming election?

OBAMA: Well, I actually do talk about this in the book. And, by the way, I confess in the book that although-- this book is not balanced. I’m a Democrat, so some people are going to read it, and they say, “Well, that’s not entirely fair, and he mischaracterizes this or that.”

You know, I strive to be fair, but I still have a perspective. And what I believe has happened over the last six, eight, ten years is that the Republican Party has become captive. Now keep in mind, I come from the Land of Lincoln, so I don’t think that any political party in our history has had a monopoly on wisdom or truth.

But over the last ten years, at least, what you’ve seen is the Republican Party has become captive to a narrow band of highly ideological absolutists, folks who see problems through preconceived notions about how the world should work, as opposed to how it actually does work.

And so, in the economy, we’ve had the victory of a radical laissez-faire that has resulted, essentially, in the working people you discussed earlier being entirely on their own. And each and every decision that’s made, whether it’s privatizing Social Security, or setting up private health savings accounts, or diminishing regulation, or essentially eliminating anti-trusts, or not enforcing civil rights laws, in each instance, the basic premise is, “You know what? Anything goes.” And folks will sort it out in some fashion, but the government does not have a role to play in the economy, and that’s defined in a very absolute way.

With respect to foreign policy, the view is, “We don’t need anybody else.” And any encroachment or restraints on our actions as a nation are absolutely unacceptable. Because we are the most powerful nation on earth, we should be able to dictate our will in very absolute terms.

In terms of how we think about culture and social issues, we’ve seen the rise of people who believe that if you do not subscribe to a particular interpretation of a particular religion, then you are suspect, and you are potentially immoral. And that I don’t think characterizes the majority of Republicans in the country. And I would argue that it doesn’t characterize the best of the Republican Party. But those are the folks who have been driving the agenda over the last ten years.

And so there has always been a contrary set of ideas that, at least since FDR, have been at the core of the Democratic Party, and that says, “No, you are not on your own. Yes, we value individual initiative and self-reliance and the freedom of the market place. But we also affirm that we have some mutual obligations toward each other, that we have some fellow feelings, some sort of solidarity, some belief in community. And that has to express itself, not just in our churches or mosques or synagogues, not just in our families or our neighborhoods or our ethnic enclaves, it has to express itself through our government and through our notions of citizenship.

Now the Democrats haven’t always been true to that ideal, and oftentimes we deserve criticism for betraying that ideal. But that idea, I think, continues to be what holds together the Democratic Party. And so, at this stage, when we look at the fact that 46 million people don’t have health insurance, or we look at the fact that we don’t have an energy policy that would not only help our economy but also strengthen our national security and deal with our environment, or we look at an education system that continues to fail large numbers of children so that they have no way of accessing the global economy, then I think it’s clear that things have swung out of balance.

And the last point I’d make on this, that’s why the Democrats, I think, should win. The reason I think Democrats will win is because, as I’ve traveled around the country, what I’m struck by is a sense of soberness and seriousness among people right now. People want substantive responses to the challenges that we face.

And I know that this is a nonpartisan event, but I will go ahead and say, since you asked the question--

[laughter]

I think that the election here in Massachusetts for Governor is a prime example, where my good buddy, Deval Patrick, has presented an agenda.

And the reason people are responding to that agenda and not responding to the usual negative ads that have just been, you know, plastered all over television screens in Massachusetts, is because people want to know what are you going to do about these problems-- and you’re seeing that all across the country. And that, I think, is a terrific turn of events.

Now it forces then Democrats to actually have an affirmative agenda. It’s not going to be sufficient simply to say, “We’re not Bush.” We can’t try to flip the script and simply say, “All right, as bad as they are, you should vote for us,” because that means the next election cycle, they’re going to take it out on Democrats.

HERBERT: Well the election’s close. Is that agenda in place?

OBAMA: Well, I think the other side’s so bad right now that we’re going to get through the next three weeks. But the--

[applause]

But-- So I was referring to ’08--

[laughter]

HERBERT: We’ll get to that.

OBAMA: --Where I think if Democrats don’t show some leadership and affirmative set of solutions to some of these challenges, even if we can’t get all of those solutions passed, then I think we’ll be punished.

You know, people want serious answers to these problems. And if you’re going to talk about energy, for example… You know, the easiest thing in the world is to look at Exxon Mobile’s profits last quarter and say, these folks are making 36 billion dollars in one quarter, and the CEO’s making 500 million dollars, and gas prices are high, and we’re getting gouged. That may be sufficient, because it does describe the degree to which the powerful have made out like bandits over the last several years.

That may be sufficient to get us through this election, but, after the election, people then are going to say, “Okay smart guy, what are we going to do about energy?” And at that point, Democrats are going to have to say, “Okay, we’ve got to sift through the range of proposals that are out there, from, you know, your fellow columnist is Tom Friedman, who’s been pushing, you know, a higher gas tax; to, you know, what can we do to develop cellulosic ethanol in the way that Brazil has done; to expanding, you know, bio-diesel and other sources of alternative fuels; to reducing consumption by, you know, retrofitting buildings and industry.”

We’ve got to make a series of proposals that actually make sense. And I think if we do, then the American people are going to stand up and say keep going. And they will understand, and we can be honest with them, that there’s no panaceas. I mean, most of the challenges that we face, there’s no silver bullet.

I have a lot of town hall meetings in Illinois. And one of the favorite topics that I bring up is the issue of the federal budget, because typically, what will happen is, it will be a crowd. Sometimes we get town hall meetings with 2,000 people, and I’ll get one person who’s saying, you know, “We need health care-- or mental health to be included in health care coverage.” Another person will say, you know, “No Child Left Behind left the money behind. And we need more money for schools.” And somebody else will say, you know, “The bridge needs to be repaired,” and so forth and so on.

And then at some point, somebody will say, you know, “Why are you supporting the death tax?” And then at that point, I will say, “Okay, look. A basic principle to the federal budget, there’s no free lunch. There’s no free lunch.

“You know, if you want to eliminate the estate tax, that will cost us one trillion dollars. It affects .5% of the population. If we completely eliminate it, it costs one trillion dollars. We’ve got three ways of dealing with it, that one trillion dollars. We can make it up by raising taxes on the other 99.5%, we can borrow a trillion dollars from China and South Korea and Mexico, or we can reduce services by a trillion dollars. Those are our choices.”

And I think when you describe those choices to the American people in an honest, straight-forward way, then I’m your representative. You tell me what is going to reflect our borrows, because we can’t… You know, there’s not a trillion dollars worth of waste in the federal budget.

Over 90% of the federal budget goes to Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and payments on the national debt. And about 10% is left over for everything else. We’d have to eliminate everything else, and we would still have to make further cuts. Is that reflective of your values and your ideals?

And most of the time, I don’t care whether it’s a Repub-- You know, I’ll have these town hall meetings in all Republican, red-state areas of Illinois, and people will say, “No, that’s not what we believe.”

HERBERT: The first time I met you, you were running for Senate. You were a State Senator in Illinois, and you were not well-known outside the state of Illinois. And you--

OBAMA: I wasn’t well-known inside the state.

[laughter]

Although, I guess, by the time we met, I’d won the primary, so some folks in the state knew me.

HERBERT: Well, on my ride over here in a cab in the rain this evening, a fellow pulled up here, and he said, “Oh, what’s going on at the forum?” And I said, “Senator Barack Obama will be speaking.” And he just said, “Oh, our next President,” just like that.

[laughter]

[applause]

OBAMA: You know, if the election took place among cab drivers--

[laughter]

I think I would have it. About half of them are from Africa, first of all, so they all have funny names, and so, you know, I’d do well.

[laughter]

HERBERT: He’s ready to work for you. But, you know, I watched you on Oprah the other day. You’re on the cover of Time magazine, you’re in New York magazine, you were on Larry King last night; I checked into the hotel and turned on the television, and you’re on Larry King. You’re everywhere.

OBAMA: Yeah, it’s a bit much, isn’t it?

[laughter]

HERBERT: That’s for you to say.

OBAMA: That’s what my wife says, anyway. “I am fed up with reading about you.”

[laughter]

HERBERT: In any event, the wide-spread assumption is that at some point, you will run for President. So my question is, when you think about yourself and the Presidency, what is it that runs through your mind? What kind of thoughts do you have about that?

OBAMA: Well all the attention is flattering. And as I’ve said before, if you go into public service, then you want to have influence. Otherwise you wouldn’t do it. I mean, I suppose there’s the motiva-- just pure vanity can force you into politics. I have found, and I think this is something… You know, as you get older, you discover certain things about yourself that you don’t like so much. But every once in a while, you discover some things about yourself that you do like. And one of the things I’ve discovered that I’m pleased with is that I actually find the attention, and seeing my name in the papers, and the stuff that feeds your ego less satisfying as time goes on.

So the reason you go into politics or any form of public services is, hopefully, because you’re going to have influence, you’re going to create some sort of change out there. And obviously the President has the most influence, and so I think it would be disingenuous for me to say– or, for that matter, let me tell you, any of the other 99 Senators who are the United States Senate, or any Governor across the country– to say at some point they don’t think about what it would be like if you had that platform, that unique office.

What I then also think is that that office is so different from any other office on the planet, that you have to understand that if you seek that office, you have to be prepared to give your life to it– I said this on Charlie Rose last night–

HERBERT: Charlie Rose? I missed that one.

[laughter]

OBAMA: But in case there were folks who were watching, I didn’t want them to think that I didn’t– you know– I acknowledge I’m repeating myself here. But essentially the bargain that any President, I think, strikes with the American people is you give me this office, and in turn, my fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure is gone. I am giving myself to you.

And the American people should have no patience for whatever is going through your head, because you’ve got a job to do. And so how I think about it is that you don’t make that decision unless you are prepared to make that sacrifice, that trade-off, that bargain.

And I think that what’s difficult and important for somebody like myself, who has a wonderful forbearing wife and two gorgeous young children, is that they end up having to make some of those sacrifices with you. And that’s a profound decision that you don’t make lightly. You know, I think those who make mistakes, I suspect, in the President’s office, make it because they haven’t fully thought through the dimensions of that choice.

HERBERT: Can you imagine yourself at some point making that kind of a commitment?

OBAMA: Sure.

[applause]

OBAMA: I didn’t say I had, I just said I could imagine myself doing it.

HERBERT: Have you ruled out running in 2008?

[laughter]

OBAMA: At this point, and I’m not trying to be coy here, at this point, I really am focused on these next three weeks, because I’m too tired, and my mind is filled up with too many things. I mean, I literally finished this book, finished session, went on the roads trying to campaign for folks.

HERBERT: So you have not ruled it out?

OBAMA: The–

[laughter]

OBAMA: We’ll leave it there, you know. That was his comment, not mine.

[applause]

HERBERT: All right, we’ll see what you guys have come up with. Interesting question. In the upcoming election and the 2008 election, how should we survive the stumbling blocks of wedge issues, such as gay marriage and abortion that so often have prevented the success of progressive candidates?

OBAMA: Well, point number one, those issues seem to have less traction in this election than they did in the election two years ago and the election two years before that, and I think that’s part of the seriousness that I talked about. It’s not that people don’t care about those issues any more, it’s just that there are other things that they seem to care more about in this cycle. And that, I think, is a healthy thing.

But I also think that it’s important for Democrats or progressives of any stripe to engage in a conversation, to be in the space where a lot of these issues percolate. And one of those places is the church or the synagogue or the mosque, in places of worship and in various religious venues.

I have an entire chapter devoted to faith, and the basic argument I make is that we who consider ourselves progressive, I think, for at least a generation, have felt uncomfortable talking about religion, in part for fear of appearing intolerant. And as a consequence, we’ve sort of emptied the space, and it’s been filled by the Pat Robertsons and the James Falwells. And they’re pervasive on Christian radio and Christian television, and they’re in church, and they’re producing pamphlets and books and so forth. And there’s no answer to their definition of what religion could be in our lives, and so my view is that we’ve got to get in there and have an argument. We’ve got to– Let’s take, you know, the issue of gay marriage. You know, a lot of pastors, those who are literalists, who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, will cite, you know, a passage in Romans that says, “Homosexuality is an abomination”-- you know, it doesn’t say it that way, but it is in the Bible, there are a couple of passages there-- and just start going hog wild on it. And nobody’s there to say, “Well, is that obscure passage in Romans more important than Sermon on the Mount, or the entire story of how Jesus behaved towards all people?” And I think that’s an argument progressives can win, and I think that…

So just to finish up the point in terms of how we deal with these so-called wedge issues, we don’t deal with it on Election Day. We deal with it between elections. You know, if you go into rural Illinois– and this is true all throughout the South– there is a news station, and there are eight Christian radio stations, and maybe a country station. And if that’s all folks are hearing, that’s the only source of information for 24 months or 22 months.

And then the last two months, we’re running some ads on CNN, we lose that argument. And so I think it’s important for us to engage.

Now we have to be true to certain principles in how we engage, so I believe in separation between church and state. And as I point out in the book, historically, that’s not to protect just the state, that’s to protect the church.

And the biggest advocates of church and state separation weren’t just Jefferson and Madison, they were the Baptists, the forbearers of today’s evangelicals, because, you know, they were worried that the Congregationalists and, you know, essentially the Anglican Church, which

was dominant, would impose their views. And they said, “No, no, no. We want to worship the way we want.”.

So we need to retain that principle, and we need to retain the notion that if we’re going to talk about faith, we shouldn’t say that people leave their faith at the door, that’s not possible. Martin Luther King didn’t every time he started marching on Washington suddenly say, “Okay, I’m not a preacher any more.”

But what you do have to insist on in a pluralistic democracy, if you want somebody to listen to you, is to translate whatever religiously-motivated ideals that you have into a language that is accessible to all people, some sort of universal language, a set of ethics or principles, moral ideas, that is subject to reason and subject to argument. And you can’t close the conversation up by simply saying, “God told me so.”

HERBERT: To what extent do you think that a new Democratic majority will have to occupy itself with repair work, with systematic reversal of a long list of policies of the recent Republican majority, without enough funds to work with?

OBAMA: I think that we have to be very clear and honest with the American people about the constraints that we’re under right now. As I said, in terms of foreign policy, you know, just because the Democrats take over, Kim Jong Ill is still going to be in North Korea, and there’s no easy solution to that problem. Iran is developing nuclear weapons, there are no easy solutions to that problem. And Iraq is a mess. Changes in tone from an administration could make an enormous difference.

It’s hard for Congress to entirely force that tone. Domestically, our budget is shot. And even if we begin a phase-down of troops, we’re still looking at tens of billions of dollars going to Iraq over the next several years, even if we phase down our occupation there.

And so we’re not going to have a lot of pleasant choices over the next couple of years. I think the American people understand that, as long as we are leveling with them and not trying to over promise in terms of what can be accomplished.

HERBERT: And the final question, I think, for the evening, is give us a sense of what it’s like; You went to the Senate at the beginning of last year. Give us a sense of what it’s like to be a United States Senator. What was it that you encountered that was surprising when you got to Washington? What was it that was disappointing? And what might have been particularly rewarding?

OBAMA: Well, I open up the book by talking about walking into the Senate Chamber, and I have the same feeling each time I walk in. Everybody has these little mahogany desks. They’re like third-grade desks– you can’t really work on them.

[laughter]

OBAMA: But they’re very pretty. And some of them date back to, you know, 1819. Daniel Webster’s desk is still in the floor of the Senate. And if you open up the drawer, the previous occupants of each desk have carved their names in their own hand, inside the desk, so it’s sort of an early form of graffiti. I don’t know who started it; It’s like, you know, “Webster was here.”

[laughter]

OBAMA: But so the tradition began. And so I pulled open my desk and, you know, I’ll see names like Taft and Simon and Wellstone and Kennedy– Robert. And you realize that you’re connected to this amazing history, that you’re part of this experiment that’s been going on for a couple of centuries, that in no way was guaranteed to succeed.

And, you know, you can imagine, sort of, the debates that were taking place around secession and abolition and through the wars, and then the filibustering of the civil rights movement, and decisions about war and peace. And to be part of that conversation– that’s a continuous conversation– from the days of the Founding Fathers is powerful. So that’s on the plus-side.

The disappointment is that most of the time, that chamber is empty except for one or two people who are talking. And I think a lot of folks here are probably aware of the fact that when you hear Senators speaking on the floor of the Senate, they are almost always speaking to an empty room, except to the C-SPAN camera. And they may be turning and pretending like they’re giving this great oration, but it’s all a play, an act. The structure of the Senate… Everybody’s so busy, and there are committees, and the demands of the press, and fund-raising, and so forth.

And the way the rules are structured are such where it’s almost never the case that all 100 Senators are on the floor listening to a debate.

And when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, every Senator had to be on the floor on every bill. And the sponsor would stand up and present it, and anybody could ask questions and force that sponsor to defend their views, and so you’d actually have a sense of deliberation. Now, nine out of ten times, you know, the votes were already determined, and they’d go along party lines often times.

But one out of ten times, you’d see an actual debate take places, and democracy, as one envisions it, would occur. And that almost never happens in the floor of the Senate. What you have is passing press statements, essentially, that are never joined. And that, I think, is the disappointment. And what was the last one?

HERBERT: Well, I’ll ask you about just one related item, and that has to do with fund-raising, which apparently is relentless. And I don’t think many Americans really understand how that works and what the implications of begging for money all the time are. So if you would just talk a little bit about fund-raising…

OBAMA: You pick up the phone, and you call people, and you beg them for money.

[laughter]

HERBERT: But you can’t do it–

OBAMA: But you can’t do it on the floor of the Senate.

HERBERT: So what happens?

OBAMA: So people run off to the Democratic Senate Committee Office or the Republican Committee Office, which are close to the Senate, and they beg for money. And the consequences are–

HERBERT: And how frequently? How often?

OBAMA: Well, you know, it’s hard… Chuck Schumer’s doing it a lot right now, you know, because he’s the head of the DSCC. It’s hard to say. I don’t have a typical situation. One of the virtues of celebrity is my fundraising capacity is higher, just because I get a lot of attention. And so, it’s not entirely fair, but I don’t have to go and just work the phones now, the way I had to do when I was an unknown candidate, for example. But folks, if they’re up, they spend a lot of time doing it. So that, obviously, distorts not… And I write about this in the book.

It’s rare… Obviously we’re seeing it in the press, where people just take, you know, bags of money and trade votes. I mean, that happens, but the corruption is more subtle. It has to do with the fact that special interests in Washington not only are making contributions, but they have the money to hire lobbyists, who are there all the time tracking every piece of legislation for months. And everything moves very slowly.

And that’s really where they exert the most influence, right? It’s the business interest that has a provision in some obscure provision in the tax code that will make them a billion dollars, and that they care deeply about, and nobody else cares that much about or really understands. And that can make an enormous difference.

I think one last thing you asked, and that was, what gives me the most satisfaction? And as I said, the thing that gives me the most satisfaction is when somehow I’ve delivered something useful to the people I represent.

And, you know, it can be, you know, some veteran’s working through red tape at the VA, and we get suddenly a $60,000 check for back disability payments that he hasn’t gotten.

Or it can be a modest measure that I just passed that the President signed to create a website, so that everybody can search, like a Google search, what’s happening with their money, to create transparency. Sometimes you fail, but there’s still satisfaction.

One of the things I was most proud of this last session was the anti-terrorist detention bill that was going to be, you know, the administration’s closing argument, essentially, going into the fall election. And at the time that that started, the conventional wisdom was that you’d only get maybe eight, ten folks voting against it. And for me to be able to stand up and caucus two or three consecutive weeks and say, “How can we junk habeas corpus?”– the basic principle of our country, that if the government rounds you up, that you have the opportunity to answer the charges against you, and say, “Hey, you’ve got the wrong guy,” or “It didn’t happen this way.”

And at the end of the vote, there were 35 votes against it, which may not sound like much, but for me indicated a sense that the debate was shifting a little bit. That provides me great satisfaction.

HERBERT: We are going to wrap it up. I’m going to ask everyone if they could remain in their seats for a little while, while the Senator goes off the stage, and then he’ll be back there signing some books.

I saw you suggest to Oprah that if you run for President, you might announce it on her television show. I don’t have a television show–

[laughter]

OBAMA: He’s going to announce it on his column.

HERBERT: A telephone call, a little bit of a heads up–

[laughter]

[applause]

HERBERT: Thank you so much.

OBAMA: Thank you also.

[applause]

OBAMA: Thank you.

HERBERT: Thank you very much.

OBAMA: Thank you.

President Trump: Thank you very much, everybody. We appreciate you being here. We've had a great meeting. We have a great relationship. The Emir is a fantastic man, respected all over the world, prime minister likewise and, but we have to go the Emir first. Do you agree Mr. Prime Minister?
Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani: [Laughs] Of course.
Trump: [Laughter] First him. But highly respected people. Great people. And we worked very well together. We have our deal done with Iran and, uh, it should be successful. It goes to a second stage which I think will be actually easier. I didn't want to attack them last week but we had no choice and we did it twice actually.
We were doing it a third time and, uh, we were able to not have to do that. But we have a deal that's a fair deal. It's a good deal. Um, we are not investing any money in Iran, by the way. That rumor got out there yesterday, it was ridiculous. Uh, we have the right to go in someday and do if I want to do something or somebody wants to do something, but, uh, we are not investing any money.
We have no obligation to invest any money in Iran. Uh, working with Qatar and the people of Qatar, uh, was really a pleasure. They are, they were tough, they were strong. You know, they are the closest to Iran physically so with other countries, I noticed I had to travel about 45 minutes to get there. With you, you could walk right across the border.
So you were in a more dangerous position. But I just, I do have to say you, uh, you fought and you helped us and with great bravery. So I just want to compliment you on that and, uh, you'll always be my friend.
Al Thani: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Pres- -- President. It's always a pleasure, uh, seeing you. I wanna thank you for your leadership. And this is very, very important and critical time in the Middle East. And I think as you mentioned, Mr. President, this is a very important deal. There's still a lot of work to be done, but I think, you know, uh, with this momentum, if we continue like that, Mr. President, I think we can achieve and do great in the, in the, in the region.
So it's gonna be very important for the region, very important also for Iran as well. So, uh, we are here to help whenever, you know, um friends ask us to help, we're always here, uh, to help. Of course, also our bilateral relationship, Mr. President, since your historic visit in Doha last year, our, uh, trade partnership is gonna reach $1.2 trillion.
Trump: Right.
Al Thani: And this is huge and we have a lot of great investments that we're very proud of as well in the US and also American companies, uh, investing in Qatar. So overall, you know, um, we are very, very proud and very, uh, happy about this relationship and, you know, I also, uh, once again, thank you very much for your leadership.
Al Thani: I think it was a very critical time, but I think you did, you took the right decision. Thank you.
Trump: Thank you too.
Al Thani: Thank you.
Trump: Uh, Qatar is going to be investing much more than $1 trillion in the United States. We have over 18, it's going to be 19.4 or so when the new figures are out, but, you know, we set a record. There's never been anything like it. No country in history has had that kind of investment. We'll be having, uh, almost 19.1, $19.2 trillion invested in the United States.
The record was three 10 years ago from another country when it was hot, but we have the hottest country in the world right now. But Qatar's been, uh, a great investor. We, we really, uh, rekindled ourselves when I met with you last year, a year ago, probably 13, 13, 14 months. That was a good trip. And, uh --
Al Thani: I think it was May, last May I think.
Trump: Yeah, last May?
Al Thani: Yeah.
Trump: That was, uh, that was a great trip and we had, we established. We- -- we've been friends for a long time. We've known each other for a long time, but Qatar is investing tremendous amounts of money in our country and we appreciate that. Uh, our country's, uh, doing, we're building more factories, AI, we're leading AI by a lot.
We're building automobile factories. We're building more than we've ever built in the history of our country. Never, no country is ever doing, what we're doing right now, no country has ever been able to do, and those factories will be opening over the next year, year and a half. Some are already open very soon.
Uh, the pharmaceutical companies come, companies are coming back. The car companies are coming back from Germany, from Japan, from so many other places, Mexico and Canada. They're all coming back. We lost them foolishly years ago because we had presidents that didn't really know what they were doing. They should have never lost, but they're all coming back in beautiful brand new gleaming factories.
In fact, there are a couple of big old plants. And I said, "Are you going to use that plant?" And they said, "No, we're building brand new. They're knocking it down. Everything's built brand new, beautiful jobs. And, uh, the auto business, we're gonna bring back probably, you know, we lost 57% of our automobile business.
I think we're going to bring, bring it mostly back. And for chips, uh, we were the king of chips, and then it got stolen from us. We were, we went from being the king to having basically no chip business. The CHIPS Act that was done by, uh, Biden, was a disaster. Just a stupid thing to do. You handed billions and billions of dollars to people, and then they didn't build a factory.
But we have a different system. We have a system that if they don't build, they get paid tariffs. They have to pay tariffs of upwards of 200%. They don't have to pay anything for a little while, but if they don't get their plant built, then we can have, we would have, I think, 50% of the chip industry by the time I leave office.
So maybe more. Uh, they're building mostly coming out of Taiwan, but they're building and a lot of them for whatever reason in Arizona. Arizona, Texas. But we'll have 50%, maybe more than that of the chip industry. We're gonna have, uh, we'll be making almost all of our pharmaceuticals, and likewise that, uh, if they don't build, they'll have 150 to 200% tariff to pay.
If they do build, they have no tariff to pay. So our country has never done anything like this. And just, I wanna mention Iran. Uh, we appreciate the relationship we've had over the short period of time with Iran. Uh, the primary thing, it's, you know, we can talk about the Iran deal all day long. We're not investing any money.
We have the right to if we want, but we're not investing any money. We didn't pay for it like Obama did. He paid billions of dollars. He paid 1.7 billion from an airplane all green cash. It was crazy. I watched that. I, I couldn't believe it. But the one thing that's happening that's of note, frankly, the only thing that really matters to me is Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.
And it says it loud and clear. They're not gonna develop it. They're not gonna buy it. They're not going to do anything with it. And if they do, they suffer unbelievable consequences. Uh, not just a little bit like, uh, I won't even tell you the consequences, but the consequences are the ultimate consequences.
And with that being said, I hope we have a very good relationship. But the biggest thing is they will not have a nuclear weapon, and that's the reason I got in, and that's the reason I agreed to sign that we originally had. Marco was, uh, with me, and they originally wrote that we will not develop a nuclear weapon.
I said, "No, no. You're not gonna develop it. You're not going to buy either." So we have, uh, that took another couple of days of time. Everything was, it's, uh, ridiculous, but so we, uh, have, they will not develop, purchase, buy, or any other thing. They're not going to acquire a nuclear weapon. If they do, all hell will rein down on that, and they're not gonna do that.
I, you know. Now you talk about regime change. I never cared about regime change. It's never a part, but I guess you have regime change because you know better than anybody. The first group, they're all dead. The second group, they're dead. A part of the third group is gone, and we're dealing with people that I think are very rational people.
I mean, they were nice to deal with. They were strong people, smart people. I think actually they're smarter than the first and second group, but they're not radicalized, and they're, you know, looking to help their country. So, uh, again, I, I don't believe the regime changed. You know, I've watched regime changes for years that they never work.
It has to just happen. I can tell you this is a country where the Emir is so respected, and the prime minister is so respected by the people, and that's the way a country should run, should run out of respect, not a fear. Uh, as you know, at least 42,000 protestors were killed in Iran, killed. They were protesting.
The wrestler, they had the big event at the White House the other day, the UFC, and they were all talking about he was a great fighter, and he was hung with his two friends because he spoke something about their regime. Uh, it's tough stuff. So, uh, we're very happy that we're involved. We're very, very impressed with Qatar and the way they've handled things, because they were really on the line.
They were in the front line. They were being shot at just about as much as anybody, but you were a lot closer, because you were right there. Literally, I could walk in a minute. Every, every other place I have to take a plane, but I can walk. So they were really on the line, and I just want to comment that, uh, and you should b- -- I just want to really, uh, congratulate you on bravery.
I don't know if you get congratulated for bravery, 'cause bravery is something you either have or you don't, and you never know until you test it. But --
Al Thani: Right.
Trump: -- you were tested.
Al Thani: Yeah.
Trump: And you had great bravery. Thank you very much.
Al Thani: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Really appreciate it.
Question: Are you going to have a separate meeting with President Zelensky, and what would a --
Trump: I had one.
Question: What would a Ukraine deal look like?
Trump: Well, we have one, but, uh, we had a good meeting. I'm meeting him later on today. We had –
Question: [Inaudible]
Trump: -- a very good meeting. Look, Russia should make a deal. Russia's lost tremendous amounts of people, and so has Ukraine. Last month they lost 35,000 soldiers between the two of them. Think of that. This is on a monthly basis, they averaged 25,000 people. Mostly soldiers, young, young, beautiful people. And it's crazy what's going on there.
But, uh, we had a meeting, and we'll see how, I spoke with President Putin on Sunday. And it's sort of the same thing. I mean, they just keep going, fighting, losing soldiers. They lose so many soldiers. This is, not since World War II has anything like this happened. I settled eight wars. This was the one I thought was going to be the easiest settled.
Question: Yeah.
Trump: They just, there's a, a lot of dislike between the two leaders, but, uh, yeah, I'm meeting with him again later on today.
Question: And are you going to have a special focus on Ukraine --
Trump: Well, we're going to look. Now we focused on, we were focused on Iran. It's going to be in the back, in the rearview mirror, but we'll be, I just, look, we have nothing to do with it. We sell weapons to them. We don't even give them. Obama gave them $350 billion worth of we- -- gave, which was crazy. The European Union pays us full price for weapons, but it's not that.
It's that this, it has no impact on us, other than we sell weapons. We're thousands of miles away. But the only reason I'm in, I, I don't like to see 25,000 young people die every month. Every month, 25,000 people die. Young people, they're just starting their life. They go to this front, and they get blown up, and Ukraine is losing a lot of people too.
I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. So, uh, yeah, I- -- I'm going to do whatever I can.
Note: [Crosstalk]
Question: Mr. President, um, if the Iranian regime continues to kill their own people, will you still move ahead with this deal?
Trump: If they refuse to what with their people?
Question: If they continue to kill their own people, the Iranian regime --
Trump: Well, we're talking, we talk to them about it --
Question: And [Inaudible]
Trump: -- and we see, I will say, the majority of that took place during the first and second regimes, much more so than now. It was, it was --
Question: The Iranians [Inaudible]
Trump: -- it was much, it was much more --
Question: #NAME?
Trump: -- severe, but it's a terrible thing. Yeah, do you have a question?
Question: Yes, Mr. President. Um, what are the, this is for both you and the Emir. What are the economic opportunities?
Trump: Well, I think they'd be good. I mean, I can tell you from our standpoint, we have a lot of opportunities all over the world. But the Emir lives right next door, and I think, you know, they have a lot of oil. Uh, I, I think they'll be good. First they're gonna have to prove themselves, I think, before any of us go in there.
But, uh, I could s- -- I hope they do well. I hope they do well. Look, one thing, whether they do well or poorly, they can't have a nuclear weapon. That's a big thing. If they had a nuclear weapon, they would've blown up Israel, they would've blown up the Middle East, and they probably would've taken a shot at us. We would've gotten them first, I think, but they would have done tremendous damage.
Had we not canceled the Obam- -- Obama nuclear deal, the JCPOA, you would've had them having a nuclear weapon five years ago. You know, that expired. That was a road to a nuclear weapon. It was the dumbest deal I've ever seen, other than NAFTA. NAFTA maybe was even dumber. But just in terms of a bad deal for us, uh, paid them billions and billions of dollars, we paid nothing.
They paid them billions of dollars and it was, it was a disaster. I terminated that on my first term. Had I not terminated, and, and we hit them hard. We terminated it. My second term, we sent in the B2 bombers and we terminated their, I call it the nuclear dust, they're enriched material, right?
Uh, and totally effectively. I remember when CNN, which is fake news, I don't know, you probably use them, but CNN said, "Well, maybe it wasn't that effective." So the Atomic Energy just reported that it was one of the most devastating bombings that they've ever seen. The whole mountain collapsed on top of it. And frankly, to go get a we- -- we're going to go get it, but to go get it is a big deal because, uh, they say only China and us have the equipment where you can even get it. The whole mountain has collapsed on top.
We have cameras on it. You could make the case, why are you even bothering? 'Cause it's not really valuable, it's, you know, it's probably half a million dollars worth. It's not very valuable soil but I think psychologically we want to get it.
Al Thani: Can I just, can I just, uh, can I just answer, you asked that. I think the last couple of months or weeks, I think that wasn't our, we were not interested in, you know, what are the opportunities, economical opportunities in Iran. Our interest, both of us was to, first of all, to find a deal to stop this war.
This is our main, uh, target, but looking at the economy and the opportunity, I'm sure they're going to be huge opportunities and, you know, as long as I said, this is a very important momentum to keep, uh, working like that, to reach let's say the final deal. After that, Iran will be, you know, of course, uh, open for, uh, any kind of investment and I'm sure there are going to be huge opportunities.
But to be honest, you know, we never thought of a, you know, our target, you know, is to trying to find a deal.
Trump: Well, they're going to need something because we blew them up and, you know, you could make the case, I used to make the case that like a week ago I said, and now it's different, we have an agreement, but if you, if we left, we did a great job. If we just left, we did a great job because it'll take them 15, 20 years maybe to rebuild.
And we were going to do a much bigger job if the agreement wasn't signed, we would have taken it to a level. But, and if, if we did that, they would never, ever, I believe, be able to rebuild. Too much.
Question: Mr. President, what are the expectations for Israel? Can this deal survive if Israel attacks Lebanon?
Trump: It can and, you know, I consider that the minor war, Iran's a big one, but we have that little pinprick out there that constantly rears its head, and that's Hezbollah. And you know, I was very responsible for Syria and the man that's running Syria now is a person that I put there, along with President Erdogan and some others.
He's done an amazing job of pulling it together. He's not a boy scout, but he's done an amazing job of pu- -- pulling it together and he is very good with Hezbollah. Does not like them, and I'll tell you what, Israel's fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. And you don't have to knock down an apartment house every time you're looking for somebody because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses and they're not all Hezbollah, that I can tell you.
And I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah. 'Cause to be honest with you, I think they'd do a better job of doing it.
Question: Is it that more important --
Trump: And I didn't like Syria. I didn't like where two hours before we're signing the agreement that there was an attack in Lebanon, in Beirut. It was right in, it wasn't like in the southern side and, you know, it was in Beirut. I did not like that, I let them know that. I didn't like it, not at all, but I think that Syria, you know, he's, he's pulled that country together amazingly quickly.
He's very capable and he's been very good for me. He's protected everything that I've asked for, he's done. And if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, he'll do the job, Syria will do the job.
Question: Are you frustrated with Netanyahu, sir?
Trump: No. We had a great relationship. Uh, we're talking about, uh, some end details. I didn't like that he, uh, did an attack based on a, you know, there's a very minor, uh, little thing with some drones that were released and he ends up doing a very, I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went. Did you see what happened?
That was not, that was a vicious, that was too much. You know, you can do too much also, but we've had a very effective relationship without us. Without the United States, there would be no Israel.
Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did. I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to, uh, be more responsible with respect to Lebanon. Lebanon used to be a great country. It was a country where you had professors, doctors, lawyers. The great intellect was in Lebanon.
Now it's just, it's terrible. I would say of all countries, they've been treated the worst and they can't defend themselves and they have Hezbollah, which is a problem for them. So, uh, no, I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and with Hezbollah. They should have been able to do the job faster.
It, it just goes on forever. And when that happens, it throws a negative light on the big deal and that's the deal with Iran. So, so, uh, when you ask me about Bibi, an unbelievable relationship. But Israel would have been blown up a long time ago had I not gotten involved. Two things I did. I terminated the Iran nuclear deal, Barack Hussein, Obama sold out Israel for Iran.
He went to Iran. He sold them out. How anybody can vote for this guy or the party, the Democrats, I call 'em because they're dumb. They're dumb people. That's number one, how anybody can vote for them. And the second was the B-2 bombers just totally determined. So they had the right there, the JC- -- I watched his politicians.
I watched a Senator Reed that nobody ever heard of the other day. Well, this deal is the same as the deal Barack Obama. No. This deal is a wall to a nuclear weapon. His deal was a road to a nuclear weapon. My deal, they can't have a nuclear. They get blown up. If they have a nuclear weapon, they get blown up. In his deal, they were allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
Uh, if, and in all fairness to Bibi, Bibi, I remember very well. BB came to Washington and begged. He begged Obama not to make that deal. And Obama was on the side of Iran, not Israel. And he made the deal. That deal was a disaster. I terminated that deal and if I didn't terminate, and, and was very tough after the termination.
And if I didn't do that, Howard knows better than anybody. If I didn't terminate that deal, I believe that, uh, they would have, Israel wouldn't be here right now. And the second one was what we did with respect to the, uh, nuclear dust, as I call it, right? We blew it up. The mountain collapsed on top, it was, you can't get to it. And had, they were two weeks away from having a nuclear weapon.
And if they had a nuclear weapon, they would have used it on Israel and I hate to say it and probably the rest of the Middle East because they had all those missiles aimed at the Emir, at Saudi Arabia, at UAE, at Kuwait, at Bahrain. I mean, the biggest surprise in this whole thing, I didn't think you guys would, I thought he would aim at Israel, but he didn't aim in Israel much less.
He aimed at your countries. And actually that was a mistake for them because it brought us, these countries, in particular the five countries, it brought us, I mean, he even hit Turkey once. I never understood it. I ne- -- nobody's going to understand it. That's the problem. They're totally irrational people and those people are now gone.
And I think Iran has rational leadership now.
Question: Is that now --
Trump: But you wouldn't have, if it weren't for the United States of America, with me, because Obama was the opposite, uh, Israel would not exist right now, Israel would have been blown off the face of the earth, 100%. And every smart person in Israel knows that. Okay. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.
Transcript courtesy of Roll Call