text:
Quantum mechanics

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.

Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other quantities of a bound system are restricted to discrete values (quantization); objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave–particle duality); and there are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions (the uncertainty principle).

A

 * So, what is quantum mechanics? Even though it was discovered by physicists, it’s not a physical theory in the same sense as electromagnetism or general relativity. In the usual “hierarchy of sciences” – with biology at the top, then chemistry, then physics, then math – quantum mechanics sits at a level between math and physics that I don’t know a good name for. Basically, quantum mechanics is the operating system that other physical theories run on as application software (with the exception of general relativity, which hasn’t yet been successfully ported to this particular OS). There’s even a word for taking a physical theory and porting it to this OS: “to quantize.”
 * Scott Aaronson, Quantum Computing Since Democritus (2013), Ch. 9 : Quantum

 * We cannot make apparatuses arbitrarily big. ... We might need some extension of quantum mechanics.
 * (122:20 of 1:37:48)

 * Christian Imbert, to support my project and to act as my thesis advisor. He had advised me to go first to Geneva, to discuss my proposal with John Bell. I got an appointment without delay, and I showed up in John's office at CERN, quite nervous. While I explained my planned experiment, he listened silently. Eventually, I stopped talking, and the first question came: "Have you a permanent position?" After my positive answer, he started talking of physics, and he definitely encouraged me, making it clear that he would consider the implementation of variable analysers a fundamental improvement. Remembering this first question reminds me both of his celebrated sense of humour and of the general atmosphere at that time about raising questions on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Quite frequently there was open hostility, and in the best case, irony: "quantum mechanics has been vindicated by such a large amount of work by the smartest theorists and experimentalists; how can you hope to find anything with such a simple scheme, in optics, a science of the 19th century?" In addition to starting the experiment, I had then to develop a line of argument to try to convince the physicists I met (and among them some had to give their opinion about funding my project).
 * Alain Aspect, "Bell's Theorem: The Naive View of an Experimentalist", in Quantum [Un]speakables (2002) edited by Reinhold A. Bertlmann and Anton Zeilinger

 * Quantum mechanics was, and continues to be, revolutionary, primarily because it demands the introduction of radically new concepts to better describe the world. In addition we have argued that conceptual quantum revolutions in turn enable technological quantum revolutions.
 * Alain Aspect, "Introduction: John Bell and the second quantum revolution", in J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed, 2004)

 * No other theory of the physical world has caused such consternation as quantum theory, for no other theory has so completely overthrown the previously cherished concepts of classical physics and our everyday apprehension of reality. For philosophers, it has been a romping ground of epistemological adventure of pessimism about science's ability to expose ultimate truth. For physicists, it has required a confrontation with the nature of physical reality and a heady inhalation of new attitudes. For all scientists and technologists, it has been the key to advances in all fields of endeavor, from genetics to superconductivity. The extraordinary feature of quantum theory is that although we do not understand it, we can apply the rules of calculation it inspires, and compute properties of matter to unparalleled accuracy, in some cases with a precision that exceeds that currently obtained from experiment.
 * Peter Atkins, Foreword to Beyond Measure (2004) by Jim Baggott

B

 * … that what is proved, by impossibility proofs, is lack of imagination.
 * John S. Bell, On the impossible pilot wave, Ref.TH.3315-CERN, 1982, p. 15

 * I am a Quantum Engineer, but on Sundays I Have Principles.
 * John S. Bell Opening sentence of his "underground colloquium" in March 1983, as quoted by Nicolas Gisin in an edition by

 * Quantum mechanics had never been wrong. And now we know that it will not be wrong even in these very tricky conditions.
 * John S. Bell, interview in The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum Physics (1986) edited by P. C. W. Davies and Julian R. Brown

 * I'm quite convinced of that: quantum theory is only a temporary expedient.
 * John S. Bell, interview in The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum Physics (1986) edited by P. C. W. Davies and Julian R. Brown

 * This particular question of locality is still open, in my opinion. I think we have not found a way of digesting this situation. I think we have not found a way of digesting this situation. We have the formulas of quantum mechanics, and they work extremely well; but I have not digested them. There certainly remains something to be said, some illumination to be found.
 * John S. Bell, in interview, Omni, May 1988, p. 121

 * I hesitated to think it might be wrong, but I knew that it was rotten. That is to say, one has to find some decent way of expressing whatever truth there is in it.
 * John S. Bell, quoted in Jeremy Bernstein, Quantum Profiles (1991), John Stewart Bell: Quantum Engineer

 * The entire universe must, on a very accurate level, be regarded as a single indivisible unit in which separate parts appear as idealisations permissible only on a classical level of accuracy of description. This means that the view of the world being analogous to a huge machine, the predominant view from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, is now shown to be only approximately correct. The underlying structure of matter, however, is not mechanical. This means that the term "quantum mechanics" is very much a misnomer. It should, perhaps, be called "quantum nonmechanics".
 * David Bohm, Quantum Theory (1951)

 * For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.
 * Niels Bohr, in 1952, quoted in

 * If relativity is about the geometrical structure of space-time, what is quantum mechanics about? There are a surprising variety of answers to this question: that quantum mechanics is about energy being quantized in discrete lumps or quanta, or about particles being wavelike, or about the universe continually splitting into countless co-existing quasi-classical universes, with many copies of ourselves, and so on. A rather more mundane answer, with quite remarkable implications, has emerged over the past thirty years or so from the study of the difference between classical information and quantum information: quantum mechanics is about new sorts of probabilistic correlations in nature, so about the structure of information, insofar as a theory of information in the sense relevant to physics is essentially a theory of probabilistic correlations.
 * Jeffrey Bub, Bananaworld: Quantum Mechanics for Primates (2015), Ch. 1 : Nobody Understands Quantum Mechanics

 * It is a poorly-kept secret that the grandfathers of quantum mechanics, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, Einstein, de Broglie, Jeans, but in particular Schrödinger were fascinated and inspired by Vedic cosmology.
 * -J. Peter Burgess in Science Blurring its Edges into Spirit: The Quantum Path to Ātma. Millennium Journal, 2018

C

 * We shall see how the two foundations of twentieth-century physics - quantum theory and relativity - both force us to see the world very much in the way a Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist sees it ..
 * (Fritjof Capra, Tao of Physics, 1975)

 * The power of the new quantum mechanics in giving us a better understanding of events on an atomic scale is becoming increasingly evident. The structure of the helium atom, the existence of half-quantum numbers in band spectra, the continuous spatial distribution of photo-electrons, and the phenomenon of radioactive disintegration, to mention only a few examples, are achievements of the new theory which had baffled the old.
 * Arthur Compton, Foreword to the English edition of The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory by W. Heisenberg (1930)

D

 * Already in 1948, observations... agreed with quantum mechanics, not with local realism.
 * R. H. Dalitz and F. J. Duarte, John Clive Ward, Physics Today 53, 99-100 (2000).

 * The current probabilistic interpretation of the quantum theory leads in its general lines to exact conclusions. But since it denies every possibility of a precise image of the development of phenomena in space and time, it continues to be surrounded by a certain obscurity. It is not at all certain that it furnishes a complete description of physical reality : scientists as eminent as Planck, Einstein and Schrödinger have always expressed doubts on this subject. The idea of Prof. Bohm that it may be necessary to introduce new 'levels' of physical reality deeper and more hidden than those revealed by current experience therefore seems perfectly defensible to me. For my part, returning after a number of years to certain ideas that I had considered previously when I was developing the first bases of wave mechanics, I have examined this question in the light of the conceptions of Prof. Bohm and in collaboration with certain young scientists at the . In particular, I have asked myself whether it would not be possible to find an interpretation which, while retaining all the results given by probabilistic quantum physics, would permit us to obtain a more clear and more intelligible image of micro-physical facts.
 * Louis de Broglie, (p. 1814)

 * Classical mechanics has been developed continuously from the time of Newton and applied to an ever-widening range of dynamical systems, including the electromagnetic field in interaction with matter. The underlying ideas and the laws governing their application form a simple and elegant scheme, which one would be inclined to think could not be seriously modified without having all its attractive features spout. Nevertheless it has been found possible to set up a new scheme, called quantum mechanics, which is more suitable for the description of phenomena on the atomic scale and which is in some respects more elegant and satisfying than the classical scheme. This possibility is due to the changes which the new scheme involves being of a very profound character and not clashing with the features of the classical theory that make it so attractive, as a result of which all these features can be incorporated in the new scheme.
 * P. A. M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (4th ed., 1958), I. The Principle of Superposition - 1. The need for a quantum theory

 * I have observed in teaching quantum mechanics, and also in learning it, that students go through an experience similar to the one that Pupin describes. The student begins by learning the tricks of the trade. He learns how to make calculations in quantum mechanics and get the right answers, how to calculate the scattering of neutrons by protons and so forth. To learn the mathematics of the subject and to learn how to use it takes about six months. This is the first stage in learning quantum mechanics, and it is comparatively painless. The second stage comes when the student begins to worry because he does not understand what he has been doing. He worries because he has no clear physical picture in his head. He gets confused in trying to arrive at a physical explanation for each of the mathematical tricks he has been taught. He works very hard and gets discouraged because he does not seem to be able to think clearly. This second stage often lasts six months or longer. It is strenuous and unpleasant. Then, unexpectedly, the third stage begins. The student suddenly says to himself, “I understand quantum mechanics,” or rather he says, “I understand now that there isn’t anything to be understood.” The difficulties which seemed so formidable have mysteriously vanished. What has happened is that he has learned to think directly and unconsciously in quantum-mechanical language. He is no longer trying to explain everything in terms of prequantum conceptions. The duration and severity of the second stage are decreasing as the years go by. Each new generation of students learns quantum mechanics more easily than their teachers learned it. The students are growing more detached from prequantum pictures. There is less resistance to be broken down before they feel at home with quantum ideas. Ultimately, the second stage will disappear entirely. Quantum mechanics will be accepted by students from the beginning as a simple and natural way of thinking, because we shall all have grown used to it. By that time, if science progresses as we hope, we shall be ready for the next big jump into the unknown.
 * Freeman Dyson, "Innovation in Physics", Scientific American (1958), published in From Eros to Gaia

 * For me, the important thing about quantum mechanics is the equations, the mathematics. If you want to understand quantum mechanics, just do the math. All the words that are spun around it don’t mean very much. It’s like playing the violin. If violinists were judged on how they spoke, it wouldn’t make much sense.
 * Freeman Dyson, Interview with Onnesha Roychoudhuri (Sep 29, 2007)

E

 * Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt.
 * Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.
 * Albert Einstein, Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926); The Born-Einstein Letters (translated by Irene Born) (Walker and Company, New York, 1971) ISBN 0-8027-0326-7.

 * What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is merely "empirical reality".
 * Bernard d'Espagnat, "Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind", Guardian (20 March 2009)

F

 * However unfamiliar this direct interparticle treatment compared to the electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz, it deals with the same problems, talks about the same charges, considers the interactions of the same current elements, obtains the same capacitances, predicts the same inductances and yields the same physical conclusions. Consequently action-at-a-distance must have a close connection with field theory.
 * Richard Feynman and John Archibald Wheeler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 425 (1949)

 * ...the "paradox" is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality "ought to be."
 * Richard Feynman, in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol III, p. 18-9 (1965)

 * It will be difficult. But the difficulty really is psychological and exists in the perpetual torment that results from your saying to yourself, 'But how can it be like that?' which is a reflection of uncontrolled but utterly vain desire to see it in terms of something familiar. I will not describe it in terms of an analogy with something familiar; I will simply describe it. There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. So do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that you really have to understand in terms of some model what I am going to describe, but just relax and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.
 * Richard Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law (1965)

 * We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it.... You know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or two until it becomes obvious that there's no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem.
 * Richard Feynman, in Simulating Physics with Computers appearing in International Journal of Theoretical Physics (1982) p. 471.

 * We choose to examine a phenomenon [ Double-slit experiment ] which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery. We cannot make the mystery go away by "explaining" how it works. We will just tell you how it works. In telling you how it works we will have told you about the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics.
 * Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics: Commemorative Issue, Vol. 3 Quantum Mechanics (1989) 1-1, "Quantum Behavior."

 * Quantum theory was split up into dialects. Different people describe the same experiences in remarkably different languages. This is confusing even to physicists.
 * David Finkelstein, in Physical Process and Physical Law, in an edition by

 * Many educators, and even politicians, have been firmly convinced that "free will" is not compatible with Newtonian physics, but very much so with quantum theory. They have been convinced also that it is desirable that the citizen should believe in free will, and they have exerted a certain influence in favor of the indeterministic formulation of subatomic physics. What they have in mind is certainly a sociological purpose of science, whatever the technological purposes may be.
 * , Philosophy of Science: The Link Between Science and Philosophy (1957) p. 358.

G

 * Quantum mechanics, that mysterious, confusing discipline, which none of us really understands but which we know how to use. It works perfectly, as far as we can tell, in describing physical reality, but it is a ‘counter-intuitive discipline’, as social scientists would say. Quantum mechanics is not a theory, but rather a framework, within which we believe any correct theory must fit.
 * Murray Gell-Mann, "Questions for the future", Series Wolfson College lectures, 1980. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1981). Also in the collection The Nature of Matter, Wolfson College Lectures 1980. J. H. Mulvey, ed. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981)

 * Just a few months after de Broglie's suggestion, Schrödinger took the decisive step... by determining an equation that governs the shape and the evolution of probability waves, or as they became known, s. It was not long before Schrödinger's equation and the probabilistic interpretation were being used to make wonderfully accurate predictions. By 1927, therefore, classical innocence had been lost. Gone were the days of a  whose individual constituents were set in motion at some moment in the past and obediently fulfilled their inescapable, uniquely determined destiny. According to quantum mechanics, the universe evolves according to a rigorous and precise mathematical formalism, but this framework determines only the probability that any particular function will happen—not which future actually ensues.
 * Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe (1999) Ch. 4 Microscopic Weirdness.

 * Unlike Newton's mechanics, or Maxwell's electrodynamics, or Einstein's relativity, quantum theory was not created—or even definitively packaged—by one individual, and it retains to this day some of the scars of its exhilarating but traumatic youth. There is no general consensus as to what its fundamental principles are, how it should be taught, or what it really "means." Every competent physicist can "do" quantum mechanics, but the stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing are as various as the tales of Scheherazade, and almost as implausible.
 * David J. Griffith, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed., 2005), Preface

 * Quantum mechanics is clearly superior to classical mechanics for the description of microscopic phenomena, and in principle works equally well for macroscopic phenomena. Hence it is at least plausible that the mathematical and logical structure of quantum mechanics better reflect physical reality than do their classical counter parts. If this reasoning is accepted, quantum theory requires various changes in our view of physical reality relative to what was widely accepted before the quantum era, among them the following: 1. Physical objects never possess a completely precise position or momentum. 2. The fundamental dynamical laws of physics are stochastic and not deterministic, so from the present state of the world one cannot infer a unique future (or past) course of events. 3. The principle of unicity does not hold: there is not a unique exhaustive description of a physical system or a physical process. Instead, reality is such that it can be described in various alternative, incompatible ways, using descriptions which cannot be combined or compared.
 * Robert B. Griffiths, Consistent Quantum Theory (2002), Ch. 27 : Quantum theory and reality

H

 * Quantum physics, as our new subject is called, answers such questions as: Why do the stars shine? Why do the elements exhibit the order that is so apparent in the periodic table? How do transistors and other microelectronic devices work? Why does copper conduct electricity but glass does not? In fact, scientists and engineers have applied quantum physics in almost every aspect of everyday life, from medical instrumentation to transportation systems to entertainment industries. Indeed, because quantum physics accounts for all of chemistry, including biochemistry, we need to understand it if we are to understand life itself. Some of the predictions of quantum physics seem strange even to the physicists and philosophers who study its foundations. Still, experiment after experiment has proved the theory correct, and many have exposed even stranger aspects of the theory.The quantum world is an amusement park full of wonderful rides that are guaranteed to shake up the commonsense world view you have developed since childhood.
 * Jearl Walker, David Halliday and Robert Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics (10th edition, 2014), Ch. 38 : Photons and Matter Waves

 * Einstein was confused, not the quantum theory.
 * Stephen Hawking, Lecture at the Amsterdam Symposium on Gravity, Black Holes, and String Theory (June 21, 1997)

 * My attitude — I would paraphrase Goering—is that when I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun.
 * Stephen Hawking, in a conversation with Timothy Ferris (4 April 1983), as quoted in The Whole Shebang (1998) by Timothy Ferris, p. 345

 * Physicists do not believe quantum mechanics because it explains the world, but because it predicts the outcome of experiments with almost miraculous accuracy. Theorists kept predicting new particles and other phenomena, and experiments kept bearing out those predictions.
 * John Horgan, The End of Science (1996) p. 70

 * Of course, the apparent disarray could have stemmed entirely from my own ignorance. But when I revealed my impression of confusion and dissonance to one of the attendees, he reassured me that my perception was accurate. “It’s a mess,” he said of the conference (and, by implication, the whole business of interpreting quantum mechanics). The problem, he noted, arose because, for the most part, the different interpretations of quantum mechanics cannot be empirically distinguished from one another; philosophers and physicists favor one interpretation over another for aesthetic and philosophical—that is, subjective—reasons.
 * John Horgan, The End of Science (1996), Ch. 3: The End of Science

 * Erwin with his psi can do Calculations quite a few. But one thing has not been seen: Just what does psi really mean?
 * Erich Hückel, translated by Felix Bloch and quoted in Traditions et tendances nouvelles des études romanes au Danemark (1988) by Ebbe Spang-Hanssen and Michael Herslund, p. 207; also in The Pioneers of NMR and Magnetic Resonance in Medicine : The Story of MRI (1996) by James Mattson and Merrill Simon, p. 278

K

 * It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct.
 * Michio Kaku, in Hyperspace (1995), p. 263

L

 * In this connection the "classical object" is usually called apparatus, and its interaction with the electron is spoken of as measurement. However, it must be emphasized that we are here not discussing a process of measurement in which the physicist-observer takes part. By measurement, in quantum mechanics, we understand any process of interaction between classical and quantum objects, occurring apart from and independently of any observer. The importance of the concept of measurement in quantum mechanics was elucidated by N. Bohr. We have defined "apparatus" as a physical object which is governed, with sufficient accuracy, by classical mechanics. Such, for instance, is a body of large enough mass. However, it must not be supposed that apparatus is necessarily macroscopic. Under certain conditions, the part of apparatus may also be taken by an object which is microscopic, since the idea of "with sufficient accuracy" depends on the actual problem proposed. Thus, the motion of an electron in a Wilson chamber is observed by means of the cloudy track which it leaves, and the thickness of this is large compared with atomic dimensions; when the path is determined with such low accuracy, the electron is an entirely classical object. Thus quantum mechanics occupies a very unusual place among physical theories: it contains classical mechanics as a limiting case, yet at the same time it requires this limiting case for its own formulation.
 * Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics (Non-relativistic theory) (3rd ed., 1977)

M

 * I would like to describe an attitude toward quantum mechanics which, whether or not it clarifies the interpretational problems that continue to plague the subject, at least sets them in a rather different perspective. This point of view alters somewhat the language used to address these issues—a glossary is provided in Appendix C—and it may offer a less perplexing basis for teaching quantum mechanics or explaining it to nonspecialists. It is based on one fundamental in sight, perhaps best introduced by an analogy. My complete answer to the late 19th century question "what is electrodynamics trying to tell us" would simply be this: Fields in empty space have physical reality; the medium that supports them does not. Having thus removed the mystery from electrodynamics, let me immediately do the same for quantum mechanics: Correlations have physical reality; that which they correlate does not.
 * N. David Mermin, "What is quantum mechanics trying to tell us?", Am. J. Phys. 66, 753 (1998)

 * Quantum mechanics is a more general model than classical mechanics, in the same way that Einsteinian relativity is a more general model than Galilean relativity. One picture subsumes the other. Quantum mechanics, pushed to the limit of the large, goes over smoothly into classical mechanics, whereas classical mechanics remains resolutely classical even when pushed to the limit of the small. ...Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, and the other early quantum mechanicians ...needed to peek at the classical equations in order to set the quantum equations on the right track. They needed... an idea of where the broader theory must eventually lead.
 * Michael Munowitz, Knowing: The Nature of Physical Law (2005)

N

 * Quantum mechanics fascinates me. It describes a wide variety of phenomena based on very few assumptions. It starts with a framework so unlike the differential equations of classical physics, yet it contains classical physics within it. It provides quantitative predictions for many physical situations, and these predictions agree with experiments. In short, quantum mechanics is the ultimate basis, today, by which we understand the physical world.
 * Jim Napolitano, Preface to the Second Edition of Modern Quantum Mechanics (2011) by J. J. Sakurai

O

 * In his standoff with Dr. Ramsay of Harvard last fall, Dr. Leggett suggested that his colleagues should consider the merits of the latter theory. "Why should we think of an electron as being in two states at once but not a cat, when the theory is ostensibly the same in both cases?" Dr. Leggett asked. Dr. Ramsay said that Dr. Leggett had missed the point. How the wave function mutates is not what you calculate. "What you calculate is the prediction of a measurement," he said. "If it's a cat, I can guarantee you will get that it's alive or dead," Dr. Ramsay said. David Gross, a recent Nobel winner and director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, leapt into the free-for-all, saying that 80 years had not been enough time for the new concepts to sink in. "We're just too young. We should wait until 2200 when quantum mechanics is taught in kindergarten."
 * Dennis Overbye, "Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein's Strangest Theory", The New York Times (Dec. 27, 2005)

P

 * I argue that what breathes fire into the QM equations is field-theoretic what-it's-likeness: "microqualia" to use a philosopher's term of art. The different values of the solutions to the ultimate physical equations exhaustively yield the abundance of different values of subjectivity. There is no room for dualism; "nomological danglers"; causally inert epiphenomena; classical, porridge-like lumps of otherwise insentient but magically mind-secreting matter, etc. There is no "explanatory gap" because there aren't any material objects - not even brains or nerve cells as commonly (mis)perceived. Instead, over millions of years, non-equilibrium thermodynamics and universal, (neo-)Darwinian principles of natural selection have contrived to organise a minimal and self-intimating subjective sludge of microqualia into complex functional living units. Initially, these units have taken the form of self-replicating, information-bearing biomolecular patterns. Eventually, selection-pressure has given rise to complex minds as well, albeit as just one part of the throwaway host vehicles by which our genes leave copies of themselves. Conscious mind, on this proposal, is a triumph of organisation: our egocentric virtual worlds are warm and gappy QM-coherent states of consciousness. Contra materialist metaphysics, sentience of any kind is not the daily re-enactment of an ontological miracle. Moreover the idea that what-it's-like-ness is the fire in the equations is (at least) consistent with orthodox relativistic quantum field theory - because the theorists' key notions (e.g. that of a field, string, brane, etc) are defined purely mathematically. In other cases, they readily lend themselves to such a reconstruction. Using the word "physical" doesn't add anything of substance.
 * David Pearce, "Why Does Anything Exist?", "Section Eight", BLTC Research (1998)

 * I should begin by expressing my general attitude to present-day quantum theory, by which I mean standard non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The theory has, indeed, two powerful bodies of fact in its favour, and only one thing against it. First, in its favour are all the marvellous agreements that the theory has had with every experimental result to date. Second, and to me almost as important, it is a theory of astonishing and profound mathematical beauty. The one thing that can be said against it is that it makes absolutely no sense!
 * Roger Penrose, "Gravity and State Vector Reduction", in: "Quantum Concepts in Space and Time" (1986), R. Penrose and C. J. Isham, ed.

 * I also knew the formula that expresses the energy distribution in the normal spectrum. A theoretical interpretation therefore had to be found at any cost, no matter how high. It was clear to me that classical physics could offer no solution to this problem, and would have meant that all energy would eventually transfer from matter to radiation. ...This approach was opened to me by maintaining the two . The two laws, it seems to me, must be upheld under all circumstances. For the rest, I was ready to sacrifice every one of my previous convictions about physical laws. ...[One] finds that the continuous loss of energy into radiation can be prevented by assuming that energy is forced at the outset to remain together in certain quanta. This was purely a formal assumption and I really did not give it much thought except that no matter what the cost, I must bring about a positive result.
 * Max Planck, Letter to (October 7, 1931) in Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, Microfilm 66, 5, as cited in Thomas S. Kuhn, Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894–1912 (1978) pp. 132, 288. Translation of the entire letter, which is follow above is in Armin Hermann, Frühgeschiche der Quantentheorie (1899–1913) Mosbach/Baden: Physik Verlag (1969), transl. Claude W. Nash, p. 23 of the translation; and also in M. S. Longair,Theoretical Concepts in Physics(Cambridge and NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 1984), ch. 6–12, p. 222. All as quoted/cited by Clayton A. Gearhart, "Planck, the Quantum, and the Historians", Physics in Perspective, 4 (2002) 170-215.

 * Planck ...devised his quanta theory, according to which the exchange of energy between the matter and the ether—or rather between ordinary matter and the small resonators whose vibrations furnish the light of incandescent matter—can take place only intermittently. A resonator can not gain energy or lose it in a continuous manner. It can not gain a fraction of a quantum; it must acquire a whole quantum or none at all.
 * Henri Poincaré, "The Connection Between Ether and Matter," Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution (1912) p.199

S

 * Ask anyone today working on foundational questions in quantum theory and you are likely to hear that there is still no consensus on many of these questions—all the while, of course, everybody seems to be in perfect agreement on how to apply the quantum formalism when it comes to making experimental predictions.
 * Maximilian Schlosshauer, Johannes Kofler, Anton Zeilinger, "The interpretation of quantum mechanics: from disagreement to consensus?", Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 525, No. 4, A51–A54 (2013)

 * For Mendeleev the rare earths were a complete nightmare because he didn't know where to put them. He couldn't fit them in the table..! Five of them had been found by the time he was building the table, and so he... stuck them in somewhere where things went 3+, and then went "Uh?" and... left it at that. ...[T]his was a real problem, because no one knew where these building blocks went into the periodic table. ...[I]t wasn't ...until Moseley had established what  was, that things began to fit together... and suddenly they realized that there couldn't be more than 14... [T]hen as the quantum mechanics rules came through it became clear... that... you'd found the hole. There was the gap... in, and so that became a target.
 * , "Terra Rara: The strange story of some political elements" (Aug 20, 2013) 1:16:04 a YouTube video from the channel. Answer to the question: "At what point did the search for the s change from being a... shooting in the dark to just filling in the gaps?"

 * If we really want to understand quantum mechanics, the goal should be more about letting go of our biases and embracing what the Universe tells us about itself. Instead, Carroll regressively campaigns for the opposite in teasing his upcoming new book. Unsurprisingly, most physicists are underwhelmed.
 * Ethan Siegel, "Quantum Physics Is Fine, Human Bias About Reality Is The Real Problem", Forbes (Sep 11, 2019)

 * Quantum mechanics is science’s equivalent of political polarization. Voters either take sides and argue with each other endlessly, or stay home and accept politics as it is. Physicists either just accept quantum mechanics and do their calculations, or take sides in the never-ending debate over what quantum mechanics is actually saying about reality.
 * Tom Siegfried, "Why quantum mechanics might need an overhaul Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg says current debates suggest need for new approach to comprehend reality" (November 4, 2016)

T

 * The rules of quantum mechanics work, but only if all natural phenomena in the world of the small are subjected to the same rules. This includes viruses, bacteria, even people. However, the bigger and heavier an object is, the harder it becomes to observed the quantum mechanical deviations from the ordinary, 'classical' laws of movement.
 * Gerardus 't Hooft,

W

 * The inner mysteries of quantum mechanics require a willingness to extend one’s mental processes into a strange world of phantom possibilities, endlessly branching into more and more abstruse chains of coupled logical networks, endlessly extending themselves forward and even backwards in time.
 * J. C. Ward, Memoirs of a Theoretical Physicist (Optics Journal, Rochester, 2004).

 * $$ (\left|x\right\rang \left|y\right\rang- \left|y\right\rang \left|x\right\rang) $$... was my first lesson in quantum mechanics, and in a very real sense my last, since the rest is mere technique, which can be learnt from books.
 * J. C. Ward, Memoirs of a Theoretical Physicist (Optics Journal, Rochester, 2004).

 * Respectable scientists like de Broglie himself accept wave mechanics because it confers coherence and unity upon the experimental findings of contemporary science, and in spite of the astonishing changes it implies in connection with ideas of causality, time, and space, but it is because of these changes that it wins favor with the public. The great popular success of Einstein was the same thing. The public drinks in and swallows eagerly everything that tends to dispossess the intelligence in favor of some technique; it can hardly wait to abdicate from intelligence and reason and from everything that makes man responsible for his destiny.
 * Simone Weil, “Wave Mechanics,” On Science, Necessity, and the Love of God, R. Rees, trans. (1968), p. 75

 * This theoretical failure to find a plausible alternative to quantum mechanics, even more than the precise experimental verification of linearity, suggests to me that quantum mechanics is the way it is because any small change in quantum mechanics would lead to logical absurdities. If this is true, quantum mechanics may be a permanent part of physics. Indeed, quantum mechanics may survive not merely as an approximation to a deeper truth, in the way that Newton's theory of gravitation survives as an approximation to Einstein's general theory of relativity, but as a precisely valid feature of the final theory.
 * Steven Weinberg, Dreams of the Final Theory (1993), Ch. 4. Quantum Mechanics and Its Discontents

 * It is truly surprising how little difference all this makes. Most physicists use quantum mechanics every day in their working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental problem of its interpretation. Being sensible people with very little time to follow up all the ideas and data in their own specialties and not having to worry about this fundamental problem, they do not worry about it. A year or so ago, while Philip Candelas (of the physics department at Texas) and I were waiting for an elevator, our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the ex-student’s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said, “He tried to understand quantum mechanics.” So irrelevant is the philosophy of quantum mechanics to its use, that one begins to suspect that all the deep questions about the meaning of measurement are really empty, forced on us by our language, a language that evolved in a world governed very nearly by classical physics. But I admit to some discomfort in working all my life in a theoretical framework that no one fully understands. And we really do need to understand quantum mechanics better in quantum cosmology, the application of quantum mechanics to the whole universe, where no outside observer is even imaginable. The universe is much too large now for quantum mechanics to make much difference, but according to the big-bang theory there was a time in the past when the particles were so close together that quantum effects must have been important. No one today knows even the rules for applying quantum mechanics in this context.
 * Steven Weinberg, Dreams of the Final Theory (1993), Chap. 4. Quantum Mechanics and Its Discontents

 * My own conclusion is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws. This view is not universally shared. Indeed, many physicists are satisfied with their own interpretation of quantum mechanics. But different physicists are satisfied with different interpretations. In my view, we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is only a good approximation.
 * Steven Weinberg, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed., 2015), Ch. 3 : General Principles of Quantum Mechanics

 * Quantum theory does not trouble me at all. It is just the way the world works. What eats me, gets me, drives me, pushes me, is to understand how it got that way. What is the deeper foundation underneath it? Where does it come from? So that we won’t see it as something that is unwelcome by friends that we admire—John Bell and many others—it will be something that will make you say, ‘It couldn’t have been otherwise.’ We haven’t gotten to that stage yet, and until we do, we have not met the challenge that is right there. I continue to say that the quantum is the crack in the armor that covers the secret of existence. To me it’s a marvelous stimulus, hope, and driving force. And yet I am afraid that just the word—‘hope’—is what does not eat, or possess, or drive so many of our colleagues in the field. They’re content to take the theory for granted, rather than to find out where it comes from. But you would hardly feel the drive to find out where from if you don’t feel that the theory is utterly right. I have been brought up from ‘childhood’ to feel that it is utterly right. Here I was, reading that book of Weyl’s at the age of eighteen and just crazy about it.
 * John Wheeler, quoted in Jeremy Bernstein, Quantum Profiles (1991), John Wheeler: Retarded Learner

 * I had the feeling that the stuff was beautiful. I learned it from Weyl, and Weyl had the art of putting things in a lovely perspective. More so than anybody else I have ever read. That book was just a treat. So the feeling of ‘rotten’ would be the absolutely last feeling I would ever have about it. ‘Beautiful’ is what I would call it. To me it’s the magic way to do it. I think that having started early and having used it in lots of different contexts, all the way from my doctor’s thesis on the dispersion and absorption of light in a helium atom, to nuclear physics, to the decay of elementary particles, I feel absolutely at home with it. But John Bell’s question I certainly sympathize with. An ‘irreversible act of amplification’? As Eugene Wigner always says, ‘What means it "irreversible"?’ [...] I think it is just wonderful to have puzzles like that staring us in the face. You’d be amused. Every day I try to write down something in my notebook, although I don’t always succeed, pushing things ahead just a little bit. I only got in two or three sentences this morning. ‘Nada. The photon doesn’t exist in the atom. It doesn’t exist in the photodetector after the act of emission, and you have no right to talk of what it’s doing in between. Nada—it’s nothing.’ Then there’s the irreversible act of amplification where you’ve got a whole lot of things. It’s nada to nada.
 * John Wheeler, quoted in Jeremy Bernstein, Quantum Profiles (1991), John Wheeler: Retarded Learner

 * For a zeroth slogan about quantum mechanics, I’ve chosen What’s hard to understand is classical mechanics, not quantum mechanics.
 * Peter Woit, "What’s Hard to Understand is Classical Mechanics, Not Quantum Mechanics" (August 11, 2014)

Z

 * The world is not as real as we think.… My personal opinion is that the world is even weirder than what quantum physics tells us.
 * Anton Zeilinger, quoted in Dennis Overbye, "Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein's Strangest Theory", The New York Times (Dec. 27, 2005)

title: Quantum mechanics


text:
Henny Youngman

Henry "Henny" Youngman (16 March 1906 – 24 February 1998) was a comedian and violinist famous for "one-liners", short simple jokes usually delivered rapid-fire.

Quotes

 * The secret of a happy marriage remains a secret.
 * "Forbes" - Vol. 166, Page 156, de Bertie Charles Forbes - Forbes Inc., 2000

 * Take my wife - please!
 * Take My Wife, Please!: Henny Youngman's Giant Book of Jokes (1999)

 * Business was so bad the other night the orchestra was playing "Tea for One."
 * Don't Put My Name on this Book (1976), p. 92

 * My first Hollywood picture wasn't released, it escaped.
 * Insurance Newsweek, volume 45 (1944), page 60

 * I was so ugly when I was born, the doctor slapped my mother,
 * 101 of My Funniest Jokes. New York: Henny Youngman (1976). Brochure..

"The Haunted Smile: The Story of Jewish Comedians in America" (2001)
Lawrence J. Epstein's "The Haunted Smile: The Story of Jewish Comedians in America" (2001)

 * I take my wife everywhere, but she keeps finding her way back.

 * My wife will buy anything marked down. Last year she bought an escalator.

 * We always hold hands. If I let go, she shops.

 * My wife told me the car wasn't running well. There was water in the carburetor. I asked where the car was, and she told me it was in the lake.

 * My wife and I went to a hotel where we got a waterbed. My wife called it the Dead Sea.

 * My wife is on a new diet. Coconuts and bananas. She hasn't lost weight, but can she climb a tree.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Henny Youngman


text:
Talk:List of categories

Should we create a Machinima category for the new Red vs Blue quotes, or keep it in a new Other category until some other machinima quotes show up? - Jeandré, 2004-08-01t11:14z

Shall radio programs become a category? SkyOdyssey 04:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Categories?
I don't think "categories" is the right term to use for this list. We've got the category system here like wikipedia does, and this will only confuse people. Could we come up with a new name for it? -- [[User talk:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New category discussion
I just started a new discussion on the village pump about filling in some gaps in Wikiquote's current use of Wikimedia Categories, in case anyone wants to read and/or contribute to it. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of categories


text:
Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Evelyn Beatrice Hall (28 September 1868 – 13 April 1956) was an English writer, who wrote under the name Stephen G. Tallentyre.

The Friends of Voltaire (1906)

 * Full text online at the Internet Archive & Google Books

 * He who has lost only those of whose faith and truth he is sure, has not yet reached the depth of human desolation.
 * Ch. 1 : D'Alembert: The Thinker, p.28

 * For the first time he looked into his heart and wrote, and thus for the first time he touched the hearts of others; the cold style took fire, and beneath the clumsy periods welled tears.
 * Ch. 1 : D'Alembert: The Thinker, p. 29

 * It is by character and not by intellect the world is won.
 * Ch. 1 : D'Alembert: The Thinker, p. 31

 * If to be great means to be good, then Denis Diderot was a little man. But if to be great means to do great things in the teeth of great obstacles, then none can refuse him a place in the temple of the Immortals.
 * Ch. 2 : Diderot : The Talker, p. 61

 * It is as the father of the Encyclopedia that Denis Diderot merits eternal recognition. Guilty as he was in almost every relation of life towards the individual, for mankind, in the teeth of danger and of infidelity, at the ill-paid sacrifice of the best years of his exuberant life, he produced that book which first levelled a free path to knowledge and enfranchised the soul of his generation.
 * Ch. 2 : Diderot : The Talker, p. 61

 * A Platonic friendship is perhaps only possible when one or other of the Platonists is in love with a third person.
 * Ch. 3 : Galiani : The Wit, p. 79

 * There is always more goodness in the world than there appears to be, because goodness is of its very nature modest and retiring.
 * Ch. 7 : Helvétius : The Contradiction, p. 188

 * 'What a fuss about an omelette!' he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," was his attitude now.
 * Ch. 7 : Helvetius : The Contradiction, p. 199; because of quote marks around the original publication of these words, they are often attributed to Voltaire, though Hall was not actually quoting him but summarizing his attitude with the expression. The statement was widely popularized when misattributed to Voltaire as a "Quotable Quote" in Reader's Digest (June 1934), but in response to the misattribution, Hall had been quoted in Saturday Review (11 May 1935), p. 13, as stating: I did not mean to imply that Voltaire used these words verbatim and should be surprised if they are found in any of his works. They are rather a paraphrase of Voltaire's words in the Essay on Tolerance — "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."
 * The paragraph in which the statement first appears reads:
 * "On the Mind" [De l'Esprit by Helvétius] became not the success of the season, but one of the most famous books of the century. The men who had hated it and had not particularly loved Helvétius, flocked round him now. Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. 'What a fuss about an omelette!' he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now.

 * Another possible source for the quote was proposed by Norbert Guterman, editor of "A Book of French Quotations," who noted a letter to M. le Riche (February 6, 1770) in which Voltaire is quoted as saying: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" ("Monsieur l'abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire"). This remark, however, does not appear in the letter.

 * All men now allow that if any human power could have stemmed the avalanche of the French Revolution, it would have been the reforms of Turgot.
 * Ch. 8 : Turgot: The Statesman, p. 207

 * Hopeless, filthy, degraded, superstitious with the craven superstition which made them the easy prey of their unscrupulous clergy and left them wholly sensual and stupid; as animals, without the animals' instinctive joy of life and fearlessness of the morrow ; with no ambitions for themselves or the children who turned to curse them for having brought them into such a world; with no time to dream or love, no time for the tenderness which makes life, life indeed — they toiled for a few cruel years because they feared to die, and died because they feared to live. Such were the people Turgot was sent to redeem.
 * Ch. 8 : Turgot: The Statesman, p. 218

 * In his home-life Turgot remained most frugal and laborious, treating his servants with a benevolence then accounted contemptible, and working out his quiet schemes with an infinite patience and thoroughness. When he was offered the richer Intendancy of Lyons, he would not take it. Here, as he said of himself, though he was 'the compulsory instrument of great evil,' he was doing a little good. Only a little, it might be. But if every man did the little he could — what a different world!
 * Ch. 8 : Turgot: The Statesman, p. 221

title: Evelyn Beatrice Hall


text:
Anthony de Mello

Anthony de Mello (4 September 1931 – 2 June 1987) was a Jesuit priest, psychotherapist and writer who became widely known for his books on spirituality.

Quotes
"Are you prepared to be ridiculed, ignored and starving till you are forty-five?" "I am. But tell me: What will happen after I am forty-five?" "You will have grown accustomed to it."
 * "I wish to become a teacher of the Truth."
 * Wellsprings : A Book of Spiritual Exercises (1985), p. 19

 * Spirituality means waking up. Most people, even though they don't know it, are asleep. They're born asleep, they live asleep, they marry in their sleep, they breed children in their sleep, they die in their sleep without ever waking up. They never understand the loveliness and the beauty of this thing that we call human existence. You know — all mystics — Catholic, Christian, non-Christian, no matter what their theology, no matter what their religion — are unanimous on one thing: that all is well, all is well. Though everything is a mess, all is well. Strange paradox, to be sure. But, tragically, most people never get to see that all is well because they are asleep. They are having a nightmare.
 * As quoted in Approaching God : How to Pray (1995) by Steve Brown, p. 94

 * The genius of a composer is found in the notes of his music; but analyzing the notes will not reveal his genius. The poet's greatness is contained in his words; yet the study of his words will not disclose his inspiration. God reveals himself in creation; but scrutinize creation as minutely as you wish, you will not find God, any more than you will find the soul through careful examination of your body.
 * Awakening : Conversations with the Masters (2003), p. 24

"Seeing Reality as it is," said the Master. "Doesn't everyone see Reality as it is?" "Oh, no! Most people see it as they believe it is." "What's the difference?" "The difference between thinking you are drowning in a stormy sea and knowing you cannot drown because there isn't any water in sight for miles around."
 * "What, concretely, is Enlightenment?"
 * Awakening : Conversations with the Masters (2003), p. 221

One Minute Wisdom (1989)

 * This is what Wisdom means: To be changed without the slightest effort on your part, to be transformed, believe it or not, merely by waking to the reality that is not words, that lies beyond the reach of words. If you are fortunate enough to be Awakened thus, you will know why the finest language is the one that is not spoken, the finest action is the one that is not done and the finest change is the one that is not willed.
 * Introduction

 * To a disciple who was forever complaining about others the Master said, "If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth."
 * Transformation

"Whom, then, shall I follow?" "No one. The day you follow someone you cease to follow Truth."
 * To a visitor who asked to become his disciple the Master said, "You may live with me, but don't become my follower."
 * Discipleship

"Because they have learned to see goodness and beauty everywhere," said the Master. "Why don't I see goodness and beauty everywhere?" "Because you cannot see outside of you what you fail to see inside."
 * "Why is everyone here so happy except me?"
 * Projection

'''"Obedience keeps the rules," he would say. "Love knows when to break them." '''
 * There were rules in the monastery, but the Master always warned against the tyranny of the law.
 * Revolution

''' "What then is a Master for?" "To make you see the uselessness of having one." '''
 * "You are only a disciple because your eyes are closed. The day you open them you will see there is nothing you can learn from me or anyone."
 * Blindness

 * The sun and its light, the ocean and the wave, the singer and his song — not one. Not two.
 * Identity

"No one can help you there." "Why not?" "For the same reason that no one can help the fish to find the ocean."
 * "Help us to find God."
 * Discovery

"I know. An overwhelming passion for it." "No. An unremitting readiness to admit you may be wrong."
 * To a visitor who described himself as a seeker after Truth the Master said, "If what you seek is Truth, there is one thing you must have above all else."
 * Humility

 * When you are guilty, it is not your sins you hate but yourself.
 * Violence

 *  Is there life before death? — that is the question!
 * Irrelevance

 * Wisdom tends to grow in proportion to one's awareness of one's ignorance.
 * Wisdom

 * When you come to see you are not as wise today as you thought you were yesterday, you are wiser today.
 * Wisdom

 * Whatever is truly alive must die. Look at the flowers; only plastic flowers never die.
 * Flow

 * The Master was exceedingly gracious to university dons who visited him, but he would never reply to their questions or be drawn into their theological speculations. To his disciples, who marveled at this, he said, "Can one talk about the ocean to a frog in a well or about the divine to people who are restricted by their concepts?"
 * Restriction

 * People who want a cure, provided they can have it without pain, are like those who favour progress, provided they can have it without change.
 * Healing

The Master calmly replied, "One's beliefs about God."
 * A disciple said to him, "I am ready, in the quest for God, to give up anything: wealth, friends, family, country, life itself. What else can a person give up?"
 * Belief

 * Every word, every image used for God is a distortion more than a description.
 * Comprehension

When the master entered, they asked him what the words meant. Said the master, "Which of you knows the fragrance of a rose?" All of them indicated that they knew. Then he said, "put it into words." All of them were silent.
 * The disciples were absorbed in a discussion of Lao-tzu's dictum: Those who know do not say; Those who say do not know.
 * Words

 * When I speak, you must not listen to the words, my dear. Listen to the Silence.
 * Comprehension

 * Silence is not the absence of sound, but the absence of self.
 * Emptiness

 * The Master is not concerned with what we believe — only with what we see.
 * Non-Instruction

 * The Master would frequently assert that holiness was less a matter of what one did than of what one allowed to happen.
 * Trust

 * Thought can organize the world so well that you are no longer able to see it.
 * Thought

 * A thought is a screen, not a mirror; that is why you live in a thought envelope, untouched by Reality.
 * Thought

 * Any time you are with anyone or think of anyone you must say to yourself: I am dying and this person too is dying, attempting the while to experience the truth of the words you are saying. If every one of you agrees to practise this, bitterness will die out, harmony will arise.
 * Revelation

 * The Master would insist that the final barrier to our attaining God was the word and concept "God."
 * Incompetence

Said the Master, Nobody can be said to have attained the pinnacle of Truth until a thousand sincere people have denounced him for blasphemy.
 * A disciple was one day recalling how Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed were branded as rebels and heretics by their contemporaries.
 * Persecution

 * The Master never ceased to attack the notions about God that people entertain.
 * Prayer

 * A good teacher offers practice, a bad one offers theories.
 * Cultivation

 * The feigning sleeper can delude others — he cannot delude himself. The false mystic, unfortunately, can delude both others and himself.
 * Deception

 * If you never condemned you would never need to forgive.
 * Judgement

Each year the disciple would return with the same request and each time the Master would give him the same reply: "Wait." One day he said to the Master, "When will I be ready to teach?" Said the Master, "When your excessive eagerness to teach has left you."
 * A zealous disciple expressed a desire to teach others the Truth and asked the Master what he thought about this. The Master said, "Wait."
 * Aggression

"The total absence of fear," said the Master. "What is it we fear?" "Love," said the Master.
 * "What is love?"
 * Fearlessness

His disciples gradually discovered that '''Wisdom comes to those who learn nothing, unlearn everything. That transformation is the consequence not of something done, but of something dropped.'''
 * The Master insisted that what he taught was nothing, what he did was nothing.
 * Purification

"People say you are a genius. Are you?" he asked. "You might say so." said the Master, none too modestly. "And what makes one a genius?" "The ability to recognize." "Recognize what?" "The butterfly in a caterpillar: the eagle in an egg; the saint in a selfish human being."
 * A writer arrived at the monastery to write a book about the Master.
 * Genius

The address was over in less than a minute. All he said was: "These things will destroy the human race: politics without principle, progress without compassion, wealth without work, learning without silence, religion without fearlessness and worship without awareness."
 * Much advance publicity was made for the address the Master would deliver on The Destruction of the World and a large crowd gathered at the monastery grounds to hear him.
 * Humanity

Said the Master: "To be public-spirited and belong to no party, to move without being bound to any given course, to take things as they come, have no remorse for the past, no anxiety for the future, to move when pushed, to come when dragged, to be like a mighty gale, like a feather in the wind, like weeds floating on a river, like a mill-stone meekly grinding, to love all creation equally as heaven and earth are equal to all — such is the product of Enlightenment." On hearing these words one of the younger disciples cried, "This sort of teaching is not for the living but for the dead," and walked away, never to return.
 * "What kind of a person does Enlightenment produce?"
 * Rejection

Awareness (1992)

 * Awareness : The Perils and Oppurtunities of Reality (1992), edited by J. Francis Stroud

The teacher thought, "Little Johnny has regressed." So she calls out to the principal, who was passing by the door at that moment, and says, "Johnny has regressed." So the principal goes up to Johnny and says, "Hi, son." And Johnny says, "Hi." And the principal says, "What do you have in your hand?" And he says, "A lump of cow dung." "What are you making out of it?" And he says, "A principal." The principal thinks that this is a case for the school psychologist. "Send for the psychologist!" The psychologist is a clever guy. He goes up and says, "Hi." And Johnny says, "Hi." And the psychologist says, "I know what you've got in your hand." "What?" "A lump cow dung." Johnny says, "Right." "And I know what you're making out of it." "What?" "You're making a psychologist." "Wrong. Not enough cow dung!"
 * Johnny goes to modeling class in his school for special children and he gets his piece of putty and he's modeling it. He takes a little lump of putty and goes to a corner of the room and he's playing with it. The teacher comes up to him and says, "Hi, Johnny." And Johnny says, "Hi." And the teacher says, "What's that you've got in your hand?" And Johnny says, "This is a lump of cow dung." The teacher asks, "What are you making out of it?" He says, "I'm making a teacher."
 * Spirituality Course", p. 13

 * Charity is really self-interest masquerading under the form of altruism.
 * "The masquerade of charity," p. 19

 * I'm going to write a book someday and the title will be I'm an Ass, You're an Ass. That's the most liberating, wonderful thing in the world, when you openly admit you're an ass. It's wonderful. When people tell me, "You're wrong" I say, "What can you expect of an ass?"
 * "Awareness Without Evaluating Everything", p. 40

 * My experience is that it's precisely the ones who don't know what to do with this life who are all hot and bothered about what they are going to do with another life. One sign that you're awakened is that you don't give a damn about what's going to happen in the next life. You're not bothered about it; you don't care. You are not interested, period.
 * "The Illusion of Rewards", p. 42

 * Do you know what eternal life is? You think it's everlasting life. But your own theologians will tell you that that is crazy, because everlasting is still within time. It is time perduring forever. Eternal means timeless — no time. The human mind cannot understand that. The human mind can understand time and can deny time. What is timeless is beyond our comprehension. Yet the mystics tell us that eternity is right now. How's that for good news? It is right now. People are so distressed when I tell them to forget their past. They're crazy! Just drop it! When you hear "Repent for your past," realize it's a great religious distraction from waking up. Wake up! That's what repent means. Not "weep for your sins.": Wake up! understand, stop all the crying. Understand! Wake up!
 * "The Illusion of Rewards", p. 43

 * Is it possible for the rose to say, "I will give my fragrance to the good people who smell me, but I will withhold it from the bad?" Or is it possible for the lamp to say, "I will give my light to the good people in this room, but I will withhold it from the evil people"? Or can a tree say, "I'll give my shade to the good people who rest under me, but I will withhold it from the bad"? These are images of what love is about.
 * "How Happiness Happpens", p. 61

 * The important thing is not to know who "I" is or what "I" is. You'll never succeed. There are no words for it. The important thing is to drop the labels.
 * "Labels", p. 73

 * Suffering is a sign that you're out of touch with the truth. Suffering is given to you that you might open your eyes to the truth, that you might understand that there's falsehood somewhere, just as physical pain is given to you so you will understand that there is disease or illness somewhere. Suffering points out that there is falsehood somewhere. Suffering occurs when you clash with reality. When your illusions clash with reality when your falsehoods clash with the truth, then you have suffering. Otherwise there is no suffering.
 * "Obstacles to Happiness", p. 74

 * Happiness is our natural state. Happiness is the natural state of little children, to whom the kingdom belongs until they have been polluted and contaminated by the stupidity of society and culture. To acquire happiness you don't have to do anything, because happiness cannot be acquired. Does anybody know why? Because we have it already. How can you acquire what you already have? Then why don't you experience it? Because you've got to drop something. You've got to drop illusions. You don't have to add anything in order to be happy; you've got to drop something. Life is easy, life is delightful. It's only hard on your illusions, your ambitions, your greed, your cravings. Do you know where these things come from? From having identified with all kinds of labels!
 * "Obstacles to Happiness", p. 78

 * It's only when you become love — in other words, when you have dropped your illusions and attachments — that you will "know." As you identify less and less with the "me," you will be more at ease with everybody and with everything. Do you know why? Because you are no longer afraid of being hurt or not liked. You no longer desire to impress anyone. Can you imagine the relief when you don't have to impress anybody anymore? Oh, what a relief. Happiness at last! You no longer feel the need or the compulsion to explain things anymore. It's all right. What is there to be explained? And you don't feel the need or compulsion to apologize anymore. I'd much rather hear you say, "I've come awake," than hear you say, "I'm sorry." I'd much rather hear you say to me, "I've come awake since we last met; what I did to you won't happen again," than to hear you say, "I'm so sorry for what I did to you."
 * "A Changed Person", p. 96

 * Before enlightenment, I used to be depressed; after enlightenment, I continue to be depressed. You don't make a goal out of relaxation and sensitivity. Have you ever heard of people who get tense trying to relax? If one is tense, one simply observes one's tension. You will never understand yourself if you seek to change yourself. The harder you try to change yourself the worse it gets. You are called upon to be aware.
 * "Hidden Agenda" p. 145

 * Step by step, let whatever happens happen. Real change will come when it is brought about, not by your ego, but by reality. Awareness releases reality to change you.
 * "Assorted Landmines", p. 148

 * There is no salvation till they have seen their basic prejudice.
 * On people accustomed to judging and dismissing the worth of other people based on categorical assessments, in "Assorted Landmines", p. 148

 * As soon as you look at the world through an ideology you are finished. No reality fits an ideology. Life is beyond that. That is why people are always searching for a meaning to life. But life has no meaning; it cannot have meaning because meaning is a formula; meaning is something that makes sense to the mind. Every time you make sense out of reality, you bump into something that destroys the sense you made. Meaning is only found when you go beyond meaning. Life only makes sense when you perceive it as mystery and it makes no sense to the conceptualizing mind.
 * "Assorted Landmines", p. 148

 * Can one be fully human without experiencing tragedy? The only tragedy there is in the world is ignorance; all evil comes from that. The only tragedy there is in the world is unwakefulness and unawareness. From them comes fear, and from fear comes comes everything else, but death is not a tragedy at all. Dying is wonderful; it's only horrible to people who have never understood life. It's only when you're afraid of life that you fear death. It's only dead people who fear death.
 * "The Death of Me", p. 150

 * One of your American authors put it so well. He said awakening is the death of your belief in injustice and tragedy. The end of the world for a caterpillar is a butterfly for the master. Death is resurrection. We're talking not about some resurrection that will happen but about one that is happening right now. If you would die to the past, if you would die to every minute, you would be the person who is fully alive, because a fully alive person is one who is full of death. We're always dying to things. We're always shedding everything in order to be fully alive and resurrected at every moment. The mystics, saints, and others make great efforts to wake people up. If they don't wake up, they're always going to have these other minor ills like hunger, wars, and violence. The greatest evil is sleeping people, ignorant people.
 * "The Death of Me", p. 150

 * A Jesuit once wrote a note to Father Arrupe, his superior general, asking him about the relative value of communism, socialism and capitalism. Father Arrupe gave him a lovely reply. He said, "A system is about as good or as bad as the people who use it." People with golden hearts would make capitalism or communism or socialism work beautifully.
 * "The Death of Me", p. 151

 * Don't ask the world to change — you change first. Then you'll get a good enough look at the world so that you'll be able to change whatever you think ought to be changed. Take the obstruction out of your own eye. If you don't you have lost the right to change anyone or anything. Till you are aware of yourself, you have no right to interfere with anyone else or with the world.
 * "The Death of Me", p. 151

 * Understand the obstructions you are putting in the way of love, freedom, and happiness and they will drop. Turn on the light of awareness and the darkness will disappear. Happiness is not something you acquire; love is not something you produce; love is not something you have; love is something that has you.
 * "The Land of Love", p. 172

One Minute Nonsense (1992)

 * No one is exempt from talking nonsense. The great misfortune is to do it solemnly.
 * Introduction

 * The Master in these tales is not a single person. He is a Hindu Guru, a Zen Roshi, a Taoist Sage, a Jewish Rabbi, a Christian Monk, a Sufi Mystic. He is Lao-tzu and Socrates; Buddha and Jesus; Zarathustra and Mohammed. His teaching is found in the seventh century B.C. and the twentieth century A.D. His wisdom belongs to East and West alike. Do his historical antecedents really matter? History, after all, is the record of appearances, not Reality; of doctrines, not of Silence.
 * Introduction

"In a war of ideas," he said, "it is people who are the casualties." Later he elaborated:''' "People kill for money or for power. But the most ruthless murderers are those who kill for their ideas." '''
 * The Master was allergic to ideologies.
 * p. 7

 * You will seek for God in vain till you understand that God can't be seen as a "thing"; he needs a special way of looking — similar to that of little children whose sight is undistorted by prefabricated doctrines and beliefs.
 * p. 8

He had the perfect parable to show this: A village blacksmith found an apprentice willing to work hard at low pay. The smith immediately began his instructions to the lad: "When I take the metal out of the fire, I'll lay it on the anvil; and when I nod my head you hit it with the hammer." The apprentice did precisely what he thought he was told. Next day he was the village blacksmith.
 * "When you speak about Reality," said the Master, "you are attempting to put the Inexpressible into words, so your words are certain to be misunderstood. Thus people who read that expression of Reality called the Scriptures become stupid and cruel for they follow, not their common sense, but what they think their Scriptures say."
 * p. 19

 * Those who make no mistakes are making the biggest mistakes of all — they are attempting nothing new.
 * p. 20

Said the master,''' "If you want me to be perfectly honest with you, I will not answer." ''' Later the disciples demanded to know why he had not answered. "Because the question is unanswerable," said the Master. "So you are an atheist?" "Certainly not.  The atheist makes the mistake of denying that of which nothing may be said... and the theist makes the mistake of affirming it.
 * "Tell me," said the atheist, "Is there a God — really?"
 * p. 21

Said the Master''' "Wholehearted cooperation with the inevitable." '''
 * "What is the secret of your serenity?
 * p. 22

 * My commitment is not to consistency but to the Truth.
 * p. 31

 * To those who seek to protect their ego true Peace brings only disturbance.
 * p. 33

The Master replied, "Anyone to whom it is given to let go of the ego. Such a person's life is then a masterpiece."
 * A disciple asked, "Who is a Master?"
 * p. 47

 * Wisdom can be learned. But it cannot be taught.
 * p. 53

"Rubbish," said the Master.''' "The law is a necessary evil and as such must be cut down to the barest minimum. Show me a lover of the law and I will show you a muttonheaded tyrant." '''
 * "The law is an expression of God's holy will and as such must be honored and loved," said the preacher piously.
 * p. 67

 * Some people write to make a living; others to share their insights or raise questions that will haunt their readers; others yet to understand their very souls. None of these will last. That distinction belongs to those who write only because if they did not write they would burst... These writers give expression to the divine — no matter what they write about.
 * p. 70

 * One year of life is worth more than twenty years of hibernation.
 * p. 73

"Here's one," said the Master. ''' "When someone offends you, you can raise your spirits to heights where offenses cannot reach." '''
 * "Name one practical, down-to-earth effect of spirituality," said the skeptic who was ready for an argument.
 * p. 80

 * Look for competence not claims.
 * p. 84

 "To teach people to laugh," said the Master gravely.
 * "What is the work of a Master?" said a solemn-faced visitor.
 * p. 85

 * Before creation Love was. After creation love is made. When love is consummated, creation will cease to be, and Love will be forever.
 * p. 91

 * The master never let a statement about God go unchallenged. All God statements were poetic or symbolic expressions of the Unknowable; people, however, foolishly took them as literal descriptions of the divine.
 * p. 95

This seemed too frivolous for a puritanical visitor. "Is their no room then for work?" "Of course there is. But work becomes spiritual only when it is transformed into play."
 * The Master once referred to the Hindu notion that all creation is "leela" — God's play — and the universe is his playground. The aim of spirituality, he claimed, is to make all life play.
 * p. 96
 * ("Leela" is more commonly spelled "Lila")

"Nothing," said the Master. "You mean that I am an emptiness and a void?" said the incredulous disciple. ''' "Nothing that can be labeled." ''' said the Master.
 * "What is my identity?"
 * p. 109

 * The master enjoined not austerity, but moderation. If we truly enjoyed things, he claimed, we would be spontaneously moderate. Asked why he was so opposed to ascetical practices, he replied, "Because they produce pleasure-haters who always become people-haters — rigid and cruel."
 * p. 111

 * When God means you to be a healer he sends you patients; when he makes you a teacher he sends you pupils; when he destines you to be a Master he sends you stories.
 * p. 112

 * The best things in life cannot be willed into being.
 * p. 114

 *  You can will an act of service but you cannot will love.
 * p. 114

"Tell me, O Master," he said, "why you have come into this world." "To teach fools like you to stop wasting their time worshiping Masters."
 * A disciple, in his reverence for the Master, looked upon him as God incarnate.
 * p. 127

The Master closed his eyes in thought. Then he opened them, put on his most disarming expression, and said,''' "Yes!" '''
 * The Master persistently warned against the attempt to encompass Reality in a concept or a name. A scholar in mysticism once asked, "When you speak of BEING, sir, is it eternal, transcendent being you speak of, or transient, contingent being?"
 * p. 131

 * The master made it his task to systematically destroy every doctrine, every belief, every concept of the divine, for these things, which were originally intended as pointers, were now taken as descriptions. He loved to quote the Eastern saying: "When the sage points at the moon, all that the idiot sees is the finger."
 * p. 132

 * A religious belief… is not a statement about Reality, but a hint, a clue about something that is a mystery, beyond the grasp of human thought. In short, a religious belief is only a finger pointing to the moon. Some religious people never get beyond the study of the finger. Others are engaged in sucking it. Others yet use the finger to gouge their eyes out. These are the bigots whom religion has made blind. Rare indeed is the religionist who is sufficiently detached from the finger to see what it is indicating —  these are those who, having gone beyond belief, are taken for blasphemers.
 * p. 134

"That of the person who sees other human beings as sinners," said the Master.
 * Said the self-righteous preacher, "What, in your judgment, is the greatest sin in the world?"
 * p. 139

The master smiled and said, "I have good news and bad news for you, my friend." "What's the bad news?" "There's nothing you can do to see — it is a gift." "And what's the good news?" ''' "There's nothing you can do to see — it is a gift." '''
 * "What can I do to see Reality as it is?"
 * p. 152

 * People who want to rise above a well-cooked meal and a well-tailored garment, are out of their spiritual minds.
 * p. 157

"Yes," said the Master. "There is something whereby each broken thing is bound again and every stain made clean." "What?" "Forgiveness" "Whom do I forgive?" "Everyone: Life, God, your neighbor — especially yourself." "How is that done?" "By understanding that no one is to blame," said the Master. "NO ONE."
 * "My life is like shattered glass." said the visitor. "My soul is tainted with evil. Is there any hope for me?
 * p. 169

"You are of course, assuming." said the Master, "that existence has a meaning." "Doesn't it?" ' "When you experience existence as it is — not as you think'' it is — you will discover that your question has no meaning." '''
 * "I seek the meaning of existence." said the stranger.
 * p. 171

"Of course there is," said the Master. "How would you describe it?" ''' "Liberation from the need to belong to the herd." '''
 * Isn't there such a thing as social liberation?"
 * p. 172

 * One always treads with a joyful step when one has dropped the burden called the ego.
 * p. 177

 * Ideas kill people.
 * p. 180

The Way to Love (1995)

 * The Way to Love : The Last Meditations of Anthony de Mello

 * If you want to know what it means to be happy, look at a flower, a bird, a child; they are perfect images of the kingdom. For they live from moment to moment in the eternal now with no past and no future. So they are spared the guilt and anxiety that so torment human beings and they are full of the sheer joy of living, taking delight not so much in persons or things as in life itself. As long as your happiness is caused or sustained by something or someone outside of you, you are still in the land of the dead. The day you are happy for no reason whatsoever, the day you find yourself taking delight in everything and in nothing, you will know that you have found the land of unending joy called the kingdom.

 * To find the kingdom is the easiest thing in the world but also the most difficult. Easy because it is all around you and within you, and all you have to do is reach out and take possession of it. Difficult because if you wish to possess the kingdom you may possess nothing else. That is, you must drop all inward leaning on any person or thing, withdrawing from them forever the power to thrill you, or excite you, or to give you a feeling of security or well-being. For this, you first need to see with unflinching clarity this simple and shattering truth: Contrary to what your culture and religion have taught you, nothing, but absolutely nothing can make you happy. The moment you see that, you will stop moving from one job to another, one friend to another, one place, one spiritual technique, one guru to another. None of these things can give you a single minute of happiness. They can only offer you a temporary thrill, a pleasure that initially grows in intesity, then turns into pain if you lose them and into boredom if you keep them.

 * If you search within your heart, you will find something there that will make it possible for you to understand: a spark of disenchantment and discontent, which if fanned into flame will become a raging forest fire that will burn up the whole of the illusory world you are living in, thereby unveiling to your wondering eyes the kingdom that you have always lived in unsuspectingly.

 * It is the desire for "the more" that prevents clear thinking, whereas if we are discontent, not because we want something, but without knowing what we want; if we are dissatisfied with our jobs, with making money, with seeking position and power, with tradition, with what we have and with what we might have; if we are dissatisfied, not with anything in particular but with everything, then I think we shall find that our discontent brings clarity. When we don't accept or follow, but question, investigate, penetrate, there is an insight out of which comes creativity, joy.

 * Mostly the discontent that you feel comes from not having enough of something — you are dissatisfied because you think you do not have enough money or power or success or fame or virtue or love or holiness. This is not the discontent that leads to the joy of the kingdom. Its source is greed and ambition and its fruit is restlessness and frustration. The day you are discontented not because you want more of something but without knowing what it is you want; when you are sick at heart of everything you are pursuing so far and you are sick of the pursuing itself, then your heart will attain a great clarity, an insight that will cause you mysteriously to delight in everything and in nothing.

Anthony De Mello : Writings (1999)

 * Edited by William Dych

 * A master was once unmoved by the complaints of his disciples that, though they listened with pleasure to his parables and stories, they were also frustrated for they longed for something deeper. To all their objections he would simply reply: "You have yet to understand, my friends, that the shortest distance between a human being and truth is a story."
 * p. 8

He was once heard to say, 'When you have ears to hear a bird in song, you don't need to look at its credentials."
 * The master was never impressed by diplomas or degrees. He scrutinized the person, not the certificate.
 * p. 76

 * All I did was sit on the riverbank handing out river water. After I'm gone, I trust you will notice the river.
 * p. 82

Misattributed

 * Never complain about what you permit.
 * Mike Murdock, in The One-Minute Devotional (1994), p. 168

Quotes about de Mello

 * He considers Jesus as a master alongside others. The only difference from other men is that Jesus is "awake" and fully free, while others are not. Jesus is not recognized as the Son of God, but simply as the one who teaches us that all people are children of God.
 * Vatican Notification condemning many of the writings, ideas, and purported ideas of Anthony de Mello (24 June 1998)

With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm.
 * Consistent with what has been presented, one can understand how, according to the author, any belief or profession of faith whether in God or in Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to truth. The Church, making the word of God in Holy Scripture into an idol, has ended up banishing God from the temple. She has consequently lost the authority to teach in the name of Christ.
 * Vatican Notification condemning many of the writings, ideas, and purported ideas of Anthony de Mello (24 June 1998)

 * The books of Father Anthony de Mello were written in a multi-religious context to help the followers of other religions, agnostics and atheists in their spiritual search, and they were not intended by the author as manuals of instruction of the Catholic faithful in Christian doctrine or dogma.
 * Note of caution added to the books of de Mello, after a censure of his works by the Vatican.

 * I must confess that I feel grateful for the banning, or the temporary withdrawal, of de Mello's books. I had heard of him, but never read his writings. Excommunication, somehow, has far more news value than beatification. So also the suppression of a book attracts greater publicity than its publication.
 * T. K. Thomas, in "The Prayer of the Frog Called into Question : Censuring the Writings of Fr Anthony de Mello, S.J." in The Ecumenical Review Vol. 51, (April 1999)

That is why Tony de Mello said that "our violent spirituality has created problems for us", that "Jesus Christ has got a bad name because of what is said of Him from pulpits" and that "it is very difficult to recognise a saint because he looks like the rest of us". In short, what Tony de Mello is telling us is that if we want to make Christianity credible we need to plumb the depths of the human spirit, to reach beyond our present frontiers.
 * What's behind this phenomenal success? Very simply, it is a manifestation of the hunger for the spiritual spreading around the world. It's a hunger with very special characteristics. People aren't buying set formulas any more, or pius platitudes redolent of an era gone by; beaten tracks that did not succeed in bringing people to a spiritual awakening. There is an anguished search, sometimes confused in its direction, for a more liberal outlook. Modern man mired in profound cultural change first wants to know who he is, what imprisons his soul, what stands in the way of spiritual progress. He wants to rediscover the God beyond all that has been identified through the years with the name of God: laws, norms, doctrines not made flesh, words stranged from life.
 * Report in Vida Nueva, Madrid (12 September 1987), as quoted in The Prayer of the Frog : A Book of Story Meditations (1989), p. 278

title: Anthony de Mello