tariki

Dutch, nice for you to pop into the thread. Your quote is something to chew on.........golden lotus flowers. rinanna, to be honest, after reading through the The Invitation a couple of times, I find it far too overwhelming, like a roaring tidalwave that just sweeps me away. Can't "live up" to that, making a list of how we ought to be, of how we are shaping up in someone elses eyes. I'd rather just fall short and rest in mercy and grace and then be surprised by joy on the odd ocassion. well, thats how I see it...

Rivanna, thats some invitation........

I've long had a great love for the poetry of William Blake. In the long long ago I often dipped into the prose of a guy called Malcolm Muggeridge, who wrote on various topics. Every now and agin, for one reason or another, he would colour his words with a couplet from Blake. Thses tiny snippets were alweays attractive to me, and one day when browsing in a book shop I just happened to see a copy of "The Portable Blake" at a knock-down price (always have had an eye for a bargain, being basically tight!) Anyway, I bought the book and my love affair with Blake began. Apparently, as I learnt from a little bit of biographical detail, the guy talked to angels.........this did make me think once that maybe he was just a little bit ga ga.....well, until yesterday, when I caught myself talking to some of the merchandise I was putting out on the shelves during my shift at the local store! Better to talk to angels than demister pads, methinks! Well, perhaps I've waffled enough.......just one or two quotes from Blake that I have always loved, and often reflected upon for one reason or another. God appears and God is Light To those poor Souls who dwell in Night But does a Human Form Display To those who Dwell in Realms of day. (From Auguries of Innocence) And from his long poem, "The Everlasting Gospel" Loud Pilate Howl'd, loud Caiphas yell'd, When they the Gospel Light beheld. It was when Jesus said to Me, "Thy sins are all forgiven thee." and.... The Vision of Christ that thou dost see Is my Vision's Greatest Enemy: Thine has a great hook nose like thine, Mine has a snub nose like to mine; Thine is the friend of All Mankind, Mine speaks in parables to the Blind: Thine loves the same world that mine hates, Thy Heavens doors are my Hell Gates. And as Blake said once....."If moral virtue were Christianity then Socrates was the Savior" Merry Christmas everyone! Derek

ada, Thank you for your attempt to pacify the masses (!! ) however, like Joseph I did find more in your own work. Thank you. Here is a little vanity of my own, a naive childlike piece that I wrote many years ago. At the time we lived next door to a family who had a young child, Georgie, who unfortunately had been starved of oxygen at birth and had suffered brain damage. One day as I walked past their gate the mother, with Georgie in his push chair, was chatting to another lady. This lady bent down and ruffled little Georgie's hair and said..." Oh, he's a little angel, a little angel." For some reason I felt real anger, and still find it difficult to really articulate exactly why. Anyway, I wrote this.....written, I suppose, for his mother, though I never gave it to her. see no wings on georgie else he would be bound set no seal upon him place no fences round see him not for what he could be what he should or what he would be see him as he is before you see the living truth, see georgie hope for guidance, hold no answers in the morning when you wake him as he casts his eyes upon you your response can make or break him

David, My trust and faith is that whatever we have been doing to each other will bear fruit by the Grace of Reality-as-is. "For the earth brings forth fruit of herself." It seems obvious that there is nothing left to say. The rest is silence....... All the best Derek

David, I got a reminder a couple of days ago that I had already ducked out of this thread once, leaving you to have the last word. My trouble seems to be that I duck and dive a bit between forums and threads and lose track a bit, so anyway, I'm back again but please speak again yourself if the mood takes you..... Well, from what I know of the "others" here they are well aware of the need for love and God's grace, I just think its a question of "others" believing that such grace can be mediated to human beings in ways other than those set by your own conceptual framework. And you have received answers to your constant claim that only the personal God can ultimately sustain "diversity". Once again, I am no logician, but I do know that "eastern" logic is of an order that differs from "western", and therefore applying western categories towards it are totally beside the point. In addition, all the words of The Buddha are soteriological in intent, they do not "ignore" the discussion, merely observe that until the mind is clarified by the erasing of "dukkha" (which has far deeper meanings than the mere word "suffering") then our questions and the answers we would accept to them would be irrelevant. Questions of the meaning of "personhood" and just what we mean by "personal" etc etc etc are extremely relevant to any interfaith dialogue, but they are not settled by insisting that your own conceptual framework is taken as the only base/starting point. Once again I wish you well, All the best Derek

rivanna, the words of Louise Bogan brought to mind a few words by some Buddhist sage from the long past, I think more associated with Ch'an (Zen) than Pure Land. They float on the edge of my mind and I'm unable to trace them, but the meaning was that there is just a hairs breath between nirvana and samsara. I think that perhaps the tragedy is that we spend our entire lives seeking to make samsara more comfortable, instead of taking the short "leap" into nirvana! Ahhh! Anyway, these thoughts in turn have prompted the memory of the following poem by Maya Angelou, which you may be familiar with. I know why the caged bird sings.... The free bird leaps on the back of the wind and floats downstream till the current ends and dips his wings in the orange sun rays and dares to claim the sky. But a bird that stalks down his narrow cage can seldom see through his bars of rage his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing. The caged bird sings with fearful trill of the things unknown but longed for still and his tune is heard on the distant hill for the caged bird sings of freedom The free bird thinks of another breeze and the trade winds soft through the sighing trees and the fat worms waiting on a dawn-bright lawn and he names the sky his own. But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing The caged bird sings with a fearful trill of things unknown but longed for still and his tune is heard on the distant hill for the caged bird sings of freedom. Just to add a note of humour to these musings of mine, there is a small verse written by the comedian Spike Milligan, where he adapts some words from "Auguries of Innocence" by William Blake. No prizes fo guessing just where Blakes words end and Milligans begin! The Robin Redbreast in a cage Puts all heaven in a rage, But not the Lesser Spotted Twit She doesn't mind a bit.

Joseph, Seems like I would have been waiting quite a while for the cavalry to arrive! Just remembered that I actually bowed out as well, which just goes to show............... (Some might wish I had kept to my word!) Anyway, thanks for your quotes and comments. All the best Derek

Well, I've been looking over my shoulders waiting - and hoping - for the 10th Cavalry to arrive (i.e. Mike) but no show at the moment, so I'll plow on. My intent in posting the little Zen saying was just to mirror a few of the early verses of "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas a' Kempis, about it being better to feel compunction than to be able to define it, and of what use is knowing the Bible in detail, and the works of all the Philosophers, if we lack love and the grace of God. And believe me this is aimed at no one here, its just to make a general point concerning all "reality". I'm not seeking to put myself down too much, or to suggest that I'm totally thick, but really when it comes to just what - or Who - might or might not - guarantee "individuality", or the sacredness of the "person", or sustain "diversity", I really havent a clue, and I'm totally at a loss to truly follow the arguments offered here. All I would say is that the "arguments" seem far more like "assertions", at least to me. I do know Buddhism well, and have read many many books that assert that it is "sunyata"/"emptiness" that truly guarantees diversity and allows it to be, just as Davidk asserts it is a Personal God Who creates and therefore sustains it. Quite frankly, I havent got a clue, I just can't follow the logic......if there is any! This is not to argue that one side can't be right, just to say I would have to take it on faith rather than following the line of thought on offer. I do have concerns in this area. On Buddhist forums I have begun threads based upon Thomas Merton's letter to Aldous Huxley when Huxley was argueing for the idea of intiating "mystical experience" by the use of drugs. Merton suggested to him that true mystical experience must always involve the "contact of two liberties", an I-Thou relationship (judging by a few of Merton's later essays, he moved on a little bit from this position). The threads never really sorted anything out, which is the nature of Buddhist Forums I suppose. All I do know is that those boards were inundated with those who would argue, with fine and profound reasons, that "enlightenment" is not possible for "those with the eternalist view", i.e. Christians of most varieties. I've actually argued against this, which I suppose deserves some sort of medal...... For me, the point is that we ARE persons, however we define the term, and whatever we think may or may not "sustain" and "underlay" it. And it seems to me that part of being a "person" is to have a deep respect and empathy for other "persons". That this is part of being "wise" and allowing diversity to BE............and I recognise such wisdom throughout recorded history, in the lives of many of all faiths, and even of none. Whether or not such people dipped into the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Nagarjuna or some modern day conservative Christian, who knows. Such is diversity, whatever "sustains" it and allows it to be. Well, I'd better stop. All the best Derek <---- "Better to see the face than to hear the name"

Better to see the face than to hear the name (Zen Saying)

rivanna, really like the Franz Wright poem, so real in parts. Wishing to "live forever" but then.........I'll look him up at some time. I've always liked R.S.Thomas, but more his earlier poems. Later they become cryptic and impenetrable, at least to me! (Could be a way of admitting that I'm slightly thick! ) Well, time for a quote, from Julian of Norwich (Her words could be mirrored by some of the Pure Land hymns of Shinran, but as we are on a Christian Forum.....) If there be anywhere on earth a lover of God who is always kept safe, I know nothing of it, for it was not shown to me. But this was shown, that in falling and rising again we are always kept in that same precious love.

Another by R.S Thomas. Titled "H'm"......... and one said speak to us of love and the preacher opened his mouth and the word God fell out so they tried again speak to us of God then but the preacher was silent reaching his arms out but the little children the ones with big bellies and bow legs that were like a razor shell were too weak to come

davidk, While I appreciate that you were addressing Mike - and I'm sure he will have his own answers! - your words have prompted me to crawl out of hybernation. I was taking a break but pop back now and again to see how things are going. My understanding is that "Buddhism" does not begin with the impersonal, but with the existential reality of suffering. The Buddha said at one time...I teach this and this alone, suffering and the ending of suffering. My understanding - again - is that this leaves aside any "view" of the "person". The Buddha was constantly warning against becoming embroiled in a tangle of "views" that would interfere with the main thrust of his teaching. And just what "we" are - or are not! - after the ending of "suffering" (dukkha) we are advised not to speculate upon. It does seem to me that "reality" can be lived, but not "thought", and as per the Madhyamika- the Central Philosophy of Buddhism - there is a total and interminable conflict in reason which is why the Buddha sought to go beyond speculative answers, to be free of all theories. It is the subject of the Person, and just what we mean by Personhood, and just what we mean by "God" being "personal" that is a fertile area of concern for anyone interested in Interfaith dialogue. To my mind, it is not sufficient to give our own meaning and understanding, or to resort to Western Dictionaries. True "dialogue" is open, with no pre-conditions...............there must be "vulnerability" on both sides. Just as a taster, my own "Pure Land" faith has the symbolism of gold for the undifferentiated nature of "enlightenment", while the LOtus flower represents the "suchness" and uniqueness of each individual. The Pure Land abounds with infinite golden lotus flowers. Well, thanks for the wake up call. All the best Derek

Another favorite of mine, this by R S Thomas, entitled "The Kingdom" It’s a long way off but inside it There are quite different things going on: Festivals at which the poor man Is king and the consumptive is Healed; mirrors in which the blind look At themselves and love looks at them Back; and industry is for mending The bent bones and the minds fractured By life. It’s a long way off, but to get There takes no time and admission Is free, if you purge yourself Of desire, and present yourself with Your need only and the simple offering Of your faith, green as a leaf.

There are a couple of excerpts from longer poems that I have long considered "companions" to each other. Once I posted them on a Buddhist forum and asked the question: "Would you consider that these verses express Buddhist ideas?" Well, being a Buddhist forum the answers tended to range between "No, not Buddhist at all" to "Oh yes, very Buddhist indeed!"...and all points in between! Now I no longer really care just what "faith" they may - or may not - have to do with. Pondering them, for me, gives tantalising hints of many things....... For the garden is the only place there is, but you will not find it Until you have looked everywhere and found nowhere that is not a desert. (W.H.Auden) We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. (T.S.Eliot)

david, Though you may now have left behind the familiar half truths of the eastern religions, I still find them life giving. The all sufficiency of the Grace of Reality-as-is (Amida) is one such truth that still sustains and guides me. Obviously you are quite entitled to your opinions and beliefs but I am unable to share them. Apparently JoesphM has left behind your "half truths" in the same manner as you have "left behind" mine. And so it goes on. My apologies for being so blunt but to me this whole dialogue has been rather sad. Personally I find the whole idea of a God who choses to communicate to humanity via an infallible book impossible to believe. This is not said to begin any further arguments. Please have the last word if you wish, I will not add to my posts on this thread. All the best Derek

I may have misread...................If so I ask you to reconsider and look elsewhere. david, you obviously did not misread and I apologise if the words caused you any offence at all. And believe me, I continually look "elsewhere", I'm a very introspective guy. We must all continually look at ourselves, even within the orbit of Grace. Yes, you are right in a way, I really should leave the subject of Universalism to an "inhouse" argument. Not really being in the house, I should steer clear. Perhaps I am only saying that if I was a Christian I would believe Universalism to be the Bibles final word when all is read "in the spirit". Karl Barth, one of the greatest recognised Protestant theologians of the last century, was reported to have said in a private conversation.....Perculiar Christendom, whose most pressing problem seems to consist in this, that God's grace in this direction should be too free, that hell, instead of being amply populated, might one day be found to be empty. All the best Derek P.S. Just popped back as I would add that I used the word "all" when I said what was being judged. It was more whole faith systems than other people that I had in mind.

I understand any "faith" system as being complete in itself, in the sense that all can potentially lead to transformation/enlightenment/salvation.......due from within my own "system" to the infinite compassion/grace/love of Reality-as-is that reveals itself in all things as apaya - skilful means - drawing all to itself/herself/hisself! From my own reading and experience, there are "completists" within all faiths, each with their own particular texts and long history of arguments designed to "prove" it. From the Bible's/Christianitie's "I am the way, the truth and the life etc" to Islam's/Quran's "There is no joy in the life hereafter for those outside of Islam" to the Theravada Buddhists "only way" verse contained in its Canon of scripture. For me it is beside the point to argue that the "I" the Bible refers to is the eteranl Logos that lights every man who comes into the world (and woman no doubt!), or that the word "islam" means submission and therefore that joy can come to any who "submit" to God, of whatever faith. Beside the point because for me these books and systems are all man made responses to a "revelation" that is in fact continuous with all reality and not to be found as a part of it. As a Buddhist I am more familiar with the various texts within the Buddhist tradition that explicate this viewpoint....... The Lord speaks with but one voice, but all beings, each according to his kind, gain understanding, each thinking that the Lord speaks his own language. This is a special quality of the Buddha. The Lord speaks with but one voice,but all beings, each according to his own ability, act upon it, and each derives his appropriate bebefit. This is a special quality of the Buddha. (Vimalakirti Sutra) Just as the nature of the earth is one While beings each live separately, And the earth has no thought of oneness or difference, So is the truth of all Buddhas. Just as the ocean is one With millions of different waves, Yet the water is no different: So is the truth of all buddhas. Just as the element earth, while one, Can produce various sprouts, yet it's not that the earth is diverse: So is the truth of all Buddhas. (Hua-Yen Sutra) I bring fullness and satisfaction to the world, like rain that spreads its moisture everywhere. Eminent and lowly, superior and inferior, observers of precepts, violators of precepts, those fully endowed with proper demeanor, those not fully endowed, those of correct views, of erroneous views, of keen capacity, of dull capacity - I cause the Dharma rain to rain on all equally, never lax or neglectful. When all the various living beings hear my Law, they receive it according to their power, dwelling in their different environments..... ..The Law of the Buddhas is constantly of a single flavour, causing the may worlds to attainfull satisfaction everywhere; by practicing gradually and stage by stage, all beings can gain the fruits of the way. (The Lotus Sutra, Parable of the Dharma Rain) Well, thats the gist of it, with apologies for some of the non PC language......as I've indicated, even the Buddhists were not infallible! Obviously problems begin when one persons experience and the parameters set by their own understanding become the standard by which all is judged. And yes, I am speaking of David here, its unavoidable. For me I am guided by a particular text found in the Buddhist Theravada tradition, where the Buddha has been expounding the deepest heart of his teaching to his monks, that of anatta (no-self). After a long session of question and answer he becomes assured that they have fully grasped its meaning. Then he says....purified and bright as this view is, if you adhere to it, cherish it, treasure it, and treat it as a possession, would you then understand the Dharma that has been taught as similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping? To cross over, not to grasp. As Mike often says, Peace to you all Derek

David, Maybe I should have said after the word heaven to have been correct, though the following two sentences, especially the second of them, should have made this reasonably obvious. Anyway, we'll have to agree to differ on the subject of Universalism. In any case, the Pure Land (Buddhist) terms are different in essential ways from the Christian, not least in the greater emphasis on a realised escatology in this life Best wishes Derek

Joe, Hey! "self" and "shelf"! You show promise............. Just came here from peeping at another thread, where things look like getting nasty. Maybe I'm just indulging myself, but here's another by Philip Larkin, this is called Faith Healing..... Slowly the women file to where he stands Upright in rimless glasses, silver hair, Dark suit, white collar. Stewards tirelessly Persuade them onwards to his voice and hands, Within whose warm spring rain of loving care Each dwells some twenty seconds. Now, dear child, What's wrong, the deep American voice demands, And, scarcely pausing, goes into a prayer Directing God about this eye, that knee. Their heads are clasped abruptly; then, exiled Like losing thoughts, they go in silence; some Sheepishly stray, not back into their lives Just yet; but some stay stiff, twitching and loud With deep hoarse tears, as if a kind of dumb And idiot child within them still survives To re-awake at kindness, thinking a voice At last calls them alone, that hands have come To lift and lighten; and such joy arrives Their thick tongues blort, their eyes squeeze grief, a crowd Of huge unheard answers jam and rejoice - What's wrong! Moustached in flowered frocks they shake: By now, all's wrong. In everyone there sleeps A sense of life lived according to love. To some it means the difference they could make By loving others, but across most it sweeps As all they might have done had they been loved. That nothing cures. An immense slackening ache, As when, thawing, the rigid landscape weeps, Spreads slowly through them - that, and the voice above Saying Dear child, and all time has disproved. I'll leave it for now, and hope a few more "voices" can be heard on this thread.

Joe, I too have been bemused by certain poems, particularly by those termed "modern", finding many impenetrable. This applies equally to those by Thomas Merton, which highlights the problem! Anyhow, one of my favorite poets is Philip Larkin who is more often than not easier to comprehend. Here's one........ Philip Larkin - This Be The Verse They f**k you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do. They fill you with the faults they had And add some extra, just for you. But they were f**ked up in their turn By fools in old-style hats and coats, Who half the time were soppy-stern And half at one another's throats. Man hands on misery to man. It deepens like a coastal shelf. Get out as early as you can, And don't have any kids yourself. Well, perhaps the concluding advice is rather harsh. Maybe better to seek not to be one of the "fools" referred to - yet this can be a little bit tricky at times! (Speaking of myself, it doesnt take much self-analysis to realise that I'm more in the "soppy" camp than the "stern", and I can't actually remember at any time going for my partners throat.....) Hopefully this thread will soon have more contributionsfrom other members of the forum. All quotes, stories, verses welcome.

Dear Joe, Thanks for your contribution to this thread. Given that I asked for favorite poetry and quotes, the fact that you have now posted two of your own pieces compels me to offer the following quote...... Ecclesiastes 1:2 All is vanity

A couple of poems there for further thought. A Tree Like Me made me think of the very first psalm. Well, here's a quote, actually the words of Sir Humphrey Davy. Another drawn from the treasury of the previous thread spoken of. For me the words seem to push aside some of the more "profound" insights, the talk of the various paths and ways that often seem beyond me to understand, let alone to walk. Just a reminder of what perhaps is a possibility for anyone........yet they can become truly profound in there own particular way.... Life is not made up of great sacrifices or duties, but of little things, of which smiles and kindness and small obligations, given habitually, are what win and preserve the heart.

........and tariki enters. This is a poem that I first became aquainted with on the thread I spoke of. ITs important to me because when I first read it for some reason - now forgotten - I was eager to be somewhere else and it made no impression and was discarded by my mind. Later, when meandering through the thread again its words and meaning really hit home. So it reminds me just how easy it is for opportunities to be missed.........which to a certain extent is its meaning. The Two-Headed Calf Tomorrow when the farm boys find this freak of nature, they will wrap his body in newspaper and carry him to the museum. But tonight he is alive and in the north field with his mother. It is a perfect summer evening: the moon rising over the orchard, the wind in the grass. And as he stares into the sky, there are twice as many stars as usual. - Laura Gilpin

Way back on a now defunct Forum someone began a favorite poetry and quotes thread. For me it became a treasury of various bits and pieces. Just thought it could be a good idea here. If you like, just add a few words to explain just how the verses/words have figured in your life..........but this is not obligatory! So the door is open......