tariki

Following on - now in Costa's with extra hot cappuccino - Joyce's Wakese has much that relates to Dogenese. Particularly the "coming together" (the gathering of chaos) in the present moment, keeping in mind what Dogen's own teachers passed on to him in China, this that to teach students the power of the present moment as the only moment "is a skillful teaching of buddha ancestors" but this doesn’t mean that there is no future result from practice. Hee-Jin Kim, in his commentary on Dogen, relates all of this to faith, not always spoken of in western books on zen. Kim explicates how any such creative practice-expression in the present moment is not a matter of some refined understanding, but of deep trust in the activity of Buddha-nature: “Zazen-only cannot be fully understood apart from consideration of faith.” So there is always the hub of the wheel, even though the wheel turns, the "still" point of T.S.Eliot:- At the still point of the turning world. Neither flesh nor fleshless; Neither from nor towards; at the still point, there the dance is, But neither arrest nor movement. And do not call it fixity, Where past and future are gathered. Neither movement from nor towards, Neither ascent nor decline. Except for the point, the still point, There would be no dance, and there is only the dance.” (Lines from Four Quartets) Of relevance to all this is the wider understanding of what might be seen as the "one way". Deep correspondences can be seen (as above) between Joyce as he seeks the universal within the particular, with Dogen, as he seeks his very own path, time and place. Also with Eliot and that man's insights drawn from his own travels through "eastern" ways and Christian mysticism. Anyone conversant with understandings of the Universal Christ will also see how each relates to the other. How distant from such concord is the "only way" of some fundamentalist sects, where all who challenge one word of their own beliefs are deemed to be goats, to be cast into the outer darkness!

In Wakese the word combines Cosmos (suggesting order, purpose, significance) and chaos. Joyce writes in Finnegans Wake of a constant rise and fall, circular, both for individuals and all Reality. A coming together, a falling apart.

I often browse in books of poetry. This evening I came upon this one, which made me think of this thread:- You say, “If you want to be happy there’s no way, but to be a hermit. Flowers in the grove are better than brocade, every single season’s colours new. Just sit by a creek and turn your head to watch the moon’s ball roll.” And me? I ought to be at joyous ease, but I can’t help thinking of the people in the world. (Shih Te, 8th Century, translation from the Chinese by J. P. Seaton, from "The Poetry of Zen")

I have come across a new word of Wakese while dipping into Finnegans Wake, chaosmos. A combination of chaos and cosmos. Often I have contrasted the two, asking which one Reality was. Joyce obviously had his own ideas and I find it suggestive, given a Reality of becoming rather than a fixed something. (I did come up with one word of Wakese of my own, agonversary. This a word describing a wedding anniversary, combined with the state of the marriage itself.... 😃 Maybe others can give thought to words of their own?)

Thanks Romansh I was offering three examples from prominent scientists. There are many more. As I see it all point towards a paradigm shift, this from a Reality experienced as "me in here, that out there", "me subjective, that objective" into one where there is a fundamental inter-relationship between observer and observed. Experienced and understood as such. (Anyone interested could look up a post I made on March 1, 2017 on the thread Dogen in Other Wisdom Traditions, which relates) Thank you once again for your interest. It is appreciated. (I'Il give further thought to what was said concerning Heisenberg)

Yes, one of the Dads actually admitted feeling anger towards his daughter for having chosen such a "solution". Such bravery to admit such. My only link to such tragedy was my GP. A young guy who treated me for over 20 years, once through a period of acute depression. Always family photo's on his desk. Always greeted me with a smile. I had absolutely no suspicion of his own challenges. When I found out that he had taken his own life I was shocked. It still keeps coming back into mind. When I was deep in the pit a consultant said to me that others often have no idea just what we are going through, "especially people like yourself." I asked what he meant, and he said: - "You are always smiling". I had no idea! Simply automatic, it meant nothing. Mental health needs to be broadcast, spoken about, admitted. The suffering will obviously be far worse for anyone under the impression that all others are fine and coping well.

Back to Finnegans Wake. Dogen was getting a bit heavy and I needed constant escapes to Candy Crush Soda Saga to rest my weary mind. As an aid to the virtually unreadable Wake I am reading Richard Ellmann's biography of James Joyce, still the finest biography although first published back in 1959. Very detailed. Joyce drew deeply upon his own life and experiences as the source for his books and Mr Ellmann constantly gives examples of episodes from Joyce's life that found there way into Ulysses and Finnegans Wake, even though often in a slightly altered form (and even more often with names changed "to protect the innocent" - or not so innocent!) Joyce comes across as very advanced in his early years. By the age of 16/17 he had already passed through a "pious/overly religious" period and had thrown off the yoke of any overt Catholic indoctrination. This apart from a life long fear of thunder (the sound of which appears in the Wake as "bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonner- ronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!") .....a sound which I am told represents The Fall, a recurring feature of humankind's history rather than a once off. It is also suggested that the vivid hell-fire sermons took their toll upon his tender young mind, but not so as to cower his artistic expression. It seems that he sought to transform his own given time and place - 19th century Dublin - into universal themes. Yet Joyce retained his appreciation of his Jesuit teachers, recognising a certain slant of mind that they inculcated in him that he was able to transfer to other frames of reference beyond Church doctrine. Joyce:- "To live, to err, to fall, to triumph, to create life out of life" No fears of damnation would deter him. He saw great meaning in Christ being born in a stable and his writings often draw forth profound epiphanies from what others would dismiss as commonplace. As I see it, how the mythic becomes our own experience. I see correspondences with Dogen. Off now to Oxfam.

As per my previous post, a few relevant quotes regarding interdependence (or in mumbo-jumbo speak, "non-duality v duality"):- Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty because even in the vacuum matter is one; and if we don't see this, it's because we are blinding ourselves to it. (David Bohm) Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else. (Erwin Schrödinger) There is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the mistake of atomising what should not be atomised. Unity and complementarity constitute reality. (Werner Heisenberg) Maybe the moral is that what we should have in the other hand is each other. Simply because this is the hard reality. What comes to one must come to all.

Well, after a brief interlude of just who will be getting the drinks, back to the thread. (Just to mention that any contribution at all will be appreciated) The mention of "should" and "could" and the implications for the ancient on-going conundrums concerning free will and determinism, I'm becoming convinced that the failure to truly resolve the paradoxes and various logical problems actually have to do with our notions of "self", of exactly who we are in reality. As I see it we are possibly asking questions, and trying to solve them, about a construct that doesnt exist as we have constructed it/imagine it, to be. Just so long as we presume an inner self (subjective) looking out, and an outer reality, objective in and of itself, the age old questions will never be settled. (In fact, many will simply insist/presume their own "answer" based upon the subjective conditionings and necessities of whatever belief system they subscribe to - which certainly becomes a nonsensical tangle) Our knowledge now of reality points to the interdependence of observer and observed. Innumerable eminent physicists at the cutting edge of scientific discovery and experiment have testified to this. Maybe I'll dig out some relevant quotes sometime. Once again, this for me is not academic. It relates to "suffering (dukkha) and the end of suffering". It is about finding myself/ourselves. All seems to be paradox. In dying to self we come alive for the first time. In losing ourselves we find ourselves. I'm reminded once more of an entry in the Journals of Thomas Merton. Speaking of "change" he made a comment when in 1954 he was visited by his friend Mark Van Doren. Van Doren remarked that Merton had not changed much since his entry into the monastery. Merton replied....."Why should I? Here our duty is to be more ourselves, not less" Paradoxically, "becoming more ourselves" is to let go of the congealed beliefs and allegiances that we think sustain us. Which can be frightening at times. OK. Lots of "analysis" or whatever, conjecture, call it what you will. "Fidelity to grace in my life is fidelity to simplicity, rejecting ambition and analysis and elaborate thought, or even elaborate concern." (Thomas Merton) What price "simplicity"? (Or, as we say in the Pure Land, hakarai - no calculation)

No reason then why you can't bring the beer....😄

Given the way my mind seems to work I often find it difficult to decide where to post my latest ramblings. Dogen, Finnegans Wake and 3 Dads Walking all jumble together, suggestive in multiple ways. Speaking of "walking", I usually walk into town prior to my cappuccino in Costa's. I've made jokes about this on other Forums, alluding to a phrase often used by those seeking to demonstrate some sort of insight into the ways of zen. "When walking just walk". Yes indeed! The whole mind simply dedicated to the act of walking, void of all else. Well, for me, as I walk my mind is active, mulling over various things. Such as what may or may not tumble out of me when I hit Costa's. What I was thinking of today was the 3 Dads Walking, the guys raising awareness of suicide in the young, each having lost their own daughters. The first video in the link I gave above tells most of it. Deeply moving. There is a song, The Pilgrim, by Kris Kristofferson, which has the lines:- "From the rocking of the cradle to the rolling of the hearse, The going up was worth the coming down." At the beginning of T S Eliot's Four Quartets are the words of Heraclitus, "The way up and the way down are one and the same" (Push the two together you can get a decent Theodicy, not to mention the implications of much by Dogen) Thinking of the 3 Dads, they are "turning darkness to light", not quoting a verse, not "believing" in the words of any book, however "holy". That said, using some words, this - as I see it - is truly "incarnational", the Word truly becoming flesh. The old slogan about Christ needing to be born in our hearts, not just believing that he was born in Bethlehem. Again, God's word being written on human hearts and not simply on tablets of stone. The tragedy is often created by those who insist upon "Jesus" coming into it, the "only way", the "one gate" - and obviously they have the texts to "prove" it! As I've indicated, I'm more into Buddhism and the Mahayana teaching of Upaya (expedient means) whereby the truth (though "one") can be known/ found/realised in infinite ways. The Mahayana also has its texts, but in the end it is not the "authority" of any text, not the Word as text, but the Word made flesh. For me, as I see it and understand it, the video of that dad was/is an instance, a moment in time when any "truth" became substance. Anyway, I continue with Dogen and his insights, his poetry, his sermons, the words he left behind - this after finding his very own path, time and place. He seems to say all this, in zen speak. "We are what we understand"

A link here to the story behind "3 Dads Walking".... https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2021-10-07/the-dads-united-by-their-daughters-suicides-hoping-to-prevent-more-deaths Worth a moment of time.

I was dipping into a few old quotes, those I had seen fit to include in my cyber notebook. I found this, taken from the Introduction to Richard Ellmann's biography of James Joyce:- "The initial and determining act of judgement in his work is the justification of the commonplace....Joyce saw joined what others held separate: the point of view that life is unspeakable and to be exposed, and the point of view that it is ineffable and to be distilled.....he denudes man of what we are accustomed to respect, then summons us to sympathise." Strangely perhaps to some, I see this very much related to all that has been said here about Dogen, of his search for his own path, time and place. "Perfection" is very much overated, and the search for it - I think - futile. As I see it, if we are always looking for something more, whether it be happiness, contentment, even meaning, then we seek for something outside of ourselves that will forever recede out of reach. It comes back to "acceptance", paradoxically the catalyst of genuine change. There is a zen proverb, "never add legs to a snake", or, don't try to add what is unnecessary. Nothing need be added to the present moment. Anyway, a few more bits and pieces about James Joyce (whose words in Finnegans Wake are also worth absorbing:- "We are once amore as babes awondering in a wold made fresh.......") that I find relevant here:- Joyce offers a new litmus test for what we call the hero, not gigantic feats of strength, but small and simple feats of kindness. An epiphany was not a miraculous dispensation from above but, as Joyce defined it, an insight into 'the soul of the commonest object' " (Kevin Birmingham, from "The Most Dangerous Book: The Battle For James Joyce's Ulysses.") And finally:- "No, it did a lot of other things, too" (when turning down an admirer who asked to kiss the hand that wrote "Ulysses")

Hi Paul, maybe having "both hands free" as you describe it is the best way of actually becoming "responsible" in truly affective ways? It seems to me that more often than not when anyone plans and plots any activity towards the world (and I would include any form of evangelisation) the consequences are abysmal! Most revolutions are just that, revolving, and the wheel continues to turn. It is the "sideways" step, the non-step, that proves affective. The way of no-calculation. Today we often see people confronting personal challenges, born of circumstances they never anticipated. People of no particular faith or belief system, even perhaps living the "unexamined life." The suicide of a daughter, a cancer diagnosis, dementia in the family, and a life is transformed as a human being seeks to begin giving , growing in empathy and a wider concern for the world around them. In the UK, three dads at the moment are creating a few "headlines" actually worth catching, each having lost a young daughter to suicide. The terrible emotional pain, grief and loss, the unanswered questions........becoming a 300 mile walk, money being raised for various charities. The three dads would never have met each other if not for the deaths of their daughters. I suppose, in a way, the walk had to be "planned" yet as I see it this all fits the way of no-calculation. And not one Bible verse or any other scripture being quoted. So I'll quote one..... "Out of darkness light will shine." I'm not seeking to suggest any form of theodicy to "justify" evil/suffering or whatever. That in itself I see as counter-productive. As you say/imply Paul, keeping the hands free, keeping the mind free of any theology or system, is a better preparation for meeting the next moment with any degree of compassion/understanding.

Thanks!

All events are coordinated… All things depend on each other; as has been said, ‘Everything breathes together.’ (Plotinus)

I seem to have opened two threads on the same topic. Not sure how this has happened. 🤔

I intended to mention something about a "childlike" heart but my cappuccino got cold before getting there. I think any talk of an "examined life" can infer some sort of intellectual accomplishment. We are a very egalitarian crowd in the Pure Land which makes us (at least me) love the little verse in the OT about a "little child leading them." I don't see this as sentimentality, more as something profound about Reality. Reading about James Joyce, there was much that was childlike about him as he cadged his way through life. Despite how impenetrable Finnegans Wake can appear there is much to love in his life. Once he was walking down a Dublin Street with a companion and a tramp like guy accosted him, begging for a penny. Joyce asked him why he wanted it. The guy said, "well, to be honest, I'm dying for a drink" obviously meaning alcoholic. Joyce gave the guy his last penny. After the tramp went away Joyce turned to his friend and said:-"If he'd said he wanted a cup of tea I would have hit him! " This reminds me of Shinran, one of the "fathers" of Pure Land Buddhism, a bit of a sourpuss, yet when he came in after a funeral and found the people sitting in grief he encouraged them to have a drink or two of sake. Mercy and grace come in all shapes and sizes, through the commonplace. Often it can be missed. Anyway, once again I waffle. Its just that as I see it Reality loves "simplicity". Some people just seem to have it without any particular "intellectual" claims, sometimes coming naturally. Children too.

I thought I would open a thread just for this book, by James Joyce. The book took Joyce over 15 years to write and his notebooks associated with it are numerous. Biographies of Joyce reveal that he would often be up late into the night scribbling into the notebooks, chuckling to himself. Possibly laughing at your own jokes is not to be encouraged, and certainly Joyce's long suffering wife Nora was not amused. She just wished that her hubby would "write something people could understand" and thus result in bigger sales, not to mention royalties. The book is written in what has come to be called "Wakese", a mixture of various languages Joyce could speak, plus various mythologies and folklore chucked in. The suspicion is that Joyce was chuckling at future generations of scholars who he envisaged pouring over his book seeking understanding. Maybe a way Joyce was seeking some form of immortality? The wordplay begins with the title, Finnegans Wake. No apostrophe. Therefore not the wake of Finnegan, but more "Oy! Wake up Finnegan!" . Finnegan is everybody, therefore a call to us all. The Buddha made no claim other than that he was awake. There is indeed a Wake involved. Death, the wake, then resurrection. The story of us all, whether understood as a once off in linear time, or as an on-going spiral where the road goes on forever, the journey itself a home. But always returning in some sense to the ground/heart of Reality itself, radical freedom. ( "Love has no why" Meister Eckhart) To show what any reader is up against, here is a short passage drawn from near the beginning of the Wake:- "What clashes here of wills gen wonts, oystrygods gaggin fishy-gods! Brékkek Kékkek Kékkek Kékkek! Kóax Kóax Kóax! Ualu Ualu Ualu! Quáouauh! Where the Baddelaries partisans are still out to mathmaster Malachus Micgranes and the Verdons catapelting the camibalistics out of the Whoyteboyce of Hoodie Head. Assiegates and boomeringstroms. Sod’s brood, be me fear! Sanglorians, save! Arms apeal with larms, appalling. Killykillkilly: a toll, a toll. What chance cuddleys, what cashels aired and ventilated!" Double dutch does not really cover it! Samuel Beckett said that Joyce's book was the thing itself rather than being about anything. Of the passage above, Joseph Campbell draws forth all the multiple meanings, which are indeed there, waiting to be found. Which all added together do tell a story of sorts. But "the thing itself" is life. I see reality itself as being much like the Wake. What we see is what we get. "We are what we understand" We can look out and see simple confusion and discord, yet with the "examined life" we can seek to make sense of it all. Sages have said that the true gift of God is "himself". God is often seen as "good" and a representative of a particular creed, but I see God, Reality-as-is, as freedom itself. No sooner said than the doctrinaire seek to dictate the "choice" that must be made, that between absolutes, opposites, the "decision for Jesus" etc etc. The wrong choice and its the outer darkness, the gnashing of teeth! I see God as a "jealous" God, jealous simply because "he" wants the very best for us, radical freedom, a freedom that can only exist in the moment, now. The "appropriate statement" that is the "teaching of a whole lifetime". Appropriate always, there, now, here but nowhere else. No time else. As I see it there is no "truth" out there waiting to be discovered, acknowledged, chosen. Truth is more a constant advance into novelty. And the road goes on forever, the journey itself is home. But I must go. Maybe more on Finnegans Wake later.

Back in Oxfams, the morning guy I took over from told me he had had no customers all morning. I'm hoping things will be as quiet for me and I can read and listen to my music undisturbed. The Travelling Wilburys playing once again, only two left now, Bob Dylan and Jeff Lynne, the others have travelled on. The voice of the Big O still sends shivers down my spine, the only singer I have ever known who can convey such emotions of loss and yearning without even opening his mouth. Getting back to Dogen, I threatened way back to write of "zazen as metaphor", which must come across as pretty dull. But life and blood to me. Thoreau once said:- it's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. Or as Dogen has it, "we are what we understand." Zazen "as metaphor" takes the actual sitting practice of zazen, the hours sitting upright on the zafu, and opens the dedication, the commitment, the authenticity, into all life, where the only extension to the present is intensity. In these often dim days of celebrity culture and facile "commitments" it is impossible to avoid seeing and admiring the contrasting integrity of Dogen, his own intense search for meaning, answers to his own deep existential questions, the need to find his own path, time and place. In 13th century Japan, given that time and place, he found his own. In zazen. As I see it, if I learn from Dogen, it is the integrity, the intensity, the commitment to finding my own path, time and place that matters, which may or may not involve hours on the meditation cushion. As a Pure Land Buddhist, this commitment will necessarily be enfolded in Grace, of the "deep hearing" of the infinite compassion of Amida (Reality-as-is) One thing I find in Dogen is the lack of any "systemisation". His teaching never involves preconceived ideas and meanings that we are then called upon to print upon the unfolding moment, killing the "spirit". Dogen sought a radical freedom. Nietzsche (I love the name dropping of these intellectual giants, hoping some of it rubs off and tells another story of myself, far removed from the grandad who plays marbles and lego with his grandson and has been known to talk in a high pitched voice to Barbie dolls - this without the need of alcoholic stimulation...😄), yes Nietzsche said:- "I distrust all systematisers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." Of course, William Blake, who spoke to angels, once said that he must create his own system "or else I will be enslaved by anothers". But I'm with Nietzsche. I may have mentioned the Blue Cliff Record before (I've certainly used that Nietzsche quote before somewhere above, which shows the downside of waffling) and an intro to that strange book is relevant here. The author, Terrance Keenan, quotes a guy called Joshu, who says:- "Remake what has gone by and work with what comes. If you don’t remake, you are stuck deeply somewhere." As I see it, such advice is the antithesis of being "systematic". The wind needs to blow where it will. " Remaking what has gone by" might or might not be able to be fitted into Dogen. I'm not sure. No clarity at the moment. Would that be radical freedom? Whatever, Joshu's suggestion certainly supports the insights of such poets as T. S.Eliot, who wrote that "immature poets imitate, mature poets steal.....the good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different from that from which it was torn.' Certainly such thinking gives insight into "behold, I make all things new", with the Christian emphasis upon redemption, of taking what is , what we are, and using our frail frames to be an integral part of the "new world." Well, that is enough. Still no customers (just one guy bringing back a dud DVD, "The Punisher" which has an 18 certificate as it contains "Strong and Sadistic Violence". Well, a narrow escape for that guy perhaps)

With a bit of trepidation I enter the "Debate and Dialogue" section. However, the subject should not be too controversial. For quite a few months I have taken a break (as much as possible) from what could be called "current affairs". I barely look at a newspaper and the News on TV is switched off soon after the main headlines. My decision to do this was because of my total alienation from the direction of my country (the UK) and my low opinion of its current Government. You can consider "low" a bland euphemism for what I actually think. All this was seriously affecting my mental health. Long ago I took notice of an opinion of the Protestant theologian Karl Barth, when he said that we must always read our Bibles in one hand with a daily newspaper in our other. I've always thought this good advice. I've carried it over into Buddhism. Now I seek clarity of mind given my decision. In the past, on a Buddhist Forum, I admired this guy (his "screen name" was Jabberwocky, a Lewis Carroll character, which i assumed he at least saw as relevant in some way to his zen practice) Jabberwocky would often relate his zen to current affairs. I think its always easy to have "principles" and beliefs which yet have no interaction - or even any particular relevance - to what happens in the wider world. Not so with Jabberwocky. Anyway, I've drifted into waffle as usual. The question:- "What should we have in the other hand?" How do others relate their faith/beliefs with the world around us? "In protecting oneself one protects others. In protecting others one protects oneself" (Theravada Text)

Resting this evening I thought of just one example of relevance for the inter-relationship between "subjectivities" (which Dogen emphasises in addition to the inter-relationship between "subjectivities" and "objective" reality.) It comes once again from the words of David Bentley-Hart, this as he seeks to argue the case for Universal Salvation. He says that Christians are obliged "to take seriously the eschatological imagery of scripture; and there all talk of salvation involves the promise of a corporate beatitude—a Kingdom of love and knowledge, a wedding feast, a city of the redeemed, the body of Christ—which means that the hope Christians cherish must in some way involve the preservation of whatever is deepest in and most essential to personality, rather than a perfect escape from personality. But finite persons are not self-enclosed individual substances; they are dynamic events of relation to what is other than themselves. (My own emphasis, which relates to my previous post) As a Buddhist I am more into what is called a "realised eschatology of the present moment" rather than any anticipation of future events dictated by a linear time-frame. But Mr Bentley-Hart makes extremely pertinent points, this for himself in respect of, and against, those who would argue that "redemption" can ever involve the complete loss of any human being, either in annihilation or in being cast into some eternal diabolical realm of perpetual suffering. Mr Hart argues that such would demand a "heavenly lobotomy" if any were finally "lost" (His words:- Think of it as a kind of heavenly lobotomy, a small, judicious mutilation of the intellect, the surrender of a piece of the mind in exchange for peace of mind. After all, consider how happy we could all be if we never had to think of anyone’s sufferings at all.) Again a reference:- "That All Shall Be Saved" by David Bentley-Hart.

Back in Costa's I contemplate the Grandad Duties that await me this afternoon. Looking at the Duty Roster it would appear that being a pack donkey is top of the agenda, with herding (Rawhide fashion) a close second. Anyway, a cappuccino will act as some sort of stimulant for the trials ahead. (We do love them, really.) Lately I've been thinking again of my long interest in the history of astronomy, ever since reading "The Sleepwalkers" by Arthur Koestler. One interesting facet of the whole adventure of "Man's Changing Vision of the Universe" (what women were doing or thinking about is anybody's business...😄) is the sheer absurdity of some of the descriptions - even beliefs - associated with what Koestler referred to as "saving the appearances". From around Plato onwards the assumption was of the circular motion of the planets. The heavens above were the realm of the gods; perfect, unlike our corrupted earth. Circles were the most perfect form, thus the planets literally circled us. Well, it was Kepler who finally found otherwise, but until then the presumption of circular motion ruled virtually all minds. Obviously, observation of the planets was more rudimentary than today, with out finer, more accurate telescopes etc. Yet certain discrepancies in the planets movements, if circular, still had to be accounted for. Thus, the EPICYCLE, which saved the day. Not only did the planets circle the earth, but they did so as they themselves went round in circles! Actual diagrams are often used to demonstrate this, and they make for a slightly Monty Pythonish vision. Koestler asked:- Did people really think such movement represented reality? A good question. But as he pointed out, the "system" worked, worked as far as navigational charts based upon such movement were capable of guiding ships on the oceans. But now to today. Our current cosmology "works", one based upon totally dualistic assumptions, of our own independent subjective realities confronting an independent objective reality outside of us. Technological advances tell us so. Yet any reader of popular science books knows full well that such an assumption is not only questionable, but in fact has been as good as totally disproved by hard core scientific experiments and findings over the last 100 or so years. Our own, "modern", vision of the Universe is outdated, and given the state we find ourselves in, both as individuals and as a human community, unfit for purpose. Getting back to Dogen, and his significance, he would have argued that our subjective reality does indeed "exist" as does an "objective" reality, but that they are interdependent. Or as a commentator has asserted Dogen taught that non-duality had to be realised within duality. I understand the "mumbo jumbo" aspect of this, the cry of "so what", yet I myself see the significance, for me, now, seeking my own path, time and place, of "justifying" my own faith in a COSMOS (rather than merely a chaos, of no significance or ultimate meaning) For me the "old ways", the - can we call it "conservative"? - Christian mythos of a transcendent Being, of gardens and sin, of incarnations to heal the rift, of ultimate divisions, all taking place in a linear time-frame.........allr me meaningless, beyond redemption as offering any picture of reality that I can "rest" in and not feel as if I am clinging to the wreckage. New cosmologies are needed. Looking around me, I think many also are adrift and if we choose to move forward, into "ever advancing novelty" rather than pull a blanket over our head and cling to outmoded pictures that have had there day, then maybe we need to take a chance. Maybe a Bibliography, to give reference to current reading:- "Eihei Dogen:Mystical Realist" by Hee Jin-Kim "Zen Cosmology" by Ted Biringer " Visions of Awakening Space and Time" by Dan Leighton. All the above relate to explication of the thought of Dogen. Believe it or not, I find each day a greater clarity of understanding, deeper faith that my hope that our Cosmos is "healing" and meaningful is not simply wishful thinking

Back in the safety and therapeutic pleasures of Costa's after a previous day of Grandad duties. i.e. One third messenger, one third escort and the final third pack donkey. But we do love them, one of life's blessings, yet I just wish our grandson's dressing skills were as advanced as his Inverse Ratios and he could actually learn to pull on his trousers after his underpants. Anyway, the day negotiated without serious mishap. I've been thinking about suffering (Pali dukkha) Years ago I asked on a Buddhist forum "In what sense does suffering end?" given the Buddha's claims. I had read a word or two by a disaffected buddhist who rejected what he saw as a "pseudo evolved transcendence of personal pain" and his objections made sense to me, with his testimony of his mother's death and his felt need to grieve. I have found that much of the problem is found in seeing "suffering" as one side of reality, with "joy" on the other. A superficial wish to "end" suffering would then imply a life of unending joy. But the Buddhist word "dukkha" covers all life, a pervading arena that is integral to all experience/existence. (Much like in Christianity, we are "sinners" and any good work does not change that - thus moments of joy do not solve dukkha) Well, I could waffle on, but recently I read a fine book by the Eastern Oryhodox theologian David Bentley-Hart who wrote well on subjects pertinent to all this. He spoke of a Chistian story of a saint descending to hell and finding there line upon line of people in anguish, all facing one way - thus seeing only the backs of each other. The saint simply turned every second person, and each saw the other, their face, for the first time. Sartre said once that hell is other people, but in this context he is wide of the mark. The story of Mr Bentley-Hart reminded me of the Buddhist story, of the Buddha descending into hell carrying a lamp. By its light the people there, thinking till then in the pitch black that they were alone, cried out:-"Ah, there are others here besides myself", which, as I see it, is the beginning of the moral sense, of "salvation/enlightenment" itself. But I would like to quote from Mr Bentley-Hart's book, as he wrote a passage concerning just how suffering can end which involved Bodhisattva's (enlightenment beings), a passage I found deeply suggestive:- "I had even come by then to know quite a lot about the Mahayana Buddhist understanding of bodhisattvas: those fully enlightened saviors who could, if they chose, enter finally into the unconditioned bliss of Nirvana, but who have instead vowed not to do so until all other beings have been gathered in before them, and who therefore, solely out of their superabounding compassion, strive age upon age for the liberation of all from Samsara, the great sea of suffering and ignorance. They even vow to pass through and, if need be, endure the pains of all the many narakas, those horridly numerous and ingeniously terrifying Buddhist hells, in pursuit of the lost. But then, in fact, in a marvelous and radiant inversion of all expectations, it turns out that such compassion is itself already the highest liberation and beatitude, and that, seen in its light, the difference between Samsara and Nirvana simply vanishes." Further on in the book the "self" is recognised not as a congealed essence, but more as "relationship". Here we see - at least I do - how interfaith dialogue is drawing forth deeper understanding. It's not a matter of conflicting truth claims, more a meeting of experience and mutual understanding. The "ground" of our "being" is not static, but is more a "becoming". Which brings me back to Dogen, who saw this in his own time and place of 13th century Japan. Yes, I do read a lot. I have lived too! But another quote to finish (I have shopping to get) drawn from a book where a practicing zennist is drawing out the implications of Dogen's writings in relation to our need for a new cosmology that is more aligned to the current understanding born of the latest scientific findings.......bending of space-time, multi-verses, distant "objects" nevertheless affecting each other - mind boggling stuff that perhaps is much like in days of yore when it was suggested that the earth was spinning around in space and not the solid ground we experienced. Here is the quote, and then I must go:- "This practice-enlightenment is an ever-enhancing universal process of liberation and fulfillment. The place-and-time of this way and realm is the here-and-now of the individual sentient being; its richest fields for cultivation are the expressions of awakened hearts and minds that ring out through space and time in the ceaseless actualization of the universe into novelty." As Ecclesiastes doesn't say, "there is always something new under the sun". The road goes on forever.

Just to add that there is another fine book by Joseph Campbell on James Joyce, "Mythic Worlds, Modern Words". I wrote a review of this on Amazon:- Long being a lover of biographies, I have read a couple of James Joyce. The human being always comes first ( I seem to have more knowledge of John Keat's life story than knowledge of his actual poetry)Yet the works of many do follow once I can put flesh to the words. "Ulysses" comes pretty cheap on Kindle and eventually after a couple of false starts I read through to the end - astonished when I was moved to tears by the long monologue of Molly Bloom and her final YES to life. As Joyce once said:- "If Ulysses is unfit to read then life is not fit to live".Yet I remained much in the dark about what the book was actually about and I dipped into quite a number of attempts to make it more accessible.I wish I had found this book by Joseph Campbell sooner. It is by far the best explication of just what Joyce was up to, explaining whole sections, and in a manner than is as simple as possible for such material. Mr Campbell's book also covers "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" and "Finnegans Wake". He makes each able to be understood as far as the intent of Joyce is concerned and as with Ulysses, long passages are quoted which gives a true flavour of the complete works.I have yet to really try "Finnegans Wake" - one step too far I'm afraid. Perhaps my next step will be to find another biography of James Joyce. I find that to know him more is to admire him more, even to love him more. Mr Campbell at one point even uses the word "saint".Anyway, this is a fine book and certainly worth reading closely by anyone interested in Modernist Literature.