tariki

I think it is maybe best to begin by asking if our world, our Reality, the cosmos, has significance. It sometimes seems to me that to begin by asking "Is there a God" comes with far too much baggage, bringing in presumptions born of beliefs, creeds and doctrines of whatever culture we are have been born into. Instead of the simple question itself sometimes we are more likely to perhaps start rabbiting on about the behaviour of "religious types" and thanking our lucky stars that we have nothing to do with it!

But significance. Speaking only for myself, that there is undoubtedly something rather than nothing suggests that Reality has some sort of meaning/significance. That is simply the thought/conclusion that overwhelms me. Me, myself! I don't offer it as any sort of logical argument.

Reality having meaning/significance, that I can conclude this, reflect upon such thoughts, then suggests that as a human being we have some part to play within such.

That is it. The starting point.

To add, from my own knowledge of the various Faith spoken Traditions - and certainly from the actual experience spoken of by those who immerse themselves in any one of them - the actual distinction between theism and non-theism becomes very problematic.

Any thoughts?

More, from the poet John Keats....

Keats finds truth and beauty as two aspects, which are inseparable. Beauty for him is the source of knowledge, which is beyond the reach of consecutive reasoning.

This is negative capability, but has much that relates to the Madhyamaka.

Here, from the Wiki page on Apophatic theology. (Please note that all "ways" have their pitfalls, which is why I often get lost, or even prefer to get lost......as per St John of the Cross:- "If you wish to be sure of the road you tread on then you must close your eyes and walk in the dark." )

Buddhist philosophy has also strongly advocated the way of negation, beginning with the Buddha's own theory of anatta (not-atman, not-self) which denies any truly existent and unchanging essence of a person. Madhyamaka is a Buddhist philosophical school founded by Nagarjuna (2nd-3rd century AD), which is based on a fourfold negation of all assertions and concepts and promotes the theory of emptiness (shunyata). Apophatic assertions are also an important feature of Mahayana sutras, especially the prajñaparamita genre. These currents of negative theology are visible in all forms of Buddhism.

Sadly, looking back here, many seem totally unaware of the via negativa, the way of negation. A time honoured tradition/way/path in most mystical traditions, and certainly the platform on which many of the various Buddhist paths are built. 

I'll leave it there. 

Not entirely cut and paste here, but basically a transfer from my blog with added bits as takes my fancy as I sit with my coffee in McDonalds. The blog is enhanced by illustrations, but simple text here will have to do. Hopefully the text is not too irrational or esoteric! 

Recently my dear wife and I swept through the entire series of "Rumpole of the Bailey" and enjoyed it immensely. Rumpole was constantly quoting Wordsworth, who he obviously loved as a poet. I am not really over familiar with his works, but a few of his quotes moved me to look up his works. 

Anyway, here is the cut and paste of my blog (it has come out a bit ragged but hopefully that will not spoil your "enjoyment"...):- 

Tragically I have until now thought Wordsworth and his poetry very much on the boring side. Obviously my heart has often danced with the daffodils but beyond that very little has stirred me. Until recently that is. Almost by chance ( actually, watching Rumpole of the Bailey) I happened upon Wordsworth's Ode based upon a visit to the countryside around Tintern Abbey. Much to my surprise I read the poem right through and was almost moved to tears. 

One short passage particularly caught my eye - or ears - or heart. 

Knowing that Nature never did betray
The heart that loved her; 'tis her privilege,
Through all the years of this our life, to lead
From joy to joy: for she can so inform
The mind that is within us, so impress
With quietness and beauty, and so feed
With lofty thoughts, that neither evil tongues,
Rash judgments, nor the sneers of selfish men,
Nor greetings where no kindness is, nor all
The dreary intercourse of daily life,
Shall e'er prevail against us, or disturb
Our cheerful faith, that all which we behold
Is full of blessings.

Certainly the world has been "too much with me" lately. The heart of a bodhisattva is far from me - hell not quite other people, but often close. 

But moving on from that passage and those thoughts, another few lines from the poem mentioned the "burthen of the mystery" being lightened, this in contemplation of natures beauties. Really, I have not delved that deep into Wordsworth's thoughts and mood as expressed in his Ode to actually claim disagreement. It is simply that I feel no burden (or "burthen") from any "mystery". It is mystery, in the sense of having reached no conclusions, of actually having claimed no answers, that actually seems to offer to me, as gift, a way of approaching and accepting Reality as it unfolds. In a strange way, if there was no "mystery" my heart would be dictated to; by formulas, creeds or custom. The Pure Land myokonin Saichi has exclaimed in his Journal:- 

"Not knowing why! Not knowing why! That is my support! Not knowing why! That is the Namu-Amida-Butsu". 

Such joins with a simple faith, a trust that "all shall be well" no matter what unfolds in any immediate future.

Anyway, getting back to Wordsworth and his own  words from his poem. He speaks of the "still sad music of humanity" but then of:-
 

A presence that disturbs me with the joy

Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime

Of something far more deeply interfused,

Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,

And the round ocean and the living air,

And the blue sky, and in the mind of man:

A motion and a spirit, that impels

All thinking things, all objects of all thought,

And rolls through all things.

Good stuff! Maybe best not to crawl and trawl through each and every word looking for seeds of disagreement - better to feel and open to the presence of another human heart contemplating the "burthen of the mystery". To join with them. And sadly, this as a retreat from the mass of people I often feel around me, the barren crowd, the awful pointlessness of so many pursuits, the apparent direction of so many towards aimlessness.

What is the link between "mystery" and "aimlessness". Is there any at all? Something to give thought to.

Shades of Dogen with that last question, where he alludes to the need of deepening the intimacy of the present moment with a fundamental "meaninglessness", this lest we seek to advance towards the 10,000 things rather than allow them to advance to us. (Ha! How's that for esoteric!........)

Just another word or two David. As "Telegram Sam" ( "Born to Boogie" ) on another forum I will be found often far less "esoteric". Possibly I am a bit of a chameleon. 

Again, you are invited to engage on the threads here in the "Other Wisdom Traditions". Speaking for myself, you could say what you like there (in spite of the fact that I might still be the moderator of that section.......😁)

All the best

11 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

I do ask and wish that you consider actually relating to issues related to the concept of 'soul' that I have raised and talked about in this thread. Maybe such relationality is beyond your capacity, but maybe you could choose to engage so (as invited to) - I have no way of knowing.

I am. Really. That you choose to call irrational/esoteric statements are simply common parlance among many modern people (even Christians) genuinely interested in finding meaning in this sometimes sad, mad world where all the old signposts have gone. 

I think I explained clearly that Jesus "coming to die" related simply to the worldwide common theme of dying to self, thus in Christian speak:-

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

Thank you.

9 hours ago, romansh said:

Is it with the punchline ... only if you get your thumbs caught?

No, not that one. (This is a family forum!)

😄

Here are two I like..........well, I can't tell the one about the Foreign Legion camel..........😇

A small congregation of Catholics in a village in Ireland were told that their priest must take six months absence owing to health reasons. On leaving he told his flock that should they need any counselling during his absence that they should approach the Protestant vicar.

Meeting in the local pub they elected one of them to go to the vicar, to ask a question or two. This man knocked on the vicar's door and the vicar answered and asked what the problem was.

" Well, we have been asked to approach you with any problems but we have no idea exactly how to address you"

"Oh, then how do you address your priest?" the vicar said.

" We call him 'Father' " the man answered.

"Then call me 'Father' " replied the vicar.

The man returned to pub and exclaimed to the others: " You won't believe it! He wants us to call him 'Father', him with a wife and six kids! "

And the other:-

A guy loves betting and likes the races, particularly watching the horses being paraded around the ring prior to their race. One day he is watching this parade and notices a Catholic priest stretch out in front of one of the horses and gesticulate with his hands. He thinks little of it but sees that the horse actually wins the race. During the next parade the priest does much the same and once again the horse wins! Thinking he is onto a winner he goes back to the parade ring and keeps watch. Sure enough, the priest leans out and once more gesticulates. The man runs off to the track bookie and puts £100 on the horse.

It falls at the first fence and sadly has to be shot.

The man runs back to the parade ring and starts shouting at the priest. "What on earth are you playing at? You picked out a couple of winners then mine falls at the first and has to be shot!"

" Ah" says the priest, "I can tell you are not a Catholic. If you were you would know the difference between a Blessing and the Last Ritespanpan widget

Two links, to "The Harlequinade", and to "A Mahayana Christology" for anyone interested.

http://weiwuwei.mysite.com/aai.html

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/keenan.htm

Ah ha! From tariki in therapy, to tariki the joker (though his humour be "sick"), and over on another forum its Telegram Sam who was "born to boogie". Do I lay down on a counch, enter BGT as a stand up comedian, or bop my way down the high street after leaving McDonalds?

The "soul". From reading a few posts here (and I must thank David for stirring up this rather dormant forum) my mind turned in its rather strange way to a comment made by C S Lewis who insisted that Jesus should not be seen as a "good man" or whatever. No, "Jesus came to die"! 

In my own way I agree with him. Beyond all the "teachings" and "sayings" is the eternal mythos of death and renewal (as per Joseph Campbell, who speaks of all these common themes and parallels across the whole cultural spectrum of humanity) Before Jesus, there were more that 15 crucified saviours. Of course, "Jesus was the real one in time/space history", the others merely the work of the devil, who seeks to corrupt and decieve.........etc etc etc etc ad nauseam. Yet there are many books now making a strong case that Jesus never existed at all - but let us not go there. Back to the "eternal theme" of death and renewal, found right across the spectrum of humanity. 

This is really the theme of Wei Wu Wei's Harlequinade, from which came the "divest yourself of your garments" saying found in the Gospel of Thomas. (The whole "Halequinade" is readily found on the internet)

It may seem a jump, but associated with this is the way some modern Christian theologians seek to speak of new Christologies, making the point that the "eternal mythos" in its Hebrew home then evolved within the context of Greek philosophy/thought. That Christianity is basically a product of such. They seek to speculate just how the mythos (or the event itself of the death and resurrection of Jesus) might have flowered in a Mahayana context of thought. A bit of googling will reveal "A Mahayana Christology" if anyone is interested. 

Myself, I stagger on. Though chastised for making jokes I am basically unrepentant. I think of Merton writing in his Journal as he read a passage from Irenaeus (A passage that I have said before here somewhere  can relate to my understanding and experience of the Pure Land notion of "being made to become so (of itself) without/beyond the calculation of the devotee, where "no working is true working" - Japanese hakarai)

Merton read:- If you are the work of God wait patiently for the hand of your artist who makes all things at an opportune time........Give to Him a pure and supple heart and watch over the form which the artist shapes in you........lest, in hardness, you lose the traces of his fingers......

Merton comments......

The reification of faith. Real meaning of the phrase we are saved by faith = we are saved by Christ, whom we encounter in faith. But constant disputation about faith has made Christians become obsessed with faith almost as an object, at least as an experience, a "thing" and in concentrating upon it they lose sight of Christ. Whereas faith without the encounter with Christ and without His presence is less than nothing. It is the deadest of dead works, an act elicited in a moral and existential void. To seek to believe that one believes, and arbitrarily to decree that one believes, and then to conclude that this gymnastic has been blessed by Christ - this is pathological Christianity. And a Christianity of works. One has this mental gymnastic in which to trust. One is safe, one possesses the psychic key to salvation......

I am serious about this. I do not joke about it. (In fact being serious about it allows me to joke about much that others consider serious, which I see as trivialities) I do keep a close watch on my mind/heart for any evidence of hardness, and often find, but always give thanks for the pure gift of "softness" that I know I can never "earn" from my own poor efforts.

Like the common mythos of death and renewal, the "encounter with Christ" (the Universal Christ, the Dharma, the Tao etc etc etc) is found across the whole spectrum of humanity, and is not the possession of anyone or any creed. My worldview, my faith, sees reality itself as a vital, ephemeral agent of awareness and healing. Or as another has said......"the liberative qualities of spatiality and temporality. " Others may mock such a faith. For me it is the Reality in which I live and move and have my being. 

17 minutes ago, David Sundaram said:

Also obvious to me in the short time I've know you.

Well thank you David! 

You grow on me!

( I need sympathy today, having just had our "old folks" Christmas Dinner and afterwards a Christmas sing song by a guy who looked remarkably like David Brent [Ricky Gervais] )

PS You may not know the character, he was in the sitcom "The Office", a UK show. 

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Yeah ... You did not really answer what is your take on Campbell's quote?

As far as I was concerned I was saying on the other thread that basically I agreed with it.

Given my own reading and understanding of Dogen, he would have recognised the import. That all, in their own way, "contribute", "assist" in Reality. With which I concur.

(Given my own Universalism, I would add that breaking free of the total identification with a linear time frame can add the dimension of a theodicy to this whole canvas of reality - but please don't ask me to elucidate that any further at the moment; it is my faith currently seeking understanding)

3 hours ago, romansh said:

I knew there was something I liked about you.

Ha ha! Well obviously from my own point of view it was a case of mistaken identity!

Hi again David, just to say I am a veteran of over twenty or so Discussion Forums spanning about 25 years. I have morphed from being afraid to say boo to a goose to virtually saying whatever I like. My apologies if it has come across as rude, but I do have a pretty weird sense of humour at times.

Myself, I give you a hearing but simply do not want to engage. That is the end of it.

Getting back to forums, just recently on another I was told that they did not want to hear any "inter-religious ######", and I was basically hounded off the forum (this a Buddhist Forum) Again, I have even been called the "antichrist" on a Christian forum, as well as a hypocrite and a liar on others. That is the way of it and I apologise again if, in becoming hardened to such robust exchanges I have offended you in any way. I try to keep my mind/heart soft and pliable, open to the workings of grace, but sometimes I fail. 

All the best

2 hours ago, romansh said:

from the other thread:

This seems to be a repeat of your post on the Merton/Dharma thread. I responded there.

1 hour ago, romansh said:

What is your take on Joseph Campbell's take?

You perform your duty to support the universe. The universe is alive. The Sun performs its duty, the Moon performs its duty, the mice perform their duty and cats perform theirs, the brahmins perform theirs, the sudras theirs, and by this - everyone performing his duty - the universe is held in form. By following your dharma you hold the universe in form.

Hello again Rom, 

Following the 13th century zen master Dogen, we must each find our own path, time and place. In such a way we each "actualise" our own reality

Zen itself, irrespective of many "new age" type books on the subject (which warble about it being "beyond words" and suchlike) developed and cannot be fully understood outside of a worldview that sees reality itself as a vital, ephemeral agent of awareness and healing.

Putting the two together, as another has said, "however lowly one’s symbols and practices are as in, say, a peasant’s religion, one is nevertheless entitled to enlightenment if and when one uses them authentically. Here is the egalitarian basis for the claim that Dōgen’s religion is a religion of the people."

To care is therefore paramount.

As a spin off from another thread, a few words on the meaning of the word "Dharma", this very much drawn from a book by Sangarakshita, AKA  Dennis Lingwood of Romford (now known for his falling away from pure Buddhist ethics by his predilection for..............no, let's leave it.....)

Two basic meanings:-

The first – Dharma as truth or law or principle or reality – refers to the objective content of the Buddha’s experience of Enlightenment. And the second – Dharma as doctrine or teaching – refers to the Buddha’s expression of his experience for the benefit of others.

In the well known Dhammapada, it says, ‘Not by hatred is hatred ever pacified here [in the world]. It is pacified by love. This is the eternal law.’ The word for ‘law’ here is Dharma. It’s in the very nature of things that hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love. This is the principle, this is the law, this is the truth.

As the character of the Buddha's teaching, dharma (Dharma = Sanskrit, Dhamma =Pali) the Dharma is:-

svakkhato. This literally means ‘well-taught’, or ‘well-communicated’ suggesting it is appropriate fir human beings.

sanditthiko, which can be translated as ‘immediately apparent’. In other words, you will see the results of your practice of the Dharma yourself, in this lifetime. 

ehipassiko.  Ehi means ‘come’ and passiko derives from a word meaning ‘see’, so ehipassiko means ‘come and see’. The implication is that we need not take on the Dharma in blind faith, or believe it because somebody tells us to believe it, or because it is written in some holy book.

paccatam veditabbo vinnuhi – a phrase which can be translated ‘to be understood individually'. This means that the Buddha’s teaching is to be experienced by each person for himself or herself.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

To be able to genuinely let others be and to not try to convince them that you are right and they are wrong, should be the highest held value of all religions! Indeed, one of the highest held values for everybody.

I have come across only one or two Christians in my lifetime who I would also put into this box - people who epitomise what many of us would consider an exemplary human, and they are what they are without even trying.  Perhaps Jesus was one of these standouts (just like Buddha), and hence his initial following in ancient Israel.  I have also experienced a couple of secular humans who are just a phenomenal pleasure to be with, who you experience and wish you were just like them.  These are exceptionally rare birds in my experience.  

 

Thanks Paul, and as I see it we have to get away from any particular "moral" or "goodness" or "ethical" dimension for recognising such people. This is why, from my own perspective, "emptiness" (which contains and is the source of all things) is better for me than "God", with all the baggage that can accompany that word. Also as I see it, such is the reason that the "Godhead beyond God" is a feature of some Christian mysticism.

Just as both Merton and Suzuki were in agreement on the importance of the exclamation "Praise be to God that I am not good!" 

It makes me think of something Alan Watts said concerning the various faiths, that each would - or have - developed their own way of carrying out our various daily tasks. The beauty of difference, far beyond any purely moral dimension.

Much like the Jewish story, of the guy who travelled over a 100 miles having heard of a famous rabbi. Upon his return he was asked what the man taught. "Oh, I wasn't interested in his sermons, I just wanted to see how he tied his shoelaces"

Once again, it comes back to the zen koan:-

 "A clearly enlightened person falls into the well. How is this so?"

As per the zen layman Pai-chang, "the graduations of the language of the teachings—haughty, relaxed, rising, descending—are not the same. What are called desire and aversion when one is not yet enlightened or liberated are called enlightened wisdom after enlightenment. That is why it is said, “One is not different from who one used to be; only one’s course of action is different from before.” 

Why in the Mahayana there is no betrayal of this world for some imagined "other", samsara IS nirvana. Perfection is vastly overated, it can leave us with nowhere to go.

In the end I feel that I am working my own slow and staggering way to "acceptance" of others, irrespective of who or what they are. Looking for anything in particular in another, particularly "goodness", is a non-starter. First we must see others, beyond any pre-conceptions or expectations.

Anyway, I have waffled enough. My coffee is getting cold.

6 hours ago, romansh said:

Derek ... I have not read any of Merton. But it appears the word Dharma has many meanings. 

 

Just deviating, this in certain respects highlights why introductory books on Buddhism are better if many of the key terms are left untranslated. It may well seem easier at first to scan over "suffering", "teaching", "no-self" etc yet the actual Pali of dukkha, Dharma and anatta respectively have a depth and connotation, an inter-relationship, that relate to the complete depth of Buddhist thought/experience and insight.

It is when such is grasped (as much as we are able) that we can then seek to relate it all to the Faith of another, again with the proviso that we have a sufficient grasp of that faith. 

This is why I find Thomas Merton such fertile ground as I make my own uncertain steps towards understanding, comparison and openess to others.

11 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

You are the 'king' of 'snide' projections, which you seem to revel in doing -  which reveling is very un'christian', IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Ah ha! The old tried and tested "projection" angle. Always good for a trial run.

😊

4 hours ago, romansh said:

Really? We should not use persuasion to get someone off a dangerous path (that we see). While I disagree with many aspects of Joseph's views, I think he has come closest for me. Acceptance. For example, I think David is very wrong, but I accept it. But that does not mean I won't try and nudge him to a safer (what I see as) path.

I think Darrow had it: Chase after the truth like all hell and you’ll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails.

I think Merton "had it"......The beginning of love is to let those we love be perfectly themselves, and not to twist them to fit our own image. Otherwise we love only the reflection of ourselves we find in them.

The beginning.....

4 hours ago, romansh said:

Derek ... I have not read any of Merton. But it appears the word Dharma has many meanings. It would be helpful if you could throw some light on what you think Merton means by Dharma.

 

 

Yes, the word does have many meanings and as far as I can recall Merton never used the word.

Dharma (capital "D") = truth. The ultimate.

dharma = the Buddha's specific teachings.

dharmas = specific bits and pieces, or the 10,000 things, all lacking self existence.

10 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

The web of your 'logic' is so 'foreign' to mine that I often don't know why/how something makes sense to you. But just in case you are thinking that my saying
"That's great and very clear - I 'get' the reason and personal benefits of [your] choice and have absolutely no 'objection' to you (or anyone else!) doing so" strikes you as being a 'waffle' (i.e. the reverse of something I have previously asserted), I would like you to know that it is not. I am well aware and so respectfully accept and honor the fact that many (most?) people don't share my understandings and corollary values and am quite 'at peace' with let-go-and-let-god (because I can't change their 'karma') 'letting' them be and do as they wish to. I know their lives (as currently expressing) are organically just as much a part of THE Flow of Life as mine is and that 'objecting' to them being what the are and doing as they do is a waste of precious energy and 'my-arms-r-too-short-to-box-with-god' pointless.

I do not 'want' you to be/do anything you don't 'want' to be/do. I just wish others 'hear' and 'consider' my opinion, which I am convinced you have done to the best of your ability. No waffle here.

🤔

I think you might need to get a sense of humour.

1 hour ago, David Sundaram said:

That's great and very clear - I 'get' the reason and personal benefits of such choice and have absolutely no 'objection' to you (or anyone else!) doing so.

I have chosen and am advocating something that (IMO) is much more transpersonal, along the lines chosen, practiced and advocated by Jesus (IMO) and not  Gautama (again, IMO) - for those who may be 'drawn' to exploring this option, obviously not 'you'.

I hope you can and so choose to fully respect such choice on my part and not 'intrude' as though I was speaking to 'you' (obviously, I am speaking to 'you' here - but that is just in an attempt to induce you to desist from 'interfering' with the actualization of such choice and purpose).

 

I must admit that until now I thought that I was the king of waffle.

😊