Beatrix Potter and the Meaning of Life

In between looking at the pictures of my "Collected Works of Beatrix Potter" I have been dipping into a couple of books by Richard Tarnas. In them he asks what is the impact of experiencing existence as a conscious purposeful being in an unconscious purposeless universe. It would seem to be the "impact" that Nietzsche foresaw following "the death of God" and the Copernican revolution that set our earth in motion around the sun.......

The question is asked

........"are we not plunging continually" Nietzsche cried......."do we not feel the breath of empty space".........."has not the night become colder?"........before going mad and weeping at the sight of a horse being whipped. 

Nietzsche

Tarnas sees our basic assumption being that any meaning and purpose the human mind perceives in the universe does not exist intrinsically in the universe but is constructed and projected onto it by the human mind. Tarnas goes on to question this assumption........

Might not this be the final, most global anthropocentric delusion of all? For is it not an extraordinary act of human hubris - literally a hubris of cosmic proportions - to assume that the exclusive source of ALL MEANING AND PURPOSE IN THE UNIVERSE is ultimately centered in the human mind, which is therefore absolutely unique and special and in this sense superior to the entire cosmos? To assume that the universe utterly lacks.........what we human beings conspicuously possess? To assume that the part somehow radically differs from and transcends the whole?

(Emphasis is as per Tarnas)

"When consciousness ends in the skull, how can joy exist?" asks the Blue Cliff Record.

"Whoever told people that 'Mind' means thoughts, opinions, ideas, and concepts? Mind means trees, fence posts, tiles and grasses"

(Dogen)

Well, this is all something to think about when seeking to digest the turkey and stuffing. Or in between enjoying the pictures of Mrs Tiggy-Winkle or Jemima Puddle-Duck.

Happy Christmas everyone. Sincere best wishes to all. 

Holy Books, the Christian Mystics and Other Ramblings (not for the fainthearted)

Browsing through the latest offering of ebooks "inspired by my browsing history" ( as the saying goes ) there was a book concerned with demonstrating that Islam was, lock stock and smoking barrel, a religion of war. From the blurb it appeared to argue the point by copious quotes from the Koran. Well, Holy Books are not really my thing ( at least, not nowadays ) and my reading of the Koran, while reasonably extensive, is not accompanied by pleasant memories of inspirational passages; in fact  I would use the word turgid. Maybe, as some suggest, it must be read in the Arabic, "God's chosen tongue". So I am not seeking to defend the Koran.

Will the real Jidad please stand up

Nevertheless, in defence of Islam, if to read its Book, assess its content and from such insist it can only ever be a "religion of war", then, given my own  reading of the New Testament ( about seven times right through, plus various commentaries by all sorts - from fundamentalist to liberal scholarship ) I would have to insist that Christianity can only be a religion of world denial; this in as much as the entire NT is written in the atmosphere of "these are the end times, get ready folks, the game is up".

The End Times, or "Up, Up and Away"

Yet the many Christians who now live affirming the value of this world ( the "we believe in a life before death" folk ) would argue differently. And, just so, the many Moslems who live lives of peace, and in seeking communion with all - no matter their faith - argues against the thesis of the book I mentioned here at the beginning. 

I only add that I leave it with the beliefs of the various adherents of Holy Books as to how they equate their lives and attitudes with the actual text of their chosen "word of God". The mind, the intellect, is certainly capable of many twists and turns - not to mention rationalisations - in seeking certitude. Often I think it would be advantageous to throw the various "holy" books into the bin and start again from scratch. But perhaps not - who knows just where some would end up starting from! (Having said that, the rank and file, the "common folk", will perhaps always confound the academics and the professional theologians who seek to direct the paths of their flocks in more "orthodox", even logical, directions)

But moving onto mysticism (for no particular reason), a word that often causes misunderstandings. From my own experience on various forums, the word "mysticism" suggests to some minds such things as rabbits being drawn from hats and magic wands. 

Is this mysticism?

No, the term is to do with those who would seek to experience the divine or ultimate reality, know their own nature, rather than merely talk about it or exhort others to "keep the faith". This does not necessarily mean they have no time for the word as text, but does mean that they are more interested in the living Word, variously known throughout the world of Faith......Tao, Atman, Brahman, Allah, whatever. 

The Christian mystic Meister Eckhart is a case in point. All his sermons given in the vernacular revolved around Biblical verses. His sermon on the Biblical verse "Blessed are the poor in spirit", part of a beatitude from the Gospels, is a profound example. Eckhart speaks of true poverty, which he says is to "know nothing, will nothing, possess nothing", this to the point where he asks God to free him from God....."Let us pray to God that he might rid us of God." In the sermon referenced he speaks of the "emptiness of spirit" that is required:-

 If it is the case that someone is free of all creatures.........if God finds a place to act in them, then we say: as long as this exists in someone, they have not yet reached the ultimate poverty. For God does not intend there to be a place in someone where He can act, but if there is to be true poverty of spirit, someone must be so free of God and all His works that if God wishes to act in the soul He must Himself be the place in which He can act, and this He is certainly willing to be. For if God finds us this poor, then God performs His own active work and we passively receive God in ourselves and God becomes the place of His work in us since God works in Himself. In this poverty, we attain again the eternal being which we once enjoyed, which is ours now and shall be for ever.

It is words such as these that make the "zen man" D T Suzuki (and other Zen Buddhists) see Eckhart as a "Dharma brother." At one time Eckhart also said that "Nothing that knowledge can grasp or desire can want is God. Where knowledge and desire end, there is darkness and there God shines." I would see such language as the bridge between "east" and "west" which some suggest will never meet. Perhaps "experience" rather than words/texts is the key to the meeting of Faiths?

Another of the Christian mystics is St John of the Cross. Once he offered the following:- "If you wish to be sure of the road you tread on then you should close your eyes and walk in the dark". I think here we get back to my previous blog, concerning diversification, and even further back, to Eliot's universal substratum, belief in which "is empty." Just do not try it when seeking to cross a busy road.

St John of the Cross

Closer to the heart and certainly closer to my own experience are the words of the English mystic, Mother Julian of Norwich, who insisted that eventually "all manner of thing shall be well." She has comforted others with the words:-

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.

Here we are in the much the same climate as in Pure Land Buddhism and some words from a "Hymn of the Pure Land Masters" by Shinran:- 

My eyes being hindered blind passions, I cannot perceive the light that grasps me; yet the great compassion, without tiring, illumines me always.

This is to drift away from "old men in the sky" and it must be emphasised that Pure Land Buddhism shares with the entire Dharma a non-theistic base. But given the words of Eckhart, perhaps words, creeds and doctrines - belief - will always divide, all part of the diversification that the Buddhist texts refer to as "a tangle of views, a thicket of views". I think love is there in all, and Eckhart said that love has no why.

 

Nor a "why"

Does love have a prescribed path that could be called an "only way"? To finish with Eckhart:- "They do him wrong who take God in one particular way; they have the way rather than God." Maybe we just need to lose ourselves along the way?

Where am I?

Postscript

Creating the Kingdom of God on earth, as it is in heaven, is the basic message of Islam. This is the true meaning of Jihad................Acts of terror are not Jihad. They violate the explicit word of God, Prophet Muhammad and the reasoned concensus of all believers. The greatest jihad is the war on injustice in one's own soul, the injustice that can conceive of terror tactics and lose all restraints and respect for the sanctity of a human life. Jihad is the reasoned struggle of each individual to work within the bounds of moral action, to extend the protection of justice equitably to every human being, irrespective of colour, creed or place of origin. Jihad is the obligation to make peace a lived reality for all human beings.................The faith I hold, the faith of Muslims, the justice we seek, is an obligation to promote and make real in each life freedom from tyranny, neglect, need, dearth and suffering. The justice we yearn for is the life blood of a humane society with dignity and freedom for all. It cannot be found by blasting innocents apart in an inferno of twisted metal and concrete. When the innocent are murdered, we all go into the dark with them. When the innocent suffer, their suffering is our own

(Ziauddin Sardar)

Talking to Myself, Nothingness, Nihilism and Whatever Takes My Fancy

Irrespective of Google Stats that tell me that this blog is being read by various unfortunates around the world, I remain convinced that basically, more often than not, I am talking to myself. Which is perfectly OK, as my own words often bring clarity to my own mind. No matter if my blog is otherwise unread or, if read, brings only confusion and the cry "what on earth is he on about" or "why does it matter?" 

So, to soldier on. Waffling, rambling.

Sometimes I think questions are more important than answers. I also think some questions are better than others. Ask "Is there a God?" and immediately many will be engulfed in the conditioning of centuries and thus any "answer" will be virtually pointless and fruitless. So I prefer to ask myself the question:- does our existence have significance? Do we live in a chaos or a cosmos? Such questions, instead of shooting me into an imaginary beyond, set me thinking about my own life, my own experience..........and not about thoughts of Old Men in the Sky, Incarnate Saviours or even the seemingly unanswerable existence of evil and suffering, suffering so terrible at times that thoughts of love and ultimate meaning are swept away no sooner than thought as being ridiculous and unbelievable. 

Not an "Old Man in the Sky", but an old man on the beach

Myself, I would like to think that "all manner of thing shall be well", as Mother Julian of Norwich said,  without the thought at the back of my mind that really I am fooling myself, seeking to cover the unpalatable with a sugar coating of fairy tales.  

Mother Julian of Norwich who said that "all shall be well"

Answering purely for myself and not seeking to convince anyone else, for me the fact that there is indisputably something rather than nothing suggests significance, meaning - and not randomness, insignificance and nihilism. It suggests that we live in a Cosmos and not a chaos. 

Chaos or Cosmos?

Moving on, Buddhism is often painted as being nihilistic, often by those in the West who seek to give a higher value to the Christian Faith, which is deemed as life affirming. Here is the dictionary definition of Nihilism:-

the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

Nihilism is a Western term, coined by those in the 19th and 20th centuries who gave witness, in various ways, to the so called "death of God". The word is derived from the Latin, nihil, meaning "nothing". 

Buddhism in fact knows nothing of Nihilism. First, according to the authorised Theravada Canon of Scripture (which purports to be the closest we can come to the actual words of the historical Buddha) the two terms rejected as far as ultimate reality is concerned are "eternalism" and "annihilationism". Annihilationism and nihilism would be close bedfellows.

Rather, Buddhism speaks of the Middle Way, the path of Truth (the Dharma) that must be walked. A way that can be lived but as far as words are concerned, is ineffable. Nirvana is often spoken of in the texts in positive terms, and the Udana has the words:- "There is, monks, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned".  That is Theravada, the Southern School.  The Mahayana, the so called Great Vehicle, the Northern School, has the Bodhisattva doctrine, one of the finest and greatest ideals for a human being to aspire to. That is, the ideal to live purely for the sake of others, seeking only their welfare and enlightenment, seeking only to alleviate their suffering, entirely thoughtless of self. Additionally, according to my own understanding, the Mahayana, in ultimately equating Samsara with Nirvana, affirms this world and never rejects or betrays it in favour of some imagined other. (As I see it, such a betrayal of this world, the only one we have ever known, is the bane of so much that passes for "religion", both past and present)

A Bodhisattva, who come in all shapes and sizes

Returning to the question of "suffering", as far as Buddhism is concerned, suffering (dhukka) is life itself. Which possibly is the source of the accusation that Buddhism is a pessimistic religion. The Buddha claimed that he taught "one thing and one thing only, suffering and the ending of suffering". Leaving aside the question as to whether Buddhism (a western term) is a "religion" at all, as I see it, if the Dharma truly teaches the path to the end of suffering then it cannot justly be accused of pessimism. But yes, for  Buddhism, suffering is the whole of life, not merely one side of a coin, the two sides of which would be deemed joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure or, indeed, any other particular duality. This is where I get back to betrayal, of other worlds, of the tendency to try to escape by "leaving behind", rather than seeing with new eyes. Samsara and Nirvana are one. It is a question of understanding, an understanding given in the living and experience of life. As I see it we are always required to look, to look and see prior to reaching conclusions. Alas, we all seem to have our conclusions, our "answers", and from such a positioning and understanding of our "self", we then look. 

The "silence of the Buddha" in respect of many questions, particularly metaphysical questions, is well documented.

 An example here from a Theravada text. A monk (bhikku) is questioning the Buddha concerning the origin of suffering:-

"Is suffering caused by oneself?"

"Do not put it like that Kassapa"

"Then is suffering caused by another?"

"Do not put it like that Kassapa"

"Then is suffering caused both by oneself and another?"

"Do not put it like that Kassapa"

"Then is suffering neither caused by oneself or another?"

"Do not put it like that Kassapa"

"Then there is no suffering?"

"It is not a fact that there is no suffering: there is suffering, Kassapa"

"Then does Master Gotama (the Buddha) neither know nor see suffering?"

"It is not a fact that I neither know nor see suffering: I both know and see suffering, Kassapa"

The conclusion is that we are being asked to "come and see" (for oneself) or in Pali "ehipassiko". The same sort of exchange can be found in the Buddhist texts for much else - life after death, the beginnings of the world, etc etc. 

Kassapa looks for answers

There is no "answer" to suffering except to accept it, to accept the totality, to know it. Full acceptance, paradoxically, can prove to be the catalyst for genuine transformation. After acceptance comes, if need be, diversification. When we drift into diversification prior to genuine acceptance, seeking solutions in creeds and doctrines or in the mere accumulation of knowledge, we risk losing ourselves in a "tangle of views, a thicket of views". After, we can at least attempt Yun-men's appropriate statement, which he said was the teachings of an entire lifetime. D T Suzuki sees all this as getting back to the time before creation, before the words "let there be light" were uttered. 

This leads on into "nothingness", a nothing prior to creation that is potentially all things. Thinking back to my previous blog to the quote concerning T S Eliot,

Eliot feels no compunction in alluding to the Bhagavad Gita in one section of the poem and Dante's Paradiso in the next. He neither asserts the rightness nor wrongness of one set of doctrines in relation to the other, nor does he try to reconcile them. Instead, he claims that prior to the differentiation of various religious paths, there is a universal substratum called Word (logos) of which religions are concretions. This logos is an object both of belief and disbelief. It is an object of belief in that, without prior belief in the logos, any subsequent religious belief is incoherent. It is an object of disbelief in that belief in it is empty, the positive content of actual belief is fully invested in religious doctrine.

Though I wander about, drawing upon diverse sources, my own "concretion" of the "universal substratum" is Pure land Buddhism. Amida, the Buddha of Infinite Light.

Amida looks back, for those who will not make it without help. Some call it "Grace"

Thank you

Postscript for the Classroom:- Wittgenstein, the noted 20th century philosopher, once said "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". Compare and relate such to the "Silence of the Buddha" concerning metaphysical questions. Answers must be short (in keeping with the subject matter)

A second question for the Class:- Here are two quotes drawn from the poetry of two of the 20th centuries most famous poets.....

"We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time." (T S Eliot, lines from "Little Gidding", "Four Quartets")

"For the garden is the only place there is, but you will not find it until you have looked for it everywhere and found nowhere that is not a desert." (W H Auden, lines from "For the Time Being") 

In what sense would you say that these are "Buddhist" quotes? Answers may be as long as you like, a full autobiography would be quite appropriate.

"One Way" and All Points West

Just to continue with the "scope of doctrine" theme.

According to historic teachings the Pure Land lies to the West. Amida will come at the last and carry us there. Alternatively, the Pure Land is NOW, a "now" seen with new eyes. And just who (or what) carries us there is a path unique to each, our life as lived each and every moment in each and every day.

Making sense of such diversity is perhaps more for the academics than the rank and file of us common folk, an opportunity for theologians to get their teeth into whatever Holy Book is their own choice of God's Word. It is called hermeneutics. All good fun; that is until the bullets ( or arrows ) begin to fly and the racks of the Inquisition come into play and the faggots lit. 

The idea of "one way" (only) to "salvation" has always appealed to many, with the One Way invariably being their very own. There can only be one truth, they claim, so it all stands to reason.

I just happened to be reading some sort of analysis of Four Quartets, the poem by T S Eliot. There is a passage in the Introduction that seemed to capture my own approach so well that I feel bound to quote it here, and hopefully it will be easier to understand than my own strangled waffle. The author is speaking of Eliot's use of various doctrines of various faiths:-

Eliot feels no compunction in alluding to the Bhagavad Gita in one section of the poem and Dante's Paradiso in the next. He neither asserts the rightness nor wrongness of one set of doctrines in relation to the other, nor does he try to reconcile them. Instead, he claims that prior to the differentiation of various religious paths, there is a universal substratum called Word (logos) of which religions are concretions. This logos is an object both of belief and disbelief. It is an object of belief in that, without prior belief in the logos, any subsequent religious belief is incoherent. It is an object of disbelief in that belief in it is empty, the positive content of actual belief is fully invested in religious doctrine.

So given such a thought stream, the "one way" is a "universal substratum", called in Christianity "the Word" (logos), but a Word that can be expressed in various guises. In fact, as I would claim, can be expressed according to the lights and faculties of each and every human being, each unique. 

In Pure Land symbolism, the undifferentiated nature of enlightenment is represented by gold, while the individual nature of each human being is expressed as a lotus flower. In pictures of the Pure Land there are often seemingly infinite golden lotus flowers blowing in the breeze. 

A golden lotus flower

All this could be called a "universalist" position, one that can be found in various Buddhist Scriptures. As here in the Vimalakirti Sutra:-

The Lord speaks with but one voice, but all beings, each according to their kind, gain understanding, each thinking that the Lord speaks their own language. This is a special quality of the Buddha. The Lord speaks with but one voice, but all beings, each according to their own ability, act upon it, and each derives the appropriate benefit. This is a special quality of the Buddha.

Or here, in the Hua-Yen 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.

And again here, in the Lotus Sutra, in the Parable of the Dharma Rain:-

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 many worlds

to attain full satisfaction everywhere;

by practicing gradually and stage by stage,

all beings can gain the fruits of the way.

The Dharma rain falls

That's all for now folks.

 

The Scope of Doctrine

Speaking in my previous blog of Discussion Forums, once I was engaged in earnest debate (!) with two worthies who appeared to insist upon the centrality of Doctrine, who insisted upon its importance in what they saw as our "spiritual lives". I opened a thread on "The Scope Of Doctrine" and asked my questions. The pair did not seek to participate, one even insisting that he simply did not understand my questions. I then posed the very same questions on another Forum, and all seemed to understand. Which makes me wonder. 

That said, my thread went something along the lines of the following:-

There was a Buddhist Theravada monk who said that "at the moment of emancipation, effort falls away, having reached the end of its scope". The actual scope of effort, given the centrality of Grace in so many Faiths, has often occupied my mind. So too the scope of doctrine, creed and "belief".

A Theravada monk, perhaps pondering the scope of effort

One of the most famous of all Buddhist parables, as found in the foundational texts of Theravada, is the Parable of the Raft. The meaning is that the Buddhist teachings, in all their scope, are for "passing over, not for grasping".

Perhaps time for grasping tightly?

Thinking along those lines I would like to weave my way through a few quotes from a Christian deeply interested in Buddhism, Thomas Merton. Not interested merely in an academic sense, but as a practice. He often spent time in the woods and in his Hermitage in Zen meditation.

Thomas Merton outside his hermitage

Here is the first quote, written by Merton in a letter before he entered the monastic community........

But it certainly is a wonderful thing to wake up suddenly in the solitude of the woods and look up at the sky and see the utter nonsense of everything, including all the solemn stuff given out by professional asses about the spiritual life: and simply to burst out laughing, and laugh and laugh, with the sky and the trees because God is not in words, and not in systems, and not in liturgical movements, and not in "contemplation" with a big C, or in asceticism or in anything like that, not even in the apostolate. Certainly not in books. I can go on writing them, for all that, but one might as well make paper airplanes out of the whole lot.

A few of Thomas Merton's books

This was before he took a vow of obedience to the authority of the Church and its representatives, a Vow which he took very seriously all his life. Yet I believe the words quoted and their meaning stayed with him to the end, though evolving.

Here is a second quote, this concerning his meeting with D T Suzuki, written long after his entry into the monastic community.......

I did feel that I was speaking to someone who, in a tradition completely different from my own, had matured, had become complete and found his way. One cannot understand Buddhism until one meets it in this existential manner, in a person in whom it is alive. Then there is no longer a problem of understanding doctrines that cannot help being a bit exotic for a Westerner, but only a question of appreciating a value that is self-evident. (My own emphasis)

A kitten appreciates Suzuki's self evident value

Let me move on to a letter written by Merton to the very same man, in the 1960's..........

I want to speak for this Western world.................which has in past centuries broken in upon you and brought you our own confusion, our own alienation, our own decrepitude, our lack of culture, our lack of faith...........If I wept until the end of the world, I could not signify enough of what this tragedy means. If only we had thought of coming to you to learn something..............If only we had thought of coming to you and loving you for what you are in yourselves, instead of trying to make you over into our own image and likeness. For me it is clearly evident that you and I have in common and share most intimately precisely that which, in the eyes of conventional Westerners, would seem to separate us. The fact that you are a Zen Buddhist and I am a Christian monk, far from separating us, makes us most like one another. How many centuries is it going to take for people to discover this fact?......

"If only"

Once again, for me the relevance to the scope of doctrine is self-evident. A human being who had been formed and raised within doctrines and teachings alien to Merton, not of his own Church, is nevertheless seen as a true brother with no reservations. 

What seems obvious to me is that there are simply many things that are important, the scope of which is infinite. Words are not the thing itself, but using words........empathy, mercy, love, compassion, communion. It also seems obvious to me, searching the pages of our history books and looking around our world, that those who live those words, who walk the talk, come in all shapes and sizes, are of all Faiths and sometimes of no particular Faith at all; that their paths have been diverse - that the "one way" is in fact indefinable.

To end with Thomas Merton. In a letter to Suzuki he speaks of the similarities of grace within a non-theistic, non-dual tradition, with that of Christianity.......

we are in paradise, and what fools would we be to think thoughts that would put us out of it (as if we could be out of it!). One thing I would add. To my mind, the Christian doctrine of grace (however understood - I mean here the gift of God's life to us) seems to me to fulfill a most important function in all this. The realization, the finding of ourselves in Christ and hence in paradise, has a special character from the fact that this is all a free gift from God. With us, this stress on freedom, God's freedom, the indeterminateness of salvation, is the thing that corresponds to Zen in Christianity. The breakthrough that comes with the realization of what the finger of a koan is pointing to is like the breakthrough of the realization that a sacrament, for instance, is a finger pointing to the completely spontaneous Gift of Himself to us on the part of God - beyond and above images, outside of every idea, every law, every right or wrong, everything high or low, everything spiritual or material. Whether we are good or bad, wise or foolish, there is always this sudden irruption, this breakthrough of God's freedom into our life, turning the whole thing upside down so that it comes out, contrary to all expectation, right side up. This is grace, this is salvation, this is Christianity. And, so far as I can see, it is also very much like Zen.........

A finger pointing - what is important, the finger or the moon?

Well, there we are.

Related Quotes:-

Wittgenstein thought that his teaching had done more harm than good, that people did not know how to use it soberly. "Do you understand?" he asked. "Oh yes", Bouwsma replied,"they had found a formula." "Exactly." 

(Abbreviated from the biography of Wittgenstein by Ray Monk)

Wittgenstein insisted that:- 'An expression has meaning only in the stream of life.' 

(Ray Monk, from his biography of Wittgenstein)

In the beginning was the deed. 

(Goethe, from "Faust")

Discussion Forums

I'm going back a few years to when I first got on the Internet. Maybe about twenty years ago. A whole new world, at least for me. What do you look at? Pondering, I remembered a Buddhist magazine, Tricycle and wondered if they had their own website. Sure enough, yes, and I found it and looked over a few articles and photos of various Buddhas and Buddhist wannabees sitting on cushions seeking to meditate their way to nirvana. Scrolling down the Home Page I spied the words "Bulletin Boards" and wondered what they were. Perhaps private ads along the lines of "Buddhist, GSOH, wishes to meet like minded for zafu sessions". But no. Investigating I saw that here we had a rich assortment of various people, with "screen names" such as Dharmakara, Lotus Flower and other such exotic titles, all raising questions, answering back and forth, and all sounding quite knowledgeable as far as Buddhism was concerned. For a couple of days I read a few of the threads and then the thought popped into my head..........I too could register, I too could assign myself a name, I too could join in the talk, actually express a point of view.

Zafus, or meditation cushions ( significantly, perhaps, empty! )

Believe it or not this thought gave me the collywobbles. Did I have the nerve? Seriously, my hands shook and my heart thumped. Nearly fifty years old and the thought of expressing an opinion, even on the relative anonymity of the internet, filled me with apprehension.

But nothing ventured, nothing gained. With trembling hands I registered. As a first swipe at the obvious conventions of the media, I gave myself the name of "Dookie", a name my daughter had often called me - I have no idea why. Then I had to decide upon my very first post. There was a deep discussion taking place between two suitably named worthies, posting back and forth on various points raised by the classic zen book "Zen Mind, Beginners Mind" by Shunryu Suzuki, a book they obviously relished and admired. Me, it was one of those books I had found it hard to get into and in fact never really got into it at all. To be frank, it had bored me rigid. Should I say this? Should I step in and have my say? I hesitated but then thought that if I feared to do so and held back, what was the point? So in I went, speaking my mind. 

I was totally ignored! The conversation carried on around my meagre and rather paltry post as if Dookie was non-existent. Perhaps the fate of so many in this world. But Dookie was made of sterner stuff; what does not destroy us makes us stronger says Nietzsche. Soon I was back on another thread and this time drew a response! Someone in cyberspace had actually read my words and seen fit to answer! Very soon, another thanked me for "making my day" and I have to admit, this almost reduced me to tears. The thought that words of mine had touched another's emotions. 

From then on there was no stopping me. An English teacher in the USA, in fact a published novelist, sent me an email and told me that I was one of her "favourite voices on the Boards", another asked me where did I get my wisdom from. I never associated myself with wisdom and told them so in one way or another. The fact is that for me it was a question of self confidence, self esteem. There is a thin dividing line between this and pride. I tried, and endeavour, not to cross it. Good to take to heart the words of Honen, one of the "fathers" of Pure Land Buddhism, who said:- "When a scholar is born they forget the Nembutsu". Everything that is truly of worth is a pure gift of Reality-as-is; given, not attained, realised, not earned or gained by merit.

Anyway, eventually I learnt that Dookie was a word in the USA used by children for poo, a fact that threatened to tarnish my reputation just a little, not to mention forestall any suggestions of wisdom. But I soldiered on. 

Poo? Surely not?

The Bulletin Boards on Tricycle finally disintegrated, unmonitored they sunk under their own weight of spam, flaming, sledging and insults. So much for Buddhist ethics.

But I had the bit between my teeth. I registered again and again on various Boards. Christian, Secular, Atheist, Agnostic, Islamic, General, Ex-Christian, Inter-faith and various new Buddhist forums. Two hiccups when once I was censured for a "racist" post ( I had posted of my thinking that Wei Wu Wei was a "wizened little Chinaman" before finding out his true identity as the Irish Aristocrat Terence Gray) and then received a lifetimes ban on another when I crossed swords with the Administrator who took exception to my implying that a post of his was based upon gossip. 

Wei Wu Wei (I blame him)

A wizened chinaman

I have retired from all Boards now after perhaps 30,000 posts or so. In my time I have been called a hypocrite, a liar, the "voice of satan", even the Anti-Christ; I have been called wise and been called stupid. I have been known as Dookie, Tariki, Cobblers Apprentice and one or two other equally preposterous names, as the mood took me. Generally I have sought to be polite and truthful. We can only try. One of my fondest memories of meetings in cyberspace was various exchanges with a guy in Sri Lanka who had ambitions to become a Theravada bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) who eventually thanked me for extending his knowledge of the Buddhist Scriptures. My worst? Crossing swords with a member of a Fundamentalist Christian Sect whose bigotry, which he was totally oblivious to, was, to me, shocking. 

But it has all been good for me.

In the end, as the wag said, "There are only two types of people in the world, those who divide the world into two types of people and those who don't". There is great mileage in the zen advice that if we wish to know the truth then "cease to cherish opinions", simply because, as per the great parable of the raft, the Dharma is for "passing over, not for grasping". For me this has its echo in the Gospel advice not to judge others. 

From being afraid to say boo to a goose I will now say what I like, when I like. If not now then when?

Thomas Merton

Fundamentally I am a very secular person. Organised religion, its creeds and rituals, mean little if anything at all. As I see it, "belief" - in whatever - often acts more as an anaesthetic than as a catalyst for acting in the world. Nevertheless, I have admiration for various human beings who some would consider "religious". One such is the Catholic Trappist monk Thomas Merton. As I have implied, this is not "hero worship".  I see him more as a mentor, through whom I can come to my own understanding - Merton himself was very rarely didactic in any real sense of the word. Being a Trappist monk, his published books necessarily passed through the censorship system of the Catholic Church. Given that those books included essays on Buddhism and a translation of Chuang Tzu, this indicates that the censorship system is perhaps not as stifling of free thought as some might suppose. Yet it is for me in his letters - and Journals - that he speaks to my own tastes, and these escaped censorship in any real meaning of the word.

Merton in monastic garb 

I first read Merton when I picked up "The Seven Storey Mountain" in my local library. This book is autobiographical and tells of Merton's early life ( not one of religious indoctrination ), his conversion to Catholicism, and ends with his entry into the monastery of Gethsemane in Kentucky, U.S.A. I got about half way through before giving up. I found it over pious and stifling. Next I found a collection of his letters ("The Hidden Ground of Love") in a second hand bookshop. It was priced at only £5, and being a skinflint at heart, always having an eye for a bargain, I snapped it up. Once again, after about 100 pages I left it aside. Yet about a couple of years later, for some reason I picked it up again and this time read through to the end. It was pure delight. Merton wrote to so many people, of so many different faiths - and to some of none - and without betraying at any time his own fidelity to Christ, opened his heart to all, saying "yes" where he could.

Since then I have built up my own little library of Merton. All of his published letters (5 volumes), many of his Journals (published in 7 volumes) plus a few of his other books, mainly those concerned with Buddhism/Zen.

I suppose the impression can be given, when reading the words of others - particularly of a "religious" figure - that the words originate from some ethereal source and not from a concrete human being. Whether or not this is the case, I would just like to speak of Merton's own very lovable humanity. There is a wonderful photo of Merton in the Lion edition of "The Intimate Merton" that is worth a million words. The caption is "This is the old hillbilly who knows where the still is", and it truly captures the man as he must have been known to his own friends, full of fun and humour. 

Does he know where the still is?

When Henri Nouwen met him, he spoke of an initial reaction of disappointment as nothing "very special, profound or spiritual" occurred:-


Maybe I expected something unusual, something to talk about with others or to write home about. But Thomas Merton proved to be a very down-to-earth, healthy human being who was not going to perform to satisfy our curiosity. He was one of us...............(later) I became very grateful for that one unspectacular encounter. I found that whenever I was tempted to let myself be carried away by lofty ideas or cloudy aspirations, I had only to remind myself of that one afternoon to bring myself back to earth. (With) my mind's eye I saw him again as that earthy man, dressed in sloppy blue jeans, loud, laughing, friendly and unpretentious..................


There is a passage in one of his letters where he relates an episode following the ordination of one of his best friends, Dan Walsh, in 1967. Following the ceremony, Merton and a few of his other friends got just a little bit tiddly on alcohol and began falling around with laughter. Looking on were a group of nuns who appeared just a little shocked. "Another pillar of the Church had fallen" commented Merton.


Merton has also been called an "anti-monk" and wrote himself:-


I see clearer than ever that I am not a monk.........................I expect to live for a few more years, hoping that I will not go nuts...............This, I think, is about the best I can hope for. It sums up the total of my expectations for the immediate future. If on top of this the Lord sees fit in His mercy to admit me to a non-monastic corner of heaven, among the beatniks and pacifists and other maniacs, I will be exceedingly grateful. Doubtless there will be a few pseudo-hermits among them and we will all sit around and look at each other and wonder how we made it. Up above will be the monks, with a clearer view of their own status and a more profound capacity to appreciate the meaning of status and the value of having one.....

Maybe it can be all summed up by a comment made by Merton when visited in 1954 by his friend Mark Van Doren. Van Doren remarked that Merton had not changed much since joining the monastic community.  Merton replied:- "Why should I? Here our duty is to be more ourselves, not less"

Anyway, maybe enough. But just a couple of quotes from Merton which I find meaningful:- 

True communication on the deepest level is more than a simple sharing of ideas, conceptual knowledge, or formulated truth......and the deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. It is wordless, it is beyond words, and it is beyond speech, and it is beyond concept. Not that we discover a new unity. We discover an older unity. My dear brothers and sisters, we are already one. But we imagine that we are not. And what we have to recover is our original unity. What we have to be is what we are.

And finally:-

(True religion is)......freedom from domination, freedom to live one's own spiritual life, freedom to seek the highest truth, unabashed by any human pressure or any collective demand, the ability to say one's own "yes" and one's own "no" and not merely to echo the "yes" and the "no" of state, party, corporation, army or system. This is inseparable from authentic religion. It is one of the deepest and most fundamental needs of the human person, perhaps the deepest and most crucial need of the human person as such.

(From "Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander")