Communication

I am still ploughing on with Mr Joseph Campbell, now with his "Creative Mythology". I have reached Chapter 3 and a section entitled Symbolic Speech. Here is how that section begins:-

The best things cannot be told, the second best are misunderstood. After that comes civilised conversation; after that, mass indoctrination; after that, intercultural exchange. And so, proceeding, we come to the problem of communication........

An image from the book "Creative Mythology"

What sort of "problem" is communication? What exactly needs to be communicated? What would we wish to be communicated?

Turning once again to Thomas Merton, in one of his very last talks before his untimely death, he had this to say:-

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.

Is this true?

Is this the only true communication?

So, if this is correct, what we should wish to communicate is the means of becoming who we are. 

(At this point I would just say that more often than not I am talking to myself, even learning from myself. Whatever anyone else may or may not gain from wading through my blogs, in writing them I clarify my own thoughts. Often things come together, for better or for worse)

Just thinking back I remember the little story of the Jewish guy who travelled far upon hearing of a certain holy man - not to hear what he had to say but "to see how he tied his shoelaces." I think all good stories are multi-faceted but this one now takes on added resonance in the context of the questions raised here. 

Anyway, onward, from the Jewish to the Japanese. There is an old word in that language, menju, meaning "face to face transmission", person to person, a learning not to be found in books.

Learning person to person - at my own particular pace

 

I learnt about this in a book (!) and its author, Hiroyuki Itsuki, spoke there of his own attempts to learn. Itsuki spoke of all the philosophers he had read and yet, he said,  he had "learnt more from his father's sigh" than from any of them. His father's sigh when, at the end of a long day, life's ambitions thwarted once more, he sunk down upon his bed.

The book by Itsuki, "Tariki;"

Others have said that we can only ever truly learn that which is already in us, that which we already know at some level. If true, this would bring me back to "salvation" being recognition, realisation, and not any accumulation of knowledge. Which again suggests that, indeed, we are already one, and that what we have to become is that which we already are. 

By grace we recognise grace in others; I think not by seeing perfection in them, but simply by seeing their humanity, pure and simple.

Lay your sleeping head , my love,

Human on my faithless arm......

.....but in my arms till break of day

Let the living creature lie,

Mortal, guilty, but to me

The entirely beautiful.

(W H Auden, lines from "Lullaby")

I have never really been sure of the exact meaning - or meanings - of the whole of the poem "Lullaby" by Auden. I have gathered it speaks of "gay" love. Of what else I'm not aware. But I have always loved some of its lines.

Lullaby - is this what Auden had in mind?

Moving on, but on the same theme, the love of Heloise for Abelard, a truly tragic story recounted by Joseph Campbell in "Creative Mythology". Campbell summarises the love of Heloise after first calling it "(perhaps) the noblest signature of her century":-

 (her love was) not the natural, animal urgencies of lust, nor the supernatural, angelic desire to glow forever in the beatific vision, but the womanly, purely human experience of love for a specific living being, and the courage to burn for that love were to be the kingdom and the glory of a properly human life.

Heloise and Abelard, their love looked upon disapprovingly by the Powers That Be

So, communication, or rather communion.

That is it for now. Just the final thought that the love of Heloise was unrequited. Does it take two to tango?

I will now rest. Comments appreciated. Thank you.

Related Quotes:- 

Language is no longer linked to the knowing of things, but to human freedom. 

(Michel Foucault, "The Order of Things")

I am not of their age or time so have not personally heard their voices or seen their faces, but I know this by what is written on bamboo and silk, etched on metal and stone, and inscribed on basins and bowls that have passed down to us through succeeding generations

(Mozi, "Impartial Caring")

Lamps Unto Ourselves

It is reported in the Theravada Canon of Scripture, purported to be the most historically accurate record of the Buddha's acts and words, that when he was about to leave our world he refused requests to appoint a successor, saying instead to "let the Dharma be your guide.......be ye lamps unto yourselves". 

A complete set of the Pali Canon

The Dharma is Truth, simply the way things actually are, and according to Buddhism a "come and see for yourself" sort of thing ( ehipassiko in Pali ). It includes the teaching of not-self, ( anatta ) and a well respected Buddhist Dictionary has it that the failure to understand this teaching will ensure that all else is misunderstood. Alas, often not-self is thought to have much to do with getting rid of the ego - and thus often Buddhism is misunderstood, entering the realms of certain "new-age" notions of "non-ego" and "living in the moment". 

In my own rambling way of coming to see for myself I came to question just what the lamp was that was to be "ourselves", this in the light of "not-self". 

It seemed a complicated procedure to follow. In the end, among other things, I stumbled upon the words of a Pure Land devotee, who said:

The love that inspired Oya-sama to go through

All the sufferings and all the hardships - 

I thought I was simply to listen to the story

But that was a grievous mistake, I find.

(Oya-sama.......simply, that which "protects and guides me", the infinite light and life that is Amida Buddha, Reality-as-is.)

 Yes, I think it is a grievous mistake to think that grace means we can sit back and wait for things to happen of themselves. We are instead faced with the paradox that though there is nothing to do, we cannot just do nothing. Ultimately this is very much the same paradox that plagues so much Christian dialogue concerning the "contradiction" between salvation by faith and salvation by works. Buddhism has its own dialogue. The Pure Land saint (myokonin) Saichi had this to say concerning this:-

O Saichi, please tell us of Other Power

Yes, but there is neither Other Power nor self power

What is, is the graceful acceptance only.

Graceful Acceptance

Compare this with an example of the Christian dialogue, from the pen of Thomas Merton:-

In our being their is a primordial YES that is not our own; it is not at our disposal; it is not accessible to our inspection and understanding; we do not even fully experience it as real......basically......my being is not an affirmation of a limited self, but the YES of Being itself, irrespective of my own choices. Where do "I " come in? Simply in uniting the YES of my own freedom with the YES of Being that already IS before I have a chance to choose. This is not "adjustment". There is nothing to adjust. There is reality........the actuality of one YES.......in this actuality no question of "adjustment" remains......

( from "Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander )

Much of this will make no sense if we associate "wisdom" with the accumulation of knowledge, or with "salvation" as being initiated by our very own choice to accept a Creed and thus gaining the Sky God's favour. It will make sense ( hopefully ) if we recognise that wisdom/enlightenment/salvation is to come to the realisation of that which has always been. "What we must be is what we are" said Merton, and in words of his own Christian perspective, "we already possess God, yet how far I have to go to find You in Whom I have already arrived!" 

Drawing upon this, is the journey the thing itself, is the path itself home? But maybe this question belongs elsewhere. But I will finish with the opening of Basho's "Narrow Road to the Deep North":-

The moon and the sun are eternal travellers. Even the years wander on. A lifetime adrift in a boat, or in old age leading a tired horse into the years, every day is a journey, and the journey itself is home. From the earliest times there have always been some who perished along the road. Still I have always been drawn by windblown clouds into dreams of a lifetime of wandering.

So I leave Basho to his wandering, a lamp unto himself. With his very own paradox.

The Trackless Way

I like the whole idea of a "trackless way". I think because it answers to my own experience - I often see and recognise that I am now where I am more in spite of any explicit beliefs I have sought to follow than because of them. Where I am is another matter entirely, but lets not go there! 

A trackless way

St John of the Cross, a Christian mystic, once said that if we wished "to be sure of the road we tread on then we should close our eyes and walk in the dark". Another way of seeing it is that we can seek to set the sails but then must wait for the wind to blow, for "heaven to do it's will".

Another trackless way

Well, I'm waffling as usual. It's just that I was reading from Joseph Campbell's "Creative Mythology" and soon hit upon a section entitled "The Trackless Way". In this Campbell says, in speaking of a western philosopher called Schopenhauer, that he:- 

(in his doctrine) of the metaphysical ground of the unique character of each and every human individual he stood worlds apart from the indifference of all Indian thought to individuation. The goal in India, whether in Hinduism, Buddhism, or Jainism, is to purge away individuality........

Schopenhauer

In fact, it seems that Mr Campbell often seeks to distinguish between Occidental and Oriental mythology. Does he come to conclusions? Maybe not. In a trackless land, definitive conclusions can be misguided. Regarding individualism, where do the words of the Buddhist zen master fit, as quoted in my last blog? 

"See that bamboo, how short it is. See that bamboo, how long it is". 

And what price suchness or the depictions in Pure Land Buddhism of the Lotus Flower, a flower that is seen to symbolise the uniqueness of each of us? So it seems that Indian Buddhism has morphed, via the Silk Road, via Mahayana, into "individuality", no matter what its first "goal" might have been, or is declared to be. 

The Silk Road - were "east" and "west" met?

Getting back to the trackless, there was an exchange of letters between Thomas Merton and a young child, Grace Sisson, a daughter of one of his friends. Grace had sent him a picture she had drawn showing a house. Merton wrote back that he thought the house beautiful but regretted that it had no road leading up to the front door. Grace then sent him a new drawing, this time with a path to the door. Merton then spoke of "the road to joy that is mysteriously revealed to us without our exactly realising it."

I think often we can make demands of Reality, that it must needs be a certain way before it can convince us that all manner of things shall be well. Perhaps some people we will see as "clever", as having "insight", and we perk our ears up when they speak or write. Others are cast into the outer darkness (!) as lacking in whatever we perceive to be "wisdom". Yet much can be found in the most unlikely of places; in fact, as far as I understand Buddhism, bodhisattvas - enlightenment beings who seek the good of all - come in all shapes and sizes. 

All shapes and sizes

All this is part of the trackless way. We just need to be receptive, open, cease to cherish opinions. Even listen to the children.

Related Quotes:- The rage for wanting to conclude is one of the most fruitless manias to befall humanity. Each religion and each philosophy has pretended to have God to itself, to measure the infinite, and to know the recipe for happiness. What arrogance and what nonsense! I see, to the contrary, that the greatest geniuses and the greatest works have never concluded. 

(Gustave Flaubert)

Of Fish, Bamboo and Non-duality

For some reason my mind has turned to fish. Fish are mentioned many times in the stories of Chuang Tzu. Chuang Tzu was a Chinese man of times gone by and was admired very much by the Catholic monk Thomas Merton, a man I admire very much. 

Fish - a Japanese woodprint

Merton says in his introduction to his very own translation of some of Chuang Tzu stories that he is not seeking to draw Christian rabbits from Chuang Tzu's hat but just loves the man for who he is - or was. Merton then goes on to say:-

In any event the "way" of Chuang Tzu is mysterious because it is so simple that it can get along without being a way at all. Least of all is it a "way out." Chuang Tzu would have agreed with St John of the Cross that you enter upon this kind of way when you leave all ways and, in some sense, get lost.

A Christian rabbit?

So if you do not wish to get lost, turn away now. 

Getting back to fish, one of the stories found in Merton's delightful translations of Chuang Tzu is entitled "Man is born in Tao" and it opens like this:-

Fishes are born in water

Man is born in Tao

In my own fashion these words remind me of an old zen master, who when asked what was the meaning of enlightenment, just pointed to some nearby bushes, "See that bamboo? How short it is. See that bamboo? How long it is." 

A dog appreciates the differing sizes of bamboo

Each to their own, and the lesson seems far from the ideas of "non-duality" prevalent in some western quarters, where notions of pantheism obscure the idea; where all becomes "one", a mush of nothingness - and even nihilism. So far from the actual, of seeing the pure individuality of each and everything, each in its suchness.

Anyway, fish. And Chuang Tzu. The final words of the little story already alluded to are:-

All the fish needs is to get lost in water. 

All man needs is to get lost in Tao.

Here, once again, I find grace and acceptance. The catalyst of genuine transformation.

Moving on, more fish. Crossing the Hao river Chuang Tzu says:-

See how free

The fishes leap and dart;

That is their happiness.

Chuang Tzu's companion queries as to how he can possibly know that the fishes are happy and a convoluted argument ensues. Finally:-

I know the joy of fishes in the river

Through my own joy, as I go walking

Along the same river

How can we know the fishes are happy?

In yet another fishy story, Chuang Tzu draws further conclusions:-

Water is for fish 

And air for men. 

Natures differ, and needs with them.

Hence the wise men of old 

Did not lay down 

One measure for all.

One measure for all?

One measure for all? What is all this talk of "man" and "men". What about the women? But no matter, I must not digress.

One final story, or at least, a few words from it:-

The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.........the purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.

Well, enough - perhaps - of fish. I recommend Thomas Merton's little book on Chuang Tzu, a book he once said was his favorite of all he had written. Again, seek out his "Study of Chuang Tzu" which serves as the introduction. It has the potential to yield great fruit.

 

Buddhist Texts ( a Sampler )

Believe it or not I am quite familiar with the various Scriptures of the World Religions. There are so many "words of God" out there it is sometimes difficult to know where to start. Of course, once you decide which is to be your own "word of God" (normally of the culture you have been born into) then the exact interpretation of it must be determined. Which is the right one, the one that tells us "the only way" to please the Sky God?

No end to "holy" books. Is this where we find life?

Well, the Bible at one point declares that many "search the scriptures daily for in them they think they have life". At which point the theologians step in and relate such a verse to its context, and often in doing so succeed in defending the primacy of scripture. Pretty circular, with no way out, round or through. 

There is a zen story of a group of monks transporting a chest load of their scriptures across the dangerous mountain passes of their country. They are caught out by a snow storm and must camp for the night. Cold, they take out the "holy" texts and burn them to keep warm. Ah, now that's the spirit!

There have been various book burnings throughout the history of the world ( for various reasons )

In Christianity, as I understand it, there is the Word as Text, and there is the Living Word. Though the former should witness to the latter, more often than not it merely witnesses to itself and the self appointed "heralds of the spirit" then appear, often complete with a collecting cup.

Anyway, I digress.  Just to add that for me the Living Word is Reality-as-is. Reality, our Cosmos, is the only "revelation" and its truth is freely available, found anywhere at any time. 

Well, a couple of samplers from the Buddhist Texts, two that I personally have found to be a guide across the muddy waters of samsara. Texts that the Buddha said were for passing over and not for grasping in his famous "parable of the raft", a parable that has much to do with what has been called the "silence of the Buddha".

The Buddha's silence can sometimes be pretty verbose

Here, from the Middle Length Discourses, Sutta 63:-

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatti at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then, as Ven. Malunkyaputta was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in his awareness: "These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One — 'The cosmos is eternal,' 'The cosmos is not eternal,' 'The cosmos is finite,' 'The cosmos is infinite,' 'The soul & the body are the same,' 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' 'After death a Buddha exists,' 'After death a Buddha does not exist,' 'After death a Buddha both exists & does not exist,' 'After death a Buddha neither exists nor does not exist' — I don't approve, I don't accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I'll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' that 'The cosmos is finite,' that 'The cosmos is infinite,' that 'The soul & the body are the same,' that 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' that 'After death a Buddha exists,' that 'After death a Buddha does not exist,' that 'After death a Buddha both exists & does not exist,' or that 'After death a Buddha neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will live the holy life under him. If he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Buddha neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life."

Then, when it was evening, Ven. Malunkyaputta arose from seclusion and went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, just now, as I was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One... I don't approve, I don't accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I'll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... or that "After death a Buddha neither exists nor does not exist," then I will live the holy life under him. If he does not declare to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... or that "After death a Buddha neither exists nor does not exist," then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life.'

"Lord, if the Blessed One knows that 'The cosmos is eternal,' then may he declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal.' If he knows that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' then may he declare to me that 'The cosmos is not eternal.' But if he doesn't know or see whether the cosmos is eternal or not eternal, then, in one who is unknowing & unseeing, the straightforward thing is to admit, 'I don't know. I don't see.'... If he doesn't know or see whether after death a Buddha exists... does not exist... both exists & does not exist... neither exists nor does not exist,' then, in one who is unknowing & unseeing, the straightforward thing is to admit, 'I don't know. I don't see.'"

"Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, 'Come, Malunkyaputta, live the holy life under me, and I will declare to you that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Buddha exists,' or 'After death a Buddha does not exist,' or 'After death a Buddha both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Buddha neither exists nor does not exist'?"

"No, Lord."

"And did you ever say to me, 'Lord, I will live the holy life under the Blessed One and [in return] he will declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Buddha exists,' or 'After death a Buddha does not exist,' or 'After death a Buddha both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Buddha neither exists nor does not exist'?"

"No, Lord."

"Then that being the case, foolish man, who are you to be claiming grievances/making demands of anyone?

"Malunkyaputta, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... or that "After death a Buddha neither exists nor does not exist,"' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by me.

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

"In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Buddha neither exists nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by me.

"Malunkyaputta, it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is eternal,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is not eternal,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is eternal,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is not eternal,' there is still the birth, there is the ageing, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

"It's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

"It's not the case that when there is the view, 'The soul & the body are the same,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The soul & the body are the same,' and when there is the view, 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

"It's not the case that when there is the view, 'After death a Buddha exists,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'After death a Buddha does not exist,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'After death a Buddha both exists & does not exist,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'After death a Buddha neither exists nor does not exist' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'After death a Buddha exists'... 'After death a Buddha does not exist'... 'After death a Buddha both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Buddha neither exists nor does not exist,' there is still the birth, there is the ageing, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Buddha exists'... 'After death a Buddha does not exist'... 'After death a Buddha both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Buddha neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.

"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

"And what is declared by me? 'This is suffering,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of suffering,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of suffering,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of suffering,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared."

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Malunkyaputta delighted in the Blessed One's words.

And, after that marathon (congratulations if you made it through, even more so if you too are "delighted") a much shorter extract, this from the Culasaropama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, or - in English - The Shorter Discourse on the Simile of the Heartwood of the Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha:-

So this holy life.......does not have gain, honour, and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of virtue for its benefit, or the attainment of concentration for its benefit, or knowledge and vision for its benefit. But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood, and its end.

Seek the heartwood

Falling Into Wells

There is a little Zen proverb that I often quote. I first heard it about twenty years ago and it often comes to mind.

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

Perhaps some would see this as a koan, in zen a paradoxical phrase that has no logical answer, seeking to tease us out of logical "answers" to life's conundrums and thus trigger enlightenment. 

Falling into the well. But is all "illusion"?

But I think "proverb" is correct. Nothing truly paradoxical here, just a question that can in fact have a reasonably rational answer. 

As I see it the proverb questions a commonly held view of what "enlightenment" is. The view that it would elevate us above others, confer complete freedom from suffering (as commonly understood), even confer supernatural powers. 

The fruits of enlightenment?

Just to digress slightly, there are two main trajectories in Buddhism. The first, associated with Theravada, the Southern School, is "up and out of this world", out of samsara - our world of birth and death - and into nirvana. The second, found in Mahayana, the Northern School, is of "up" but then back into the world, where samsara and nirvana are "one". Here, in the name of wisdom one leaves the world, and for the sake of compassion one returns. 

Maybe a slight digression but these two ways are, in my view, associated with this particular blog. 

Anyway, to illustrate the proverb, there are various stories to be found in the Buddhist tradition. There is the rather short one, where a holy man following 30 years of meditation and study, walks upon water to cross over a river, and is then told off by the Buddha:- "The ferry only costs a penny". 

Perhaps he should have taken the ferry

Another goes like this:- A holy man meets the Buddha and says:- "Look here at my miracles" He then proceeds to float up into the air and dives about, up and down, somersaults and circles. The Buddha is unimpressed:- "My miracles are greater than that". The holy man then picks up a stick and begins writing upon the air, but 50 yards away, upon a rock, the words appear. Once again the Buddha is not impressed. "My miracles are greater" he says again. "Then show me your miracles" demands the holy man. "My miracles are these" responds the Buddha, "when hungry I eat, when tired I sleep, when happy I laugh, when sad I cry." I'm not sure just how impressed the other guy was, but each to their own.

 There is a story from another tradition, of a novice being pointed out by the head of the monastery to a visiting monk :- "He is so despondent. He has been with us for 30 years and has still to attain pure prayer". The visiting monk says:- "The real  tragedy is that after 30 years he is still seeking for pure prayer."

Well, enough stories. So what is "enlightenment"? Possibly there is no such thing. But there can be acceptance. We can stop searching for "somewhere else", we can have gratitude for what we have. Maybe this will lead to the "end of all exploration" as T S Eliot says, and we "shall know the place for the first time". And know ourselves. We could also find that pure acceptance, rather than being a state of compliant resignation, is, paradoxically, the catalyst of genuine transformation. In Pure Land Buddhism this has all to do with grace, gratitude and trust. To say:- "whether going to hell or to the Pure Land, all is in Amida's hands. Thank you". 

Did I say "a reasonably rational answer"? 😏

The Way Of All The Earth

There is a book by the Christian theologian John Dunne called "The Way Of All The Earth." It is a study of how great figures such as Gandhi have gained insight on their own religion by gaining an understanding of others, this by "passing over" to another and then returning to one's own. Perhaps simply put it is just asking us to try to walk in someone elses shoes, to see things from another perspective. Simpler still, it is about empathy. But whatever it is, if we ever make the trip, whether we can ever return to our own, as it was, is a good question. I would say no, but this is surely learning and growing, which can't be bad. 

John Dunne ( rather than "passing over" perhaps he should just try a new hat? )

Anyway, John Dunne called all this "the adventure of our time". In the so called "spiritual" arena it would involve seeking out an "eastern" faith. The Catholic Trappist monk Thomas Merton was certainly one of those who joined in with the "adventure", though this was not at the bidding of Mr Dunne. He was up for it long before. Merton once wrote, in his "Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander":- 

The more I am able to affirm others, to say 'yes' to them in myself, by discovering them in myself and myself in them, the more real I am. I am fully real if my own heart says yes to everyone. 

I will be a better Catholic, not if I can refute every shade of Protestantism, but if I can affirm the truth in it and still go further. 

So, too, with the Muslims, the Hindu's, the Buddhist's, etc. This does not mean syncretism, indifferentism, the vapid and careless friendliness that accepts everything by thinking of nothing. There is much that one cannot 'affirm' and 'accept,' but first one must say 'yes' where one really can.

Father Louis in the process of "passing over" meeting with the Dalai Lama

Well, so wrote Merton, or Father Louis as he was known in his monastery. Carl Gustav Jung seemed to have reservations, once asking what was the good of the wisdom of the Hindu Upanishads, and the insights of Chinese Yoga if we abandon our own foundations "like outworn mistakes"? So Jung was wary, Merton was in favour. What say you?

What say I? I seem to have passed over...........and not come back at all, but have I "abandoned my own foundations like outworn mistakes"? Surely it is always a case of integration? If we truly know our foundations, are our foundations, then surely they can never simply be abandoned, no matter how deeply we get to know another way of seeing the world. 

Just to waffle on a bit about what I found upon "passing over"......

As I see it, though the thought of "unity" is aesthetically pleasing, the reality of the various "eastern" faiths is far more messy, each one a whole collection, like Christianity itself, of diverse doctrines, denominations and teachings and beliefs. Even in just one division of Buddhism, Zen, which purports to be the heart of Buddhism, we have Soto and Rinzai, disagreeing over certain principles. 

Diversity

For me it is not so much that each faith is a facet of the truth, but that there is the possibility in all for truth to be found.

This is not eclecticism, or a call for anyone to try to amalgamate all into some universal Creed. The last thing the world needs, in my view, is another creed, no matter how appealing in terms of "love" and "unity". It just seems to be the case that all faiths have the potential to bring forth those  who demonstrate in their lives "those acts of love without thought of gain" (which someone once said was one of the aims of any Faith) Again, a "faith" is not needed at all if such is equated with allegiance to some creedal formula, theology or system of belief.

Potential of Reality to enlighten

This simply because the potential to enlighten is within Reality itself. As my own Pure Land path says, through the words of one of its "saints", Saichi:-

O Saichi what is your joy?

This world of delusion is my joy!

It contains the seeds of relishing the Dharma

Namu-amida-butsu is blooming everywhere!

Well, getting back to Thomas Merton, when he spoke of the Eastern Faiths he listed these as often being highlighted:-

1. The priority of experience over speculation.

2. The inadequacy of words to articulate religious experience.

 3. The fundamental oneness of reality. 

4. The realisation that the goal of all spiritual discipline is transformation of consciousness. 

5. "Purity of Heart"......"liberation from attachment"

I'm not really sure if these are any more "highlighted" in the Eastern Faiths than in any other. Maybe more a question of emphasis and of just how they are approached and known. To just quibble about point 3, of "fundamental oneness", this has to do with non-duality, which is not that "all is one", but that Reality is not "two", another thing entirely no matter what might be thought. 

Relationship is alive and well and living in the "east", particularly the Pure Land. Actually, Merton would have known this, but I thought I would mention it, being at heart pedantic and a quibbler.

To finish (sighs of relief all around) I must just relate a little Jewish story. It has drifted around my mind for a few weeks now and I have been seeking to fit it into one of my blogs. Alas, it never seems to be wholly appropriate, yet to me it can be thought to fit anywhere:-

A Jewish guy wishes to see a famous Jewish holy man and travels a great distance to meet him. Upon his return a friend asks him what the holy man said. ""Oh, I didn't want to hear what he said, I wanted to see how he tied his shoelaces."

How do you tie yours?

Learning Situations

I have in my little library a copy of a Buddhist text, the Avatamsaka Sutra (also known as the Flower Ornament Scripture) It is a vast text, running to over 1500 pages. D T Suzuki speaks of it as follows:-

As the consummation of Buddhist thought, Buddhist sentiment, and Buddhist experience........here not only deeply speculative minds find satisfaction, but humble and heavily oppressed hearts too, will have their burdens lightened......abstract truths are so concretely, so symbolically represented here that one will finally come to the realisation of the truth that even in a particle of dust the whole universe is seen reflected....

"The thick textured foreground is symbolic of the barriers that conceal, and yet unveil, the Truths that set us free"

As a "humble spirit" myself  😎  I do indeed find many burdens lightened by reading and reflecting upon the words of this scripture. I relate it to the guidance of oya-sama, a Japanese word used to embrace the understanding of Amida, the Buddha of Infinite Compassion. "Oya-sama" has no equivalent in English. It means either a father or a mother and also both of them as parents; it has no gender. It is neither 'he' nor 'she'; it is the one whose heart is wholly occupied with looking after its own children's welfare. It is probably more motherly than fatherly in that it is not the mighty master or head of a family who reproves, chastens and punishes, but rather all-embracing love.

The most appropriate image of "oya-sama" I could find

Getting back to the Avatamsaka Scripture, its opening chapter, of over 100 pages, extols the virtues, the ways and means, of how enlightenment has manifested itself to infinite numbers of Bodhisattva's. For a Pure Land Buddhist like myself, it speaks of the infinite ways that Amida comes to the human heart, as oya-sama. Drawn virtually at random, here are some small excerpts from the opening chapter.....

The Buddha's ocean of unexcelled virtues

Manifests a lamp which illumines the world:

Saving and protecting all sentient beings,

He gives them all peace, not leaving out one

The Buddha cultivates an ocean of compassion,

His heart always as broad as the whole world

Therefore his spiritual powers are boundless

Buddha, observing the world, conceives kind compassion,

Appearing in order to aid sentient beings,

Showing them the supreme way of peace and joy.

The Buddha observes the world

The Buddha appears in the world,

Observes the inclinations of all beings,

And matures them by various means.

As the translator, Thomas Cleary, explains in the appendix, the "miracles of awareness and existence are 'miracles' of Buddha. They are constantly edifying in the sense that all things are always teaching. The miraculous transformation performed by the Buddha for the enlightenment of all is, from this perspective, the shifting of the mental outlook to experiencing everything as a learning situation".

It has to be asked, is everything a "learning situation"? When thousands are blown to bits in airstrikes, when a child is murdered, when infants die of hunger - what do they learn? If the reality of each begins and ends in time, exists only between birth and death, it is difficult to think that anything could be learnt from such events by the victims. Yet, in thinking about such, perhaps we can learn?

Well, possibly many will read of the "buddhas" of the Flower Ornament Scripture with sceptical ears. Myself, thinking mythically and translating Buddhas into an understanding of Reality-as-is, I have found that I can look back and see my life not as a "tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing", but as a gift of grace. Knowledge has not accumulated, bringing wisdom, but certainties and "answers" have been stripped away leaving me free to give an appropriate statement within each moment. It seems to me that Reality is neither entirely subject to a linear timescale nor is mind reduced to the bounds of our skulls. 

"To see a world in a grain of sand

And a heaven in a wild flower

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand

And eternity in an hour" (William Blake)

Anyway, to keep on-topic (for perhaps the first time), concerning learning situations, of everything being a learning situation. What is learning, what exactly is it we learn, and how do we learn? I think we learn what love is and we learn the truth of what the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart said, that "love has no why".  I observe that people of all faiths, and people of no faith, people of academic learning and of no learning........seem to know. Know sometimes and not other times. All a bit of a mystery. In Buddhism, enlightenment is spoken of and "compassion" rather than love. Sometimes Buddhism speaks of a path.

Here are some instructions:-

Master, Master! What should I do to gain enlightenment?

Well, my son, to gain enlightenment you must rise in the morning, dress and then eat.

But Master, I do not understand!

Well, my son, if you do not understand, you must rise in the morning, dress and then eat.

I think the Trappist monk Thomas Merton was on the same track when he wrote that if we wanted to "find satisfactory formulas" we had better deal with things that can be fitted into a formula. "The vocation to seek God is not one of them. Nor is existence. Nor is the spirit of man". 

So there are no formulas, but apparently we should just get on with living as best as we are able. Perhaps a final image is fitting, of a zen master tearing up the sutras........

Ah well, back to the Flower Ornament Scripture.

Joseph Campbell, Myths and Other Things

I am with the grandchildren at the moment, so in between reading such fine works as "The Hungry Caterpillar" I squeeze in the occasional weightier tome, one of which has mentioned myth. 

The Hungry Caterpillar

I've often noticed this word "myth" being used and objected to when applied to certain stories in certain books. Anyway, the said weighty tome claimed that in our own time myth has, indeed, come to carry a negative meaning, i.e a fanciful story that only the credulous and ignorant might believe. It then went on to quote the view of an eminent Victorian, that religious myths are a "product of the childhood of the human race, arising out of the minds of a creature that has not yet learned to think in terms of strict cause and effect."

History or Myth?

 Yet, it continues, we are now "much more likely to understand Ananda Coomaraswamy's claim" that:- 

  Myth is the penultimate truth, of which all experience is the temporal reflection. The mythical narrative is of timeless and placeless validity, true nowhere and everywhere. Myth embodies the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be stated in words.

Ananda Coomaraswamy

Just to offer a hint of my own position on the matter, as I see it the "meaning" of the story of Noah will not be much helped by making a trip to Mount Ararat looking for bits of wood from the ark.

Is this where we must begin our search for the meaning of the Biblical story of Noah?

 It seems to me that those who study all the various creation stories and suchlike found within world literature, seeking for the common themes, are more likely to stay in touch with reality than those who would see just one set of ancient stories as "history" pure and simple and all else as deviations from its truth. Not least because it creates the nonsensical thought that simply believing in one particular story - or set of stories - gains some sort of kudos with the Almighty. Or, worse, that believing in one particular story - or stories - is some sort of "gift of the spirit", even a sign of salvation; a claim I have had the misfortune to encounter more than once.

As I have been dipping into the works of Joseph Campbell lately, here are a couple of quotes from him concerning Myth:-

Myths are public dreams, dreams are private myths

Myth is much more important and true than history. History is just journalism and you know how reliable that is

Obviously, Mr Campbell had a low view of journalism, but as far as the first quote, this of our dreams being private myths, I have to admit that my own "private myths" rarely seem to share the depth of those of, say, Jung. Once Jung had a dream of the Almighty dropping a large turd down upon a Cathedral. Such was "cathartic" to Jung. 

A Cathedral, but no turd

Others have spoken of dreams that I would say are profound, deep and thus significant. Alas, my own, those that I remember, often concern choosing a sausage roll from a Burger Bar, or ordering a pint in a tavern - not exactly the stuff of which "myths" are made of. There have been others, perhaps more significant, but no turds or cathedrals. 

Anyway, I can't say that I'm drifting from my topic.......as there isn't one. But maybe to create a topic as I ramble along, I remember an observation of a teacher of Buddhist meditation who taught in a centre based in Europe. He stated that in question and answer sessions the students who shared a nationality would virtually also share the very same problems.

What is it we share?

 Thus it could be that cultural forms have much to say irrespective of whether or not we acknowledge it. We may well be "all the same beneath it all", but just how deep is that which we are beneath? Which drifts into "ego", "true self" and "false self", questions about the universal unconscious and other weighty matters.

After opening up that can of worms I will retire to say the Nembutsu and bring to mind once again:-

Whether I am falling to hell

Or bound for the Pure Land

I have no knowledge

All is left to Amida's Vow

"Namu-amida-butsu!"