Old River

~ David Mitchell, from Cloud Atlas

Amusing how centuries of literal oppression of others has occurred throughout history (lynching, pogroms, genocide, Jim Crow laws, sundown towns, apartheid, etc.) -- but when those marginalized groups finally have their voices heard (after decades and centuries of struggle), the supporters of oppression get so upset, calling it "political correctness." When people begin literally lynching straight white males without legal consequences or literally refuse them service at a business open to the public with no legal consequences, then I'll call that oppression. But to equate the criticism and putting into place laws that give everyone equal status as a citizen with "oppression" is disingenuous. Live the life of a slave or a woman as a second class citizen, or a gay man who has to live as if his life were a dirty sin-- then you can tell me what you know about "oppression." Straight white men have got it so easy that we don't even bother to notice -- rather, it's a given, and that's the special privilege that bigotry seeks to protect by all means of mental gymnastics to justify it's establishment in society. But that isn't happening-- rather it's just that "those people" won't "learn their place." They are just "uppity," they are "militant," they are "extreme." But this absurd hyperbole and pearl clutching serves no purpose but to obfuscate the desire to perpetuate the same old hierarchies. Oh, wah. As a straight, white male, I say good riddance to the sham of white male "superiority." The jig is up.

Yin/Yang has been on my mind lately, between re-reading Zhuangzi and Emerson's essay Compensation (which I highly recommend). I woke up to scribble this in my journal this morning: No matter what is going on in my life, feeling a fullness or a lull in energy from one day to the next, context matters—that is to say, the framework of my environment, which in turn has its broader framework, which is also found within an even greater framework. This plays a fundamental role in the cosmic perspective, from Marcus Aurelius to Zhuangzi. What does kosmos mean but “order”? Bearing in mind that larger context is what brings a degree of coherence to my life—it isn’t just about my “self.” Nor is the context merely an abstract system, but rather it is a developing awareness of the rhythms of nature. Like computers, the cosmos is written in sequences of binary code, the myriad interactions of yin and yang which bring about not so much the ten thousand things as much as the ten thousand processes. The cosmic context is not merely spatial, but, crucially, temporal. To resist, or deny, or flee from temporality is an illusion: I myself am time, all things are time. The question for myself then is a matter of following the rhythms of this music: systole/diastole, fullness/emptiness, stillness/movement, sound/silence… and to remain aware that they are inseparable. Not to defeat one over the other. Not to dissolve both poles. Not to flee to a ideal where only one exists without the other. Not to resign in despair to one overwhelming the other. These are all failed strategies to wish temporality away. All is impermanent, all flows. Without time, there is no being. Without being, there is no time. This is no curse to bear—I too am time. What is needed is not an ideological map, but lucidity. Meditation is one way to become lucid. What is necessary in music is to listen, to awaken to the rhythms in which I participate in order to step with them rather than against them. To step in time. Why not, at last, join in the dance?

"Repetition doesn’t really exist. As far as your mind is concerned, nothing happens the same twice, even if in every technical sense, the thing is identical. Your perception is constantly shifting. It doesn’t stay in one place." ~ Brian Eno

Karl, you've missed the point why I quoted MLK. Karl: "You cannot prevent racism until you completely change the mentality which causes it. Racism doesn't end when a minority group forces a majority group, it's just liberal racism. No one should be forcing anyone, it's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right." MLK: "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." Emphasis added. We can't all be Randian ubermenches, I guess.

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." -MLK

As regards the "free speech": bigots indeed have the right to their free speech, as do those who in turn call them out on their bigotry. Free speech doesn't mean no one is allowed to challenge that speech. That blade cuts both ways.

The liberty to discriminate? Hardly a new idea: What next? A revival of sundown towns?

Chinese blues.... guqin music.

With all the recent mentions of Emerson, I began reading a slender volume by Richard Geldard, The Spiritual Teachings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. I'm almost halfway finished and its the best book of Geldard's (he's written a few books on the Pre-Socratics also)-- a lovely companion to Emerson's work -- full of warmth, and not a difficult read. Still pacing myself on the Transcendentalist Reader and Dante's Divine Comedy (still in Purgatory, halfway there!). The Commedia is interesting because it is less about supernatural realms than about the various potentialities (good and bad) of the human individual in vertical relation with the divine. It's funny that so much of the Christian imagery of heaven and hell doesn't come from the Bible but from Dante, who populates these mythical realms with not only Biblical figures, but Greco-Roman heroes and mythical creatures too: Cato in Purgatory (in spite of his suicide!), Brutus and Cassius placed in the same (lowest) level of hell as Judas, and of course Vergil as the pilgrim's "tour guide," etc.

wholeness

Maybe you're asking yourself the wrong question. Maybe you aren't listening to what your heart, in its most pure and unconditioned nature, is really saying. Maybe it isn't your heart that is wrong, but your ears. What I mean is, we are all raised in a particular environment, and we generally accept the established norms of that environment without questioning. We become conditioned by that environment and then we no longer hear our heart -- we're hearing only what we've been conditioned to think of as "good" and "bad." To put it in basic terms: Following dao isn't just an "anything goes" philosophy -- if that were the case, there would be no need to even bother with it at all. Something else is needed: self-examination involved, in order to recognize our conditioning in order to free ourselves from it (this is one of the reasons for meditation, observing the mind). Only through such self-examination can you clearly hear your heart.

life

--which is what happens when any religion mixes with politics and therefore "power." It's practically axiomatic. And it is always to the detriment of the religion (as well as the people as a whole). In this way, religion becomes nothing more than an excuse for political power. When Jesus was purported to say, "My kingdom is not of this world [kosmos]" he meant his "kingdom" did not operate on the same principles of political violence which Pilate represented-- he wasn't referring to an otherworldly realm, but the principle of love (agape) rather than mere "worldly" violence and force. In this sense, I often think Christianity officially died the day Constantine made it the state religion. It was only after Constantine that the Christian persecution of pagans began and the infighting intensified-- now they had "power" to persecute. In those kinds of situations, there are political, not religious, motivations -- or worse, the two become dishonestly conflated with one another. "Power" and the enticements of "power" (note those quotation marks) have a way of turning even the best of people into the worst. Jesus' "kingdom" ended up becoming very much "of this world" after all. Apech, yes... E.M. Cioran made some similar observations on the differences polytheism and monotheism (which is much more than a mere quantitative difference) and the psychology behind monotheistic fervor: "For a man to whom freedom and vertigo are equivalent, a faith, wherever it comes from, even if it were antireligious, is a salutary shackle, a desired, a dreamed-of chain whose function will be to constrain curiosity and fever, to suspend the anguish of the indefinite. When this faith triumphs and establishes itself, what immediately results from it is a reduction of the number of problems which we must raise, as well as an almost tragic diminution of choices. The burden of choice is taken from us; options are made for us." [The New Gods] No wonder certain political leaders try to harness fundamentalists to gain support for bigoted policies -- but there has been no similar attempts with, say, Unitarian Universalists, Hicksite Quakers or Episcopalians-- there's no traction for a politician to get hold of.

I do think especially westerners are so conditioned to make a fetish of ideological purity which we've inherited from a culture rooted in the Christian religion, where syncretism traditionally was strongly condemned as a heresy. China, Japan, and other far eastern countries don't get hung up on this, but allow a free exchange of ideas and beliefs -- whatever works best in a given moment. Ideological consistency is the least of their concerns. There's a lesson to be learned here. The western fetish of a single, totalizing system comes from centuries of a predominantly Christian culture insisting that we be systematic and consistent in spirituality-- and in everything else too, with mixed results to say the least. Philosophically, its roots are in Plato and the Greek philosophical tradition, which Christianity co-opted for its own purposes (as the so-called "handmaiden of theology"). The same totalizing tendency of the west has arisen out of almost every other religious, philosophical, social, and political doctrine, Marxism being the other obvious historical example. Syncretic flexibility which made Chan Buddhism possible by intermingling with Daoist ideas and attitudes, and in practice there really were no pure, "orthodox" Daoists, Buddhists, or Confucianists, etc. Likewise in Japan, even today, a single family might have a Christian baptism, a Shinto wedding, and a Buddhist funeral -- common attitudes this must have drove those Jesuits missionaries up the wall! These doctrines are distinct from one another, but it is no big deal to switch from one set of beliefs to another in a particular given moment: [from here: http://asiasociety.org/chinese-religions-and-philosophies - emphasis mine] We would likely do better to adopt similar attitudes rather than carrying over the (often violent) ideological intolerance that we've inherited from the west via the "religions of the Book." "This religion is superior than that religion" is a foreign superimposition placed upon Daoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. For the vast majority of the Chinese throughout history, this would be a bizarre position to hold, as this amusing cross-cultural encounter illustrates: http://www.newreligion.eu/2013/03/chinese-religion-and-syncretism.html

Simply trust: Do not the petals flutter down, Just like that? ~ Issa

I can relate to this somewhat. For all my own verbiage, I know I'm heavily intuitive in my comprehension of things (I often make sense of situations in a way doesn't involve an explicit logical argumentation --I tend to verbalize things after the fact rather than beforehand). Even when I was practicing Buddhism, I took the more intuitive route of Chan/Zen. Regarding that Awakening to Reality link -- the irony is that some hardcore nondualists end up getting caught in the same trap of merely positing itself against other traditions. What good is "this" vs. "that" if it only creates more "this" vs. "that"? It just multiplies more "this" and "that" to hopelessly cling to-- the very attitude that causes suffering! Laypeople digging into these complex doctrines is a rather modern phenomenon, and I'm not sure it's helpful -- for either Buddhists or non-Buddhists. In this respect, it isn't too unlike the "mystery religions" in which only the initiated were gradually introduced to new doctrines and practices. To lay it all out was to "profane the mysteries." The practitioner has to be ready for these things, and that's where a teacher becomes necessary. I used to frequent nondual forums and blogs (including that one incidentally) but I find them hopelessly mired in too much argumentation, and quibbling over semantics. Too much verbal discussion (especially online!) on nonduality I think is a mistake-- nothing does the job better than a good old fashioned flesh-and-blood sangha, something the internet (or a book) can't replace.

There was a lot of great stuff that came out of the British folk rock scene of the 60s and 70s that mostly didn't make its way to the US unfortunately. Fairport Convention, Steeleye Span, The Albion Country Band, Shirley Collins, Anne Briggs, the Watersons, Martin Carthy, Sandy Denny, Vashti Bunyan, the Incredible String Band, tons more (the Strawbs, whom Rick Wakeman of Yes fame played with, was originally a part of that scene too). Most people unknowingly have heard Sandy Denny because she sang on "The Battle of Evermore" with Plant. It mirrored of course the American folk and folk rock scene, but drawing largely on British folk elements, having its own unique "flavour." There was a bit of interesting cross-fertilization going on between the US and the UK at that time. The only reason I know about any of it is when I was a teenager, there was a DJ at a local college station that played all this more obscure 60s and 70s music (much of it British) and I used to listen to it religiously on Saturdays. What I love about Sandy Denny's voice is her ability to combine a certain sense of vulnerability and strength at the same time.

What is difficult to recognize is that Mahayana Buddhism points to is not a thing at all, but beyond all verbal conceptualization (ironically, it does take a lot of words to get there though!). Just because you can't name "it" doesn't mean it is therefore a "no thing" as opposed to a "some thing." The Middle Way plays a central role in Nagarjuna's thought in which both essentialism ("some thing") and nihilism ("no thing") are rejected, seen as the trap of dualistic thinking. Where other traditions might still feel the need to actually posit an Absolute reality, Mahayana Buddhism just stops talking (this becomes more apparent in Buddhism's further migration eastward). This doesn't mean x is right and y is wrong, or that y is right and x is wrong. It's just a particular method -- it works better for some than for others. Many apophatic traditions do often have "disclaimers" that even words applied to the Divine or whatever are really just tenuous labels for what ultimately lies beyond all language and conceptualization. The denial of an eternal Absolute is the denial of conceptualization and points toward the embracing of a trusting silence. It's a mistake to equate that silence with mere nihilism-- this error says more about our (perhaps misguided) need to tie language to reality in some singular absolute sense. Nonduality is not quite the same thing as monism. We keep grasping and grabbing with our words, we are unable to trust in our own experience of reality, whatever that might be. But silence has its place too-- sometimes I feel we are too addicted to words (including Nagarjuna-- heck, including myself!). I think part of the problem is the vast access we now have to Buddhist texts for anyone to read without the guidance of a good teacher and a well-grounded community of practitioners. Such a context I feel is necessary. Going on the texts alone is bound to lead to misunderstanding-- Buddhism is no sola scriptura religion, and cannot be comprehended divorced from step-by-step, day-by-day practice. The ease of availability of Buddhist texts and doctrines enables anyone to jump into the deep end of the pool without a practicing community, and this can easily lead to misunderstanding. At any rate, the vast majority of Mahayana Buddhists I have known personally (eastern and western, monastics and laypersons) and whom I have read and known about certainly don't behave according to a nihilist ideology-- rather, they have been some of the most compassionate people I've ever known in life. They must be doing something right, I would imagine. So I say good on them! --even if that isn't my particular path, or I'm unable to see what they see. I think that's a healthier and more charitable attitude to have, or I just turn into another blind man arguing about an elephant's ear or tail or trunk.

I confess I have always had a bit of a crush on Sandy Denny.

The early western understanding of Buddhism (ala Schopenhauer) gets Buddhism entirely wrong because the western metaphysical use of words like "nothing" or "emptiness," etc. mean something entirely different from the Buddhist usage. Sadly, this Schopenhauerian misunderstanding still gets stuck in people's minds. Bottom line: Schopenhauer had his own agenda and appropriated Buddhism for his own nihilistic purposes. In actual Buddhism, it is the belief in absolute reification (i.e. the belief in independent, essentialized beings, including the ego) which it calls delusional, a distortion of reality. This delusion is one of the ways through which suffering arises. Put crudely, Buddhism questions not the existence of things (existing vs. no-existing), but rather the nature of the existence of things as independent, self-subsisting entities. That is what Buddhism denies in anatman. Everything is impermanent. Every thing. In the Middle Way, being (essentialism) and non-being (metaphysical nihilism) are both extremes inextricably tied together which are to be avoided. To conflate this with metaphysical nihilism is based on an inability to recognize Buddhism's Middle Way doctrine. "Emptiness" and "dependent co-origination" are really two ways of saying the same thing. It is easy to misunderstand and to mischaracterize Buddhism as "nihilistic" because of its rather complex doctrines. For some, these doctrines are helpful tools to aid in awakening. Whatever works best-- and sometimes experimenting with different approaches is helpful. The point isn't what is right or what is wrong (these are mere verbal matters in the end, tools), but what works best toward your own awakening. Ages ago in music school, my major "instrument" was voice. I took a fancy to the oboe at one point and took oboe lessons at the university. Getting the embouchure right, just to get a single tone!-- was almost impossible for me. I dropped it after one semester. I stuck with singing, what came to me more naturally. I still love the way the oboe sounds though-- I just don't play it.

I'm not too familiar with Tumblr, but yes, just about anything is a better alternative than Facebook's high noise to signal ratio. I think there are ways some of these networking sites overlap or intersect or link up or whatever the technical terms might be. But its a beautiful idea. I have run across a few other tea-o-pheliac (?) sites on Tumblr in the past. Thank you for sharing your own pics. I think a tea tradition thread would be lovely (I love hot tea a great deal, but my knowledge of it is not very deep). And by all means, yes, I don't mind you sharing chapters from my version of the DDJ -- I'd be honored, in fact!

Lovely - I'm into Taoism and teaism too. Is there a Tumblr version as well, or is it only on Instagram? (I have a Tumblr account only).

After all the hoopla, I find sex itself to be a tad overrated and not worth the effort. Maybe that's why so much hoopla surrounds it....

Hmmm. I checked on something.... Looks like the earliest English translation is by John Chalmers in 1868. I believe Emerson and Thoreau had some other translations by Chalmers (likely Confucius and Mencius). Thoreau died in 1862, but it is possible that Emerson may have read it later in life. I know a Latin translation would've been available to them, and they both knew Latin -- but I am not sure how available that translation was in early 19th-century America. Their responses to reading this would have been very interesting, to be sure!