Canaan

[Vimalakirti]

On his way to Canaan, Abram paused at a modest strip mall (7x7 stores) just outside Babylon. He met an Indian there, over lunch at the food court. They shared a table. Abram settled on the spicy Thai salad with pork dumplings, and the Indian, a little frail from excessive fasting, invoked a platter of fries and a burger.

Abram sat tall, grand, bearded, wrapped in thick woollen robes, and with a will so huge and powerful that centuries & oceans disappeared inside its pores. His will, he knew, would one day be the will of everyone. No other will would ever stand against it, except it be his own will by some other name.

The frail Indian was bald, clean-shaven and dressed only in a dhoti, though the desert wind chafed his bare skin. He gave off the air of a distant relation. The Indian’s will was also great but had slipped inside the pores of the world, or floated somewhere beyond. For the Indian, there was always another beyond. He never despaired. He sat up very straight at table.

The Indian was a world-class siddhi who through long fasts and many other austerities had earned powers of precognition, clairvoyance, clairaudience, the ability to walk on water and to pass through the earth as if it were water, to become many beings from one, from one many, and the capacity to remember past lives through countless eons and innumerable expansions and contractions of the cosmos. Or so it was said.

Abram inclined his head in respect. He told the Indian how he had been called to journey to Canaan, on a small matter of land, bringing with him his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, along with all his other relations, she-asses, camels & tents. Abram was always happy to announce his plans & history to anyone who would listen. He never wrote these things down, and he hoped that someone else would, if only on a napkin. But the Indian, like Abram, was no writer. Sound & speech were everything for both, although issuing in different ways and from different places.

For the Indian, sound arose universally from the throat of the rose-apple Earth and was articulated through world organs. He charted it phonetically from vibrating chords, through glottal stops, from back to front vowels, from the dome of the sounding cave to the shaping rituals of the lips. For Abram, sound boomed behind his eyes like a steel drum, and could not be broken down or analyzed as sound but only as mighty sign, and would only echo yet more loudly when once written down. In this sound Abram heard the only God speak. Among other things, the only God said: Go on to Canaan.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Canaan - continued

The Indian brought his hands together in honour of Abram’s God. But he said that the only God was only God speaking, and there was always prior speech and speech beyond. And he began his analogies on the scale of what had already passed and what was to come. For if every grain of sand of the River Ganga was a world system, and if each world system had its own Ganga and each grain of sand in each of these myriad Gangas was itself a world system and if you counted all these grains of sand in all these rivers in all these world systems, that number would be incalculably great. But that number would fall immeasurably short of the number of Gods, speeches & weeping that will be and already have been heard.

And the Indian would have chanted on to endless further analogies. And he would have chanted on in sad & sweet ragas through the afternoon and through the night, and he would have chanted...but Abram cut him short, sternly. He leaned over the table, one hand gripping his diet orange soda. His eyes were like coals, but he tried to be gentle. You’re a good guy. You mean well. But you must remember the Kingdom, he said, and all it demands. You don’t get the politics. This is a serious place, and you’re just a tourist. I have to live here. The Indian agreed with a sideways tilt to his head. And Abram said, this is not your forest but my one-sound desert. And out of this one-sound weighty books will grow, and each one will be worth a shelf of your sutras because every book will form a beginning, middle & end and so will the world.

The Indian tilted his head rapidly side to side, as Indians do, and agreed that his India with its Yoga, its Lotus, would drift with sounds & stories, would be light on gravitas as well as closure, and would scarcely reach to commands & books. Yet this was only real & just because the world was also light. And it had neither beginning nor end.

Abram shook his drink until it flooded over the sides of the cup. But the ice had melted so it made no sound. There was a beginning, in the Kingdom. And there would be an end – in the Kingdom. That was the steel drum sounding in Abram, the sound of his will. And the Kingdoms & children of Abram would multiply like the stars in the heavens & the dust on the ground.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Canaan - conclusion

Neti, neti – not that, not that, said the Indian, with that quibbling back-and-forth tilting of his head. He too would conjure countless descendents, but sired by semen sprinkled on lotus petals and taken up by river spirits. Our populations will grow, he said. But your promised land will always be settled by others, no matter Sarai’s plot bought from the Hittites, and your coming will always ripen in slaughters & further exiles, and your dominions brief, and your returns will bring always more slaughters and your Canaan will be plagued always by others. And it will be the same for everyone who speaks with your will. Thus was the Indian’s sutra on that day.

And the thread of the Indian’s words found a needle in Abram’s heart, and he felt a gnawing there deeper than he would later feel from pimping his wife to Pharaoh, from sharing secret pleasures with Hagar, from sending his son Ishmael into exile, or from holding the blade over Isaac, because he knew that anything would be better than going on to Canaan. It would be better to turn east with the Indian – his tour of Iraq was just about over – and maybe help him put some order and spine into his sutras, improve his methods of time-keeping and help with the breeding of cattle & goats. It would be better to retreat to the noble desert, avoiding all oracles & prophets, all further revelations and their jihads; or just head downtown, open a shop and enjoy the markets & cafes of Babylon. It would be better to stay with a normal lifespan, die en route, and leave his descendents, however numerous, go where they will.

But none of this would satisfy the steel drum sounding of his will, and with his heart still penetrated by the Indian’s sutra, he saw more: the later northern tribes falling onto empires gone pale, and saw that after the sweet if perfunctory rapes, killings, lootings & burnings the barbarians would feel bereft of any distinct further impulse and would go fat with depleted will, with the old Greek reason too weak and the Indian too weird to help them, and would drop, collapse like mudslides down shaken hills. And they would lie there, like golems, without his re-animating will. They would need Abram for their descendents and his to multiply like the dust on the ground & the stars in the heavens. Or so it was thought.

So the Indian & Abram embraced, with tears, though tears were against the calling of the one and the will of the other. And Abram continued west to Canaan, though he knew that going on to Canaan would only make it the world. And the Indian returned east with Canaan rising in his mind whenever he thought of suffering.

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Re: Canaan - conclusion

A great story but I dont quite get it, care to explain?

 

[bananabrain]

Re: Canaan - conclusion

well, reads like this to me: "hinduism is great, judaism is poo. abraham should have gone the other way and then there wouldn't be all this trouble in the world." what a bunch of self-serving twaddle. real dialogue-promoting stuff.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[lunamoth]

Aww go on bananabrain, why don't you tell us what you really think.

Yes, it reads that way to me too.

lunamoth

 

[Vimalakirti]

Re: Canaan - conclusion

A great story but I dont quite get it, care to explain?

I guess I would say there are two basic underlying ideas. First, there’s the distinction between the Abrahamic religions on the one hand and Indian religions on the other. That distinction very simply is that between two core concepts, the "Kingdom of God" and "Yoga". Granted, there are vast complexities involved in comparing two great traditions, each thousands of years old. This distinction certainly can't explain everything one needs to know about the two traditions. But it does go to the heart of matter.



It seems to me that the failure to understand how deeply the two traditions are conditioned by their core concepts has led to innumerable misunderstandings. Historically, Indian religions have repeatedly been attacked in the west as "fatalistic", "quietist", "nihilist", and and their writings dismissed out of hand. From the other side, Indians as well as people from other traditions have often had a difficult time grasping the deep social and political dimension of Abrahamic religions. Gandhi is famously said to have been unable to find any "religion" in the bible until he arrived at the Sermon on the Mount. That's probably an exaggeration, but the fact remains that Abrahamic religions are deeply political in a way barely imaginable in any eastern tradition as they originally evolved.



Does that make Abrahamic religions all evil and Indian traditions all good? Of course not. Each brings its own strength and weaknesses. Christianity has arguably been the driving force of Western culture and the inspiration for numerous humanitarian ideas and organizations. It has also been the template for less wholesome ideas and movements. Indian Yoga in its many forms - of which Buddhism is only the most famous - has much to offer as practice and as knowledge of the human mind. But you could also argue that Yoga has in general not particularly stimulated the sort of social engagement that has empowered the West. So contrary to the reaction of some other posters my aim was not polemical - they may have noticed that I poked a little fun at the Indian side as well - but just to point to a simple and very real distinction.



The second point is far more delicate and difficult to put without offending, and that is this whole question of the "Kingdom of God". It seems to me we have to face the very mixed legacy this concept entails. As I've said, it's the root of many good works. But it's also the template of ideology as we've developed in the West - which I'm here defining as the "dynamic rationalization of power". From the moment the bible has God choosing Abram and sending him to Canaan to displace (exterminate) its inhabitants, the mother of all ideologies is effectively set in motion. It's impossible for me to imagine an ideology more powerful than this fusion of history, metaphysical absolutes and a chosen people. It's the extraordinary achievement of an otherwise marginal people who imaginatively transposed a lack of earthly power into metaphysical and spiritual power, and by so doing became the "people of the book", now at the root of traditions comprising billions around the globe.



So hats off to the Hebrews! But it should not be a matter of slamming Christianity or engaging in polemics or damaging interfaith dialogue to face the truth: that the elaboration of this original ideology in those cruel and primitive times brought inherent dangers. From the zealots of the time of Jesus to the current Jihadis in the Middle East, passing by the faux religions of fascism and communism, through pogroms and inquisitions, the problem is not simply the highjacking or distortion of an ideology but the root notions of the ideology itself. Absolutist systems of thought can and have been enlisted in the interests of the underdog. But they inevitably, in my opinion, fall into the wrong hands and lead to suffering.



Is absolutism identical with Judaism, Christianity & Islam? I don't think so. The problem as I see it is that so many in these faith traditions don't make the distinction. But by the force of history and innumerable compassionate acts and people, the 3,000 year old tradition is bigger than any ideology.

 

[bananabrain]

Re: Canaan - conclusion

vimalakirti -

i wish you'd found some other way to raise the subject rather than this rather heavy-handed and pompous parable. it is all very well for you to attack abrahamic traditions, but at least do it from a place of knowledge, rather than relying on unsubtle dualism. i would first of all challenge your concept of judaism as a "western" religion. you may not know this, but there is an ancient tradition of meditation within judaism that is almost yogic in its practical application. secondly, i take great exception to your suggesting that judaism in particular can be reduced to "kingdom of G!D". if anything, our tradition says that the only thing you need to know is "do not do unto your neighbour what is hateful to yourself. the rest is commentary".

From the moment the bible has G!D choosing Abram and sending him to Canaan to displace (exterminate) its inhabitants, the mother of all ideologies is effectively set in motion. It's impossible for me to imagine an ideology more powerful than this fusion of history, metaphysical absolutes and a chosen people.

you say this as if there had been complete peace on earth before abram. you also ignore a fundamental axiom of the concept of the promised land, namely that the nations living there in the context of this sacred history were evil. it is impossible to overemphasise the fact that this was never meant as a paradigm for judaism in general, let alone the other abrahamic traditions. furthermore, you cannot just glibly translate this into modern language and draw conclusions from it. in fact, it is doing this, as you rightly point out, that causes many problems.

From the zealots of the time of Jesus to the current Jihadis in the Middle East, passing by the faux religions of fascism and communism, through pogroms and inquisitions, the problem is not simply the highjacking or distortion of an ideology but the root notions of the ideology itself.

so what ideology is it that the BJP in india are following? can't possibly be hindu, can it?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[DalyPondering]

Hey, BananaBrain

Chill!!!!!

You equally should find another forum for proclaiming the all powerfulness of Jewish mysticism, and cursing those who would jokingly confront it with plagues of Frogs and Locusts.

If you persist, I shall be forced to use my Siddhis to pummel you with monkey feces.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Re: Canaan - conclusion

vimalakirti -

i wish you'd found some other way to raise the subject rather than this rather heavy-handed and pompous parable. it is all very well for you to attack abrahamic traditions, but at least do it from a place of knowledge, rather than relying on unsubtle dualism. i would first of all challenge your concept of judaism as a "western" religion. you may not know this, but there is an ancient tradition of meditation within judaism that is almost yogic in its practical application. secondly, i take great exception to your suggesting that judaism in particular can be reduced to "kingdom of G!D". if anything, our tradition says that the only thing you need to know is "do not do unto your neighbour what is hateful to yourself. the rest is commentary".



Thanks for your response. I appreciate the time you're taking and the sincerity of your outrage. As I've suggested, this subject is difficult to raise without pushing the usual buttons and having people go ballistic. With all respect, I feel that your reaction to the unpalatable point I'm making gets in the way of a more careful reading. I won't defend the quality or lack of it of the story itself - it is what it is - and no it doesn't precisely express every nuance of the issue. And it's unlikely to enter into the canon!



But again, as I was trying (and maybe failing) to make clear, I'm not saying that a single core concept sums up everything we need to know about a tradition. All the major traditions have thier yogas, as well as their social/political impacts. It can't be avoided. Thousands of years of meeting human needs means the elaboration of many approaches to truth. I'm certainly aware of the Kabbalah - though not by personal experience. But I don't think you're suggesting that the driving force of Jewish history and struggle through the centuries, the establishment of the modern state of Israel, etc., rests with the Kabbalah. The remarkable cohesion of Jewish tradition surely rests with the power in the idea of a chosen people.



you say this as if there had been complete peace on earth before abram. you also ignore a fundamental axiom of the concept of the promised land, namely that the nations living there in the context of this sacred history were evil. it is impossible to overemphasise the fact that this was never meant as a paradigm for judaism in general, let alone the other abrahamic traditions. furthermore, you cannot just glibly translate this into modern language and draw conclusions from it. in fact, it is doing this, as you rightly point out, that causes many problems.



Again, a more careful reading would help here. Toward the end of the story I allude to later history: the fall of the Romans and the invading northern tribes. You'll notice that they're happly raping and pillaging well before they could even remotely (and falsely) claim they were doing G!d's work - as was later claimed on innumerable occasions.



So it's not my claim that the inhabitants of Canaan were morally superior to the ancient Hebrews; in fact, I suspect they weren't. My feeling from my own (non-scholarly) reading of the Bible was that it indeed was set in savage times and that while the ancient Hebrews appear to share in that savagery they also appear to represent a moral advance. On other hand, that "in the context of sacred history" the inhabitants of Canaan deserved annihilation is a whole other question.



How this sacred history is to be taken has been debated, I'm sure you'll agree, from the beginning and there's an enormous range of opinion here on what's "sacred", what's "history" and what really happened. But leaving aside questions of interpretation, this paradigm as you call it of metaphysical justification for the taking of human life has its own history, by far the greatest crimes of which were carried out by non-Jews, and even against Jews. The point is that this powerful idea, which in the context of the ancient Hebrew nation constantly under threat and always in the shadow of empire was a moral advance, and at its best a raising and spirtualizing of human conflict (in the William Blake sense of "mental fight"), took on many lives of its own and has been used and abused ever since. So no, the kingdom of G!d did not bring violence into the world, but only provided a powerful instrument, too often in the hands of the wrong people.



so what ideology is it that the BJP in india are following? can't possibly be hindu, can it?



Again, look at what I said about Indian religions "as originally evolved". That religious fundamentalism has spread to modern India hardly goes to the basic point. In fact, fundamentalism was introduced to the sub-continent with the Moghul empire centuries ago. One result was the rise of the militant Sikhs, whose theology is a fusion of Islamic and Hindu traditions. Sure, fundamentalism is disgustingly on the rise everywhere. But take a look at the whole history of fundamentalism east & west - there's hardly a comparison.



Look, the bottom line is not that I'm putting out some Pollyanna notion that we can ever go back, pre-ideology; the cat is out of the bag. Human beings will not easily give up powerful ideas that work. My point only is that a steady, unflinching appreciation of this core idea in our thinking will help us tame it, help all religious tradition move off divisive and finally absurd notions of their own monopolies of truth, and help undercut the pretensions of thugs that mis-use the tradition to their own ends.



It was my perhaps naive notion that a forum of comparative religion would be just the place to air an issue that's unlikely ever to make CNN, or be discussed anywhere where the pursuit of power is everything. A forum like this should be about fundamental truths. And to me there's a fundamental truth to the idea of a direct line from G!d's death sentence on the Canaanites and George Bush announcing, 'You're with us, or you're with the terrorists." Surely, religion has higher aims than merely siding with the least objectionable absolutism, the more charming bully?



Shanti



Obviously-not-Vimalakirti-but-just-another-fool.

 

[Ciel]

Vimalkirti, thank you,
Your words speak with great patience.
No fool, simply concise and coherent truth from a conscientious objector.

 

[bananabrain]

You equally should find another forum for proclaiming the all powerfulness of Jewish mysticism

where did i do that? whatever else you might accuse me of, triumphalism isn't included, at least i would have thought.

I appreciate the time you're taking and the sincerity of your outrage.

i'm neither outraged nor ballistic. this is not a new accusation, merely an old chestnut. you must admit that talking about "pimping", or assuming that something is a "needle in the heart", is hardly conducive to a calm discussion. it is quite simply not necessary to raise the issues you are raising in a matter which necessarily raises the temperature. or perhaps you think i ought to practise detachment from such things. either way it is quite simply rude.

But I don't think you're suggesting that the driving force of Jewish history and struggle through the centuries, the establishment of the modern state of Israel, etc., rests with the Kabbalah. The remarkable cohesion of Jewish tradition surely rests with the power in the idea of a chosen people.

as a matter of fact, jewish history, even the establishment of the modern state can certainly be explained in these terms from kabbalistic sources and this has been done so by many eminent authorities - albeit i will sadly concede that much of this has been hijacked since 1967 by the religious right and reduced to fundamentalist binary, although they are far from being the only custodians of interpretation. the notion of a chosen people, however, is not unique to us - and judaism's longevity cannot be attributed solely to this. in fact, there is no adequate rational explanation for the anomaly that is judaism within the discipline of history.

On other hand, that "in the context of sacred history" the inhabitants of Canaan deserved annihilation is a whole other question. How this sacred history is to be taken has been debated, I'm sure you'll agree, from the beginning and there's an enormous range of opinion here on what's "sacred", what's "history" and what really happened.

i think you're misunderstanding what i mean by sacred history. sacred history is not concerned with "history" or what "really happened". as a matter of fact, i do not believe that humans can ever know "what really happened" - only "what might have happened". Torah cannot be demonstrated with the tools of athens, nor can it be disproved by "enlightenment". does that make it any clearer?

My point only is that a steady, unflinching appreciation of this core idea in our thinking will help us tame it, help all religious tradition move off divisive and finally absurd notions of their own monopolies of truth, and help undercut the pretensions of thugs that mis-use the tradition to their own ends.

but that's exactly what i'm saying - the KoG is not the core idea of judaism. obviously there are people who are trying to make it into the core idea, as you are aware, but this is hardly news.

It was my perhaps naive notion that a forum of comparative religion would be just the place to air an issue that's unlikely ever to make CNN, or be discussed anywhere where the pursuit of power is everything.

perhaps, but your notion of the KoG would actually be tendentious within those fora - nor are you actually proposing a solution, just "less of what's bad for you".

A forum like this should be about fundamental truths.

see, this is where i have to disagree. it can be about our *perception* of fundamental truths, but to suggest that humans can actually attain this fundamental truth (other than particularly exceptional individuals - and then, even that's also controversial) is simply a construct of human ego. shame on you for a samsaric maya-denier!

And to me there's a fundamental truth to the idea of a direct line from G!D's death sentence on the Canaanites and George Bush announcing, 'You're with us, or you're with the terrorists."

yeah - it's the direct line between Divine Command and humans getting delusions of insight. humans have always claimed that they have an exclusive corner on Divine support - and they have always eventually fallen victim to hubris.

Surely, religion has higher aims than merely siding with the least objectionable absolutism, the more charming bully

indeed, but if it cannot give us a guide by which we can make the "lower" choices, it is of no *practical* use. i suppose this is the fundamental difference between your outlook and mine - yours would presumably teach detachment because there is no ultimate reality, whereas mine would deny any ultimate reality other than the Divine Will - and theologically speaking i find these to be disturbingly similar, even if they lead to very different ways of living. and both can lead to smugness and superiority complexes. for you, there are certain things which can never be right, whereas for me, these things are not all the same. or vice-versa, if you prefer. we just differ on the rightness and wrongness of actions.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Vimalakirti]

Vimalkirti, thank you,
Your words speak with great patience.
No fool, simply concise and coherent truth from a conscientious objector.

Cheers.

 

[lunamoth]

Dear Vimalakirti,

But I get the feeling from your story, which was written in very nice prose by the way, that you conclude that all religion, particularly organized religion, and specifically all organized religion stemming from Abrahamic origins, are the source of suffering in the world. I disagree. Suffering in the world may very well be mostly due to the duality that characterizes our life in this plane, and any instrument that consists of more than one or perhaps a few individuals can be unfortunately highjacked to serve political (or egotistical) rather than altruistic goals. I think that, maybe in parallel to Buddhist thought (which I admit I know little aobut), humans may be eternally stuck with this fault and danger: maybe this is exactly what original sin is. However, it is not limited to the Abrahamic religions and it is not limited to religions at all (as you or someone also pointed out above). Any human enterprise can be corrupted, and tragically the good work of hundreds or thousands can be corrupted by just a few. It is to my amazement and humility that I realize that in spite of this tremendous good does occur in the world.

I had to google your screen name to find out what it meant. Interesting! Me, I am just a moth.

Vimalakirti, who appears in this koan, was a lay practitioner who was said to be as enlightened and clear as the Buddha. He was called "the white robed one." The Vimalakirti Sutra is one of the core texts of the Mahayana tradition, and it is that tradition which puts an end to the separation between men and women, sacred and secular, samsara and nirvana. Though in fact, for all practical purposes, a lot of those dualities remained in place in much of institutional Buddhism. Nevertheless, the teachings are there to guide us when we are ready to realize and practice them.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

Re: Canaan - conclusion

Gandhi is famously said to have been unable to find any "religion" in the bible until he arrived at the Sermon on the Mount. That's probably an exaggeration, but the fact remains that Abrahamic religions are deeply political in a way barely imaginable in any eastern tradition as they originally evolved.

I heard once that Gandhi couldn't find any inspiration in Christianity until he read Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. That book, TKoGIWY, describes, from Tolstoy's view anyway, that Christinaity is supposed to be very apolitical. Reading the Sermon the Mount I think one can come to the conclusion that the Gospels, at least, are very subversive. It is an irony that taking the good news to the people created/required organization, which in turn was politcized and corrupted, and still is to this day. So, the problem is not religion, but the human condition. No wonder that Christians find the promise of the Kingdom of God so compelling because what it means, at least from my understanding, is the end of duality and suffering that arise from this human nature.

So hats off to the Hebrews! But it should not be a matter of slamming Christianity or engaging in polemics or damaging interfaith dialogue to face the truth: that the elaboration of this original ideology in those cruel and primitive times brought inherent dangers. From the zealots of the time of Jesus to the current Jihadis in the Middle East, passing by the faux religions of fascism and communism, through pogroms and inquisitions, the problem is not simply the highjacking or distortion of an ideology but the root notions of the ideology itself. ...

Very smooth, but I think it is wrong, and a tad condescending.

...Absolutist systems of thought can and have been enlisted in the interests of the underdog. But they inevitably, in my opinion, fall into the wrong hands and lead to suffering.

Is absolutism identical with Judaism, Christianity & Islam? I don't think so. The problem as I see it is that so many in these faith traditions don't make the distinction. But by the force of history and innumerable compassionate acts and people, the 3,000 year old tradition is bigger than any ideology.

This seems to contradict what you said above.

Dialogue is best. What is it you want to talk about?

lunamoth

 

[Vimalakirti]

where did i do that? whatever else you might accuse me of, triumphalism isn't included, at least i would have thought.

The bit you're referring to was from a different poster. I have enough trouble defending my own views!

i'm neither outraged nor ballistic. this is not a new accusation, merely an old chestnut. you must admit that talking about "pimping", or assuming that something is a "needle in the heart", is hardly conducive to a calm discussion. it is quite simply not necessary to raise the issues you are raising in a matter which necessarily raises the temperature. or perhaps you think i ought to practise detachment from such things. either way it is quite simply rude.

I'm sorry for the offence you found in some of the story's details. They aren't there as deliberate outrage but only reflect my approach toward all scripture (not just biblical) in general, which you might call irreverent but to me is just reverence of another order. These texts are far more powerful than the little ironies of my story, against which they hardly need to be defended. I would remind you as well of one of the other points of the story: Abraham is indeed the father of many nations, as foretold, and no longer the intellectual property of any single nation. As one of the sons of Abraham - and not bound by a particular creed - I have a natural right to try to view this figure by my own lights. You have every right to be offended of course, but be careful of asserting proprietary rights bordering on the issuance of a Fatwah. (I know, I just threw a bomb, but the message is that your rhetorical excesses can leave that impression.)


Here is one point where I think we're at cross-purposes. I'm not attacking a faith tradition, as you appear to think, but really only pointing to a core idea in the culture we share, broadly speaking. This whole notion of absolutist metaphysical justification, of the great virtue of self-righteous fury, of having G!d on our side in the most un-G!d-like activities is almost like the air we breathe, and as difficult to get at. One of the difficulties in facing the concrete realities of what these ideas mean is the shroud of reverence thrown over all scripture, the fear of blasphemy still alive for many, or at least the fear of giving offence or being "rude". The last thing I want to do is give offence, but I can't let fear of giving offence get in the way of an honest discussion of the problem.


Oh, yes, an old chestnut? Sure it is. Old Bobby Dylan wrote a song "With God on Our Side" way back in the '60's, which makes the same point I'm making here - minus the verbal diarrhoea! But you know from your reading of the prophets that the fact that an idea is rejected - no matter how many times repeated - doesn't mean it may not be true.

as a matter of fact, jewish history, even the establishment of the modern state can certainly be explained in these terms from kabbalistic sources and this has been done so by many eminent authorities.

I'm ignorant of the history of kabbalah, so I can't comment on what you mean here by "explained in terms of". I guess as an outsider I would naturally see political history in more exoteric terms, and again through key notions like the "chosen people".

-albeit i will sadly concede that much of this has been hijacked since 1967 by the religious right and reduced to fundamentalist binary, although they are far from being the only custodians of interpretation.

Agreed. And according to folk singer Utah Phillips, agreement is sacred.

-the notion of a chosen people, however, is not unique to us -.

The originality of the idea is not the point but it's success. There are many coffee shops, but only one Starbucks. Every obscure tribe in the history of the world has thought itself chosen in some fashion. None has developed the idea with such power and to such effect as the writers of Torah.

and judaism's longevity cannot be attributed solely to this. in fact, there is no adequate rational explanation for the anomaly that is judaism within the discipline of history.

Agreed. Utah Phillips is happy.

i think you're misunderstanding what i mean by sacred history. sacred history is not concerned with "history" or what "really happened". as a matter of fact, i do not believe that humans can ever know "what really happened" - only "what might have happened". Torah cannot be demonstrated with the tools of athens, nor can it be disproved by "enlightenment". does that make it any clearer?

Well, no without more explanation I can't really know what "sacred history" means from your perspective. There are too many possibilities! That was my point: interpretation of biblical events has been worked over for thousands of years by far brighter people than you or I, and from numerous angles. When I say "what really happened" that only reflects my particular bias if you like that these texts were produced by human beings in particular human settings, so that there was something like history in the ordinary sense at the base. At the same time, I believe that the meanings of the texts themselves are far more complex and go well beyond whatever the underlying history might have been. So I agree that the tools of Athens only take us so far. Why, here's more agreement!

but that's exactly what i'm saying - the KoG is not the core idea of judaism. obviously there are people who are trying to make it into the core idea, as you are aware, but this is hardly news.

As I pointed out in the beginning, I'm not attacking a tradition as the root of a particular idea; I'm looking at an idea as it has played out in history. So again, I don't think that fundamentally (pardon that term!) we're in disagreement on this.

perhaps, but your notion of the KoG would actually be tendentious within those fora - nor are you actually proposing a solution, just "less of what's bad for you".

With all respect, if the hugely broad-stroked views I'm putting out here are "tendentious", then I don't know how one seriously discusses any issue across religious traditions. I think I can much more accurately be accused of being windy & abstract than of tending toward any sectarian view. Is comparative religion all hearts & flowers? Not judging from your postings!

Solution? That implies a simple identifiable problem - like too many minerals in the water supply - that admits of a simple solution. Here we're not talking about a particular event or thing, but a flavour of consciousness affecting billions of people. All simple solutions in that context are misguided and dangerous. Change only comes on incrementally, through numerous individual acts - your correct stand against fundamentalism in your own tradition, for example. Certainly, it's not up to a slow-brain like myself to unlock the key to all mysteries on some online forum!

=see, this is where i have to disagree. it can be about our *perception* of fundamental truths, but to suggest that humans can actually attain this fundamental truth (other than particularly exceptional individuals - and then, even that's also controversial) is simply a construct of human ego. shame on you for a samsaric maya-denier!"

This is where I have to agree (again). That was sloppy talk on my part. I should have said "fundamental truths as articulated by everyday dopes". Thanks for the metaphysical slap.

=yeah - it's the direct line between Divine Command and humans getting delusions of insight. humans have always claimed that they have an exclusive corner on Divine support - and they have always eventually fallen victim to hubris.

I'm nearly giddy with agreement.

indeed, but if it cannot give us a guide by which we can make the "lower" choices, it is of no *practical* use. i suppose this is the fundamental difference between your outlook and mine - yours would presumably teach detachment because there is no ultimate reality, whereas mine would deny any ultimate reality other than the Divine Will - and theologically speaking i find these to be disturbingly similar, even if they lead to very different ways of living. and both can lead to smugness and superiority complexes. for you, there are certain things which can never be right, whereas for me, these things are not all the same. or vice-versa, if you prefer. we just differ on the rightness and wrongness of actions.

That's a thoughtful summary. It's always a danger though to guess at the metaphysical positions of others from slight evidence - especially evidence arising from some ghostly presence online.

I remember the subject of Buddhism coming up with a friend of mine who is Jewish. He said something to the effect of, Well, being calm and peaceful that’s all very nice, but then...and here he sighed. It was one of those moments that summed up whole traditions and their complementary values. I won't repeat too much of what I've already said several times, except to say that the legacy of social engagement initiated by the Hebrew tradition is precious. For me it's a not a matter of choosing yoga over the kingdom of G!d, but of recognizing the value and problematics of both. Here I'm talking about the pragmatic in-this-world effects of the various related traditions.

But you've also brought up the metaphysical distinction, and again I agree that on a certain level of abstraction it becomes a mug's game, of interest only to the guardians of creeds or the purity of tradition. I would like to make a few points, though.

-- when you cite "there is no ultimate reality" as a metaphysical position I think you should keep in mind that what the Buddhists call dharma and what we in the west call doctrine don't necessarily operate in the same way. I can't speak for the whole tradition, but it's my understanding that such statements are meant instrumentally as a means of removing conceptual obstructions and so clearing the way to direct experience of reality, ultimate or not. Some call this the apophatic method or negative theology. In any case, these questions are complicated and always controversial, my only point is that one has to patiently see these things from the inside to arrive at any just understanding of what's really being advanced.

-- I never said anything about detachment or ultimate reality, both endlessly mysterious concepts. My slamming of absolutism is the slamming of particular ways of thinking about ultimate reality and its relation to questions of human conduct. We shouldn't mistake ultimate reality for our articulations of it, no matter how finely tuned the articulations. G!d, !o! and God are all signs and not reality, though these signs have powerful effects, good and evil, on human life.

-- on Divine Will, I think your comparison is correct, only I would substitute "Nirvana" or "Enlightenment" for "no ultimate reality". Both Divine Will and Nirvana refer to ultimates that really have no reasonable proofs; they have to be realized through some spiritual discipline. So I can say that no, I don't believe in Divine Will in the way many appear to do, but in a way that's irrelevant to the question, since my belief is only based in reason.

-- does a particular metaphysic lead to particular ways of acting in the world? Sure, but I guess it's also the old chicken and egg thing; metaphysics are elaborated on the ground of concrete experience. Christianity took its final forms as much from the mentality of the barbaric European tribes that adopted it as it did from the original words of Jesus, to the extent those words can be determined. Zen reflects the Chinese mind as much it does Buddhism. But I agree, it's my contention all along that these things have effect, and that all traditions must be viewed critically and with caution. We may only differ on the hard line you appear to be drawing here between the traditions.

-- no, I never said that some acts were wrong under all conditions. As even Gandhi said, if a madman rushes into your village intent on murdering your children, violent means are necessary. In fact, I never claimed to be an absolute pacifist. I just set the bar for the justification of violence fairly high, and higher than is usual in this wacked-out world. As to whether we agree or disagree on the rightness and wrongness of actions, I don't have any concrete examples of your opinions really to know. We may be in complete agreement on all practical and political questions - or maybe not! But if you're referring to your Divine Will and some notion of inerrancy in the way one can make these judgements, than you're right, we're on different wavelengths.

In fact, I do believe in one moral absolute in human life, and that's the fundamental moral choice that's illustrated in scriptures all of over the world from the story of Adam & Eve to the Buddhist injunction to choose wholesome over unwholesome states of mind. And that's the stark choice between the limited, trivial, if instinctual needs of the isolated ego on the one hand, and interdependent reality on the other, with its numerous other beings with equal claims to happiness as our own, and a whole much greater than its parts - a whole which goes under many signs & names.

I'm confident we both aspire to be on the same side of that choice, and that's why we can't help but end in agreement, through all the haze of traditions.

Cheers. The Fool.



[edit by I, Brian - fixed quote tags and formating]

 

[Vimalakirti]

Dear Vimalakirti,

But I get the feeling from your story, which was written in very nice prose by the way, that you conclude that all religion, particularly organized religion, and specifically all organized religion stemming from Abrahamic origins, are the source of suffering in the world. I disagree. Suffering in the world may very well be mostly due to the duality that characterizes our life in this plane, and any instrument that consists of more than one or perhaps a few individuals can be unfortunately highjacked to serve political (or egotistical) rather than altruistic goals. I think that, maybe in parallel to Buddhist thought (which I admit I know little aobut), humans may be eternally stuck with this fault and danger: maybe this is exactly what original sin is. However, it is not limited to the Abrahamic religions and it is not limited to religions at all (as you or someone also pointed out above). Any human enterprise can be corrupted, and tragically the good work of hundreds or thousands can be corrupted by just a few. It is to my amazement and humility that I realize that in spite of this tremendous good does occur in the world.

I had to google your screen name to find out what it meant. Interesting! Me, I am just a moth.



peace,
lunamoth

Thanks for your response. You have an interestng name too. Actually I've become embarassed about the name I chose. The Fool is better, and if I continue posting here I think I'll change my handle.

I appreciate your comments. When it comes down to it, I think you'll find that we are really basically in agreement. My intention in the story was to make a point about the powerful legacy of the Abrahamic tradition and to try to put it in a broader context. If you have the impression that I was laying the problem of all human suffering at the feet of religion, or that I was singling out Abrahamic religions as essentially evil, the fault may lie with my clumsy expression - but it wasn't my intention. If you have the patience you can check my other posts for my terribly long-winded explanations, but for me it's a matter of facing the reality of how the idea of the Kingdom of God has impacted history, for good and for harm. I recognize the great contributions of our traditions and believe in preserving them, but I also believe that their true health entails a hard look at basic concepts and their consequences. Again, I think perhaps we only differ in that I'm pointing to the inherent dangers of the words we use, the ideas and doctrines we have, i.e., that it isn't only a question of good things mis-used - although I agree that's perfectly accurate to say - but that we need to face the difficulties of the concepts themselves. All traditions, at their most sophisticated level, affirm that all our language is finally inadequate (and even a danger) to the truth. Buddhism puts much more emphasis on this idea than western religions, but didn't even St. Thomas Aquinas say something about all his writings being a pile of straw?

That said, some verbal formulations are much more safe and reliable than others. "Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself" is one that comes to mind.

Thanks again for your response.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Re: Canaan - conclusion

I heard once that Gandhi couldn't find any inspiration in Christianity until he read Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. That book, TKoGIWY, describes, from Tolstoy's view anyway, that Christinaity is supposed to be very apolitical. Reading the Sermon the Mount I think one can come to the conclusion that the Gospels, at least, are very subversive. It is an irony that taking the good news to the people created/required organization, which in turn was politcized and corrupted, and still is to this day. So, the problem is not religion, but the human condition. No wonder that Christians find the promise of the Kingdom of God so compelling because what it means, at least from my understanding, is the end of duality and suffering that arise from this human nature.

We're so like minded on these points you're raising that I'm finding it difficult to locate where we disagree. Your Kingdom is my Kingdom. I'm not suggesting that we do away with the whole idea. I'm only tracing the idea back to the metaphysical absolutism of the Old Testament God and pointing out that the old dispensation has been alive and well, unfortunately, right down to the present. I think it's incumbent on we whose idea of the Kingdom rests with the Sermon on the Mount to face the mis-applications of the idea and the toll they've taken. I agree this all rests on human frailty, but that frailty includes ideas, doctrines, institutions and, yes, scriptures. That's the scale of the challenge Jesus poses in the gospels. To my mind - here I may lose you - the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is bigger than any the following theologies, institutions and Christianity itself.



Very smooth, but I think it is wrong, and a tad condescending.



Thanks for the smooth part! Forgive the condescension. Wrong? I'm still under the illusion I guess that if I were to escape the condescesion you speak off and perhaps phrase things differently, you might find yourself in less disagreement.











This seems to contradict what you said above.



The point I'm making here I've touched on in other posts. Abrahamic religions have entailed an ideology, but that ideology is only part of long and rich traditions that encompass multitudes. My feeling is that your objection to my line of thought comes out of your belief that I'm attacking tradition as opposed to ideology within a tradition. Please understand that when I talk absolutism I'm not referring to the whole tradition. My point again is that it's impossible to understand all the mis-use of the Kingdom, all the heresy-hunting in history and the fact that to this day many Christians still limit Jesus to Christianity, i.e., say that one is condemined to perdition without literal belief in some specifically church creed, without looking beyond human frailty in the literal sense to the equally serious frailty of a founding ideology.

 

[lunamoth]

Dear Vimalakirti,

After reading your follow-up posts above I think you are right in that we are probably quite close in understanding. Part of my reaction reflects my impression that there seem to be quite a few threads lately to the effect of spirituality good, religion (especially traditional religion) evil. To me that's kind of like saying "Wow, this airplane has nice cozy seats! Why do we need that loud engine and unaesthetic pair of wings?? And yeah, if we have wings and an engine someone might highjack this plane and use it to kill people. So, let's get rid of the evil wings and engine...." Plus I was in a crabby mood from the terrorist thead down in Politics... (mea culpa). [So much for my polished veneer of objective rationality ]

Again, I think perhaps we only differ in that I'm pointing to the inherent dangers of the words we use, the ideas and doctrines we have, i.e., that it isn't only a question of good things mis-used - although I agree that's perfectly accurate to say - but that we need to face the difficulties of the concepts themselves. All traditions, at their most sophisticated level, affirm that all our language is finally inadequate (and even a danger) to the truth. Buddhism puts much more emphasis on this idea than western religions, but didn't even St. Thomas Aquinas say something about all his writings being a pile of straw?

That said, some verbal formulations are much more safe and reliable than others. "Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself" is one that comes to mind.

Thanks again for your response.

I agree, but, aside from our words, ideas and doctrines, what have we got??? Sure, our actions, but without some kind of communication we are left with each individual or generation reinventing the wheel. Seems to me you are concerned with absolutism, doctrines of infallibility, and/or fundamentalism. Well, I would agree that those things are problematic and potentially dangerous. But you have picked on the Kingdom of God, a phrase I find particulary deep and meaningful.

So, are you a writer? By the way, I'm usually much more friendly. Hope I haven't made you feel unwelcome in any way.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

Re: Canaan - conclusion

We're so like minded on these points you're raising that I'm finding it difficult to locate where we disagree. Your Kingdom is my Kingdom. I'm not suggesting that we do away with the whole idea. I'm only tracing the idea back to the metaphysical absolutism of the Old Testament God and pointing out that the old dispensation has been alive and well, unfortunately, right down to the present. I think it's incumbent on we whose idea of the Kingdom rests with the Sermon on the Mount to face the mis-applications of the idea and the toll they've taken. I agree this all rests on human frailty, but that frailty includes ideas, doctrines, institutions and, yes, scriptures. That's the scale of the challenge Jesus poses in the gospels. To my mind - here I may lose you - the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is bigger than any the following theologies, institutions and Christianity itself.

Careful now, I hope you are only referring to absolutism as believed by some Christian circles and/or the highjacking and corruption of the Kingdom of God concept as justification for war. But, if I'm reading you correctly you are quite in agreement with Tolstoy and I admire that. Tolstoy of course was excommunicated for his views, precisely because they were like you say in the last sentence above. I'm a Tolstoy wannabe, I guess. I can't claim that radical pacifism for myself because I do believe in self-defense and in coming to the aid of other nations, which requires a standing army and at times personal violence. I chalk it up to living in a fallen world. As you say, I try to set the bar quite high, higher than is often tolerated in our culture. And, you are right that you lose me with the last sentence. I think it was a mistake for Tolstoy to reject all tradition and mystical aspects of Christianity, and I believe in the Risen Christ. [You don't lose me fully--I love the Sermon on the Mount. It is the blueprint for building the Kingdom. But I think we need the grace and power of the Holy Spirit to carry it out.]

Thanks for the smooth part! Forgive the condescension. Wrong? I'm still under the illusion I guess that if I were to escape the condescesion you speak off and perhaps phrase things differently, you might find yourself in less disagreement.

See mea culpa above.

The point I'm making here I've touched on in other posts. Abrahamic religions have entailed an ideology, but that ideology is only part of long and rich traditions that encompass multitudes. My feeling is that your objection to my line of thought comes out of your belief that I'm attacking tradition as opposed to ideology within a tradition. Please understand that when I talk absolutism I'm not referring to the whole tradition. My point again is that it's impossible to understand all the mis-use of the Kingdom, all the heresy-hunting in history and the fact that to this day many Christians still limit Jesus to Christianity, i.e., say that one is condemined to perdition without literal belief in some specifically church creed, without looking beyond human frailty in the literal sense to the equally serious frailty of a founding ideology.[/size][/font][/color][/b]

Well, I certainly agree with the above about mis-use of the Kingdom. Perhaps I will re-read your story and see if it comes off differently a second time around.

peace,
lunamoth