Literary Discussions

(12-16-2000)

Constantly marvel in wonder at the ordinariness of it all!

(a reader at zen-forum.com posts the following):

So OK, I am one with the Kosmos; what next?

Dear fellow-practitioners,

This is difficult for me to put into words; please have compassion. Perhaps every Zen practitioner has realized that he or she is inseparably part of a cosmic whole in which everything is connected with everything else; and that the words "part of" do not mean very much in this context.

But still, this piece of cosmos known as 'I' has to negotiate its practical existence, and that is as difficult as it ever was. The fruit of fearlessness has not yet come my way.

For all its apparent intellectual detachment, this problem seems real to me and troubles me a great deal; can any of you help? I would be grateful.

A lotus to you all,

Excellent post! Excellent title! Excellent question.

Several useful sayings and anecdotes come to mind.

I am trying to remember one Zen saying which more or less says,

"Before Enlightenment , trees are trees and mountains are mountains.

When Enlightenment comes, trees are not trees and mountains are not mountains.

After Enlightenment, trees are again trees and mountains are again mountains."

Before "enlightenment" or "grace" we live in an ordinary world which is sometimes rather uncomfortable and unpleasant, if not down right humiliating. Every day we are constantly forced to perform repetitive, boring, and even disgusting tasks such as moving our bowels, cleaning our bodies and clothing, cooking our food, washing our dishes, dressing, undressing, going to sleep, waking up, and dealing with sexual urges. Even Jesus had to deal with bowel movements for he says: Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught (sewer)?"

A human form is very noble and inspiring when seated in the lotus meditative posture, like a Buddha or a Mahavaira, or when the human form is hanging on the cross, crucified for the sake of all humanity. But the human form is not very noble or inspiring when it is seated on the toilet, or when it is on its knees scrubbing the kitchen floor.

It is very helpful to realize that THE VERY DESIRE FOR LIBERATION (enlightenment, salvation).... THAT VERY DESIRE ITSELF, is an impediment, an obstacle to Liberation and Moksha and Salvation. Even the Christian scriptures say, Mark 8:35: "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it". All desire is a form of bondage, an attachment, and a source of suffering, even seemingly pious and virtuous desires, such as the desire for enlightenment or liberation or salvation or moksha. Even the desire to HAVE NO DESIRE (to be dispassionate) is a form of passion. It is ironic that the Crucifixion of Christ is also called "The Passion".

I realize that you are asking your question in the context of Zen Buddhism and not Christianity, but let us examine your question in the light of some interesting verses in the New Testament, and I hope to make several interesting points.

In John 1:26, "John the Baptist answered them, saying, ..... there standeth one among you, whom ye know not." Of course, John the Baptist was referring to Jesus, who was only one of many in the crowd that day, and not even the sort of person who would stand out in the crowd. Christians are not surprised that this Jesus is so plain, ordinary and unremarkable. We see in Isaiah 53:2 "he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him".

Basically, what all this is saying is that Jesus was no movie star. He was an ordinary person who lived in an ordinary room, ate, slept, and wore ordinary clothes (just like you and me and everyone else). Of course, Andrew and Peter are quite astounded when they suspect that this one ordinary person in the crowd is the one person whom all the Prophets predicted as the "Messiah". In John 1:29, John the Baptist point out Jesus from the crowds by saying, "Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

Naturally, John's two apostles, Andrew and Peter, are curious and intrigued. We read (John 1:37) "And the two disciples (Andrew and Peter) heard him (John the Babtist) speak (calling Jesus the 'Lamb of God'), and they followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, where dwellest thou? He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour." Andrew and Peter are astounded and perplexed by the ordinariness which they behold. How can some ordinary person who lives in poor circumstances be "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world"? We might even imagine Andrew and Peter in these verses, standing in Jesus humble home, mouth agape, looking about at the bed, the table, the chair, MARVELING IN WONDER AT THE ORDINARINESS OF IT ALL!

Stop and think for a moment. If YOU could reach that point in YOUR spiritual life where at EVERY WAKING MOMENT, you were CONSTANTLY MARVELLING IN WONDER at the ordinariness of everything, what would you have achieved? What would your spiritual state be called? Would you be happy or sad in such a state?

Another "ordinary figure" in religious scriptures is Krishna. Just like Jesus, Krishna is described as a physical individual with a body, pastimes and enjoyments, friends and relatives, and yet in spite of this "ordinariness", Krishna is simultaneously the ETERNAL GOD, an Avatar, an Incarnation, that INFINITE UNIVERSAL FORM, revealed to Arjuna in a vision, much like Jesus' Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor. Krishna's Uncle Uddhava comes to him one day and says, "All of the meditation and yoga that you have taught me seems so difficult for me. I despair of ever making any spiritual progress with such yoga disciplines." Krishna replies, "If you can arrive at the point where you see ME (GOD) in all creatures and all things, even humble and base things, then you will have achieved the highest level of spirituality, an no other discipline or meditation or sacrifice will be necessary." If a person could achieve such a continual state, in which they see God everywhere, in all things, at all moments, does it not seem to you that such a person would be CONSTANTLY MARVELING IN WONDER at the ordinariness of it all.

Aristotle, in the Metaphysics, says "Philosophy begins in wonder." When Moses was tending his flocks, and noticed a flaming bush, he was overcome with wonder, and abandoned his worldly occupations and duties, to take a closer look. Exodus 3:3, "And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt." Is not all of physical reality, though in one sense quite plain and ordinary (because we have grown accustomed to it), yet in another sense a "wondrous burning bush"?

The Apostles do get to see this homely, ordinary Jesus radiant with light on top of Mt. Tabor during the "holy Transfiguration". This radiant "taboric light" is what those eastern orthodox icon paints attempt to depict by the "halo" which surrounds the heads of saints and martyrs. The monks of Mt. Athos practiced the continual repetition of the 'Jesus Prayer', in hopes of achieving continual and unceasing 'prayer of the heart'. Eastern Orthodox "Lives of Saints" sometimes describe a monastic, in such prayer, suddenly shining radiantly with this 'Taboric light'. The supernatural light of this phenomenon came to be called "the uncreated light" and became the serious subject of theological debates around the 14th century in Greece, in a dispute between Gregory Palamas and Barlaam Calabria.

The word hesychaia, in Greek, means PEACEFULNESS. Hesychasm refers to the spirituality which was characteristic of the early Church Fathers in the 4th and 5th centuries. These monks were hermits dwelling in the deserts seeking inner peace and spiritual insight while practicing contemplation and self-discipline as they studied the New Testament and the Psalter. Hesychasm refers to the type of contemplation which developed with the Byzantine spirituality from the 10th to the 14th centuries. Such spirituality employed the method of praying the Jesus Prayer "(Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.)" The saying of the prayer was synchronized with one's breathing. This spiritual practice is characteristic of the spirituality described in the five volume collection called Philokalia. Hesychasm refers to the theological exposition of the contemplation of God as proposed by Gregory Palamas in the 14th century and became the official doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Palamas' aimed for this proposal was to defend the hesychastic spirituality and the way of prayer of the monks of Mt. Athos and the Byzantine Orient against the attacks of the Barlaam Calabria. Palamas distinguished between the unchanging essence of God and His uncreative energies. The Taboric Light (the light that surrounded Christ in the Transfiguration), the goal sought in contemplation by the hesychasts, was a theophany, or manifestation of God, through His uncreated energies.

We would all prefer to be God or Buddha, shining radiantly with a supernatural radiant light, rather than sitting on a toilet producing gas and foul odors. But no matter how much we meditate or pray or worship or fast, we do not experience any supernatural light, except in our hearts and imagination. We do not escape the bathroom or the bedroom or the kitchen or the dentist's chair.

Blaise Pascal said it best in his Pensees (Meditations): "Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him, the universe knows nothing of this. All our dignity then, consists in thought. By it we must elevate ourselves, and not by space and time which we cannot fill. Let us endeavour then, to think well; this is the principle of morality."

When the student asks the master about enlightenment or Buddha-nature, the master asks, "Have you had your breakfast?". When the student replies "Yes!", the master says "Then go wash your bowl."

It is by THOUGHT, and EQUANIMITY that we transcend the unpleasant physical realities of our mundane corporeal existence. Mind makes suffering. Mind makes all things, in a way, all things that matter. Eleanor Roosevelt stated this in a different way when she said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent". Even a thief hanging on a cross is able to keep his dignity and elevate his mind. We can never escape the need to sit on a toilet, but we are not forced to keep our MIND on the toilet, or IN the toilet. Our Mind is free to be in the Heaven of Heavens with the Archangels and Cherubim and Seraphim, ceaselessly changing "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts". Are those angelic orders not also CONSTANTLY MARVELING IN WONDER at the ordinariness of it all.

When Lord Acton said "power tends to corrupt" I understand that as human corporate endeavors, which are corrupt and corrupting, whether ecclesiastical, academic, political. That's why you have a loner like Thoreau as the first to use the phrase "human rights" in his essay "On Civil Disobedience."

William: With all due respect, no offense intended, I feel your argument about primordial pre-law life is artificial. I can see you are a serious writer so I respect your efforts.  Consider the behavior of various pack animals with an alpha leader. One clearly sees that there are some kind of rules and a "pecking order." Homer's Iliad and Odyssey do not seem to mention formal laws but obviously there is a notion of right and wrong and there are consequences to ones actions. I am certain one could find the same system of taboos among Australian aborigines or among Eskimos. I would have to study your writing at length but I feel you are setting out on the wrong track with your initial assumptions.  The physical universe obeyed "laws" long before there were humans to observse such laws.  I imagine the regularity of the seasons and the heavenly bodies and tides gave prehistoric humans a sense of order and regularity.  To me it makes more sense to speak in terms of subjective laws or norms which change with time and changing circumstances.  I want to read your post at length and give it some thought. Whenever I see people heading in this direction I have the impression that they are trying to escape from constraints and justify themselves.  If we live on an island alone, there is no law or police, yet if we eat too much then we suffer the punishment of illness and pay a price which is only to say that our actions and inaction have consequences.

I am dead serious. I am disappointed. Most of us undergo very long and very expensive educations so should we not endeavor to write informative and dignified posts? America is a sewer comedy. I am guilty of it myself. But the bulk of my posts are dead serious. Also, as a convert to Islam, you represent Islam. Countless people suffered and died under this cruel, insane dictator and all you can find to say are crude and tasteless jokes.  I suspect you are capable of far more. And you know perfectly well that if 10 people a day criticized such posts as I do then you would avoid them like the plague because you naturally seek popularity and acceptance as we all do.  But just because we live in a society which is a sewer of obscene cartoons and reality shows does not mean we should pander to the lowest common denominator.  Think on these things.  When you write these things then what are you doing for the best interests of the Islamic community? Junior high school students talk of kicking people in the testicles.  I am only trying to help you in the long run. Your talents and energies could be put to much better uses.

Simply says: "I confess you as the Son of God and invite you into my life as my enabler" and you will be born again .... and again .... and again ...

They are known as reprobates, or perhaps recidivism, backsliding, and there is even a verse which the Greeks refer to as "divine abandonment" but I would have to Google. I sincerely believe that Satan waited for something like indulgences and someone like Luther to unleash upon the world the soul destroying notion that one is guaranteed salvation by paying lip service to a few sentences of doctrine and I see this as soul-destroying for the simple reason that it makes people complacent and lazy, lulling them into a false sense of security. Surely in that parable about the judgment the people who said "Lord, Lord, we worked miracles"  must have sincerely believed that their salvation was guaranteed. When that man asked Christ "Good Rabbi, what must I do to gain eternal life" Jesus did not say "confess me as the Son of God and invite me into your life as your personal savior" but rather he told him to look to Moses and the commandments. Do you feel Christ was lying in that verse? But when the man is insistent then Christ describes what sounds like monasticism to me, to sell all that you have, give it to the poor, take up your cross and follow me. And where in all your Protestant emotionalism and Bible rock-and-roll is there any sign of monastic renunciation or asceticism. 

Geetanjali - Thanks you for your words of praise. Over these many years you always hold me in too high esteem and I have tried to disabuse you of excessive admiration. It is very easy to learn certain obscure facts and give others the illusion of a depth of knowledge where there is none.  I could not cite the 12 apostles or the ten commandements from memory or the 77 books of the Protestant Canon of the Bible (or the Orthodox/Catholic with the Deutero-Canonical Apocrypha) ... but then why should I waste brain cells when Google is always at my fingertips.  I grew up in the 1950s and 60s during the "cold war" when the emphasis was on "college prep" courses with science and math in high esteem.  My parents were both very intelligent but because of the Great Depression and World War II they never went to college. They separated when I was 11 and while they were together there was much "mental cruelty" inflicted upon my mother and there was not the intellectual nurture present in other families. Had I lived in a different sort of family and perhaps been raised Roman Catholic I would have had a very different life although the my life as it unfolded was by no means the worst. I did have a rich intellectual experience which I believe was more rich PRECISELY because I was self taught (except for college at St. Johns) and I was never under the constraints of an academic institution which tends to nit pick over writings until it fits the lowest common denominator of what the academic institution would care to put its name to in publication.

William: How wrong you are, and sad you are unable to realize... "I was in prison and you visited me" "judgment is mine" and the one thief on the cross...   no moral statement was made about the wounded man... he might have been a murderer or a thief... but it is so desperately essential for people to distort verse to fit their own agendas.  I imagine you are a fine and able lawyer who is gifted at distorting things to achieve your desired result and that is part of the job.  Even II Peter 3:16 (I think thats the verse) states that many who lack a foundation of understanding twist and distort verses to their own destruction.   Also, "it rains upon the just and the unjust" and "blessed are you when men say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake."  Hazen, you have been weighed and found wanting. Stick to law and forget about religion.

What I stress is that  no argument is flawless and I base that in part on Godel's Indefiniteness proof, Wittgensteins' observations in Tractatus and Morris Klines' book on the limitations of mathematics (I always forget the name and have to google) but bottom line, if there is not perfection in mathematical proofs then where may we hope to find arguments which are not flawed in some fashion?