Posting some of these old pieces feels kind of strange; they aren't so long ago that they are clearly ancient history, but they are nearly two years ago. Long enough ago for a lot of things to have changed, as you'll see if you can stand to stick around, or check back in later. But I'm gonna go ahead and post. That was the plan.

April 8, 2007

74 (Tao te Ching)

If you realize that all things change,

There is nothing you will try to hold on to.

If you aren't afraid of dying,

There is nothing you can't achieve.

Wow. Here we are at another of those breath-takingly similar statements. Similar to the Buddha this time. King Solomon said something like it as well I believe. These sound like such simple instructions, and they are, but they are so profound. And so difficult to actually do.

All things change. But how often do I have to remind myself of that in a day, if I am really paying attention? People don't act the way I expect because they have changed. My favorite TV show isn't on because they've changed the schedule. Big things change – our Chancellor, Provost, and girl's basketball coach are all short- listed for more prestigious and more remunerative jobs than [my university]. So it is possible we'll lose the 2 people with the vision and will-power to have made it as innovative and successful as it is, and the coach who put us on the basketball map.

I at first felt kind of betrayed; I came to this university with the impression I'd be working under these wonderful people. How could they just up and leave? Ah, right. All things change. And some things – like my parents' marriage – are terrifically difficult to let go of. My youth and beauty, my cat, my love of reading and writing, all these things can and will go. And life – wonderful, mysterious, precious life. How can one be ready to let go of life? I am nowhere close to that.

Look – I was sitting here writing and thinking, enjoying the quiet. Then J came and turned on the TV, and it upset and annoyed me. I obviously have trouble accepting change, when there is something I'd like to hold on to. So I need to keep reminding myself that all things change. By doing that I'll hope it leads, as the verse promises, to learning not to hold onto things. Okay, the chapter continues:

Trying to control the future

Is like tring to take the master carpenter's place.

When you handle the master carpenter's tools,

Chances are that you'll cut your hands.

And, while trying to hold on to parts of the present, how much do I try to control the future? From small things, like trying to use mind control on J and keep him asleep so I can have quiet, to trying to manipulate Mom into moving in with us. And I try to decide what would be the best for J and make it happen. When obviously I have no control over any of these things. Sometimes I'm able to catch myself.

And I'm still working out the difference between creative visualization of the future – which reminds me I need to listen to the CD [from my psychologist] today, which asks me to visualize my own perfect future – and trying control the future. It's confusing. As I've said before, it feels like a paradox. On the one hand, we are to believe in our ability to create our own realities. But also not to expect anything, to have no expectations and to not try to control the future. Umm, how do we do those two things at once? I realize it is only a seeming paradox; there is a way to do both, and it is probably very simple. Oh – and don't forget – accept things as they are.

Trying to control the future, trying to manipulate things into a form we like, is dangerous. We can – we will – be hurt. So I guess what we do is just offer things up? I checked the translator's notes.

About the phrase "trying to control the future" he says: "thinking that you know what is good or bad, what is advantageous or harmful. The Huai Nan Tzu tells a story about this." The story is about a man who has various things happen to him, and each time the villagers either congratulate or console him. And each time the father says "How do you know this isn't a disaster?" or "How do you know that this isn't good fortune?"

And indeed, the seemingly good things turn out horribly, and the seemingly bad things turn out to make him rich, save his life, etc. And so we never know how events will be transformed.

It is the same in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Phrased differently, of course, such as that God can turn disaster into a miracle, all the examples of God turning evil to good, and the reminder that all that glitters is not gold. With J's job situation, we go through this all the time; this job pays so well, but you'd be miserable. Or, usually just not knowing, and trying to guess what each thing would be like. Then we try to remind ourselves of all these truths, that J just has to apply (and to write a good letter you have to leave it in the Tao's, the Universe, the Great Mother's hands, and try not to desire, or expect, or hope, or become attached. Try not to control the future while at the same time try to be positive and visualize the best. Ah. So, with that in mind, I'm going to go lie down and visualize a wonderful future for us.

April 9

76

Men are born soft and supple;

Dead, they are stiff and hard.

Plants are born tender and pliant;

Dead, they are brittle and dry.

Thus whoever is stiff and unflexible

Is a disciple of death.

Whoever is soft and yielding

Is a disciple of life.

This lesson doesn't seem to require much parsing. Its message is clear; don't be stiff, hard and inflexible. The only notes for this one are: "disciple of life: The less rigid, the readier for life or death." What am I rigid and inflexible about? I am pretty flexible and yielding about most things. I've been socialized that way. Thinking about class/students, I'm often too yielding, and they perceive me as a pushover. There have to be some things, though.

I feel pretty hard and brittle about Dad. In some ways. But I also know that in his presence I'm too soft. I need to find a way to be firm without becoming brittle. If everywhere he finds great flexibility and yielding, how will he ever be self-disciplined? That is how we all learn not to be lumps – by having firm boundaries. For example, he needs someone to be inflexible about his sexist remarks. How else will he come to understand they are not appropriate? Until now we have all been too supple, indulgent, allowed his remarks to expand into and take up space that belonged to us. We girls and Mom and whoever else is around have been diminished by his words. We need to become rigid for a moment and not allow it.

There is a time for everything, even being hard. Just don't live your whole life that way. But where is an area in which I should be more flexible? Maybe in public? I have ideas about how people should behave in line, in the store, etc. I could let that go, be more supple. That's true about students, too. It isn't in my behavior, but it is in my thoughts that I'm rigid. My ideas of what a good student is, and how students should behave in class, write e-mails, etc. some things its okay to be firm about – being respectful of me and other students, learning to be polite and professional, that sort of thing. But aren't there still moments where I'm frustrated only because they didn't do it the way I would have done it? Or because I had an idea, an expectation, of how they would respond and they didn't – they did it differently? Yes.

I am better about these things than I was in the past. I am learning. I can see myself over the last 6 months really change. I se myself stopping and checking that an irritated or frustrated response be reasonable, and if not, changing my whole attitude. But it is something I have to stay on top of every day.

Jesus in Context – April 6, 2007

Things are moving along slowly here – it is bitter cold, but we haven't had much more accumulation. I have been spending most of my time typing up these old journals; my I used to write an awful lot every day! How did I find so much time? I suppose now I just waste that same time each morning. Anyway, this next installment is missing several pages of its beginning – I've looked all over and can't figure out what I could possible have written on. Sorry! The next journal begins with a statement that I'd already been writing for 4 hours that morning, and then I still went on and on . . . well, you'll see.

April 6, 2007

[First part missing, as I had to switch to new journal]

What context was Jesus born into? If he was one of many wise souls that for whatever reason – perhaps living many lives, perhaps never having fully parted from the Source, whatever – he was born wiser than other men. But instead of being born into a context of shamanism – where he would have believed himself able to communicate with spirits – or Hinduism – where he would have believed himself at the end of many lives full of learning, or Buddhism – where he would have believed himself less attached, or Taoism – where he would have felt himself in closer harmony with the Tao, he was born into the context of Judaism. And Judaism would have – did – provide him with a history of prophets who spoke for Yahweh, who had come to be understood as the One God, one that had a special relationship with the Jews. And he would have been taught the tradition of the Messiah, one who would come and save the people.

And so when he came to understand himself as different, when he saw answers to dilemmas so clearly, when he felt his close tie to the Source, the Infinite Absolute, he would have interpreted that through the tools given him by his culture.

The compassion he felt for others was surely the loving God he'd been taught to adore. Being a wise soul, close to the Source, he knew the same things Sidhartha, Lao-tzu, Patanjali and the other Hindus knew. He had the same vision of what people were and what they needed to do, how they needed to feel. They all say the same things because they are all right. They are just seeing it through different filters, and they are only able, or they choose, to communicate that same message in culturally appropriate ways.

To bring this rambling discussion home to where it started, the text (Tao te Ching, 72) says "Therefore the Master steps back so that people won't be confused. He teaches without a teaching so that people will have nothing to learn." So there may be many other people born close to the Source, but they lived their lives and were examples to those they met, but they never collected a following, never had their sayings recorded, because they didn't say anything. They knew not to provide the people with anything to learn.

Jesus, in addition to being born into a time that sorely needed some direction (maybe – but there were other times that were worse) was born into a tradition in which those who spoke to god
said they did. Where god's talking or connecting to someone was interpreted as a lesson. There must be a reason for such a person to exist. So Jesus would "naturally" have understood his closeness to God as a reason for him to speak to people.

I also think this fits with my image of Jesus from the gospels as someone searching for his identity. Why was he so close to God? Why did God's love pour through him and out to others so easily? When he asks "Who do you say that I am?" I believe he's trying to understand himself, not teach a lesson.

So is it a bad thing to have a teaching? Looked at objectively, I think you have to conclude "yes." Look at what's happened as a result of Jesus' teaching. So much blood shed. So much hatred spewed. So much knowledge lost. Of course Christians will say that is highly regrettable, and some will say "but Jesus words must be followed!" And of course, each are referring to a different set of words. And don't forget, there will be rewards in heaven for those who were mistreated or faithful despite their spilled blood. Does the good done in Jesus' name make up for it? I kind of doubt it, because, as Lao-tzu says, if you just leave people alone, they'll mostly be good. People would have had these generous, kind and loving impulses anyway.

To be fair, Jesus may have ralized that. He didn't write a book, after all. He didn't give people verses to memorize. Or even rules to follow! Wow. No, he left a group of people that he had taght. And in fact, he tells people that others will convert because of your example, not your words. He said he left himself in the people, as they would now love one another and be close the Source themselves.

And it seems like the apostles really tried. They did live in communes, sharing equally. Their love for one another and their peaceful co-existence drew converts. They taught without a teaching.

Who was it who decided to travel around spreading the word? The very first was probably some one else, because a lot didn't want to just live quietly; it was Good News and they wanted to share it. But there is no argument that it was Paul who did most of the spreading. He is the one who wrote letters, who made it a "teaching." And his friend then wrote more of the history. Paul, who never met Jesus. Paul, who was hungry for the Truth, but perhaps never really knew it. If this is even remotely true, it is really sad.

Another thing, though sages are supposed to be silent, some in each tradition haven't been, or we wouldn't have any of their sayings. But – I think because of the tradition within which it was interpreted, not what Jesus actually said – the teachings of Jesus have inspired more hatred and diviseviness than any other holy text. That's partly because of scale – more people have read or heard the Bible than, say the texts of Zoroaster, which I haven't read but I get the impression might inspire quite a lot of division.

But think of the Pali Canon, the Tao te Ching and the I Ching. The Ramayana, the Bhagavad Gita and the other Gitas, the Upanishads. Except for the story parts, all of these texts say "See for yourself." It is only the Semitic texts that claim they represent the ONLY truth, that you must believe them on faith alone, and that if you don't, you are utterly outcast. And only the Christian interpretation says that the punishment is for everyone and will be eternal.

The teachings of all the other close-to-the-Source people say or imply that there are other paths to the center, but this one works. How do you know it works? Because you try it. This is why I believe Jesus' words have been changed. Even when I consider his context, and the fact that he, like Buddha Gotama, may have considered himself the only one close to God/It. Even so, I think Jesus believed the others could become like him. I believe that from the words we have, reputed to be his, from the texts. If he hadn't believed in them, and in the power of his message, why would he bother trying to teach them anything?

So with a verse like, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life . . . "I believe Jesus meant the above. By that point he was a bridge. But he wanted them to BE like him in the important ways, and he wasn't saying there were NO other ways. He might actually have said "there is no other way to the Father but by me," and meant there is no quick way, no short cuts, because he knew human nature, and knew we would want something easy.

The translator's notes [for the Tao te Ching] say: "Therefore the Master steps back"; he doesn't act as guru or Messiah, because he doesn't want to keep people dependent on him, and thus spiritually immature. When people start to treat him like a holy man, he nips their adoration in the bud and points them to their inner messiah.

Ha! I'm so smart! I'd have to check the gospels, but it seems to me that some of the things Jesus said might be interpreted that way, if you can strip away the interpretation in which they have been embedded which assume he's a Messiah.

I mean, if a different group of people, non-Jews, were told the exact same things and treated the exact same way by Jesus, would they have come up with the idea that he was a savior? Or would they have seen him as a teacher like the Buddha or one of the Hindu gurus? I had that feeling this summer when I was studying the gospels. But I felt like I was trying to reach through smoky glass. Like there is a really different Jesus in there, but I couldn't reach him to pull him out.

Oh brother. That sounds like I'm trying be, or think I am Jesus' savior. If that were true, would that be one of those sins against the Spirit? I just mean that as I read the gospels I get the feeling that almost no one around him gets what he's saying. And like the Buddha, he gets a little frustrated because they just don't listen, or listening, they just don't hear. And I wonder if that's because he was saying a lot of things completely out of their experience, and since he was killed so early in his teaching career, he never really had time to explain it to them in a way they could understand. They just had to do the best they could, filtering what he said through their own knowledge and experience, their Jewish tradition and context.