June 4-7 , 2007

June 4, 2007

[More detailed discussion of history of relationship with Dad, Mom, their divorce, etc.]

It feels good to have let go of my need for him to be a certain way. I guess I am coming out the other side of grief. I had to let myself mourn the breaking of the family and the loss of the father figure I had in my mind. It is kind of strange, like a hole where there once was an aching tooth. Keep poking it with the tongue, but the pain just isn't there anymore. Wow. I guess all this stuff I'm doing is actually working.

I think it happened this way: once I saw what I was doing, that I was trying to force Dad into my image (or imago, as the object-relations folks would have it), and that I was angry at another human being when I don't know what their path will bring them . . . Once I was able to see that Dad's true Self is God, is like my true Self, IS my true Self, I just didn't feel angry or even hurt anymore. Strange, but true.

The world really is what we think it is; we can utterly change our relation to the world by thinking something different. Wow. I just keep being amazed, filled with wonder and with joy.

Quickly, let me write about the Gita's message today.

The faith each man has, Arjuna,
Follows his degree of lucidity;

A man consists of his faith,

And as his faith is, so is he. v.17:3

This is kind of what I was just saying. As my faith in the wisdom of Krishna deepens, my self changes. As I acknowledge in my heart the truth of the Gita, my views, attitudes, beliefs, emotions and values change. With little conscious attention or effort, my self has emptied of anger and become full of compassion. What an amazing, beautiful thing – more so because I can feel it is just the beginning, just a small taste of what will come if I become more disciplined. I have yet to follow Easwaran's suggestion of meditating 30 minutes a day on a text (for me St. Francis' prayer). I will do that. I'll get there, and I feel so excited about what further miracles might happen inside me.

June 7

I am in the 18^th and last Teaching: The Wondrous Dialogue Concludes. Always relevant, the Gita here is speaking of renunciation and relinquisment. Krishna brings up a debate:

Some wise men say all action

Is flawed and must be relinquished;

Others say action in sacrifice, charity,

And penance must not be relinquished. v.3

Krishna declares his decision, which must be taken as final. The very fact that he makes a decision says to me that God, brahman, does learn and change. Krishna decides that action is not to be totally relinquished, i.e. we are not to sit down in a monestary or under a tree and never get up again.

Action in sacrifice, charity,

And penance is to be performed,

Not relinquished – for wise men,

They are acts of sanctity. v. 5

But even these actions

Should be done by relinquishing to me

Attachment and the fruit of action –

This is my decisive idea. v. 6

We are to perform prescribed actions. So, rituals, prayers, all the traditional Hindu stuff. Do the labor prescribed by our stations in life, and our caste. Applied to me – I need to do the work of being a daughter, sister, wife, friend and the work of teaching, service and research. Maybe also some religious ritual. Do these things as best I can, but relinquish the fruits; do not become attached. If I get good evaluations, I need to offer them up in loving sacrifice. Don't allow pride and individuality to delude me into taking personal credit. Same with all my actions.

A man burdened by his body

Cannot completely relinquish actions,

But a relinquisher is defined

As one who can relinquish the fruits. v. 11
We have these bodies for a reason. We decided to be bodies in the first place. And because of nature's qualities, the gunas, we must act. But it isn't me that acts, it is nature. In v. 16, Krishna says that a person who sees himself as the agent of his own actions "cannot be said to see."

He goes on to explain things I don't really get, and don't feel ready to completely get, about agency, action and knowledge. It seems like it might be a useful expositon for my research, as well as my life, but I'm not in a mental space to completely decipher the meaning.

Know that through lucid knowledge

One sees in all creatures

A single, unchanging existence,

Undivided within its divisions v. 20

I think this is enough for one day . . . one lifetime. Keep remembering that all existence is one. That will greatly help my relationships at work if I just hold on to it.

June 8

[After reading the evaluations from my spring courses – one class took a big dive]

I really need to dive into the Gita! I am feeling so hurt, and like such a failure. Which is incorrect – I did not fail. I made some mistakes, I'm not perfect, but I didn't fail. And the students are commenting about a course, and how it went for them. They are evaluating the instruction; not me as a human being. And furthermore, it isn't my Self – its just whitethoughts, who is learning an awful lot this life about a lot of things. Stumbling is supposed to happen.

So I'm going to re-read the 18^th Teaching. What will I do after that? I may start again at the beginning, but I do have another text . . . we'll see.

An agent called pure

Has no attachment or individualism,

Is resolute and energetic,

Unchanged in failure or success v.26

An agent said to be passionate

Is anxious to gain the fruit of action,

Greedy, essentially violent, impure,

Subject to excitement and grief. v. 27

An agent defined by dark inertia

Is undisciplined, vulgar, stubborn,

Fraudulent, dishonest, lazy,

Depressed, and slow to act. v. 28

In all of Krishna's descriptions in this teaching and the previous, I see myself mostly in the passionate category. Like here, I am excited when my evaluations are good, full of grief when they are bad. I am greedy, anxious for the fruit. I put in so much work, and tried to offer it up, yet here I am, still attached to the work and greedy for results. There are sometimes hints of dark inertia. I feel as if I am still fighting the tempation to be lazy and depressed. I know I'm stubborn and terribly undisciplined about some things.

So I am sitting in passion, but closer to dark inertia than to lucidity. I see the goal. I can be resolute and energetic. I need to use what energy I have to become immune to failure and success. Let go of the fruit of action. Whether the class was a success or not depended on a lot things and people. When things go well, who is that for? Not for me. I offer that up in sacrifice. Need to let go of the failure, as well.

I teach because it is my dharma to teach. I try to improve because I hope my students will come to understand more things. Not because it will bring glory or prestige, but because that is what I am here to do.

Each one achieves success

By focusing on her own action;

Hear how one finds success

By focusing on her own action v.45

Arjuna, a (wo)man should not relinquish

Action she is born to, even if it is flawed;

All undertakings are marred by a flaw,

As fire is obscured by smoke. v.48

Justifications for the caste system, but I can see utility in these verses. Keep doing what I am supposed to do. Don't worry too much about the flaws inherent in any system. Just do the work and let the chips fall where they may.

If I am in your thought, by my grace

You will trancend all dangers v.58

Different subject, but I love the verse:

You must not speak of this

To one who is without penance and devotion,

Or who does not wish to hear,

Or who finds fault with me. v.67

An anti-conversion stance. I love it.

Old Testament Families

Following up on what I said in my last post, I am getting bored with my old journals, and have decided to get pickier about what I post. I am mainly going to follow the path I set out on when I began a letter to my mother a few years ago – to try to explain what I believe and why I believe it and how I came to believe it. Those things that are particulary relevant to that path, I'll go ahead and type up. And if there are other things – like this book review and the thoughts it spurred, or other major things, I'll add those as well.

March 24

I have to talk some more about religion. Last night I finished Rachel and Leah, and saw that he was unable to tell the whole story so there will be a fourth book, Wives of Israel. I felt like this book was not as good at evoking and explaining early Hebrew culture as the last ones, but maybe he felt he'd already set up the context. I kept having the feeling that he was more interested in explaining how polygyny might work, and there was a note of justification. I ended up feeling this was less about Hebrews than Mormons. Some examples – the entire relationship between Jacob and all the relevant women except Rachel centers on the reading of the Holy Word, the writen scriptures. Now that is likely supposed to be the foundation of family life for Mormons, but we are talking about the grandson of Abraham. He is thought to have lived c. 2100 BCE. So call it 2000-1900, generously allowing the Biblical reports of Abraham's age at Isaac's birth.

I believe this is about when Egyptians are developing their heiroglyphics – I'd have to check about all those languages (Sumerian cuneiform, etc.). What is importat is that even the dogged believers in Moses having written the Penteteuch personally don't put the date any earlier than 1400 BCE. He might have used earlier sources, they say, but come on, Hebrews writing their own distinct language (not pictographic, by the way, but phonetic) in 1900 BCE? And they are already ancient, according to Card. How ancient could they be, if Abraham was the first Patriarch, first one to make people realize they needed any history, and you are only one generation between you and that Patriarch? It just doesn't make any sense.

It wouldn't be such a problem for the book if it was just an occasional reference to a few holy writings. But the story doesn't work without it. Jacob and Rachel's relationship develops through their common interest in herding. Leah, though, would have had no reason to even see him except Card makes the "birthright" of Abraham this large collection of holy books. Lean and one of her future concubines, Bilhah, come to Jacob to learn the scriptures, and they learn to read and write and Bilhah becomes a scribe, copying all the texts.

He, Card, uses these books as a way to explain what happens in the Biblical story such that the people involved are all essentially good. I re-read the relevant part of Genesis last night and it is as I recalled – full of trickery, deceit, betrayal, jealousy, bickering, competition and exploitation. Hard to tell it in such a way that the people are good and their behaviors justified.

I recall being troubled with the story in childhood, but I don't recall what my parents said, if anything, to help me understand it. It is hard to explain away. Jacob makes a deal with Laban for Rachel's hand. He works 7 years for her in brideservice, and then Laban tricks Jacob into marrying Leah, the older sister with weak eyes. Then Laban says he'll give him Rachel, too, if Jacob does another 7 years. And after that, Laban continues to change the terms of the deals he makes with Jacob – Jacob says "10 times"!!!

As a child, I of course would have been unfamiliar with polygyny and bridewealth to begin with, making it harder to get a grasp on this story, to tease apart what is cultural and what is people behaving badly. But as an anthropologist, I am very familiar with many different societies who practice either or both, and with pastoralist cultures in general. Pastoralist, patrilineal cultures wherein sororal polygyny is practiced and either bridewealth or brideservice is paid also generally have an economic system of balanced reciprocity. The idea of balance in exchanges permeates the entire ideology (in fact, that is at base what bridewealth is – compensation for removing the valuable bride and her future labor and children from her household) and makes possible all kinds of other ideological and symbolic exchanges like sacrifice. But the point is – you DON'T TRICK PEOPLE OR GO BACK ON YOUR WORD!!!!! Not if you care about your family's good name. Not if you ever want to do business or marry any one else in your family or graze your sheep or water your cattle, etc. I mean, this is an absolutely unheard of, terrible, wrong, evil thing to do. Ask anyone living in a pastoralist society.

So Laban is a sneaky, lying, exploitative man. But Jacob is no better – he lied and deceived his own father in order to steal his elder brother's birthright and inheritance. One might think he's gotten what he deserves.

But what about the sisters? What did they do to be punished this way? Poor Leah, who is unwanted but forced to marry a man who is in love with her sister. Poor Rachel, who was expecting to be the sole or at least first wife of her beloved, who loves her in return. Now she is second wife, and then Leah gets all the first babies as her consolation. The two sisters get into a pissing (well, birthing) match to see who can have most sons and therefore their husband's love. They throw their handmaidens at him and claim their children as their own, in a way. Rachel has to wait and wait for her first child, and then her second one kills her in childbirth.

Leah has lots of sons, and more through her servant, and yet as soon as Rachel has one, she gets special treatment, as does her son. All those sons grow up to be pretty nasty characters, infected with the terrible jealousy, bitterness and pain of ther mothers' competition. All but the youngest, Joseph, who is spoiled by his father (Rachel's child, after all), but becomes a decent human being.

This is a terrible story in so many ways. When looking at it from the sisters' point of view, one has to ask, why did this happen to them? In Judaism there is only ever one answer to that question: because God wanted it to. Humans have free will, but God, knowing their (our) personalities, sets things up in such a way that he knows or can guess, which way a person will choose.

Either: 1. People make absolutely free choices and God then works with that choice, or; 2. God arranges things such that they will happen a certain way. Either way, isn't God still interfering? Still guiding people's choices, and thus removing one's free will? If you want to defy the will of God, the Semetic religions say you can't, because God can turn ALL things to His purpose. Right?

What I am trying to establish is that no matter how you think of it, even to add a third choice, that people will attempt to discern God's will for them and will thus do it – Jacob married both Leah and Rachel because that is how God wanted it. Why? Why did God want this so badly that he was willing to destroy all these lives (or let them be destroyed), let terrible deeds go unpunished, etc.?

Well, look what happens next, what comes out of it. Ah, the sons of Jacob are the origins of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

Wonderful. God uses those tribes as a way to organzie his people all the way through history, even up to today. And they figure somehow in the End Times, as seen in John's revelation. I can't remember the details. Priests of one of the tribes must be in silent prayer at the temple, or something like that.

Is that supposed to console Leah? Comfort Rachel? Maybe it does, so that might be fine. But when one steps back a bit, and asks questions such as, "What does this teach us about the nature of God?" "About the human condition?" "About what God expects of us?" then I feel like some very serious issues are at stake.

First, one common lesson Christians take from tales like this are that God uses even bad people and bad behavior to achieve His ultimate purpose. God turns all things to good. But that ignores the fact, or at least the implication, that god in fact set things up SO that people would behave badly. It is an echo of the Garden of Eden story. God tells people to be good, but then arranges things, playing on his knowledge of our weakneses (which He gave us), to elicit that bad behavior that He needs in order to further the story, or make His larger point. I just keep seeing Yahweh set people up and knock them down.

Why? Perhaps his ultimate purpose is so wonderful that it justifies this interference, this manipulation of his creatures so they do what he told them not to. I mean, what if Adam and Even had just obeyed him? No story, period.

I've asked many times what the Ultimate Purpose is. And maybe that's presumptuous. Maybe we puny humans aren't qualified to know that. But we have brains, so let's use them. The Old Testament is really the story of one family. Starting with Adam it tells the story of him and his descendents. In the New Testament, it's important to the writers to establish the link, to show that "Hey! This is the same family."

All the other people in the OT are just props, bit players. So God's ultimate purpose must have something to do with this family. For Jews, who are all part of this family, that's great. God started the world with this family and will end it with this family. For them, they can find much meaning – God's purpose is related to them going through all these struggles in order for . . . what? For them to finally learn to submit wholy to God's will? Mightn't they have done that sooner if god hadn't kept creating tempting situations? OK, so he's training them to never give in, no matter the temptation, so that they will one day be a holy people who usher in the Messianic Age, in which life is great for everyone and they are all obedient to God's will. Well, couldn't he have just created them that way to start with?

Maybe it is important to have a bunch of creatures come to be good and obedient of their own choice. Why? Back to the idea of a battle to fight with an Other, and God needs an army. I don't know. But if you stick with just the Jews, then what was the purpose of there being people with whom Jews would never have contact and some who would never even hear of them?

I mean, this whole universe created so one family can play out this story in which one (or two) creatures become many. Are given free will, make a lot of good and bad choices, but ultimately learn to be good. One family. Does that feel remotely true? Not to me. Of course, Jews also see their story as one that is meant to be an example to all humanity of God's existence, his love, his will, his plan. But what IS that plan?

I mean, the Hebrews and then Jews were never recruiters. They didn't try to convert people, they didn't and really still don't go out of their way to welcome those who want to join them, and they never tried really to prove that theirs was the only God to others. So they are just being a quiet example.

Christians are the ones who decided that the God of the Jews is the only god for all people. They were the first to have the idea that God's plan was to extend his relationship to others outside the one family. It is important to them to demonstrate that Jesus is a member of that family, that he is the heir to the kingdom the family has become. And he is the door that allows all humankind to be adopted by the family and his subjects in the kingdom.

So Rachel and Leah's suffering becomes meaningful in that it produced this kingdom and the heir to it so that all creatures might be saved, in a Christian interpretation.

For me, I've come to a place where this story just doesn't make sense in those ways. If god wanted all people to be a part of this family, why didn't he do it from the start?

But it's not as if all those other people out there don't have their own stories!!! They have stories about their own families, their own gods, and their own importance in the universe.

All the small societies in Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia, the Americas, the islands (the 'Nesias, as I always think of them), they have had their experiences with God. They have developed or been given by god their own rules. Maybe not written down as the Decalogue of the Jews, but Hammurabi had his codes, Egyptians, various groups of Chinese, Indians, Maya, Aztec, Inca, Medes, Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, and many, many, many others DID have holy scriptures, messages and lessons and morality plays and poetry. And all of those thousands of cultures without writing nevertheless have and have had extremely sophisticated and complex religions.

More, they had their own experiences of God or Ultimate Source or wahtever they called it. God spoke to them, too. Told them THEY were the special ones. Walked them through difficulties, comforted them, punished them, all the same things that Jews had.

And then in some places people came to understand Absolute Reality in a different way. As NOT a person. And they did their work, and they devoted themsleves, and they had their own experiences of the Divine, or Absolute, which were earth-shattering, every bit as much as the voice of God was to the Hebrew prophes, as ecstatic as the followers of Jesus. And they had their own saints and wise men. Their own martyrs, too. People who were so good the world couldn't bear their example. These wise men (and women) created their own holy books full of wisdom.

I could go on and on. But the question I want to ask is this: Are we really to believe that all the wisdom of the world is nothing, because it isn't the same as the message to the Jews? Can anyone believe that God created the world, and the huge variety of people, and either left them entirely alone, or spoke to them differently, just so, at the end, everyone would chuck the beliefs that God either allowed to grow into complex philosophies that give hope and wisdom and comfort to billions of individuals, or that God helped them create these alternate philosophies by guiding and interfering to teach them lessons . . . . All of that just so at the end, everyone would throw it all away and adopt the philosphy and faith of the Christians? Would decide that actually it was the fate of one Jewish family that mattered? Would decide to abandon their own ancestors, their own rich traditions and history just because Christians have so generously opened the doors and allowed them into the Jewish family?

I cannot believe it. And so I can no longer believe that Yahwe is THE god. I can't believe that by following a different path I will be damned to hell. And yet I still feel pain as I write these words. The Bible says that Jesus spoke of one unforgivable sin, and that is to deny the Spirit. To reject the Spirit of God. I don't know what that verse means. And for the longest time, my inability to correctly decode it has kept me in fear of being damned to hell for eternity.

Even though I don't believe I am or have ever truly rejected any Spirit of God. So why am I still afraid to commit on paper to a stance that is outside what Christians would accept? I'm still afriad of going to hell, even though I haven't believed in its existence for a good 20 years! It is such a deep-rooted fear. Christianity has done such a good job of detailing it and making sure people know that's likely where they are going. Hegemonic discursive power, indeed.

And that makes Christianity unique of the major religions. None of the others suggest that the majority of individuals are going to hell. That fear of hell and how it is used was one of the first, if not the first, thing that made me question my childhood faith. How could a loving God use threats of eternal damnation to get people to behave? Even half-way decent parents know better.

Jews don't even have a concept of hell, and it is them God mostly talked to. Muslims believe all will eventually make it to heaven. Christians really are alone in this hell-and-punishment obsession.

I am not going to let fear stop me this time. I do not believe that Yahweh, as depiced in the Bible, is the one and only God. Or if He is, then Jews and their descendent religions have got it all wrong.

I don't believe in the exclusivity of it. I believe there is an Absolute Reality. I believe that the early Hebrews had contact with it, and that their story reflects their understanding of that contact. I'm certain some of their prophets were close to that Reality, touched it, and were filled by it.

And I believe Jesus also was filled with and close to it, and that Jesus and the prophets before him were trying to show people how they, too, could be close to it. And the Hebrews I think better understood that this was their contact with the Infinite. They could and did accept that without making any statement that other peoples couldn't have their own contact. I believe that other peoples did and do have contact with that same Entity/Presense/Thing/No-Thing, and that each of them interpreted that contact in their own way, according to their own history and cultural context.

I don't know exactly how it came about that Christianity took on such an exclusive and singular quality. I guess it began that way, in that Jews, Jesus' Jewish followers, all believed he was the Jewish messiah. They never suggested Jesus was there for all. In fact, I think that would (and did) freak some people out. How could their messiah be there for everyone? He's supposed to kick Roman butt, not save it!

Jesus' message was inclusive, except when he says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." But what did he really mean by that? Many (most?) Christians use that quote to justify the conversion of the rest of the world. "You must convert in order to save yourself from eternal damnation."

Is that what he meant? What if he really meant, "You need to follow my directions?" Like the Buddha saying "You must follow the same path I did in order to find enlightenment. There is no other way but the way I did it." I find this entirely possible.

So if Jesus was inclusive, who wasn't? The early Roman church. Peter and his entire group didn't think Jesus message was for the gentiles, so why bother telling them? Again a reflection of the fact that Jews believed their relgion was their own. Their messiah their own. Their God their own. Everyone else could have their own gods. So the early Jewish Christians are exclusive, but not because they believe their religion is the only one in the world; the opposite, in fact.

Oh. Weird. So the exclusivity of Jewish Christians in Rome led them to . . . well, do it the other way. It is Paul, of course. He's the one who believes this message, this gospel, is for everyone. It is his inclusivity that leads to the Church's later exclusive position. Paul believes all the world should follow Jesus. Not because he thinks everyone else is going to some future hell, but because he believes Jesus' gift of Life, his good news, is a gift for all. He wants to share it. He does believe Jesus is coming again, he does believe there will be a heaven, a utopia, a messianic age, and he wants all people to share it.

He clearly believes that theGreeks and Romans with their pantheons are wrong, and he does try to convince people of this, but still his prosletizing feels more like someone offering a gift, being as inclusive as he possibly can.

But over time that message changed. I think it had to do first with the conversion of the European tribes after Rome had adopted Christianity. Because then it was a question of the powerful, civilized, clearly "more advanced" people – the Romans – moving into, conquering and ruling over diverse peoples with their own tribal and band-level religions. Non-Christian meant non-Roman and thus backward, disempowered, and clearly wrong about everything.

Once that association was made, it became easier for Christians to believe their way was the only way, and having people convert to your religion was also to have them convert to your culture, your economy, your political system. Those seeds of exclusivity and superiority grew through the "dark" ages, and by the time of European expansion were in full bloom. What fertile ground these twin attitudes found when the first indigenous peoples of Africa and the Americas were contacted. To the Europeans who met them, these natives were clearly backward, lawless, and amoral; clearly in need of saving. And they frightened them into conversion with gruesome depictions of hell. Not to mention all the carrots.

It might only have been in that lonely time, the thousand years after the fall of Rome, when Europeans were cut off from people of other religions, that the idea of only ONE religion having any truth or relevance could have been born and survived.

And so, why should I let irrational fear stop me from fully embracing the faith I do have? Why should I not follow my own path to the center with no guilt and no fear? There is no good reason.

Plowing through the Pain last March 14-18

Wow, all of my family and friends have been writing such interesting and thought-provoking blogs that I feel guilty for just posting old thoughts on my own. Nevertheless, once begun, I feel I must finish, and since I stopped keeping a journal somewhere early last fall, we are nearly done. I've been catching up on everyone else's blogs, and mulling over what I want to comment on. And I ought to have some pictures to put up here soon, too. There will be some new entries on my professional blogs soon, for those who follow those, as well. Busy times! But I can't tell you all how wonderful it is to wake up in the morning and know that the day is mine! All mine! I can do with it whatever I want! Starting tomorrow, that will have to include work, but it can be whichever work I want! What luxury.

March 14, 2007

49

The Master has no mind of her own.

She works with the mind of the people.

She is good to people who are good.

She is also good to people who aren't good.

This is true goodness.

She trusts people who are trustworthy.

She also trusts people who aren't trustworthy.

This is true trust.

The Master's mind is like space.

People don't understand her.

They look to her and wait.

She treats them like her own children.

Like Jesus' teachings, and those of all wise men, much more than the golden rule – trust even those you know will lie to you. And maybe, eventually, they won't.

The first verse is a little difficult. Maybe it is like my teaching philosophy; instead of concentrating on what YOU know, and want them to know, concentrate on where THEY are and what they are thinking. Lead them to make their own discoveries.

March 15

50

The Master gives herself up

To whatever the moment brings.

She knows that she is going to die,

And she has nothing left to hold on to:

No illusions in her mind,

No resistances in her body.

She doesn't think about her actions;

They flow from the core of her being.

She holds nothing back from life;

Therefore she is ready for death,

As a man is ready for sleep

After a good day's work.

Boy, I have a lot of work to do before I'm here. Over the last two years I've gotten better. Since I began reading the Gita, I think. I began to work at it – by which I mean try to be aware and to change my behavior when I catch it – being more present in the moment, giving my whole self to whatever was happening right then.

I know I began to give my cat more attention, to stop my scurrying from one project to the next and give her what she needed. And I do things like, when Jim starts telling me something from the paper, I put my pen down and try to give him my full attention. But only once or twice per morning. I fear he would read the whole paper to me and I would have no time left to write or read, and I am still clinging to that. I don't want to give it up. I did when we were first married. In fact, I didn't keep a journal for 8 years, except when I was away from home. I wanted to give my attention to him, and share the morning with him in that way. I have tried to maintain some balance, but I have so little time any more for anything that feeds my soul – little snatches of minutes in the morning to read and write, no time ever to be alone.

The pain complicates everything. It so limits my energy that I feel I can't give up any of it when there is work to be done. And it sometimes makes it impossible to lie down or stay sitting or whatever it is. But I can do better. I can do better in every area – give myself more fully to my students, for example. Some days I do great – become utterly lost in the class and the students. But what about the times I am thinking about the next class or the next lesson or the meeting later, etc.? Especially in that first class of the day. Maybe if I was more fully present with them I would be able to figure out how to reach them better.

Of course I "know" that I am going to die. But do I really know it? I doubt it. If I did, I wouldn't take some things so seriously. The idea of having nothing left to hold on to is frightening. I'm still clinging to so many things – to Jim, my cats, my Mom and sisters, and nieces and nephews and Dad (maybe even more to my illusions about him), my books and writing and students and research and doing a good job and getting tenure and Morrowind and Pogo badges (tho I've let them go to a considerable extent), and the list could go on and on.

I understand that all religions say I have to let those things go. Of course we will all face the day when we will be forced by death to lose them. How much better if we can prepare by letting go of them ourselves? And I believe what the Buddha and all the sannyasin have found, that by letting go, by stopping our attempts to "own" things and people, we become able to appreciate them so much more. But trusting that is hard. Very difficult to just let go of people you love, and all the material things that promise protection and comfort. So, a lot of work right there in letting go of these things. But wait . . . there's more!

We are also to have let go of all the illusions in our minds and the resistances of our bodies. Where to even begin? My body had resistances even before this pain. And now? Its one big knot of resistance.

Isn't it amazing and kind of disheartening that I still – just a day later – was still talking about all of this stuff as "work"? It is so hard to change a lifetime pattern.

March 16

[I had a thoracic epidural on the 13^th, and had been waiting to see if it would help]. I'm worn out by pain and lack of sleep. Can't really think straight. Maybe I might be able to get away with lying on the couch with my novel for a bit this morning before I get back to grading? I feel trapped – caged – by pain. There is no escape now. My side hurts all the way around from breastbone to spine, and then there's the spine itself. This morning I discovered the reason for my hand's tenderness – my left hand, where the nurse hit a valve – has a large, deep bruise, the entire space of the back of my palm. Because I needed one more voice in the orchestra of pain.

51

Every being in the universe

Is an expression of the Tao.

It springs into existence,

Unconscious, perfect, free,

Takes on a physical body,

Lets circumstances complete it.

That is why every being

Spontaneously honors the Tao.

The Tao gives birth to all beings,

Nourishes them, maintains them,

Cares for them, comforts them, protects them,

Takes them back to itself,

Creating without posessing,

Acting without expecting,

Guiding without interfering.

That is why the love of the Tao

Is in the very nature of things.

What I first thought was, "How is this different from the sayings of the Upanishads?" Really it's the same idea. And the second part is very like the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God, except that Yahweh is posessive, expectant and interfering. This, next to the Tao and Brahman, makes him look young, childish. Not modeling what he demands of his creations. I'm sure faithful Christians would see it differently, have a different way of explaining it. But the ones that I know do not know the other wisdom literature for comparison. I don't even know any right now that I can talk to and ask questions of that would not be defensive no matter how I put the questions.

March 17

St. Patrick's Day. 4:30 am. I am in a ridiculous amount of pain. I have really been trying to give the epidural the benefit of the doubt. I've been trying not to complain too much, to believe that it is helping, or at least not hurting. But the pain was awful all day yesterday, and woke me every two hours all night, and at 4:15 I could no longer take it. I'm not sure if the pain in my side was made worse by the shot; it hurt so badly before. But my spine is now a burning rod of fire. So maybe that pain itself has triggered the side, or maybe it all has generalized, flowed together, or maybe the epidural actually stimulated the virus again. Who knows? I just know it is close to unbearable.

I've tried self-relaxation and self-hypnosis techniques, which do help me bear it for a little while. But only a little while, while I'm doing them. For now I feel I just have to get up when it is bad, take meds, and sleep when I can. Try not to get too stressed about the lack of sleep, because the stress will only make it worse. Just do work when the meds have provided some relief, and sleep when possible in the daytime.

53

The Great Way is easy,

Yet people prefer the side paths.

Be aware when things are out of balance,

Stay centered within the Tao.

When rich speculators prosper

While farmers lose their land;

When government officials spend money

On weapons instead of cures;

When the upper class is extravagent and irresponsible

Whle the poor people have nowhere to turn –

All of this is robbery and chaos.

It is not in keeping with the Tao.

Isn't it amazing how much alike all the great religions, all the wise people of every tradition say basically the same thing about wealth and power? Yet our country continues to tick along believing socialism is the great Evil!

This is phrased differently than the Bible. Jesus said the way to perdition is broad, and the way to truth is narrow. Buddha said something similar to Jesus. But Lao-tzu, in keeping with the Taoist belief that life is easy (or should be), says the Way is easy – implying it is broad. Instead of having to work hard to do the right thing, he's saying it's actually harder to step off the Path. You have to work at being bad. What a different, and refreshing and hopeful way of looking at things. Life is easy. It is easy to do good, easy to be one's true self. There is a lot of room for you; you do not have to duck overhanging branches and skirt briars and cling to scrubs on narrow mountain passes, which is how I've always pictured Jesus' narrow path.

At the root they are saying the same thing; more people choose to take the wrong path. But I love the idea that the right way is a broad, paved (or smooth) road, with only gentle rises and large shoulders. Plenty of room, not too demanding. The side paths look interesting to us – maybe because they are hard. But we make that trouble for ourselves. It doesn't have to be that way. And while I'm probably not ready to completely let go of the side paths, I feel like I'm on one that crosses and runs close to the broad Way, so I can step onto it easily at times, or with less effort than before. If I would follow up on my commitment to meditate, I'd probably step on and maybe even walk a little on the Way more often.

I feel gentler in my soul. Less angry and stressed and confused. More trusting that it will all work out, more accepting of the way things are, more fully present more often. I am learning some of these lessons, slowly. I feel myself changing and I really like it. I wish I could make myself meditate. I think it is a matter of getting it into my routine. Plan it. But there is the problem. When? Where? When I first wake up I'm in too much pain. I love drinking my coffee and reading and writing, and I don't want to give that up. It's good for me, too. Go to work, come home, Jim feeds me dinner, and then we just veg on the couch – maybe work a little more, til it is time to go to bed. So that is really the only time I have for meditation and/or exercise. Sometimes there are shows I want to watch; mostly I want to spend time with Jim and just relax, just chill, because I'm exhausted and often in significant pain.

The Great Way is easy! All I have to do is step on to it. To move on, I am aware that things are very unbalanced, in the world and in my life. It is appropriate that in this phase of life I put most of my time and energy into work. The lack of effort I put into friendships and relationships with family is out of balance. The ration of sweet things and vegetables is lopsides. The affection I give the cats and my husband is unbalanced. I am aware, and am trying to step back into the center.

The world is so completely unbalanced that we've near destroyed it. Considering that Lao-tzu lived 2500 years ago, and knew of the corruptio and evil then, one must wonder if the world has ever been in balance. At least since there have been humans. Human beings are the flaw in the system. We have too much brain, too much power for the world to be balanced with us in it. The closes we can get, maybe, is humans on one side of the scale, and every thing else on the other. Maybe that is our central task, to find that balance. If so, we're screwed. I think we are further away from that than ever.

March 18

Speaking of similarities, this one is close to Jesus' parable:

54

Whatever is planted in the Tao

Will not be rooted up.

Whoever embraces the Tao

Will not slip away.

Her name will be held in honour

From generation to generation.

Let the Tao be present in your life

And you will become genuine.

Let it be present in your family

And your family will flourish.

Let it be present in your country

And your country will be an example

To all countries in the world.

Let it be present in the Universe

And the universe will sing.

How do I know this is true?

By looking inside myself.

I sometimes want to share these things with Mom, but I don't in any way want her to feel like I'm trying to pull her away from Christianity, or start an argument. I just want to share them, so she can marvel too, and can know me better, my spiritual journey.

Well, back to the meaning. How do I root and center my life in the Tao? How do I let it be present in my life, my family, my country, my universe? Isn't it always present? The Tao is not a person. So praying, which would be the answer in monotheistic and polytheistic and every other system, is not useful, really.

Meditation. We always come back to the same place. Look inside yourself. Drat! What is it? Am I just lazy? No way. Look at how hard I work. I cannot tell myself that old lie any more. I am afraid of something. Maybe just change. Maybe I know it will irrevokably change me and that scares me. Okay. Need to be aware and think that through.

March 11, 2007

Here is one I had typed up awhile ago and somehow neglected to post. Shame on me!

March 11
. . . I haven't gotten out a deck. Need to make sure I take a break and listen to the meditation CD. I forgot to, yesterday. I probably should report that I had terrible, panting pain again last night, and it is still hanging around. Skin burning across the whole dermatone – even near my spine.

46
When a country is in harmony with the Tao
The factories make trucks and tractors.
When a country goes counter to the Tao,
Warheads are stockpiled outside the cities.
There is no greater illusion than fear,
No greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself,
No greater misfortune than having an enemy.
Whoever can see through all fear
Will always be safe.

Well, our country is obviously out of harmony with the Tao, and always has been. It began in war and has been steeped in blood ever since. Politicians have always played on and stoked people's fears. We are now involved in probably the worse mistake we've ever made, and all because we acted out of fear. Made a "pre-emptive" strike at a lesser, assumed enemy. And this administration still hasn't learned. Bush still believes warheads will be the answer to all of our problems. We just need more of them.

Our domestic politics are all based on fear, too. The rabid conservatives are spewing their hatred for gays, Hispanics, and yes, still, feminists. All succesfull because they stimulate and encourage people's fear of the Other, fear of change. And the liberals (with more justification, I believe, since I'm on their side), are playing on people's fear, of global warming, of fossil fuels running out, of being committed to an endless war, of losing our civil rights and liberties, of state and church becoming one, of the crazy, irrational, fearful neo-cons winning the battle for hearts and minds and taking us in directions that will hurt more and more of us.

I obviously believe these fears are justified in that there are real possibilities that these things will happen if we don't stop them. But Lao-tzu is telling me not to be afraid, even if they are happening, right? Fear is an illusion. P and I talked about how I manufacture whole scenarios in my head, and then don't do something because of the fear generated by my imagination. So fear is an illusion in that way.

Is it also an illusion in that it gives you the idea of control? Like, I'm afraid that allergist doctor will disappoint me, so I just won't call him. Then he can't disappoint me. Fear gives us the idea that if we do something or we don't do something, we'll be able to protect our Selves. We'll control the damage we take. And maybe the Master is saying "Hey! Remember, you can't control what happens! The Tao is a might river, and one way or the other will do what it does. The best thing is to let go of your idea of what ought to be, what ought to happen to your heart, your Self, and let the river roll. Keep your eyes open and learn from what occurs. Keep acting out of your center - not from fear, and you'll find you were able to roll with the river and that you were able to bear the stretching of your Self."

Maybe the ocean is a better metaphor: When you are wading in the ocean, and a big wave is coming at you, the worst thing you can do is panic and brace yourself against it. If you do that, you find the sand under your feet shifts and gives way, you sink deeper, and the wave comes and knocks you down, or goes over your head in a violent churning that puts sand and water in your eyes, nose and ears, and it is very frightening. You might get tumbled with it and be underwater for too long. Instead you should turn and face the beach. When you feel the wave lifting you, you jump into it, and give yourself to it, and it carries you at the top, with your head above water, and you ride it in to the beach. Very smooth, no violence, no panic, no sand in orifices.

So when I'm afraid I'll have this pain the rest of my life, and that it will be too much to bear, I need to stop tensing all my muscles against it. Need to let go, and jump into the pain. Ride it.
Okay. I just did that. Made all my muscles relax. They keep tightening as soon as I remove my attention. What happens is that I feel that the pain is NOT actually constant. It rises and falls. And it is bearable. It is like riding a roller coaster – just let the pain go up and down. But it takes all of my attention to keep from fighting it, to just let it be. And it takes all of my energy to bear the up and down. As soon as I begin writing, the pain starts feeling like a horrible intrusion, a nagging presence. Can I learn to do this and still get work done? To train my body and brain not to fight, even when I'm not paying conscious attention?

Because I guess it is true. The fear of its being unbearable is what is bad. The actual bearing of it isn't pleasant, really, but it is possible, for at least a moment, to just let it be an experience, not label it good or bad.

It is like the work I did with Jane [a cognitive-behavioral therapist I saw for molestation/rape stuff]. As soon as I felt fear, I had to take it out and examine it, and ask myself what would be the worst thing that could happen should that fear be realized. And then she'd have me write out a plan for how I would deal with each of those possibilities. And it worked. The fear was an illusion. The worst case scenario almost never happened, but even if it did, I knew it wouldn't be the end of me. Even death might not be the end of me.

The next line is about preparing to defend yourself, how there is no greater wrong than that. MAD, our policy during the Cold War, was stupid and destructive and a waste of resources. Today we have Homeland Security, busily invading our privacy and violating our civil rights. Just this week it came out that the FBI illegally gathered information on thousands of American citizens. All of this in the name of "defending our country, our security." We've committed atrocities in the name of defense all over the planet.

It's pretty easy to see this principle at work on the big stage. What about in my personal life? Planning a course of action for what to do if one's fears are realized is not the same as preparing to defend oneself. In the former, you are assuming defenselessness and just figuring out what the next step is. I suppose you might call that a defense, but it's a different meaning than I think Lao-tzu means. He means defense as in bracing for the wave, or trying to beat the wave into submission. I was talking about making a plan for what happens after the wave has tumbled you.
My muscles bracing against the pain is an unhealthy defense. Silly too, because like our national foreign policy, it doesn't stop the pain, it just adds more pain in the form of soreness in many muscles. What else? Being defensive in a fight with Jim. Never a good idea. It is better to remain open, listen carefully – including to what he is not saying, accept criticism, calmly state my real position, not one that hops out of defensiveness, and try to see it as us, working out an issue, not "me against you." Yes, this is best. But do I do it? Not with any regularity.

I get defensive very easily with my husband. I always have – more than with anyone but my Dad. Some things about the way he is, and how he argues, have always inspired fear in me, and I've responded by being super defenseive. And now, add all my guilt for not being a good wife (pain, job and laziness) and it's even more tempting to be defensive. Which means not being calm, not being able to really listen, responding to surface meaning, saying the first thing that comes into my head instead of sifting for the Truth of how I feel. And sometimes it means going on the offensive and saying mean things that I don't actually mean.

I've gotten better about all of this since I stopped drinking. I don't say many mean things anymore, though I may speak a truth in an ungentle, suboptimal way. But I still need a lot of work. I think Jim does, too, but that isn't my business! Just stop right there! Girl, you need only worry about yourself!

Are there other ways I prepare defenses against fear? Oh yeah, a whole bunch just flooded my mind. My fear that people won't like me gets me behaving in all kinds of ugly, stupid ways. My fear that I won't succeed likewise gets me building defenses, when I ought to be putting that energy into doing the things that will help me succeed. I have been preparing a defense against my Dad which has hurt both of us.

I really dislike the defensive behavior I adopt with students and with my colleagues. I'm so afraid people won't like me sometimes that I become not-myself, and increase the chances that they won't. I'm not quite sure what I do. I cover my face, I don't make as much eye-contact, I get more focused on myself and forget to attend to the other person. So I appear less caring and interested than I really am. I make derogatory jokes about myself – too self-depracating. And I close up my body, make it less inviting. All of this and more, in an attempt to defend myself against being hurt when people don't like me. So the best thing to do is really examine that fear, like I did with Jane. What is the worst that can happen?

With students, the worst that can happen is that I'll get terrible evaluations and be miserable in class every day. Okay. So being miserable in class. If they really all disliked me, then the answer would be to a) make the material so interesting and be so focused on that material [not me and not them]that the class would still be interesting for both of us. Also, if I was completely myself and they all disliked me, I could try to find out why, and consider changing.

But the truth is that both my students and my colleagues mostly do like the real me. And they are patiently waiting for me to be the real me all the time. So this is an almost totally ungrounded fear. I need to let it go. How? Just to remember that's what I'm doing, take a breath, and remind myself that what I'm interested in is the person who's talking to me. Or the subject, and whether the students are getting it. Be empty, and yet fully present.

Worst, worst thing is that I wouldn't get tenure. But for the reasons above, that is super unlikely. What if it happened? I'd go on. Look for another job. Re-think my life. I have no idea what all the other conditins would be. But I know me, and I know I'd find a way to keep going.

So, that was an amazingly productive piece of the Tao te Ching! It's 10:30 and I've been writing for 3 hours when I expected I'd have nothing to say.