The Light at the Center

Der Erlkonig: Fischer-Dieskau sings Schubert

2008-06-10T21:15:00.003+09:00

This is an incredible YouTube clip of a classic performance (1959) of a classic musical piece by Schubert based on the Goethe poem - enjoy!:

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=P5B6nysheec

And here, a solo-violin version by Kristof Barati (2005):

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=QR8cyJknO6E&NR=1

Thoughts on Earthquake In China News Coverage

2008-05-15T23:00:00.004+09:00

Recently read an article in the Guardian about the earthquake situation in China. I bothered to read the comments as well. Here's my take:

Chinese army is approximately 2.3 million (standing - reservists, etc. included, approximately 7 million). China is lauded by some for having sent "tens of thousands" of members of the army to the area. Tens of thousands, of a standing army over 2 million - to an area whose population is approximately 10 million? Let's do the math: 10,000,000 / 130,000 (the only solid number I saw) = 1 troop for every 77 members of the most directly afflicted population. Which doesn't sound that bad, until you consider the figure that in some areas, as much as 80% of the buildings collapsed. Wow. Sounds like North Korea, able to explode nuclear devices (with the unspoken intent of threatening South Korea with the prospect of nuking Seoul (a city of 14 million) - I mean really, if you were Kim Jong Il and you had a nuke, where would you aim it?) but unable to prevent millions of their own people of dying from starvation. Or the US for that matter - Hurricane Katrina and where is the military? Afghanistan? Iraq?

Among the comments, the usual trash - Westerners exploiting tragedy to condemn China (an activity enjoyed, ironically enough, by neo-liberals and neo-cons as well), Chinese exploiting the tragedy and the slanted anti-Chinese Western bias (again, liberal and conservative alike) to proliferate their own propaganda, Dalai Lama supporters doing what they do, Chinese and American Christians (i.e. - the two groups that feel most threatened by the Dalai Lama), and modern western intellectual atheists bashing the Dalai Lama - using historical facts of course, but with a frivolous and misleading rhetorical bias....my God, is anyone still sane in the world?

Two wrongs do not make a right. A and B do not exist in a binary opposition by which if A is correct, than B is wrong, or vice versa.

Nothing can be properly understood outside it's social, political, and economic context.

Perhaps the two greatest impediments to legitimate analysis are 1) projecting specifics (however accurate) into generalizations, and 2) telescoping general statements, understandings, etc. (however accurate) into specifics.

Reading from the article to the bottom of the comments, the Dalai Lama took a wild trip from "saintly" to "Communist collaborator" to "feudal tyrant" and many stops in between. Instead of throwing rocks at each other, let's focus on the bigger picture, shall we?

1) The Dalai Lama, although he was a religious figurehead of an exploitative feudal system, cannot be held responsible for all abuses of power which occurred during his time in power.

2) To what degree he was a figurehead and to what degree he was not should be properly researched and understood in proper historical context before anyone makes any accusations about his tyranny or claims about his saintliness. Regardless, one has to admit that however saintly he might be/might have been, there's only so much that can be done in terms of social justice by anyone.

3) To the Chinese who are saying "If the Dalai Lama is so "saintly" why isn't he doing more to help the earthquake victims?" - what are you looking for? The Dalai Lama to chant mantras and lift buildings off of people, or to make a public announcement about how much money he will be giving to the Chinese government to aid the victims? Are either of these scenarios reasonable? Probable? They are all I can image within the field of what you seem to be hinting at.....

4) That the Dalai Lama was a ruler of one government when he left 1) does not make him a hypocrite or liar for proposing a different government for Tibet in the future. He's in a unique position to propose whatever he chooses when he's at the table with the Chinese government. To be sure, open democracy in Tibet would be difficult at this point, what with the transplantation of ethnic Han in Tibet. China certainly went out of its way to establish this difficulty and render the prospect of Tibetan autonomy nothing more appealing than either a disaster or a catastrophe. You can only dislocate so many natives with transplants before autonomy for the natives becomes an inherent tyranny over the transplants - or, depending on the numbers - vice versa.

5) Bad journalism is bad journalism. However, when there's a lack of sources, rumors and opinions become fact quite quickly. If China wants to be represented more fairly in the foreign press, let more foreign press into China. Don't expect good PR abroad from the newscorps you won't let into your country. News people are realists (when they're not making things up - perhaps we should call them cynics instead....) - when they don't have solid evidence, they assume the worst, rather than the best. Why? It sells. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it real.

6) When a journalist refers to the Chinese government as being goons and thugs, the Chinese government can resentment at being referred to as "goons and thugs" but it has no right to proliferate the misunderstanding that the journalist referred to the Chinese people as "goons and thugs." This is why the Chinese people have such a twisted view of history. This is why they are so "supportive" of the Chinese government. All they have every known is propaganda, to such a degree that - when the propaganda (by 'propaganda' I mean 'persuasive transmission of information both true and false) actually happens to be valid - because it's within the context of such an enormous, over-arching state agenda of manufactured consent - it can't really be said to have any value - passive consumption of a state-sponsored truth is as distorting as the passive consumption of a state-sponsored lie.

7) Yes, America/Western Europe, there is a sick irony to be seen here: The liberated free-market individual isn't very easily to mobilize in times of trouble. Brainwashed conformists who have no real notion of identity outside of "member of the state" are in many ways much more motivated to donate their time when it comes to these sorts of things, and the concept of 'profit-motive' - falling in the field somewhere between 'unlikely' and 'non-existant' (China being what it is - i.e. Communist) doesn't serve as an impediment towards (if such a thing exists) the human propensity to help others. Is humanitarianism not humanitarianism if it's inspired by a state apparatus of psychological control whose primary mechanism is fear, rather modern Western post-enlightenment liberal ideology?

8) Statements such as "How much money did you send?" and "What have you done to help?" are usually uttered by people who haven't provided any aid themselves, and the only people who feel hurt by them are the people who did help, and feel guilty about not having been able to have helped more. Such statements can be effective for raising funds or bodies for relief efforts, but with regards to discussion about politics, they are persuasive, rather than analytical - meaning that they are useless, misleading, and anyone using them in such a context immediately risks immediate self-invalidation.

9) Criticism and analysis should never betray the bias of the commentator. If it does, it should be considered invalid - completely and immediately. Really now, do you think anyone will take you the least bit seriously when your primary intent is stone-throwing, and journalistic/critical/analytical integrity is secondary?

I could go on and on, citing passages and so forth, but why bother?

Chris

Brown Bunny

2008-05-08T21:58:00.006+09:00

The following is an e-mail sent to my friend Bryan - my reactions to the film "Brown Bunny" by Vincent Gallo:

I finally got around to seeing Brown Bunny. I was expecting something much more shocking than what that second-to-last scene turned out to be. Is it that no one has ever gotten/given head before, or is it just that no one's seen it in a movie before? In all honesty, I was expecting Bud to strip naked, play with himself, and then hang himself, and Daisy to enter the room and suck off the penis of the dead body - so you can see why I wasn't shocked at all.

The scene was by no means gratuitous - it fits in perfectly well with the rest of the movie. The blurb on the back on the DVD case said something like, "culminating in the most shocking portrayal of male sexuality the cinema has ever seen..." - which is perhaps true, if what was meant by "male sexuality" was not an exposed penis getting off in a Hollywood movie star's mouth, but rather how Bud's incapacity/impotence to come to the aid of the woman he loved at her time of need resulted in trauma that left him 1) isolated and unable to relate to people in general, but more specifically, to women in any way other than as Daisy substitutes, and 2) unable to be intimate with women in any way any less vacuous than merely receiving some feminine consolation. The infamous blowjob scene, in which he finally yields to intimacy/vulnerability can be summarized as follows: She’s exposed/naked, he’s just enough exposed to receive pleasure (she receives none), and he ends up hating himself and her immediately afterwards. It’s pathetic in the most literal sense of the word – “deserving of pity” – and yet, I can’t help but equate Bud with stereotypical Western male sexuality – wounded and wounding, repressed and repressive, ashamed and ashaming, disgraced and disgracing. And despite it all, in a whole other sense, the incredible beauty of vulnerability.

It’s a shame that the buzz about the movie never got beyond cock, because it really is a powerful, subtle, and sensitive movie. That's what that whole thing was about with Gallo pimping himself on e-bay - he made a very insightful, powerful movie that had a blowjob in it - everyone missed that point, and took it for smut and shock value. He couldn't sell a sensitive, insightful movie about male sexuality either to Hollywood or the viewing public, because neither Hollywood nor the viewing public is capable of appreciating a subtle, insightful movie about male sexuality, so he pretended to sell himself and a pornstar gigolo, because that’s all that Hollywood and the American public can comprehend. Disgrace? What is disgrace? Maybe disgrace is what happens when we lose all of our aesthetic and/or emotional sensitivity.

Chris

"The Ochre Robe" - Agehananda Bharati

2008-04-12T02:51:00.003+09:00

First of all, I am trying to develop a new kind of humanism, one that values men but denies that the value of mankind is something beyond and above men....I visualize a radical syncretism, with no compromise between the mystical and the intellectual. I am convinced that meditation and intellectual humanism together can generate a unique combination which will eclipse the lop-sided, arid, 'scientific', non-involved scientism prevalent at Western academies...it will also avoid the equally slanted, anti-intellectual mysticism of much older date based on the mistaken ascription of ontological status to subjective experience...

- from the Introduction to "The Ochre Robe" by Agehananda Bharati

Naga Babas on Youtube

2008-04-12T02:48:00.002+09:00

I don't feel compelled to comment on this. I you feel strongly about this, in any way, you should read "The Ochre Robe" by Agehananda Bharati. Reserve words or judgment until after having done so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsTCuV8qZBA

Olympic Torch Protests

2008-04-10T20:08:00.005+09:00

I can't help but find all the fuss and protest surrounding the Olympic torch intriguing, if not outright validating.

What were the Olympics? What was their purpose? What have they become?

The first recorded games were held in 776 b.c.e. (although scholars have suggested dates for the first games ranging from 884 - 704 b.c.e.) - the games continued to be celebrated until 393 c.e.

As noted in Wkipedia:

The Olympics were of fundamental religious importance, contests alternating with sacrifices and ceremonies honouring both Zeus (whose colossal statue stood at Olympia), and Pelops, divine hero and mythical king of Olympia famous for his legendary chariot race, in whose honour the games were held.

Upon winning the games, the victor would have not only the prestige of being in first place but would also be presented with a crown of olive leaves. The olive branch is a sign of hope and peace.

The original games being held within Greece, the competition was never between rival countries, but rather, between rival athletes - and although the games were considered a celebration of the achievements of the human body, the ritual importance of the games and the olive branch crown suggest a greater importance being placed on the greatness (i.e. - the hope which compels continually towards the attainment of peace) which can potentially be attained through the joyful marriage of human will and divine grace.

It has not been until the revival of modern times that the Olympics have become a stage upon which the ugliness of nationalism has strutted about, seizing achievement from the athlete in order to beautify itself.

The modern Olympics has an interesting history of serving as another sort of international stage - one for boycott and protest. The "Olympics" entry in Wikipedia has some interesting information regarding this - I find the following to be very interesting in light of the recent torch-ceremony controversy:

Also in 1976, due to pressure from the People's Republic of China (PRC), Canada told the team from the Republic of China (Taiwan) that it could not compete at the Montreal Summer Olympics under the name "Republic of China" despite a compromise that would have allowed Taiwan to use the ROC flag and anthem. The Republic of China refused and as a result did not participate again until 1984, when it returned under the name "Chinese Taipei" and used a special flag.

So when the Mao Tse-tung and the communists drove the socialists off of mainland Asia onto the island known as Taiwan, the People's Republic of China considered "those people" unfit to refer to themselves as a "Chinese Republic" and they were refused entry to the "stadion" (Greek: "Στάδιον") by the entire global community until the ROC finally yielded to changing their name two Olypiads later. Tibet, on the other hand, 1) not identifying with the ideological precepts of communism, 2) having had a period of autonomous self-rule (however short-lived), 3) being ethnically distinct from the Han ethnic majority of China, and 4) speaking a language having stronger resemblance to Sanskrit than to either Mandarin or Cantonese, is being subjected to the iron fist of Chinese tyranny, and the media decries those around the world protesting the Olympics and disturbing the torch run as "detracting for the glory of the athletes and the games." [ed. note: quotes indicate a generalized, hypothetical yet typical speech of perceived public and media attention, not reference to the Wikipedia entry.]

A shady and checkered history indeed. Let's not forget the infamous "Nazi" Olympics of 1936, which rather than serving to commemorate the greatness (i.e. - the hope which compels continually towards the attainment of peace) which can potentially be attained through the joyful marriage of human will and divine grace, commemorated NAZI ideology and served as a backdrop for NAZI propoganda. The most brilliant achievement of those games was attained by Luz Long, a German track and field star who, having given advice to fellow long-jumper and fellow human being Jesse Owens (a black American), ensured that Owens would win the gold medal, rather than himself. Although no "proper" Olympic medal was awarded to Long to commemorate his shining victory over the numinous shadow of fascist ideology, he "was posthumously awarded the Pierre de Coubertin medal."

The salute delivered by German athletes during those games contrasts sharply with those delivered by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. I highly recommend checking the Wikipedia entry for the 1968 Olympics Black Power Salute:

IOC president Avery Brundage deemed a domestic political statement unfit for the apolitical, international forum the Olympic Games was supposed to be...A spokesperson for the organization said it was "a deliberate and violent breach of the fundamental principles of the Olympic spirit."

What does it mean to make a political statement? What does it mean to make a humanist statement? Slavery, lynching, rape, abduction, exploitation - these are humanist concerns. They become "political" when they are sanctioned by the State. That slavery, lynching, rape, abduction, exploitation have been sanctioned by the United States of America in various degrees ranging from legislative positivism (legality of slavery) to the outright conspiratorial (intentional non-treatment of black syphilis patients as a "scientific" experiment - an episode which went without apology from the U.S. government to the black community until President William J. Clinton) certainly renders the protest of such concerns "political," yet that by no means negates their relevance to the idea of humanism which we have come to consider to constitute "the fundamental principles of the Olympic spirit." Which is to say, humanist protest remains so even after becoming political.

Smith later said "If I win, I am American, not a black American. But if I did something bad, then they would say I am a Negro. We are black and we are proud of being black. Black America will understand what we did tonight."

Let's pause for a moment and consider why it is that the Olympics are such a conducive medium for the distasteful anti-humanism of nation-statism (as well as it's uglier brother, fascism) yet non-conducive as a medium for the athletes who, as individuals, take a stand for the unique and undimishable value of the experience of human existence (humanism)?

------------------

Did you pause?

------------------

Other items of note:

The leadership of IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch especially has been strongly criticised. Under his presidency, the Olympic Movement made great progress, but has been seen as autocratic and corrupt. Samaranch's ties with Franco's regime in Spain and his long term as a president (21 years, until he was 81 years old) have also been points of critique.

A BBC documentary aired in August 2004, entitled Panorama: "Buying the Games", investigated the taking of bribes in the bidding process for the 2012 Summer Olympics. The documentary claimed it is possible to bribe IOC members into voting for a particular candidate city.

It (the Olympic Movement) was accused of homophobia in 1982 when it successfully sued the Gay Olympics, an event now known as the Gay Games, to ban it from using the term "olympics" in its name.

Other links of note:
Olympic Project for Human Rights.

Dan Millman, "winner of the 1964 World Trampoline Championship in London" though not being an Olympian, was nonetheless an athlete of exception. Here are links to his Wikipedia entry and his personal site.

---------------------------

To say the least, I feel as though the modern Olympic games bear no relation whatsoever to the historical origin of the games (outside all considerations of athletics, of course). Rather, the games have come to embody not merely nationalism, nor fascism, but the supremacy of the State over the will of the individual, in the same Orwellian inversion by which tyranny prances about, all tarted-up, donning the garb of liberty and sleazy make-up, remaining nothing but a whore, that "political manipulation of language, by obfuscation, e.g. WAR IS PEACE...Using language to obfuscate meaning or to reduce and eliminate ideas and their meanings that are deemed dangerous to its authority." What has come to matter more than the achievement of the athlete, than the joint participation of so many diverse nations of the world, than the greatness (i.e. - the hope which compels continually towards the attainment of peace) which can potentially be attained through the joyful marriage of human will and divine grace - is the salute to the flags of nations, a ritual embracing perhaps the most intrinsic, pervasive human quality and its correlative tendency: Fear and the submission thereof. If I am reading the historical dialectic correctly, than the outward phenomenon of protest against the progress of the torch is in essence a protest against the globally-united State apparatus of fear. I have not yet fully renounced the making of politic statements. Nevertheless, if I had already done so, I would continue to write what I am about to write, as it would not constitute a political statement, but a humanist one: I am in full support of the "Peaceful Warriors," be they on the streets on London, be they on the streets of Paris, be they on the streets of San Francisco, be they on the streets of New York, Washington DC, Chicago, Mexico City, Lhasa, be they upon the winner's blocks of the 1968 Olympics, be they upon the bricks of the Square of the Gate of Heavenly Peace (otherwise known as Tiananmen Square, 天安门广场).

Let's expand the boycott and have done with this militaristic nonsense of medals altogether. Rather, let's make ourselves worthy of the olive-crown of hope and peace, thereby re-gaining the true essence of what it means to be an "Olympian" - may we all walk as "gods" upon the earth - as individuated embodiments of peace, light, and love.

-------------------------

I now provide a closing statement - written February 23, 2006:

One often hears talk of the world - that great nations have produced a great people, a great language, law, philosophy, literature, art, music, cuisine - all those things absent-mindedly aggregated to produce our vague notion of culture.

Yet just as one cannot suggest that the scoundrels and villains of a great nation are somehow greater than those of a nation of lesser calibre, it cannot be said that a great nation is capable of producing a great people. On the contrary, quite the opposite is true: It is the greatness of individuals which constitutes the apparent greatness of a nation.

Exceptional & extraordinary ones take birth, live and die the world over. If it can be said that a society is great, it must necessarily be on account of its capacity to allow greatness to be sown, to take root, to bud, blossom and flourish. Is the soil dark and rich? Or is it salty, bitter and pallid? Is the blue sky clear? Or hung heavy with jaundiced haze? Does it take to cloud and bestow its nourishing rain-bounty? Or miserly withhold its blessing? Is the environment amenable and generous, or populated by ravagers and rapists?

Society, by its very nature, inclines itself not towards Eden: Rather, let it not be said that a society is great - let it be known that it must necessarily be that those individuals of greatness, those exceptional and extraordinary ones - are able to manifest their greatness in spite of the adversities necessarily set against them by society. So simple for the children of the earth to be as gods! So extraordinary for the children of modernity!

Christopher

Favorite YouTube Clips

2008-04-06T10:33:00.003+09:00

Here are links to two recent favorite YouTube clips. Both are only for fans of rock music, and especially for fans of John Frusciante.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgy9eTs6fcY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRDS9n4cBPU

Song of the Heathkeeper, Lover, & Sleep

2008-04-06T01:56:00.000+09:00

Song of the Hearthkeeper, Lover, & Sleep

Knock, knock what closed -

once opened?

Perhaps never, perhaps yet.

Knock, knock closer.

Wish-you the hearth-keeper

attend this entreat

as to the whisperings

of a lover,

bedded & content?

(Know well it can only be so,

that such summons be heard!)

Closer, closer still,

holding a stillness -

suggestion of a breath

in the darkness:

Sigh,

porter of words

lost to the oblivious

realm of the day.

Buried - no, less buried than subtle,

the mysterious paisley

lost in the noise

of a teardrop.

(Distant from you,

the rain falls

into my empty shoes.)

Would you that he listen closer?

How much wish you so?

Be words there not formed of palette,

nevertheless, making a silent movement

within the stillness?

(Starlight, twisting a quickest 'round the earth

casting an affectionate eye upon moon -

back at us, either

she winks or she smiles - )

Closer, closer, moving closer -

the ear drawn towards

throat strings of chording -

Breath of a breeze, the stillness, such stillness -

Still, so still those strings be -

Breath -

Sleeping, her fingers lay upon them not.

Still, still closer? Still closer still?

Further, further still? Still further still?

Follow, then, follow the wind downwards,

that melody of the luminous rhythm

Follow, then , follow the stream -

whispers of cascading ripples,

towards the snow-glazed origin

of the still-most mountain

between the breasts,

towards the numinous cave

of the heart,

and still -

Breath, listen close, you, listen close -

hear you words?

Closer, closer, closer

Deeper, Deeper -

Silent.

Thought you that breath need carry some burden of word?

You're attention, the breath, she garnered -

you, blessedly mistaken,

not words, you

the breath -

she carried you.

She carried you

and lay you down -

having listened,

buried beneath contentment -

Sleep.

Would-you the hearth-keeper

listen so at his door?

So as to hear you -

so as to let you in?

Would you rap with knuckles,

or with fingers tenderly tap?

Place a rubbed-warm hand

upon the door -

in circles gently slide -

The rhythm, let it be festive,

The song, let it be sweet.

Protest in Tibet

2008-04-06T01:53:00.002+09:00

What is Freedom?
Notes on Freedom, Liberty, Revolution, & Evolution

For some, freedom means, "freedom to..." while for others, it means "freedom from..." Is this the same freedom? Either way, it must be acknowledged that freedom isn't conditional - it simply isn't freedom if it is qualified. So why do we need to qualify the word "freedom" in order to understand it? In truth, when we qualify the word, (any word), by our effort to be more specific, we lose our capacity to understand the concept - because the concept can only be understood in its totality. We define and define and define ourselves in the direction of specificity and misunderstand, in the direct opposite direction of generality, the essence, the true knowing.

The Dalai Lama has become an internationally recognizable icon of freedom because he is an exile, and petitions the people and governments of the world to aid him and his people with their struggle for freedom from the oppression of the Chinese government. He would like to see his people have the freedom to live and worship as they please.

How is the Dalai Lama different from any other exile? He is exiled from Tibet, to be sure – but he is also the Dalai Lama. To say that the Dalai Lama is exiled from Tibet is to say that the Buddha is exiled from consciousness. Properly understood from the perspective of Buddhist philosophy, Tibet is in the Dalai Lamas heart, and regardless where he may travel, at each moment he resides in Tibet. Tibet is the throne of his mind, at each moment he resides in Tibet.

The Dalai Lama is different because he is the only exile who, in a sense, doesn't really care. He comes to America and lectures to leftist college students who deride Christianity and other religions as being superstitious means of controlling the masses, (the exact same argument made by Mao Tse Tung to support the invasion of Tibet) - and they pander over him and lament his loss of freedom. The Chinese government has never been know to be very impressionable. I certainly doubt that China really has any regard for "the condemnation of the world for violations of human rights. (This was written over a year ago, before the recent controversy surrounding the protests in Tibet and the Beijing Olympics - yes, perhaps there is some concern, but after the Olympics have come and gone, I don't really expect much will have changed with respect to human rights in China.)

The Dalai Lama talks about Freedom - two, actually - the greater and the lesser, the unqualified Freedom and the qualified freedom to/freedom from , i.e. freedom for Tibet, freedom from China. The Dalai Lama is most concerned with Freedom. He is exiled from Tibet, yet at each moment he resides in Tibet. He lectures to Modern Westerners about Freedom. They are at home in the Modern West, yet they remain exiles from their own hearts, strangers from their own minds.

The Dalai Lama would certainly like to see Tibet, and all of the people of the world free from oppression, and free to worship however they may choose. As a boddhisattwa, he's made a vow to return from beyond the plane of this earthly existence, to suffer, and suffer, and teach, and teach, until every last soul in creation has attained freedom from the bondage of karma, the penultimate freedom, which leads to the final, unqualifiable freedom. He's been doing that for 14 lives as the Dalai Lama, and who knows for how long before that. He will continue to do so until each soul is shepharded through the gates. He wants to free our souls, and we buy a "Free Tibet" t-shirt and talk about how nice it would be if the nations of the world got together and adhered to trade sanctions to put economic pressure on China, and all this about the Olympic torch.

Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not a fan of oppression, authoritarianism, fascism, exploitation, etc. - I've just been wanting to provide a different perspective on this recent Dalai Lama/Buddhism/Tibet/China phenomenon which has been so prevalent these last few years - the contrast between the greater and lesser freedoms, as they co-exist within the public perception of who the Dalai Lama is - gives us valuable insight into the value and both freedoms and the dynamic nature of consciousness. It would be a shame to be entirely pre-occupied with only the material side of the curtain.

Aurobindo on Art

2008-04-06T01:43:00.000+09:00

"If Art's device is but to imitate Nature, then burn all the picture galleries and let us have instead photographic studios. It is because Art reveals what nature hides that a small picture is worth more than all the jewels of the millionaires and the treasures of the princes.

If you only imitate the visible Nature, you will perpetuate either a corpse, a dead sketch or a monstrosity; Truth lives in that which goes behind and beyond the visible and sensible."

- Aurobindo

You Will Find Me - Osho

2008-04-06T01:41:00.002+09:00

As far as I am concerned, I am simply making every effort to make you free from everybody - including me - and to just be alone on the path of searching. This existence respects a person who dares to be alone in the seeking of Truth. Slaves are not respected by existence at all...So remember, when I'm gone, you are not going to lose anything. Perhaps you may gain something of which you are absolutely unaware...I will be here in the winds, in the ocean; and if you have loved me, if you have trusted me, you will feel me in a thousand and one ways. In your silent moments you will suddenly feel my presence...wherever you are, your thirst, your love...and you will find me in your very heart, in your very heartbeat.

- Osho

Gospel According to Thomas

2008-04-06T01:29:00.003+09:00

I'm not sure where I found this - but I wanted to post it. It's the Gospel According to Thomas, one of the twelve original disciples of Jesus the Christ, who, following the crucifixion, traveled to India to establish the first Christian church there (I believe it is in Goa, although I could be mistaken...). And yes, I am fully aware the a majority of qualified and professional Biblical scholars doubt the authenticity of many of the extent gospels - so be it - they're still an interesting and thought-provoking read.

The following is a fresh translation, made from the Coptic text published by Messrs. Brill of Leiden. In the preparation of this versi the following six translations have been consulted, in addition to to published by Messrs. Brill: English by W. R. Schoedel, French by Doresse and R. Kasser, German by J. LeipoIdt and Hans Quecke Danish by S. Giversen. The numbering of the sayings is that of the Brill edition.

These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down.

(1) And he said: He who shall find the interpretation of the words shall not taste of death.

(2) Jesus said: He who seeks, let him not cease seeking until: finds; and when he finds he will be troubled, and if he is troubled, he will be amazed, and he will reign over the All.

(3) Jesus said: If those who lead you say unto you: Behold, the Kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will be before you. If they say unto you: It is in the sea, then the fish will be before you. But the Kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. When you know yourselves, then shall you be known, and you shall know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if ye do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty.

(4) Jesus said: The man aged in his days will not hesitate ask a little child of seven days about the place of life, and he shall live. For there are many first who shall be last, and they shall become a single one.

(5) Jesus said: Know what is before thy face, and what hidden from thee shall be revealed unto thee; for there is nothing hidden which shall not be made manifest.

(6) His disciples asked him and said unto him: Wilt thou that we fast? And how shall we pray? Shall we give alms? And what rules shall we observe in eating? Jesus said: Do not lie; and that which you hate, do not do. For all things are revealed before heaven. For there is nothing hidden which shall not be manifest, and there is nothing covered which shall remain without being uncovered.

(7) Jesus said: Blessed is the lion which the man shall eat, and the lion become man; and cursed is the man whom the lion shall eat, and the lion become man.

(8) And he said: Man is like a wise fisherman, who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a large good fish. He threw down all the small fish into the sea; he chose the large fish without trouble. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

(9) Jesus said: Behold, the sower went forth, he filled his hand, he cast. Some fell upon the road; the birds came and gathered them. Others fell on the rock, and sent no root down to the earth nor did they sprout any ear up to heaven. And others fell on the thorns; they choked the seed, and the worm ate them. And others fell on the good earth, and brought forth good fruit unto heaven, some sixty -fold and some an hundred and twenty -fold.

(10) Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze.

(11) Jesus said: This heaven shall pass away, and that which above it shall pass away; and they that are dead are not alive and they that live shall not die. In the days when you were eating that which is dead, you were making it alive. When you come in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you have become two, what will you do?

(12) The disciples said to Jesus: We know that thou wilt go from us. Who is he who shall be great over us? Jesus said to them: In the place to which you come, you shall go to James the Just for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.

(13) Jesus said to his disciples: Make a comparison to me, and tell me whom I am like. Simon Peter said to him: Thou art like a righteous angel. Matthew said to him: Thou art like a wise man of understanding. Thomas said to him: Master, my mouth will no wise suffer that I say whom thou art like. Jesus said: I am not thy master, because thou hast drunk, thou hast become drunk from the bubbling spring which I have measured out. And he took him, went aside, and spoke to him three words. Now when Thomas came to his companions, they asked him: What did Jesus say unto thee? Thomas said to them: If I tell you one of the words which he said to me, you will take up stones and throw them me; and a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up.

(14) Jesus said to them: If you fast, you will beget a sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do an evil to your spirits. And if you go into any land and travel in its regions, if they receive you eat what they set before you. Heal the sick among them. For that which goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which comes forth from your mouth, that is what will defile you.

(15) Jesus said: When you see him who was not born of woman, throw yourselves down upon your face and worship him. He is your Father.

(16) Jesus said: Perhaps men think that I am come to cast peace upon the world, and know not that I am come to cast divisions upon the earth, fire, sword, war. For there shall be five in a house; there shall be three against two, and two against three, the father against the son and the son against the father, and they shall stand as solitaries.

(17) Jesus said: I will give you that which eye has not seen, an ear has not heard, and hand has not touched, and which has not entered into the heart of man.

(18) The disciples said to Jesus: Tell us how our end shall be. Jesus said: Have you then discovered the beginning, that you seek after the end? For where the beginning is, there shall the end be. Blessed is he who shall stand in the beginning, and he shall know the end and shall not taste of death.

(19) Jesus said: Blessed is he who was before he came into being. If you become my disciples and hear my words, these stones shall minister unto you. For you have five trees in Paradise which do not move in summer or in winter, and their leaves do not fall. He who knows them shall not taste of death.

(20) The disciples said to Jesus: Tell us what the kingdom of heaven is like. He said to them: It is like a grain of mustard-seed, smaller than all seeds; but when it falls on the earth which is tilled, it puts forth a great branch, and becomes shelter for the birds of heaven.

(21) Mary said to Jesus: Whom are thy disciples like? He said They are like little children dwelling in a field which is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say: Yield up to us our field. They are naked before them, to yield it up to them and to give them back their field. Therefore I say: If the master of the house knows that the thief is coming, he will keep watch before he comes, and will not let him dig into his house of his kingdom to carry off his vessels. You, then, be watchful over against the world. Gird up your loins with great strength, that the brigands may not find a way to come at you, since the advantage for which you look they will find. May there be among you a man of understanding! When the fruit was ripe, he came quickly, his sickle in his hand, and reaped it. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

(22) Jesus saw some infants at the breast. He said to his disciples: These little ones at the breast are like those who enter into the kingdom. They said to him: If we then be children, shall we enter the kingdom? Jesus said to them: When you make the two one, and when you make the inside as the outside, and the outside as the inside, and the upper side as the lower; and when you make the male and the female into a single one, that the male be not male and the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then shall you enter [the kingdom].

(23) Jesus said: I shall choose you, one out of a thousand, and two out of ten thousand, and they shall stand as a single one.

(24) His disciples said: Teach us concerning the place where thou art, for it is necessary for us to seek after it. He said to them: He that hath ears, let him hear. There is a light within a man of light, and it gives light to the whole world. If it does not give light, there is darkness.

(25) Jesus said: Love thy brother as thy soul; keep him as the apple of thine eye.

(26) Jesus said: The mote which is in thy brother's eye, thou seest; but the beam which is in thine eye, thou seest not. When thou dost cast out the beam from thine own eye, then wilt thou see to cast out the mote from thy brother's eye.

(27) Jesus said: If you fast not from the world, you will not find the kingdom; if you keep not the Sabbath as Sabbath, you will not see the Father.

(28) Jesus said: I stood in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found them all drunk, I found none among them thirsting; and my soul was afflicted for the sons of men, for they are blind in their heart and they do not see. For empty came they into the world, seeking also to depart empty from the world. But now they are drunk. When they have thrown off their wine, then will they repent.

(29) Jesus said: If the flesh has come into being because of the spirit, it is a marvel; but if the spirit (has come into being) because of the body, it is a marvel of marvels. But as for me, I marvel at this, how this great wealth has settled in this poverty.

(30) Jesus said: Where there are three gods, they are gods; where there are two or one, I am with him.

(31) Jesus said: No prophet is acceptable in his village; a physician does not heal those who know him.

(32) Jesus said: A city that is built on a high mountain and fortified cannot fall, nor can it remain hidden.

(33) Jesus said: What thou shalt hear in thine ear, proclaim to the other ear on your roof-tops. For no man lights a lamp and sets it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place; but he sets it upon the lamp-stand, that all who go in and come out may see its light.

(34) Jesus said: If a blind man lead a blind man, both fall into a pit.

(35) Jesus said: It is not possible for anyone to go into the strong man's house and take it (or him) by force, unless he bind his hands; then he will plunder his house.

(36) Jesus said: Be not anxious from morning to evening and from evening to morning about what you shall put on.

(37) His disciples said: On what day wilt thou be revealed us, and on what day shall we see thee? Jesus said: When you unclothe yourselves and are not ashamed, and take your garments and lay them beneath your feet like little children, and tread upon them, then [shall ye see] the Son of the living One, and ye shall not fear.

(38) Jesus said: Many times have you desired to hear these words which I speak unto you, and you have none other from whom to hear them. Days will come when you will seek after me, and you will not find me.

(39) Jesus said: The Pharisees and the scribes have receive the keys of knowledge; they have hidden them. They did not go in, and those who wanted to go in they did not allow. But you be ye wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

(40) Jesus said: A vine was planted apart from the Father, and since it is not established it will be pulled up by its roots and destroyed.

(41) Jesus said: He who has in his hand, to him shall be given; and he who has not, from him shall be taken even the little that he has.

(42) Jesus said: Become passers-by.

(43) His disciples said to him: Who art thou, that thou shouldst say these things to us? Jesus said to them From what I say unto you, you do not understand who I am, but you have become as the Jews; for they love the tree and hate its fruit, and they love the fruit and hate the tree.

(44) Jesus said: He who blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and he who blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.

(45) Jesus said: They do not gather grapes from thorns, no pluck figs from camel-thistles; they do not yield fruit. A good man brings forth a good thing from his treasure; a bad man bring forth evil things from his evil treasure which is in his heart, and he says evil things; for out of the abundance of his heart he brings forth evil things.

(46) Jesus said: From Adam to John the Baptist there is none born of woman who is higher than John the Baptist, so that his eyes will not be broken (?) But I have said, He who shall be among you as a little one shall know the kingdom, and shall be higher than John.

(47) Jesus said: It is not possible for a man to ride two horses or draw two bows, and it is not possible for a servant to serve two masters; or he will honour the one and insult the other. A man does not drink old wine and immediately desire to drink new wine; and they do not pour new wine into old skins, lest they burst, nor do they pour old wine into new skins, lest it spoil. They do not sew an old patch on a new garment, for a rent will come.

(48) Jesus said: If two make peace with one another in this or house, they shall say to the mountain: Be moved, and it shall be moved.

(49) Jesus said: Blessed are the solitary and the elect, for you shall find the kingdom; for you came forth thence, and shall go there again.

(50) Jesus said: If they say to you: Whence have you come?, tell them: We have come from the light, the place where the light came into being through itself alone. It [stood], and it re- vealed itself in their image. If they say to you: Who are you?, say: We are his sons, and we are the elect of the living Father. If they ask you: What is the sign of your Father in you?, tell them: It is a movement and a rest.

(51) His disciples said to him: On what day will the rest of the dead come into being? And on what day will the new world come? He said to them: That which ye await has come, but ye know it not.

(52) His disciples said to him: Twenty-four prophets spoke in Israel, and they all spoke concerning (lit. in) thee. He said them: You have neglected him who is alive before you, and have spoken about the dead.

(53) His disciples said to him: Is circumcision profitable or not? He said to them: Were it profitable, their father would beget them from their mother circumcised. But the true circum- cision in spirit has proved entirely profitable (lit.: has found usefulness altogether).

(54) Jesus said: Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven.

(55) Jesus said: He who shall not hate his father and his mother cannot be my disciple, and (he who does not) hate his brethren and his sisters and take up his cross like me shall not be worthy of me.

(56) Jesus said: He who has known the world has found corpse, and he who has found a corpse, the world is not worthy of him.

(57) Jesus said: The kingdom of the Father is like a man who had [good] seed. His enemy came by night, he sowed a weed among the good seed. The man did not allow them to pull up the weed. He said to them: Lest perhaps you go to pull up the weed, and pull up the wheat with it. For on the day of harvest the weeds will be manifest; they will be pulled up and burned.

(58) Jesus said: Blessed is the man who has suffered; he has found the life.

(59) Jesus said: Look upon the living One so long as you live, that you may not die and seek to see him, and be unable to see.

(60) They saw a Samaritan carrying a lamb going into Judaea. He said to his disciples: Why does he carry the lamb? They said to him: That he may kill it and eat it. He said to them: So long as it is alive he will not eat it, but if he kill it and it become a corpse. They said: Otherwise he will not be able to do it. He said to them: You also, seek for yourselves a place within for rest, lest you become a corpse and be eaten.

(61) Jesus said: Two shall rest upon a bed; one shall die, the other live.

Salome said: Who art thou; O man? And whose son? Thou hast mounted my bed, and eaten from my table. Jesus said to her I am he who is from that which is equal; to me was given of the things of my Father. Salome said I am thy disciple. Jesus said to her Therefore I say, when it is equal it will be filled with light, but when it is divided it will be filled with darkness

(62) Jesus said: I tell my mysteries to those [who are worthy of my] mysteries. What thy right hand shall do, let not thy left hand know what it does.

(63) Jesus said: There was a rich man who had many possessions. He said: I will use my possessions that I may sow and reap and plant, and fill my barns with fruit, that I may have need of nothing. These were his thoughts in his heart. And in that night he died. He that hath ears, let him hear.

(64) Jesus said: A man had guests, and when he had prepared the dinner he sent his servant to summon the guests. He came to the first; he said to him: My master summons thee. He said: I have money with some merchants. They are coming to me in the evening. I will go and give them orders. I pray to be excused from he dinner. He went to another; he said to him: My master has summoned thee. He said to him: I have bought a house, and they ask me for a day. I shall not have time. He came to another; he aid to him: My master summons thee. He said to him: My friend is about to be married, and I am to hold a dinner. I shall not be able to come. I pray to be excused from the dinner. He went to another; he said to him: My master summons thee. He said him: I have bought a village; I go to collect the rent. I shall not be able to come. I pray to be excused. The servant came, he said to his master: Those whom thou didst summon to the dinner have excused themselves. The master said to his servant: Go out to the roads. Bring those whom thou shall find, that they may dine. The buyers and the merchants [shall] not [enter] the places of my Father.

(65) He said: A good man had a vineyard. He gave it to husbandmen that they might work it, and he receive its fruit their hand. He sent his servant, that the husbandmen might give him the fruit of the vineyard. They seized his servant, they beat him, and all but killed him. The servant came (and) told his master. His master said: Perhaps they did not know him. He sent another servant; the husbandmen beat the other also. Then the master sent his son. He said: Perhaps they will reverence my son. Those husbandmen, since they knew that he was the heir the vineyard, they seized him (and) killed him. He that hath ears, let him hear.

(66) Jesus said: Teach me concerning this stone which the builders rejected; it is the corner -stone.

(67) Jesus said: He who knows the All but fails (to know) him-self lacks everything.

(68) Jesus said: Blessed are you when they hate you, and persecute you, and do not find a place in the spot where they persecuted you.

(69) Jesus said: Blessed are they who have been persecuted in their heart; these are they who have known the Father in truth. Blessed are they that hunger, that they may fill the belly him who desires.

(70) Jesus said: When you bring forth that in yourselves, that which you have will save you. If you do not have that in yourselves, that which you do not have in you will kill you.

(71) Jesus said: I will des[troy this] house, and none shall able to build it [again].

(72) [A man said] to him: Speak to my brethren, that they may divide my father's possessions with me. He said to him: O man, who made me a divider? He turned to his disciples (and) said to them: I am not a divider, am I ?

(73) Jesus said: The harvest indeed is great, but the labourers are few; but pray the Lord, that he send forth labourers into the harvest.

(74) He said: Lord, there are many about the well, but no one in the well.

(75) Jesus said: There are many standing at the door, but the solitary are they who shall enter the bridal chamber.

(76) Jesus said: The kingdom of the Father is like a merchant was who had a load (of goods) and found a pearl. That merchant was wise. He sold the load, and bought for himself the pearl alone. You also, seek after his treasure which does not perish but endures, where moth does not enter to devour, nor does worm destroy.

(77) Jesus said: I am the light that is over them all. I am the All; the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me. Cleave a (piece of) wood: I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there.

(78) Jesus said: Why came ye forth into the field? To see reed shaken by the wind? And to see a man clothed in soft raiment? [Behold, your] kings and your great men are they who are clothed in soft [raiment], and they [shall] not be able to know the truth.

(79) A woman in the crowd said to him: Blessed is the womb which bore thee, and the breasts which nourished thee. He said to her: Blessed are they who have heard the word of the Father and have kept it in truth. For there shall be days when you will say: Blessed is that womb which has not conceived, and those breasts which have not given suck.

(80) Jesus said: He who has known the world has found the body, and he who has found the body, the world is not worthy of him.

(8 I ) Jesus said: He who has become rich, let him become king, and he who has power let him deny.

(82) Jesus said: He who is near to me is near the fire, and he who is far from me is far from the kingdom.

(83) Jesus said: The images are revealed to the man, and the light which is in them is hidden in the image of the light of the Father. He shall be revealed, and his image is hidden by his light.

(84) Jesus said: When you see your likeness, you rejoice; but when you see your images which came into being before you -- they neither die nor are made manifest -- how much will you bear?

(85) Jesus said: Adam came into being out of a great power and a great wealth, and yet he was not worthy of you. For if he tad been worthy, he would not have tasted of death.

(86) Jesus said: [The foxes have] the[ir holes] and the birds have [theirs nest, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head and rest.

(87) Jesus said: Wretched is the body which depends upon a body, and wretched is the soul which depends on these two.

(88) Jesus said: The angels come to you, and the prophets, and they shall give you what belongs to you; and you also, give the what is in your hands, and say to yourselves: On what day do they come and take what is theirs?

(89) Jesus said: Why do you wash the outside of the cup? Do you not understand that he who made the inside is also he who made the outside?

(90) Jesus said: Come unto me, for easy is my yoke and my lordship is gentle, and you shall find rest for yourselves.

(91) They said to him: Tell us who thou art, that we may believe in thee. He said to them: You test the face of the heaven and the earth, and him who is before you you do not know, and you know not to test this moment.

(92) Jesus said: Seek, and ye shall find; but those things concerning which ye asked me in those days, I did not tell you then. Now I wish to tell them, and ye seek not after them.

(93) Jesus said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs, lest they cast them on the dung- heap; cast not the pearls to the swine lest they grind it [to bits].

(94) Jesus [said]: He who seeks shall find, and he who knock to him it shall be opened.

(95) [Jesus said]: If you have money, do not lend at interest, but give [it] to him from whom you will not receive them back.

(96) Jesus [said]: The kingdom of the Father is like a woman who took a little leaven and [hid] it in meal; she made large loaves of it. He that hath ears, let him hear.

(97) Jesus said: The kingdom of the [Father] is like a woman; carrying a jar full of meal and walking a long way. The handle the jar broke; the meal poured out behind her on the road. She was unaware, she knew not her loss. When she came into her house, she put down the jar (and) found it empty.

(98) Jesus said: The kingdom of the Father is like a man who wanted to kill a great man. He drew the sword in his house and drove it into the wall, that he might know that his hand would be strong. Then he slew the great man.

(99) The disciples said to him: Thy brethren and thy mother are standing outside. He said to them: Those here who do the will of my Father, these are my brethren and my mother; these are they who shall enter into the kingdom of my Father.

(100) They showed Jesus a gold piece and said to him: They who belong to Caesar demand tribute from us. He said to them: What belongs to Caesar give to Caesar, what belongs to God give to God, and what is mine give unto me.

(101) Jesus said He who shall not hate his father and: mother like me cannot be my [disciple], and he who shall [not] love [his father] and his mother like me cannot be my [disciple]; for my mother [. ..] but my true [mother] gave me life.

(102) And Jesus said: Woe to them, the Pharisees! For they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of the cattle; for he neither eats, nor does he let the cattle eat.

(103) Jesus said: Blessed is the man who knows in what part the robbers are coming, that he may rise and gather his [domain] and gird up his loins before they come in.

(104) They said [to him]: Come, let us pray today and fast. Jesus said: What then is the sin that I have done, or wherein have I been vanquished? But when the bridegroom comes forth from the bridal chamber, then let them fast and pray.

(105) Jesus said: He who shall know father and mother shall be called the son of a harlot.

(106) Jesus said: When you make the two one, you shall become sons of man, and when you say: Mountain, be moved, it shall be moved.

(I07) Jesus said: The kingdom is like a shepherd who had hundred sheep. One of them, the biggest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine and sought after the one till he found it. When he had laboured, he said to the sheep: I love thee more than the ninety-nine.

(I08) Jesus said: He who shall drink from my mouth shall become like me; I myself will become he, and the hidden thing shall be revealed to him.

(109) Jesus said: The kingdom is like a man who had in his field a [hidden] treasure about which he did not know; and [after] he died he left it to his [son. The] son also did not know; he took (possession of) that field and sold it. The man who bough it came to plough, and [found] the treasure. He began to lend money at interest to whomsoever he chose.

(110) Jesus said: He who has found the world and become rich, let him deny the world.

(111) Jesus said: The heavens shall be rolled up and the earth before your face, and he who lives in the living One shall neither see death nor (fear); because Jesus says: He who shall find himself, of him the world is not worthy.

(112) Jesus said: Woe to the flesh which depends upon the soul; woe to the soul which depends upon the flesh.

(113) His disciples said to him: On what day will the kingdom come? : It cometh not with observation. They will not say: Lo, here! or: Lo, there! But the kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.

(114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The Gospel according to Thomas.

In Defense of Charlie Bukowski

2008-04-06T01:05:00.005+09:00

One morning I received an e-mail from a friend who, while researching Charles Bukowski, ran across a blog lambasting Bukowski and his work. He sent me a link, I read it, and wrote a response. I sent the response to my friend, and to him only. I had written it intending to send it to the author, but, on account of the tone - more snide, sarcastic and pedantic than I'm willing to not be ashamed of, I decided not to. Time has passed, and I feel ok about presenting it here, in this way, with this forward - and substantial editing. God forgive me.

The post seems to have originated in the Netherlands, written by a college student and speaker of English as a second language of Indian descent. There were numerous references to Indian aesthetics. I read into this as an example of Indian cultural chauvanism, and responded to it in kind with references to my own interest in Indian philosophy and aesthetics. What was most distressing was the apparent lack of familiarity with American culture, the corpus of Bukowski's work, his life, and very basic nuances of the English language and writing in general which constitute a necessary prerequisite for saying anything as harsh and severe as what was written about Charlie. Here is the link to the original post:

http://wendelin.blogspot.com/2007/01/open-letter-to-india-uncut-and-admirers.html

And here is my response:

Nandini,

This morning I received an e-mail from a friend of mine, which expressed some degree of shock and dismay, and a link to your blog. Curious, I followed the link to see what the fuss was all about.

I must admit that I agree with him. I must also admit that I must agree with you. Am I a hypocrite or a fool? Neither. Rather, I am a student of aesthetics (especially literature) and philosophy, and for those who are interested in half truths, a reality half-constructed of lies is quite sufficient. I’m not concerned with what others consider to be truths and lies – my understanding is that the largest picture is more valid than the smaller picture.

The difficulty in reading your statement is that you seem to be making multiple claims, and some of which have no relevance to the others at all:

“Plain prose with capitals removed and broken up randomly into uneven lines doesn't magically transform itself into poetry.”

This sounds like your railing against all poetry which does not use rhyme and meter. There are many, very widely respected poets who do not use rhyme and meter. There are also many who, over the course of history, have faithfully maintained the technical expectations of the art of their interest and in their day, and although what they wrote could technically be described as poetry, if you refuse to call what Bukowski has written “poetry,” then I can refuse to call anything Alexander Pope has written “poetry.” He was a technician – a grammarian, a wordsmith, but not a poet. I would trust Alexander Pope to fix my car, but I would not take him into my confidence as a friend. Which is not to say that all of my friends are necessarily nice people. What I mean to say is that just as one can write a poem which is technically flawless, but without any heart or soul, so it is the case that a writer can produce a poem which is either entirely flawed from a technical standpoint, but having heart and soul, is very beautiful. Have you read any haikus! They are some of the most boring and the most thrilling poetry ever written! There is a tendency to admire the beautiful flower in the beautiful glass-blown vase, and ignore the flower growing wild in the field. Furthermore, this making a distinction between the poetry of technique and the poetry of feeling may potentially give us some insight into what Bukowski is trying to say. Another look at the poem:

don't be like so many writers,

don't be like so many thousands of

people who call themselves writers,

don't be dull and boring and

pretentious, don't be consumed with self-

love.

the libraries of the world have

yawned themselves to

sleep

over your kind.

What seems to be the most important line? To my eye, “don’t be consumed with self-love” is the most important line. How might we transcribe that line into non-poetic prose? “Don’t allow your writing to be a vehicle for you egotism. Don’t write because you want to be famous, to prove that you’re smarter than others, to prove that you have more skill than others.” The deeper implication is that people who write because they are driven and compelled to write live life in a similar manner, and that those who write because of egotistical motivations live life….in a similar manner.

Going on, you state: “Free verse does not free the poet from the demands of beauty.”

“Demands of Beauty” is an entirely persuasive term, which says nothing of any value to anyone except for your tastes or specific proselytizing stance. It assumes that Beauty has made certain demands on art, to which all who claim to enjoy or produce art must prostrate in supplication. And I thought a young tree is beautiful because it yields to the wind? (What sort of a fool was I? Maybe I should think that the wind is like Beauty, because it is a force to which the poem-tree must bow?) "Beauty" is a very dangerous word in aesthetic criticism. Rhetoric is also very dangerous.

Further:

“Did you perchance take a look at Charlie's bio? It exposes him as the rankest hypocrite:

[In 1941 he] left school and moved to New York City to become a writer. His lack of publishing success at this time caused him to give up writing in 1946 and spurred a ten-year stint of heavy drinking. After he developed a bleeding ulcer, he decided to take up writing again. He worked a wide range of jobs to support his writing, including dishwasher, truck driver and loader, mail carrier, guard, gas station attendant, stock boy, warehouse worker, shipping clerk, post office clerk, parking lot attendant, Red Cross orderly, and elevator operator. He also worked in a dog biscuit factory, a slaughterhouse, a cake and cookie factory, and he hung posters in New York City subways. Bukowski ... began writing poetry at the age of thirty-five.”

Quite frankly, I completely fail to see anything hypocritical about this. A hypocrite is someone who says one thing (for example, taking a moral stance), yet acts contrary to how he has spoken. Furthremore, this is a pretty bad biography. First of all, he was a heavy drinker before he even started to attempt to become published, and continued to be a heavy drinker until his death. His drinking had nothing to do with either his motivation to write or not to write. The inability to support oneself by getting published, the necessity to spend a large amount of one’s time at a day job does not disqualify anyone as a poet. William Blake was an etcher and lithography by profession, a writer on the evenings and weekends. Otherwise, he would have starved and died. Was William Blake not a poet? William Carlos Williams wrote poems on the cuffs of his shirt on the subway to his job. Was he not a poet? Does it matter that Bukowski didn’t start writing poetry until after 35? Is it unacceptable that a writer should choose to focus on one genre rather than another at some point in life? Thomas Hardy wrote novels because he needed the money, and once he got enough money, retired from novels to write poetry. Why do you think Dickens wrote so much? He was being paid by the word.

So what of this charge of hypocrisy? Let me suggest that success and failure are both relative. I can consider myself a successful poet if I get published, or I can consider myself a successful poet if writing poetry is an activity which validates my existence. Perhaps an artist isn’t someone who can do something, but who feels compelled to create, as though creation is the very essence of their existence. Who do you think writes better poetry? The psychological profile of the jealous artist is interesting, but the trouble with calling anyone a hypocrite (and I’ve discovered this myself, through my own error and observation) is that it is an easy coin to flip: Are you so sure that you’re not railing against Bukowski because he was a successful (published) drunk, and that you are an unknown, although perhaps very talented (sober) poet? Does it matter? It shouldn’t if you write to validate your existence, because when you write to validate your existence, everything you write validates your existence, whether it is good or bad. All true artists know this. (When the yogi has attainted the siddhi of satya all he speaks is Truth, even of those things which have not yet occurred. Thus the poet is the prophet of the soul.)

“Is there any doubt that this poem, this marvellous poem urging others NOT TO WRITE, is of the same breed?”

Well, let’s look again to the poem. Is Bukowski really asking others NOT TO WRITE? I simply don’t see it. I seem him asking folks not to write things that are dull, boring, and pretentious (Alexander Pope, are you listening?) I also see him making a distinction between writers and non-writers, between those who write because it is the very essence of their existence, and those “people who call themselves writers” but who are in fact writing as an expression of being consumed with self-love. Once again, we have to ask the question: Is this poem about writing or life? If a writer is someone who has to write, and someone for whom every word is vital and exciting, and a non-writer is someone who does not have to write, but can (anyone who is literate), how can it be that he is urging writer’s not to write? The true writer doesn’t have any choice. Is it logically feasible to ask someone who already isn’t, not to be? If you’re not an artist, Bukowski, or anyone else, really, cannot ask you not to be one. That would simply be redundant. What Bukowski seems to be suggesting when he uses the word, “pretentious” is that people go about their lives with some sort of integrity by cultivating a sense of self-awareness about who they are. He is not urging people not to be artists, but to pursue the non-aesthetic art of developing an authenticity of one’s character. For the writer, writing is the means for developing this authenticity. For the gardener, the garden. To each his own. Neither his own taste, nor his own capacity, but just: most effective means of moving in the direction of one’s authentic self. Bukowski is probably quite aware that “a boring book can be shut” but if a person is living their life in a way that is the very embodiment of ugliness, isn’t that a curse upon everyone who such a person happens to meet? Including, and especially, that very person?

In his own way, Bukowski is not really special, no different from all other artists. He is obsessively preoccupied with the task that all other artists are: Urging others to, as the Sufis would have it, “Die before death to be reborn within life…” or as Judaic scholars would have it, to multiply life by itself, to live as life itself has been squared, or as the Katha Upanishad suggests, “Arise, awake, and gain knowledge.”

Hemmingway? Hemmingway was also a drunk, and he blew his head off. Remember? Two drunks, one you claim to be a hypocrite because he was a drunk and at first, an unsuccessful (unpublished) writer, and another, who was a drunk, and a successful (published) writer, and then a suicide. What sort of act is suicide but hypocrisy? Suicide is the very epitome of hypocrisy! Bukowski died a peaceful man. His later writing is very peaceful, he aged very well, he became comfortable with himself and life. Even so, he kept writing, and he kept drinking, so he wasn’t a hypocrite for being a drunk and a writer, because he kept doing both at the same time, and he kept doing both after he became successful. I read a poem he wrote in which he railed against his own fans who had the nerve to call him a hypocrite, because his wasn’t writing anguished poetry anymore: “What do you mean I got old, and sold-out - I’m still drinking three bottles of wine a day!” (That was a paraphrase, of course – I don’t happen to have the original with me at the moment.) Hemmingway, well, he blew his head off. Was he a better writer, because he managed to become famous and a drunk at the same time, and because he became famous writing prose instead of poetry (you realize that by comparing the two, you’re comparing apples to oranges in the first place)? It doesn’t really matter. A person writes during the course of their life for their own reasons, and literature is studied, critiqued, and hopefully, amidst all of the polemic, enjoyed. However, the life of a writer cannot ever validate or invalidate the value of the writer’s work. This idea that biography validates art is an inherently moralistic notion which has notion to do with aesthetics. Does it matter that Michelangelo was a homosexual? Or Walt Whitman, or Plato, for that matter? Plato’s skill in debate and the acuteness of his logic would have pleased Shankaracharya. Yet still there are many who make such assumptions conflating biography and aesthetic value.

Frankly, I appreciate the work of many drunks, homosexuals, madmen, scoundrels, of many saints, sages, and mystics. Antonin Artaud is on my bookshelf right next to Tagore, and the autobiography of that madman-homosexual-scoundrel-mystic Salvador Dali is right next to Yogananda’s “Autobiography of a Yogi.” You are correct in stating that “History is rife with examples of writers who slaved, bled, wept and tortured themselves to get the words out, and we are so much the richer for their work.” But it must be remembered that Hemingway was writing at the typewriter all six hours, even though he only produced six sentences. Again, we must remember the distinction between writing and a writer. For a writer, writing is the essence of existence, irrespective of the number of words. For the non-writing attempting to write like a true writer, there is just the continual effort to fill the blank page with pretense, albeit a pretense which one might slave over in order to make it appear to others (or rather, oneself) as “authentic.” Furthermore, if we are to dismiss all writing and other art and knowledge produced by madmen, drunks, and scoundrels as being “invalid” or “illegitimate,” what an enormous loss that would be!

“Who was it that said, "Writing is easy. You just put a blank sheet of paper in the typewriter and open a vein." Easy writing makes hard reading. Like that poem.” The writer who said that “Writing is easy…” was, I am quite sure, as a native English speaker, English teacher, and aesthetician and poet – sarcastic. A literary device which, judging by your comment, “Easy writing makes hard reading. Like that poem” you seem to have missed entirely. The writer is not saying that writing is easy. The writer is using the first sentence for contrast – it puts the reader at ease, expecting to receive another bland truism about writing, only to follow with a rather shocking, violent image of someone opening a vein. Which is a way of saying, “it’s easy – you just have to look death in the eye without flinching and get the experience onto the paper.”

Your refutation of the poetic value of Bukowski should very well be dismissed on this point alone – you don’t seem to have a keen enough grasp on the English language to make this aesthetic criticism. You can criticize the grammar, you can analyze the style, but you simply can’t handle the aesthetic aspect of English poetry yet, and you certainly don’t know enough about the development of art within the context of American culture and particularly 20^th century history. And to dismiss the value of Bukowski’s life and poetry, after having read, so it seems to me, only one poem and a hackneyed, ideologically slanted, paragraph-long biography (Where exactly did you find it? www.ihatebukowski.com), is vulgar and irresponsible. Rhetoric is dangerous - a little skill with rhetoric places the power of persuasion in the hands of fools.

Finally, let me say that to some degree, I agree with you. I don’t believe that dismissing poetic convention makes a good poet. And there are those who write prose, remove capitalization, hit the return key eccentrically, and call themselves a poet. I used to do that. Sometimes I wrote that way, and sometimes when I wrote, it wasn’t that way. I stopped writing when it wasn’t completely and absolutely true, or real, or coming from the deepest part of me. I only write about poem a year, but when I do, it is such a powerful experience that my body is shaking, and I don’t know who or what is guiding my hand. And the poem is beautiful. Or it’s beautiful to me, and I go on living, not concerned about whether it is good or not, or if I could get it published, or even considering if, having only written one poem in the last two years, instead of two poems in the last two years, I am still a poet or not. There are thousands of Jackson Pollocks imitators, and plenty of Emily Dickens imitators, but only one, legitimate Jackson Pollocks, and only one legitimate Emily Dickenson. Not because either of them were better writers or artists than those who imitated them – but because, through their art, they were living their own truth.

Have you wondered what Stephen King thought about Bukowski? Many people who love Bukowski think that King is a hack, and I have a feeling King himself is pretty keen on Bukowski…I’ve read enough Stephen King that I feel comfortable writing that. King is essentially saying that “The writer with blood on the typewriter (the one who has opened a vein) is the one who is taking writing seriously, not the technician or moralist. If one thing can be said about Bukowski, it’s this (and this is generally something that is agreed upon by those who both like and dislike him): He was a man with blood on his typewriter.

So what is poetry? Why do we call some writing “prose” and other writing “poetry?” It has nothing to do with technical considerations, and nothing to do with dismissing technical considerations…so it must have something to do with content. I used to make a lot of attempts to define what poetry is, and then I quit – the task seemed not worthy the effort. In hindsight, perhaps the best possible working definition of poetry is simply, “Appearing to say one thing, but saying another, by saying in a different but similar manner.” It does not matter whether or not the poem says something simple in a very elaborate way (which dogmatically adheres to contemporary convention) or if a poem is written by a drunk like Bukowski, who says very elaborate and beautiful things in very simple, plain, “unpoetic” language. It’s just another turn of the coin. But if we turn the coin, again and again, in every situation, every scenario, in the direction contrary to the inclinations of our egos, then maybe we can follow those divergent streams of happiness and sadness, upstream to that point of divergence where one becomes two, and know the two to be one, and, having had a taste of Creative Unity, can free ourselves from the silly mandates of “Beauty” and look upon the pleasant and the unpleasant with an equal and unflinching joy, recognizing each as manifestation of the infinite, and accepting them as such.

Chris

Swing T-Thru

2008-04-06T00:48:00.003+09:00

Today I purchased an electric guitar at the infamous Nakwon Musical Instruments Arcade in the Insadong area of Seoul - a neck-through Telecaster-style body produced by the Korean manufacturer "Swing Guitar Technology." It's a nicely made guitar - if you intend to buy an decent, low-cost electric guitar in Korea, from what I saw today - I would suggest either a Cort or Swing.

http://www.swingguitars.com/zoom/t-thru_l.html

Bedlam in Goliath: A Commentary

2008-04-05T23:45:00.004+09:00

Tuesday, January 29th, 2008, progressive-rock band The Mars Volta (http://www.themarsvolta.com) released an album entitled, "Bedlam in Goliath." The album was inspired by the alleged discovery and subsequent experimentation with a ouija-style talking board which they dubbed "The Soothsayer." Details are available on the Wikipedia site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedlam_in_Goliath, and also on The Mars Volta's website.

What follows are some notes written to a friend who, after having a few listens to the album, asked me, "So what are they singing about?"

What I get from what I’ve read and the lyrics is that there are three spirits attached to the board – they can all express themselves as individuals, but a fourth figure emerges, which is a complex of all three – or perhaps, not so much the three of them, but the essence of the relationship between them (other characters also appear – “Patience Worth,” “Mr. Mugs,” “Tourniquet Man” - perhaps different facets of the relationship). The composite voice, dubbed “Goliath” is described as being starved – as one lyrics goes “What have you brought for my appetite?” What Goliath seems to hunger for is manifestation in the material plane - Goliath wants to be incarnated again. The band is fascinated by this, and strings him along – not giving Goliath what Goliath wants, but enough attention to keep the interaction going. Besides, Goliath has the story to tell, the story of the love triangle – a story which becomes more detailed and more complex – so Goliath tries to draw the band in deeper and deeper by elaborating on the story, hoping to pull them in and get from them what Goliath wants. The band wants the story, they want the details, they want to continue the experimentation and communication, but they don’t want to give in to Goliath’s demands. So Goliath starts to get impatient, and that’s what causes the ill events to start happening to the band. “It’s only a matter of folding time and space / before I become your epidemic” is Goliath threatening the band to do his bidding.

The guitarist, Omar, was once asked in an interview about the sorts of decisions he makes regarding the bands musical direction. His response was something to the extent of, “I just keep listening to the spirits that are guiding me and continue to do what they tell me.” Cedric, the singer, is a conflicted Catholic – appearing to have given up entirely on the silly superstitiousness of Christianity – except for the fact that he can’t stop singing about it.

I think the connection between the Soothsayer and the Christian imagery in the album artwork (the artwork has several details from the passion of Christ) has something to do with this conflict between awareness of the spiritual world and the refusal of Christianity – sort of a “well, like it or not, Cedric, certain things are happening on the other side of the curtain – you couldn’t deal with it when you didn’t see it, you were perpetually haunted the “superstitions” of others. Now a situation has arisen in which you are forced to acknowledge certain phenomenon, that which was once concealed behind the curtain is emerging on this side of manifestation. What are you going to do? How are you going to be?”

I had a silly idea about writing a phony psychiatric article very scientifically explaining how anyone who believes global warming is a myth conconcted by a liberal conspiracy camp is clinically neurotic. To dismiss the evidence that has been presented by this point in history is simply not possible for a sane mind.

I sort of feel the same way about the other side of the curtain. By the turn of the century, if you still believed in God, you were pretty behind the times – really, God had been dead for some time at that point – the notion itself had already become rather passé. But now, at the dawn of the new millennium, what with the theory of relativity, quantum theory, the proliferation of holistic thinking and holistic approaches to living and being…I’m actually somewhat surprised when I meet people who seem to be sort of “with it” and are still talking about religion like communists, that tiresome “Religion is the opiate of the masses” sort of talk. Really, now – that was a 19^th century revelation – no one cares about religion anymore – the real issue now is spirituality – and not whether such a thing as the other side of the curtain exists – but what the other side of the curtain is all about (and ultimately, what this side of the curtain is all about, and how they relate.) It’s not that there’s nothing valuable about doubt or skepticism – it’s just that it’s an exercise, and at some point, there’s nothing left to gain, whereas when we accept that the other side of the curtain exists, a whole new realm of possibility opens up. One of the things I’m very fond of saying – that I can say actually constitutes part of my personal philosophy of life and being, is: The possibility of choice is that which is the essence of our existence. Even if the choice is illusory. I have found that in my own life, the refutation of the Divine has presented less possibility, less choice than otherwise. Others feel that to accept the possibility of the Divine is necessarily to deny free will, which is to limit (if not outright deny) the possibility of choice. Ultimately, it’s not something that’s determined by the structure of the universe, but by our own minds, our own conditionings, our own pretenses. I could never crawl into the smaller cage of Western Rationalism ever again. That’s like an aneurysm, it’s like restricting myself to only the left half of my brain. And to be existing in the material plane in 2008 and meeting people who at first seem to know what’s going on, yet still aren’t operating on this frequency surprises me. How many years after Galileo before it was somewhat embarrassing to get into a conversation with someone, only to discover that they still believed the world was flat?

“So Cedric, how’s it going to be?” Courting spirits – spirits which turned out to be malicious – forced the entire band to exercise free will. Previously, the existence of the spiritual world precluded the possibility of free will. Now, with the Soothsayer entering the picture, the existence of the spiritual world necessitated a particular type of exercise of free will – and by this necessitated exercise, provided an experiential proof either of the existence of free will or the benefit of operating under the pretense of free will, whether there exists a curtain, whether there is indeed another world behind the curtain, whether will is truly free or whether it is not.

So that, in a nutshell, is my take on what is happening, what they are singing about, on “Bedlam in Goliath.”

My Favorite Jews

2008-02-18T22:28:00.009+09:00

It is lamentable that there still remains those persistent and troublesome notions that 1) the Jewish "people", and/or 2) the Jewish religious tradition somehow, by some mystical mechanics, exerts negative psychic / psychological / political / cultural / genetic / moral / economic influences upon other, more "righteous" societies.

It is for this reason that I've decided to post this entry, a list of my favorite Jews. Feel free to suggest any others I might want to add - I drafted it rather quickly, so there might be some oversights. Bear in mind, just because Paula Abdul is famous, and would rightfully belong on a list of "Famous Jews," this is a list of "Favorite Jews," and although I don't dislike Paula Abdul, by the same measure, I can't really claim to be a fan. And yes, I'm well aware that I included Paul Simon, but excluded Art Garfunkel.

So here's the list:

eden ahbez, Woody Allen, Geoffrey Blank, Jason Blank, Michael Bloomfield, Marc Bolan, Martin Buber, Noam Chomsky, Ryan Chorney, Jesus the Christ, Leonard Cohen, Sacha Baron Cohen, Al Cooper, Chris Cornell, Jacques Derrida, Bob Dylan (born Robert Zimmerman), Albert Einstein, Uri Ely, Ernst Fuchs, Allen Ginsberg, Jeff Goldblum, Peter Green, Adam Horovitz, Ben Harper, Jorma Ludwik Kaukonen, Jr., Robby Krieger, Gary Lucas, Matisyahu, Gustav Meyrink, Randy Newman, Joey Ramone, Tamir Ratzon, Lou Reed, Marc Ribot, Andrew Schneider, Mark Silverbush, Shel Silverstein, Paul Simon, Hillel Slovak, Tom Stoppard, MCA (Adam Yauch)

Seongmodo Visit

2008-02-09T21:37:00.002+09:00

Wednesday took a tour of one of the West Isles, Seongmodo, with Edwin and Alexia. It was nice to get away from Hopyung for a day. After arriving and getting a lunch, we went to the main attraction - Bomunsa, a Buddhist temple-complex, which is "overlooked" by a large bas-relief of the Buddha, carved onto the face of the mountain.

Afterwards, went out for some decent Italian food, and called it a night. Oh, yeah, and I lost my cell phone. That will get taken care of, though...

I was going to add some photos, but then I realized that I took the highest quality shots, so it was taking forever to load them...I'll know better next time ;)

Smashing a Wine Bottle

2008-02-05T18:48:00.001+09:00

It's not seaworthy, but why not smash a wine bottle across this thing like they do in sailing circles?

This blog has been named after The Light at the Center: Context and Pretext of Modern Mysticism, by Agehananda Bharati.