Book of Mercy #11-15

[lazariuk]

Since this psalm (I.14) introduces Ishmael and a tacit reference to Islam, and since the word “covenant” has been bugging me here too, I thought of the Covenant of Alast from the Islamic tradition.

I think I see why your thoughts were led in this direction. I had never heard of the Covenant of Alast but it does seem to be a very important part of Islamic tradition especially amoung the mystics. I will look into it some more. I Like what I have read so far.
I came across this following passage

This covenant before time
itself between lover and Beloved is a source of such joy that its
recollection instantly intoxicates anyone who understands it. There is
a similar story in Jewish tradition: There was a man in a rural village
who knew neither reading nor writing, but who was famed for his pure
and holy faith. Still, knowing the dictum that an ignorant man cannot
be truly pious, he decided to learn the Torah and went to a teacher.
They got as far in the book of Genesis as the words Vayomer Elohim,
"And God said..." The holy man jumped up from his chair. "God spoke?
God spoke! God spoke to us!" he cried in ecstasy, dancing out of the
schoolroom and back to the forest. And that was the end of his lessons.

Cool story eh?

[Manna]

That is a cool story! Where, may I ask, did you find it?

[lazariuk]

That is a cool story! Where, may I ask, did you find it?

http://www-gatago.com/soc/religion/bahai/41866791.html

[Simon]

You can also find it word for word here:

http://www.commercemarketplace.com/home ... ussell.htm

I'm about 1/4 through reading this essay so far. I find that it is very much attuned to the spirit of our BoM threads. Still don't quite yet know where it is heading though.

[BoHo]

+/-

[linda_lakeside]

Leonard wrote of many beautiful and often paradoxical images. To understand life, I think, is to understand that it is not a one way street. We all travel both sides of the road to gain the perspective we need when we're on the 'other' side of the road. No one understands this more than Leonard, I don't think. He's 'been there, done that' - and all the wiser for it. I didn't read your post. I saw your pic and last night when I 'realized' well..my heart went out to the garbage and the flowers, knowing that ONE very important person would understand it all, the 'only one' who matters to we children not yet born.

Linda.

I planted this here, as its not likely our paths will cross again, wrong thread maybe?

[DBCohen]

The discussion seems to be going to and fro between I.14 and I.15. I’m trying to catch up after being away for a while. Here are some responses.

Jack wrote

I learned that Muslims covered themselves when they prayed and that tells me something very interesting about the way that they pray.

As far as I know, Moslems usually do not cover themselves when they pray. They take off their shoes, was their feet, hands and mouth, but they are not obligated to cover even their heads (talking about males, of course). Jews do cover themselves with a prayer shawl during morning prayers, and I should have mentioned that in my first discussion of I.14. It was Judith who found a relevant quotation connecting Ishmael and the prayer shawl (see her posting on p. 9 above).

Jack also wrote

Although it happened to me I don't really have a clue what this circumcision is about. I was hoping that Doron would write more about why that came to his mind when he saw the words "circled desire with a blade"

It probably wouldn’t have occurred to me if circumcision had not been mentioned twice before. But since desire is expressed through the male organ, and a blade is used for circumcision, the connection was made somehow. In the biblical story Ishmael was circumcised before Isaac was born; for Moslems circumcision is obligatory, as for Jews. I’m sure that line can have other interpretations as well.

Judith,

Welcome back to this thread. You wrote:

Doron, I defer to your knowledge of the thundernuts and lightningbolts of Judaism's sacred texts and the validity of the above-cited 'graphs since, although I, a Catholic, can understand the Ten Sefirot conceptually, I don't feel qualified to comment on these items' emanatoria [oooh, I like that] experientially (in the same way, say, I doubt you would be able to fully comprehend the ritual of the Stations of the Cross for yours truly).

Well, like Catholicism and other religions, Judaism has different trends and traditions that often disagree with each other. When looking for the Jewish background in BoM I’m trying to think what would be familiar to LC. He may or may not be aware of the specific Chabad interpretation you quoted (he said that he have used a bilingual prayer book issued by Chabad, but he did not mention reading their founder’s book). So it could be relevant, but not necessarily so. Sorry I don’t have a better answer at this moment. Also, what is interesting to me is not only to discover the sources he uses, but how he creates something new out of them, which becomes part of the long Jewish tradition (which like many other things in this tradition, some people would adopt and some reject).

Oh yes, and Tom Lehrer – eternal staff. Listen to his “Send the Marines” – written over 40 years ago and as if today, always relevant, this and many others of his pieces.

[BoHo]

+/-

[mat james]

“Emanation” is taken from Plotinus and Neo-Platonism, but in the Kabbalah it was used a little differently. DB Cohen

Thanks for the clarification, DB.
Emanation, creation, evolution--------all great words/concepts to contemplate.
Was this entity we call God, created?
Did it evolve?
Did it emanate from the void?
Is it (God) a "steady state" theory unto itself?
and so on.

The Chinese (through the Taoist text, Chuang Tzu) tell us that:
"Being cannot be produced by non-being."
"Therefore, (from their perspective) there is no time when there is no being; being eternally exists."
Yet Taoists deny the existence of God. But, as stated above, they do not deny the presence of eternal being. In fact they insist on it as a fundamental of their philosophy.
It follows then that their "Divine being/God", spontaneously emanated and evolved from "being" itself. The Tao does not "interfere" with this self-emanation presence and hence the universe/omniverse exists, in a sense, due to "inaction" on the part of the Tao.
So the way of the Way/Tao is "inaction".
"The still point of the turning world" as T.S. Elliot paraphrased from Plotinus.

The Taoist "Sage" apparently accepts this and so too would the Chan/Zen Buddhist Sage as well, I assume.

Is this similar to the Jewish "position" on God?
If so, does Leonard hint at this in any of his works, that you know of....?

This, by the way is an open question, not just for DB, but for those among you who may have an experience of both traditions or an interest in both.

Matj

[Diane]

Stephen Hawking explained how the universe was created out of nothing, last Wednesday, Mat:

http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=23829

Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture (on 14th March 2007), Hawking said that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this but we have time because 'Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.'

Speaking of action and inaction, I was interested to read that line attributed to Sir Walter Rayleigh posted by Greg in the poetry section yesterday:"Tell Time it is but motion." The sanskrit word tathagatagarbha explains the basis of the mind, and is translated as 'emptiness' or 'buddha-nature'. But breaking it down, the word is comprised of garbha, meaning womb or embryo (i.e. the mind has the root of buddhahood), tathata meaning 'suchness' or 'what is', and gata, meaning gone, going, come, coming, i.e. movement. (As explained by Chan Master Sheng Yen.)

Another slant on "Remember when I moved in you, and the holy dove was moving too..."?

Diane

[DBCohen]

The traditional Jewish position is that God predated the universe, and at a certain point created it, apparently ex nihilo. The Kabbalah at some point had to ask the difficult question: Why? In the Kabbalah God is known as Ein-Sof, infinity, and in order to start the process of emanation, and later creation, he had to contract himself, to make a space which was no longer him. But why was that necessary? The answers they gave are very complicated, and one needs to study a lot in order to figure out what they mean. But perhaps the basic notion is that something was missing, or that there was some other necessity that lead to this whole process. It is a very daring idea. I’ll try to find some references that explain this problem in more details and add it later.

Meanwhile, I’ll just add that whenever I think of this problem I’m reminded of the beautiful “Creation Hymn” from the Rig Veda (10:129). Its main theme is that we don’t know, and perhaps even the creator himself doesn’t know; this is really wonderful, since it is very rare to find the use of “perhaps” in a religious text, especially when talking about attributes of God. Still, we do wish to know, and we keep trying to learn, don’t we? Anyhow, here’s the poem in one of its many translations, for those who don’t know it yet, and for those who would like to be reminded:

THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder

Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

[lizzytysh]

A conundrum, a koan, a mystery, and whatever else might apply. It reminds me of how I've tried in vain to wrap my mind around the concepts of space and time. My internal dialogue on it is to the effect of okay, they go on and on and on, forever, eternal, both. When this universe or when all time ends, then what? What's outside of or beyond that? If they have a limit of any kind, there has to be something beyond that limit. If they don't, how can they go on and on and on, forever, eternal?

It feels good to read what you've posted here, Doron, that which puts my most basic quandaries into specific questions, ones that come within mine. It's gratifying to read someone else's questioning of it all in such individual ways; especially now knowing how significant is the use of "perhaps" here. Not that I for a moment considered I was alone in this questioning, not at all; yet, still, appreciating reading others' thought processes and vain attempts to understand.

Thanks for posting this.


~ Lizzy

[lazariuk]

Since this psalm (I.14) introduces Ishmael and a tacit reference to Islam, and since the word “covenant” has been bugging me here too, I thought of the Covenant of Alast from the Islamic tradition.

Thanks Simon.

You gave me the key to considering something that I have never considered before and it has to do with remembering.

1.14 begins with an acknowledgement that, of the millions, a few are permitted to suffer carefully. To me the beauty of that could reside in the fact that those who suffer carefully will be very sensitive to the pain of others and will do what they can to alleviate the pain for others.

but why just a few?

I think I can answer that. A few years back I had a very serious accident which resulted in some very serious pain. One day about a month later I said to a woman who was standing at my hospital bed that although I was still in a lot of pain that I don't really remember the pain that I was feeling a few weeks back. I tried but I couldn't really do it. She replied to me that it is common knowledge that pain isn't remembered. She said that if it was then women would stop having babies.

Much of my thinking about what is needed to bridge the gap between people is based on the idea that we can be sensitive to the pain of others, that we share pains and sufferings and maybe to a limited extent we can.

But Simon you're mentioning the Covenant of Alast is opening my thinking in a whole new way. Love and joy can be remembered. I know because I have experienced it and each time I have the distinct impression that I have experienced it before.

This leads me to think that if I don't constrain my remembering it's natural inclination will always lead to love and joy and peace.
There is a line in one of Leonard's songs that goes "I see you've been so careful to forget how good it was" Well you need to be careful to forget that because otherwise you won't, just as you need to be careful to not forget suffering or otherwise you will.

So Simon from where I sit when I see you as a Jew looking at what another Jew is writing about Arabs and have that lead to you're thinking about the Covenant of Alast it just seems kind of beautiful. I wonder how things in Palestine would look if the people there were remembering a Covenant that they both shared.

Thanks for hanging in with me on 1.14

[Simon]

She replied to me that it is common knowledge that pain isn't remembered. She said that if it was then women would stop having babies.

Jack, pain and suffering, saddly, are fascinating subjects. So much could be said about childbirth pain. In that specific case the dialectics of pain/suffering could "perhaps" be compared to the fear/courage dialectics. Some women instist on reliving childbirth pain each time they give birth, certainly not so much because they forgot the previous time, but because it is 'empowering'. It is a ponctual pain. The great thing about our day and age is that women can choose how they want it.

In palliative care the situation is totally different. It is said that suffering is due precisely to the fact that the dying remembers the pain, and the cycle of reccuring pain, and thus anticipates it. It is a reccuring pain. The constant anticipation of innevitable pain is suffering. It is 'disempowering'.

Life is Suffering is the first Noble Truth of Buddhism. In situations of conflict there may be only one place to be, and that is as close as possible to the pain, no matter whose it is.

[mat james]

" Hawking said that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing." Diane
Probably popped in for a cup of tea.

the Tao of a falling tea-cup

Faster than a falling tea-cup
Slowly
She sweeps her naked foot
To net
And nest

Shattered
By the force
-Of instinct
-of primal I

he laughs
“ha!
The Tao!”

Between topple and toe
Reflecting
How the slow
From a distance
Is subtle-smooth
And fast enough

Faster than a falling tea-cup

Slowly
He contemplates relativity
-perspectives of
motions in time
-of distances
-sweeping foot
-falling cup
and nesting there
Foot, cup, mind “here buckle!”

tumbling like a falling tea-cup
Slowly
His naked mind
topples beyond …

net
and nest

...slower than a falling tea-cup


Matj

("here buckle!" from, The Windhover", by Gerard Manley Hopkins)