leonardcohenforum.com

DISTANT MONK (2)

(rewrite inspired by encouragement from William...
I will brave the caustic critics' code once again!!!!)
________________________________________________

DISTANT MONK (2)

Almost as old as Leonard
I still have some skill
But if I took my robes off
To give us both a thrill
We would not be blissful
At the story's end
Our hearts would both be broken
And they would not mend
I'm sorry that I hurt your heart
It could have been much worse
If I slid much closer
I could kill you with my curse

daka

Hi Daka,

I attended a teaching by Rinpoche___________. Among other things, he said: "The
ego is the armature by which we live this life." You wrote of death of ego. No ego = no
functioning. No functioning = no kharmic merit or opportunity to do metta towards
oneself or others. There is a valid spiritual distinction to be made, i.m.o., between
egocentricity and ego.

Hi Steven

thanks for the response to the poem

I think I see your point. It is interesting to note, however, that in my 14 years of study in my tradition and the detailed study of over 20 qualified texts. I have to say that the word "ego" is not ever used. Because I was a Psychotherapist, and because I assumed that the word may be useful to the generic non-Buddhist reader, and because I was experimenting with poetry I used it. Now I must consider if I will again.

Of course we can't function in this illusory conventional reality without a sense of self as opposed to others, etc. If we don't learn and obey those conventions and rules quickly they lock us up. So even Rinpoches and all the holy beings and teachers play within the conventional rules, of this world for our benefit.

Egocentric is not a word either, that is used in our tradition so I think we may have some difficulty communicating about "these themes. I apologize for even using them.

In Buddhism there is a term called "self-grasping" and it took me a long time to appreciate it's powerful and specific meaning. "Self-grasping" happens when we grasp at either persons (self or other) or non-persons (all other phenomena, thoughts, beliefs, objects cars cities, governments etc. etc.) as being "inherently existent" or "truly existent" or "independently existent" (independent of an apprehending consciousness). To refine this a little further, self-grasping actually means mistakenly imputing or attributing a "self" or individual inherent existence to any phenomenon, when the true nature of it's existence is only mere appearance to mind (dream-like). Buddha said we should know that all phenomena are "dream-like" and this is what he meant. Many people misunderstand Buddha's teaching about the nature of reality to be nihilistic but it is not. Buddha accepts that things exist, what is in dispute is their manner of existence, either as truly existent, (external to mind and independent of mind) or dream-like.

This is an afterthought edit:

"Reification" is a word I ran into way before I ran into Buddhism. many people don't even know what it is, have never even heard the word, and this, I find unfortunate and astonishing! The concept of the word is extremely helpful in this discussion, I think:


reification
n 1: regarding something abstract as a material thing [syn: hypostatization,
hypostatisation]
2: representing a human being as a physical thing deprived of
personal qualities or individuality; "according to Marx,
treating labor as a commodity exemplified the reification
of the individual" [syn: depersonalization, depersonalisation]

The example of reification that helps me most and helps most people understand the similar view in Buddhisim is when someone gets angry with the government. Their mind almost always reifies the abstract concept of a government, his mind mistakenly treats it like an object. Try to find the government... point to it, please!

When I referred to death of the "ego" I clearly see how this miscommunicated the intention of my thought. What I want to die is the ignorance that mistakenly conceives of truly existent phenomena (especially the "I") and believes the mistake. It is the death of the delusion of ignorance that I should have referred to. Now I see very clearly why the word "ego" and "egocentric" are not used in discussion of Buddhist psychology or philosophy in my tradition.

Reification is helpful here because without even referring to Buddhism I can say that I want to stop thinking and believing that the "I" that exists only as a mere momentary appearance to my mind, actually exists as a "thing" (It is actually ONLY an illusory mental conceptual fabrication ......( and the absence of this wisdom causes most of the problems in the world)....... In this paragraph I have managed to walk the religious tightrope quite nicely... (apart from patting myself on the back in public, of course!)

Reification of the "I", translated into Buddhist lingo is "self-grasping at an inherently existent "I"".

So I learned something important tonight, thank you!

The holy beings that I know have abandoned that self-grasping ignorance and that is what I should have referred to. Poetry can be a bit dangerous!

daka

Some interesting lines in the piece, daka, but hardly a poem.
A collection of verse yes but the rhyming scheme, for one thing, is all over the place and has no particular consistency.
But perhaps you haven't posted here for anything other than positive response so I shan't take this any farther.

Hi William

Wrong on the assumption:

perhaps you haven't posted here for anything other than positive response

I have not been here long, but long enough to learn that positive responses are not to be expected... nice but not necessary.

Wrong therefore on the suggestion that "taking it farther" would not be greatly appreciated.

I only started really trying to wax poetic a week ago here.. no formal training, study or even reading of poetry for many moons. so I am sure have lots to learn. My principal motivation was to get more succinct as I was spending way too much time on narratives, and I discovered that if the verses flowed, and usually they do, it takes much less time, and, hopefully I will test peoples' patience less. I am just playing, experimenting, thinking out of the monk box. I have always appreciated good poetry, especially Leonard's and had a wish that one day I may be able to create some. But I had given up after so many years of unsuccessful attempts.

I understand that you have criticisms of this piece. I wrote a few others and I would also like your opinion on them if you can stomach the exercise. I am a monk and need to meditate a lot. I don't think, if it required much study and effort I would invest the energy. If it came naturally and wasn't too offensive I would stick with it a bit. I also want to see what happens with some of these attempts if I try to put them to music.

To be honest I wasn't very happy with the structure and flow of this one either. I think I agree with your assessment... "some interesting lines, but hardly a Poem. Guess I better find out what a Poem is.

Actually I remember being aware that i was being a bit lazy and rebellious in allowing the lack of structure and rhythm to remain un-corrected.... probably carelessness and laziness were in my mind... also attachment to my time...... I wrote it specifically for one person to read, a friend, as it was about her, and I remember being a little apprehensive about her technical assessment too as it would be a qualified one; she works in the literary field. I even considered at one point ripping it up and doing it right. Probably a hunch I should have followed. I think I will. I'll take it down. Do it again.



Thanks for the honest feedback

daka

I am just playing, experimenting, thinking out of the monk box. I have always appreciated good poetry, especially Leonard's and had a wish that one day I may be able to create some. But I had given up after so many years of unsuccessful attempts.

Hi Daka,

I can very much relate to you in this. When I was younger I loved to write. It was a way of sharing experiences with myself (if that makes sense – I think it might to you). Sometimes I would manipulate details to recreate events the way I wish they had been. In my early 20’s I stopped writing to myself. I felt frustrated that what I wrote was never as good as what I read. I wanted instant gratification – if I couldn’t be a GREAT writer I wouldn’t write, I’d place my efforts elsewhere.
I can see now how ridiculous this was, to give up a piece of myself out of some kind of misguided self-doubt or vanity. I don’t have to be great, I don’t even have to be good but I have to try because it’s something I enjoy. Right now I’m a little like you, I’m practicing - playing and experimenting with words. I haven’t been able to right a poem that I completely like yet, but that’s O.K. I will.
I said a little like you above because I’ve read quite a few of your postings and I’ve liked what you’ve written. I think you express yourself and you ideas very well.
Looking forward to seeing your revamped poem.

Cate

Hi Daka,

The use of the word "ego" (may also have been used alternatively with the word
"personality" by the Rinpoche), was in response to a question posed by an
American questioner. Rinpoche didn't say whether or not he saw a corollary to
the Western meaning of "ego" within any Buddhist texts. So, it is possible that
he also didn't see it in his readings.

Hi Steven

John Lennon once wrote in a song

"God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain"

(I think I will send this off to the God Thread)

"Concept" is a really important word
and a really important concept
in Buddhism!!!!

Here is the definition:

Concept Con"cept, n. [L. conceptus (cf. neut. conceptum
fetus), p. p. of concipere to conceive: cf. F. concept. See
Conceit.]
An abstract general conception; a notion; a universal.
[1913 Webster]

The words conception, concept, notion, should be
limited to the thought of what can not be represented
in the imagination; as, the thought suggested by a
general term. --Sir W.
Hamilton.
[1913 Webster]

This definition does NOT help me at all, I find it very problematic.
Maybe if we just accept that we either perceive or conceive,
We can understand the functional or experiential definition

What matters in all of this is acknowledging the role of the mind AND
of our conceptualization process, in confusing the hell out of us
in causing wars, destroying families etc etc etc

There is a whole division of Buddhist Philosophy and Psychology
Whose function is to begin reining in this dangerous conceptualization process and
Use it to our benefit
We cannot abandon it (unless we can blow our brains out or become a super rich junkie)
And that is only temporary relief
in Buddhism this discipline is called Lojong (Mind training)
I can recommend a few very good books but will only leave one link here for now
perched precariously on my forum tightrope

Eight Steps To Happiness by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso - Tharpa Publications

This link allows you to sample the book without ordering it i.e.

See, read and listen to a sample of what this book has to offer:

* See the front & back covers
* Have a look at the contents page
* Read the introductory chapter
* Listen to a short audio excerpt

(Many Christians LOVE this book).... I recommend it to anyone who is not a Buddhist, (and to Buddhists too)

http://www.tharpa.com/us/book-cover-Eig ... 567-1.html

I glad to see that we may be "on the same page" in this thread

daka

Hello Cate from Toronto

I have spent too much time in Toronto.. I can tell you more later.
(sounds like poetic potential ..." too much time in Toronto"

I REALLY enjoyed your response. What came through the words was humility, gentleness, hope, decency. (and you were much more succinct than me)
You sound like someone I would really like to meet.
(There are a few others in this special cyberplace )

My advice to you is to seek advice from Jack (do you know Jack)? If not you soon will. a.k.a. lazariuk. He taught me how to dance here (though I haven't tried yet, and I'm sure it's against the monk rules. But I applied his advice to two other things, playing the guitar (also against the monk rules... technically, depending on the motivation) .. my guitar playing is about as good as my poetry, and I applied it also to my poetry. Both have improved. Jack is a genius. If you have a hard time tracking him down let me know, and I will help. Like a Buddha, he is everywhere. (seems to me)

Also PLEASE send me a poem of yours PM if you like and I will answer PM... we can be anonymous incompetents that way. For me the non-anonymous incompetent path offers more necessary spiritual potential (fuel)
(Catholic Crucifixion) (more poetic potential).... as you wish.

Nice to know you

daka

Hi Daka,

Thank you for your kind words and advice.

Nice to know you as well.