Becoming a black-belt at life

Ah yes the pattern of life. Today Taylor mentioned something that really got me thinking about what enlightenment really means. She said that we all lose ourselves in the pattern of life. With all the distractions and attachments it is hard not to be lost, but Sexon told us that detachment is the key to an elightened self. Here is what I have to say in addition to these two thoughts.

The pattern of life is really all encompassing. In the Robert Jordan fantasy series, The Wheel of Time, the pattern is everything: time and people, good and evil, reality and dreams. There is no stepping outside of the pattern-even if you are an enlightened one. Taylor made it clear that there is no way to live outside the pattern and Sexon affirmed this when he said we should live in the world, not of the world. Obviously no living person can truly ascend to becoming a god while still living in this current plain of existence. However, we can be aware of all the elements of life that we know, and connect the known to the unknown so it becomes our own. And now, here is the ultimate question: "What do we do with our knowledge and skills? Even if we do pay attention to all the struggles and blessings in life, what is to come of it?" I understand the need to move towards action, but I can't seem to grasp what action I am to commit myself to. I feel that "just being" is supposed to be enough...but it isn't and here is why. Teachers command things from you and if you don't complete them to their standards enough you fail; friends expect time from you but if you are busy you fail; parents expect certain kinds of behavior from you and if you get reckless you fail. To learn of detachment now is exactly what we as students need to hear, but we can't really move into detachment until we can simply just "be".

I am always being told in martial arts that the "real" practice doesn't begin until we reach black-belt status. I think that this saying can go beyond martial arts and apply itself to life as well. We go through our innocence of childhood working to become an adult, and then when we finally get to be an adult the real journey begins. The journey is purely personal and "we are the creatures who create meaning", thus only we can decide how to handle our adult lives after we feel we are learned enough to go off to the battle. So what am I going to do? Finish my amature practice, and become a black-belt at life (assuming I survive the battles of real life).

Some ramblings about Tai's blog and the duality of man

I don't know if I am interpreting this correctly but here is what I think about the duality of man in response to Tai's blog.
Tai makes it known that every man has a dilemma. Duality. A separation of self that happens naturally. In fact it may even start as soon as we begin to develop a detailed personality. People are walking contradictions, not necessarily because we choose to be, but because it is so difficult not to be. The duality of self is what prevents us from obtaining "oneness", which is the problem in both Hamlet and Bhagavad-Gita. What are we to do then? Tai demonstrates Jung's concepts of anima/animus, shadow, and self and how recognition of these internal elements can provide a kind of realization about one's self, but what is the conclusion of understanding anything about one's self? Does it make us wiser or a "better" person? Not really. We observe and repeat and observe and repeat, only sometimes do we actually apply discipline to ourselves. Sacrifice, is the true answer. In class, Doug was talking about not having a choice and being pushed into action/war. Tai also used war and being pushed into action to demonstrate the problem of confronting our various "selfs". But, we all get to choose whether or not we sacrifice our morals for action or inaction. Arjuna made a sacrifice; those soldiers made a sacrifice. The power of devotion is a strong element, but under the wrong guise it could be very harmful. Terrorism for instance is a total devotion to a cause, to an action. Is it okay? No. Is Arjuna making a positive moral choice? No. So what the hell? How do we decide what to do when there is no right answer? Jung might tell us to listen to the self, work with the animus, and conquer the shadow. I believe this to be a way in which people can use their duality of morals/identity to create a better self. I'm just not too sure how many times I will have to do this...infinity maybe?

The Mind's Eye

In act one scene two, Hamlet is speaking with Horatio and says, "Thrift, thrift, Horatio, the funeral bak'd-meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables. Would I had met my dearest foe in heaven or ever I had seen that day, Horatio! My father--methinks I see my father." After asked where, Hamlet says: "In my mind's eye, Horatio." I believe this to be relateable to the "gods" eye the Krishna endows to Arjuna. We mentioned in class the importance of the line "remember me" as a kind of "dharma" to a higher power, and in order for the divine to truly convince their loved disciples they give the gift of knowledge. Both Arjuna and Hamlet are told of "life after death", but differently. Arjuna's belief is that of re-incarnation and Hamlet is informed that hell does exist as well as heaven. They are also both charged with completing a violent task. The mind's eye then, is the convincing power to remain steadfast and follow through with their task at hand no matter how morally difficult it may be.

Moving on to the realm of epiphanies one could understand the mind's eye as a means of remembrance. In the Wind and the Willows, when something epiphanic happens the characters have a hard time remembering the divine or "eye-opening" experience, but they can almost picture it or hear it lingering in their heads. This vague ability to recall these ineffable moments is T.S. Elliot is getting at when he says "we had the experience, but missed the meaning". Like something we saw but can't quite recall until we have a 'similar experience to revive the meaning'. The power of this majestic "third eye"though, whether through practice of memory or with the divine help of God, might be how people are able to understand and be true to their dharma.

Some thoughts about the days

Sometimes being aware of what's going on is just a little too much. Catching never-ending connections is enough to make one go insane. This morning I was talking with my girlfriend about my capstone paper and our conversation included elements of the "ego", fathers, and most importantly understanding that the individual is the only one who can say what he or she is here for. Then going to class and having all of these elements thrown back at me was just crazy! This kind of thing always happens in my Japanese class as well. We will be talking about dark epiphanies and spine tingles and then I will go to my Japanese class and we will talk about things like the term "uncanny", which also appeared today in a vague reference to dark epiphanies existing in obscurity. Obscurities of the things we know should always produce a kind of uncanny feeling...'your hair bristling on your flesh' as described in Bhagavad-Gita.

Let's not forget of course, Hamlet's "remember me" dharma. In the Bhagavad-Gita this appears on page 79 when Krishna says, "A man who dies remembering me at the time of death enters my being." So don't worry Taylor, you would have been okay. Plus 'those who die win heaven and those who live win earth' (37). I absolutely love and respect those kinds of mentalities. I'm sure Tai would agree that they help assuage the angst of life's constant challenges and scary moments (for example our final papers!).

I also appreciated the use of Dharma as a sacred duty aka our papers. I know that this is partly a jest and mostly an exaggerated truth, but using the word dharma in that way made me understand that our dharma is always changing with us. As we move through life we "change and smile; but the agony abides" (Elliot quote). Our agony is our dharma. Even though dharma will have positive moments there will always be future trials of our faith in ourselves and those around us. Thank the kindness of our teachers who are willing to help guide us through our life's dharma. I only can hope that one day I might get to be one of those teachers.

Bhagavad-Gita and the meaning of life

It is hard to even begin to put my thoughts about The Bhagavad-Gita together after reading it. Just when I think I have found some kind of meaning or understanding it slips through some crack that is connected to my own habits needing to questioning everything. The most predominant question that comes to mind is that of killing. Is it okay? Sure it is, but only if one is in the proper mind-frame that allows one to view the situation without any feelings of attachment. This thought is just begging for me to ask how one can even think about taking life without forming some sort of connection or passion? After all, if one feels compelled to kill then there has to be some passion involved right? Even if you didn't expect any "fruits" from your actions, you would still be acting to make a difference. Certainly the prey would feel like there was some reason for being hunted or condemned to death. Couldn't death be a kind of change, and change be a kind of fruit in itself then? I don't really know what I think; at this point in my life I just don't see how one could live in today's world except "passionately". I feel that most of us exist on the passionate/desire level of understanding life. I do however feel that I could transcend to a more pious plain of existence by trying to stick to a kind of awareness and detachment. These two concepts are not very natural to us because of our emotions, but this story does provide some helpful practices to keep in mind while seeking out our own notion of a devoted "self". Yoga, dharma, Karma, jnana, and bhakti are interlinked to create an enlightened individual. I do of course have a problem with both dharma, and bhakti. I am not sure what my "dharma/duty" is, for I have not concluded what my calling is to be. So where and how can we discover this? Who knows, maybe it does just happen. As for "Bhakti/devotion", how can we be devoted to anything without a kind of attachment? Renouncing the world to claim our faith in God is rather cynical. I mean isn't the whole world God's creation? Yes, according to this book it is. So...what the hell?

Just as I finished with that last line a kind of light went on in my broken and beer soaked brain. Assuming that we are in fact all re-incarnations of a sort, wouldn't it be fair to say that if in fact we are truly tired of living various lives over and over again, the only way to step outside of time would require a renunciation of the world? Our souls finally getting tired of the same old routine, seeking out a timeless and peaceful existence. Makes me feel as though I am truly punishing myself by wanting to remain in this body...with this face. T.S. Eliot popping in my head and saying to me, "we had the experience, but missed the meaning". But what if we didn't miss the meaning? Instead we accepted the kind of reality we see and live in to be okay and worth doing again. What if living outside of time sucks? What then? I don't feel as though I have missed the meaning, I simply would just like to do it again, thus "an approach to the meaning restores the experience", the very wonderful and challenging experience of life.

Boss Neptune Ramsay

On page 97 during the dinner, Mrs. Ramsay is reminded of Neptune's banquet. Which, in a literal sense is a festival held in Italy on July 23 called Neptunalia, so it is only natural for her to want to link this period of grandeur feasting to her own experience. But there is much more to than that to Woolf choosing Neptune rather than any other god. Neptune, God of water, is a perfect match for this book since the setting is based around the sea. And because she is often referred to as a "queen" her husband could be Neptune and she, Salacia. In an article about Neptune I found, it says, "Ovid describes Neptune with a sullen look, whereas Virgil expressly tells us that he has a mild face, even where he is representing him in a passion. Even at the time that he is provoked, and might be expected to have appeared disturbed, and in a passion, there is serenity and majesty in his face" (after looking at many pictures I would agree with these comments). I think this description fits perfectly with Mr. Ramsay on page 83 when he is "sitting down, all in a heap, frowning". Thus he is now to be called "Boss Neptune Ramsay". Even when Augustus requests more food, Mrs. Ramsay notes his majesty's furrowing brow and popping vessels, but that is all that that happens. Furthermore there is the worshiping by Mr. Tansley for Boss "Neptune" Ramsay. On page 95 Mrs. Ramsay is noting how Boss "Neptune" Ramsay cares about fishermen and their wages. And to put a cap on everything, the words "triumph" and "assert" are used multiple times in this section to describe the desires and feelings in which all these people are playing catch with at the dinner. This book in fact, is a Roman myth with a King and Queen, their council members, and of course their massive amounts of offspring.

Are we not divine?

Thus far in my reading of To the Light house the most awe-inspiring thoughts pertain to the concepts of time and place. Virginia Wolf shows us just what it is like to exist in thought. Keeping all our little secrets locked away for only our own pleasure or pain. The place that is most important in this book (if not in life) would be in our own heads then. Imagine a world where anyone could read your thoughts. What identity would we have? Could we have any relationships at all? Would we think about God in the same way as we do now? for wouldn't we have the power of a God? Reading this book gives us this power through which no thought goes unseen. Even though we are given this capability I still can not apprehend the affect of such power. "Was it wisdom? Was it knowledge? Was it, once more, the deceptiveness of beauty, so that all one's perceptions, half-way to truth, were tangled in a golden mesh?" (To the Light House, 50). These questions are at the very center of epiphanies, and at the same time kind of provide a guide of questions for us while we read. As participants in this story, Are we Gods? There is one more element that might make this question a little more one sided, and that is the element of "Time".

Time in this novel is very whimsical. Past, present, and a dreamy future are crumbled together throughout the pages. Tumbling everywhere, the reader is popping in and out of various notions of perceived time. Can this be seen as godly? Is this what it feels like to be a god? I don't really ever feel lost, but sometimes I must reflect back on what I read just to be sure that I'm in the relative character's mind-frame in that moment. Due to the unimportance of whether or not we are in the now, re-visiting the past, or creating a future, we (both the character and the reader) are stepping outside of time using our inner thoughts, while at the same moment we are still existing in "real" time. We are time-travelers. Isn't that godly? A shaman once told me that I could in fact be a divine being if I could only remember my way back to the "beginning". I think this is true, but I also now know that remembrance is only one step. I must now use my Art of Memory to proceed into my future divinity. Constructing and projecting my thoughts into others as I receive theirs, thus slowly I am becoming knowledgeable, wise, and half-way approaching a moment wrapped in golden mesh. My birth.

Percival, inscape, instress, and the Grail

So I googled Fisher King and got a story about a King who was wounded so badly that the wound wouldn't ever heal. So, being a crippled king he spent most of his time fishing, but, in the midst of the stories summarization there appeared a gem. The "Holy Grail" which is supposedly the cup that Jesus drank out of at the Last Supper. It is believed that the grail contains mystical powers, that for instance may be able to heal un-healable wounds... So naturally I looked up the holy grail and found an even better story about a man in search of the holy cup. And no it wasn't Indiana Jones, or Monty Python, but instead it was a story about Percival.

He was a innocent boy who was raised in the forest and didn't come into contact with any other people until he was fifteen which is when he saw knights for the first time. In short he became a knight and went in search for the holy grail. Now, what is so important then about that? Well, on the untrustable wikipidia there was a description of his story that goes, "Percival's immaturity prevents him from fulfilling his destiny when he first encounters the Grail, and he must grow spiritually and mentally before he can locate it again. In later telling the Grail is a symbol of God's grace, available to all but only fully realized by those who prepare themselves spiritually, like the saintly Galahad".

The most important part here is the fact that Percival must grow spiritually and mentally to obtain the grace of god. This makes the grail just like the Bible in that they both are trying to persuade people to adhere to the teachings of Jesus. In other words it doesn't matter if the grail is or is not real because it is the pious quest that really matters. Percival's story is kind of like trying to discover our own inscape and his journey would then be his process of instress guiding him to saintly status. Just as we are all trying to find our own way, being as good as we can be (probably not so hot anymore with all these distractions), we might one day find it; but i'm guessing it isn't a holy cup.