Re: semantics

[Guest guest]

Hello fire-tenders,

I list to which I belong is studying the following:

above the moor

not attached to anything

a skylark sings

basho

I reflect on the skylark as 'soul' and the Buddhist concept of letting

go of our earthly

desires in order to escape the suffering 'wheel of life'.

Mike, my knowledge of Buddhist is very general, while yours is very

precise, so this may not work for you (especially the word 'soul')

I'm always looking for links between Jung's thoughts and interests and

haiku. I know they are there but they seem to get very little attention in

the haiku world. Even Zen doesn't get a lot.

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

Bravo Mike. Bravo. May I share this on another list? Else you can come

and share it yourself. I have a list called Pearl beyond Price & that

refers to the personalisation of the impersonal that can't be named.

Now I fuly believe that the personal is treasured by Being.

It's real humbling to know we don't know, & it's a bloody relief. The

sufferer wants to hold all the answers? It donna grok. Now finally I

get this thing with impermanence.

" But every being is a doing you will

tell me and I

> would totally agree axcept that it still doesn't answer that

fundamental (at

> least as far as I see it) question. What bes and does? "

Ain't never gonna get an answer to that question.

It seems that when individual mind believes it is a doing, then mind

is separated from awareness of Being. Anyhow, perhaps alternation is

the rhythm of life breathing ..

Col

> > so Jung n Buddha are saying the same thing.

>

> *More or less.

>

> > J=the circle w/a point that has no dimension in the middle;

B=circle alone;

> > Zen = empty space ?.

>

> *B=no circle as such; no centre as such; but the 'appearance' of

both.

> The Zen attitude is the same. As Hui Neng, the Sixth Patriarch of

Ch'an

> Buddhism (the Chinese forerunner of Japanese Zen), said:

>

> From the very first, not a single thing exists.

> Within that 'not a single thing' lies inexhaustible treasure.

>

> The Dzogchen attitude is that nothing exists as such except pure

awareness

> (itself empty, radiant and all-encompassing in energy) of which

everything

> else is the empty display in exactly the same way that everything in

a dream

> is the empty display of the dreamer.

> One is either aware of this dream-reality and its true nature or

not, but the

> dreamer himself is neither helped nor harmed by this.

> In exactly this way pure awareness is neither helped by the helpful

thoughts

> nor harmed by the harmful ones but remains pure awareness under all

> circumstances. It does not retain the past, nor project a future,

and nor is it

> attached in any way whatsoever to anything that arises within it in

the

> present, just as the eye will perceive light where there is light

and dark where

> there is none without choice or prejudice or preference of any

nature. When

> there is light, it sees light; when there is dark, it sees dark.

What we DO

> with what we see is of quite a different nature.

>

> > for me, it's a matter of semantics n perspective.

>

> *If, as Toni says, " ... The Self (according to Jung) is

relatedness. (...) Not

> what you are but what you do is the Self... " , then I would say no

it's not

> entirely a matter of semantics though it certainly is one of

perspective.

> Jung's 'Self' by this definition still leaves the fundamental

question 'what is

> there?' totally unaddressed. But every being is a doing you will

tell me and I

> would totally agree axcept that it still doesn't answer that

fundamental (at

> least as far as I see it) question. What bes and does?

>

> > i cont

> > the class on a chair w/my foot in an icebucket n holding onto

Woodstock

> > looking like a Tarot card!!

>

> *I'll bet!

>

> >

> > it was a not-so-gentle symbolic reminder that we ARE incarnate

beings,

> > temporarily separated fr one another as individuals, crucified in

the

> > 'apparent' stuff of matter.

>

> *It once occurred to me (during my very first reading of the

Hermetic Corpus,

> in fact) that the entire Christian myth has to do with becoming

incarnate and

> then accepting this fact. The same idea is contained in the Hindu

cakra

> system whereby the root cakra, muladhara (mula=root; dhara=holder),

> comprises the Shiva lingam of infinite creativity enwrapped in the

serpentine

> energy of infinite becoming and established in the centre of the

four

> directions (doubly empahasised in being pointed also by spears

pointing in

> the four directions), and the six-tusked elephant of the god Indra

to indicate

> stability in presence. However, every presence is infinitely

conditioned by all

> other presence throughout space and time as both cause and

condition,

> caused and conditioned, and effect and effected. If you are certain

about an

> individual who is not in all these relationships, I will be very

pleased (and not

> a little surprised) to make its acquaintance.

>

> > i think Jung chose to point out that the West was emphasizing the

importance

> > of INCARNATION n the East on SPIRITUALIZATION n that our future

task is the

> > collective coniunctio or balance of both. The trap for the West is

> > materialism [!} n for the East, perhaps, lack of progress.

>

> *I think Jung's belief in the 'spirituality' of the Orient was based

on some very

> dicey translation, itself often trapped in the same a prioris he

was. The Orient

> may, for the moment, have 'lost the Mandate of Heaven', but I would

beg not

> to forget that much that is most sublime in their very ancient and

*unbroken*

> cultures is as yet only the vaguest glimmer of hope in our own.

These are the

> guys who invented the concept of zero, who dismissed the theory of

atoms

> as logically untenable even before the birth of Christ, and whose

music,

> poetry, philosophy and even tchnology far outstripped our own until

relatively

> recently. I don't think it's lack of progress you can tax the Orient

with,

> whatever else it might be. Self-satisfaction, perhaps?

> >

> > wh i think u are pointing out is that a lifetime is a bubble

filled w/water

> > floating in an ocean, n so it is, the ocean being the unus mundus,

wh

> > explains why n how synchronicities can occur.

>

> *No, I'm not pointing that out at all. What I *am* saying is that

the skin that

> bounds you is as much a gateway as it is a fence; that the apparent

> separateness is because we have fallen into the trap of dualising

this and

> that. Our language is made up entirely of dualisms and so is our

thinking

> process, but the skin that encloses the bit I call me is also the

surface that

> reaches out to the bit I call you and - further yet - it. It links

me as much as it

> separates me. Only my thoughts cut me off from you. Even the air

that

> breathes itself in and out of lungs links us and yet we imagine only

that it

> separates us.

> The balance is not between incarnation and spiritualisation:

incarnation

> already IS spiritual; the spiritual has no other existence than

within its forms.

> The balance is between the *concept* of ego (which always and

invariably

> gets in the way) and its actual nature which is its

ever-changingness, eternal

> openness to becoming whether or not you want it to get stuck in just

simply

> being.

>

> > what i find missing in yr expl, mike, is MEANINGFULNESS - for me

this is the

> > ultimate gift the individual has to offer the collective - the

word combines

> > thought [consciousness] n compassion [love].

>

> *I'm sorry, I would have thought that was the most obvious but I was

> disturbed several times while writing the first of these. Lets look

at what I

> actually said, shall we?

> " ... *The point with self and Self is that although neither exist as

such, or at

> least as we conceive them, there can be absolutely no doubt as to

the

> continuous and wondrous display that presents itself to and *as* our

> awareness... "

> What does this mean? It means that ultimately and from the very

primordial

> roots of your being you are free, always have been and always will

be. The

> whole arising of the universe of possibilities and becomings is

always free at

> each and every instant.

> So what goes wrong?

> " ... The nature of pure awareness (as opposed to confused and

partial -

> biased - awareness) is simply openness, and it generally manifests

as joy.

> The nature of confused awareness is running round trying to catch

one's own

> tail and generally manifests as obscuration and confusion... "

> When left to themselves... As the Japanese saying goes, 'When

useless

> things do not hang in your mind, every day is a good day'.

> Liao-an says:

>

> Essence is unpolluted, absolutely pure in itself.

> Just stop clinging to false mental objects and there is the

Buddha of

> being, as is.

> When deluded, you give up the real and pursue the false:

> When enlightened, you give up the false and come back to the

real.

>

> When you reach the point where truth and falsehood genuinely

dissolve

> And enlightenement and unlightenment have nowhere else to

lodge,

> Then you use up your karma according to conditions,

> Trusting in essence and enjoying natural reality, exercising

kindness and

> compassion, helping the orphaned and unsheltered,

> Forgetting subject and object, annihilating shadow and form,

> And you become a person beyond measure, dwelling in a realm of

> experience beyond measure, working for the benefit of

others beyond

> measure.

>

> ly I think that's quite meaningful.

>

> " ... If one insists on 'structure' in one's universe, however, one

becomes

> trapped yet again in 'stability' and the need to maintain such

stability on the

> shifting sands of impermanence.

> Process oriented thought allows the structure and the very substance

itself

> to undergo even radical transformation without in the least becoming

> inconsistent with itself... "

> What does this mean? It means you can open up, and then open up to

> opening up, or you can open up, take a quick glimpse, and shut down

again.

> As long as you are moving the pieces round on the board, no matter

where

> you move them, or how, the board and the pieces remain the same.

> Therefore you have to see the purpose behind the terms that obscure

and the

> ideas that simply serve to obscure and step beyond them (or not).

>

> " ... Useful fictions are useful only inasmuch as they tend beyond

the

> structured and into the terra ingognita of becoming - away from

nouns and

> into verbs, away from certainties and into wonder-filled discovery.

The terms

> obscure. The mere ideas obscure. What is beating against the

eggshell of

> ignorance here is far beyond what can be expressed or conceived of -

far

> vaster, far more vibrant and alive than what our timid conceptions

will allow... "

> This, I suppose, depends on what you see the end of the exercise to

be...

> Me - wide-eyed hippie that I am - I tend to see it as freedom within

my own

> being so that I may be of some slight aid to others. Otherwise it's

just the

> blind leading the blind, no? The drowning aiding the drowning...

> All I'm saying is words and ideas will never encompass it. Makes

Blake's

> Tyger look like a pussy cat.

>

> " ... Fictions that establish themselves are simply an exchange of

chains for

> chains. And all we have, as long as we're going to insist on them as

'true', IS

> fiction. How can we be so arrogant as to assume we know the least

thing

> about anything at all? We are not very good at noticing for a kick

off. And

> then the little we do let in, the few frequencies of light and sound

we're

> capable of experiencing, we immediately distort to fit in with the

'corpus' of

> the already known. Everything is immediately 'understood' or

'overstood' or

> defiantly (or just blankly) refused.

> And yet it is this very 'mind' - this clinging to convulsively

grasped-at

> 'individuality' - that then directs our every thought, word and

deed.

> My meaning here is that, even at its most sublime, the human mind is

not

> nearly as bright as it thinks it is. It misses things, distorts

others, grasps at

> thisses and runs from thats, and then this is the guy you're going

to let

> drive???

> And yet who else is there?

> So a little training - a little discipline is needed. A little

recognition (as there

> seems to be) that maybe we do get it wrong sometimes - maybe even

> mostly. And that this knowledge, this simple recognition in itself,

is a jewel. I

> am more than a little relieved to see this realisation slowly

surfacing again - it

> is the very life's blood of true enquiry.

>

> " ... 'Penetrating insight' and 'primordial awareness' bring one's

own

> undertsanding to completion.

> Compassion - accepting and working with and in the fictions - is how

one

> begins to bring some benefit to others.

> Carefully, with great attention to morality in the best sense of

that word and a

> genuine sense of the four boundless thoughts or attitudes -

boundless love

> for all beings, boundless compassion for their suffering, boundless

joy in their

> success at finding at least some comfort and ease, and equal-minded

> equanimity in the recognition of the ultimate nature of all of

this... That it is

> not what we in our limited apprehension think it is, but something

far more

> extraordinary.

> And yet nothing very special at all... "

> Why 'nothing special'? Because it is what has always been what is

before

> your eyes. It is a miracle, but who sees it?

> The 'Self' who sees it is a miracle beyond all miracles, but who

sees it?

> So... the book is open, and " ... (t)hat's the real teacher. When

life itself

> opens up doors we hadn't even begun to dream were *in* the very

things we

> are looking at.

> Nice to have all that 'load to maintain' just dissolve like that,

isn't it?

>

> glory, glory halelujah

> sincet I layed my boiden down!

>

> as Mississippi once said... "

> You find nothing meaningful in all this? What a pity!

> By the way Toni, Lord Buddha didn't *suggest* we see life as

suffering; he

> said that life would always be suffering as long as one didn't know

what to

> want - That the cause of the suffering in all situations was our

clinging to it

> as ultimate and demanding of it what it could never possibly give

us, viz.,

> that it be stable, clear-cut and uncompounded and made up of

ultimately

> tangible 'realities' - 'selfs' - and that if we didn't want to be

very disappointed

> we were going to have to do something about it, something like wake

up to

> the facts. You read me as saying something you're not - all I'm

doing it is

> pushing it a little further and saying:

>

> YES! - QUESTION THE LOT... AND DON'T ACCEPT ANY GLIB ANSWERS,

> EITHER... EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG.

>

> If you don't start there, what's the point?

> Personally I find this extremely meaningful. Perhaps it's clearer

now? (Who

> knows? Maybe not. Oh well! I tried.)

>

> m

[Guest guest]

Alice:

> > what i find missing in yr expl, mike, is MEANINGFULNESS - for me

this is the

> > ultimate gift the individual has to offer the collective - the

word combines

> > thought [consciousness] n compassion [love].

I was thinking about this Alice & I believe that the symbols & forms

of myth blooming through us offers relatedness to the wordless. This

is treasure to Life. For how could we hold hands & touch this way

without these words? Yea Being is silent, yet it loves to sing. Form

is emptiness & emptiness is form. Both are in love. Are Love.

And it is not just that. It is the differences which make the universe

sing. How can you play a song without different notes?

I believe we are working at harmonics. Harmonious relationship between

Being & doing. And when harmony sings, compassion serves.

imo,

Col

>

> *I'm sorry, I would have thought that was the most obvious but I was

> disturbed several times while writing the first of these. Lets look

at what I

> actually said, shall we?

> " ... *The point with self and Self is that although neither exist as

such, or at

> least as we conceive them, there can be absolutely no doubt as to

the

> continuous and wondrous display that presents itself to and *as* our

> awareness... "

> What does this mean? It means that ultimately and from the very

primordial

> roots of your being you are free, always have been and always will

be. The

> whole arising of the universe of possibilities and becomings is

always free at

> each and every instant.

> So what goes wrong?

> " ... The nature of pure awareness (as opposed to confused and

partial -

> biased - awareness) is simply openness, and it generally manifests

as joy.

> The nature of confused awareness is running round trying to catch

one's own

> tail and generally manifests as obscuration and confusion... "

> When left to themselves... As the Japanese saying goes, 'When

useless

> things do not hang in your mind, every day is a good day'.

> Liao-an says:

>

> Essence is unpolluted, absolutely pure in itself.

> Just stop clinging to false mental objects and there is the

Buddha of

> being, as is.

> When deluded, you give up the real and pursue the false:

> When enlightened, you give up the false and come back to the

real.

>

> When you reach the point where truth and falsehood genuinely

dissolve

> And enlightenement and unlightenment have nowhere else to

lodge,

> Then you use up your karma according to conditions,

> Trusting in essence and enjoying natural reality, exercising

kindness and

> compassion, helping the orphaned and unsheltered,

> Forgetting subject and object, annihilating shadow and form,

> And you become a person beyond measure, dwelling in a realm of

> experience beyond measure, working for the benefit of

others beyond

> measure.

>

> ly I think that's quite meaningful.

>

> " ... If one insists on 'structure' in one's universe, however, one

becomes

> trapped yet again in 'stability' and the need to maintain such

stability on the

> shifting sands of impermanence.

> Process oriented thought allows the structure and the very substance

itself

> to undergo even radical transformation without in the least becoming

> inconsistent with itself... "

> What does this mean? It means you can open up, and then open up to

> opening up, or you can open up, take a quick glimpse, and shut down

again.

> As long as you are moving the pieces round on the board, no matter

where

> you move them, or how, the board and the pieces remain the same.

> Therefore you have to see the purpose behind the terms that obscure

and the

> ideas that simply serve to obscure and step beyond them (or not).

>

> " ... Useful fictions are useful only inasmuch as they tend beyond

the

> structured and into the terra ingognita of becoming - away from

nouns and

> into verbs, away from certainties and into wonder-filled discovery.

The terms

> obscure. The mere ideas obscure. What is beating against the

eggshell of

> ignorance here is far beyond what can be expressed or conceived of -

far

> vaster, far more vibrant and alive than what our timid conceptions

will allow... "

> This, I suppose, depends on what you see the end of the exercise to

be...

> Me - wide-eyed hippie that I am - I tend to see it as freedom within

my own

> being so that I may be of some slight aid to others. Otherwise it's

just the

> blind leading the blind, no? The drowning aiding the drowning...

> All I'm saying is words and ideas will never encompass it. Makes

Blake's

> Tyger look like a pussy cat.

>

> " ... Fictions that establish themselves are simply an exchange of

chains for

> chains. And all we have, as long as we're going to insist on them as

'true', IS

> fiction. How can we be so arrogant as to assume we know the least

thing

> about anything at all? We are not very good at noticing for a kick

off. And

> then the little we do let in, the few frequencies of light and sound

we're

> capable of experiencing, we immediately distort to fit in with the

'corpus' of

> the already known. Everything is immediately 'understood' or

'overstood' or

> defiantly (or just blankly) refused.

> And yet it is this very 'mind' - this clinging to convulsively

grasped-at

> 'individuality' - that then directs our every thought, word and

deed.

> My meaning here is that, even at its most sublime, the human mind is

not

> nearly as bright as it thinks it is. It misses things, distorts

others, grasps at

> thisses and runs from thats, and then this is the guy you're going

to let

> drive???

> And yet who else is there?

> So a little training - a little discipline is needed. A little

recognition (as there

> seems to be) that maybe we do get it wrong sometimes - maybe even

> mostly. And that this knowledge, this simple recognition in itself,

is a jewel. I

> am more than a little relieved to see this realisation slowly

surfacing again - it

> is the very life's blood of true enquiry.

>

> " ... 'Penetrating insight' and 'primordial awareness' bring one's

own

> undertsanding to completion.

> Compassion - accepting and working with and in the fictions - is how

one

> begins to bring some benefit to others.

> Carefully, with great attention to morality in the best sense of

that word and a

> genuine sense of the four boundless thoughts or attitudes -

boundless love

> for all beings, boundless compassion for their suffering, boundless

joy in their

> success at finding at least some comfort and ease, and equal-minded

> equanimity in the recognition of the ultimate nature of all of

this... That it is

> not what we in our limited apprehension think it is, but something

far more

> extraordinary.

> And yet nothing very special at all... "

> Why 'nothing special'? Because it is what has always been what is

before

> your eyes. It is a miracle, but who sees it?

> The 'Self' who sees it is a miracle beyond all miracles, but who

sees it?

> So... the book is open, and " ... (t)hat's the real teacher. When

life itself

> opens up doors we hadn't even begun to dream were *in* the very

things we

> are looking at.

> Nice to have all that 'load to maintain' just dissolve like that,

isn't it?

>

> glory, glory halelujah

> sincet I layed my boiden down!

>

> as Mississippi once said... "

> You find nothing meaningful in all this? What a pity!

> By the way Toni, Lord Buddha didn't *suggest* we see life as

suffering; he

> said that life would always be suffering as long as one didn't know

what to

> want - That the cause of the suffering in all situations was our

clinging to it

> as ultimate and demanding of it what it could never possibly give

us, viz.,

> that it be stable, clear-cut and uncompounded and made up of

ultimately

> tangible 'realities' - 'selfs' - and that if we didn't want to be

very disappointed

> we were going to have to do something about it, something like wake

up to

> the facts. You read me as saying something you're not - all I'm

doing it is

> pushing it a little further and saying:

>

> YES! - QUESTION THE LOT... AND DON'T ACCEPT ANY GLIB ANSWERS,

> EITHER... EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG.

>

> If you don't start there, what's the point?

> Personally I find this extremely meaningful. Perhaps it's clearer

now? (Who

> knows? Maybe not. Oh well! I tried.)

>

> m

[Guest guest]

> > I believe we are working at harmonics. Harmonious relationship between

> > Being & doing. And when harmony sings, compassion serves.

> >

> This is lovely n i bel this, too!

*Yup!

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Mike, for this response. It may well take me about the time to

work through it as it takes you to install a new computer and a trip to

Italy. So if you'll make a mental bookmark perhaps we can come back to much

of it then.

In the meantime just a few remarks:

>

> > this may not work for you (especially the word 'soul')

>

> *I don't mind words. I deal in them day in and day out. The point is to

see the

> meaning beyond them - the inexpressible, the inconceivable even!... and so

> to try and open oneself to the actual intention of the speaker.

> I realise that 'soul' is used in a pretty loose way these days, generally

to

> mean something more or less like the prevalent misconception of the word

> Atman which in fact simply means 'that which breathes' (cf. Grmc

'atmen'='to

> breathe') - You mean 'something subtle and ungraspable and somehow

> eternal', no?

N: I had just reread a posting from the last Jung seminar:

... " the soul is by nature Christian " ...

(Jung, C.G., Psychology and Alchemy, C.W. 12, par. 24)

before I posted to you. I don't disagree with your reading of my

meaning, but will add (perhaps unnecessarily) that I also meant something

like 'essence' as it is used in the highly Jungian children's film " Dark

Crystal " .

>

> > I'm always looking for links between Jung's thoughts and interests

and

> > haiku. I know they are there but they seem to get very little attention

in

> > the haiku world. Even Zen doesn't get a lot.

>

> *A great pity, indeed. Have you looked at R. H. Blythe's stuff at all?

> Especially his 4-volume 'Haiku' (one for each season) and 'Zen in English

> Literature and Oriental Classics'. Good stuff!

N: Yes. I've known 'of' this 4 vol. work for many years, but not read it.

Vol 1 is on the reading list for the group I originally mentioned. I

believe the last 3 vols are now out of print. I haven't been able to

persuade myself to cough up the required $50 and even vol. 1 is getting

harder and harder to find. Let's face it. Creating is a lot more fun than

'reading' about creating. Such indulgence probably does not speed me toward

'enlightenment' (which btw your description reminds me a lot of seeing a

catfish nailed to a tree and skinned with pliers!). But does the Self allow

one to escape this process?

I'll just remark that you have mentioned almost nothing about Jung in

your response, but the rest should keep me sufficiently busy for now <g>.

Blessings (and enjoy your trip when circumstances allow it to take

place),

[Guest guest]

> 'enlightenment' (which btw your description reminds me a lot of seeing a

> catfish nailed to a tree and skinned with pliers!).

*Strange.

> But does the Self allow

> one to escape this process?

*If one is agile, knows when to paint one's teeth black and take three steps

to the left at the correct time, perhaps.

> I'll just remark that you have mentioned almost nothing about Jung in

> your response, but the rest should keep me sufficiently busy for now <g>.

*Perhaps I should remark that you mentioned nothing much of him in your

question either. I assumed you were interested in Bâshô and possibly what

he might have thought. Forgive me.

> Blessings (and enjoy your trip when circumstances allow it to take

> place),

*I'm sure we shall. We've been looking forward to it for some time. We leave

on Thursday morning at 11:04.

All the best,

m