before satsang i asked
How many hours are in a day? How many ways are there to claim there's not enough? Four jobs and counting at present; 30,000 words and a five o'clock shadow arriving one hour behind schedule.
Somewhere behind the mist of days passing, somewhere beyond the drift of memory, one might find meaning. One might find a place untouched by the hateful presence of signifiers – a time after before and after.
Once found, though, it can never be known except in relation to the places that came before it. But if its meaning is dependent upon another object, another time, another ________ – how can it be said to be 'absolute'?
after satsang i answered
Rather than a half-Canadian, tonight's satsang was led by a full-Canadian, who (upon first encounter) was just as entertaining and wise as I had been led to believe. Like me, he loves words, writes poesy and has a penchant for linguistic specificity.
But this is beside the point.
The point is that he framed the question of dharma in a manner unlike I've ever heard before. Giving the example of water, he said that dharma was the that which, if removed, would prevent the entity from being what it is. It reminded me of Kant's noumenon, which is not nearly as risqué as it sounds.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
This, in turn, reminded me of a poem I wrote two years ago after reading Kerouac's Mexico City Blues:
Chorus #243
I have that song,
that one by Immanuel Kant,
stuck in my head:
the thing in (and of) itself,
the thing in (and of) itself,
the thing in (and of) itself.
Weeping pleas,
for disambiguation
you oughta know the Atman.
Stale poetry is also beside the point.
The point is that the full-Canadian used liquidity as an example of water's dharma. Being a True Skeptic, my mind immediately set about interrogating this proposition. I quickly realized it was true, but insufficient. Water is not just that which is liquid, but also that which freezes at 32ºF, that which boils at 0ºC, that which maintains a ratio of two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen.
The full-Canadian knew this, of course, and my question segued into a beautiful discussion of tantra (which is apparently the Sanskrit root of the English word 'tension'). For a reformed atheist comme moi, tantra is a palatable point of entry in metaphysics because it foreground the same dialectical tensions that are so essential to the structure of language, thought and being.
The question I asked before satsang, regarding the relationship between an unchanging 'self' and the mind, is answered by this understanding. The atman or soul or spirit may be self-luminous and eternal, but it alone does not constitute a human being. It must be placed into relationship with the ever-changing fields of the mind, body, society and culture. If not, then it is no longer the atman – at least not one attributable to humans.
Perhaps this is the reason:
back cover of 2009-2010 day planner
No comments:
Post a Comment