I have often stated that one of the most important aspects of a happy life is honesty. It is the best policy. And to whittle this down further, I am not talking about the conventional type of honesty i.e. "I cannot tell a lie". I am speaking about self honesty. To be aware and conscious of one's actions without the mostly inevitable falsehoods one tells oneself. When we tell ourselves that we are not living for only material gains, or that we have contemplated our places in this world, or that we are capable of much more than we are. I am in no way trying to be harsh here, but honest. When I look at something as blatant as, let us say being a quarterback, I am not in the same arena as Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. With all my efforts, and all my energies focused on this I will not be their equal. When we think about this in the sense of even moral levels of achievement we can see the same realizations. I am not the equal to Father Damien of Molakai fame, nor Gandhi, let alone other greats. If I were, I would have been. I have had many years pass and yet I am who I am. When I think about this I think it may sound brutal, and I do not want it to be so. When we keep these hopes (which I have said numerous times is something that arises when one does not have the means to bring about the change they wish for) we render ourselves to be spirits in the bardo of 'yet to be' and forever trapped there while clinging to this flotsam. When we think more on the highest, the greatest, we founder ourselves, when our efforts go into ignoring our own abilities and focusing on another's, we are crippled. I am not saying that the greatest are not models. I believe that they are. They are to be like the mountains, the sunsets and sunrises, to be able to use their realizations and deeds as moments of lucidity to relate to our own existence. I think that this system of thought is also, I must admit, easier for me to believe in because I am Buddhist and we believe in Reincarnation. That the gains in this life are not just in this life, that the Dalai Lama was, once, a dolt just like me. To have honesty, self honesty, to look deeply into oneself and test these boundaries is what one should do. Not in the trivial rock climbing sort of way, but in a way toward goodness. What this means, how we can achieve it, is it selflessness then how can this be achieved? To attempt selflessness it is said, strangely, takes one with a strong sense of self, courage, etc. Then we read the greats, witness them, and plot our individual lines of growth with knowledge that it can be done, "just look at them, they did it, and once, they were like me."

Why is Marlon Brando in my title? It is because when I watch him in movies, throughout his career, he would be the physical manifestation of the masculine sensuality. He seemed a visceral incarnation of the masculine, a barren Truth of that energy. And, it is not that I would want one to beat their wife and yell "Stella" or become a Mafia Don, but his emanation of that visceral truth is the type of honesty one strives for-one must be bare to themselves in order to attempt the heights-and the heights are dependent on the individual's view. In order for this world, this world that is within the minds of ourselves, in order for it to be our own, shaped with knowledgeable hands we must view ourselves  for  what  we are unvarnished, and  revealed.

Be well
G

When we think of marriage, most of us, think of white gowns, grooms and brides, a hulla ballo of affection and effection. We think of lemonade and grandkids, kids usually, and our loved one's filing in orderly fashion through our lives and homes. We think of material gains, travels, etc. And in these things, in the action of fathoming them, I am a culprit as well. I understand there are more cynical views, divorces, fights, etc. But this does not mar the point I am trying to make, and, in fact is a symptom of it. With most of us there is at least a time when we have some sort of affection and care for the other person that we have decided to marry. I believe that most of us go into the binding of two to one with that intention of good will. But almost none that I have ever met have really understood the huge responsibility that they are taking on. Most of my friends, the males, have stated jokingly in one form or other their misgivings in a sexual tone, that it would be the only woman that they had sex with their whole lives. And the few female friends that I have, have wondered if they will be able to feel 'special' to that other, or to feel that way about them, throughout their lives. But neither have pondered to any great extent or any extent at all really, that even if their grandest visions of bucolic or urban bliss happened, that it takes a hero, ultimately, to be wedded correctly. I am not focusing here on the minutae, or the passing moments, but the overall necessity of knowing what it is that you are getting into. That Marriage in its ultimate sense is a testing ground for one's love, compassion, kindness, and, perhaps, most importantly-bravery.

Let us first start out and assume as I was stating above that one is marrying for the right reason. I am making a case for Love, and in the definition of such I am describing it as the Buddhist do-'may the other have every happiness' and I am also making a case for compassion 'may the other be free of every harm' and in these testaments, in marriage, we are saying that we are participating in them in both a mental capacity i.e. wishing it to be so, meditating until its purpose is ingrained in the spirit. As well as a physical existent-active principle i.e. the motion of the material manifestation into actions that are driven by the mental i.e. Mind's motion. This is, the physical aspect, I like to call Kindness. *SIDE NOTE***** My father in 1979 was His Holiness's 'Body Guard' of sorts for a teaching in Seattle. In his duties he had the wonderful opportunity to be at his side when he was driven from one event to the other. When he asked His Holiness what one should do in this life he replied quickly, "there is only kindness" END OF SIDE NOTE***** Kindness as I have defined it here has its roots in what I see as the permeation of All, the Reality rather than the reality, and it is defined as Emptiness. This is often confused with Nothing but it is not. It is the inexplicable. It cannot be nothing because, nothing is something even if it is the absence of something. Emptiness is like a mirror and all the reflections are the myriad of forms that we know as reality. This sound esoteric and I only know it in regards to analogies and brief moments of lucidity, where I am able to glimpse, from far away, like the slight shiver of a celestial flame-faint and distant, but there. However, it can be understood through kindness. Kindness when enacted has both the path i.e. the action of kindness or Other serving, and the Wisdom of emptiness, for, what is there to remain when one attains the level of total outward serving, or the union of internal and external? This is Emptiness, that what remains. And, there is bravery. I will address that alone.

Bravery as we know it is, often, related symbolically to that of a warriors ethos. I think this is done because it is easy for us to understand so basic of an ideal for the deeply ignorant i.e. most all of us. As Jesus said, "I speak in parables because they have eyes but do not see...." We need the symbolic, and mostly the easily symbolic to take heed. Most times it gets mistaken and the symbol becomes the meaning and we have a whole load of trouble, but that is another entry. When we think of the warrior standing against all odds for a creed, or ethos that transcends the horror of the moment we understand. When we hear of the walls being overrun with 'Barbarians' and still the Warrior Prince stands ground against the hordes of 'infidels' (to me both barbarian and infidel are not to be understood as specific people but as mind states, blatant symbols of the ignorant view) despite the futility, or seeming futility of the moment. We learn throughout our exploration of mythology from Beowulf who even though mortally wounded by the Dragon heroically does what has to be done, we see it in the story of Jesus most explicitly as well. The seeming futility is transformed because the futility that 'we' see i.e. the ignorant, is because of our clinging to the material self i.e. the Hero's body, deeds, etc-instead of the Hero's view which is the adherence to a code of conduct that transcends the flesh. The ends does not justify the means, so to say, the means are themselves the ends. And in such sacrifice we are to be 'chastised' much as Beowulf's men are by Wigalf, as we still are by the preachers, pastors, etc. We are to see, to break through the 'clinging' to the illusion, and in this it takes the warrior's courage.

It is with this that I tackle why the seemingly banal (but mostly sought after) ceremony and subsequent practice of Marriage is brave, brave in the sense of the Mythological warrior. When we contemplate the idea of marriage in its proper, I think, terms we must contemplate what it truly is. It is a promise to Love, to express Compassion, Kindness and to do so is Brave. For, in this world, where we are ignorant we are awash in the sorrows of this impermanent existence. All of our joys will come to an end (luckily that also means that our sorrows are also impermanent), all of our accomplishments will rot and turn to dust, but, mostly, to me at least, all that we love will grow old and be murdered by 'time'. This entry is mostly in response to some of the insight I focused on in the previous post. That to Love in this life, to love before we have sight, before we have any strength or power is a strong call. It is a covenant toward the path of which we can only hope there is the end that the Greats have told us. One cannot 'believe' in heaven as we believe in the rising of the sun. Both, admittedly, take faith of some sort, however the rising of the sun, we could argue, is an experience that we can 'experience' in our conventional existence. Heaven, is not. It is to the blind a castle built in the minds eye with the clay of faith. When we make this promise to this other, this finite being, we are in essence giving a sacrifice to our 'hope', frail, shivering, and tenuous but bravely giving it, its head. We shall see them rot, and morph from the youth to the old and tired soul. From supple and spry to aged and crippled. If we are lucky they will go off quickly into the night, to hide us from their daily torment, or we them, but mostly we will linger long in this shadow of pain and woe. Years, decades maybe. With the advent of our medical technologies half of our life can be in this twilight, where our memories fade, sometimes till they are all gone, where our thoughts become clouded until, sometimes, undecipherable. And yet, perhaps foolishly, to be true bravery it has to be possible to be labeled as such, it has to be foolish to the norm, we love. IF we are conscious, if we do it willingly and with full knowledge of the outcomes, not the possible ones, but the inevitable ones, and we still will love. We will still serve. Then it is brave to be so. It is courage to make such oaths of fidelity. And I think it is the first steps of transcendence but as such a lowly being it can only be a thought, it can only be the quickening toward a hoped for enlightenment.

In this reality I suffer the onset of the never ending war of attrition, one that I am doomed to lose in this reality, but it is not this one that I live for, but in it I will live. It is not that I Love and Do in order for this 'reward', no, that would be incorrect, it would sully such oaths, such promises, which can never be paid for but given, gifted. I am married and I try to know it for what it is. To know that it is a call to watch my wife fade and grow old, and to do so with great love, to wish to take all these pains from her, I know this, to wish her to stretch out those moments of mirth, to be coupled with joy and happiness. It is my duty. And in this duty I lose myself, but it is the way, it is the only way toward IT. I will know that I will be lucky to know even my wife's face as I die, that I will be, most likely, mortally wounded by dementia and its cousins, but somewhere, deep in there, perhaps written on the winds, I made a promise, and I think, I hope, that in such a way I can evolve to a state where I could do more than just hope. I promised.

Be well
G

I was thinking this the other day when I was reading something I had written when I reached the decrepit age of 30 some years ago. It was a hesitant look into what I was thinking at the time about life and how to live it. I sent it out to a few of my friends, and I dare say, not a one of them read it. I am not saying that it was any good but I think that politeness at the very least would have to amount to a cursory reading. Alas, it was, I thought, too poorly written to be of any use to anyone so I let it be. Then, I spoke a few years later to another person that I had just begun to know, a a coworker, and she read it. She read a few times and sat down and thought about it. We spoke about the errors, what she thought was solid ideas, and what motivated an aging Man in our modern times to think about such things as 'suchness'. Now, this woman was maybe twenty five years my senior and that may have had something to do with it. Perhaps, she came from an era that had more understanding of the less chaotic times when reading and pondering were more of the norm because of the lacking of the prevalence of the mediums of choice today (it is this that I have lamented at times with our technology, not the actual technology perse but the act that it doesn't make one have a necessary moment of pause to think, and ponder what has just past. Even our cinema if we look at the cuts, and the times between them, and compare to older movies, are more then 70-80% quicker than they used to be. The MTV effect I think it is called. The speed breeds more 'efficiencies' but decreases the 'usual' meaning of those efficiencies which, I think, is to be able to find meaning in this life and to find tools in which this is able. What books are there now in ready circulation that makes one put down for a moment and think on what it meant? To be able to incorporate the ideas presented in a scope of one's life, and one's place and duty in it in regards to the world etc? Not to say that Last of the Mohicans was a seminal work but as entertainment it was in huge circulation in its time-I think it sold a few million in the first few years. Now we watch atrocious TV-although I must add, it is a good teacher of modern mores, and Universe is a pretty good show).

The question now raised, the modern mores and aesthetic aside, is whether one can truly speak to anyone who does not have the same views as you? I think, on the surface that this seems to be a simple question that one can indeed sway another person with art and style, and with content and ability, but if I look deeper I am not sure. I am able to believe that some may, but lets put aside the exception and focus on the rule. When I think of the times that I am able to speak about issues on Meaning or Beginnings, I can only speak to a select few. I like to think that there was a time amongst 'educated' peoples (I don't know if I can put myself in this category, I think I can read to an elementary level but all else I am hesitant to say that I can do) that such discourse was the norm. It is here that the modern effete of passive entertainment, I think, has caused us to have a lazy mind, and in fact, most all that we partake of caters to this from our easily obtained food to our easily accessed information. These examples are not 'bad' as they allow for, supposedly, or could, more time for introspection and, hopefully, active participation in the fundamentals of Human existence. However, I think, the examples of this occurring point to the truth that we have not use this time 'wisely'. Perhaps it was those that were able, and even those that were slightly more challenged, were, through their innate, or almost innate, curiosity forced to cultivate the mental muscle to attempt such heights because of the cumbersome tedium (I must say though I enjoy it, the big dusty tombs, quiet libraries, and talking to a few people who don't think it is mad to ponder why we are here) of acquiring materials to strike out on such a quest. Perhaps. Now, when one group has a set of code or mores that they have deemed to be unchangeable, or not even thought of as being immutable but have ensconced themselves so deeply that the thought of it being 'untrue' or 'harmful' never occurs to them. It is supported by a formed reality through media etc. that is buttressed by an need to homogenize a group to market toward. It was because of this that Public Schools were, in fact, created. In the mid 1600's a group of New England clergy men were concerned that a radical forms of Christianity were being taught to children because of the prevalence of tutors, on their own, educating children in their homes, etc. They wanted to have a standardized view thus they forced laws that made Public Education mandatory, thus the teachings of the Christ could become homogenized and made safe for the Fathers of New England. This ideal can be seen throughout the evolution of our Public schools which are, incidentally, modeled after a Prussian Military system. It is about making norms of thought, practice, and view. Once for Religious purposes (some would argue it was for power consolidation i.e. once the idea that I am my brothers keeper gets about we have problems, but once the idea that the great Here After is my reward then I can suffer in the here and now) and then progressively, as the Industrial Revolution came about, to create not educated adults but ones that could read and write well enough to manage in a factory thus the Bells, and Whistles at school-matching the bells and whistles at work. We still had at this time a few hold outs, perhaps, here and there, but not many. And as the years went by the hold outs were not philosophical hold outs they were societal dregs who held out, perhaps at the root of it, they knew something was amiss, but mostly because of issues of poverty, non service etc. This adherence to a certain code of conduct became so ingrained in our society that the very basis of our society is founded upon this distemper of 'Sameness'. That to be Other in this society we are, in essence, banishing ourselves from any 'normal' amenities. Imagine the idea of 'dropping out' in our society now? It would take a Great man or woman to do so, or a Mad man or Woman, even the very water is now regulated to be unattainable for those who want to 'drop out' in any sense of the word. To do so would have to be in, some degree, a negative act i.e. it would take stealing or robbing in some form or other. It would also take the justification of doing so i.e. 'this is a corrupt system and thus it is not stealing' however, through the normal ideas of ownership and deeds, it would be stealing. To not think of it so would be analogous to the stripping of the Native Americans land, the justification, at base, only being that we could. It could be argued that it was not righteous to do so, and the stealing in the former case is, but I ask who are you stealing from? If it is from the Government then who is the one that must suffer that theft? There is no Government there is the forest ranger who then would get into trouble, or there is the small farm that you have diverted some of their water for your own purpose, there are no 'real' faceless entities. Stealing is always from someone.

All these forces have come to a head to our modern era, that some call the Information Era, but I hesitate to say it is. Information, as with anything one consumes, is dependent on the consumer, if the consumer is unable to take information and form a coherent action/thought from said information it ceases to satisfy this relationship. Or, if the consumer is unable (not in the ultimate sense but in the conventional) to form ideas outside of their conditioning it is also not information but reiteration of beginning accepted principles( I use 'accepted' because even in the passive sense the individual still exists. They have accepted in the passive sense a viewpoint of the world and the 'information' acquired becomes reiteration of this viewpoint). We have become the hydra of conformity, that even our rebelion is steeped in conformity i.e. a 'movement'. I must stop here and say that I am not condoning individual rebelion, or faux creation for creations sake, this would be an error and, unfortunately I think, we do see this. We can say a Punk movement as a friend of mine said who has no statement other than to say 'fuck everything'. No, this is a more harsh illustration of the Modern Era of Conformity in our supposed information age which fails to live up to its name. For, as conformist through and through, we can only have the crudest of rebellions against it, something weak and savage, with no educated crafting, or artistic shaping, for without the barriers of our conformity we have not the means to build our own (though they must be forever unstable, to be tossed down with more evidence and insight-I call this humility that fashions a drive, the Vernunft of Jaspers).If truly this was an Information Age we would be able to craft these walls within an active Individual, which I state is the Aware individual who has use an conscious existence, called by an educated mind (defined here as the ability to think beyond ones barriers and construct or deconstruct these barriers for the guiding principle is the drive toward Truth partnered with a Humility of thought-that one can never know a thing, but can know if a thing works-if this is met with a deconstructing principle that disallows the functioning of the prior 'working' then the previous point of reference must be disregarded, or evolved past). From the observation of our times one can conclude that this is not being done, that the Wars of our times, both individually and internationally are not ones of Education and rhetoric rather that of two opposing intractable Fundamentalist positions where Violence is the only option (not just speaking of physical violence. Also, that of the bombast we here on the radio, the Punk position, the television corruption of the News etc.). Violence I think I must say here is also a reaction to the position of the stated conformed mind, that it is so inculcated in the fundamentalist position that the opposing position is not seen as a possibility of getting closer to truth, but that of possible anhiliation of their 'reality'. This can only lead to a Reptilian mind response of fight or flight. To progress toward our higher selves, or even higher 'brain' i.e. the Cortex, takes an educational tools i.e. abilities necessary to achieve an Education.

Where does this lead us? It leads me to observe that in our times that idea of 'preaching to the choir' is not just a simple truism but a truth of our age. That rhetoric in the Hellenistic sense does not exist anymore. I am thus skeptical when we say "diplomatic' resolution because how can diplomacy exist in such a state of conformity and Fundamentalism. Negotiations assume the ability to be persuaded, to have a malleable near goal to serve a higher undefinable goal i.e. Truth. We have no diplomats, perhaps never, but currently we do not. They are instead missionaries of the worst order trying to convert, and in this conversion reify their own 'realities', and once confronted with an alternate one reach for the sword to cut out this opposing force rather than reaching for a handful of Kusha grass. This is not to be seen as just a statement on international delegates, but also in the interaction of our selves. I once heard that we cannot know anyone else, that our interactions as, at best, hazy. That we are hard shelled and alone. And to this I give a hesitant yes, in the conventional sort, I think Ultimately there is no shell, and there is no self, but that goes beyond what I am talking about-read previous posts on this if you wish or just ask. But the hesitant yes states that the efforts for diplomacy, of Education, Rhetoric ultimately is not about the Other, it is about the pathway of the Self. That this malleability to the whims of this drive toward Truth allows for one to get to it, or closer to it. If one is hard shelled then one must contemplate in this orb, to ponder its boundaries, to wonder what it is that is within. In doing this one has to be able to listen, to hear, to become Educated, and to take a stand that does not make the shell forever static. If shell there be, then it should be as a turtles egg; soft, pliable, and also like lungs, expanding contracting, in order, I believe, to find that there is no shell, that one is Free. But freedom has never come tethered. To anything.

So, here I sit, mostly alone, not often lonely, but at times it does bite. I am not Educated. I try to be, I am attempting it. I am, though, saddened. There is happiness in this life and it needs not be a happiness born of ignorance. I know this to be true. And, yet, around me, surrounding me, all these with talents beyond my own, far beyond my miserly ones, there is misery whether acknowledged or not, stemming from the angst and anxiety arising from fundamental positions. The sorrow of 'doubt' which even if it is not labeled as such, when one attacks with such violence we know that it comes from such a place, and thus the position is fraught with doubt. In this, I am saddened. I feel, at times, that I have been left behind in some wood that is obsolete in this age, maybe with a few other old men, around a flickering campfire. We hold our wrinkled hands to the fire, and wonder at all that has past us by. And sing woeful tunes to the death of the open ear, of the humble mind, of the educated soul. Without these there is no peace. So, in the end, we lament the loss of peace.

 

Be well
G