Canaan

[Vimalakirti]

On his way to Canaan, Abram paused at a modest strip mall (7x7 stores) just outside Babylon. He met an Indian there, over lunch at the food court. They shared a table. Abram settled on the spicy Thai salad with pork dumplings, and the Indian, a little frail from excessive fasting, invoked a platter of fries and a burger.

Abram sat tall, grand, bearded, wrapped in thick woollen robes, and with a will so huge and powerful that centuries & oceans disappeared inside its pores. His will, he knew, would one day be the will of everyone. No other will would ever stand against it, except it be his own will by some other name.

The frail Indian was bald, clean-shaven and dressed only in a dhoti, though the desert wind chafed his bare skin. He gave off the air of a distant relation. The Indian’s will was also great but had slipped inside the pores of the world, or floated somewhere beyond. For the Indian, there was always another beyond. He never despaired. He sat up very straight at table.

The Indian was a world-class siddhi who through long fasts and many other austerities had earned powers of precognition, clairvoyance, clairaudience, the ability to walk on water and to pass through the earth as if it were water, to become many beings from one, from one many, and the capacity to remember past lives through countless eons and innumerable expansions and contractions of the cosmos. Or so it was said.

Abram inclined his head in respect. He told the Indian how he had been called to journey to Canaan, on a small matter of land, bringing with him his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, along with all his other relations, she-asses, camels & tents. Abram was always happy to announce his plans & history to anyone who would listen. He never wrote these things down, and he hoped that someone else would, if only on a napkin. But the Indian, like Abram, was no writer. Sound & speech were everything for both, although issuing in different ways and from different places.

For the Indian, sound arose universally from the throat of the rose-apple Earth and was articulated through world organs. He charted it phonetically from vibrating chords, through glottal stops, from back to front vowels, from the dome of the sounding cave to the shaping rituals of the lips. For Abram, sound boomed behind his eyes like a steel drum, and could not be broken down or analyzed as sound but only as mighty sign, and would only echo yet more loudly when once written down. In this sound Abram heard the only God speak. Among other things, the only God said: Go on to Canaan.

[Vimalakirti]

The Indian brought his hands together in honour of Abram’s God. But he said that the only God was only God speaking, and there was always prior speech and speech beyond. And he began his analogies on the scale of what had already passed and what was to come. For if every grain of sand of the River Ganga was a world system, and if each world system had its own Ganga and each grain of sand in each of these myriad Gangas was itself a world system and if you counted all these grains of sand in all these rivers in all these world systems, that number would be incalculably great. But that number would fall immeasurably short of the number of Gods, speeches & weeping that will be and already have been heard.

And the Indian would have chanted on to endless further analogies. And he would have chanted on in sad & sweet ragas through the afternoon and through the night, and he would have chanted...but Abram cut him short, sternly. He leaned over the table, one hand gripping his diet orange soda. His eyes were like coals, but he tried to be gentle. You’re a good guy. You mean well. But you must remember the Kingdom, he said, and all it demands. You don’t get the politics. This is a serious place, and you’re just a tourist. I have to live here. The Indian agreed with a sideways tilt to his head. And Abram said, this is not your forest but my one-sound desert. And out of this one-sound weighty books will grow, and each one will be worth a shelf of your sutras because every book will form a beginning, middle & end and so will the world.

The Indian tilted his head rapidly side to side, as Indians do, and agreed that his India with its Yoga, its Lotus, would drift with sounds & stories, would be light on gravitas as well as closure, and would scarcely reach to commands & books. Yet this was only real & just because the world was also light. And it had neither beginning nor end.

Abram shook his drink until it flooded over the sides of the cup. But the ice had melted so it made no sound. There was a beginning, in the Kingdom. And there would be an end – in the Kingdom. That was the steel drum sounding in Abram, the sound of his will. And the Kingdoms & children of Abram would multiply like the stars in the heavens & the dust on the ground.

[Vimalakirti]

Neti, neti – not that, not that, said the Indian, with that quibbling back-and-forth tilting of his head. He too would conjure countless descendents, but sired by semen sprinkled on lotus petals and taken up by river spirits. Our populations will grow, he said. But your promised land will always be settled by others, no matter Sarai’s plot bought from the Hittites, and your coming will always ripen in slaughters & further exiles, and your dominions brief, and your returns will bring always more slaughters and your Canaan will be plagued always by others. And it will be the same for everyone who speaks with your will. Thus was the Indian’s sutra on that day.

And the thread of the Indian’s words found a needle in Abram’s heart, and he felt a gnawing there deeper than he would later feel from pimping his wife to Pharaoh, from sharing secret pleasures with Hagar, from sending his son Ishmael into exile, or from holding the blade over Isaac, because he knew that anything would be better than going on to Canaan. It would be better to turn east with the Indian – his tour of Iraq was just about over – and maybe help him put some order and spine into his sutras, improve his methods of time-keeping and help with the breeding of cattle & goats. It would be better to retreat to the noble desert, avoiding all oracles & prophets, all further revelations and their jihads; or just head downtown, open a shop and enjoy the markets & cafes of Babylon. It would be better to stay with a normal lifespan, die en route, and leave his descendents, however numerous, go where they will.

But none of this would satisfy the steel drum sounding of his will, and with his heart still penetrated by the Indian’s sutra, he saw more: the later northern tribes falling onto empires gone pale, and saw that after the sweet if perfunctory rapes, killings, lootings & burnings the barbarians would feel bereft of any distinct further impulse and would go fat with depleted will, with the old Greek reason too weak and the Indian too weird to help them, and would drop, collapse like mudslides down shaken hills. And they would lie there, like golems, without his re-animating will. They would need Abram for their descendents and his to multiply like the dust on the ground & the stars in the heavens. Or so it was thought.

So the Indian & Abram embraced, with tears, though tears were against the calling of the one and the will of the other. And Abram continued west to Canaan, though he knew that going on to Canaan would only make it the world. And the Indian returned east with Canaan rising in his mind whenever he thought of suffering.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

A great story but I dont quite get it, care to explain?

[bananabrain]

well, reads like this to me: "hinduism is great, judaism is poo. abraham should have gone the other way and then there wouldn't be all this trouble in the world." what a bunch of self-serving twaddle. real dialogue-promoting stuff.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[lunamoth]

Aww go on bananabrain, why don't you tell us what you really think.

Yes, it reads that way to me too.

lunamoth

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

A great story but I dont quite get it, care to explain?

I guess I would say there are two basic underlying ideas. First, there’s the distinction between the Abrahamic religions on the one hand and Indian religions on the other. That distinction very simply is that between two core concepts, the "Kingdom of God" and "Yoga". Granted, there are vast complexities involved in comparing two great traditions, each thousands of years old. This distinction certainly can't explain everything one needs to know about the two traditions. But it does go to the heart of matter.



It seems to me that the failure to understand how deeply the two traditions are conditioned by their core concepts has led to innumerable misunderstandings. Historically, Indian religions have repeatedly been attacked in the west as "fatalistic", "quietist", "nihilist", and and their writings dismissed out of hand. From the other side, Indians as well as people from other traditions have often had a difficult time grasping the deep social and political dimension of Abrahamic religions. Gandhi is famously said to have been unable to find any "religion" in the bible until he arrived at the Sermon on the Mount. That's probably an exaggeration, but the fact remains that Abrahamic religions are deeply political in a way barely imaginable in any eastern tradition as they originally evolved.



Does that make Abrahamic religions all evil and Indian traditions all good? Of course not. Each brings its own strength and weaknesses. Christianity has arguably been the driving force of Western culture and the inspiration for numerous humanitarian ideas and organizations. It has also been the template for less wholesome ideas and movements. Indian Yoga in its many forms - of which Buddhism is only the most famous - has much to offer as practice and as knowledge of the human mind. But you could also argue that Yoga has in general not particularly stimulated the sort of social engagement that has empowered the West. So contrary to the reaction of some other posters my aim was not polemical - they may have noticed that I poked a little fun at the Indian side as well - but just to point to a simple and very real distinction.



The second point is far more delicate and difficult to put without offending, and that is this whole question of the "Kingdom of God". It seems to me we have to face the very mixed legacy this concept entails. As I've said, it's the root of many good works. But it's also the template of ideology as we've developed in the West - which I'm here defining as the "dynamic rationalization of power". From the moment the bible has God choosing Abram and sending him to Canaan to displace (exterminate) its inhabitants, the mother of all ideologies is effectively set in motion. It's impossible for me to imagine an ideology more powerful than this fusion of history, metaphysical absolutes and a chosen people. It's the extraordinary achievement of an otherwise marginal people who imaginatively transposed a lack of earthly power into metaphysical and spiritual power, and by so doing became the "people of the book", now at the root of traditions comprising billions around the globe.



So hats off to the Hebrews! But it should not be a matter of slamming Christianity or engaging in polemics or damaging interfaith dialogue to face the truth: that the elaboration of this original ideology in those cruel and primitive times brought inherent dangers. From the zealots of the time of Jesus to the current Jihadis in the Middle East, passing by the faux religions of fascism and communism, through pogroms and inquisitions, the problem is not simply the highjacking or distortion of an ideology but the root notions of the ideology itself. Absolutist systems of thought can and have been enlisted in the interests of the underdog. But they inevitably, in my opinion, fall into the wrong hands and lead to suffering.



Is absolutism identical with Judaism, Christianity & Islam? I don't think so. The problem as I see it is that so many in these faith traditions don't make the distinction. But by the force of history and innumerable compassionate acts and people, the 3,000 year old tradition is bigger than any ideology.

[bananabrain]

vimalakirti -

i wish you'd found some other way to raise the subject rather than this rather heavy-handed and pompous parable. it is all very well for you to attack abrahamic traditions, but at least do it from a place of knowledge, rather than relying on unsubtle dualism. i would first of all challenge your concept of judaism as a "western" religion. you may not know this, but there is an ancient tradition of meditation within judaism that is almost yogic in its practical application. secondly, i take great exception to your suggesting that judaism in particular can be reduced to "kingdom of G!D". if anything, our tradition says that the only thing you need to know is "do not do unto your neighbour what is hateful to yourself. the rest is commentary".

From the moment the bible has G!D choosing Abram and sending him to Canaan to displace (exterminate) its inhabitants, the mother of all ideologies is effectively set in motion. It's impossible for me to imagine an ideology more powerful than this fusion of history, metaphysical absolutes and a chosen people.

you say this as if there had been complete peace on earth before abram. you also ignore a fundamental axiom of the concept of the promised land, namely that the nations living there in the context of this sacred history were evil. it is impossible to overemphasise the fact that this was never meant as a paradigm for judaism in general, let alone the other abrahamic traditions. furthermore, you cannot just glibly translate this into modern language and draw conclusions from it. in fact, it is doing this, as you rightly point out, that causes many problems.

From the zealots of the time of Jesus to the current Jihadis in the Middle East, passing by the faux religions of fascism and communism, through pogroms and inquisitions, the problem is not simply the highjacking or distortion of an ideology but the root notions of the ideology itself.

so what ideology is it that the BJP in india are following? can't possibly be hindu, can it?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[DalyPondering]

Hey, BananaBrain

Chill!!!!!

You equally should find another forum for proclaiming the all powerfulness of Jewish mysticism, and cursing those who would jokingly confront it with plagues of Frogs and Locusts.

If you persist, I shall be forced to use my Siddhis to pummel you with monkey feces.

[Vimalakirti]

[quote=bananabrain]vimalakirti -



i wish you'd found some other way to raise the subject rather than this rather heavy-handed and pompous parable. it is all very well for you to attack abrahamic traditions, but at least do it from a place of knowledge, rather than relying on unsubtle dualism. i would first of all challenge your concept of judaism as a "western" religion. you may not know this, but there is an ancient tradition of meditation within judaism that is almost yogic in its practical application. secondly, i take great exception to your suggesting that judaism in particular can be reduced to "kingdom of G!D". if anything, our tradition says that the only thing you need to know is "do not do unto your neighbour what is hateful to yourself. the rest is commentary".



Thanks for your response. I appreciate the time you're taking and the sincerity of your outrage. As I've suggested, this subject is difficult to raise without pushing the usual buttons and having people go ballistic. With all respect, I feel that your reaction to the unpalatable point I'm making gets in the way of a more careful reading. I won't defend the quality or lack of it of the story itself - it is what it is - and no it doesn't precisely express every nuance of the issue. And it's unlikely to enter into the canon!



But again, as I was trying (and maybe failing) to make clear, I'm not saying that a single core concept sums up everything we need to know about a tradition. All the major traditions have thier yogas, as well as their social/political impacts. It can't be avoided. Thousands of years of meeting human needs means the elaboration of many approaches to truth. I'm certainly aware of the Kabbalah - though not by personal experience. But I don't think you're suggesting that the driving force of Jewish history and struggle through the centuries, the establishment of the modern state of Israel, etc., rests with the Kabbalah. The remarkable cohesion of Jewish tradition surely rests with the power in the idea of a chosen people.



you say this as if there had been complete peace on earth before abram. you also ignore a fundamental axiom of the concept of the promised land, namely that the nations living there in the context of this sacred history were evil. it is impossible to overemphasise the fact that this was never meant as a paradigm for judaism in general, let alone the other abrahamic traditions. furthermore, you cannot just glibly translate this into modern language and draw conclusions from it. in fact, it is doing this, as you rightly point out, that causes many problems.



Again, a more careful reading would help here. Toward the end of the story I allude to later history: the fall of the Romans and the invading northern tribes. You'll notice that they're happly raping and pillaging well before they could even remotely (and falsely) claim they were doing G!d's work - as was later claimed on innumerable occasions.



So it's not my claim that the inhabitants of Canaan were morally superior to the ancient Hebrews; in fact, I suspect they weren't. My feeling from my own (non-scholarly) reading of the Bible was that it indeed was set in savage times and that while the ancient Hebrews appear to share in that savagery they also appear to represent a moral advance. On other hand, that "in the context of sacred history" the inhabitants of Canaan deserved annihilation is a whole other question.



How this sacred history is to be taken has been debated, I'm sure you'll agree, from the beginning and there's an enormous range of opinion here on what's "sacred", what's "history" and what really happened. But leaving aside questions of interpretation, this paradigm as you call it of metaphysical justification for the taking of human life has its own history, by far the greatest crimes of which were carried out by non-Jews, and even against Jews. The point is that this powerful idea, which in the context of the ancient Hebrew nation constantly under threat and always in the shadow of empire was a moral advance, and at its best a raising and spirtualizing of human conflict (in the William Blake sense of "mental fight"), took on many lives of its own and has been used and abused ever since. So no, the kingdom of G!d did not bring violence into the world, but only provided a powerful instrument, too often in the hands of the wrong people.



so what ideology is it that the BJP in india are following? can't possibly be hindu, can it?



Again, look at what I said about Indian religions "as originally evolved". That religious fundamentalism has spread to modern India hardly goes to the basic point. In fact, fundamentalism was introduced to the sub-continent with the Moghul empire centuries ago. One result was the rise of the militant Sikhs, whose theology is a fusion of Islamic and Hindu traditions. Sure, fundamentalism is disgustingly on the rise everywhere. But take a look at the whole history of fundamentalism east & west - there's hardly a comparison.



Look, the bottom line is not that I'm putting out some Pollyanna notion that we can ever go back, pre-ideology; the cat is out of the bag. Human beings will not easily give up powerful ideas that work. My point only is that a steady, unflinching appreciation of this core idea in our thinking will help us tame it, help all religious tradition move off divisive and finally absurd notions of their own monopolies of truth, and help undercut the pretensions of thugs that mis-use the tradition to their own ends.



It was my perhaps naive notion that a forum of comparative religion would be just the place to air an issue that's unlikely ever to make CNN, or be discussed anywhere where the pursuit of power is everything. A forum like this should be about fundamental truths. And to me there's a fundamental truth to the idea of a direct line from G!d's death sentence on the Canaanites and George Bush announcing, 'You're with us, or you're with the terrorists." Surely, religion has higher aims than merely siding with the least objectionable absolutism, the more charming bully?



Shanti



Obviously-not-Vimalakirti-but-just-another-fool.

[Ciel]

Vimalkirti, thank you,
Your words speak with great patience.
No fool, simply concise and coherent truth from a conscientious objector.

[bananabrain]

You equally should find another forum for proclaiming the all powerfulness of Jewish mysticism

where did i do that? whatever else you might accuse me of, triumphalism isn't included, at least i would have thought.

I appreciate the time you're taking and the sincerity of your outrage.

i'm neither outraged nor ballistic. this is not a new accusation, merely an old chestnut. you must admit that talking about "pimping", or assuming that something is a "needle in the heart", is hardly conducive to a calm discussion. it is quite simply not necessary to raise the issues you are raising in a matter which necessarily raises the temperature. or perhaps you think i ought to practise detachment from such things. either way it is quite simply rude.

But I don't think you're suggesting that the driving force of Jewish history and struggle through the centuries, the establishment of the modern state of Israel, etc., rests with the Kabbalah. The remarkable cohesion of Jewish tradition surely rests with the power in the idea of a chosen people.

as a matter of fact, jewish history, even the establishment of the modern state can certainly be explained in these terms from kabbalistic sources and this has been done so by many eminent authorities - albeit i will sadly concede that much of this has been hijacked since 1967 by the religious right and reduced to fundamentalist binary, although they are far from being the only custodians of interpretation. the notion of a chosen people, however, is not unique to us - and judaism's longevity cannot be attributed solely to this. in fact, there is no adequate rational explanation for the anomaly that is judaism within the discipline of history.

On other hand, that "in the context of sacred history" the inhabitants of Canaan deserved annihilation is a whole other question. How this sacred history is to be taken has been debated, I'm sure you'll agree, from the beginning and there's an enormous range of opinion here on what's "sacred", what's "history" and what really happened.

i think you're misunderstanding what i mean by sacred history. sacred history is not concerned with "history" or what "really happened". as a matter of fact, i do not believe that humans can ever know "what really happened" - only "what might have happened". Torah cannot be demonstrated with the tools of athens, nor can it be disproved by "enlightenment". does that make it any clearer?

My point only is that a steady, unflinching appreciation of this core idea in our thinking will help us tame it, help all religious tradition move off divisive and finally absurd notions of their own monopolies of truth, and help undercut the pretensions of thugs that mis-use the tradition to their own ends.

but that's exactly what i'm saying - the KoG is not the core idea of judaism. obviously there are people who are trying to make it into the core idea, as you are aware, but this is hardly news.

It was my perhaps naive notion that a forum of comparative religion would be just the place to air an issue that's unlikely ever to make CNN, or be discussed anywhere where the pursuit of power is everything.

perhaps, but your notion of the KoG would actually be tendentious within those fora - nor are you actually proposing a solution, just "less of what's bad for you".

A forum like this should be about fundamental truths.

see, this is where i have to disagree. it can be about our *perception* of fundamental truths, but to suggest that humans can actually attain this fundamental truth (other than particularly exceptional individuals - and then, even that's also controversial) is simply a construct of human ego. shame on you for a samsaric maya-denier!

And to me there's a fundamental truth to the idea of a direct line from G!D's death sentence on the Canaanites and George Bush announcing, 'You're with us, or you're with the terrorists."

yeah - it's the direct line between Divine Command and humans getting delusions of insight. humans have always claimed that they have an exclusive corner on Divine support - and they have always eventually fallen victim to hubris.

Surely, religion has higher aims than merely siding with the least objectionable absolutism, the more charming bully

indeed, but if it cannot give us a guide by which we can make the "lower" choices, it is of no *practical* use. i suppose this is the fundamental difference between your outlook and mine - yours would presumably teach detachment because there is no ultimate reality, whereas mine would deny any ultimate reality other than the Divine Will - and theologically speaking i find these to be disturbingly similar, even if they lead to very different ways of living. and both can lead to smugness and superiority complexes. for you, there are certain things which can never be right, whereas for me, these things are not all the same. or vice-versa, if you prefer. we just differ on the rightness and wrongness of actions.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by Ciel

Vimalkirti, thank you,
Your words speak with great patience.
No fool, simply concise and coherent truth from a conscientious objector.

Cheers.

[lunamoth]

Dear Vimalakirti,

But I get the feeling from your story, which was written in very nice prose by the way, that you conclude that all religion, particularly organized religion, and specifically all organized religion stemming from Abrahamic origins, are the source of suffering in the world. I disagree. Suffering in the world may very well be mostly due to the duality that characterizes our life in this plane, and any instrument that consists of more than one or perhaps a few individuals can be unfortunately highjacked to serve political (or egotistical) rather than altruistic goals. I think that, maybe in parallel to Buddhist thought (which I admit I know little aobut), humans may be eternally stuck with this fault and danger: maybe this is exactly what original sin is. However, it is not limited to the Abrahamic religions and it is not limited to religions at all (as you or someone also pointed out above). Any human enterprise can be corrupted, and tragically the good work of hundreds or thousands can be corrupted by just a few. It is to my amazement and humility that I realize that in spite of this tremendous good does occur in the world.

I had to google your screen name to find out what it meant. Interesting! Me, I am just a moth.

Vimalakirti, who appears in this koan, was a lay practitioner who was said to be as enlightened and clear as the Buddha. He was called "the white robed one." The Vimalakirti Sutra is one of the core texts of the Mahayana tradition, and it is that tradition which puts an end to the separation between men and women, sacred and secular, samsara and nirvana. Though in fact, for all practical purposes, a lot of those dualities remained in place in much of institutional Buddhism. Nevertheless, the teachings are there to guide us when we are ready to realize and practice them.

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Vimalakirti

[color=black] Gandhi is famously said to have been unable to find any "religion" in the bible until he arrived at the Sermon on the Mount. That's probably an exaggeration, but the fact remains that Abrahamic religions are deeply political in a way barely imaginable in any eastern tradition as they originally evolved.

I heard once that Gandhi couldn't find any inspiration in Christianity until he read Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. That book, TKoGIWY, describes, from Tolstoy's view anyway, that Christinaity is supposed to be very apolitical. Reading the Sermon the Mount I think one can come to the conclusion that the Gospels, at least, are very subversive. It is an irony that taking the good news to the people created/required organization, which in turn was politcized and corrupted, and still is to this day. So, the problem is not religion, but the human condition. No wonder that Christians find the promise of the Kingdom of God so compelling because what it means, at least from my understanding, is the end of duality and suffering that arise from this human nature.

So hats off to the Hebrews! But it should not be a matter of slamming Christianity or engaging in polemics or damaging interfaith dialogue to face the truth: that the elaboration of this original ideology in those cruel and primitive times brought inherent dangers. From the zealots of the time of Jesus to the current Jihadis in the Middle East, passing by the faux religions of fascism and communism, through pogroms and inquisitions, the problem is not simply the highjacking or distortion of an ideology but the root notions of the ideology itself. ...

Very smooth, but I think it is wrong, and a tad condescending.

...Absolutist systems of thought can and have been enlisted in the interests of the underdog. But they inevitably, in my opinion, fall into the wrong hands and lead to suffering.

Is absolutism identical with Judaism, Christianity & Islam? I don't think so. The problem as I see it is that so many in these faith traditions don't make the distinction. But by the force of history and innumerable compassionate acts and people, the 3,000 year old tradition is bigger than any ideology.

This seems to contradict what you said above.

Dialogue is best. What is it you want to talk about?

lunamoth