"...The 18th century thinkers who brought about =93the
Enlightenment=94 in Western thought believed that by relying on reason and
science they could escape the religious superstition and divisiveness which
had eviscerated Europe in the previous centuries. Their =93Enlightenment=94
then, was a very different thing from the messianism of 1 John 5:20..."
Indeed, their attempts, (and any others), to "...rely on reason and
science..." are at the very root of the problem. No one said the 18th
Century thinkers were enlightened. My references of 'enlightenment' were to
Moses, Paul and Thomas, none of whom I'd consider "religious" as we
pejoratively use the term today. The common thread is that each had a
radical, intimate, life changing experience with God directly, and they wer=
e
absolutely enlightened. Forgive my ignorance if these examples fall short o=
f
some preconceived 'notion' of what enlightenment is. My statements, (and I
reiterate, they are IMHO), did not equate 18th Century theological thought
with the source of the text of 1 John, which is, of course, the Word of God=
.
How Christ, (or even Buddha) might giggle to themselves as they listen to
our discussions. Here's another humble opinion....I don't think
enlightenment is nearly as complicated as we try to make it.
--=20
Tim Cassler
Toolbox Studios, Inc.
454 Soledad, Suite 100
San Antonio, TX 78205
210.225.8269 x111
fax.225.8200
> From: Thomas W Hare <thare@Princeton.EDU>
> Organization: Princeton University
> Reply-To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:24:19 -0400
> To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: shakuhachi V1 #288
>=20
> Recent remarks on the relation between spiritual attainment and technical
> skill
> in shakuhachi performance and the subsequent string on enlightenment are =
just
> the sort of thing I enjoy on this list. To my mind, the most interesting
> questions raised in the exchanges are the ones for which there is no
> definitive
> answer. That=92s probably why these questions keep recurring, not only in =
the
> list, but in the context of Buddhism and performing arts as well. The ma=
ny
> contributions I found this morning when I got into my email have finally
> provoked me to add my two-cents worth. Apologies to those who are tired =
of
> this line of discussion.
>=20
> The first thing that caught my eye was Tim=92s relation of enlightenment to=
a
> quotation from John. I=92m wondering what the Gk. words are in the text th=
ere,
> and what Hebrew words in the other examples Tim referred to, because in n=
ormal
> use in the West, "enlightenment" means something explicitly opposed to
> traditional religion. The 18th century thinkers who brought about =93the
> Enlightenment=94 in Western thought believed that by relying on reason and
> science they could escape the religious superstition and divisiveness whi=
ch
> had
> eviscerated Europe in the previous centuries. Their =93Enlightenment=94 then,=
was
> a
> very different thing from the messianism of 1 John 5:20
>=20
> Now I suppose it all depends on whether you are at heart a =93lumper=94 or a
> =93splitter,=94 but by professional training and personal inclination, I gues=
s I
> fall in the latter category, and that being the case, it seems to me that=
what
> people are talking about in Zen, using the word =93enlightenment,=94 is
> emphatically not the arrival of a messiah. Perhaps you could make the ca=
se
> that Pure Land Buddhism has something analogous to a messiah and, even, t=
o
> God,
> but Zen is based not on the grace and forgiveness of a superior being, bu=
t
> rather on a rigorous examination and thoroughgoing excavation of the shak=
y
> foundations of our prejudices. It is called a religion of =93self-power=94 a=
nd is
> explicitly distinguished from other strains of Buddhism in which the powe=
r of
> another (Buddha, bodhisattva, ascetic or whatever) lends you a hand towar=
d
> spiritual progress.
>=20
> That=92s not to say that there aren=92t claims of special authority in Zen, o=
r
> particular methods of practice which are recommended by a long tradition.=
All
> the same, those claims and methods are relentlessly questioned in Zen pra=
ctice
> and even Buddha -- who is emphatically not a god or God -- is subjected t=
o
> doubt and, arguably, ridicule: there=92s an old saying to the effect that i=
f you
> meet the Buddha in your practice (and he becomes an obstacle) you should =
kill
> him.
>=20
> What might this have to do with shakuhachi playing? Many people would an=
swer
> =93nothing.=94 (And that would probably be a perfectly appropriate =93Zen=94 res=
ponse
> to the question.) For others, though, the rigorous confrontation of
> preconceptions about who we are and what we are capable of with the
> difficulties of shakuhachi performance might serve as a religious practic=
e.
> Clearly there are many performers today, both inside and outside Japan, w=
ho
> take this view. It is, moreover, the basis of the claims made by Komuso =
monks
> in their religious use of the instrument (cf. Watazumi and the modern
> =93spiritualist=94 masters we occasionally talk about on this list.)
>=20
> What the spiritual status of shakuhachi performance might have been earli=
er in
> Japan raises fascinating questions; the answers are far from clear. Ikk=
yu,
> the legendary Zen iconoclast, was known to play the instrument, but did h=
e
> play
> it for spiritual advancement or, rather, for a break from his spiritual
> practice and the administrative burdens he assumed late in life? I=92d lik=
e to
> know more about this, and perhaps there=92s someone on the list who can, as=
it
> were, enlighten me.
>=20
> Yours,
> Tom Hare
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 14:09:32 PST