Monday, June 29, 2009

Chesterton on 'The Book of Job'

The […] great fact which […] makes the whole work religious instead of merely philosophical is that […] great surprise which makes Job suddenly satisfied with the mere presentation of something impenetrable.


The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man.


He points out that the fine thing about the world is that it can all be explained. That is the one point, if I may put it so, on which God, in return, is explicit to the point of violence. God says, in effect, that if there is one fine thing about the world, as far as men are concerned, it is that it cannot be explained. He insists on the inexplicableness of everything. "Hath the rain a father?. . . Out of whose womb came the ice?" (38:28f). He goes farther, and insists on the positive and palpable unreason of things; "Hast thou sent the rain upon the desert where no man is, and upon the wilderness wherein there is no man?" (38:26). God will make man see things, if it is only against the black background of nonentity. God will make Job see a startling universe if He can only do it by making Job see an idiotic universe. To startle man, God becomes for an instant a blasphemer; one might almost say that God becomes for an instant an atheist. He unrolls before Job a long panorama of created things, the horse, the eagle, the raven, the wild ass, the peacock, the ostrich, the crocodile. He so describes each of them that it sounds like a monster walking in the sun.


The whole is a sort of psalm or rhapsody of the sense of wonder.

The maker of all things is astonished at the things he has Himself made.


*****


For when once people have begun to believe that prosperity is the reward of virtue, their next calamity is obvious. If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue.


Job [is] tormented not because he was the worst of men, but because he was the best. It is the lesson of the whole work that man is most comforted by paradoxes.




PS. The above is an extract from G.K. Chesterton's commentary on The Book of Job... it’s a dear fav. of mine. The full text is available at:


http://chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/job.htm

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Attempt at an Understanding of Choice - II

There is no choice when it comes to things of the past; neither can Choice be in the now, for the now simply is (at 'rest' always in this moment), as also the now is infinitely inclusive of all possibilities, thus making the act of choice (the decision process) almost impossible. Choice exists only in regards to the future.

Choice is that which joins the future to the past, thereby making way for the persistence of a chooser, of a self (that chooses or chose), over the transience that is with the Flow of Time...

PS. The above is related to the post, "Symptoms as Absent-Referrals of that Omnipresence," which could aso be read as the "Part I" of this.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Beyond the Bread-&-Butter...

If you don’t have conditioning you wont be able to survive in this world. But if you only have conditioning and cant go beyond it, you will end up only surviving in this world without having any glimpse at the Other!

Dogen had once commented, that in Zen the pt. is NOT to be thoughtless as opposed to being thoughtful, but to be free from the stranglehold of thoughts so one can be free to use thoughts as per the demands of one's survival, while otherwise one can just be...

Monday, June 22, 2009

Towards a Possibility of Grace...

You are not that important to yourself as you are to the Whole of Existence...

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Kom Pass On

Let the chain of hurt stop with you… now! And may it be always…

Self-Refractions - 23

Which is more difficult? For the Criminal to never commit the crime again? Or, for the Victim to let go of all hurts and grudges against the Criminal?

Which is easier? For the Criminal to turn to Compassion or for the Victim to be Compassionate instead?

Are they really different persons?


PS. Does one have the freedom to love inspite of all else?

Monday, June 15, 2009

Why I earn..

Reasons to earn money:
  • Survival
  • Love & Compassion
  • Art
  • Freedom

PS. The above was revealed in an ongoing dialogue with Pooja Das Sarkar.

Am I?

At all moments, every person deserves peace, love and beauty. Are you in that moment right now?

Freud avec Heidegger

What Desire is to Drive, so is Mood to Temperament.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

The Problem with Exclusive Attribution

As long as you attribute all of something to an idea or a concept, like attributing all problems in life to the existence of an ego, or attributing all kinds of freedom as coming from God, you are still in ignorance for thru such all-or-nothing attribution, you are just renaming that area of your ignorance with some fancy name without being really aware of the multilayered relations that make all things interconnected in a way that such exclusive attribution remains impossible and actually absurd and meaningless.

PS. Exclusive Attribution must be understood as separate from Absolute Attribution.

In The Mood For Love

video

Friday, June 12, 2009

Surrationality

# Trying to find a reason in everything is the most unreasonable thing. Must we not embrace the absurd, even though that seems to be an even more absurd response to the initial/apriori question of the absurdity of it all...

# Madness chides in us in our one too many attempts to reason out (and even at times, to suduce) the absurd. And therein lies our ingenuity too!

# Then again there is that which is absurdly reasonable, to the extent that it motivates us all the more to time & again to take the magic wand and baptise everything under the spell of a raison d’etre. Alas! if only we let things be...

Self-Refractions - 22

Reality presents itself as a Rorschach inkblot...

Cultivated Boredom

"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
- Bertrand Russell.

The Impossible Language - III

[Here's the Part II]

As all language is based on the validity of being about (describing/pointing/signifying) some shared experience, how would you communicate in that language your experience of being yourself, for that experienced can never be shared and will forever remain beyond the reach of the Other? Would you then resort to inventing your own language for that? Or have you already done that? Or does it always already exist, only waiting for us to let it be so it reveals to us its presence in the way things are?

I'd like to believe that while it can't be translated to an already known language, all one can do, is show another that there remains possible in her/him the invention/discovery of her/his langauge about her/his experience of being her/him self...

Maybe therein lies the whole attempt of poetry and the arts, of jokes and jolts...

The Impossible Language - II

[Here's the Part I]

What if you invent/discover a language (a sequence of gestures, verbal or otherwise) that remains untranslatable to any known language, - can it still be considered as a viable language for communication, even be it in regards to self-knowledge or just plain interior monologue?

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Left/Right

If the Left won over the Right, thus becoming the New Status-Quo, the New Right, then where will be Left go?
 
Externally the Left acts as an Other-Than to Right. But internally the Left has to be an Other-Than to itself.

Infact the Left is left not so much to the right, but its more left than whatever there is... It always exists as a possibility, as a promise, which being fulfilled, will shift to newer horizons...

And so, there is a predominant bias in the way things are. Dont you see that?

Self-Refractions - 21

Does the Means exist thru the postponement of the End, or is the Means the Way to the End?

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Self-Refractions - 20

Is the Commandment on Blasphemy the archaic form of what we now call, Political Correctness?