"But man forgets reality and remembers words."

[andrewducker]

thishardenedarm recently posted a section of a book he loves. freemore recently started posting about perceptions of reality. I felt I should answer both at once with a short excerpt from one of my favourite novels, "Lord of Light" by Roger Zelazny.

Lord of Light is about the crew of a colony ship, long-landed on a distant planet, empowered by vast technology, warring over the future of the planet and its colonists. It's a story of great battles, mutant powers and strange aliens. It's also a book of philosophy, facing Buddhism against Hinduism, freedom against control and gnosticism against received wisdom.

The style is not to everyone's taste - it is deliberately rhythmic, and I suspect the book would work best in many ways if it were spoken aloud. He deliberately mimics the sound of a religious parable being read which fits the story wonderfully.

The opening lines are:

"His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god. He preferred to drop the Maha- and the -atman, however, and called himself Sam. He never laimed to be a god. But then, he never claimed not to be a god. Circumstances being what they were, neither admission could be of any benefit. Silence, though, could."

The excerpt is from about 50 pages in, and concerns a lecture about reality, given to a group of monks to distract them while the murder of a god is concealed.

"Names are not important," he said. "To speak is to name names, but to speak is not important. A thing happens once that has never happened before. Seeing it, a man looks upong reality. He cannot tell others what he has seen. Others wish to know, however, so they question him saying 'What is it like, this thing you have seen?' So he tries to tell them. Perhaps he has seen the very first fire in the world. He tells them, 'It is red, like a poppy, but through it dance other colors. It has no form, like water, flowing everywhere. It is warm, like the sun of summer, only warmer. It exists for a time upon a piece of wood, and then the wood is gone, as though it were eaten, leaving behind it that which is black and can be sifted like sand. When the wood is gone, it too is gone.' Therefore the hearers must think reality is like a poppy, like water, like the sun, like that which eats and excretes. They think it is like to anything that they are told it is like by the man who has known it. But they have not looked upon fire. They cannot really know it. They can only know of it. But fire comes again into the world, many times. More men look upon fire. After a time, fire is as common as grass and clouds and the air they breathe. They see that, while it is like a poppy, it is not a poppy, while it is like water, it is not water, while it is like the sun, it is not the sun, and while it is like that which eats and passes wastes, it is not that which eats and passes wastes, but something different from each of these apart or all of these together. So they look upon this new thing and they make a new word to call it. They call it 'fire'."

"If they come upon one who still has not seen it and they speak to him of fire, he does not know what they mean. So they, in turn, fall back upon telling him what fire is like. As tey do so, they know from their own experience that what they are telling him is not the truth, but only a part of it. They know that this man will never know reality from their words, though all the words in the world are theirs to use. He must look at upon the fire, smell of it, warm his hands by it, stare into its heart, or remain forever ignorant. Therefore, 'fire' does not matter, 'eart' and 'air' and 'water' do not matter. 'I'do not matter. No word matters. But man forgets reality and remembers words. The more words he remembers, the cleverer do his fellows esteem him. He looks upon his great transformations of the world, but he does not see them as man saw them when man looked upon reality for the first time. Their names come to his lips and he smiles as he tastes them, thinking that he knows them in the naming. The thing that has never happened before is still happening. It is still a miracle. The great burning blossom squats, flowing, upon the limb of the world, excreting the ash of the world, and being none of the things I have names an at the same time all of them, and this is reality - the Nameless."

*a few paragraphs elided to avoid spamming your friends list*

The Nameless, of which we are all a part, does dream form. Ad what is the highest attribute any form may possess? It is beauty. The Nameless then, is an artist. The problem, therefore is not one of good and evil, but one of aesthetics. ... To struggle against the dreamers who dream ugliness, be they men or gods, cannot but be the will of the Nameless This struggle will also bear suffering, and so one's karmic burden will be lightened thereby, just as it would be by enduring the ugliness; but this suffering is productive of a higher end in the light of the eternal values of which the sages so often speak.

"You must ask me, then, 'How am I to know that which is beautiful and that which is ugly, and be moved to act thereby?' This question, I say, you must answer for yourself. To do this, first forget what I have spoken, for I have said nothing. Dwell now upon the Nameless."

Comments

[andrewducker]

That I needed to think about exactly what the question _meant_. Looking (for instance) for the answer to life, the universe and everything is silly, because "Life, the universe and everything" isn't a question.

Lots of "the big questions" turn out to either have very simple answers, or not actually have definitive answers at all.

[freemoore.livejournal.com]

Have you tried the other thing? The not-questioning/not-answering, experiencing the awareness-beyond-thinking which I was on about?

It's the same injunction as at the end of your quote: "Dwell now upon the Nameless". As discussed above, the content of this excerpt matches the pattern of someone describing a perception they've had to someone who hasn't had the perception. Like the best of the writing I've seen on the topic, it ends with the injunction to do some contemplation yourself.

To read such a passage and just say that it's like lots of other passages in mystical literature is to say something true but partial; to get the point you have to see that it's an instruction, and then follow the instruction, and then see the results.

What might not be apparent otherwise is that it's absolutely one of the most worthwhile ways you could possibly spend ten minutes a day. You don't have to believe that, but you could see it for yourself. Is there anything which would make you think that that was worth trying?

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Seems we are talking about the difference between the experience and a description of it. You can get so caught in the descriptions that you lose the ability to *experience*. In a way you end up describing it to yourself *as it is happening*. Which means you miss a great deal of what's going on...

I've learned recently to get out of this, at least for while, and to pay attention and experience. Very big change and utterly to my benefit in so many ways.

[andrewducker]

Um, yes, of course. Losing myself in being is one of my favourite things. It's one of the reasons I've loved dancing for years - the ability it bestows upon me to lose myself utterly - I've literally lost several minutes before with no idea of what happened during that time (I have memories later of there being music, but they tend to be vague).

[freemoore.livejournal.com]

no, not losing yourself - throughout meditation you're completely aware, more intensely so than usual if anything. It's about the only thing I've managed to corroborate with anyone else who's meditated for a while; it's more awareness, not less.

I've a feeling that this is crucial, but I also feel like I'm losing my grip on the subject matter, so I should probably stop there for a while. Alternatively, this might just be the point where the discussion gets interesting!

[andrewducker]

Sorry, my brain was _completely_ out of gear last night, having a terrible headache and not enough sleep. As such I answered a completely different question from the one you asked.

Nope - not been doing meditation, largely because I've not bumped into a source that seperated meditation from some kind of religious practice. If you could point me to a simple introduction I'll give it a go.

[freemoore.livejournal.com]

No worries. I'll get back to you with that, I've got a good short summary somewhere, no religion required. Practice required - that's the essence of it - but nothing unreasonable.

meditation link

[freemoore.livejournal.com]

http://www.integralworld.net/index.html?meditation.html

there's a fair bit to read there.

I use a much-simplified variation on the 'Transpersonal Witness Exercise' as follows:
Sitting comfortably, feet on the floor, hands on thighs, relaxed, back straight as comfortably possible, eyes closed.

silently repeat the mantra 'I am not this body, I am aware of this body; I am not these thoughts, I am aware of these thoughts' for about 20 minutes. During this time your attention will wander off into streams of thought. Don't worry about it; just, when you notice that you're not thinking the mantra anymore, return to it.

For me, the point of this is to loosen the ties between my identity and my thoughts and body (sometimes I add 'I am not these feelings, I am aware of these feelings' as a third phrase) while maintaining association with them. The point is very much NOT to dissociate; meditation is not an exercise in escapism. It's a gentle freeing of the awareness from the usual objects of awareness.

I'll leave you to it! Better to do ten minutes a day than one hour-long session in a week; it's the regularity, the 'practice' aspect, that gives most benefit.

let me know how you get on :)

cheers
andy