if both sinbad, the sailor
and christopher columbus had stayed the course
charted by the professional tour guides,
there would be no stories for you to read
and be lured to places you were guided to imagine.
but sinbad had wanted more of the same,
and columbus wasn't looking for anything new.
he simply sought the short cut to the known.
so anything unknown he chanced stumbled upon,
he strived to change into known forms,
so that those who came after him
would further reduce the whole new world
into a medieval european battleground
where people fought and killed each other
to keep each other from having
what can't be possessed.
(reprinted from ‘unamerican dreams and dissent’)
O.E. lufu "love, affection, friendliness," from P.Gmc. *lubo (O.H.G. liubi “joy,” Ger. Liebe “love;” O.N., O.Fris., Du. lof; Ger. Lob “praise;” O.S. liof, O.Fris. liaf, Du. lief, O.H.G. liob, Ger. lieb, Goth. liufs “dear, beloved”), from PIE *leubh- "to care, desire, love" (cf. L. lubet, later libet "pleases;" Skt. lubhyati "desires;" O.C.S. l'ubu "dear, beloved;" Lith. liaupse "song of praise").
in sanskrit and modern indian languages, the word lobha, adj. lobhi means much more; it is: greed. so, too, in english language, love does mean greed; such as love of money. person in love with a thing or being simply desires to possess the object of love. the desire is a thought out existence, as one does not have to desire what one has. one may physically take possession of thing or being, but one cannot really make that thing or being to feel being possessed. the desire, love is thus one-sided. it is a passion felt by one person for another person. and one very much desires to be desired by the other person. love is exclusive. one does not want to share that object of love with others. one in such love never feels quite sure if one is loved. that is why there is the fear that constantly makes one feel insecure of one’s possession. when that passion is mutual, it is compassion. compassion is when passions are mutually shared.
when a thing or being is desired for a fragmentary aspect, such as the visual beauty, it is stripped off its own subjective state of being, which is the self-nature, the very innate characteristics of the wholesome state of being. when those innate elements of the thing or being are denied, the thing or being is transformed into an image in a display window of thought or cage of mind. this is very discernible in a falling out of a relationship. what causes the fall out is that the premise upon which the relationship was formed seems to have shifted or changed, or most likely, it never existed except as a wishful thinking.
the wishful thinking is an acquired baggage gathered from one’s nurturing elements ingested with all five sense organs. their collective effects form a way of life. from early childhood one is spoon-fed these impressions in terms of dos and don’ts. shaped thus one acts habitually regardless of the futility for thinking or doing things that one is preoccupied with, even in dreams. thus, the more informed a person is, more confined one becomes in this web of desires. thus by the time, the sixth sense, the sense of discernment, the knowing what is what begins to form, one is all too preoccupied with putting into practice what one is taught as a means to walk the talk.
that walk is a very carefully planned form of conditioning invented by the royalties, the commercial conglomerates to retain their high seats. so walking the talk is what the rich want the population at large to do. they have their prompters placed in the church, school, the media and the state. since this is not a naturally occurring phenomena, and as people are not cast of a mould producing the replicas, not the entire populace can act out as desired by the royalties. so there is the dissent, as well as different perceptions. but the state supported commerce sector soon employs its various agencies to drown the voice of dissent by force, and failing so, tries to smooth out the dissenting views.
the most striking example of this is the dissenting perceptions of the buddha. what otherwise would be a ground for observing the makeup of the knowledge based mind stuff distinguished from the action based knowing, to mind in verb form, has been changed into one more mind numbing religious practice of chasing the much described, but never experienced enlightenment as a permanently seeing clearly looking glass. seeing what is is seeing the constantly changing ground before one. one cannot ignore seeing where one steps next unless one is goose-stepping on the ground smoothened for the purpose of goose-stepping. the drill sergeant and the fashion director teach the recruits and fashion models how to step the steps that go nowhere. the other example is the authority figure of any field, then assuming the same degree of expertise in any other field. the many best sellers are written by the ghost writers in the employ of the famous people.
living was a little simpler before the printing press was invented. with the internet as a new, far reaching medium, the urban living has become even more confusing. “guns do not kill people, people kill people,” it is said. but the fact is, without the gun, or any other tool of killing, people were less prone to killing, and most disagreements had stayed limited to the two disagreeing persons. the same was also true of the language as the medium of expression. it was spoken, and hence, its range of hearing was not more than the size of the little gathering space in a small community. the spoken language, the talking was mostly between two persons. when after talking the talker is walking away from the listener, as the guest speakers do, or is physically absent as in electronic devices, the audience does not have any means to know whether the speaker himself walks the talk. then there are the professionals to teach to talk, the art of talking eloquently. these professionals and their students mince words in rehearsals before delivering the speech. this is why the expressions of teachers, preachers and politicians give off the air of staleness, as they do not show the walk of the talker.
this writing, too, is in the realm of questioning. since there is no name of the writer put forward, at least, it is not enabling the writer to make a name as a means to the material rewards. as for the validity of the matter expressed here, or anybody else’s expressions in any other medium, the receiver of such expressions needs to find the relevance of the matter to one’s existence. and there, the need for testing is expressedly proposed. in the times of the physical existence of persons like buddha and lao-tsu people could see that what was told them was also lived by such persons. and, too, people were asked to do it. this is in stark contrast with the european luminaries. they lived with the body-mind split, separating the physical existence from the mental, thought out existence. so descartes said; “I think, therefore I am.” he was a professional thinker, who, like the theoretical physicists was safe walking only on imaginary waters. their talk could not be proven wrong in the physical world as theirs was/is the world made of letters. the worldly beings live in the physical sphere of existence. theoretical physicists are to the physicists what religious thinkers are to the worldly people.
thinking, too, is thus of two distinctly different kind. the organic or substance related thinking is related to issues of the realm of matter. it corresponds to a matter related to the actual living. the other thinking is the product of the socio-economic apartheid invented by the commerce sector. listen to the talks of preachers talking of god as if they were indeed in contact with that god in the physical world; or the science professors parroting the printed words of some scientist’s theory. all such professionals and their audience talk the prevalent talk in the manner of actors who memorize the new scripts handed out by the director. the directing authority for the human affairs is the commerce promoted desire.as the u.s. president, eisenhover found the commerce sector‘s interference bothersome. but it did not bother him when it was a tool that enabled him to become the commander of the allied forces in the second war, and then the president. he was himself a tool that used warfare produced by the same military industrial complex.
in the old form of student teacher relationship, the student was a live-in apprentice. and because of that, he had ample opportunity to observe how his teacher practiced what he preached. the residential school was at first a takeoff from this old practice. but the modern residential school campus is larger than several surrounding communities combined. and there, the students are residents, but their teachers are not. not only that, but in subjects much in demand, the enrolment being so large, that students have to listen to the teacher through the video monitor placed in front of them in place of the teacher.
most known bright brains’ children do not share interests in their parents’ field of work; not only that, but as the expression: ‘the preacher’s daughter’ implies, the children often times engage in just the opposite sphere. these children have the advantage of observing those luminaries off the stage, where they are seen worse than actors. off the stage an actor does not assume the insight of the character played; the preacher pretends to have the close contact with god. the christian vows of poverty enable monks and nuns three square meals in safe dwellings in pleasant surroundings, unlike the real poor; the mahayana high priests rival pope in comforts being served by the novice/monks of zen buddhism.
when every human person is afforded the footing on the level ground; if no one is made to serve another person, and the human affairs are conducted as fair and square as they would be when they are devoid of the notion of the comparative worth of the doer, then the human civilization takes a different form. then the learnt and conditioned urge to fear things and beings does not arise; and the commercially induced forms of escape are not sought. in that level playing field everything known ceases including the fear of the unknown.
what stops one from walking out from this web of maya is the face one has very carefully created. it is this self-image that is one’s prized possession, and also it is one’s extreme fear of losing it. love in the eyes of this face is to see this self-image reflected in another person’s eyes.
next time when you are in front of the mirror, see if you can see what is before your eyes without the field of vision of this self-image interfering and interpreting what you see in the mirror. these imagery eyes are constantly on the lookout for whatever defects they detect in order to create a blameless, picture perfect image to be reflected in other people’s eyes. the commerce sector also provides lotions and potions and myriad things to enhance this image. any application of this beauty aid is an admission that one is not what one desires others to see one to be. this beauty that is in the eyes of the beholder disperses when one washes off the makeup and enters the room in the dimness. one’s live-in mate and other members of the household get to see the unadorned face, and un-actorly form of actions. being seen as ordinary by others is not what others find to be a cause for rejection. it is this pretence, the portraying to be what one is not, that others find to be repulsive.
out of habit, people relate to each other wearing this actorly image, and hence, feel dissatisfied with each other’s actions and responses. the relationship is the two way mirror of the minding mind. the reflection cannot change itself, nor does the application of makeup change the make-up of the person;
just as the staged acts – the passionate
kisses and deep embraces
do not fill the void
generated by the terrible sense
of the individual actor
engaged in performing the act
of love watched over by the critical
eyes of the director,
nothing else will ever work;
nothing will bring joy, the sense of satisfaction,
happiness, the feeling of meaningfulness of life;
nothing that is not born of a pure
expression of the selfless self –
not the self that is catagoriliy assumed to be
this or that, directed
by the great invisible director, the fear--
the fear of socio-economic insecurity,
that casts two totally strangers
to play lovers or fighting soldiers
and everything in-between.