Notes on Tim Parks' Sex is Forbidden
Why read it
>
> Read it at a time that I'd just had a discussion with friends about losing the self which made no sense to me so I was interested to see how Buddhism treated the issue
> Intrigued by the contradiction of Beth and the apparent purpose of meditation
> Curious about the draw of such places to so many westerners... Why is everyone a Buddhist, peter Matthiessen book paradise is about meditation at a concentration camp
> What is the self
> How is getting rid of the self a good thing
> Is all life suffering
> How does someone get to be a Beth?
> Is she realistic?
> Is this portrayal of meditation retreat realist info everyone cheating, sneaking out
>
It's almost as if he is asking the readers to engage in their own meditative practice. Through the story of Beth (self absorbed, vain, dramatic, critical and struggling) intertwined with Buddhist practice, we must practice putting aside Beth's distractions to find the real message of equanimity in the midst of all this other stuff.
Does this novel convince us that Buddhist practice would be better than not?
Does this novel ridicule the Buddhist way (in its criticism of the DVD, in its criticism of the leaders who do not appear to do much). It doesn't seem like the book is suggesting we adopt Beth's clearly disturbed view of herself and the world. So whose view are we supposed to be adopting (if any?)
Buddhist philosophy
All humans suffer (tangential thought--in A Guide for the Perplexed it explains that there are three ways that evil occurs; one is the evil we do to ourselves by desiring and then not getting or not liking what we get--this seems to be the kind of suffering we could control; whereas, the other kinds we cannot)
Pain comes through suffering
Suffering comes through wanting
Getting rid of wanting gets rid of suffering and leads to equanimity
Can we accept suffering instead of trying to get rid of it? Because we want (we are human and it is part of the if not the full point of our existence
to want, what else are we going to do?) we must suffer. If we could accept that equation would that provide a path towards greater "equilibrium"? Not sure if that's the word I want, just to greater acceptance, living in acceptance (existential phenomenology?).
Living in acceptance philosophy
Accept that you are human
Know your self
Forgive your self
Work towards better understanding, respectful responsibility, compassionate and generous acceptance, kindness, letting go
It's not about you
There are no "rules" about how or why humans behave (except that they are human and have a self and can't be other than that; death is inevitable and it frames life; fear exists)
Each person is responsible for his or her self (whether they seek "living in acceptance" or some completely different philosophy)
Responsible only for your self
Just completed Chapter on The Second Arrow. Buddha story. You can't stop the first arrow but the second arrow is optional . . . This chapter is about this guy who Beth, the main character, is spying on and reading the diary of, and how he is trying to get his head around the idea that he is in love with his pain. He makes a comment, "only a life with suffering is glamorous" (p. 193) and relates a story at the retreat where someone starts crying in the midst of a meditation and the meditation guide says "Please leave if you can't stop crying". As if someone's "pain" is so important it can disrupt everyone's meditation. Learning that pain is not really important. Let it go, not the pain, but the love of it. It's just pain like every other pain. Nothing special, nothing unique. It just is.
Accept that you are human. Being human means you are one with the multitude ( Song of myself). There is nothing special about you. Your pain, your love, your humiliation, your sadness is not special. It's just human. As a human you can only control your own actions and you can only do that within your bounded self. You cannot be someone other than you are, so part of being human is also learning to forgive yourself. YOu are responsible for your actions but it is not your fault. Acceptance of this. When there is a mess gyrating around you, the only thing you need to do is figure out what should you do? Don't worry about the other people, don't try to get them to do anything, but do what you need to, what is "right" what exercises, "respectful responsibility and generous acceptance". They are responsible for themselves. That is respecting them as human beings.
You are not "better" than another person. Your "wise insight" as you might see it, makes you no better than another. You are all human beings. That doesn't mean you can't do certain things "better" than others. You could be smarter on tests, more athletic, etc. All of that is true but it really doesn't "mean" anything. Your wisdom is only that, your wisdom. It is not anyone else's wisdom. You don't need to pass it on, force it on, explain how someone else would be better off if they were more like you. You don't need to think, if only they could act as I do. Instead, we think "they are being the best human they can be" just as you are. And all of us are bounded by your self.
Parks states, "in zen tradition meditators focus on koans, complex questions so far beyond understanding that, unable to find a response, the ego again breaks down."
I just don't get this
Is Beth any more ridiculous than any of us?
How many of us do "self denying" things actually as an ego boost?
>
> Read it at a time that I'd just had a discussion with friends about losing the self which made no sense to me so I was interested to see how Buddhism treated the issue
> Intrigued by the contradiction of Beth and the apparent purpose of meditation
> Curious about the draw of such places to so many westerners... Why is everyone a Buddhist, peter Matthiessen book paradise is about meditation at a concentration camp
> What is the self
> How is getting rid of the self a good thing
> Is all life suffering
> How does someone get to be a Beth?
> Is she realistic?
> Is this portrayal of meditation retreat realist info everyone cheating, sneaking out
>
It's almost as if he is asking the readers to engage in their own meditative practice. Through the story of Beth (self absorbed, vain, dramatic, critical and struggling) intertwined with Buddhist practice, we must practice putting aside Beth's distractions to find the real message of equanimity in the midst of all this other stuff.
Does this novel convince us that Buddhist practice would be better than not?
Does this novel ridicule the Buddhist way (in its criticism of the DVD, in its criticism of the leaders who do not appear to do much). It doesn't seem like the book is suggesting we adopt Beth's clearly disturbed view of herself and the world. So whose view are we supposed to be adopting (if any?)
Buddhist philosophy
All humans suffer (tangential thought--in A Guide for the Perplexed it explains that there are three ways that evil occurs; one is the evil we do to ourselves by desiring and then not getting or not liking what we get--this seems to be the kind of suffering we could control; whereas, the other kinds we cannot)
Pain comes through suffering
Suffering comes through wanting
Getting rid of wanting gets rid of suffering and leads to equanimity
Can we accept suffering instead of trying to get rid of it? Because we want (we are human and it is part of the if not the full point of our existence
to want, what else are we going to do?) we must suffer. If we could accept that equation would that provide a path towards greater "equilibrium"? Not sure if that's the word I want, just to greater acceptance, living in acceptance (existential phenomenology?).
Living in acceptance philosophy
Accept that you are human
Know your self
Forgive your self
Work towards better understanding, respectful responsibility, compassionate and generous acceptance, kindness, letting go
It's not about you
There are no "rules" about how or why humans behave (except that they are human and have a self and can't be other than that; death is inevitable and it frames life; fear exists)
Each person is responsible for his or her self (whether they seek "living in acceptance" or some completely different philosophy)
Responsible only for your self
Just completed Chapter on The Second Arrow. Buddha story. You can't stop the first arrow but the second arrow is optional . . . This chapter is about this guy who Beth, the main character, is spying on and reading the diary of, and how he is trying to get his head around the idea that he is in love with his pain. He makes a comment, "only a life with suffering is glamorous" (p. 193) and relates a story at the retreat where someone starts crying in the midst of a meditation and the meditation guide says "Please leave if you can't stop crying". As if someone's "pain" is so important it can disrupt everyone's meditation. Learning that pain is not really important. Let it go, not the pain, but the love of it. It's just pain like every other pain. Nothing special, nothing unique. It just is.
Accept that you are human. Being human means you are one with the multitude ( Song of myself). There is nothing special about you. Your pain, your love, your humiliation, your sadness is not special. It's just human. As a human you can only control your own actions and you can only do that within your bounded self. You cannot be someone other than you are, so part of being human is also learning to forgive yourself. YOu are responsible for your actions but it is not your fault. Acceptance of this. When there is a mess gyrating around you, the only thing you need to do is figure out what should you do? Don't worry about the other people, don't try to get them to do anything, but do what you need to, what is "right" what exercises, "respectful responsibility and generous acceptance". They are responsible for themselves. That is respecting them as human beings.
You are not "better" than another person. Your "wise insight" as you might see it, makes you no better than another. You are all human beings. That doesn't mean you can't do certain things "better" than others. You could be smarter on tests, more athletic, etc. All of that is true but it really doesn't "mean" anything. Your wisdom is only that, your wisdom. It is not anyone else's wisdom. You don't need to pass it on, force it on, explain how someone else would be better off if they were more like you. You don't need to think, if only they could act as I do. Instead, we think "they are being the best human they can be" just as you are. And all of us are bounded by your self.
Parks states, "in zen tradition meditators focus on koans, complex questions so far beyond understanding that, unable to find a response, the ego again breaks down."
I just don't get this
Is Beth any more ridiculous than any of us?
How many of us do "self denying" things actually as an ego boost?
Comments
Post a Comment