The man and his word...

Emmanuel Levinas wrote a famous essay, I love the Torah more than God, after reading a short story written by my grandfather, Yosl Rakover Talks to God by Zvi Kolitz. (Note to self: write a blog entry on Yosl and his story.) The essence of this story, if I remember correctly (it has been a while since I have read it) was that Levinas admitted that he could not comprehend God and his actions (or lack of action) because he could not understand how God as we understand the notion could allow something like the Holocaust to happen.

This is kind of a lead in to what I wanted to write about today - can we admire the work of someone (writer, thinker, author, philosopher, guru, ...) for whom we have no admiration as a person? When you read the writings of spiritual 'leaders' like Osho or Gurdjieff (to name but two) and see wisdom, profundity, inspiring words and ideas, thinking that you recognize as 'right' for you... it is very difficult, for me, to reconcile their spiritual wisdom with their life stupidity. When you read accounts of how they treated people, how they abused their power, their (often) material crassness, etc. then what is one to think of their words? Do you throw out the bath water because the baby is dirty? Or do you do as Levinas has done with God, admitting that he cannot understand the creator while confessing his admiration for the creation?

One person who has taken a good stab at framing this question of 'how is it possible to be so developed and enlightened on one level and a total idiot on other levels?' is Ken Wilber. He has developed a philosophical / developmental framework he originally named after himself but later renamed AQAL (all quadrants all levels). The idea being, in a nutshell, that there are four axes of development we all follow and you can be advanced on one axe and not very far along another - concurrently! Thus it is quite logical that someone can be both spiritually wise and a social idiot, or something to that effect.

The framework looks something like the diagram above which I believe he has revised a bit since, but hopefully the idea is clear: four axes - social, cultural, behavioral and intentional - on which we can develop. In some areas we advance faster and in others slower.

I should mention my take on Wilber. I think he is brilliant but I don't think he is enlightened and I think he would rather be enlightened than brilliant. He is a master synthesist (he now, rightfully, calls his work 'Integral') and he is probably one of the more thoughtful and knowledgeable writers-thinkers-philosophers-psychologists of our times. However, I feel that if he would just stop trying to impress everyone with his spirituality (as he has always impressed everyone with his intellect - apparently that was not enough), his writing would be even more fantastic than it already is. He is also a major contributor to EnlightenNext magazine in which he is the Pandit to Andrew Cohen's Guru (Cohen who suffers from the opposite of Wilber - he is probably enlightened but would like to be brilliant - which makes their partnership even more interesting...).

So what do you think, what takes precedence the creator or the creation? Can one shine without the other? Or do only those that walk the talk, like Thich Nhat Hahn, merit our consideration?

[Osho on...] Nonchoosing

I felt like I needed to revisit Osho's The Book of Secrets (what a great name, which shows simple insight into human nature, I mean who could resist reading a book with a name like that?!). The book has been on my bedstand for years and I haven't read it for... years. And I only read selected chapters here and there the first time around...

Anyway, I opened up the book to a random page, and it turns out I had already read it as several parts were already underlined in pencil (an old habit of mine that I apparently inherited from my mom). The book's format is very much 'guru-like' as many spiritual books are, i.e. visitors or disciples ask questions and Osho answers and a scribe writes all of this down for posterity.

While the chapter is officially about tantric sex, the themes that run through it are actually about surrendering, denial, extremes, the middle path, acceptance, choosing, goals and (behind it all) the how of living your life. Quite a lineup.

To simplify the message, Osho basically says that choosing one path is equivalent to denial of at least one other. Choosing nonviolence is equivalent to denial of violence, and "the moment you deny, you have accepted the extreme path." He adds, "two extremes, howsoever opposite, are parts of one whole - two aspects of one thing. If you choose one you have chosen the other also." (This reminds me, for some reason, of all those politicians who go on moral crusades and always seem to get caught later in some form of moral breakdown.)

For Osho, acceptance of the universe we live in, or "accepting the total life" is the middle path. "Acceptance of totality is to be automatically in the middle." You are neither for or against something, "you are just floating in the stream."

The idea, which is a Tantric principle, is called the 'deep let-go'. When you are choosing, you are not letting go, and that means that ego is operating. Osho states the principle as "when you choose, you are moving against the whole universe". Instead of going with the universal flow you are allowing your own wants, desires, fears to resist the flow.

Osho uses a nice image, which John Donne may or may not be in agreement with:

When you choose, you are not choosing the universal flow: you are standing aloof, isolated; you are like an island. You are trying to be yourself against the whole flux of life.

If choosing is not the way, then it will not be too surprising to you to hear (read) that nonchoosing is the way. Basically, still using the river metaphor that Buddhists and many spiritual others use quite often, nonchoosing is about not deciding where life is going but allowing life to move, allowing life to take you with it, and this without a fixed goal.

While I understand about choosing, and that choosing implies denial of something or moving against something, and that all movement against implies a movement towards etc etc, I have a hard time swallowing the living without a goal idea. Actually more than having a hard time swallowing it, I think the idea scares the heck out of me. Having goals is such a part of our society and such a big part of how I think that living without a goal sounds like jumping out of a plane without a parachute! Short-term, medium-term, long-term goals, academic goals, professional goals, personal goals, relationship goals, family goals, savings goals, spending goals, sport goals, reading goals, language goals, travel goals, lofty goals, material goals, spiritual goals - they are everywhere in my life. Who would I be without my precious goals and to-do lists? While many people seem to define themselves in part by their achievements, maybe I define myself (at least in part) by my goals... Something for me to think about.

In any case, Osho is not very ambiguous about who is at fault here, and unfortunately he is probably right (and don't worry, he was talking to me when he said this ; )):

Your ego point is the problem, because of it you create problems. There are no problems in life itself; existence is problemless. You are the problem and you are the creator of the problem, and you create problems out of everything. [...] This nonsurrendering of ego is the source of all problems.

But, the solution is also as clear: "once you accept life in its totality things start happening, because this total acceptance frees you from the ego point."

Let's put that on our to-do lists : )