New year's enlightenment resolution: nothing

I used to make New Year's resolutions. Now, my attitude is, "what's the point?" If I want to make a change in my life, I will, no matter what part of the year it is. Doesn't have to be January 1.

When I was a religious true believer, I'd often vow to meditate more assiduously, be a better person (details left necessarily vague), or otherwise try harder to close the gap between a conception of my ideal self and who I felt myself to be.

Master Woof thinks this is a stupid thing to do. So do I.

If Master Woof was more substantial than a cartoon character in an entertaining Zen book, "The Upside Down Circle," I'd be worried that he'd hit me with his stick if I backslid into trying to work my way into a state of enlightenment.

(dialogue, since the words are small: "Master Woof, I've been lazy. I want to restart my search for enlightenment." "Why come to me?" "Well, you're a Zen master." "So?" "So tell me, where do I go for enlightenment?" "Nowhere!" "Nowhere?" "Wherever YOU go, enlightenment will be hidden.")

Master Woof isn't big on dogs (people too, I assume) who are searching for what is already present.

Donald Gilbert, the book's Zen Master author and artist, offers up pithy commentaries on the cartoons. Such as...

"One of the biggest problems of so-called 'practices' is that the practice itself becomes a habit. The belief sets in that there is a practicer, someone who is on his way -- a traveler who is going where he is already."

"Woof is saying that the secret of life is revealed when we are living in harmony with the changes and motions of life -- when we are not struggling to change what is."

And the commentary that accompanies the cartoon above...

"In simple terms, enlightenment indicates the absence of the illusion of self and other.

The 'YOU' Master Woof speaks of is an object. This of course implies a subject. Subject and object is the illusion that obscures enlightenment.

Hence Master Woof's statement points out that wherever 'YOU' go, enlightenment will be hidden. He indicates that there must be a wholeness, not the persistence of a dichotomy.

Well, I don't know if there such a thing as enlightenment.

But if there is, it makes sense (assuming enlightenment would make sense) that it entails some sort of resolution of our usual view that objectivity and subjectivity are opposed to each other.

Last night on New Year's Eve, wild party'ers that we are, my wife and I sat around with a few other people at a friend's house, sipped wine, and talked -- often about some pretty deep subjects -- until midnight rolled around.

Several of the conversationalists were heavy into art: music, painting, photography. Two guys had taught art courses at the high school and college levels.

Much of the discussion, which got rather heated at times, centered around whether the value of an artistic expression can be assessed objectively, or if beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.

Listening to the opposing arguments, both made sense to me.

Yes, it does seem that what appeals to one person may turn off another. So how is it possible to say that a painting of dogs playing poker is "better" than the Mona Lisa if good art is what someone likes?

On the other hand, I could appreciate the other viewpoint: that some art touches something deep in us, makes us resonate with a different meaning-vibration, is able to elicit fresh appreciations of what life and living are all about.

The conversation ball kept bouncing back and forth between these walls of subjectivity and objectivity.

And I kept having intuitions of some middle ground, but couldn't find a way to put it into words. I still can't, though maybe Master Woof could. Eventually I made an attempt.

I told the "good art is subjective" and "good art is objective" advocates that I agreed with both of them, since their viewpoints flowed from a single source: the human mind.

Art begins and ends in a person's consciousness.

The artist has a subjective notion to create something. Then, he or she uses some medium (images, sounds, movements, words, whatever) to convey that notion objectively. Someone else views the objective form and appreciates it subjectively.

It's impossible to divide the subjective from the objective. These are two different ways of perceiving the same piece of art, I said. (Or tried to say; I'm not sure how I came across last night.)

I suggested that if an artist has the skill to authentically convey what is intuitively and creatively evident to him or her from inside to outside, maybe this is what we'd call good art.

We feel the artist's vision. We're offered a peek inside another person's psyche through what has been created. The more honestly and authentically the subjective (inside) and objective (outside) are related, the more a piece of art moves us.

I tried to make some sense. I semi-succeeded. That's the way of conversation, as of art, as of everything.

For most of us, most of the time, there's a tension between what we mean and what is heard, between what we intend and what is done, between what we perceive and what we understand.

And sometimes there's no tension. We just are. As what we do and know is. 

According to Zen Master Gilbert it isn't possible to find ourselves, because we are ourselves. Sounds good. I'm ready to do less spiritual searching in the New Year. (Unk is the bloodhound who keeps getting whacked by Master Woof when he looks for what is right of front of him.)

Therefore Unk has to awaken from the notion of being Unk. The truth of Unk is not 'thingly.' There is nothing to be found (no thingly thing) nor anyone to find it. The unfindable is what Unk is, and his unfindable is the found. So no matter how assiduously Unk looks within, he can never see the seer.

Comments

[tucson]

This "Upside Down Circle" is one of my favorite books.

If we clearly see the difference between direct comprehension in non-relative whole mind and relative comprehension in mind divided into subject-object all apparent mysteries will disappear. That is the key that unlocks the doors of incomprehension.

Huh?

There is no enlightenment in the sense that there is no one to know it. But there is a seeing as Blogger Brian quoted from the book:

"In simple terms, enlightenment indicates the absence of the illusion of self and other."

If there is no 'other', then there is no 'self'. If there is no 'self' then there is no 'other'. No 'thing'.

The Chinese said it long ago, "From the beginning not a thing is".

Profoundly apprehended, that's all there is to it.

My only purpose in saying this, in Master Gilbert writing his book, in Blogger Brian writing his blog-piece is to demonstrate that there could be no one to do it.

[e]

I believe authenticity has much to do with it. Sometimes in the case of art (and almost always in religion) I am left wondering how authentic the creative force is. I look at some art or music and wonder .... is this honest creativity, fueled by depth and spirit? Is this really inspired? Or, .... did someone merely have a desire to be creative and then put together something bizarre and call it creativity?
Altruism is a similar topic that I feel the same way about. Does someone give because it is right or do they give because they want to do the right thing?
One way offers "oookies". The other does not.

[Blogger Brian]

e, good points. One of the things we talked about on New Year's Eve was how hip-hop, rap, break dancing, and other urban arts feel authentic when they're performed by someone who has actually lived the inner city life.

But when suburban white kids attempt to imitate the genre, it looks and feels rather fake. They may have the outside look down, but not the inner feel of it. On "So You Think You Can Dance" (one of our favorite TV shows), the judges often will say "your technique was good, but I didn't feel much from you."

This is one reason why spiritual independence is so important. If we're not authentically ourselves, we aren't really living. Imitation may be the finest form of flattery, but it isn't real.

[John]

"But if there is, it makes sense (assuming enlightenment would make sense) that it entails some sort of resolution of our usual view that objectivity and subjectivity are opposed to each other."
________________________________________

I don't see opposition between the inside and outside of a house; it's perspective. I think problems come about when a person who's only experienced the inside of a house denies the existence of the outside, or the person who's only seen the house from the outside denies the existence of the inside.

Where I generally part ways with Eastern thought, though, is when we're told to deny the existence of the interior and exterior or call the inside and outside an illusion. When two things (inside and outside) 'reside in' or are 'projected from' a common source (the house), their relation to each other becomes an absolute reality in respect to the things themselves.

Happy New Year,

-John

[Roger]

John,

Nice post. I'm guessing the "illusion" word takes on a different meaning. This could be another topic for discussion.
Happy New Years to you too.
Roger

[Todd Chambers]

Wow, thank you Brian! You have brought me full "circle," as it were. Zen Master Don Gilbert and his Master (Dr. Il Bung Seo Kyong Bo) were my very first spiritual teachers, circa 1982 in Huntsville,Alabama (I was a senior in high school!).

I still do Buddhism and Sant Mat side by side.....