From whiskey river:
[Image: “please remain calm, everything is fine,” by Robert Couse-Baker. Found it on Flicker, of course, and use it here under a Creative Commons license (thank you very much!).]
The life of Man is a long march through the night, surrounded by invisible foes, tortured by weariness and pain, towards a goal that few can hope to reach, and where none may tarry long. One by one, as they march, our comrades vanish from our sight, seized by the silent orders of omnipotent Death. Very brief is the time in which we can help them, in which their happiness or misery is decided. Be it ours to shed sunshine on their path, to lighten their sorrows by the balm of sympathy, to give them the pure joy of a never-tiring affection, to strengthen failing courage, to instill faith in times of despair.
(Bertrand Russell [source])
…and (from whiskey river’s commonplace book:
9th century Zen master, Tozan Ryokai, attained enlightenment many times. Once when he was crossing a river he saw himself reflected in the water and composed a verse, “Don’t try to figure out who you are. If you figure out who you are, what you understand will be far away from you. You will have just an image of yourself.” Actually, you are in the river. You may say that is just a shadow or a reflection of yourself, but if you look carefully with warm-hearted feeling, that is you.
You may think you are very warm-hearted, but when you try to understand how warm, you cannot actually measure. Yet when you see yourself with a warm feeling in the mirror or the water, that is actually you. And whatever you do, you are there.
(Shunryu Suzuki [source])
…and:
The Three Goals
The first goal is to see the thing itself
in and for itself, to see it simply and clearly
for what it is.
No symbolism, please.The second goal is to see each individual thing
as unified, as one, with all the other
ten thousand things.
In this regard, a little wine helps a lot.The third goal is to grasp the first and the second goals,
to see the universal and the particular,
simultaneously.
Regarding this one, call me when you get it.
(David Budbill [source])
…and:
If you are a person of gain and loss, you’ve already lost. It’s a matter of remembering that our business here is to learn to love all the way through to letting go. There’s nothing much else we can actually do with the overwhelming opportunity of a human life, which is shaped exactly like completely accepting the offer of a lifetime, and shaped exactly like finally letting go.
(Susan Murphy [source: nothing canonical, but found it here])
Not from whiskey river:
Official moralists advise us never to relax our strenuousness. “Be vigilant, day and night,” they adjure us; “hold your passive tendencies in check; shrink from no effort; keep your will like a bow always bent.” But the persons I speak of find that all this conscious effort leads to nothing but failure and vexation in their hands, and only makes them twofold more the children of hell they were before. The tense and voluntary attitude becomes in them an impossible fever and torment. Their machinery refuses to run at all when the bearings are made so hot and the belts so tight.
Under these circumstances the way to success, as vouched for by innumerable authentic personal narrations, is by an anti-moralistic method, by the “surrender” of which I spoke in my second lecture. Passivity, not activity; relaxation, not intentness, should be now the rule. Give up the feeling of responsibility, let go your hold, resign the care of your destiny to higher powers, be genuinely indifferent as to what becomes of it all, and you will find not only that you gain a perfect inward relief, but often also, in addition, the particular goods you sincerely thought you were renouncing…
Whatever its ultimate significance may prove to be, this is certainly one fundamental form of human experience. Some say that the capacity or incapacity for it is what divides the religious from the merely moralistic character. With those who undergo it in its fullness, no criticism avails to cast doubt on its reality. They know; for they have actually felt the higher powers, in giving up the tension of their personal will.
(William James [source])
…and:
Ice
In the warming house, children lace their skates,
bending, choked, over their thick jackets.A Franklin stove keeps the place so cozy
it’s hard to imagine why anyone would leave,clumping across the frozen beach to the river.
December’s always the same at Ware’s Cove,the first sheer ice, black, then white
and deep until the city sends trucks of menwith wooden barriers to put up the boys’
hockey rink. An hour of skating after school,of trying wobbly figure-8’s, an hour
of distances moved backwards without falling,then—twilight, the warming house steamy
with girls pulling on boots, their chafed legsaching. Outside, the hockey players keep
playing, slamming the round black puckuntil it’s dark, until supper. At night,
a shy girl comes to the cove with her father.Although there isn’t music, they glide
arm in arm onto the blurred surface together,braced like dancers. She thinks she’ll never
be so happy, for who else will find her graceful,find her perfect, skate with her
in circles outside the emptied rink forever?
(Gail Mazur [source])
Nance says
Greatly comforting today. Except for that part about religion. It is not necessary to embrace religion in order to let go of striving.
John says
Thanks, Nance — I actually thought of you, quite a bit, while putting this together: partially, specifically for William James, of course, but also more generally for the Weltschmerz with which you’ve seemed to be struggling (for some reason, I mean gosh, WHAT COULD IT POSSIBLY BE?) in recent weeks.
By “that part about religion,” I guess you mean this: “Some say that the capacity or incapacity for [a sort of mystical letting-go] is what divides the religious from the merely moralistic character.” Is that right? If so, I think WJ has sort of weaseled his way around your objection one one inadvertent and one, uh, advertent level. Inadvertent: he was writing as a product of his time, when almost any discussion of the inexplicable was considered in terms like, “So then, here we are, talking about religion…” The more intentional bit of weaseling (he has to have known he was doing this!) was his use of the phrase, “Some say that…” Of course, we have of late become painfully familiar with such escape-hatch wording as though to say: Mind you, I myself am no expert/have no opinion, but SOME people [or many people, or all my friends, whatever] say… This way the one making the assertion skirts responsibility for it, while simultaneously hinting at its status as Verifiable Fact. And yeah, I can’t really forgive it in James anymore than in, uh, anyone else. ;)