All things come to those who wait. I received this copy of the Quran three years ago, on a visit to Turkey. In the Istanbul hotel where we stayed, the shelves in the lobby were lined exclusively with it, rather tellingly all in English. I felt as if I had discovered the Islamic equivalent of the Gideon headquarters, or the Christian Science Reading Room. Hundreds of identical bindings, arrayed with the quiet aggression of a battalion standing at attention. The title Decoding the Quran did its job on me, however, and I submitted. The desk clerk was surprised, but assented gleefully when I asked if I could take a copy with me.
And it turns out to be exactly what I wanted: a faithful translation of the text, but with commentary and interpretation. Ahmed Hulusi, the commentator, turns out to be a Sufi mystic with a perspective that lines up almost too perfectly with my own at this moment in my quest. Everything he says in the introduction resonated with me, and my spirit vibrated enthusiastically in agreement as I read it. We shall see if the text itself is as agreeable as the commentator, for in a confluence of exactly the sort that I have come to expect from this life, I also happen to be at the point in Gibbon's Decline and Fall that deals with the origins of Islam. The character of Mohammed (saw) leaves much to be desired from Gibbon's account, and that author's opinion of Islam is rather at odds with what Hulusi describes. Nonetheless the line between Sufi and Sharia is clearly drawn, and I feel no conflict accepting one and discarding the other, as I have done with Christianity, Buddhism, Bahai, Confusianism, and Daoism already. So without any more adoing,
Epigraph: I am acting under the assumption that these words, which seem to introduce each book, are the author's own, or at least unique to the Sufi interpretation to which I am about to yield.
1. Hulusi gives an incredible weight to the first letter of the first verse: ب , but he has not yet explained its significance. This is one of many pieces of information that I am eagerly awaiting as part of this reading. The choice of Rahman and Rahim to introduce the nature of Allah here draw attention to the nature of existence as first a reflection of the nature of Allah and all His names, and secondly as an observable manifestation of the nature of those names.
2. And it is telling that the first admonishment of the book is to suspend judgement, seemingly in the sense of ascribing qualities such as good or bad, of these wordsm and to simply take them as they are: a neutral description of reality as it is.
3. And as the Rahman and the Rahim are again invoked, Hulusi in his commentary sets up a distinction between the two as representing the potential and the actualized reality of the various names.
4-5. The idea of submission is the one that turned me off when I was looking into Bahai. Without Hulusi's observation that it refers to the necessity of surrender to to the unity of reality, and the abandonment of our attachments to duality, no matter how momentarily pleasing and seductive, I might have been turned away from the path here as well.
6. Yes, this. This is all I want from this life at this moment. All my other quests are distractions from the realization of my innermost reality.
7. I see that I am going to have to overlook the gentle fiction of the divine personhood, for it is not Islam alone that finds it necessary for the benefit of the followers. I wonder if Mohammed (saw) was aware of the fiction as he was presenting it.
Friday, January 20, 2017
Sunday, January 08, 2017
Nora Ephron: I Feel Bad about my Neck (and other thoughts on beng a woman)
As revealed in the title, I am not the particular target audience for a book of this sort. There was a lot to which I can't relate and have no particular affinity. But it so happens that the overlap between aging as a female and aging as a gay male is wider (or perhaps as wide as) one would expect. In particular, the essays "On Maintenance" and "I My Purse" poignantly capture all that is involved in feeling like a human at a certain age. Although still a few decades away from Ephron's perspective, it is clear that simply letting nature take its course is a recipe for solitude One can rail against the reality that demands I lose weight, moisturize, and dye, or one can take the necessary steps to satisfy the desire that has become its own agent and its own fuel.
As Ephron embraces the gloomy, lonely reality of aging, she inadvertently gives with one hand the hope that she snatches away with the other. Yes, aging is a dreary process, not golden in the ways that some would have you believe. And this is especially true when one faces them alone. But somehow, the possibility that although some things are now forever visible only in the rear view mirror, other things are to be discovered at one's elbow: truth, insight, wisdom, and--it is to be hoped--one's own self.
As Ephron embraces the gloomy, lonely reality of aging, she inadvertently gives with one hand the hope that she snatches away with the other. Yes, aging is a dreary process, not golden in the ways that some would have you believe. And this is especially true when one faces them alone. But somehow, the possibility that although some things are now forever visible only in the rear view mirror, other things are to be discovered at one's elbow: truth, insight, wisdom, and--it is to be hoped--one's own self.
Thursday, January 05, 2017
MASH
Loved it. 4/5 stars. Would recommend, and would watch again. And yet . . . what on earth is this harmless, meandering TV sitcom pilot doing on the AFI's list of 100 movies? In what universe is it significant, artistic, or anything other than serviceable?
even though it seems that the TV show was not yet a gleam in its producer's eye at the time this film was released, it works much better as a pilot than as a stand alone theatrical release. I feel as though I just binge watched a season of a clever, occasionally poignant Netflix series--not a movie. Sadly, I hear that season two has much less of the lewd, gruesome, anarchic humor that made this such a delight: as though Apocalypse Now and Animal House had a child born without the ability to feel shame.
even though it seems that the TV show was not yet a gleam in its producer's eye at the time this film was released, it works much better as a pilot than as a stand alone theatrical release. I feel as though I just binge watched a season of a clever, occasionally poignant Netflix series--not a movie. Sadly, I hear that season two has much less of the lewd, gruesome, anarchic humor that made this such a delight: as though Apocalypse Now and Animal House had a child born without the ability to feel shame.
Wednesday, January 04, 2017
The Revelation of John IV
This is the end, both of this project and of all creation, if memory serves.
17:1 I wonder if the word "whore" represents the same tonal shift in the original language as it seems to in English.
17:3 These "blasphemous names", are they so in the sense that we would expect? Namely, appropriating the divine for themselves? Or are they merely profane?
17:6 I too am "greatly amazed", and I'm merely reading it. Is there any more vivid image in the Bible?
17:8 If only we had some time markers here, this would be a lot easier to identify. Without them, it's entirely possible that this apparition is not a symbol or a metaphor at all, but an actual spirit that holds influence over the rulers of the world. Perhaps it's best to read it as though the angel is speaking with reference to his own time, not to the time in which the vision is to be fulfilled.
17:11 This verse is pretty challenging to parse. The sentence is structured such that the beast itself is the eighth king in a line of seven, of which each is both a precursor and a part of the whole.
17:13 Which makes an interpretation of the ten kings who didn't exist at the time of John's writing as the security council of the United Nations pretty tempting. Kings that had their own time, but are now all part of a larger body to which they yield their power.
17:16 Which makes a religious interpretation of the whore rather tidy. Unless . . . she is repeatedly referred to as a city. Only two cities could possibly fit the bill: the Vatican and Jerusalem. Wouldn't it be a twist if the beast (the UN) turned on secular Israel, and dissolved it? The recent censure of the general assembly would be a first step.
18:1 Since this is a vision, I wonder what sort of visual cues led John to believe that this angel had "great authority".
18:2 And I continue to be obsessed with the question of why certain verses are set as poetry. Is it some artifact of the original text? In other cases, I have assumed it is because they are quotes from a passage that was also set in verse, but this book is entirely original, so that seems unlikely.
18:2,3 More arguments for seeing the whore as having an actual temporal city.
18:6 I find this passage very poetic. Something about the rhythm of it is more poetic than John usually displays.
18:9 These very kings seem to be the ones who in chapter 17 gave her up to the beast, that which is made up of they themselves.
18:24 Certainly sounds like a religion to me. But the Vatican, or Jerusalem? Or perhaps Mecca?
19:4 This tableau is evidently still visible from wherever John is watching.
19:5 Is God referring to himself in the third person here? Or is the figure seated upon the throne some other individual?
19:6 Is this the same great multitude mentioned in chapter 7, those who passed through the great ordeal, or just a generic crowd? If the former, then we begin to see something resembling an actual timeline. And the description here gives nothing to contradict such a reading.
19:11 Difficult not to see this figure as the same who led the four horsemen earlier.
19:17 This is certainly a unique wedding feast.
20:2 Been a while since we heard from this fellow. Not much information on the relationship between him, the beast, and the whore though.
20:4 This gives the lie to the old "only God can judge me" chestnut.
20:5 But if the rest of the dead are not resurrected, those who worshiped the beast were slaughtered, and those who did not were reigning, then over whom did they reign, and whom did they judge?
20:7 The religion in which I was raised interpreted these events as happening well after the great tribulation and the battle of Harmageddon. And John certainly seems to be following a linear timeline in these final chapters, so if we are to take the beast as the UN, and the whore as some religious entity, then such a timeline doesn't have any inherent inconsistencies. But suppose that the beast and the whore and the day of judgement were actually symbols of something else, something that has already passed. The fall of Rome? The fall of Jerusalem? I suppose the symbology could be made to fit either event. Is it possible then, that this 1000 year period of imprisonment has also come and gone? This would be a more tempting line of inquiry if there were anything that would have resembled the end of the world 1000 years thereafter.
20:8 And are we to suppose that Gog and Magog, whatever they might be, are still around after the day of judgement? Human nature being what it is, such a thing would not be at all surprising.
20:14 Pretty impossible to take this lake of fire as anything other than allegorical, when Death and Hades are themselves cast into it.
21:3,4 And here's the coda. The happy ending that let John wake up from his vision without gouging his eyes out. I find myself supposing that without these verses, religion as we know it today would look very different.
21:24 Pretty absurd to suppose that there would still be nations after all of this. No doubt used metaphorically to represent all mankind.
21:26 This seems redundant. Weren't all those who aren't written in the book of life cast into the lake of fire last chapter?
22:5 Wait, no more night? This would require some serious rewiring of the universe.
22:10 "Near" is always relative.
22:12 As is "soon".
22:15 No, the sorcerors and fornicators et al were destroyed. They cannot be outside to gnash their teeth.
22:16 PLOT TWIST The angel showing these things to John was Jesus all along! And furthermore, he says not to worship him, that he is just a fellow servant. Either John forgot some of the theology from his epistle, or there is some change in speaker that he forgot to record.
Well, there you have it folks. The end of many years of pondering, overanalysis, suspension of disbelief, and skeptical query. I find that this book, obscure and inconsistent as it was, was a rather good microcosm of the rest of the Bible. Taken too seriously, it becomes dangerous, confusing, and maddening. But taken on its own merits, a profoundly deep and poetic book with reams of insight about humans, as seen across a slice of thousand of years.
17:1 I wonder if the word "whore" represents the same tonal shift in the original language as it seems to in English.
17:3 These "blasphemous names", are they so in the sense that we would expect? Namely, appropriating the divine for themselves? Or are they merely profane?
17:6 I too am "greatly amazed", and I'm merely reading it. Is there any more vivid image in the Bible?
17:8 If only we had some time markers here, this would be a lot easier to identify. Without them, it's entirely possible that this apparition is not a symbol or a metaphor at all, but an actual spirit that holds influence over the rulers of the world. Perhaps it's best to read it as though the angel is speaking with reference to his own time, not to the time in which the vision is to be fulfilled.
17:11 This verse is pretty challenging to parse. The sentence is structured such that the beast itself is the eighth king in a line of seven, of which each is both a precursor and a part of the whole.
17:13 Which makes an interpretation of the ten kings who didn't exist at the time of John's writing as the security council of the United Nations pretty tempting. Kings that had their own time, but are now all part of a larger body to which they yield their power.
17:16 Which makes a religious interpretation of the whore rather tidy. Unless . . . she is repeatedly referred to as a city. Only two cities could possibly fit the bill: the Vatican and Jerusalem. Wouldn't it be a twist if the beast (the UN) turned on secular Israel, and dissolved it? The recent censure of the general assembly would be a first step.
18:1 Since this is a vision, I wonder what sort of visual cues led John to believe that this angel had "great authority".
18:2 And I continue to be obsessed with the question of why certain verses are set as poetry. Is it some artifact of the original text? In other cases, I have assumed it is because they are quotes from a passage that was also set in verse, but this book is entirely original, so that seems unlikely.
18:2,3 More arguments for seeing the whore as having an actual temporal city.
18:6 I find this passage very poetic. Something about the rhythm of it is more poetic than John usually displays.
18:9 These very kings seem to be the ones who in chapter 17 gave her up to the beast, that which is made up of they themselves.
18:24 Certainly sounds like a religion to me. But the Vatican, or Jerusalem? Or perhaps Mecca?
19:4 This tableau is evidently still visible from wherever John is watching.
19:5 Is God referring to himself in the third person here? Or is the figure seated upon the throne some other individual?
19:6 Is this the same great multitude mentioned in chapter 7, those who passed through the great ordeal, or just a generic crowd? If the former, then we begin to see something resembling an actual timeline. And the description here gives nothing to contradict such a reading.
19:11 Difficult not to see this figure as the same who led the four horsemen earlier.
19:17 This is certainly a unique wedding feast.
20:2 Been a while since we heard from this fellow. Not much information on the relationship between him, the beast, and the whore though.
20:4 This gives the lie to the old "only God can judge me" chestnut.
20:5 But if the rest of the dead are not resurrected, those who worshiped the beast were slaughtered, and those who did not were reigning, then over whom did they reign, and whom did they judge?
20:7 The religion in which I was raised interpreted these events as happening well after the great tribulation and the battle of Harmageddon. And John certainly seems to be following a linear timeline in these final chapters, so if we are to take the beast as the UN, and the whore as some religious entity, then such a timeline doesn't have any inherent inconsistencies. But suppose that the beast and the whore and the day of judgement were actually symbols of something else, something that has already passed. The fall of Rome? The fall of Jerusalem? I suppose the symbology could be made to fit either event. Is it possible then, that this 1000 year period of imprisonment has also come and gone? This would be a more tempting line of inquiry if there were anything that would have resembled the end of the world 1000 years thereafter.
20:8 And are we to suppose that Gog and Magog, whatever they might be, are still around after the day of judgement? Human nature being what it is, such a thing would not be at all surprising.
20:14 Pretty impossible to take this lake of fire as anything other than allegorical, when Death and Hades are themselves cast into it.
21:3,4 And here's the coda. The happy ending that let John wake up from his vision without gouging his eyes out. I find myself supposing that without these verses, religion as we know it today would look very different.
21:24 Pretty absurd to suppose that there would still be nations after all of this. No doubt used metaphorically to represent all mankind.
21:26 This seems redundant. Weren't all those who aren't written in the book of life cast into the lake of fire last chapter?
22:5 Wait, no more night? This would require some serious rewiring of the universe.
22:10 "Near" is always relative.
22:12 As is "soon".
22:15 No, the sorcerors and fornicators et al were destroyed. They cannot be outside to gnash their teeth.
22:16 PLOT TWIST The angel showing these things to John was Jesus all along! And furthermore, he says not to worship him, that he is just a fellow servant. Either John forgot some of the theology from his epistle, or there is some change in speaker that he forgot to record.
Well, there you have it folks. The end of many years of pondering, overanalysis, suspension of disbelief, and skeptical query. I find that this book, obscure and inconsistent as it was, was a rather good microcosm of the rest of the Bible. Taken too seriously, it becomes dangerous, confusing, and maddening. But taken on its own merits, a profoundly deep and poetic book with reams of insight about humans, as seen across a slice of thousand of years.
박경리: 버리고 갈 것만 남아서 참 홀가분하다
시란 것 머냐? 시를 보고 시가 인지 알 수 있는 시적인 특징은? 비유, 형상화, 운율 아닌가? 그렇다면, 이 박경리의 마지막 글은 시집이 아니다. 단어 단어로 보면 좀 뻔한 느낌도 있다. 줄들을 잘라서 챙기지 않았으면, 시라고 부를 수 없겠다.
이 시집을 읽는 동안, 능력이 있는 시인의 말을 읽는 게 아니라 80살 할머니의 마지막 말을 앉아서 듣는 느낌이였다. 연세를 드셔서 할 말 다 검소하게 하시고 헛소리를 참을성이 없으신 할머니. 박경리는 말을 꾸밀 시간과 힘이 없었나 본다. 들을 만한 말밖에 없이 철에 둔 짧은 줄 몇게 번역하기는 보람이 있지 않을까?
이 시집을 읽는 동안, 능력이 있는 시인의 말을 읽는 게 아니라 80살 할머니의 마지막 말을 앉아서 듣는 느낌이였다. 연세를 드셔서 할 말 다 검소하게 하시고 헛소리를 참을성이 없으신 할머니. 박경리는 말을 꾸밀 시간과 힘이 없었나 본다. 들을 만한 말밖에 없이 철에 둔 짧은 줄 몇게 번역하기는 보람이 있지 않을까?
마음
마음 바르게 서면
If your spirit stands upright
세상이 다 보인다
The entire world is seen
빨아서 풀 먹인 모시 적삼 같이
Everything is vivid and fresh,
사물은 싱그럽다
Like a crisply starched summer jacket.
마음이 욕망으로 일그러졌을 때
When your spirit is twisted up with desire,
진실을 눈 멀고
Your eyes are blinded to truth,
해와 달이 없는 벌판
And all reality becomes a deserted field,
세상은 캄캄해질 것이다
With neither sun nor moon.
먹어도 먹어도 배가 고픈 욕망
Desire, that eats and eats and continues to hunger
무간지옥이 따로 있는가
Isn’t this the most perfect of hells?
권세와 명리와 재물을 쫓는 자
Chasing after power, honor, wealth,
세상은 그래서 피비린내가 난다
That reality reeks of blood.
~~
사람의 됨됨이
가난하다고
Poverty
다 인색한 것은 아니다
Is not all stingy.
부자라고
Wealth
모두가 후한 것도 아니다
Is not all generous.
그것은
All of that,
사람의 됨됨이에 따라 다르다
It follows a person’s
nature.
후함으로 하여
Generosity
삶이 풍성해지고
brings abundance
인색함으로 하여
And stinginess
삶이 궁색해 보이기도 하는데
An impoverished life.
생명들은 어쨌거나
All living things, no matter what,
서로 나누며 소통하게 돼 있다
Share and correspond with each other.
그렇게 아니하는 존재는
Any other existence
길가에 굴러 있는
Is that of a stone rolling beside a road,
한낱 돌멩이와 다를 바 없다
And nothing more.
나는 인색함으로
I have seen lives
메마르고 보잘것없는
Dry and worthless
인생을 더러 보아 왔다
with stinginess,
심성이 후하여
And at other times
넉넉하고 생기에 찬
Radiant and abundant
인생도 더러 보아 왔다
With generosity
인색함은 검약이 아니다
Stinginess is not thrift
후함은 낭비가 아니다
And generosity is not waste
인색한 사람은
The stingy
자기 자신을 위해 낭비하지만
Waste everything on themselves
후한 사람은
And the generous
자기 자신에게는 준열하게 검약한다
Are to themselves unflinchingly severe.
사람 됨됨이에 따라
The entire world changes
사는 세상도 달라진다
Following a person’s nature.
후한 사람은 늘 성취감을 맛보지만
The generous taste satisfaction,
인색한 사람은 먹어도 늘 배가 고프다
And the stingy eat, but are hungry.
천국과 지옥의 차이다
It’s the difference between heaven and hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)