Discussion:
Siddhartha and The Road
(too old to reply)
* irenic *
2006-11-07 02:43:03 UTC
Permalink
TWO BOOKS FOR THE JOURNEY

One of these two novels is something of a classic, the other will, I think,
become one. A quick summary/review of each:

[1] Siddhartha, by Hermann Hesse (Picador, 1954)

Here s a book that for decades has resided on high school and college
reading lists: its English translation in the 1950s became a spiritual guide
to the 1960 s generation of counter-cultural
searchers-after-alternative-truth. One commentator calls it the most
important and compelling moral allegory the troubled twentieth century has
produced . Set in India, it synthesises Eastern and Western spiritual
traditions, along with philosophy and Jungian psychology.

Hermann Hesse (1877-1962) was a German poet and novelist (and winner of the
Nobel Prize for Literature in 1946), who explored the journey into the inner
self. Born into a family of German Pietist missionaries he was expected to
follow the family missionary calling but was expelled from seminary, and
worked at various jobs in the book trade . For several years he underwent
therapy with Carl Jung's assistant J.B. Lang.

A visit to India in 1911 was a disappointment but it encouraged Hesse's
fascination with Eastern religions. Siddartha (1922) in some ways parallels
the early life of Gautama Buddha (Siddhartha was also the given name of the
Buddha). A Brahmin son rebels against his father's teaching and traditions,
and eventually finds enlightenment.

Siddhartha has sometimes been called a work of reverse missionary activity,
bringing to the West the lessons of a typically Eastern story of spiritual
searching and fulfillment. A spiritual guide assists the protagonist in the
quest for self-knowledge beyond the world deluded by money, number and
time. In each of the novel s twelve chapters Siddhartha faces a crisis and
a new beginning in his search. There are various encounters with individuals
who profess to have something to teach him.

He rejects, in turn, the teachings of the Brahmins (their scholarship may
lead to intellectual prowess but not necessarily happiness); the rigors of
the ascetic samanas; the opportunity to become a disciple of Gautama, the
Buddha; the illusory joys of sensual love; the world-weary existence of
material success; and even the futile role of protective father to his son.
After many struggles Siddhartha finally understands his place in the
universe. When he attains enlightenment he tells his lifelong friend, The
world, Govinda, is perfect at every moment.

Hesse, in Siddhartha, raises questions about

* the problematic nature of using words to describe life s deepest truths;
(typical English-class questions: What is the relation of words to wisdom?
Do words tend to enhance or limit wisdom? Why is it possible to gain much
knowledge without also gaining wisdom? );

* the nature of the relationship between a teacher and a disciple (more
classroom questions: Can wisdom be taught? Why are humans prone to accept
another s formula? ); and

* the futility of thinking one has a absolute handle on what is true or
real (after waking up by a river, Siddhartha says, I have nothing, I know
nothing, I can do nothing, I have learned nothing. How wondrous this is! ).

( Comparative religion questions: (1) Judaism is to Christianity as
Hinduism is to Buddhism. Please explain. (2) Siddartha arrives at a
position more akin to Hesse s instinctive nature-mysticism/Daoism than that
of formal Buddhism. Does he?).

A moving, empathetic book, which resonates with the modern search for
self-awareness and enlightenment . It s a subtle subversion of Buddhism, in
favour of a native romanticism. Siddartha experiences the dao/ flow of life
by the river, rather than in the structure of classical Buddhism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[2] The Road (Cormac McCarthy, Picador, September 2006).

There is no God and we are his prophets (p. 143).

Move over, John Updike. Cormac McCarthy is being hailed as America s hottest
contemporary prose-writer. (Harold Bloom says McCarthy s Blood Meridian is
the major esthetic achievement of any living American writer. )

The Road is a haunting apocalyptic masterpiece, a frightening story of a man
and his sickly son on a journey after a nuclear holocaust. The catastrophe
had taken place years ago, just before the boy was born: A long shear of
light and then a series of low concussions. Then: People sitting on the
sidewalk in the dawn half immolate and smoking in their clothes. Like failed
sectarian suicides. Others would come to help them. Within a year there were
fires on the ridges and deranged chanting. The screams of the murdered. By
day the dead impaled on spikes along the road.

The earth is grey and lifeless, and the protagonists chances of survival
seem just as bleak. Father and son are given no names. There are no birds.
Many sentences have no finite verbs; many words are bereft of their
apostrophes. The book has no chapters, but is composed of several hundred
isolated events and scraps of dialogue.

Typical: The land was gullied and eroded and barren. The bones of dead
creatures sprawled in the washes. Middens of anonymous trash. Farmhouses in
the fields scoured of their paint and the clapboards spooned and sprung from
the wallstuds. All of it shadowless and without feature. The road descended
through a jungle of dead kudzu. A marsh where the dead reeds lay over the
water. Beyond the edge of the fields the sullen haze hung over the earth and
sky alike. By late afternoon it had begun to snow and they went on with the
tarp over them and the wet snow hissing on the plastic.

The man s late wife - who gave birth to the boy after calamity struck, and
later killed herself - had said, We're the walking dead in a horror film.
McCarthy raids his dictionary of synonyms to describe the deathly physical
(and moral) landscape.

There is no plot, except to stay alive and hopeful in a world that offers
hardly any life or hope. (The man s revolver is loaded with his last two
bullets ) Each day they scavenge for food, and experience freezing cold

On their way to the coast and survival and a rumored community of decency,
these two good guys are in constant danger from roaming bands of
cannibalistic thugs. What do good guys do? They keep trying. They dont give
up.

The book s main themes are the father s fiercely protective (redemptive?)
love for his son, his desperate impulse to keep the boy alive, and also the
boy s instinctive altruism which has to be tempered for the sake of their
survival by the father s fierce amorality. And behind all that: how much can
you subtract from human existence before it ceases to be human?

This Dantean tour of hell that would make Dante himself shudder as one
commentator puts it drags us into places we don't want to go, forces us to
think about questions we don't want to ask.

The neo-Biblical black rhetoric of a world gone horribly wrong (Ezekiel s
apocalyptic vision of a valley of dry bones comes to mind) is unrelieved
until the last page or two, after the father dies and the grieving boy is
found by another family. The climax is an uncharacteristic (for McCarthy)
affirmation of faith and hope

Here s the penultimate paragraph, which you can exegete as you wish (p.
241): The woman when she saw him put her arms around him and held him. Oh,
she said, I am so glad to see you. She would talk to him sometimes about
God. He tried to talk to God but the best thing was to talk to his father
and he did talk to him and he didn t forget. The woman said that was
alright. She said that the breath of God was his breath yet though it pass
from man to man through all of time.

Rowland Croucher

November 2006
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher

'It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so' (Mark Twain)

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 18,200 articles/ 4000 humour
Matthew Johnson
2006-11-10 03:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by * irenic *
TWO BOOKS FOR THE JOURNEY
One of these two novels is something of a classic,
Yet I am certain that the saintly teacher of the Gospel did NOT
include _this_ as a classic, when he told me, "it it always good to
read the classics (vsegda polezno chitat' klassiku)".
Post by * irenic *
the other will, I think, become one.
It might, but that would be too bad, sort of like the re-election of a
war-mongering despot.
Post by * irenic *
[1] Siddhartha, by Hermann Hesse (Picador, 1954)
Here s a book that for decades has resided on high school and college
And it is a very great tragedy that it has been on these lists for so
long. For it has contributed to the deluded delinquency of minors for
decades now.
Post by * irenic *
its English translation in the 1950s became a spiritual guide to the
1960 s generation of counter-cultural
searchers-after-alternative-truth.
And these so-called "searchers-after-alternative-truth" were SO lost!
Why, they were so irretrievably lost, referring to them is NOT a
recommendation of Siddhartha.
Post by * irenic *
One commentator calls it the most important and compelling moral
allegory the troubled twentieth century has produced.
That could just mean that that commentator is not very well read, or
that "moral allegory" is not in its prime in the 20th century. Or
both!
Post by * irenic *
Set in India, it synthesises Eastern and Western spiritual
traditions,
Since that would be like synthesizing water and fire, you would have
been more accurate to say "tries to synthesize". But the two are
fundamentally different, because the God each tries to approach is so
fundamentally different: in Christianity, God is simultaneously
transcendent to all things, and immanent in all things. The same
canNOT be said of the Hindu or Buddhist notions of 'God'.

This difference cuts like a fault line across ALL of the respective
religions/spiritualities.
Post by * irenic *
along with philosophy and Jungian psychology.
This too, is like synthesizing water and fire, since the philosophical
underpinning of Jungianism are notoriously weak.
Post by * irenic *
Hermann Hesse (1877-1962) was a German poet and novelist (and winner of the
Nobel Prize for Literature in 1946), who explored the journey into the inner
self.
So Hesse wanted his readers to believe. But no, he never even got
close to achieving this. Augustine got much closer, as shown by my
sigfile.

[snip]
Post by * irenic *
A moving, empathetic book, which resonates with the modern search for
self-awareness and enlightenment.
This too, is no recommendation for the book. After all, that "modern
search for self-awareness and enlightenment" is a fool's errand, every
bit as wrong-headed, foolish and empty as the many misadventures of
Don Quixote. And they don't even make good reading like Quixote's;)

[snip]
Post by * irenic *
[2] The Road (Cormac McCarthy, Picador, September 2006).
There is no God and we are his prophets (p. 143).
Move over, John Updike. Cormac McCarthy is being hailed as America s hottest
contemporary prose-writer. (Harold Bloom says McCarthy s Blood Meridian is
the major esthetic achievement of any living American writer. )
Every few years, somebody says this about some American author. It
doesn't make it true. They were saying this about George Ade once. But
who remembers him now?

Why do they do this? The American Literary World has a great
inferiority complex: it _hungers_ for a writer we can genuinely call
the author of "the great American Masterpiece". Yet that hunger always
goes unfilled.
Post by * irenic *
The neo-Biblical black rhetoric of a world gone horribly wrong (Ezekiel s
apocalyptic vision of a valley of dry bones comes to mind)
How can Ezekiel's vision come to mind while reading dystopian fiction?
You have to misunderstand either the one or the other, and
misunderstand it BADLY.

Ezekiel's vision was NOT dystopian. On the contrary: it was about how
a situation that seems SO hopeless becomes, by the power of God, full
of hope. In fact Tradition has long held it to be NOT just about the
House of Israel, but a prophecy of the General Resurrection of the
dead.

No connection to your dystopian author's ideas at all.

[snip]

Now since I made reference to my sigfile, which I so rarely translate,
I will now explain why I do _not_ generally translate it. I will also
try to make clear WHY it is so relevant to this thread.

First of all, as many readers will know, a famous American poet once
described all translation as distortion. Yet often, we translate
anyway, and are better off for it. But in this case, the vivid
expression built on ironical double-meaning of "subducat se sibit" is
_completely_ lost by an mere _transation_. So it is better to
_explain_ the wise saint's insightful saying, rather than to translate
it.

The saying is about the distinction between two types of 'self-love':
the evil kind, and the good kind. He touches on this briefly in the
CIty of God, and in the Enchiridion, too. But it is only here that he
explains the _difference_ between the two, and why the _entirety_ of
the Christian spiritual life flows out of uncompromising hatred for
the evil kind, and hot pursuit of the good kind.

"Subducat se sibi", is a little ironical. "subducat" means "to carry
off", which in turn can mean "to steal". But what could it mean to
steal _yourself_? This is where the irony comes in. Usually, if you
simply say ""subducat se", that would mean to sneak away, but if you
say "subducat quid sibi", that would mean "to steal". But what if
that 'quid' is yourself? THis is a _surprise_. So I explain it rather
than translate it, and explain it as "steals himself away from
himself, for himself".

The the whole thing could be _paraphrased_ as "He steals himself away
from himself, for himself; _whatever_ good he has, he attributes to
God, by whom he is made". The saint is describing, of course, the man
who is on a _true_ "journey into self", a journey that recognizes
'self' as an imperfect image of God, an image that must be restored to
the likeness of God as well, restored by spiritual effort.

This is the good self love. But it is achieved ONLY by doing what the
non-spiritually minded _must_ see as self-hatred. But this in turn is
because what seems to be self-hatred, picking up your cross of
self-denial, is not really self _hatred_ at all (Mat 16:24-25); it is
self-liberation. But this in turn is ONLY true if it is done for God's
sake.

No "journey into self" is possible without the spiritual warfare
against the evil self-love, and the pursuit of the good
self-love. Otherwise, what you are left with is an _ersatz_ "journey
into self". And these so-called "eastern spiritualities" are
_notorious_ for teaching exactly such ersatzes.

Hesse was not doing this spiritual warfare. Indeed: it is VERY likely
that nobody _explained_ to him the need to do this. After all, this
idea of Augustine's, though it was VERY important to Augustine
himself, has received little attention among Augustinians since, and
even less among Protestants (who only notice Augustine for
predestination). So how would Hesse have known?
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
jovan
2006-11-15 00:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by * irenic *
TWO BOOKS FOR THE JOURNEY
[skip]
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is the good self love. But it is achieved ONLY by doing what the
non-spiritually minded _must_ see as self-hatred. But this in turn is
because what seems to be self-hatred, picking up your cross of
self-denial, is not really self _hatred_ at all (Mat 16:24-25); it is
self-liberation. But this in turn is ONLY true if it is done for God's
sake.
No "journey into self" is possible without the spiritual warfare
against the evil self-love, and the pursuit of the good
self-love. Otherwise, what you are left with is an _ersatz_ "journey
into self". And these so-called "eastern spiritualities" are
_notorious_ for teaching exactly such ersatzes.
How are we to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water?
Otherwise how are we to decide which "good" in us comes from God and
which doesn't ? I think that renouncing oneself without knowing what
God really expects from us could be dangerous - you could become an
easy target for a much greater evil. For example a person might think
that God watches over and guides him, he might be even interpreting
things from his life as signs from God, he might think that his prayers
are being listened and rewarded but how is he to know what really is
going on, how is he to know that he is not actually deceiving and
deluding himself ? Also how are we to protect true God's given good in
us from the evil around us - how do we know that when we stand up we
stand up for God and not for our own ego ?
Matthew Johnson
2006-11-17 04:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by jovan
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by * irenic *
TWO BOOKS FOR THE JOURNEY
[skip]
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is the good self love. But it is achieved ONLY by doing what
the non-spiritually minded _must_ see as self-hatred. But this in
turn is because what seems to be self-hatred, picking up your cross
of self-denial, is not really self _hatred_ at all (Mat 16:24-25);
it is self-liberation. But this in turn is ONLY true if it is done
for God's sake.
No "journey into self" is possible without the spiritual warfare
against the evil self-love, and the pursuit of the good
self-love. Otherwise, what you are left with is an _ersatz_
"journey into self". And these so-called "eastern spiritualities"
are _notorious_ for teaching exactly such ersatzes.
How are we to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water?
By following the principle St. Augustine taught very scrupulously.
Post by jovan
Otherwise how are we to decide which "good" in us comes from God and
which doesn't?
Your question _presumes_ that you already _reject_ the principle
St. Augustine taught! So the first step has to be to go back and
correct this error. You do _not_ make that decision because as he
said, there _is_ no good in us except what comes from God.
Post by jovan
I think that renouncing oneself without knowing what
God really expects from us could be dangerous
Of course it is. Picking up your cross and following Him _is_
dangerous. But that is exactly why we must rely on Him, not on
ourselves. That alone can make the dangerous road safe for us.
Post by jovan
- you could become an
easy target for a much greater evil. For example a person might think
that God watches over and guides him, he might be even interpreting
things from his life as signs from God, he might think that his prayers
are being listened and rewarded but how is he to know what really is
going on, how is he to know that he is not actually deceiving and
deluding himself? Also how are we to protect true God's given good in
us from the evil around us - how do we know that when we stand up we
stand up for God and not for our own ego ?
This is an awful lot of questions for someone who started out by
presuming a rejection of the basic principle St. Augustine was talking
about. But if you are serious about wanting answers to each of them,
then you have only one option: take seriously what the saint wrote, go
back to the sermon where he wrote it and look _in context_ to check
and correct your assumptions.

I claim that when you do these things, you will find that the answers
to all these questions boil down to one thing: trust in God's
providence to guide you to the goal despite your own many
failings. God eagerly desires the salvation of each one of us, and has
already sacrificed so much for the sake of that salvation, we must
reset assured that if we let Him, He will guide us to victory over our
own egos, over our own evil self-love.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
jovan
2006-11-20 01:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by jovan
Post by * irenic *
TWO BOOKS FOR THE JOURNEY
[skip]
How are we to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water?
By following the principle St. Augustine taught very scrupulously.
Post by jovan
Otherwise how are we to decide which "good" in us comes from God and
which doesn't?
Your question _presumes_ that you already _reject_ the principle
St. Augustine taught! So the first step has to be to go back and
correct this error. You do _not_ make that decision because as he
said, there _is_ no good in us except what comes from God.
Lets see if I understood you well.

Saint Augustin says: since there is no good in us - the self can not
make the right decision - right ?

But then he proposes a way out of this mess (not trough him by trough
Jesus Christ) :

Since all good in us comes from God we should then let _God_ decide
about the right path (decision) to be taken.

[skip]
Post by Matthew Johnson
I claim that when you do these things, you will find that the answers
to all these questions boil down to one thing: trust in God's
providence to guide you to the goal despite your own many
failings. God eagerly desires the salvation of each one of us, and has
already sacrificed so much for the sake of that salvation, we must
reset assured that if we let Him, He will guide us to victory over our
own egos, over our own evil self-love.
So the key is to let God _in_ let _Him_ take our lives - and how do we
do that ? How do we let him in ? I can think about couple of things
which I've wrote below (not necessarily in the same order)

0. Baptism
1. By following his teachings and His commandments to the letter
2. Going to church
3. Prying
4. Fasting
5. Almsgiving
6. Holy Communion
7. Repentance


Now how about decisions making which we are to do in our everyday
lives: jobs, schools ect how do we let God guide us trough those, I can
understand how the trust in the Lord can be important but how this
translates into action practically: say someone offers you a job how do
you decide to take that offer with full trust in the Lord ?

Loading...