Skip to main content

Flesh and Spirit - living between two universes, where one transitions into the other

 




केनेषितं पतति प्रेषितं मनः केन प्राणः प्रथमः प्रैति युक्तः
केनेषितां वाचमिमां वदन्ति

"Moved by what flies the sent-out mind?
Yoked by what goes forth the life breath first?
By what is sent out this speech they speak?

(Kena Upanishad 1,1)

Beyond man, there is a 'what,' which although it does not belong to man, nevertheless belongs to him. Man is the medium through which 'what does not have the nature of life' becomes part of life. The immaterial enters the material through these doors: mind, breath, and word.

However, the unresolved question remains: केन, kena, 'by what?' By what do mind, breath, and word originate? These elements transcend man because they originate from beyond him.

But that केन, kena, needs the flesh, the bones, and the word of real humanity to find expression in the world. Already Saint Augustine had made a distinction between two different worlds (civitates): [...] civitates duas secundum Scripturas nostras merito appellare possemus. Una quippe est hominum secundum carnem, altera secundum spiritum vivere in sui cuiusque generis pace volentium [...] two cities, according to the language of our Scriptures. The one consists of those who wish to live after the flesh, the other of those who wish to live after the spirit (De Civitate Dei, XIV, 1).

The flesh in itself, in its nature, is not evil; even Saint Augustine admits it: [...] quid sit secundum carnem vivere (quod profecto malum est, cum ipsa carnis natura non sit malum) [...] what is it to live according to the flesh (which is certainly evil, although the very nature of the flesh is not evil) [...].
(De Civitate Dei, XIV, 2.2).

This is why that केन can adhere to the flesh and be what it is and will be.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Similarities between Lithuanian, Sanskrit and Ancient Greek: the sigmatic future

by Fabrizio Ulivieri Lithuanian is the most archaic among all the Indo-European languages spoken today, and as a result it is very useful, indeed, indispensable in the study of Indo-European linguistics. The most important fact is that Lithuanian is not only very archaic, but still very much alive, i. e., it is spoken by about three and a half million people. It has a rich tradition in folklore, in literature, and it is used very successfully in all walks of modern life, including the most advanced scientific research. Forced by our interest for this piece of living archaism, we go deeper in our linguistic survey. One of the most noticeable similarities is the future (- sigmatic future -). Lithuanian has preserved a future tense from prehistoric times: it has one single form, e.g. kalbė-siu 'I will speak', etc. kalbė-si kalbė-s kalbė-sime kalbė-site kalbė-s This form kalbėsiu is made from the stem kalbė-(ti) 'to speak', plus the ancient stem-end...

Yellow moons

Yellow moons at nighttime, Beyond the windows loom Stretch along and rise to bloom Flooding streets and singing rhyme. Downtown trains are full tonight. White pale girls try hard  Their world shy discard  Cross pale and dull the light. Like crows wave hands  Uneasy scatter and chat around Watch the light now profound. But proudly keep their stands. Nothing captures their heart. Like thorns they are - without a rose. Oh, if I were the one they choose I would span silent the dark. I know that window, I know it's late I know the stairs and the doorway I stand by the light at the four-way I walk down past the gate and wait. Will I see her eyes tonight? From a downtown train A girl among many faces, insane Will I catch her slight dim sight? Oh my dreams, if she falls away, Am I going alone nowhere? Following the moon's glare I lonely wait - watch the train stay. -------------- PS. " Downtown Train" is one of my favourite songs. Tom Waits’ voice, or Rod Stewart’s voice sing...

Lietuviško skausmo kultūra

  Gyvenu Lietuvoje jau keletą metų. Vertinu daug dalykų Lietuvoje. Ypač įdomūs man pasirodė žmonės. Mano nuomone, tai žmonės - ypač kilę iš kaimo vietovių, kurie sudaro daugumą - giliai įsišakniję skausmo kultūroje. Čia dalinuosi savo pastebėjimais, kurie gali būti neteisingi. Jei mano pastebėjimai neteisingi, prašau juos laikyti išoriniais — užsieniečio iš kitos kultūros žvilgsnio pastebėjimais Pagarba kitam paprastai matuojama laisve : „Kiek toli galiu peržengti savo laisvę, netapdamas problema kitam?“  Lietuvoje šis matas tampa kitu klausimu: „Kiek toli galiu peržengti savo skausmo slenkstį, kad mano skausmas netaptų problema kitam?“ Lietuviška kultūra yra giliai panirusi į skausmo viziją. Taip nutiko dėl daugelio priežasčių, tačiau svarbiausia, mano akimis, yra viena: lietuvis žmogus yra užsidaręs savyje - izoliuota, uždara ir beveik neįveikiama monada. Lietuvis žmogus turi savo tapatybę, bet ją visada sieja su dominuojančia viešąja mintimi. Jis eina savo keliu, bet visada...