Anthony
de Mello's “The Song of the Bird"
is one of my favorite books. Let me share with you selected stories from his
book and other sources. Father de Mello made a few reflections (the non-italics) intended to
provide us a guide to make our own reflection. However, we are tasked to
reflect on the story itself (in italics). Hope, you like it...
--oOo--
THE MONK AND THE
WOMAN
Two Buddhist monks,
on their way to the monastery, found an exceedingly beautiful woman at the
river bank. Like them, she wanted to cross the river, but the water was too
high. So one of them took her across on his shoulders.
The other was
thoroughly scandalized. For two hours he scolded the offender for his breach of
the Rule: Had he forgotten he was a monk? How had he dared to touch the woman?
And worse, carry her over the river? And what would people say? Had he not
disgraced their holy Religion? And so on.
The victim took if
gamely. At the end of the lecture he said, “Brother, I dropped that woman at
the river. Are you carrying her still?”
The
Arab mystic, Abu Hassan Bushanja, says, “The act of sinning is not so harmful
as the desire and the thought of it. It is one thing for the body to indulge in
pleasure for a moment, and quite another for the mind and heart to chew on it
endlessly.”
Each
time I chew on the sins of others, I suspect the chewing gives me greater
pleasure than the sinning gives the sinner.
--oOo—
HEART OF A MOUSE
A mouse was in
constant distress because of its fear of the cat. A magician took pity on it
and turned it into a cat. But then it became afraid of the dog.
So the magician
turned it into a dog. Then it began to fear the panther, so the magician turned
it into a panther. Whereupon it was full of fear for the hunter.
At this point, the
magician gave up. He turned it into a mouse again saying, "Nothing I do
for you is going to be of any help because you have the heart of a mouse."
--oOo--
Rediscovering Life: Awaken to Reality
"This
is a story of a guy who is moving out of his village in India, and he sees what
we in India call a sannyasi. The sannyasi is the wandering mendicant. This is
the person who, having attained enlightenment, understands that the whole world
is his home and the sky is his roof, and God is his father and will look after
him, so he moves from place to place the way you and I would move from one room
of our home to another."Here was this wandering sannyasi, and the villager, when he meets him, says, 'I cannot believe this.'
"And the sannyasi says, 'What is it you cannot believe?'
"And the villager says, 'I had a dream about you last night. I dreamt that the Lord Vishnu said to me, "Tomorrow morning, you will leave the village around 11 o'clock, and you'll run into this wandering sannyasi." And here, I've met you.'
" 'What else did the Lord Vishnu say to you?' asks the sannyasi.
"And the man replies, 'He said to me, "If the man gives you a precious stone he has, you will be the richest man in the whole world." Would you give me the stone?'
"So the sannyasi says, 'Wait a minute.' He rummages in his little knapsack that he had. He asks, 'Would this be the stone you're talking about?' And the man couldn't believe his eyes because it was a diamond — the largest diamond in the world.
"He holds the diamond in his hands and he asks, 'Could I have this?'
"And the sannyasi says, 'Of course, you could take it. I found it in a forest. You're welcome to it.' And he goes on, and sits under a tree on the outskirts of the village. The man grasps this diamond, and how great is his joy.
"This is the way our joy feels, isn't it, the day we get something we really want? Do you ever stop to ask how long it lasts? You got the girl you wanted, right? You got the boy you wanted, right? You got that car, huh? You got the degree. You were first in your university class. How long does the joy last? Let's measure it. I mean that. How many seconds? How many minutes? You get tired of it, don't you? Then you are looking for something else, aren't you?
"Why don't we study this? It is more valuable than studying the scriptures — because what good is it to you to study the scriptures and crucify the Messiah on the basis of them, as Jesus was, if you've not understood this? If you've not understood what it means to live, and to be free, and to be spiritual?
"So, the guy has the diamond. And then instead of going home, he sits under a tree, and all day he sits, immersed in thought. And toward evening, he goes to the tree where the sannyasi is sitting, gives him back the diamond, and says, 'Could you do me a favor?' 'What?' says the sannyasi.
" 'Could you give me the riches that make it possible for you to give this thing away so easily?' "
--oOo--
I have posted two comments after having been accepted as published why is it that i cannot find them? @ Joaquin Salvador
ReplyDeleteI like all the stories
ReplyDeleteThe Monk and the Woman. JUST THE THOUGHT OF DOING WHAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE S A SIN IN TSELF.
Like for example, in marriage just thinking of making a u turn after a cross road where your "once" loved one is waiting to be fetched is a sin. If you do, the 100% lve that should be gven becomes 50/50 ratio. This effect of thinking of making a u turn is bad in itself. As much as possible you have to work it out so that the 100% love is maintained.
Heart of a Mouse
You can become only what you want to be if you erase your doubts and fears.
The third
The acquisition of material wealth will not give you the happiness but the sharing of the wealth does it.
Yes, I agree with you that doubts and fear hinder our growth as a human person and there is true happiness in giving.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I reserved on the sin of the mind. We are used to look at sin in terms of human act either it is sinful or not, immoral or not. However, the new morality forwarded by Vatican II is person-oriented. Before Vatican II, human act is judged based on two principles-- intrinsic evil and double-effect.
An act is considered intrinsic evil if it goes against natural law. For example, killing, stealing, masturbation, and alike. It implies that reality has physical structured of things or natural law. It also implies that sin is already built-in in the structure of the act. So, sin is always present when such an act is done.
In the principle of double effect, this also follow the first principle concerning intrinsic evil of identified acts. However, the morality of the action is now weigh in terms of its effects, or the amount of evil of the intrinsic evil act.
Both of this principles are centered on the human act. However, in Vatican II, the focus shifted to the human person. What's the difference? Take for example the stealing.
Stealing is considered as intrinsically evil and it is judged as serious sin or minor sin, depending on the amount of money that the person stole. If the person who stole was poor, his family had nothing to eat, and had no other means but to stole, such an act remains intrinsically evil but its evil/sinfulness is lessen because of its good effect, that is, his family is saved from hunger.
Now, if we follow the person-oriented morality, the focus is not on the act of stealing but on the poor man, looking into the circumstances why he was forced to steal. If the poor man did everything to earn money to buy food for his hungry family but refused (e.g. he sought for a job was denied; he beg but nobody gave), the act of the poor man may be justified because of the extreme circumstances in which he and his family have to survive.
The basic demand of this kind of morality is fundamentally human-oriented, especially his well-being. Its implication will truly disturb every Christian who has unused dresses in his/her closet is actually stealing from the poor who has no clothes.
If I follow your example, I always maintain that the morality of the act should not be based on the head level where you still contemplating whether or not to meet your old lover. I would rather ask the question if such a meeting will make both of you will grow as human persons. That's for me is the primary requirement.
Let me ask you on your last paragraph response. If the old lover is committed as well as the person concerned does meeting each other would make them both grow? Does guilt in a way affect growth as human persons? The answers to these questions are both no. They may grow as human persons when it involves them alone or when it comes to each others relationship only. But how about those around them who might be affected? Is it considered growth when you hurt others which cannot be considered outside the relationship?
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the movie " Crossroad" starring Richard Gere? His accidental death in a car somehow showed that God intervened to make his wife think of him as a faithful husband. Something similar to this may happen in real life when one is forced to choose between happiness and sacrifice for the good of those around him or her. I think to sacrifice is the better choice for it results to becoming a good human person, selfless and not selfish which Jesus showed when He died on the cross. It maybe a test of character.
Busy? I posted a reply. I hope you can give your views on it. take care friend. Keep on writing whih you said you enjoy doing. It is one of the best prevention from sickness.
DeleteI can't recall I saw the movie "Intersection" (1994)starred by Richard Gere (Vincent), Sharon Stone (Sally), and Lolita Davidovitch (Olivia), but reviews of the said film are plenty. I am more inclined to look at it as a mid-life crisis episode in man's life rather than simply an erotic need to be satisfied. It portrayed the thematic "coldness" perhaps due to over-familiarity between husband and wife in contrast with the "hotness" of the newly found young lover.
DeleteHow about the movie "The bridges of Madison County" which tells the story of a married but lonely woman, and the brief encounter lasts for a life time. In the study guide of the said movie, I find it more interesting.
***
"Set in Madison County, Iowa in August, 1965, BOMC is the story of
four days that changed forever the lives of the two principal characters.
The hero in the story is fifty-two year-old Robert Kincaid, a world-traveling
photographer for _National Geographic_, who has driven his pickup truck from
Washington state to rural Iowa to shoot a series of pictures of the
area's quaint covered bridges for a forthcoming issue. Temporarily
lost in the country-side, Kincaid has a chance encounter with a local farm
wife, forty-five year-old Francesca Johnson (the heroine), who unaccountably
finds herself volunteering to accompany Kincaid in locating a particular
bridge. As it happens, Francesca is all alone on the farm for four days,
her husband and children having left home to attend the Illinois State
Fair. It also happens that Mrs. Johnson, who had come to Iowa twenty
years earlier as an Italian war bride, had for some time felt 'compromised
and alone' within the confines of her quite passionless marriage to her
husband Richard. For his part, Kincaid was a man with few attachments
(married once and divorced years ago) other than to his craft, his
photographic equipment and his pickup; in short, his commitments extended
basically 'to the road,' and these his career permitted him to follow
rather freely. What transpires between Robert and Francesca in the
wake of their chance encounter is, if nothing else, the stuff of which
indelible romance is made (and, for that matter, sold).
(part 1)
(part 2)
Delete"What follows in Waller's story-in-the-novel is his description
of the actual affair that takes place between Robert and Francesca
while her family is out of town, along with Robert's 'proposal' that
Francesca leave behind her unfulfilling life in Iowa and run away
with him to places far and wide, a proposal that is entertained but
ultimately turned down by the heroine. Instead, Francesca places
duty and fidelity in front of passion and romance, choosing to live
out the remainder of her days on the farm outside of Winterset, Iowa.
During one day in August for every year thereafter, however, she would
would gather props and remembrances and pay ceremonial homage to
her romantic interlude by staging a solitary fantasy ritual recalling
the orignial seduction. Over the course of those two and one-half
decades, Mrs. Johnson attempted to locate Kincaid only once, and
then unsuccesfully, after the passing of her husband. Two final points
are in order about Waller's telling of the story-within-the-novel.
The first is that, notwithstanding the brevity of the actual affair
of Robert and Francesca, Waller leaves little doubt that theirs was
much more than a fleeting romance or momentary concession to impulse.
As Robert said upon learning that Francesca must stay with
her family, "In a universe of ambiguity, this kind of certainty
comes only once." (By this point in the story, such utterances are
entirely in character for Mr. Kincaid, whose mystical mix of New
Age sensitivity and Marlboro Man machismo Waller gives ample ampli-
fication relative to the largely ill-defined character of the heroine.
"I am the highway and the peregrine and all the sails that ever went
to sea," Waller has Robert whispering into Francesca's ear.) The
last point worthy of underscoring here is the framing device used by
Waller in telling the story. Waller's reconstruction of the romance
is portrayed as a truthful re-creation that he, as the teller, was
able to piece together from a letter Francesca left for her children,
recounting the affair, that they read only after her death. Remarkably,
and yet apparently of great importance in establishing the story's
credibility among readers, Waller agrees to tell the story of Robert
and Francesca only in response to an invitation from the late Francesca's
children."
***
I do not follow the rest of the analysis. What do you think of this story? It would be better if you suspend any moral judgment or its moral effects to the families of both characters? What's make this movie so especial to Francesca, as a woman, a wife and a mother?
Your choice is more fitting to my example than Intersection. Francesca, has that strength of character. She chose to be where she should be despite a more engaging life in a fleeting romance with a new man. Maybe afraid to gamble for she doesn't know what is in store for her out there. Sometimes we are afraid to leave our comfort zone because of fear or hurt others in the process.
DeleteRelating this to Zsa, here is another woman who had lived for 23 years with Dolphy through thick and thin. I am just wondering a woman as beautiful inside and out as she is how many crossroads kaya had she encountered during her marriage with Dolphy.
I always believe that it is women who caused broken marriage if they give in by being extras of other men. Thanks for replying. Keep well.
( Suspending moral jugement)
DeleteThe story may happen in real life. It is an interesting story that shows human frailties and strength to grow as you JS, term as a human person. This also shows that sometimes we have to to keep something secret just not to destroy relationships. But the story doesn't say whether Franceca suffers in silence for not giving in to her need to be happy in a new found love.
I retold the story of Francesca and Robert in my new entry. Maybe tomorrow I will continue reflecting on human loving.
DeleteI agree with your assessment. Keep well.