1.
My blogpost from 5/10/2017 entitled, "Music of Transformation: Analysis of a Spiritual," discussed what in my opinion was and is one of the most deeply moving, harrowing spirituals of all time, I Told Jesus.
The call-and-response text varies, but the words are basically as follows:
I told Jesus it would be all right if he changed my name (repeated 3 times)
Jesus said, the world would turn against me, if he changed my name (3x)
But I told Jesus it would be all right if he changed my name (3x)
Jesus said my father may not know me if I changed my name, etc
To the repeated calls, Jesus's responses are, in turn, my mother, my brother, my sister may not know me; it ends with a sadly triumphant singer telling Jesus that it's all right to proceed.
When I first heard this sung by The Harlem Spiritual Ensemble, I was deeply moved:
On the 2017 blog I wrote the following:
The meaning here is not something simple such as, "If I do the right thing, people are not going to like it;" it goes much deeper than that. 'Change my name' implies the complete surrendering of one's identity, so that one becomes, well, One. Individual comforts, individual greed, individual hates, individual delusions, individual sorrows--and even individual joys--all these must go. A thorough giving up of one's hold on oneself, is, as far as the individual is concerned, death.
Let us use Christian mythology here: it is the Cross. It is imitatio Christi done with full attention, no matter what the consequences. It is not speaking truth to power; it is being truth to power. Unable and unwilling to tolerate an existential threat to its dominion, power will ignominiously toss this gem of truth which once had a name into the depths of the sea. Those that live by the sword die by the sword. Yes, said Simone Weil, but those who put it down die on the Cross.
How many people take the path which the song delineates seriously? Not many, as we shall see.
2.
(Note: I haven't thought of this spiritual much, since I wrote the 2017 article. And there it was on my YouTube feed! One day Google and Facebook will know more about us than we do! Are we heading toward a new religion, Dataism, a huge cyber room into which we will all be subsumed, as Harari suggests? There is no privacy anymore--Get used to it, say the young. Maybe in my next life, say the old).
Although I do not share Ms. Gwynn's worldview, I respect her, find her sympathetic, and am glad she has found a belief system that gives meaning to her life. I would characterize her faith using the Hindu term bhakti, often translated as 'devotion to a personal God.' God loves her and she loves Him; that's all she needs to know. Such devotion is a universal phenomenon, as exemplified in Bach's famous cantata, Ich habe genug (I have enough, or I am satisfied).
Jesus bears the Cross for her; she need only thank him for all the gifts of her life. (She is recovering from a benign tumor. Why would another good person be plagued by a malignant one? That she can't answer).
The spiritual Ms. Gwynn sings is categorically different from the one sung by the Harlem choir. The way she changes the lyrics reflects her devotional worldview. At one point she sings, Jesus said it will be all right, etc. In the original version, there is no such comfort. The seeker wants to take up the Cross. Jesus answers, in effect, Are you sure? Because if you do, this and that will happen; it's going to be tougher than you think.
In Hinduism, bhakti is complemented by jnana, wisdom. Ramana Maharshi, a great Hindu sage of the last century, thought bhakti was a good path for most, since the path of jnana, as the Harlem choir well knew, is so very difficult. Maharshi said if people dedicate themselves to Jesus sincerely, eventually they will move up to jnana. Maybe, depending on the sincerity. I have seen in my lifetime, for instance, persons who claim that they are dedicated to Maharshi yet seem to be very ignorant of what he stood for. Putting a picture of him next to a picture of Sai Baba on an altar while talking nonsense doesn't cut it.
Irma Gwynn is a beautiful person who possesses a high degree of genuine bhakti. But it is not jnana.
If God asked her to obliterate her name for Jesus's sake; if God asked her to take up the Cross; if God demanded, as it were, that she throw her worldly self beneath a juggernaut, would she do it? Maybe; maybe not. The more important question is: would her God ever demand such a thing?
3.
The two major world religions that have been strongly influenced by ascetics and monks, and therefore advocate, among other things, examples of extreme personal behavior, as opposed to collective behavior, are Christianity and Buddhism. Let us discuss Christianity first.
It is difficult to pinpoint Jesus of Nazareth, but he seems to me to have been more in the guru-mold, rather than in the activist mold. He did not establish hospitals, places of learning, etc. He seems to have been more or less a wise man whom people consulted. A notable exception to this trend of personal salvation was his advocacy for the poor. (We moderns assume that the miracle stories are largely apocryphal; since time immemorial legends of miracles have been attributed to saintly characters of the past.)
Ascetics often demand extreme behavior. Would Christianity have lasted as long as it has if its adherents took Jesus's dictum, "Turn the other cheek" literally? We must note that it was an Aramaic trope to exaggerate in order to make a point. What exactly did Jesus mean with the assertion that is it easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? Perhaps this was nothing more than a demand that the rich be more generous. I think, however, he was being more severe than that. For instance, when a man asked Jesus what would he have to do to be better, since he has strictly followed the Torah since youth? Jesus advised him to give everything he has to the poor. (Mark 10: 17-31). You can almost hear the young man mumble to himself, "No way!" as he departs.)
The vast majority of Christians, like the rest of us, live in the world and have to come to terms with balancing their own needs with those of the spirit's. Nearly everyone needs to be less selfish and more other-directed, that at least is certain. But turn the other cheek while someone is about to mow you down?
Nature demands a certain degree of attachment to self; should we ever give up our name, that is, our entire identity, and forgo self-protection completely for a cause? When this happens, it is both beautiful and deadly--and exceptionally rare.
4.
Buddhism has an even stronger ascetic tradition than Christianity. After Buddha wandered and meditated for six years, he became enlightened at the age of 35. The basis of his teaching is found in the Four Noble Truths. The first truth, that life entails suffering in the sense that craving will not satisfy even when the object of craving is obtained, is unassailable. The second truth states that suffering is caused by desire or craving, also an unassailable fact. The third truth recommends that the way to perfect peace is by giving up desire altogether, while the fourth discusses how that is to be accomplished. Perfect peace is nirvana; who has accomplished that? Whoever has, no doubt, would have no problem turning the other cheek.
Buddha was certainly on to something. A lot of our desires have an evolutionary origin; natural selection has no truck for enlightenment and serenity, only for the survival of the species. What if nature allowed orgasms that lasted days instead of moments? Those creatures would be so distracted that they would neglect the task of living, which often entails hard work; those creatures would die prematurely, albeit with smiles on their faces, having little time left over to raise families.What happens when survival is no longer a concern? You don't survive. Might as well turn the other cheek!
What's worse is that modern capitalist culture creates desires for things we don't need, and fosters insecurity as we inevitably fail to get what we want when we want it, and if we ever do, we're still dissatisfied. Modern culture fosters competition as well. An endless parade of desires! Endless ways for paraders to come up short!
Yes, we must tamp down and eliminate excess desires. But get rid of them completely?
Perhaps Jesus in the spiritual discussed here should say, "Keep your name. Do the best you can with it." Hard enough! A religion of balance, I think, combines contemplation and action. In other words, 'Love your neighbor, as yourself!' This involves thought and sacrifice, not suicide.
I Told Jesus is music of transformation. It can help us approach the wisdom of Jesus and of Buddha while still remaining beings conditioned by evolutionary biology; that is very difficult to do, and that is good enough.
My blogpost from 5/10/2017 entitled, "Music of Transformation: Analysis of a Spiritual," discussed what in my opinion was and is one of the most deeply moving, harrowing spirituals of all time, I Told Jesus.
The call-and-response text varies, but the words are basically as follows:
I told Jesus it would be all right if he changed my name (repeated 3 times)
Jesus said, the world would turn against me, if he changed my name (3x)
But I told Jesus it would be all right if he changed my name (3x)
Jesus said my father may not know me if I changed my name, etc
To the repeated calls, Jesus's responses are, in turn, my mother, my brother, my sister may not know me; it ends with a sadly triumphant singer telling Jesus that it's all right to proceed.
When I first heard this sung by The Harlem Spiritual Ensemble, I was deeply moved:
On the 2017 blog I wrote the following:
The meaning here is not something simple such as, "If I do the right thing, people are not going to like it;" it goes much deeper than that. 'Change my name' implies the complete surrendering of one's identity, so that one becomes, well, One. Individual comforts, individual greed, individual hates, individual delusions, individual sorrows--and even individual joys--all these must go. A thorough giving up of one's hold on oneself, is, as far as the individual is concerned, death.
Let us use Christian mythology here: it is the Cross. It is imitatio Christi done with full attention, no matter what the consequences. It is not speaking truth to power; it is being truth to power. Unable and unwilling to tolerate an existential threat to its dominion, power will ignominiously toss this gem of truth which once had a name into the depths of the sea. Those that live by the sword die by the sword. Yes, said Simone Weil, but those who put it down die on the Cross.
How many people take the path which the song delineates seriously? Not many, as we shall see.
2.
(Note: I haven't thought of this spiritual much, since I wrote the 2017 article. And there it was on my YouTube feed! One day Google and Facebook will know more about us than we do! Are we heading toward a new religion, Dataism, a huge cyber room into which we will all be subsumed, as Harari suggests? There is no privacy anymore--Get used to it, say the young. Maybe in my next life, say the old).
Although I do not share Ms. Gwynn's worldview, I respect her, find her sympathetic, and am glad she has found a belief system that gives meaning to her life. I would characterize her faith using the Hindu term bhakti, often translated as 'devotion to a personal God.' God loves her and she loves Him; that's all she needs to know. Such devotion is a universal phenomenon, as exemplified in Bach's famous cantata, Ich habe genug (I have enough, or I am satisfied).
Jesus bears the Cross for her; she need only thank him for all the gifts of her life. (She is recovering from a benign tumor. Why would another good person be plagued by a malignant one? That she can't answer).
The spiritual Ms. Gwynn sings is categorically different from the one sung by the Harlem choir. The way she changes the lyrics reflects her devotional worldview. At one point she sings, Jesus said it will be all right, etc. In the original version, there is no such comfort. The seeker wants to take up the Cross. Jesus answers, in effect, Are you sure? Because if you do, this and that will happen; it's going to be tougher than you think.
In Hinduism, bhakti is complemented by jnana, wisdom. Ramana Maharshi, a great Hindu sage of the last century, thought bhakti was a good path for most, since the path of jnana, as the Harlem choir well knew, is so very difficult. Maharshi said if people dedicate themselves to Jesus sincerely, eventually they will move up to jnana. Maybe, depending on the sincerity. I have seen in my lifetime, for instance, persons who claim that they are dedicated to Maharshi yet seem to be very ignorant of what he stood for. Putting a picture of him next to a picture of Sai Baba on an altar while talking nonsense doesn't cut it.
Irma Gwynn is a beautiful person who possesses a high degree of genuine bhakti. But it is not jnana.
If God asked her to obliterate her name for Jesus's sake; if God asked her to take up the Cross; if God demanded, as it were, that she throw her worldly self beneath a juggernaut, would she do it? Maybe; maybe not. The more important question is: would her God ever demand such a thing?
3.
The two major world religions that have been strongly influenced by ascetics and monks, and therefore advocate, among other things, examples of extreme personal behavior, as opposed to collective behavior, are Christianity and Buddhism. Let us discuss Christianity first.
It is difficult to pinpoint Jesus of Nazareth, but he seems to me to have been more in the guru-mold, rather than in the activist mold. He did not establish hospitals, places of learning, etc. He seems to have been more or less a wise man whom people consulted. A notable exception to this trend of personal salvation was his advocacy for the poor. (We moderns assume that the miracle stories are largely apocryphal; since time immemorial legends of miracles have been attributed to saintly characters of the past.)
Ascetics often demand extreme behavior. Would Christianity have lasted as long as it has if its adherents took Jesus's dictum, "Turn the other cheek" literally? We must note that it was an Aramaic trope to exaggerate in order to make a point. What exactly did Jesus mean with the assertion that is it easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? Perhaps this was nothing more than a demand that the rich be more generous. I think, however, he was being more severe than that. For instance, when a man asked Jesus what would he have to do to be better, since he has strictly followed the Torah since youth? Jesus advised him to give everything he has to the poor. (Mark 10: 17-31). You can almost hear the young man mumble to himself, "No way!" as he departs.)
The vast majority of Christians, like the rest of us, live in the world and have to come to terms with balancing their own needs with those of the spirit's. Nearly everyone needs to be less selfish and more other-directed, that at least is certain. But turn the other cheek while someone is about to mow you down?
Nature demands a certain degree of attachment to self; should we ever give up our name, that is, our entire identity, and forgo self-protection completely for a cause? When this happens, it is both beautiful and deadly--and exceptionally rare.
4.
Buddhism has an even stronger ascetic tradition than Christianity. After Buddha wandered and meditated for six years, he became enlightened at the age of 35. The basis of his teaching is found in the Four Noble Truths. The first truth, that life entails suffering in the sense that craving will not satisfy even when the object of craving is obtained, is unassailable. The second truth states that suffering is caused by desire or craving, also an unassailable fact. The third truth recommends that the way to perfect peace is by giving up desire altogether, while the fourth discusses how that is to be accomplished. Perfect peace is nirvana; who has accomplished that? Whoever has, no doubt, would have no problem turning the other cheek.
Buddha was certainly on to something. A lot of our desires have an evolutionary origin; natural selection has no truck for enlightenment and serenity, only for the survival of the species. What if nature allowed orgasms that lasted days instead of moments? Those creatures would be so distracted that they would neglect the task of living, which often entails hard work; those creatures would die prematurely, albeit with smiles on their faces, having little time left over to raise families.What happens when survival is no longer a concern? You don't survive. Might as well turn the other cheek!
What's worse is that modern capitalist culture creates desires for things we don't need, and fosters insecurity as we inevitably fail to get what we want when we want it, and if we ever do, we're still dissatisfied. Modern culture fosters competition as well. An endless parade of desires! Endless ways for paraders to come up short!
Yes, we must tamp down and eliminate excess desires. But get rid of them completely?
Perhaps Jesus in the spiritual discussed here should say, "Keep your name. Do the best you can with it." Hard enough! A religion of balance, I think, combines contemplation and action. In other words, 'Love your neighbor, as yourself!' This involves thought and sacrifice, not suicide.
I Told Jesus is music of transformation. It can help us approach the wisdom of Jesus and of Buddha while still remaining beings conditioned by evolutionary biology; that is very difficult to do, and that is good enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment