May 2009 Archives

Azazel


The so-called scapegoat was originally never actually blamed for causing any problem. In fact the source ritual brings forward a pair of equally unblemished goats and selects, at random (by lottery), one of them to be sacrificed on the temple altar. The other goat is the "scape" goat, given a transmission by the high priest, who lays his hands on the goat's head in a sort of magical act of transferring the sins of the nation, to carry the pollution away ... to Azazel, the desert, wilderness, wasteland. 


The goat is simply a messenger--again, he's never considered responsible for committing the transgressions of the nation (or of anyone, really--he's just a goat, after all, capable of capricious mischief but nothing comparable to what humans can do). He carries his burden away from the community, out to the harsh, uninhabitable zone, where he's set loose to wander and survive as well as he can (or, according to some accounts, pushed off a cliff--but even then, goats are excellent climbers...). 


The desert, for this culture, was a demonic realm--people forced out into it go crazy, wandering lost and alone, have nightmarish visions, uncertain if they are alive or dead. As such it's entirely receptive to the gift the goat conveys, especially considering that the "sins" of the people probably originated in the demonic realms in the first place. And considering that the proportion of wilderness to habitable land is heavily weighted to the wild, there's little danger of the sins returning within the first day or so (though of course demons travel quickly, not necessarily confined to the rocky path).


The removal of the collective sins (if effective at all) is temporary--just because you washed the floor, in no way is it protected from the crap you track in the following day, though you may be inspired to be a bit more careful for a brief moment. It's an annual attempt to clear a ritual space for a specific purpose, to enter a direct unification with divine reality without being dangerously distracted. 


It's also worth remembering that the displacement of the collective pollution does not absolve individuals of their responsibility for wrongdoing. It's still necessary to correct one's own misdeeds in the usual tiresome ways, such as paying fines and seeking forgiveness from the person you were rude to. Whether it's successful in clearing the collective is another question entirely. It may constitute a sacrifice, but the goat gets the worst end of the deal.


Gateway

The holy of holies was considered a portal, a conduit unifying heaven and earth, a very potent spot where matter and energy are actively interchangeable. Attempting to enter the without attending to every preparatory detail would not only defile the space, but would make the the people susceptible to immolation, insanity, plague. That's the sort of danger they were worried about. Not simply whether they had been disproportionately grumpy that morning, but whether they would be competent to withstand the enormity of their lapses.


Without veering too far into superstitions about the dangers of psychic pollution, I'll just mention that, though metaphorical, there's also reasonable evidence suggesting that people are susceptible to physical (as well as emotional, social, psychological) ailments as a result of psychic toxins. And certainly, to be effective in one's endeavors, it's important to have clarity of purpose, but also to not be bogged down by too much unresolved trauma, grief guilt and other distracting, soul-clogging flotsam. So even from a purely practical standpoint, finding ways to clear up the debris--at least once a year--would seem important. A goat's life might depend on it.

Right livelihood

As a practice and as an attitude, sustainability can be considered a rough translation of certain quietist tendencies that have always run parallel to the noisier pursuits of most times and places. Simply stated, these perspectives give primary status to nature (while perhaps recognizing that humans are not separate from nature) and secondary status to the ambitions of kings and conquerors, considering the latter to be (full of) so much ... wind. Nature is the source of virtue and beauty, though it may be rough or rustic. Dense aggregations of humans are the source of corruption, pollution, degradation. And yet somehow the festering population centers continue to seduce with their questionable enticements, dominating the argument through sheer bluster. The rejectionist/renunciate factions may generate a sizable following in their own time or afterward, but so far have rarely been able to tip the balance.

These rejectionists see the sloppy excesses of civilization as the basis of an eventual (some say imminent) collapse--the empire overextends itself, the resources cannot meet the demand, habitats are destroyed, living beings can't adapt--and voluntarily submit to material deprivation (more or less) as a modest corrective, as an example, or simply to remove themselves from the filth. Perhaps it's an effective pressure-release for the culture as a whole. Perhaps no more than a personal escape. Either way, it originates in a perception of scarcity--there's not enough food to go around, a situation that will only get worse--but also out of empathy, which shouldn't be dismissed as a motive. 

The Taoists are famous for "non-action"--which doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't do anything. More accurately, non-action recommends studying the patterns of nature and acting appropriately according to the conditions of each changing moment, as if you were nature. Buddhists will say "yes, you are nature, but don't be selfish"--in other words, dhamma (nature, law of nature, practice according to the law of nature) gives us the opportunity and obligation to train in a way that relieves the suffering of all beings.

A utopian aspiration to be sure, but nothing really foreign to any sensible child. Without empathy for the suffering of others, humans would never have developed viable groups. In fact, animals of any sort wouldn't bother protecting their offspring. Empathy is the basis of social morality: the Golden Rule, the Hippocratic Oath, the Bodhisattva Vow. If something is distasteful to you, don't impose it on someone else. First do no harm. May I attain wakefulness (consciousness, understanding) for the benefit of all sentient beings.

Ethics is a Branch of Aesthetics

When we talk about ecological sustainability, we're saying exactly this: we want a healthy world, a living planet of interconnected, alive places, populated by beings who are able to at least discover ways to not destroy ourselves, each other or our home. Crucial in this is the health and happiness of the inhabitants, who otherwise, when subjected to misery of any flavor, tend to neglect anything but the most immediate demands of survival. 

When we see or hear something that bothers us, it bothers us for a couple of intertwined reasons: 1. we can relate, 2. it's ugly. 

Pollution is ugly. Torture is ugly. Pain and misery are ugly. I don't mean this lightly, as if calling something ugly diminishes the tragic reality of any of these things. To put it another way: toxic sludge tastes bad. It smells bad. It makes us ill. We want it gone. Not only that, but if we hear about it oozing out in someone else's kitchen, we might experience empathic revulsion. We might want to avoid complicity in its occurrence. We might be inspired to help clean it up, even if (or perhaps particularly if) we bear no direct personal responsibility for the mess. (Psychopaths and autists lack empathy, so might not be bothered in the usual way, but if we can avoid putting such persons in positions of power we'll at least have a hope of reducing the stink.)


About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from May 2009 listed from newest to oldest.

April 2009 is the previous archive.

September 2009 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

  • OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID