Hi guys, busy day I see.
Helen:
Quote:
Maril,
Reread where Frodo sings to Goldberry, and his reaction to his own behavior, and then tell me whether you think it sounds like his first real crush.
|
Age 50 and hasn't had a crush before? On that alone I would rest my case on the degree of unimportance women have in Frodo's life. (Do bear in mind this is a woman speaking, before anyone accuses me of misogyny.) But crush (or lust) is too earthbound to apply to the near-mystical, no - ah! - wonder of Bombadil's house and Goldberry. Good word, was it Gandalf, Helen, Bethberry who used it?
Goldberry, Arwen, are all lofty and unobtainable, too distant to be objects of any realistic desire that Frodo would have to relinquish.
Good thing, too. Losing the Shire is bad enough.
-Maril
On a side note:
My dear Christian friends - Whoa!
One of these days I will have my revenge by gathering a group of fellow Buddhists of various traditions (a few Theravada, one or two Kagyud, a Gelug, and myself as Nyingmapa should do it) and storming a thread or two with impenetrable discussions of the Mahayana vs. Hinayana interpretations of Frodo's quest, tossing in off-handed quotes from the Karmapa, the Lotus Sutra, Shantideva and Dharmakirti. Would one consider Tom Bombadil to be a Dzogchen master of profound view do you think? (I would say yes.) Then
you guys can sit back on your bums and scratch your heads. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
In the eucatastrophe thread, I took the effort of translating Buddhist Lorig, (classifications of mind) into plain english. I assumed many people would not know what I meant by such phrases 'term generality' and 'generally characterized phenomena.' So instead I described how we could define eucatastrophe's according to a set (the book? the individual character?) under consideration. I believe I made sense and left the topic open for non-Buddhists, of which there are many. Heh. Clearly.
Do please practice some very Christian generousity and do the same. I believe that Christian values and theology do translate as well as Buddhist classifications of mind. I would very much like to participate in the discussion, and with my spiritual background it would take little to make that possible - just a little less shorthand, please. Remember this board is open to all, and it's really frustrating to see the good topics run away with.
If you're curious, most of what you said made sense and was easily translatable (doing verses being - yes! Rest as spiritual renewal - of course! There's the story of the Buddha and the violinist who threw away his instrument, and the Buddha fetched it out of the brush and used it to demonstrated 'not too tight, and not too loose.' Spontaneous awareness that Gandalf the Grey describes in Tom's house is very much like the secret feast practice of the vajrayana tradition, and the Book of Revelations reads just like a vajrayana text, on and on the commonalities and fascinating topics were clear, so many directions to choose from..) What threw me was "There is the one of the differences between liturgical and evangelical vocabulary.."
aargh.
Then...
Ecclestiates and...
Oh come'on, guys. Play fair.
I have decided that every time you guys take it to the impenetrable level, I will throw in some esoteric Buddhist reference. On the topic of rest as renewal and Tom Bombadil, this from Trungpa Rinpoche on Primordial Innocence:
"We put so much emphasis on pain and confusion that we forget basic innocence. The usual approach we take toward spirituality is to look for some experience that might enable us to rediscover our adulthood rather than go back to our innocent childlike quality. There was a sense of freshness and at the same time some sense of wildness."
[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]