Friday, May 25, 2007

Strah, Drhtanje - Terror, Trembling


Terror, Trembling...

Cowardice is the greatest sin
M. Bulgakov, “Master and Margarita”

Latins: terror>terrere – to be afraid; IE *ters – to tremble, to shake

Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism, seldom attempts to explain some concrete concept, and so is the case with the concept of fear. Buddhism is an elegant philosophy, its object is deliverance from suffering, that is, resolving the question of our existence, and that resolving happens as an act of deliverance. Buddhism is active, and its final expression as such, it has found in Zen i.e. Chan. With Buddhist thinkers, or Masters, as they prefer to call them in the East, verbosity, as such, is definitely not a goal. Zen Buddhists will evade any philosophical discourse, and if it ever comes to that, it will be shaped as a mondo – question-and-answer.
Mondo always begins with a question, and that question is a purely philosophical one, although phrases and parables are often in use – for instance, the question of being-and-nonbeing, of reason (vijnana) and intuition (prajna), may be put down as a question of relation between a tree trunk and a vine, winding around it, or as a question of Buddha's origin or the meaning of Buddha, etc. However, it is always about the final question. Mondo is not concerned with concrete questions, such as the question of fear, or the question of living, of the relations between the society and the individual, and the like. This kind of attitude is existentialistic and extremely pragmatic. A serious Buddhist is interested in final, not gradual deliverance and he will not make secondary stops, even if he has to sacrifice all those attractive, joyful and colorful little things, offered by technology and technological (artificial) knowledge, life in happiness – the Buddhist is interested in pure knowledge, the final insight into reality and existence, which, for its consequence, has deliverance. Adopting such an attitude means acquiring the ability to deal with any concrete situation, thus Buddhism is not at all concerned with concrete situations in theory, but exclusively in praxis, actively.

What would a mondo about fear, for example, look like?

Lin-chi asked Hui-neng: “What is fear?”
Master answered: “Whatever happened to your panties?”

If Lin-chi's reaction is to get anxious at the very thought that he has lost his panties, then he has achieved nothing so far, and there can be no talk of deliverance. This situation may be compared with the Expulsion from Eden, and I mean literally, together with the tree of “knowledge” (see later in the text).

The question of fear, terror, is always a personal question, an existential question - it is about our personal relationship to the situations which cause fear. If we rely on common experience, we shall know that we should stay clear of such situations. For such reflex behavior, no special verbose explanations are needed in order to answer the question: What is fear? – running away will be a satisfactory answer in most cases.

There is a common phrase, which says that terror rules in a certain society. As for the understanding of this statement, a mistake has been made at the very beginning. From such statement it simply proceeds that Terror is something outside of us, as if there were some Source or Cause of fear. However, fear is in us, and the cause of that fear is something quite different from what it may appear to be, as, for example, some rule (based on terror). Objectively, the situation looks like this: someone is oppressing us, and we try to slip away (in fear of reprisals). Further, fear of reprisals is fear for one's own skin, for one's family, property, survival, loss of job, etc. These are just some dominant forms in which fear appears to shape itself.

The above statements actually tell us nothing about fear. They are just a description of a specific state of being, but they don't contribute to the resolving of that crisis, for living in fear means living in crisis.

Fear as the expression of a system falling apart

Such a definition of fear enables us to have the insight into the causes of such an event and to finally do away with fear.
We, as is the case, feel fear always when our system is threatened, in any possible way. The intensity of fear depends on how close the threat to the integrity of the system is. If the threat is relatively distant, fear will not be strongly expressed and it will pass almost unnoticed, yet with far-reaching consequences. If the cause of fear is remote, we shall fool ourselves that we still have a good chance to avoid it, for we shall be under the impression that we are not immediately exposed; between us and the cause of fear we shall put a space-time continuum, as some kind of buffer-zone.

This is simply fooling our own selves, the sword is still above our heads and no one knows when it will smack us.

Facing the fear is followed by Courage. The French word courage is derived from the word which means heart, so brave is the one who's got heart. Your heart beats loudly, but you don't step back. Of course, a courageous stand will not eliminate the danger of a system's falling apart, our bodies may be destroyed in a fight with someone stronger than we, we may lose all positions we presently occupy – in one word, there is no guarantee that we shall keep our possessions. And yet, we courageously face the threat.

From the point of common sense, courage is a plain madness. Because reason always demands a guarantee (logic), a brave attitude is eliminated as a solution. A reasonable man starts from the assumption that one has to survive, i.e. to live, and that means that one should avoid all dangerous situations. To live reasonably means to live in constant fear. The philosophy to survive at any cost is the philosophy of slaves, who will succumb to anything, never protesting, always retreating – even when they start to lose, bit by bit (which actually started to happen long ago), part of themselves or of theirs, they will still retreat and never stop to resist. And, stopping, itself, in this case, means to resist.

A reasonable attitude, as is the case, is by no means a wise attitude, i.e. proper attitude (not to mention a courageous attitude).

The problem obviously expresses itself in the concept of property, of our identity with the objects which we consider as belonging to us, but this leads to absurdity, for we lose this property of ours all the time, piece by piece, and still we think that we have preserved ourselves. Such falling into the aporia, into the wasteland of infinity, by rule stays unnoticed, or to put it in a better way, stays intentionally ignored. For the acknowledgment of such a state of being would, at the same time, be the admittance of failure in preserving one's identity, and if the identity is not preserved, that would mean that the system does not exist any more – and the very expression of that is fear. And because a man runs away because of , or from, fear, this may not be allowed (for ethical reasons – it is a sin to be a coward). Thus, man blinds himself, hushes himself, lives in ignorance of his own will.

The consequence of all this is that the question of knowledge is the crucial question. The one who wants to know what exactly is going on, must collect his courage to find out. If he does so, he will inevitably have to face his fear(s). If this person persists in such a standing and uses that time to acquire knowledge, he will find out that parts of the system (not necessarily parts of his body) fly away from his possession, and will see that he is losing control over his "belongings". And already so much is lost, but the subject is still standing there. By observing this, the awareness occurs that, with all those losses, something still is not, and even can't be, lost. Could this something be called the essential, the essence?

One mondo:
“Which is the thing of incalculable value?”
“The head of a dead cat!”

When speaking of the loss of property, we actually speak of the system of evaluation. It can't be said that something is lost if it has no value at all, but only if something has some value and importance to us. If we still survive, even having lost so much, it is obvious that the valuable things we lost were not essential. We may feel wronged or harmed, but – we still live. Here our comprehension enters a big crisis, for the only possible way out would be re-evaluation, establishing a new system of evaluation, which would devaluate our losses – and that really is a radical act and at first it might seem to someone as a total defeat leading to a very depressive death or life.

Thus, we arrive at the crisis of identity. If we stay true to our intent to discover and preserve the essential self, we shall have to make such a step. It is obvious to us that there may be no retreating, if one really wants to deal with fear, i.e. terror.

The difficulty of this crisis is that now it is clearly seen that the cause of our fear is not some oppressor, but our own identity, our image of our own selves, which is so strong and dominant that it cannot stand a radical change. Gradual, reasonable change, when parts are falling off, but the “essence” still stays “hidden” or “dressed up” – this can be, but to completely undress oneself – well, that is unacceptable. So, slowly it becomes clear that we are our own oppressors.

And – now we notice that the ground, which by now can be viewed as a philosophical one, slowly becomes a religious one. Wouldn't Adam and Eve would still be in Eden if it weren't for that fig's leaf? It was so difficult for them to give it up. It turned out that God was insane for expelling them for such a minor thing. And they too turned out insane, for they preferred to suffer, to live by the sweat of their brow, maybe in sweat caused by fear, rather than to keep living in happy communion with God. (I'll paraphrase Christ: You will be with me – naked– or – Leave it all and come with me.)

We are interested here in the mechanism of such psychology of “evaluating”, of existential evaluating. What kind of existence do we want, i.e. do we live?

What is it that is really valuable, and can't be absent, and what is it that we can lose, and still preserve ourselves? Some answers have already been given, they impose themselves according to the principle of the obvious. But accepting such “seeing” presents and objective obstacle. It is difficult to be reconciled with the fact that someone has robbed you and that there will never be any compensation, debts will never be paid back.

In Zen, the concept of “spiritual values” is equaled by the concept of a “dead cat”. The famous replica from the play “The Traveling Theatre Šopalović” says: “What do we need theatre for, don't you see that they are shooting us!” This situation is totally adequate to the present situation in Serbia. But nobody thought of the fact that that may be the very reason they are shooting at us, because we have no theatre – because we are savages. What would a common man do with a “head of a dead cat”? What would he need spiritual values for? Can he eat them, can he drink them?

An existential question: what kind of world do we live in? In the world in which someone steals from us all the time, and we are so helpless? That is the objective world, we can't say its unreal – it is very real. But that is the world of terror, do we want to live in such world? Anyway, who asks you!

Let's go back to Zen Buddhism, not because of Zen, but because of the method which Zen Buddhists use. One of the greatest contemporary, but “mute”, followers of Zen, Carlos Castaneda, sets the principle as early as in his first book (paraphrasing): The first enemy a warrior has to face is fear. if one retreats before fear, the warrior will never become a man of knowledge. (The next enemies are: clarity, power and old age...)

If we chose to speak about nation as a subject to fear, of a terrified, scared nation, it would be easy to chose the Serbian nation as an example of such nation. Zen would never take for granted that a nation is a subject, Buddhism principally does not accept the existence of something like subject, it is the principle of anata (an-ata) no-self, but if one has to speak about it, the analytical method will be applied in order to prove that there really is no subject, that every thing, and accordingly subject, is composed of parts, therefore a subject exists only as such – as a composite, as an idea (Anschauung), i.e. as something nonessential – Indians, or Buddhists, would here, by rule, use the expression sunyata, the emptiness – and let us be sure that here we do not talk of nihilism, but of the form as hollowness, as nonsensicality. If, thus, from Buddhists, who do not admit the existence of self, expect to swallow this implementation of nation as a subject – they would give us a hearty laugh.

Nevertheless, the fact that they would not talk about it, does not mean that they can't deal with it. I will give here another example from Castaneda's opus: When Carlos was telling to don Juan about his father, who hated priests because they strive to make everyone stupid, and so on, don Juan laughed mockingly at him saying it wasn’t them who made us so stupid.

Of course, this is pure Zen, i.e. the foundation (attitude) of Zen, for a Zen Buddhist can not de facto agree with the statement that someone else is responsible for her own state of being (ignorance).

There is a poem (for he was a poet too) which is ascribed to Buddha. In that poem Buddha tells about how he attained the final knowledge, saw through all illusions and thus he was free to leave this world of birth-and-rebirth (Samsara). But, Brahma comes to him and begs him not to do that, but to stay some more, for there are such who only need one little bit to attain such final insight, and Buddha could help them (this is the source of the bodhisattvas – Buddhas in delay, who pledge not to leave here until all living beings are set free – they are here to unselfishly help in that). Many agree that Buddha would not write something like this, because the decision to stay would be actually enforced by some reason (excuse), even though it may look so noble – his decision to stay would be ineffective, inadequate, null. The responsibility for personal deliverance is personal responsibility and cannot be passed on to someone else.

It is now clear, about nation, that a nation, as such, can be saved by no means, because the state in which there is a certain form of government, be it monarchy or democracy, is always ruled by someone in the name of someone else – the distribution of responsibility has been executed, and citizens, the constituents of nations, are not personally responsible for whatever is going on. This is particularly obvious in Serbia, for some kind of way out could be found in calling the people in power to answer, but it never happens. This nation does not want to be responsible, and that's it. Why – the answer is more than obvious – it kneeled before fear, and at the same time the responsibility is being overthrown to the government. And that, it seems, suits everyone. An extraordinary example of self-delusion.

In accordance with this, the question of existence without fear includes the question of belonging to a nation – it can be seen that determining of personal identity by means of belonging to a nation is a dead-end street, for now our personal liberation depends on the national liberation and on the definition of one such freedom, and that puts us into an absolutely passive position and renders us unable to fight for our own freedom (from fear) by ourselves. As a consequence of this, a person who looks for her own identity in belonging to a nation, runs away from salvation, lives in terror and there is no hope that it will escape that damnation.

One more consequence of such understanding of terror is interesting – with its cause outside of us: a total paralysis. Namely, if the cause of terror is a state, how can an individual protect himself from that, when he is in comparison with state so small and helpless, the legal system does not function, etc.? The result of that is apathy, lethargy, and decay - a total defeatism. One such attitude, if we yield to it, really lacks that small crack through which should, as in some phantasm, penetrate a beam of sunshine, a beam of hope. And, as Kafka said, there is hope, but not for humanity.

Nation, humanity, there is no difference. These are synonyms.

Many have objected to Descartes' statement that he accepts the laws, i.e. the system of the state in which he lives and that he would do nothing in the sense of changing such system of evaluation. At first glance it sounds like defeatism, as giving up the fight – a strong argument, but without any substance! And who are the followers of the way Buddha preached? – Beggars! Monks, who leave behind their former way of living, no reminders, they go to the woods and there, undisturbed, meditate. Their only contact with this world is going to beg (they beg for food), but even that begging is not systematical – a beggar does not count that he will inevitably get food, i.e. no one is obliged to give some charity. In this the ultimate existential risk is mirrored, because the nutrition of one beggar is not systematically resolved, it absolutely depends on the will of the giver. The act of giving food became a tradition, as time passed, that is the truth, but in essence it is the interruptus, or a point of interruption, in which an ordinary man, even for a moment, turns to some other values, which are not buying-selling, in accordance with the established system of evaluation. The act of going to beg gives a chance to an ordinary man to stop for the moment and step out of the mainstream which carries him who knows where.

Who, then, can decide to leave all and to make his living from that moment on dependent on the goodwill of his neighbors? Just a few. Not just the fear of loss of possessions or life will arise, of famine and cold, but the fear arises that one will have to have faith, i.e. not to have to be worried, and this means nothing else but disengagement of the established way of thinking, which as its subject has duration, duration of us: past, present, future, “godlike” anticipation of eventual further living, more or less in detail – which is the expression of utmost arrogance!

This is actually the goal of any meditation – stepping out from the realm of differentiation, discernment, from the realm of crisis (for krisein means to secrete, when all secrete is out, what is left is the essence – dryness), a transition from the realm of thinking into the realm of no-thinking, i.e. into the realm of action, decisiveness. “Stopping the world” (by Castaneda), or dhyana, meditative absorption and concentration, the expression adopted by Chinese Buddhists and thus named their sect (in Chinese dhyana is pronounced as chan, in Japanese zen).

The aim of this text is not to persuade someone to become a monk, if he wants to get free from terror. The act of leaving for the forest is an act of stepping out from the known, from the world ruled by suffering – into the world in which a man is freed from any sorrow. This is not a physical movement of taking off one's clothes or throwing ones things out of window, but an act of negation of any dependence on the objective – an act of attaining faith. Of course, faith is not a Buddhist term, it is not mentioned in Buddhism, it is a typically Christian expression, but also Christians refuse to discuss faith – it is attained, but not by means of proofs – and that is a typically “Zen wise” approach.

By attaining faith all fears are transcended.

Teror, drhtanje...

Kukavičluk je najveći greh
M. Bulgakov, „Majstor i Margarita“

latinski: terror>terrere - plašiti se; IE *ters - tresti se, drhtati

Budizam, pogotovo zen budizam, retko se bavi obrazlaganjem nekog konkretnog pojma, pa tako i pojma strah. Budizam je elegantna filosofija, njen predmet je oslobađanje od patnje, dakle, razrešenje pitanja naše egzistencije, a to razrešenje događa se činom oslobađanja. Budizam je delatan, i svoj konačni izraz kao takav, našao je u zenu odnosno čanu. Kod budističkih mislilaca, ili učitelja, kako ih na Istoku rado nazivaju, rečitost sama po sebi nikako nije cilj. Zen budisti će izbeći svaki filosofski diskurs, a ukoliko do toga i dođe, on će se uobličiti kao mondo - pitanje-i-odgovor.
Mondo uvek započinje pitanjem, i to pitanje je čisto filosofsko, iako se često služi frazama i parabolama - recimo pitanje bića i ne-bića, razuma (viđnana) i intuicije (prađne), će se postaviti kao pitanje odnosa stabla i puzavice koja se obavija oko njega, ili kao pitanje porekla Bude ili značenja Bude, itd. Međutim, uvek je reč o konačnom pitanju. Mondo se ne bavi konkretnim pitanjima, kao npr. pitanjem straha, pitanjem živ¬ljenja, pitanjem odnosa društva i pojedinca i sl. Ovakav stav je egzistencijalistički i izuzetno je pragmatičan. Ozbiljnog budistu zanima konačno a ne postupno oslobođenje i on se neće zadržavati na usputnim stanicama, pa makar žrtvovao sve one primamljive, vesele i raznobojne stvarčice koje nudi tehnologija i tehnološko (veštačko) znanje, život u veselju - budistu zanima čisto znanje, konačni uvid u stvarnost i postojanje, što za posledicu ima oslobađanje. Zauzimanje ovakvog stava podrazumeva sticanje sposobnosti da se izađe na kraj sa svakom konkretnom situacijom, zato se konkretnim situacijama budizam uopšte i ne bavi u teoriji, već isključivo u praksi, delatno.
Kako bi, pokusa radi, mogao da izgleda mondo o strahu?

Lin Či upita Hui Nenga: „Šta je strah?“
Učitelj odgovori: „Gde su ti gaće!“

Ukoliko se Lin Či prepadne i na samu pomisao da mu nema gaća, onda on nije ništa postigao, i nema ni govora o oslobođenju. Ova situacija može da se uporedi sa Izgonom iz Raja i to doslovno, sa sve drvetom „znanja“ (vidi kasnije u tekstu).
Pitanje straha, terora, uvek je lično pitanje, egzistencijalno pitanje, radi se o našem ličnom odnosu prema situaciji koja izaziva strah. Ukoliko se oslanjamo na prosto iskustvo, mi ćemo znati da treba da se klonimo takvih situacija. Za jedno takvo refleksno ponašanje, nisu neophodna nikakva verbozna objašnjenja u smislu odgovora na pitanje: Šta je strah - bežanje je u većini slučajeva zadovoljavajući odgovor.
Kaže se, recimo, da u nekom društvu vlada teror. Što se tiče samog razumevanja ove tvrdnje, već je u startu načinjena greška. Iz ovakve izjave prosto sledi da je Teror nešto nama spoljašnje, kao neki Izvor ili Uzrok straha. Međutim, strah je u nama, a uzrok tog straha je nešto sasvim drugo od onoga što može da nam se čini, npr. vlast (zasnovana na teroru). Objektivno situacija izgleda ovako: neko nas tlači, a mi se sklanjamo (u strahu od represalija). Dalje, strah od represalija je strah za sopstvenu kožu, za bližnje, za imovinu, za preživljavanje, od gubitka posla, itd. Ovo su samo neki dominantni oblici u kojima se ispoljava strah.
Gore navedene izjave ne otkrivaju zapravo ništa o strahu. One su samo opis jednog stanja, ali ne daju nikakav doprinos razrešenju te krize, jer živeti u strahu znači biti u krizi.

Strah kao izraz raspada sistema.
Ovakva definicija straha omogućava da se sagledaju uzroci te pojave i da se sa tim strahom konačno iziđe na kraj.
Mi, dakle, osećamo strah uvek kada je naš sistem ugrožen, na bilo koji način. Intenzitet straha zavisi od blizine pretnje po integritet sistema. Ukoliko je pretnja relativno udaljena, strah neće biti bog zna kako izražen i biće gotovo neprimetan, ali ipak sa dalekosežnim posledicama. Ukoliko je uzrok straha udaljen, mi ćemo se zavaravati da mu još možemo nekako izbeći, jer ćemo imati utisak da nismo neposredno izloženi, između sebe i uzroka straha postavićemo prostorno-vremenski kontinuum, kao neku tampon-zonu.
Ovo je čisto zavaravanje, mač nam se još uvek klati iznad glave i ne zna se kad će da nas mlatne.
Suočavanje sa strahom prati epitet Hrabrost. Francuska reč courage, potiče od reči koja označava srčanost, dakle hrabar je onaj koji ima srca. Srce ti snažno zalupa, ali ti ne odstupaš. Svakako, hrabrim držanjem se uopšte ne otklanja opasnost od raspada sistema, telo nam može stradati u okršaju sa jačim, sve pozicije koje zauzimamo možemo da izgubimo - jednom reči, nema nikakve garancije da ćemo sačuvati svoje posede. Pa ipak, mi se hrabro suočavamo sa pretnjom.
Sa stanovišta zdravog razuma, hrabrost je čisto ludilo. Pošto razum uvek traži garanciju (logiku), hrabro držanje otpada kao rešenje. Razuman čovek polazi od teze da treba preživeti, odnosno živeti, a to znači da treba izbegavati sve opasne situacije. Živeti razumno znači živeti u stalnom strahu. Filosofija preživeti po svaku cenu je filosofija robova, takvi će pristati na sve, nikada se neće buniti, uvek će uzmicati - čak i kada počnu da gube deo po deo (a to je zaprvo odavno počelo) sebe ili svojeg, oni će i dalje uzmicati i neće stati da pruže otpor. I samo zaustavljanje u ovom slučaju znači pružanje otpora.
Razumno držanje, dakle, nipošto ne znači i mudro držanje, tj. ispravno držanje (da i ne pominjem hrabrost).
Problem je očigledno izražen u pojmu svojine, identiteta sa objektima koje smatramo svojim, ali ovo dovodi do apsurda, jer mi stalno gubimo tu svojinu, jednu po jednu, a ipak smatramo da smo sačuvali sebe. Ovakvo upadanje u aporiju, u bespuće rđave beskonačnosti, po pravilu ostaje neprimećeno, bolje reći namerno previđeno. Jer sagledavanje ovakvog stanja bilo bi istovremeno i priznavanje neuspeha da se sačuva identitet, a ukoliko identitet nije sačuvan, to znači da sistem više ne postoji - a izraz toga je strah. Budući da čovek beži zbog straha ili od straha, ovo se ne sme dozvoliti (iz razloga etičkih - jer greh je biti kukavica). Dakle, čovek sam sebe zaslepljuje, ućutkuje, živi u neznanju od svoje volje.
Iz ovoga sledi da je pitanje znanja ključno pitanje. Onaj ko hoće da zna šta se zapravo dešava, mora da skupi hrabrost da bi to saznao. Ukoliko skupi hrabrost, on se neminovno suočava sa svojim strahom ili strahovima. Ako dotična osoba istraje u tom stajanju i to vreme iskoristi radi saznanja, uočiće da delovi sistema (ne mora uvek da bude samo telo) odleću iz njegovog vlasništa, videće da gubi kontrolu nad ovim ili onim svojim. I već je toliko izgubljeno, a subjekt i dalje stoji. Uz opažanje toga javlja se i svest da i pored svih gubitaka nešto nije, čak i ne može biti, izgub¬ljeno. Može li se to nešto nazvati suštinskim, suštinom?
Jedan mondo:
„Koja stvar je od neprocenjive vrednosti?“
„Glava mrtve mačke!“

Kada govorimo o gubitku svojine, zapravo govorimo o sistemu vrednosti. Ne može se reći da je izgubljeno nešto što nema nikakvu vrednost, već samo nešto što ima određenu vrednost i značaj za nas. Ukoliko i dalje preživljavamo i pored tolikih silnih gubitaka, očigledno je da vrednosti koje smo izgubili nisu suštinske. Osetićemo se oštećenima, povređenima, ali - i dalje živimo. Ovde naše sagledavanje zapada u veliku krizu, jer bi jedini mogući izlaz bio prevrednovanje, uspostavljanje novog sistema vrednosti, koji bi obezvredio sve naše gubitke - a to je zaista radikalan čin i nekome će u prvi mah izgledati kao potpuni poraz koji vodi u jako depresivnu smrt ili život.
Eto, stigli smo sada do krize identiteta. Ako budemo dosledni u nameri da otkrijemo i sačuvamo suštinskog sebe, moraćemo da načinimo i takav korak. Očigledno nam je da nema uzmicanja, ukoliko se zaista želi obračun sa strahom, odn. terorom.
Teškoća ove krize je u tome što se sada jasno sagledava da uzrok našeg straha uopšte nije tamo neki tlačitelj, već naš sopstveni identitet, naša predstava o sebi, koja je toliko jaka i dominantna da ne može da podnese radikalnu promenu. Postepena, razumna, promena, kada otpadaju delići, ali „suština“ i dalje ostaje „sakrivena“ ili „obučena“ - to može, ali u potpunosti skinuti sve sa sebe - e to je već neprihvatljivo. Dakle, polako postaje jasno da smo sami sebi tlačitelji.
I - sada uočavamo da teren, koji je do sada bio filosofski polako postaje religijski. Zar ne bi Adam i Eva ostali u Raju da nije bilo onog smokvinog lista. Toliko im je bilo teško da ga se odreknu. Ispao je Bog nerazuman što ih je zbog te sitnice najurio. A i oni su ispali nerazumni, jer im je bilo draže da pate, da žive u znoju lica svog, možda u znoju izazvanom strahom, nego da i dalje žive u srećnoj zajednici sa Bogom. (Parafraziraću Hrista: Bićete sa mnom - bez ičega na sebi - ili - Ostavi sve i pođi sa mnom.)
Nas ovde zanima mehanizam ovakve psihologije „vrednovanja“, egzistencijalnog vrednovanja. Kakvu to egzistenciju mi želimo, odnosno živimo?
Šta je to što je zaista vredno, i bez čega se ne može, a šta je to što možemo da izgubimo, a da sačuvamo sebe? Neki odgovori su već dati, nameću se sami po principu očiglednosti. Ali prihvatanje takvog „viđenja“ predstavlja objektivnu teškoću. Teško je pomiriti se sa činjenicom da te je neko opljačkao i da nikada neće doći do poravnanja, do vraćanja dugova, „stare štednje“ itd.
Pojmu „duhovnih vrednosti“ u zenu odgovara pojam „mrtva mačka“. Čuvena replika iz predstave „Putujuće pozorište Šopalović“ glasi: „Šta će nam pozorište, vidiš da nas streljaju!“ Ova situacija je potpuno adekvatna trenutnoj situaciji u Srbiji. Ali niko se nije dosetio da nas možda baš zbog toga i streljaju, jer nemamo pozorište - zato što smo divljaci. Šta će „običnom“ čoveku glava mrtve mačke? Šta će njemu duhovne vrednosti. Jedu li se one, piju li se?
Egzistencijalno pitanje: u kakvom svetu živimo? U svetu u kome nas stalno drpaju, a mi bespomoćni? To je objektivan svet, ne može se prigovoriti da je nestvaran - i te kako je stvaran. Ali to je svet terora, hoćemo li mi da živimo u takvom svetu? Uostalom, ko te pita!
Vratimo se opet zen budizmu, ne radi zena samog, već radi metoda kojim se zen budisti služe. Jedan od najvećih savremenih, ali „nemuštih“, sledbenika zena, Karlos Kastaneda, već u prvoj svojoj knjizi postavlja princip - (parafraziram): Prvi neprijatelj sa kojim se ratnik suočava je strah. Ukoliko se ustukne pred strahom, ratnik nikada neće postati čovek od znanja. (Sledeći neprijatelji su: jasnoća, moć i starost...)
Ukoliko bismo hteli da govorimo o naciji kao subjektu straha, o zastrašenoj, uplašenoj naciji, lako nam je da kao primer takve nacije odaberemo baš srpsku naciju. Zen nikada ne bi uzeo zdravo za gotovo da je nacija subjekt, budizam u principu ne prihvata postojanje nečega kao što je subjekt, to je princip anata (an-ata) ne-sopstvo, ali ako o tome treba da se govori, primeniće se analitička metoda da bi se dokazalo da subjekt zaista ne postoji, da se svaka stvar, pa prema tome i subjekt, sastoji iz delova, pa prema tome subjekt postoji samo kao takav - kao kompozit, kao predstava, odn. kao nešto nesuštastveno - Indijci, budisti uopšte, bi ovde po pravilu upotrebili izraz sunjata, praznina - vodimo računa da nipošto nije reč o nihilizmu, već o formi kao ispraznosti, nesuštastvenosti. Ako, dakle, od budista, koji ne priznaju ni sopstvo, očekujemo da progutaju ovo poturanje nacije kao subjekta - slatko bi se nasmejali.
Međutim, to što oni neće o tome da govore, ne znači da oni sa time ne mogu da izađu na kraj. Navešću ovde još jedan primer iz Kastanedinog opusa: Kada je Karlos pričao don Huanu o svom ocu, koji je mrzeo popove jer zaglupljuju narod, i tako to, don Huan mu se podrugljivo smejao govoreći: Jadni mi, zaglupeli nas popovi!
Naravno, ovo je čisti zen, odnosno stanovište zena, jer zen budista ne može da se de facto složi sa tvrdnjom da je neko drugi odgovoran za naše sopstveno stanje (neznanje).
Postoji jedna pesma (jer on je bio i pesnik) koja se pripisuje Budi. U toj pesmi Buda govori o tome kako je dosegao konačno saznanje, prozreo sve iluzije i kako zbog toga sada može slobodan da napusti ovaj svet rađanja i umiranja (Samsara). Ali, dolazi kod njega Brama i moli ga da to ne učini, nego da ostane još malo, jer ima onih kojima nedostaje samo mrvica da bi dosegli taj konačni uvid, a Buda bi mogao da im pomogne (iz ovoga se crpe ideal Bodhisatvi - Buda u odlaganju, koji se zariču da neće otići odavde dok sva živa bića ne budu oslobođena - oni su tu da nesebično pomažu u tome). Mnogi se slažu da Buda ne bi napisao ovako nešto, jer odluka da ostane je zapravo iznuđena nekakvim razlogom (izgovorom), makar on izgledao toliko plemenit - njegova odluka da ostane bila bi nedelatna, neadekvatna, ništavna. Odgovornost za lično oslobođenje je lična odgovornost i ne može se preneti na nekog drugog.
Sada je jasno, po pitanju nacije, da nacija kao takva nikako ne može da se spase, jer državom u kojoj postoji određeni oblik vlasti, pa bila to monarhija ili demokratija, uvek upravlja neko u ime drugoga - izvršena je distribucija odgovornosti, a građani, činioci nacije, nisu lično odgovorni za ono što se događa. Ovo je naročito očigledno u Srbiji, jer bi se nekakav izlaz još i mogao tražiti u pozivanju vlasti na odgovornost, a to se baš nikako ne dešava. Ova nacija ne želi da bude odgovorna, i to je to. Zašto - odgovor je više nego očigledan - pokleklo se pred strahom, a pri tom se odgovornost prebacuje na vlast. I to, čini se, kao da svima odgovara. Izuzetan primer samoobmanjivanja.
Shodno ovome, pitanje egzistencije bez straha u sebe uključuje i pitanje pripadnosti naciji - vidi se da je određivanje ličnog identiteta na način pripadanja određenoj naciji čisti ćorsokak, jer sada naše lično oslobođenje zavisi od nacionalnog oslobođenja i od definicije jedne takve slobode, a to nas stavlja u apsolutno pasivan položaj i onemogućava nam da se sami izborimo za svoju slobodu (od straha). Sledstveno tome, osoba koja svoj identitet traži upravo u pripadništvu naciji, beži od spasenja, živi u teroru i nema nade da će izmaći tom prokletstvu.
Zanimljiva je još jedna posledica ovakvog poimanja terora - sa uzrokom izvan nas samih: totalna paraliza. Naime, ako je uzrok terora država, kako pojedinac da se odbrani od toga, kada je on u poređenju sa državom tako sićušan i bespomoćan, pravni sistem ne funkcioniše, itd? Rezultat toga je apatija, letargija, učmalost, potpuni defetizam. Jednom takvom viđenju, ukoliko mu se prepustimo, zaista nedostaje ona mala pukotina kroz koju bi trebalo, kao u nekoj fantaziji, da probije zračak sunca, zračak nade. A, kako je rekao Kafka, postoji nada, ali ne za čovečanstvo.
Nacija, čovečanstvo, nema tu nikakve razlike. To su sinonimi.
Dekartu su mnogi zamerili kada je rekao da prihvata zakone, odn. sistem države u kojoj živi i da neće činiti ništa u smislu promene takvog sistema vrednosti. Na prvi pogled to zvuči kao defetizam, kao odustajanje od borbe - jak argument, ali bez ikakvog pokrića! A ko su sledbenici puta koji je propovedao Buda? - Prosjaci! Monasi, koji napuštaju svoj dotadašnji život, bez ostatka, odlaze u šumu i tamo, neometani, meditiraju. Jedini njihov kontakt sa ovim svetom je odlaženje u prošnju (prosi se hrana), ali ni ta prošnja nije sistematska - prosjak ne računa da će obavezno dobiti hranu, tj. niko nije obavezan da mu udeli milostinju. U ovome se ogleda konačni egzistencijalni rizik, jer ishrana jednog prosjaka nije sistemski rešena, ona u potpunosti zavisi od volje davaoca. Čin davanja hrane je tokom vremena postao običaj, to je istina, ali on je u suštini interruptus, odnosno tačka prekida, u kojoj se običan čovek, makar na trenutak, okreće nekim drugim vrednostima, koje nisu kupujem-prodajem, u skladu sa uspostavljenim sistemom vrednosti. Čin odlaska u prošnju daje priliku običnom čoveku da na trenutak zastane i iskorači iz matice koja ga nosi ko zna kud.
Ko, dakle, može da se odluči na to da napusti sve i da njegovo življenje od tog trenutka zavisi od dobre volje bližnjih? Malo ko. Ne javlja se tu samo strah od gubitka imovine i života, od gladi i zime, nego se javlja i strah da će morati da se veruje, odnosno da se ne brine, a to ne znači ništa drugo nego ukidanje uvreženog procesa razmišljanja, koji kao svoj predmet ima trajanje, trajanje nas: prošlost, sadašnjost, budućnost, „božansko“ predviđanje eventualnog daljeg života, manje ili više detaljno - što je izraz krajnje arogancije!
Ovo je zaista cilj svake meditacije - izlazak iz oblasti diferencijacije, razlučivanja, iz oblasti krize (jer krisein znači lučenje), prelazak iz oblasti mišljenja u oblast ne-mišljenja, tj. u oblast delanja, odlučenosti. „Zaustavljanje sveta“ (kod Kastanede), ili dhyana, meditativna udubljenost i usredsređenost, izraz koji su kineski budisti izdvojili i njime nazvali svoju sektu (na kineskom se dhyana izgovara kao chan, na japanskom zen).
Svrha ovog teksta nije da se neko ubedi da treba da ode u monahe, ukoliko želi da se oslobodi terora. Čin odlaska u šumu je čin iskoraka iz poznatog, iz sveta u kojem vlada patnja - u svet u kome čovek biva oslobođen svake patnje. To nije fizički pokret skidanja odeće sa sebe ili bacanja stvari kroz prozor, već čin poricanja bilo kakve zavisnosti od objektivnog - čin sticanja vere. Razume se, vera nije budistički pojam, ona se u budizmu nikako ne pominje, to je tipično hrišćanski pojam, ali i hrišćani odbijaju da raspravljaju o veri - ona se zadobija, ali ne putem dokaza - a to je baš tipično „zenovski“ pristup.
Zadobijanjem vere prevazilazi se svaki strah.