Today, on my walk through the forest, I walked with a more confident step. The ice had melted a bit with the higher temperature — but as fresh snow has fallen onto the hard ice, the soft appearance was deceptive.
Such conditions in the mountains are treacherous. The soft new snow that has fallen on the hard old ice is inherently unstable, and if on a southern-facing slope in the Alps, for example, receiving a lot of sun, then the surface is even more unstable, and not a few mountain climbers have been swept off mountainsides when the whole face collapses and slides down.
Replacing old ideas with new has many pitfalls. It often surprises me that quite a few Christians have never heard of Zoroastrianism, once the world’s most popular religion, founded by Zoroaster, probably at least a thousand years before Christianity, in Persia, and now currently Iran and Afghanistan.
The philosophy of Socrates was unknown for thousands of years before being brought to light, and it may also be that Zoroastrianism, with its emphasis on good deeds, and heaven and hell is to return in the future.
Just before Buddhism there was Jainism. Indeed both are branches of the Shramana tradition that still exist today. Both stress peaceful co-existence. Jainism, of course, has its hashish-toking naked sadhus.
Jainism also has the Sadvhis, women who live lives similar to the sadhus, although unfortunately in less exotic ways. They constitute about 10% of this holy population, reflecting an unfortunate general subjugation of women in Indian society.
A number of sadhu live in caves in the Himalaya. It takes but a glance at the image below in the snow-covered valley in the Himalaya to see that sadhus do not just smoke hash and shock western tourists.
Jainism stresses peaceful coexistence, and the non-harming of anyone, or of any creature.
But on this virtual 88 temple pilgrimage on Shikoku Island, over these two months, today’s haibun follows the theme of the Jorakuji Temple, devoted to Maitreya the Buddha of the future. And on this road the walk is giving the right questions.
My question to my travelling companions therefore is — should not spirituality or philosophy determine enlightenment by the number of people one has made happy? By default, shouldn’t we be happier the more people we make happy? Should that not be the goal?
This is not expected to be seen in Utopian terms, because by definition Utopia is totalitarian — something that cannot be improved upon.
In that sense the path has no the destination, and my subtitle comes from Kristjaan Panneman’s point in his post linked below, as he guides us to the next temple but not destination.
Email me when Līgo Haībun publishes stories