buddhist monks spend weeks preparing complex pictures made from coloured sands for festivals. after the festival the sand pictures are washed away in sacred streams:
the ephemeral accepted and celebrated.
last night a programme on sibelius: his 5th symphony: hewn from granite.
like stonehenge: built to last.
both mirror the 'desire for the eternal' but from completely different ends.
newsnight review: van gogh's letters.
so his paintings were not as instinctive as I thought?

it's been a bad week.
wednesday thursday no psalms.
but thursday: silent prayer.
today I realised that the silent prayer had been the heart of my day.
struggling again with the psalms:
sung tentatively.
much gained
but this knowledge is not storeable: I must remember this

yesterday, salinger died.

strange week. . . . . but:
looking up at my garden under grey sky:
how would I paint it?
thinking of this, I looked again and saw the colours.
painting would proclaim them;
otherwise unseen - even by me.
in my music too I proclaimed colour.
'seeing on behalf of'
sharing what I saw.
I say 'see' and not 'hear' because when I hear colour I see it
and it is in the seeing that joy resides:
living seed of hope.

reading this again I am puzzled.
I don't always see the colour when I hear the music.
when I do not see: the music falls on deaf ears.
when I play: I search to see rather than to hear.
when I cannot see: I cannot write down.
hence the blockage.
I cannot see because I cannot believe
cycling then?

foreboding. . . . .
hostile diffident world.
needing you:
my own reality tenuous; tentative. . . .

all that is not of you crumbles away.
as long as I grieve at this I have not understood.

the allness of you:
hard to comprehend,
but essential you say.

aching.

today the well ran dry.
flowing waters of the past weeks flowed no more.
I sit dry and puzzled;
with nothing to give you.
the spiritual life is a nomadic one.

could it be that the thing we are most scared of is being happy?
today's reading: the wedding at cana: overflowing cups.
excess again.
God who loves too much . . . .
God who loves more than we can bear.
"we don't want that much love . . . . .!"

we don't realise that we want that much love . . . .
but actually we do but cannot believe that it can be so . . . .
that it is so.
but it washes through and away like water unless we give it back.
reciprocal.

also,
children of light are only light because the light emanates from within.
the light is not to be found in the world of things.
'history of christianity' on tv last night: the church in the west is all philosophy.
the church in the east more . . . . . what? intuitive? liturgical?
[liturgy as dance?]
this is a great hole in my life of course but filled partially by music (?)

the church in the west cerebral: greek-influenced perhaps (aristotle?)
the church in the east more 'mysterious?' . . . . I cannot find a word!

haiti

the ongoing crisis about length of prayer. still an issue after so many years. at the end of silent prayer its hard to push straight on into lauds: it seems excessive. remembering the lost penny I managed it today.
celebration.
good news.
I come across these accidentally and realise that this is an aspect of God I havent begun to understand and yet how could it be more central?

contrast with the haiti earthquake - and yet the celebration continues?
my neighbour digging through the thick snow out front this morning: it should have been me of course.
I rewrote yesterday's messy post and came across an interesting link between tim radcliffe's view on the enlightenment and my personal problem with 'art'. what I am meaning by 'art' in this context is, of course, enlightenment art. . . . . . . this might be relevant

noisy prayer today.
too many issues: a juryless trial mentioned in the news and no proper mention of the protesters outside the courtroom; the media now fretting about what parents put in their children's packed lunches with possible legislation mentioned. . . . more sliding to the right.
I was reading an old diary last night [1994] and my prayer was therefore full of difficult memories around this.
on the positive side, the part that those I have loved have played in my spiritual life and, more negatively, the way in which that spiritual life is such a difficulty in my own family.
the essential links between the spiritual (religious) life and the artistic one but the way in which the former can incorporate the latter but the latter cannot incorporate the former.
some confusion over a book I am presently reading about st paul (in search of paul). written in 2005 this book is clearly influenced by media 'on-the-spot' documentaries [perhaps hoping that it will be made into one] and our present obsession with archeology (the 'timeteam syndrome') . there are also clipped ungrammatical bloglike sentences.
although hard to read because it's so badly laid out, it has a great deal of important new information about st paul which may well (but similarly might not) be future-changing:
an insight into the nature of 'imperial divinity' through augustus caesar and the part it played in holding together an otherwise disparate empire. much is made of this and at times one wonders where paul comes in at all.
this connects with something I read about paul by tom wright: namely the way in which paul was (unknowingly?) instrumental in 'bringing down' the roman empire. this latest book sheds more light on that amazing idea.
listened to an important talk on youtube by tim radcliffe (my old chaplain at college) 'the church in the 21st century'. I didnt agree with everything he said (to my surprise). he was emphatic that the enlightenment was all about control rather than freedom citing henry viii as an example. oversimplifying? this sounds reactionary to me. further thought needed.
[he also got me thinking about spin. he speaks wonderfully on openness and 'conversation' on behalf of a church whose leader doesn't really share these strengths [except nominally?] is this justified? is he trying to lead or trying to smooth over? I know that he is actually doing the former. though the result may well be the latter, provided one keeps firmly in mind that 'we' are the church and not 'they', one can overlook this. but isnt he in a way being 'used'? [but doesnt the church in a strange way 'use' all its saints?]
the dominican jesuit role in the church is sometimes a difficult one in this area. . . . . . . . . . . I am tempted to delete all that because I can see that I am taking the stand of the 'enemy' here. I am confusing the church we see with the church that God sees and this will always lead to impasse. I should know that by now.
talking of the church I took a stand at sunday mass. the collection at the end was on behalf of anti-abortion but where was that money actually going? campaigning? I didnt put money in the collection and I refused the little white badge the lady was wanting to stick on everyone.
tim radcliffe raised this matter in his talk and put it so sensitively that noone could be offended.
diplomacy.
the noise gets me nowhere.
let go you say
and you muffle my music again. . . . .

the path I am on is the path I must take.
I am yours and I must be yours.
to give we must be good enough and you make us that.