Cain and Able
OK, now I think I may have grasped something about this 'Art of Giving' business - or, at least, I hope I have! ;-)
This, at any rate, is what looking at this behavior, from the beginning, or onset, of an idea, moves in me.
When we 'have' an idea, we simply assume we have created it. We may not be sure, exactly, how we've done this, but it seems obvious that we must have done something to make it happen. We take it - and, in some cases, do something with it - but it never occurs to us to offer anything back to where it came from. We can't see where it came from, because we're looking outwards. But we have the arrogance to believe that everything that suddenly appears from 'behind' us is ours. 'Behind' what we see is the 'looker', which is 'me' - so everything 'behind' must be me too, surely?
Yet we stand with Eden behind us. And everything that comes from The Lord is born from Adam's seed through Eve's womb into the matterwards facing point that is the standing place of Cain/Abel. As Cain/Able, we take a thought and appreciate it. But Abel recognises that it doesn't come from him, so he turns sourcewards with respect and offers some of the value he has appreciated back as gratitude. Cain, however, thinks that the thought has come from him, so his gratitude is towards himself. Abel says: "How Great are you, Lord!" But Cain says: "How Great am I!"
Cain's offering is rejected by the source, which is his own deepest Self. A 'reprimand' comes, but in a form which makes us feel that we are not accepted - not acceptable - to ourselves. We're uncomfortable in our own skin. So we look for someone else to blame, and project our sense of being unwelcome and unworthy onto another. We enter our darkest, least conscious places - ultimately finding ourselves dwelling in the 'outer darkness', alone, alienated, utterly in denial of the Source, believing that everything that we're doing to ourselves is really what others are doing to us.
But by then, Cain has killed Abel: there is no way back through respect and gratitude; the possibility is dead, the door slammed shut.
If there is enough real contrition at this state of affairs, in the parts of ourselves represented by Adam and Eve (between our habitual 'point of dwell' and The Lord), then a replacement for Abel can be born: Seth.
October 27, 2009 at 9:07 | JS
As you can see, the way we give can lead us to the source in very real ways. Now, consider your view of Cain. You have the door slammed shut tight as though there is no way back through respect and gratitude. But there is a way back and it IS through respect, appreciation, gratitude and the value that leads that way. Find where you turned away from that answer in your post and see what happens when you practice giving through the four principles to produce a way back for yourself.
October 27, 2009 at 9:52 | sensei
Gosh, that's a really really interesting challenge! ;-) (I suspect it is also the answer to much of what we've been discussing recently)
What is it that Cain has left to appreciate, in the land of Nod? If compassion is extended to him, he can appreciate that, and offer it back with respect and gratitude. But what does that mean, exactly,,, (I'm trying to work this through as I write). And there is also the possibility of forgiveness...
Although he's in denial of The Lord, he can't obliterate this from his consciousness. It is there, as conscience. (In fact, that makes me realize that it must be as conscience that he experiences the rejection of his offering). So conscience is the key here... If he reaches back towards where his conscience leads him, to where it comes from, he can offer his repentance. What is that offering? He's basically letting go... 'giving up' seems a nice phrase here... his attitude, his mindset. He's giving up his 'rightness' of what he's doing, his belief that he is right in what he's doing. (I sense a connection there, too, with 'the knowledge of good and evil'). He's offering up his certainty, and his suffering, and making a properly contrite and respectful sacrifice of it to The Lord.
This is the way out of our own 'hells', isn't it? And the answer for the Extremist who is locked in certainty, even though he wanders forsaken in the Land of Nod. I also can't help thinking that our compassion is a co-factor in this 'turning about' - that unconditional love softens the certainty and affords greater clarity and strength to the voice of conscience.
That would make of Seth the redeemed Cain, as well as the renewed Abel.
October 27, 2009 at 10:22 | JS
"We are unable to connect to the Lord unless we are Able."
what if Cain would have understood he IS Able... ? ... what if any of us would do that ?... clearly Cain cared because when his offering was rejected it made him hurt, and therefore his givings became about anger and jealousy... these kinds of givings for any of us do effectively manage to "raise Cain", and do lead us deeper into the kind of desperate thinking that we are dis-Abled or un-Able... so why not just be Able?
October 27, 2009 at 12:42 | JO
I'm still fumbling around this issue, but it seems to me that Cain's rejection describes a common experience. What is it that causes us to unleash a torrent of misdirected anger - or even just to snap irritably? What hurts that makes us want to hurt others?
What are our offerings? I don't mean 'us' as practitioners of giving (or, at least, would-be practitioners!), but 'us' as ordinary human beings. When we do something, and it goes well, what do we want? Generally some kind of recognition - respect. We want others to respect us, but generally they don't. Maybe, like a mediocre schoolteacher or a petty official, we demand respect. But whilst we can make others go through the motions, we still know that there isn't any real respect there. (And that's what 'politeness' is all about, isn't it?) There's a link here with self-importance... We want people to respect our suffering, too - to recognize what we're going through. This reminds me of Sensei's example of the Extremist, who feels people aren't listening to him, and who becomes desperate. Or what about the young gang member in the ghetto, who feels that he's being 'dissed' - and pulls a knife. There's a real hair-trigger around this area.
But - thinking aloud - all these examples are about us not feeling respected. Yet we're talking about Cain not paying sufficient respect. What's the connection? Maybe it's something like this. The things we expect respect for are the things we are appreciating, but not offering. For instance, suppose we keep the house really clean, but our partner never seems to notice. Then he finds fault with something small, and we snap at him. Or maybe we make nice little compliments to her about how nice she looks, but she takes them for granted. Then one of her girlfriends says that she looks really good in something, and she looks really pleased. That hurts - it makes us feel invisible and unrecognized, and it can generate a lot of resentment. (Perhaps this is what happened with Cain and Abel - that Abel said to him: "well, what do you expect if you just offered a load of old vegetables" and Cain just lost it, hearing his life's work described in these terms?)
What seems to be happening here, though, is that something important is missing. We've cleaned the house, which is an act of appreciation, but what have we offered? We may feel we've done it for our partner, but in reality we've done it for ourself. We're offering ourself our partner's praise and satisfaction, which is going to make us feel good about ourself. But when it doesn't come, it makes us angry.
Where should we be offering it? Suppose we clean the house and we offer our efforts to The Lord. OK, we enjoy the benefit of a clean house, which is our appreciation. But what we're offering is our desire to be recognized, to be praised - we're giving it up, offering it up. Having made a sacrifice of our efforts, and offered it in gratitude, our attitude is now quite different. We're no longer expecting to be noticed, recognized, respected and thanked. It's become something private between us and The Lord, and there is a growing of the value of our 'reasons for being'.
And here's a thought - now I'm right out on the edge, not at all sure what I'm saying - but could it be that our (unjustified) anger towards others is our unoffered, unaccepted respect, turning in on itself? (Better shut up now! ;)
October 27, 2009 at 13:47 | JS
Sensei,
I'm unsure whether your "very good" was a comment meant purely for JS, or for both him and me. So I don't know if there was any element in what I said that might be on the right track. Just to remind what I said:
Okay. You pose an interesting question, and I'm not sure I know how to address it, so I'm just going to brainstorm it on the hoof and put it out there for consideration.
I suppose that at the innermost position within each one of us is the Adam/Eve principle. Fundamentally, this is the idea that in the post-Fall world, the two are supposed to be acting as one at the Christ point.
Adam came first, straight from the workbench, and then Eve followed. Now: we are currently living in the world, and it's interesting that the first son was Cain, the one who had the tendency to move outwards, losing sufficient respect for the Lord. This mirrors our actual ontological development. We spend the first couple of years of our lives developing a sense of ourselves as separate, culminating in what for most people is the most violent and selfish time in their lives – the so-called “terrible twos”. It is fortunate that at this age we are small and not very powerful and have our parents to keep us from harm.
Such things as spirituality and morality come later, and tend to be inculcated in us. Our Abel is taught a sense of good and evil. Good is in Abel, and evil is in Cain, who none of us like to think is inside us, so we tend to externalize him.
So what has happened? Far from carrying forward into life the principle of two acting as one, the two act as if they are two. Abel doesn’t want to hurt Cain, but by acting alone, although he knows how to Respect the Lord, he can’t help doing that. Cain doesn’t want to kill Abel, not really, but as he can’t get his offering accepted, seeks respect in another way, by removing what he sees as the barrier to that.
If this is right, both Cain and Abel are on the wrong track. And who can see this? Only that principle within us that can act as one, namely Adam and Eve. When they see in our moments that we are acting as two, they want us to act as one. They want the offering to the Lord to come from the One, not the Two. There is a way to offer jointly so that the offering is accepted equally from both.
So in all our moments, Adam and Eve are appealing to us to realize this. Because of the murder of Abel and the exile of Cain, they understand what the problem is, and want to us to bring into existence Seth as a unified entity, a One, who in the world, in our living and giving, embodies the internal Adam/Eve principle.
I think it’s possible that in my recent postings I’ve been tacitly accepting the separation of Cain and Abel. I can see that I’ve been struggling, in a way, to exile my Cain, to disown him. Somehow, I want to be Abel, to have my offering accepted, heedless of Cain’s similar desire to have his accepted. Perhaps I need to have compassion for him, to see that he is Abel's necessary other half, and that our joint offering will be more valuable than Abel's offering alone. I need to be acting in the world as one, to be mirroring as a single entity, Seth, the inner Adam/Eve principle.
October 27, 2009 at 14:45 | ML
Incidentally, I don't mind whether or not what I said was on the right track. It's not that I've made an offering and don't feel it's accepted. So in this example, I'm choosing not to give Cain his head. My intention is to offer sensei respect, letting him know that I value his opinion and advice, and don't want to waste his or anyone else's time chasing red herrings.
When I said "I" above, who was I talking about? What is this thing in me that doesn’t “give Cain his head”? I have a passing acquaintance with this chap. Is it Abel?
Well, Abel may be in the mix somewhere, but is that the whole story? Is this an occasion where Cain has for some reason decided not to kill him? Or one where Abel has dominated through superior power?
I don’t at the moment think this, though that could change real soon in the light of anything yet to be said. No: what I think currently is that, effectively, Abel can rise from the dead and Cain come back from the land of Nod, and the pair of them decide to work together according to the innermost position of the balanced Adam/Eve principle.
Of course, they didn’t do that in the bible, but Seth could maybe symbolize that state of affairs. He could represent, for each one of us, a particular manifestation of the innermost position of Adam/Eve. He could be, in practical, every-day-living terms, the means for us to act at the Christ point.
If so, then yes, Abel is in the mix, and he is the one who knows how to make an offering that is accepted. But Cain is also needed, has to be included, or in the end, he will get angry and kill his brother.
The fact that Seth is a One seems to me to further emphasize the union of the brothers, that this isn’t just Two living in an uneasy alliance, but a new, composite entity that has its own way of being.
October 27, 2009 at 15:18 | ML