> If I ever write again, I hope to have as careful a reader as you.

It seems the book is at the right time for me. Sometimes it seems
everything is at the right time. Sometimes nothing is.

> A question for you, because I do not know enough Indic philosophy to
> comment intelligently. Do you find the characterization of Far Eastern
> fair? Now Campbell hadn't seen much of full Communist influence on
> China, nor the westernization of Japan, so do you think the statement of
> "far more practical, optical," etc., is on target?

Campbell is talking mainly of the philosophy on art. I think the
westernization of the far east is temporary. Soon the older cultures will
learn to cope with the impact and find a way to assimilate everything
within their own systems. I sure hope so. I haven't studied history much
to know for sure what the cause of the decline or collapse of eastern
societies, but the thoughts and cultures never die. Maybe the Chinese
were too into the Confucius way of governing which is rooted more in the
external structures such as rules and justice and moral judgement. True
wisdom teaches one to be effective in whatever one wants to do, so it
gives very practical advice which is also fundamental. Different people
can learn from the wisdom different things. True wisdom should be able to
apply across individual difference.... just some random thoughts.

> Fata: the fates, a difficult concept for both the Greeks and Romans, and
> subject to much interpretation and variation, even in ancient times. I
> like the derivation from "things having been spoken " (Latin). But
> who/what spoke? The Greek (Moirai: portions or lots) is more difficult
> for me. Who gives out our lots?

Who gives out our lots? This question reminds me of what I read yesterday
from Campbell V but I did not finish my "notes". (I also heard similar
things on this in the lecture on Hinduism last week). Let me copy
Campbell here:

The word Buddha means simply, "awakened, an awakened one, or the Awakened
One." It is from the Sanskrit verbal root budh, "to fathom a depth, to
penetrate to the bottom"; also, "to perceive, to know, to come to one's
senses, to wake." The Buddha is one awakened to identity not with the
body but with the knower of the body, nor with thought but with the knower
of thoughts, that is to say, with consciousness; knowing, furthermore,
that his value derives from his power to radiate consciousness.... What
is important about each of us is not the body and its nerves but the
consciousness that shines through them.

Hindu tradition .... knowledge yoga, the yoga of discrimination between
the knower and the knowing, between the subject and the object in every
act of knowing, and the identification of oneself, then with the subject.
"I know my body. My body is the object. I am the witness, the knower of
the object. I, therefore, am not my body." Next: "I know my thoughts; I
am not my thoughts." And so on: " I know my feelings; I am not my
feelings." You can back yourself out of the room that way. And the Buddha
then comes along and adds: "You are not the witness either. There is no
witness." So where are you now? Where are you between two thoughts?
That is the way known as jnana yoga, the way of sheer knowledge.

I don't know if you know why these things seem so interesting to me.
Yeah, where am I and who am I? Only when I am in the "buddha" state or
awakened, I am know for sure. And I am the one who gives out my lots.
Who else? Anyone else would seem too random, too particular, too
accidental.

Seems these days I am taking a journey to the east, and I am just writing
"home" to report what I have seen. Where are you? I want to show you all
the wonderful things I have "seen" and "wish you were here". Now I
remember some old friends' trips to the east. They told me things but I
dismissed them because I was still enjoying my stay in the west. Do you
believe in cycles? Do you believe the earth is round? It's a joy to
travel around the world, through history, to the depth of my self.
Fascinating. I guess I am not too low. These "mind trips" are what I
enjoy the most.

I did take a "trip" to the music department this afternoon but they were
ready to close. Not surprisingly, the first question they asked me was,
"what degree do you want to pursue?" I said, "I just want to learn music,
and a degree or two would not hurt." They say I have to get a Bachelor
degree first before I can get into the graduate program, but I can talk
with the admission counselor. The professors are all gone for the summer.
I need to set a goal. A degree is not my goal and I have to remember
this, because I am so good at getting degrees without learning anything.
I want to learn to write music well, really well, no matter how long it
takes and how many classes I need to take and how much money I have to
spend. Reasonable enough?

-- email to JA.