• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

Monday’s Poem: ‘My Aging Lover in My Arms, the Dharma,’ by Jeanne Larsen

February 13, 2011, 7:19 pm

My Aging Lover in My Arms, the Dharma

affirms itself: the simple truth of how
things are. 1 long fall of water
here in a landscape of waterfalls & we 2
not sitting still to observe, not crossing

over. Immersed. We’ve walked this trail [the bracken,
shadows, these river-birds flitting & trilling]
for decades. Call our enjoyment the energy
body
. Call it clinging, or both. Call the breathtaking Law

of cause & effect sanditthikō, evident
here, now
: I may think I get it. Say
ehipassiko, inviting, engaging
: I might idiotically smile,
cherishing you & your invitations, bowing before

my own confusion like 1 who mistakes
a clay doll for a buddha, the wayfinder’s map
for the way. You too smile. & that bending
of flesh that ripples & runs

like whitewater, onyx, like tangled streams
of causation, moves on. Headlong, it sinks
into the porous underground lime. I warm
at the sight, clutch at the warmth, begin to think bound

to samsara by what to each other we
are
. But, love, we’ve long known desire
is impermanent. We’ve known these slick rocks
& the footway, the brush against skin

of the alders. We’ve known how body
shouts as a master might to a student, Do you
understand, do you? Speak up. Quick,
quick!
As if the student cherished

bewilderment. As if the student, the wrong
-headed student, stuck on the riverbank, stared
at twist-shining chains of actions, results.
Were smiling & clutching. Hadn’t much time.

Copyright ©  by Jeanne Larsen.  Printed by permission of the author.

Jeanne Larsen’s new book is Why We Make Gardens (& Other Poems) (Mayapple Press, 2010). Her first book won the AWP award series in poetry, and she has since published two collections of translated Chinese poems as well as three novels. She is the Susan Gager Jackson Professor of Creative Writing at Hollins University.

Commentary from Arts & Academe’s poetry editor, Lisa Russ Spaar:

Mountain waterfalls flowing kinetically from clouds to earth in a setting of stone, a prevalent element in Asian painting and poetry, are in accord with the teachings of Zen Buddhism, which focus, among other things, on impermanence in a context of changelessness. In Jeanne Larsen’s poem, the speaker and her long beloved companion, out for a hike over familiar terrain (“we’ve walked this trail [the bracken, / shadows, these river-birds flitting & trilling] / for decades”), find themselves suddenly not only “in a landscape of waterfalls,” but inside a sanditthikō “here/now” Zen moment complicated by enchantment, beguilement, and desire.

It is possible to read Larsen’s title, “My Aging Lover in My Arms, the Dharma,” which is also the first line of the poem, as a definition, in which “the Dharma” (the Dhammapada, the Divine “Law” and body of Buddhist teachings) is apposite to “My Aging Lover in My Arms.”  And although the next line adjusts our parsing of the syntax a bit, the meaning hangs there:  the body of my aging lover in my arms embodies the Dharma, the body of Buddhist teaching, “the simple truth of how / things are.”  That is, there is something about this aging body of my lover in my arms that is at the heart of the truth of the Dharma. Like a mondo, the what is that something? of this proposition compels the poem.

Larsen goes on to implicate the experience of the two lovers with Zen lessons.  “My Aging Lover In My Arms, The Dharma,” she writes,

affirms itself:  the simple truth of how
things are.  1 long fall of water
here in a landscape of waterfalls & we 2
not sitting still to observe, not crossing

over.  . . .

In this passage, Larsen conflates what might well be a list ( 1 . . . 2 . . .)  enumerating “how things are” with another reading, in which “1” is “one” (“won”?) and “2” is “two” or even “too,” making sure to contrast the individual’s inner cultivation of a path toward nirvana with a very clear sense that this speaker feels herself to be part of a pair, a two,  a couple who, though they’ve “long known desire / is impermanent,” have nonetheless found themselves unexpectedly not in a place of meditation or quiet, detached observation, zazen. Instead, they are caught up, “immersed,” almost giddy with surprise in their delight, their physical “enjoyment” of one another.  “Say / ehipassiko, inviting, engaging,” the speaker confesses, and “ I might idiotically smile, / cherishing you & your invitations, bowing before // my own confusion like 1 who mistakes / a clay doll for a Buddha, the wayfinder’s map / for the way.”

When the aging lover smiles, “that bending / of flesh . . . ripples & runs // like whitewater.”  Landscape, Zen teaching (“tangled streams / of causation”), and the lovers’ bodies all turn into one another everywhere, and by the time the aging lover’s “bending” flesh “sinks / into the porous underground lime,” the speaker can’t help but “ warm / at the sight, clutch at the warmth, begin to think bound // to samsara by what to each other we / are.” Yet these lovers know that physical desire is as fleeting as “the brush against skin // of the alders.”  What to do, how to act, what response to make in such a moment?

In the penultimate stanza, Larsen takes up the mondo trope implied at the start of the poem, a mondo being a question posed by a master teacher to a student, requiring an immediate response, the spontaneity and seeming tangentiality of which can be enlightening.  Note, again, how the lover’s body is blurred here with the body of the teacher:

. . . We’ve known how body
shouts as a master might to a student, Do you
understand, do you?  Speak up.  Quick,
quick!

The teacher is the body, and its students, the lovers, are called by its urgings. Cherishing their bewilderment, “stuck on the riverbank,” the speaker and her partner dance in the energy of the “here, now,” marveling at all the possible “twist-shining chains of actions, results” that have brought them to the brink of an illumination. The sensual motions of the mutable world and of the still cherished beauty and attraction of their physical selves force them afresh into the predicament of the young student of Zen, from whom an immediate response is demanded by his rōshi. “Smiling and clutching” one another beside the waterfall, the aging lovers are like the neophyte who must answer quickly, as if he or she “hadn’t much time.”  These lovers don’t. None of us does, of course, but the truth of this is intensified for the pair by their awareness of Time’s winged waterfall, of mortality.

How, then, does the aging lover’s body affirm the Dharma?  Perhaps, the poem suggests, by situating the thrillingly awakened bodies of these experienced lovers—vulnerable, mutable—not only in the consciousness of the certainty of human mortality, but perhaps more importantly in the steadfastness of their life-spanned ardor.

(A&A illustration derived from photos by Flickr users gregoconnell and Dan Zen)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • iriselina

    INTRIGUING !

  • coralm

    beautiful, intricate, surprising

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=785173761 Beth Jones

    So much is written about the new loves. I am so grateful to have something to read to my long-time paramour this Valentine’s Day, especially something that recognizes that aging lovers still harbor frenetic sensuality. Beautiful!

  • hodgefam

    By no means am I an expert on China’s higher-education system, but I believe the government, despite its shortcomings, is to be commended for wanting to achieve world-class status for its universities.  Even if the Chinese government’s primary motivation for improving higher- education is to use the universities “as a critical source of legitimacy for the modern state and its political authority,” the Chinese people stand to gain from reforms.  The flaws in the reform effort stemming from the government’s direct involvement remind me of the conversations in the U.S. regarding the extent to which government should get out of the way and rely on people to apply their ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit to fixing many of the social and economic problems that exist.

    Notwithstanding the whole debate on the value of college rankings, I noticed that in the US News Top 400 rankings of the world’s best universities, Peking University is number 47.  Peking U. is ranked ahead of some top-notch U.S. universities such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison (#48), the U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (#63), Boston University (#64), UT Austin (#67), and Washington U. in St. Louis (#75).  That’s not too shabby.  I hope that I am not overstating the case but, based on Peking U.’s world ranking; it appears to me that China has the wherewithal to establish a world-class higher education system.

    By the way, what, exactly is “world-class” status.  How will China know when it has achieved this lofty goal?  Would it be based on how high a certain number of Chinese universities get ranked on the various international university ranking lists?  Would there need to be some kind of consensus by academics from around the world that the Chinese higher-education system has reached world-class status?  Or, does the Chinese government get to decide for itself when world-class status has been achieved?

  • jcmarsh106

    Having a society with more highly educated individuals is always a good way to better oneself and improve the overall society at large by preparing people for professional careers. Although with change always comes some resistance to new opportunities of redirection, maybe on the part of government influence or control and how much of it would play a role in China’s higher education reform plan.

  • drdelia

    As a colleague in education in the Middle East, can you direct me on how to contact Dr. Shdefat?

  • suujaan

    Hi visitor, I’ve create a blog about birds.
    You will get all about birds. You also get
    online angry birds, birds pictures, birds
    forums and so many.
    http://thebirdss.weebly.com/index.html

  • sand6432

    John Rawls may have taken 21 years to complete his “Theory of Justice,” but he published a steady stream of seminal articles along the way, such as “Justice as Fairness.”  I know because as a junior acquiring editor at Princeton University Press in the late 1960s, I approached Rawls about collecting these papers into a volume. I persuaded some other distinguished philosophers with a Princeton connection to do this, among them Joel Feinberg, Stuart Hampshire, and Gregory Vlastos. But Rawls demurred, saying he didn’t want to take any time away from completing his magnum opus. By the way, a few years earlier, in the fall of 1965, I was a fellow grad student with Derek Parfit in a course that Feinberg taught at Columbia University on the theory of responsibility. It was a marvel to behold Feinberg and Parfit debating fine points of morality in this seminar, and I could predict then that Parfit would have a brilliant career.—Sandy Thatcher