I felt connected to Milarepa of Tibet since first I heard about him, since when I did so some seven years ago I was reforming myself as he had once, having left behind a passionate youth full of sorcery (and, in his case, crime) and walking the meditation road of enlightenment, you know. But what I was glad to learn about him this time around (the first time I’ve read a full book about him), is that although he was earnest in his promotion of the ultimate at the expense of the householder way (and monastics in his day probably were the only people not bound by the business of begetting), and although he is a sort of Elijah of Tibet, having banished the Bon shamans, after besting them in magic, it’s also true that he never completely forgot the old ways of magic, and indeed was able to write very cryptically about astrology, for example—astrological systems being languages, they always seem cryptic when one is not schooled in them…. Anyway, I guess I would say that although Milarepa was a good boy, a golden boy, if you will, and indeed at times rather earnest (in that Oscar Wilde play sort of way—I should read him), he’s also someone who was living his life and in touch with reality, you know.

…. I do kinda get the sense that Milarepa is like a less irritating version of the (early) Celtic Christians—that vibe of ‘converting the pagans of the land to the way that is higher than I, and composing little poetical-philosophical nature ditties, like this: “row row row your boat, gently down the stream….” ‘. As to the ‘less irritating’ aspect, I obviously might never know whether it is an improvement because of my relative position re: the author, or whether the teachings are more pure in essence. I know what, say, Joseph Campbell would say. And also, it clearly is true that Buddhists didn’t develop the same insatiable hunger for land, for the conquest of continent after continent, like the Christians did, so perhaps they deserve some sort of consideration in exchange, right. Certainly monks-and-almsgivers did exist in a hierarchical pre-modern social framework, and not that society will ever be totally post-hierarchical, but there was I think a lot less ‘give’ and flexibility in the system with regards to gender and class than is desirable. But in several countries like China for example, the Buddhist community did kinda ‘share’ the almsgiver dollars, if you will, with other religions, and didn’t feel the need to tear out the other religions root and branch. (Godfather-style, right. Tony Soprano wants you to go to church!). And although in Tibet Milarepa occasionally had a magical throw-down with the pagans, and believed in hells and demons, all ‘being a cool kid and winning the great victory over the hells and demons, surely this is the benefit of seeing reality’, you know—he didn’t harangue the “devil-worshipping pagans” and issue helpful little screeds, diatribes, vendettas, and harangues, like he would have if he were a Christian, you know.

And that makes sense. I don’t think there could be a 100% evil being or a being “in charge of evil” (?), as that just seems logically and emotionally impossible, but if there are spirit-entity school bullies out there—and that I can believe, quite easily—would it do any good to give in and go classic Christian child-enforcer on the spirit school bully?

…. With Milarepa I almost get a school-person vibe: just say no to drugs and violence! (And yes to extraordinarily officious cartoon characters, you know!). With the classic Christian it’s more like, somebody’s father, you know: “Now listen son, if I catch you smoking pot—and I know it’s legal now here in Jersey, but I don’t believe in gubbermints or the legality of their ever, ever changing laws, no matter what (unless it’s to add prayer to the Congress sessions or something), and, God as my witness, I’m the spiritual king of this family, so if you do it, I’ll throw you out of the house to live on the street, and that would kill your mother, but I’ll do it, if it comes to that, so it’s your choice, son, whether or not you want to have your mother’s blood on your head because you didn’t submit to the physical restraint of shame, you know”—right. Right?

On the one hand, it is true that there have been bad, narrow-minded Buddhist fathers in world history; on the other hand, they didn’t create the particular, American-Indian-hunter settler culture of the USA, either. (shrugs) I mean, it’s up to you.