RE: The Royal Path


Subject: RE: The Royal Path
From: Baader, Cecilia (cbaader@casecorp.com)
Date: Mon Jan 31 2000 - 14:06:02 EST


> Sundeep Dougal wrote:
>
> I wouldn't say anything about the supposed "Hindu faith"
Did I use the wrong descriptor? I worried about that. (That's what I do.
Worry. I'm probably the world champion.) If I offended, I apologize.

> So, going by the above, am I right in remembering then that the suggestion
> seems to be that, for Alsen, Buddy's made up that Seymour letter...
Yes, you are exactly right. In fact, I think that Alsen's thesis hinges
upon the assumption that Buddy wrote "Hapworth." And I'm not too willing to
take Buddy's word for it. He's already messed with us a bit, selectively
revealing all sorts of things, and deliberately misleading us with others.

>
> So, IF that is the case (and I do need to read Alsen again), Buddy's the
> ultimate unreliable narrator, forever deluding us by his conjuring
tricks...
Smoke and mirrors, Sonny, smoke and mirrors. It's Buddy's specialty, don't
you think? I wouldn't put it past him to lie about Seymour's letter home;
it's why I don't have a terrible problem with the language used and the
ideas expressed. If Buddy wrote it, Hapworth makes a lot more sense. Alsen
wants us to believe that by taking on Seymour's voice, and letting that
voice be less-than-perfect, Buddy finally Understands.

> ...much like creating the ultimate
> illusion or Maya (a very powerful & useful concept in all of "Hindu"
> thought) -- the myth of St. Suicidee Seymour?
And the "illusion of Maya" is a concept with which I am unfamiliar. Do you
care to expound? (I'm afraid that everything that I posted previously on
Vedanta was lifted directly from one book or another. And unfortunately, I
am no expert, so I would appreciate any insight that you have to offer.)

I loved your f-a-c-u-l-t-i-e-s post, by the way. Sonny, you are such a
wonderful part of this list.

Jim wrote:
> ... I think it works well with RHTRBC, and what he says
> about Hapworth is probably right on too, but it sounds contrived when
applied
> to Franny. You could say that he was still in "story mode" at that point,

> but that would mean we would have to focus our attention away from Buddy
in
> Fand Z and onto the characters...

I'm not so sure that I agree. The stories are about a journey of Buddy's
rejection of regular society to an acceptance of all, even the parts that he
doesn't like. (That includes the characteristics of Seymour that he doesn't
like.) Assuming that Buddy wrote "APDFB" and "Franny," we can watch how he
moves from scathing analysis of less-enlightened characters to an
acceptance, and perhaps sorrow for, lesser sorts. (Mrs. Happy comes to
mind.) Everyone is the Fat Lady. Shine your shoes for her, love her, and
accept her. No matter what or how bad she is.

And Scottie Bowman (brilliantly) wrote:
> I think yogic philosophy must obey the same sort of rule as faith
> in socialism. Anyone failing to respond to it at twenty has
> no imagination. Anyone still stuck with it at forty has gone mad.
Troublemaker. Have I mentioned to you recently, Scottie, that I'm ready to
form that fan club? I'm working on the charter papers as we speak. I'm
still trying to locate a supplier for buttons that can be pinned to the
lapel of whatever jacket one happens to be wearing. I haven't come up with
a brilliant slogan yet, but give me time. It's the only thing that's
holding the whole works up.

Regards,
Cecilia.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:01 EST