The Catalogue of Times, Ecclesiastes
3:1-15
For every
time there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven;
a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up
what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build
up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to throw away stones; and a time to gather stones together; a time to
embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.
What gain have the workers from their toil? I have seen the business that God
has given to everyone to be busy with. He has made everything suitable for its
time; moreover he has put a sense of past and future into their minds, yet they
cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. I know that
there is nothing better for them than to be happy and enjoy themselves as long
as they can live; moreover, it is God’s gift that all should eat and drink and
take pleasure in their toil. I know that whatever God does endures forever; nothing
can be added to it, nor anything taken away from it: God has done his, so that
all should stand in awe before him. That which is, already has been; that which
is to be, already is; and God seeks out what has gone by.
At first read, the poem seems
like a series of mutually necessitating binary oppositions – clichés really:
destruction breeds creation; death breeds life; laughing, weeping; hushing
speaking – you name it, it’s there. In order to understand the depth of its
wisdom, however, we must know two things: firstly, the fact that the Hebrew
word for “everything” is, in its primitive form, nearly identical to the word
for “nothingness”, “breath”, “futility” or “transience”: “In the twinkling of
an eye, with a deft sleight of hand, ‘everything’ has been changed into
‘nothing’.” This is quite literally encapsulated in the statement, “What is
crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be counted”
(Ecclesiastes 1:15) as the changing of kaph to beth is the difference between a
curved letter and a jagged, crooked edge. Literally the writer was breaking
‘everything’ to create ‘nothing’. Dr John Jarick, an expert on Wisdom
Literature, also argued that using the yin and yang principles from the Chinese
Book of Changes known as Ching I, it is revealed that these binary oppositions
represent a lot more as a synecdoche of the whole structure than their seeming
duplets do as platitudes. I find it most powerful that these are principles
developed in an entirely different culture, with vastly differing social
structures, religious beliefs, philosophical thoughtworlds. Yet it remains the
case that a conglomeration of human minds separate on one side of the world can
inform another set of human minds on the other side of the world via a few
human minds in the here and now – especially when it comes to the mind’s
antipodes and the polarities of thought! His point of departure is to assign
each pair or binaries a yin or yang: “Each pair of contrary times consists of what
may be regarded as a ‘positive’, ‘creative’, or ‘bright’ pole on the one hand
and a ‘negative’, ‘yielding’, or ‘dark’ polar opposite, beginning with the
classic yang-and-yin pair of ‘birth’ and ‘death’.” To start with, he looks at
the introduction to the poem: “For everything there is a season, a time for
every matter under heaven.” Here, we have two reversed ideas of being and
becoming – everything, changing, changing, everything.
The negatives here are
represented with a split bar and the positives with a whole bar. After the
counter-activity couplets, Jarick considers the quatrains and argues that these
are a form of analogous activity which is also changed in an instant. Everything
is changing, just as change is everything. Birthing is to planting as dying is
to plucking, killing is to wrecking as healing is to building, etc.
The
“scattering of stones” and the “gathering of stones together” is a deeply
ambiguous couplet. Could it be to do with the Hebrew death penalty? Jarick
hypothesises that it is a sexual metaphore – in line with the English
expression ‘sowing the wild oats’. This would make sense within its own
quatrain: sexual relations involve embracing, celibacy involves refraining.
However, I would like to propose an alternative interpretation, given the
historical context of the day. The scattering of stones could mean the
destruction and rubble of war; gathering them together could mean rebuilding.
Whilst this makes less sense within its own quatrain, these two meanings need
not be mutually exclusive – Wisdom literature is poetic and can work on many levels – and furthermore, the creation of
a township or a house through the “gathering” of stones would result in
embracing; the destruction of the same would result in refraining. Whilst this
could seem like clutching at straws – please bear this in mind as I will bring
this up later.
Jarick
continues his structural analysis of the poem by looking at the duplets of
quatrains: “That is to say, the birthing dying-planting-plucking quatrain (of
v. 2) is turned around in the killing-healing-wrecking-building set (of v. 3),
weeping-laughing-mourning-dancing (v. 4) comes back upon itself in the form of
scattering-gathering-cmbracing-rcfraining (v. 3)” This all works out – seeking
requires speaking, losing generally means hushing, keeping, sewing, discarding,
tearing etc.
And finally, the apparently true
beauty of the reflection is seen in the overall picture. Birth is related to
speech, death to hush. Planting to sowing, plucking to tearing. Hating and
fighting change, loving and pacifying are everything.
Jarick
goes on to conclude that what centres all of this is the principle of
everything and nothing: this binary opposition can be seen on the macro, intermediate
and micro scale. Dancing and scattering at the very centre have no obvious
connection; nor do building and weeping, or refraining and seeking; nor do the
very couplets themselves at the end of it all – they are by definition polar
opposites, binary oppositions.
Seeing
this emptiness at the centre everything does seem to chime with the pessimism
of Ecclesiastes to the whole idea of wisdom: wisdom didn’t save Israel from
oppression by Babylon – wisdom is just words, useless and meaningless in the face
of the cruelty of humanity and the world. However, this does not seem a hopeful
basis for a new society. There seems to be an underlying optimism in the almost
mathematic structure of this absurdly beautiful and beautifully absurd piece of
writing. More of this later.
I have
come to the conclusion so far at university of a paradoxical fact of life: it
seems to me that the consideration paradox lies at the very limits of the
mind’s capacity to conceive – it is the closest that the spunge of neurons flying
around above our neck can get to the very limits of thought, indeed, in many
ways it crosses that boundary; and yet, at the same time, it is also one of the
healthiest, most psychologically fulfilling things we can do. It balances the
mind.
Indeed,
the unique contribution of monotheism to religion was to say, God must
logically be the progenitor of all that is evil as well as all that is good. So,
whether you believe in God or not, understanding the polarities of language and
reality will help you get closer to this thing, be it the philosophic absolute,
or panentheistic or pantheistic world-spirit, or the Trinity, or Allah, or the
Buddha-Mind. I think society must learn to see paradox as wholesome and healthy,
or it risks promoting closed-mindedness. Of course, there will be many who will
say – paradox is meaningless, pointless, open-mindedness is one thing, but you
can’t let your mind fall out now can ya! Let me disagree with you for every
reason on earth, please. Intellectually, there are intelligent people who argue
that there can be two directly contradicting statements which are
simultaneously true and untrue; consider absence, consider the fact that you
are noticing absence, is it not therefore present absence? Or absent presence?
Consider the idea that we are alone, isolated within our heads, or souls,
isolated. Then consider how we know everything; through the ‘doors of
perception’ which filters through this. All we know is us, and we are therefore
not only us but everything. If you sit in a forest, room, cave, or anywhere –
but by yourself, quietly, alone for a very long time, as no doubt the great
writers of the scriptures did, you’ll realise that “Trying to define yourself
is like trying to bite your own teeth.” You can’t do it. Yes, there will always
be this little “eenie weenie” thing screaming “I am me!”, but it’s a selfish
illusion. Logicians faithful to Wittgenstein will say paradox is just that, a
contradiction. But intellectuals well rehearsed in logic are now considering
the possibility for dialetheic paradox. For it equips humanity with exploring
realms – to quote Graham Priest – “Beyond the Limits of Thought”, or to quote
Huxley, “the mind’s antipodes…the ultimate polarities of thought.” In Western
logic, there are two options – either A or not A; in Indian logic, there are
four options – either A or not A, or both, or neither! For example, there’s the
age-old question, can the God of natural theology ever be logically reconciled
with the God of revelation – can the world spirit weep? Is it not surely a
contradiction for God to be angry, to tell a man to kill his son, to become a
man, to become his own Son? Can an eternal, and therefore logically static God
act in a moving, vital world? Can the God so often so petty and childish be
what natural theologian’s term “omnipotent”, “omnibenevolent”, “omniscient”?
Whilst this specific question
goes beyond the scope of this article, I think the answer to this question
comes when we consider how we can know ‘God’. Think about that. Forgive me if I'm limiting the options, but two things can be said for certain. Ultimately, we
know God through ourselves, our consciousness, and through other people – other
consciousnesses. It is a key aim of the human condition to try and project what
is in our isolated skulls into those of other people; and to ingest the same
from others. Of course, this innate striving away from loneliness toward
togetherness has the ultimate aim – in faith – of a collective consciousness of
some kind. And to an extent this is what is happening when we interpret a Hebrew
Poem with the principles of Tao/Confucian cum Buddhist China. But there’s a
reason that all scripture is oft referred to as “teaching”. The Bible, the Baghavad-gita, the Pāli
Tipitaka, the Qur’an were all written by humans. Yet, they all discuss things
which transcend humans. They all proclaim the didactic aim of living a good
life, and justify it with paradoxes beyond human understanding. With this in
mind, let us return to our second reading today.
There is
another layer to this picture. So far we have divided and subdivided. We have
looked at the duplets, the quatrains, the duplets of quatrains, and the bigger
picture. But what about the other symmetry: look at the reflection in the
centre of the middle three pairs? Three is a significant number in Hebrew
theology – it being half the time that creation was made. Dividing the creation
up in this way, one sees that in those six days – where birth, life, healing –
were also created, were also their polar opposites – remember it!
This
symmetry (seen in my snapchat edit of the pictures - the only thing I use the app for!) seems to be didactic, it seems to want to teach you something: after
birth – dance; after death – mourn; after planting – be merry; after plucking –
weep, your food has become temporary. Refrain from killing; embrace healing;
gather the wreckage – and scatter the buildings anew! Discard weeping; keep
laughter; lose mourning – seek dancing! Scatter words by speaking; gather words
by hushing; embrace sewing and mending things; refraining from breaking things.
Mend
things. Refrain from breaking things. People say that scripture is dated, old
and cannot speak to us in the here and now. And in so many cases I would tend
to agree; but when we look at the beauty of such wisdom, it is impossible to
reject its authority. In this changing world we must look back at what our
ancestors intended for us to see, at what God was saying through them. If it is
true that all scripture and religion base their teachings on paradox, it
becomes clear that the core message of religion is diversity; but what about
the crusades, the inquisition, the thirty years war, I hear some cry? It would
be crude to respond, what about free health-care, free education, the Dalai
Lama, as the scales are impossible to weigh. But I would say that there will
always be exclusive strands of any thought system which will always say, I am
right and you are wrong. We see this with Wahhabism and Jihadism in Islam; we
see this in closed-minded strands of Christianity; in Hindu nationalism; in the
Nazi’s national socialism; in Russian Communism. Diverse opinions are not welcomed
unless we consider that people can come to the same conclusions through
differing routes. How do we work out this message, then, in the practical
sphere? Take Britain; it’s changing. Its religious dimensions and attitudes are
changing. That is a fact. How do we deal with this? For every time there is a
season. But the key is to mend things. Refrain from breaking things.
As Alan Watts wisdomously said, “
The
only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and
join the dance.” This message is magnificent; and how ignorant modern society
is of it! In the religion debate at the Oxford Union in Trinity 2015, people voted in
favour of the idea that “This House Would End The State’s Preferential
Treatment of Religion.” In my view, the question was wrongly framed. If the
house agreed that “This World Would End All States’ Preferential Treatments of
One Religion”, it is my view that most of the abhorrent, disgusting and dark
sides of what religion can induce in the modern world would be largely
eradicated. We can mend things. We can refrain from breaking things. I’m not
only speaking of the problem on our shores – that the twelve “Lords Spiritual”
can only be Anglican Christian bishops (until recently male-exclusive!),
instead of proportionally representing the manifold Imams, and Hindu and
Buddhist monks and secular ethicists. But all over the world, states promote
narrow brands of religions; British Imperialism and pushy Christian evangelism
in India had the effect of radically reducing the diversity in Hinduism;
American Imperialism and oil-greed resulted in them directly sanctioning
puritan Islam in Saudi-Arabia, a Wahhabism allied to the oligarchical monarchy
which directly fuelled the ideology of Al-Quaida, and continues to fuel Islamic
State, thus fuelling the greed of the weapons industry to fight something which
their ally, oil, helped create! Were all religions treated equally, with an
understanding of the mind’s antipodes, and an understanding that they all are
driven by a human striving to understand one another and to reach the limits of
thought to become a better person, truly the world would be a mended place. If
we scatter words by speaking; then we must learn to gather words by hushing;
embrace sewing and mending things; refraining from breaking things…then, what
this will result in is a refrain from killing; embrace healing; gather the
wreckage – and scatter the buildings anew! Discard weeping; keep laughter; lose
mourning – seek dancing! For every time there is a season, and a reason, and a
lesson. “
The only
way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join
the dance.”