Prajna vs. shakti

[Guest guest]

>From _Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism_ by Lama Anagarika Govinda

 

Part Two

[Chapter] 3

KNOWLEDGE AND POWER:

PRAJNA VERSUS SAKTI

 

The influence of Tantric Buddhism upon Hinduism was so profound, that up to

the present day the majority of Western scholars labour under the

impression that Tantrism is a hinduistic creation which was taken over by

later, more or less decadent, Buddhist Schools.

Against this view speaks the great antiquity and consistent

development of Tantric tendencies in Buddhism. Already the early

Mahasan-gikas had a special collection of mantric formulas in their

Dharani-Pitaka, and the Manjusrimulakalpa, which according to some

authorities goes back to the first century A.D., contains not only mantras

and dharanis, but numerous mandalas and mudras as well. Even if the dating

of the Manjusrimulakalpa is somewhat uncertain, it seems probable that the

Buddhist Tantric system had crystallized into a definite form by the end of

the third century A.D., as we can see from the well-known Guhyasamaja

(Tib.: dpal-gsan-hdus-pa) Tantra.

To declare Buddhist Tantrism as an off-shoot of Shivaism is only

possible for those who have no first-hand knowledge of Tantric literature.

A comparison of the Hindu Tantras with those of Buddhism (which are mostly

preserved in Tibetan and which therefore have long remained unnoticed by

Indologists) not only shows an astonishing divergence of methods and aims,

in spite of external similarities, but proves the spiritual and historical

priority and originality of the Buddhist Tantras.

Sankaracarya, the great Hindu philosopher of the ninth century A.D.,

whose works form the foundation of all saivaite philosophy, made use of the

ideas of Nagarjuna and his followers to such an extent that orthodox Hindus

suspected him of being a secret devotee of Buddhism. In a similar way the

Hindu Tantras, too, took over the methods and principles of Buddhist

Tantrism and adapted them to their own purposes (just as the Buddhists had

adapted the age-old principles and techniques of yoga to their own systems

of meditation). This view is not only held by Tibetan tradition and

confirmed by a study of its literature, but has been verified also by

Indian scholars after a critical investigation of the earliest Sanskrit

texts of Tantric Buddhism and their historical and ideological relationship

to the Hindu Tantras.

Thus Benoytosh Bhattacharyya in his Introduction to Buddhist Esoterism

has come to the conclusion that 'it is possible to declare, without fear of

contradiction, that the Buddhists were the first to introduce the Tantras

into their religion, and that the Hindus borrowed them from the Buddhists

in later times, and that it is idle to say that later Buddhism was an

outcome of Saivaism' (p. I47).

One of the main propagators of this mistaken idea, which was built

upon the superficial similarities of Hindu and Buddhist Tantras, was Austin

Waddell who is often quoted as an authority on Tibetan Buddhism.1

 

[1 L. A. Waddell: Buddhism of Tibet or Lamaism.]

 

In his estimation Buddhist Tantrism is nothing but 'saivaite idolatry;

sakti worship and demonology'. Its 'so-called mantras and dharanis' are

'meaningless gibberish','its mysticism a silly mummery of unmeaning jargon

and "magic circles"', and its Yoga a 'parasite whose monster outgrowth

crushed and cankered most of the little life of purely Buddhist stock yet

left in the Mahayana (p. 14). 'The Madhyamika doctrine was essentially a

sophistic nihilism' (p. 11) ; 'the Kala-cakra unworthy of being considered

a philosophy' (p. 131).

As it was mainly from such 'authorities' that the West got its first

information of Tibetan Buddhism, it is no wonder that up to the present day

numerous prejudices against Buddhist Tantrism are firmly entrenched in the

Western mind as well as in the minds of those who have approached the

subject through Western literature.

To judge Buddhist Tantric teachings and symbols from the standpoint of

Hindu Tantras, and especially from the principles of Saktism is not only

inadequate but thoroughly misleading, because both systems start from

entirely different premisses. As little as we can declare Buddhism to be

identical with Brahmanism, because both make use of Yoga methods and of

similar technical and philosophical terms, as little is it permissible to

interpret the Buddhist Tantras in the light of the Hindu Tantras, and vice

versa.

Nobody would accuse the Buddha of corrupting his doctrine by accepting

the gods of Hindu mythology as a background of his teachings or by using

them as symbols of certain forces or meditative experiences or as the

exponents of higher states of consciousness - but if the Tantras follow a

similar course, they are accused of being corrupters of genuine Buddhism.

It is impossible to understand any religious movement, unless we

approach it in a spirit of humility and reverence, which is the hallmark of

all great scholars and pioneers of learning. We therefore have to see the

various forms of expression in their genetic connexions and against the

spiritual background from which they developed in their particular system,

before we start comparing them with similar features in other systems. In

fact the very things which appear similar on the surface are very often

just those in which the systems differ most fundamentally. The same step

that leads upwards in one connexion may well lead downwards in another one.

Therefore, philological derivations and iconographical comparisons,

valuable though they may be in other respects, are not adequate here.

'The developments in Tantra made by the Buddhists, and the

extraordinary plastic art they developed, did not fail to create an

impression also in the minds of the Hindus, who readily incorporated many

ideas, doctrines, practices and gods, originally conceived by the Buddhists

for their religion. The literature, which goes by the name of the Hindu

Tantras, arose almost immediately after the Buddhist ideas had established

themselves' (p. 50).

At the end of his convincing historical, literary, and iconographical

proofs, which substantiate what is evident to every student of Buddhist

Tantras and Tibetan tradition, Bhattacharyya concludes: 'It is thus amply

proved that the Buddhist Tantras greatly influenced the Hindu Tantric

literature, and it is, therefore, not correct to say that Buddhism was an

outcome of Saivaism. It is to be contended, on the other hand, that the

Hindu Tantras were an outcome of Vajrayana, and that they represent baser

imitations of Buddhist Tantras' (p. 163).

We therefore fully agree with Bhattacharyya when he says:'The Buddhist

Tantras in outward appearance resemble the Hindu Tantras to a marked

degree, but in reality there is very little similarity between them, either

in subject matter or in philosophical doctrines inculcated in them, or in

religious principles. This is not to be wondered at, since the aims and

objects of the Buddhists are widely different from those of the Hindus'

(op. cit., p. 47).

The main difference is, that Buddhist Tantrism is not Saktism. The

concept of Sakti, of divine _power_, of the creative female aspect of the

highest God (Siva) or his emanations does not play any role in Buddhism.

While in the Hindu Tantras the concept of power (sakti) forms the focus of

interest, the central idea of Tantric Buddhism is prajna: knowledge,

wisdom.

To the Buddhist sakti is maya, the very power that creates illusion,

from which only prajna can liberate us. It is therefore not the aim of the

Buddhist to acquire power, or to join himself to the powers of the

universe, either to become their instrument or to become their master, but,

on the contrary, he tries to free himself from those powers, which since

aeons kept him a prisoner of samsara. He strives to perceive those powers

which have kept him going in the rounds of life and death, in order to

liberate himself from their dominion. However, he does not try to negate

them or to destroy them, but to transform them in the fire of knowledge, so

that they may become forces of Enlightenment which, instead of creating

further differentiation, flow in the opposite direction: towards union,

towards wholeness, towards completeness.

The attitude of the Hindu Tantras is quite different, if not opposite.

'United with the Sakti, be full of power', says the Kulacudamani-Tantra.

'From the union of Siva and Sakti the world is created.' The Buddhist,

however, does not want the creation and unfoldment of the world, but the

coming back to the 'uncreated, unformed' state of sunyata from which all

creation proceeds, or which is prior and beyond all creation (if one may

put the inexpressible into human language) .

The becoming conscious of this sunyata (Tib.: ston-pa-nid) is prajna

(Tib.: ses-rab): highest knowledge. The realization of this highest

knowledge in life is enlightenment (bodhi; Tib.: byan-chub), i.e., if

prajna (or sunyata), the passive, all-embracing female principle, from

which everything proceeds and into which everything recedes, is united with

the dynamic male principle of active universal love and compassion, which

represents the means (upaya; Tib.: thabs) for the realization of prajna and

sunyata, then perfect Buddhahood is attained. Because intellect without

feeling, knowledge without love, reason without compassion, leads to pure

negation, to rigidity, to spiritual death, to mere vacuity - while feeling

without reason, love without knowledge (blind love), compassion without

understanding, lead to confusion and dissolution. But where both sides are

united, where the great synthesis of heart and head, feeling and intellect,

highest love and deepest knowledge have taken place, there completeness is

re-established, perfect Enlightenment is attained.

The process of Enlightenment is therefore represented by the most

obvious, the most human and at the same time the most universal symbol

imaginable: the union of male and female in the ecstasy of love - in which

the active element (upaya) is represented as a male, the passive (prajna)

by a female figure - in contrast to the Hindu Tantras, in which the female

aspect is represented as Sakti, i.e., as the active principle, and the male

aspect as Siva, as the pure state of divine consciousness, of 'being',

i.e., as the passive principle, the 'resting in its own nature'.

In Buddhist symbolism the Knower (Buddha) becomes one with his

knowledge (prajna), just as man and wife become one in the embrace of love,

and this becoming one is highest, indescribable happiness (mahasukha; Tib.:

bde-mchog). The Dhyani-Buddhas (i.e., the ideal Buddhas visualized in

meditation) and Dhyani-Bodhisattvas as embodiments of the active urge of

enlightenment, which finds its expression in upaya, the all-embracing love

and compassion, are therefore represented in the embrace of their prajna

symbolized by a female deity, the embodiment of highest knowledge.

This is not the arbitrary reversal of Hindu symbology, in which 'the

poles of the male and the female as symbols of the divine and its

unfoldment had to be exchanged apparently, as otherwise the gender of the

concepts which they were intended to embody in Buddhism, would not have

been in harmony with them',1 but it is the consequent application of a

principle which is of fundamental importance for the entire Buddhist

Tantric system.

 

[1 H. Zimmer: Kunstform und Yoga im Indischen Kultbild, p. 75.]

 

In a similar way the Hindu Tantras are an equally consistent

application of the fundamental ideas of Hinduism, even though they have

taken over Buddhist methods wherever they suited their purpose. But the

same method, when applied from two opposite standpoints, must necessarily

lead to opposite results. There is no need to resort to such superficial

reasons as the necessity to comply with the grammatical gender of prajna

(feminine) and upaya (masculine).

Such reasoning however was only the consequence of the wrong

presupposition that the Buddhist Tantras were an imitation of the Hindu

Tantras, and the sooner we can free ourselves from this prejudice, the

clearer it will become that the concept of sakti has no place in Buddhism.

Just as the Theravadin would be shocked if the term anatta (Skt. :

anatman) were turned into its opposite and were rendered by the brahmanical

term atman or were explained in such a way as to show that the Theravadin

accepted the atman-idea (since Buddhism was only a variation of

Brahmanism!), so the Tibetan Buddhist would be shocked by the

misinterpretation of his religious tradition by the Hindu term sakti, which

is never used in his scriptures and which means exactly the opposite of

what he wants to express by the term prajna or by the female counterparts

of the Dhyani-Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.

One cannot arbitrarily transplant termini of a theistic system,

centred round the idea of a God-Creator into a non-theistic system which

emphatically and fundamentally denies the notion of a God-Creator. From

such a confusion of terminology arises finally the mistaken idea that the

Adibuddha of the later Tantras is nothing but another version of the

God-Creator, which would be a complete reversal of the Buddhist point of

view. The Adibuddha, however, is the symbol of the universality,

timelessness and completeness of the enlightened mind, or as Guenther puts

it more forcefully: 'The statement that the universe or man is the

Adibuddha is but an inadequate verbalization of an all-comprehensive

experience. The Adibuddha is assuredly not a God who plays dice with the

world in order to pass away his time. He is not a sort of monotheism

either, superimposed on an earlier, allegedly atheistic Buddhism. Such

notions are the errors of professional semanticists. Buddhism has no taste

for theorization. It attempts to delve into the secret depths of our inmost

being and to make the hidden light shine forth brilliantly. Therefore the

Adibuddha is best translated as the unfolding of man's true nature.'1

 

[1 H. V. Guenther: Yuganaddha, the Tantric View of Life (Chowkhamba

Sanskrit Series), Banaras, 1952, p. 187.]

 

 

[Chapter] 4

THE POLARITY OF MALE AND

FEMALE PRINCIPLES IN THE SYMBOLIC

LANGUAGE OF THE VAJRAYANA

 

By confusing Buddhist Tantrism with the Saktism of the Hindu Tantras an

enormous confusion has been created, which until now has prevented a clear

understanding of the Vajrayana and its symbolism, in iconography as well as

in literature, especially in that of the Siddhas. The latter used, as we

have mentioned already, a kind of secret language, in which very often the

highest was clothed in the form of the lowest, the most sacred in the form

of the most ordinary, the transcendent in the form of the most earthly, and

the deepest knowledge in the form of the most grotesque paradoxes. It was

not only a language for initiates, but a kind of shock-therapy, which had

become necessary on account of the over-intellectualization of the

religious and philosophical life of those times.

Just as the Buddha was a revolutionary against the narrow dogmatism

of a privileged priestly class, so the Siddhas were revolutionaries against

the self-complacency of a sheltered monastic existence, that had lost all

contact with the realities of life. Their language was as unconventional as

were their lives, and those who took their words literally, were either

misled into striving after magic powers and worldly happiness or were

repelled by what appeared to them to be blasphemy. It is therefore not

surprising that, after the disappearance of Buddhist tradition in India,

this literature fell into oblivion or degenerated into the crude erotic

cults of popular Tantrism.

Nothing could be more misleading than to draw inferences about the

spiritual attitude of the Buddhist Tantras (or of genuine Hindu Tantras)

from these degenerated forms of Tantrism. The former cannot be fathomed

theoretically, neither through comparisons nor through the study of ancient

literature, but only through practical experience in contact with the still

existing Tantric traditions and their contemplative methods, as practised

in Tibet and Mongolia, as well as in certain Schools of Japan, like Shingon

and Tendai. With regard to the latter two, Glasenapp remarks: 'The female

Bodhisattvas figuring in the Mandalas, like Prajnaparamita and Cundi, are

sexless beings, from whom, quite in accordance with the ancient tradition,

associations of a sexual nature are strictly excluded. In this point these

Schools differ from those known to us from Bengal, Nepal, and Tibet, which

emphasize the polarity of the male and female principles.'1

 

[1 H. von Glasenapp: Die Entstehung des Vajrayana, Zeitschr. d.

Deutsch. Morgenland. Gesellschaft, Vol. 90, p. 560. Leipzig, 1936.]

 

The fact that Bengal, Nepal, and Tibet are mentioned here side by

side, shows that the Tantrism of Bengal and Nepal is regarded to be of the

same nature as that of Tibet, and that the author, though seeing the

necessity of distinguishing between Tantrism and Saktism has not yet drawn

the last conclusion - namely, that even those Buddhist Tantras which build

their symbolism upon the polarity of the male and female, never represent

the female principle as sakti, but always as its contrary, namely prajna

(wisdom), vidya (knowledge), or mudra (the spiritual attitude of

unification, the realization of sunyata). Herewith they reject the basic

idea of Saktism and its world-creating eroticism.

Though the polarity of male and female principles is recognized in the

Tantras of the Vajrayana and is an important feature of its symbolism, it

is raised upon a plane which is as far away from the sphere of mere

sexuality as the mathematical juxtaposition of positive and negative signs,

which is as valid in the realm of irrational values as in that of rational

or concrete concepts.

In Tibet, the male and female Dhyani-Buddhas and -Bodhisattvas are

regarded as little as 'sexual beings' as in the above-mentioned Schools of

Japan; and to the Tibetan, even their aspect of union (Skt.: yuganaddha;

Tib.: yab-yum) is indissolubly associated with the highest spiritual

reality in the process of enlightenment, so that associations with the

realm of physical sexuality are completely ignored.

We must not forget that the figural representations of these symbols

are not looked upon as portraying human beings, but as embodying the

experiences and visions of meditation. In such a state, however, there is

nothing more that could be called 'sexual'; there is only the

superindividual polarity of all life, which rules all mental and physical

activities, and which is transcended only in the ultimate state of

integration, in the realization of sunyata. This is the state which is

called Mahamudra (Tib.: phyag-rgya-chen-po), the 'Great Attitude' or the

'Great Symbol', which has given its name to one of the most important

systems of meditation in Tibet.

In the earlier forms of Indian Buddhist Tantrism, Mahamudra was

represented as the 'eternal female' principle, as may be seen from

Advayavajra's definition: 'The words "great" and "mudra" together form the

term "mahamudra". She is not a something (nihsvabhava); she is free from

the veils which cover the cognizable object and so on; she shines forth

like the serene sky at noon during autumn; she is the support of all

success; she is the identity of samsara and nirvana; her body is Compassion

(karuna) which is not restricted to a single object; she is the uniqueness

of Great Bliss (mahasukhaikarupa).'1

 

[1 Advayavajra, Caturmudra, p. 34, quoted in Yuganaddha, p. 116.]

 

If in one of the most controversial passages of Anangavajra's

Prajnopayaviniscayasiddhi2 it is said that all women should be enjoyed by

the Sadhaka in order to experience the Mahamudra, it is clear that this

cannot be understood in the physical sense, but that it can only be applied

to that higher form of love which is not restricted to a single object and

which is able to see all 'female' qualities, whether in ourselves or in

others, as those of the 'Divine Mother' (Prajnaparamita: 'Transcendental

Wisdom').

 

[2 In Two Vajrayana Works, G.O.S., No. XLIV, p. 22 f.]

 

Another passage, which by its very grotesqueness proves that it is

meant to be a paradox and not to be taken literally, states that 'the

Sadhaka who has sexual intercourse with his mother, his sister, his

daughter, and his sister's daughter, will easily succeed in his striving

for the ultimate goal (tattvayoga)'.3

 

[3 Anangavajra: 'Prajnopayaviniscayasiddhi', V, 25, quoted in

'Yuganaddha', p. 106. A similar passage is found in the Guhyasamaja-Tantra,

from where Anangavajra took this quotation.]

 

To take expressions like 'mother','sister', 'daughter' or 'sister's

daughter' literally in this connexion is as senseless as taking the

well-known Dhammapada verse (No. 294) Iiterally, which says that, after

having killed father and mother, two Ksattriya kings, and having destroyed

a kingdom with all its inhabitants, the Brahmin remains free from sin. Here

'father and mother' stands for 'egoism and craving' (Pali: asmimana and

tanha), the 'two kings' for the erroneous 'views of annihilation or eternal

existence' (uccheda va sassata ditthi), the 'kingdom and its inhabitants'

for 'the tweIve spheres of consciousness' (dvadasayatanani) and the Brahmin

for the 'liberated monk' (bhikkhu).

It is a strange coincidence, if not a conscious allusion to this

famous simile of the Dhammapada, that 'the destruction of a kingdom with

its king and all its inhabitants' is also ascribed to Padmasambhava, the

great scholar and saint, who brought Buddhism to Tibet in the middle of the

eighth century A.D. and founded the first monastery there. In his

symbolical biography (about which we shall hear more later on), written in

Sandhyabhasa, it is said, that Padmasambhava, in the guise of a terrible

deity, destroyed a king and his subjects, who were enemies of the religion,

and that he took all their women to himself in order to purify them and to

make them mothers of religious-minded children. It is obvious that this

cannot be taken in the sense that Padmasambhava killed the population of a

whole country and violated all codes of sex-morality. This would be in

blatant contradiction to the works attributed to him, which are of the

highest moral and ethical standard and of profound spiritual insight, based

on the strictest sense-control. It is one of the characteristics of the

Sandhyabhasa, as of many ancient religious texts, to represent experiences

of meditation (like the Buddha's struggle with Mara and his hosts of

demons) in the form of outer events. The remark, that Padmasambhava took

the form of a wrathful deity, shows that the fight with the forces of evil

took place within himself and that the 'recognition' of the female

principles in the process of inner integration consisted in the unification

of the two sides of his nature, namely, the male principle of activity

(upaya) and the female principle of wisdom (prajna), as we shall see in the

following paragraphs.

To maintain that Tantric Buddhists actually encouraged incest and

licentiousness is as ridiculous as accusing the Theravadins of condoning

matricide and patricide and similar heinous crimes. If we only take the

trouble to investigate the still living traditions of the Tantras in their

genuine, unadulterated forms, as they exist up to the present day in

thousands of monasteries and hermitages of Tibet, where the ideals of

sense-control and renunciation are held in highest esteem, then only can we

realize how ill-founded and worthless are the current theories, which try

to drag the Tantras into the realm of sensuality.

From the point of view of Tibetan Tantric tradition, the

above-mentioned passages can only have meaning in the context of

yoga-terminology: 'All women in the world' signifies all the elements which

make up the female principles of our psycho-physical personality which, as

the Buddha says, represents what is called 'the world'. To these principles

correspond on the opposite side an equal number of male principles. Four of

the female principles form a special group, representing the vital forces

(prana) of the Great Elements (mahabhuta) 'Earth','Water', 'Fire','Air',

and their corresponding psychic centres (cakra) or planes of consciousness

within the human body. In each of them the union of male and female

principles must take place, before the fifth and highest stage is reached.

If the expressions 'mother', 'sister', 'daughter', etc., are applied to

these forces of these fundamental qualities of the mahabhutas, the meaning

of the symbolism becomes clear.

In other words, instead of seeking union with a woman outside

ourselves, we have to seek it within ourselves ('in our own family') by the

union of our male and female nature in the process of meditation. This is

clearly stated in Naropa's famous 'Six Doctrines' (Tib.: chos-drug

bsdus-pahihzin-bris), upon which the most important yoga-method of the

Kargyutpa School is based, a method which was practised by Milarepa, the

most saintly and austere of all the great masters of meditation (whom,

certainly, nobody could accuse of 'sexual practices'!). Though we need not

go here into the details of this yoga, a short quotation may suffice to

prove our point:

'The vital-force (prana; Tib.: sugs, rlun) of the Five Aggregates

(skandha; Tib.: phun-po) in its real nature, pertaineth to the masculine

aspect of the Buddha-principle manifesting through the left psychic nerve

(ida-nadi; Tib.: rkyan-ma rtsa). The vital force of the Five Elements

(dhatu; Tib.: hbyun-ba) in its real nature, pertaineth to the feminine

aspect of the Buddha-principle manifesting through the right psychic nerve

(pingala-nadi; Tib.: ro-ma rtsa). As the vital force, with these two

aspects of it in union, descendeth into the median nerve (susumna; Tib.:

dbu-ma rtsa) gradually there cometh the realization . . .' and one attains

'the transcendental boon of the Great Symbol (mahamudra; Tib.:

phyag-rgya-chen-po)1, ' the union of male and female principles (as upaya

and prajna) in the highest state of Buddhahood.

 

[1 W. Y. Evans-Wentz: Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrine, p. 200 ff

(Oxford University Press, London, 1935).]

 

Thus sexual polarity becomes a mere incident of universal polarity,

which has to be recognized on all levels and has to be overcome through

knowledge: from the biblical 'knowing of the woman' to the knowledge of the

'Eternal Feminine', Mahamudra or Sunyata, in the realization of highest

wisdom.

Only if we are able to see the relationship of body and mind, of

physical and spiritual interaction in a universal perspective, and if in

this way we overcome the 'I' and 'mine' and the whole structure of

egocentric feelings, opinions, and prejudices, which produce the illusion

of our separate individuality, then only can we rise into the sphere of

Buddhahood.

The Tantras brought religious experience from the abstract regions of

the speculating intellect again down to earth, and clothed it with flesh

and blood; not, however, with the intention of secularizing it, but to

realize it: to make religious experience an active force. The authors of

the Tantras knew that knowledge based on vision is stronger than the power

of subconscious drives and urges, that prajna is stronger than sakti. For

sakti is the blind world-creating power (maya), which leads deeper and

deeper into the realm of becoming, of matter and differentiation. Its

effect can only be polarized or reversed by its opposite: inner vision,

which transforms the power of becoming into that of liberation.

[Guest guest]

<< By confusing Buddhist Tantrism with the Saktism of the Hindu Tantras

an enormous confusion has been created, which until now has prevented a

clear understanding of the Vajrayana and its symbolism, in iconography

as well as in literature, especially in that of the Siddhas. The latter

used, as we have mentioned already, a kind of secret language, in which

very often the highest was clothed in the form of the lowest, the most

sacred in the form of the most ordinary, the transcendent in the form of

the most earthly, and the deepest knowledge in the form of the most

grotesque paradoxes. It was not only a language for initiates, but a

kind of shock-therapy, which had become necessary on account of the

over-intellectualization of the religious and philosophical life of

those times. It was not only a language for initiates, but a kind of

shock-therapy, which had become necessary on account of the

over-intellectualization of the religious and philosophical life of

those times. >>

 

Is it not the language of the wind blowing on the skin, while sitting

near the sea, whit someone playing is radio box to loud? The language of

everyday life that contains the well hidden secret...

 

Having the ordinariness of each moment become a shock therapy is a

beautiful gift. The gift of Adam and Eve before the fall no?

 

Antoine