#and every interpretation has some level of merit

[noodlesoup1819]

I feel like all my feelings about all the arguments about jinmao regarding whether it's supposed to be romantic or platonic or one-sided or whatever can be summed up by this image:

Like. They care about each other as people. That's why their relationship is interesting. I don't really care how you wanna interpret their relationship after that

[dexjarxenoengage]

The Humans in Metaphor Refantazio are mostly inspired by the artwork brought to us by Hieronymus Bosch and his most notable work: The Garden of Earthly Delights. And IMO, Atlus choosing this artist’s work to tell the story of Metaphor: Refantazio and its themes of racism and fear and anxieties is an excellent choice.

That being said, not every Human Boss in this game are based on Bosch’s work, some take their own ideas in mind, while others have their own interpretations they take after. Speaking of which, I want to talk about how each of the Human Bosses that Will and his crew face in the game each represents the Seven Deadly Sins. Why? Because the Garden of Earthly Delights perfectly represents the things that happen in the Bible, from the start a beauty of the garden up until its, and humanities fall from grace. Even if the translation from Google Translate aren’t perfect, we can use them to best determine why they represent that sin.

This will be discussing the bosses we face in the game, the story behind them, as well as the final boss. So naturally, there will be spoilers.

I will talk about each Human boss enemy we face in order of when we encounter them. Melancholia Zorba will not count for this discussion, but I will talk about Zorba later. Since we don’t face Will has a human boss, I won’t be counting him for this list either.

This list is inspired by the mini bosses we fight in the final dungeon: The Tyrant Star. You have to fight the Humans you have encountered over the course of the game in order to weaken Destroyer Charadrius’ final form. Choosing not to results in Destroyer Charadrius getting more Press Turns, a higher level and each of the abilities said humans (you get a trophy for doing this).

I decided to go back and change some things after looking at the translations (however poor) of the Human Monsters, I was right to assume about one of the humans, but after looking deeper into things, I was surprised to find that some of the humans represent these sins very subtly more often than not.

We start with Homo Gorleo (translation: Human Throat), the human we fight at the Border fort and where Will awakens to his Archetype. I have been debating on whether I want to give the sin representation to this beast, it was between Gluttony and Greed. After translating its name, “human throat,” I was really scratching my head.

So this could mean that Homo Gorleo is in fact the sin of Gluttony. But surely there has to be more to it than just simply eating from its own body to sustain itself. Gluttony means overindulging and taking on more than one can chew. So it is a type of greed, in a way, I wasn’t completely wrong when I had the idea of giving it the sin of greed.

More importantly, this human embodies the actions of Klinger, who sent Will, Strohl, and many others to die at that human’s hands (or legs, in this case) in order to give more merit to Louis’ words and increase his own political influence. And if he had succeeded to get away with this, many others would have shared the same fate as those in the fort and the victims of Halia (Strohl’s home village).

Klinger embodies the nasty side of nobility that gorges on the wealth they are blessed with. While Strohl is the noble that lost everything and has learned that he needs to use what he has to help the less fortunate. And helping the weak becomes the main slogan of Will’s team when the Tournament for the Throne begins.

Next is Homo Avades, which is the Human in the Box art and matches Hieronymus Bosch’s most iconic art piece. The name of this human actually gives the idea on what sin it represents: Homo Avades roughly translates to English as “a person who is greedy.” This Human is the one that Louis brought to the Grand Cathedral in order to give his speech on the humans and his duty to slay them as proof that he should be the rightful ruler.

Homo Avades is one of the humans that was majorly advertised throughout the marketing for this game. It serves as our first major boss in the game (as in our first major fight during the story operations in the game). And this human representing greed is symbolic of the fact that this game as a whole, both in the place we are fighting in and throughout Euchronia, are (for the most part) living for their own selfish desires. So in a way, Homo Avades is one of the first representatives of what Will and the others have to fight against moment to moment.

And also, the reason why we have to fight in the first place is because Zorba, Louis’s right hand man, revives it in his attempt to spite the society that rejected him. In a way, this is his “selfish” attempts to fight against the cruel system that he hates.

Will, Strohl and Hulkenburg (and Gallica) fought bravely to stop the human from destroying Royal Capital. This act of bravery gives Will and the others some renown, which would be needed for the upcoming tournament; and more importantly, stay true to the act of winning the faith of the people.

The Greatworm Homo Butera was the other Human I was debating on whether its the seen of Gluttony or Greed. But after finally settling on Gluttony and Greed for both Homo Gorleo and Avades respectively, this is the human I needed time to realize what it embodies. Homo Butera translated to “Buttery Man.” That’s… not exactly helpful for this post or imposing.

That being said, given the understanding of the word “butter,” it does fit with the theme of eating that comes with the Martira arc. This includes introducing Hulkenburg’s love for… “unconventional” food. This as well includes Homo Jaluzo, whom we will talk about later, that is being fed with adults and children alike.

Back to the topic at hand though, it’s possible that Homo Butera symbolizes lust. Reasoning being is that there is another way we can interpret the word “buttery,” and that is through another term like “butter up.” To “butter up” something or someone is to entice them with empty words or promises. This is best shown when Morris (one of the key figures behind the kidnappings Will and the others are tasked to stop) gives Will and the others an idea on how to find Heismay without getting caught up in the Sandworm. He was lying, and Will and the others get eaten by the human worm as a result.

The themes of lust, and by extension, the term that we are using to describe the themes of this human, continues while trapped inside of its stomach. The goal of this dungeon is to escape out of the worm’s… “other hole” within the time limit. During which, you can try to get as many items as possible, because you can play through this Dungeon again after you are through with it. If you get too caught up chasing after items, you may run out of time to escape and will get a game over for it. Which is why I prefer to just get to the exit as soon as possible.

And finally, there is Morris himself after he is ratted out to be the kidnapper. Morris’s reason for helping Joanna kidnap and feed people to Homo Jaluzo is because he just wanted to fatten his piggy bank. Ultimately he gets his comeuppance, as he becomes Homo Jaluzo’s last meal.

Speaking of Homo Jaluzo, this was the easiest Human Sin symbolism to find. This was the only human translation I could get that I actually liked and was the perfect symbolism for. Jaluzo is the Esperanto term for “jealousy,” which is the perfect symbolism for a grieving mother who lost her half breed son to cruelty. And thus Homo Jaluzo’s sin undoubtedly, envy.

It’s perfect for the Joanna to represent the sin of envy as well. Homo Jaluzo served as a replacement to her deceased son, and thus she takes her anger out on other parents who have children out of rage for those parents have, but she had taken from her. The difference between how Zorba and Joanna take their anger out is this: Zorba is out on the entire society, while Joanna has (mostly) targeted the people that had children out of spite for what she had lost. It isn’t until Heismay (who Joanna framed, but also lost his own child) chose to understand what drove her down this path that Joanna sees the error of her ways.

The Sea Horror Homo Sabara’s name translates to “a person who is a sabar.” This made absolutely NO sense to me whatsoever. So I looked up the word “Sabar” and the closest word I could find to match is the word “Sabr.”

“Sabr” or “Sabar” is an old phrase that emphasizes on waiting, perseverance and patience. So staying true to this talking about what sins relate to each of the human boss fights, the closest thing we have is wrath. Wrath is extreme anger that blinds your ability to think rationally. The EXACT opposite of being patient.

Now how does this fight with symbolism of this fight? For context, this fight takes place on the way to Virga Island. During the trip, the Magnus Brothers (Basilio and Fidelio) have joined the ride to spy on Will and Junah, so they get caught in the crossfire because of it.

The reason for why I believe Sabara represents the sin of wrath is because of how it ties into Fidelio’s character. Fidelio (and his brother) were victims of Igniter experimental abuse (alongside many other Paripus (one of which led to Heismay losing his son, hence why he hates the Paripus) and had hated the church and the late king ever since. This leads them to meet Saint Rella and Junah, with the brothers falling in love with the surrogate siblings.

Fidelio’s main flaw comes down to his irrationality towards the things he doesn’t agree with. Be it the party’s philosophy and how they wish to save Eupha during the mission for the Lance, or his opinions on King Hythlodaeus and hatred towards the church. In contrast, Basilio has the emotional intelligence needed to see the bigger picture and truly ask Basilio if what they are doing is truly right.

The only time Basilio has lost his cool is when Fidelio died from protecting from Louis attack on some church folk. Fidelio dies with clarity on the fact that his rage towards the world blinded him to the fact that there are other people who were in his position that may have needed help like he did. And as for Basilio, if Eupha hadn’t yelled him back into sensibility, he would have wasted his brother’s sacrifice.

And then we get to Basilio’s awakening. It’s thanks to Fidelio’s reminder that he has the strength to protect the weak that gives Basilio the courage to move forward without him. And in contrast to many other awakenings in this game, Basilio calmly says goodbye his brother outside of the battlefield.

“See ya around, Del.” - Basilio

Basilio’s starting Archetype is the Berserker. So in a twist of irony, Basilio awakens to a wrathful Archetype in the calmest manner possible. It symbolizes Basilio tapping into those emotions into power without succumbing to them. And thus, Basilio controlled his wrath.

Homo Margo’s name is translated roughly as “human on the edge.” It’s a fitting for the story of the Mustari who are relying on human sacrifices to cure their fears and anxieties (such as our party member to be Eupha). Homo Margo is pretty much a Mustari turned into a Human. So the best sin to associate Homo Margo is Sloth.

Sloth is basically stillness in effort, laziness to put it simply. It perfectly represents the people of Virga Island rely on their teachings and their dragon god to be their shelter in the storm. Eupha herself admits that she had simply her teachings and worries of the people as her crutch for the choices she makes, which would have led to an undignified and senseless death.

It’s thanks to the Will and the others that she learns and accepts the truth. She finally understands what the human that possessed Eht represents: an unwillingness to see or confront what’s in front of them. And thus it blinds them to the truth. By learning from these mistakes, Eupha becomes a priestess with the courage and assertiveness to ascertain her own answer to life.

From then on, Eupha makes the willing choice to travel with Will and the others so that she can grow both as a Priestess and as a person. Eupha becomes more open towards her own emotions and opinions such as when she suggests to tell the Magnus brothers the truth on why they wanted to kill Louis. As well as Eupha being the most outspoken when Basilio was going to chase after Louis after Fidelio’s death.

And last, but most definitely not least, is Louis’s Human form: Destroyer Charadrius. Unlike the many other Humans in the game that were made with Hieronymus Bosch in mind, Destroyer Charadrius is based on Lucifer of the Divine Comedy: Inferno. So it’s only natural that his assigned sin is none other than Pride: the foundation of all sins according to the Bible.

Louis’ fatal flaw has always been pride. This is best shown as the game continues into the final arc. When Will and the others are close to beating him during the fight at Grand Trad on 9/24, Louis resorts to using his magic on Will to transform him into a Human to make the people of the country lose faith in him.

Louis prides himself on the beliefs that power is the deciding factor of the world he plans on creating. But were that the case, one would think Louis should have just accepted defeat the very moment Will and Co. proved their strength to stand against him. But Louis uses a cowardly trick in the midst of the duel to make Will seem like the bad guy.

Louis’s pride, above everything else, prevents him from seeing how he falls short of the very ideals he speaks of. He can’t think for one second at the very thought that he was in the wrong. Which is why he makes it clear that he will kill anyone who doesn’t agree with him.

Louis Social Darwinist worldview (or at least he plans on acting on it) revolves around turning the Royal Sceptre’s accumulated anxiety onto the people to see which people would survive the human transformation and gain more power and who wouldn’t. But Louis fails to realize that his philosophy will backfire because the human transformation is caused by mass amounts of Magla that can’t be controlled (which leads to his own human transformation at the end of the game).

Louis’s refusal to accept his faults or learn to quit when he was ahead finally leads to his death at Will’s hand after awakening his final Archetype.

Will and his friends all have learned to be open to different perspectives without losing themselves to their fears and anxieties. But Louis himself is blind to his own weaknesses and didn’t open his eyes to that truth, it ends with him falling short on his beliefs and dying in the process.

We are done with talking about all of the human bosses and how they represent the seven deadly sins. But there actually is one more unorthodox sin that some scriptures have to be an 8th sin: Despair.

Despair is the ultimate killer of idealism and the ability to believe. This chain of despair from Hythlodaeus losing his wife and son, to Louis losing faith in the king after getting blamed for the Prince’s curse is what led to the chain of events that caused this story in the first place. And had Will fallen into despair over the state of the world in any of the bad endings, he would have been no different than both Louis and Hythlodaeus.

I did say I wouldn’t count Will as part of this list, and said that I would mention Zorba. But the reason for why I’m doing this at all is because it’s important to tie in despair with how the fears and anxieties of the world serves as the fuel behind the Human transformations to begin with.

Melancholia is dense and uncontrollable Magla that can drive any person or beast to insanity. Melancholia itself is a term for “melancholy,” meaning deep sadness. And thus, back to the point of why Louis’s philosophy was doom to fail him, he couldn’t overcome the fears and anxieties that came from the day he lost his family and home to the flames of the church. And thus he takes that sadness out on others (namely Strohl with Halia).

Zorba himself was already a madman long before his human transformation, and thus is the reason why he could “maintain” his physical body.

The Archetypes are supposed be the power that comes from overcoming one’s anxieties. And with it, the power of magic.

Now back to Will and the themes of despair. It’s only as Will maintains his hope and idealism that he truly becomes king. But this is where the Elegy of the Soul comes into play. While this boss is not a human enemy, it’s a dragon that has been overtaken by the fears and anxieties of the people. Thus the Elegy of the Soul represents the potential destruction that can be brought out by the future “hero.” That hero being Will, so this is the closest we get to fighting “Will” as a corrupted version of himself.

This fight is proof that even if Will becomes the king and stops Louis, it doesn’t guarantee that the world will become a truly perfect Utopia. But Will’s character is about striving for a better world is the better alternative than giving up on it/destroying it. And thus, Will’s character is also about maintaining hope in a way that More and Louis could not.

And that power is what it means to face fears and anxieties and become a true king.

[falmerbrook]

People have probably asked you this before but what is your personal interpretation of The Battle of Red Mountain? Personally, I love the idea of Dagoth being tempted by the heart despite him being the one guy to urge the tools not be used. (Nerevar too to an extent but he’s bad at making decisions)

I just love my tragic six council.

*rubbing my hands together* This is the perfect question for me! I have already given this much thought because I too love drama. So you're getting a bit of an essay; I hope you are ok with that :D. Skip down a bit if you just want just my thoughts on my interpretation, but I'm gonna start by laying out the options and my thoughts on some of the different interpretations first.

So first of all, I don't think there is a canon for it. Both in the sense that I don't think Bethesada or the Morrowind team actually have a solid canon idea of what went down, and that I don't think any one retelling has overwhelming evidence that blows the others out of the water completely (although some have more merit to me than others).

The other strong opinion I have is that I dislike the Dragon Break explanation (at least in the way I see most people present it). Despite Dragon Breaks being one of the more interesting pieces of lore (and one of my favorite watsonian explanations for an in-game thing ever), I think it is the most boring interpretation of the BoRM. I know there's some canon support for it, but it just doesn't speak to me. Like, if every version of the battle could have happened "simultaneously" because of a Dragon Break, then that means that there's a chance no one is lying because the version they tell is truly how they experienced it, even if someone else experienced something else. Where's the fun in that? We're here for tragedy and lies and drama.

So I sort of see there being 6 main versions of what happened that we've been given (with some details changed depending on the exact source): 1) the Ashlander version (descended from the account of Alandro Sul, 2) the Temple version, 3) the Nord version (from the Five Songs of King Wulfharth), 4) the version in the 36 Lessons of Vivec, 5) Vivec's version (as told to the Dissident Priests and the Nerevarine), and 6) Dagoth Ur's version.

The Ashlander version (x) (x) (x) has the Tribunal outside of the mountain fending off the Dwemer army while Nerevar and Voryn fought Dumac and Kagrenac in the Heart Chamber. These put Voryn (and presumably House Dagoth) on the side of the Chimer. Progress of Truth claims the Dwemer destroyed themselves, while Nerevar at Red Mountain claims Azura showed Nerevar how to "use the tools to separate the power of the Heart from the Dwemer people" (whatever that means) and turned them to dust. After that, Nerevar is kinda fucked up, so while Voryn urges him to destroy the tools, he tells Voryn to guard them while he get's the Tribunal's opinion. They're like "let's keep 'em" and he's like "actually never mind I want Azura's opinion" so they poison him, take the tools, and kill Voryn. This one is interesting because the Ashlander mythology and culture seems to be mostly based on oral tradition, so the versions we see of their accounts have been written by scholarly outsiders (obscuring the truth even further). Additionally, they claim this version was passed down from the the account of Alandro Sul, but that leaves a lot of time for this version of the story to change and morph. These are probably, like, 30th level accounts of what happened.

The official Temple version (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) claims Nerevar was martyred in the BoRM, dying of his injuries, and puts House Dagoth and Voryn on the side of the Dwemer. Most of these claim Nerevar killed Dumac and then died from his own injuries (Saint Nerevar specifically claims these were injuries inflicted by Voryn), but don't specify what happened to Voryn or what was going on with the Tribunal during the battle. This version is much more vague about pretty much everything than the Ashlander or Vivec versions. The thing to note with these sources is they are either obviously biased propaganda from the Tribunal Temple or are drawing from obviously biased propaganda from the Tribunal Temple.

The Nord version (x) is way different from the others and for that reason I kinda ignore it to be honest. So in this version (as far as I can tell?) after the War of the First Council kicks up, Voryn drags the Nords into it by telling them he knew where the Heart of Shor (Lorkhan) was. This version seems to put the Nords and House Daogth (including Voryn) on one side and the Chimer and Dwemer on the other. Nerevar and Dumac are still buddies here and fight Voryn and Wulfharth in the Heart Chamber. Voryn kills Dumac. Nerevar kills Voryn. Lorkhan kills Nerevar. Nerevar kills Lorkhan. Alandro Sul is blind now. Vivec might be there.

The 36 Lessons of Vivec version (x) is also one I kinda ignore in terms of what happened during the BoRM since it too is essentially propaganda and largely lies (also I have a hard time understanding it). From my understanding, Vivec puts the Dwemer and Nords against the Chimer. There's sort of an overall placing of the "Sharmat" against the Chimer/Nerevar as well, but no explicit mention of what Voryn or House Dagoth is doing. The Tribunal destroy the Dwemer and "remove them from the world", while Nerever "went too far inside [Red Mountain], seeking the Sharmat [Voryn]" as it exploded. I guess that's how Nerevar dies? Of course, there is also that infamous secret message in the lessons: "He was not born a god. His destiny did not lead him to this crime. He chose this path of his own free will. He stole the godhood and murdered the Hortator. Vivec wrote this."

Vivec's version to the Dissident Priests (x) is probably the most detailed, and one of two that are first hand accounts. In this version, he claims that during the battle Nerevar and Voryn went into the Heart Chamber and fought Dumac and Co., where Nerevar killed him. Kagrenac did something with the Heart and *poof* all of the Dwemer are gone. Voryn tells Nerevar they should destroy the tools, but Nerevar wants to get the Tribunal's opinion. They tell him to keep them, and he agreed under the condition that "the tools would never be used in the profane manner that the Dwemer had intended". Nerevar and the Tribunal go to get the tools from Voryn, but he refuses to give them up, so the gang fights him, gets the tools back, and Voryn escapes. The Tribunal keep their oath for years (Nerevar nebulously stops existing during this time) before using them and pissing off Azura.

Daogth Ur's version (x), claims that he loyally served Nerevar until the end, and Nerevar betrayed him by killing him after telling to him to guard the tools. "Yet beneath Red Mountain, you struck me down as I guarded the treasure you bound me by oath to defend. It was a cruel blow, a bitter betrayal, to be felled by your hand." What a wordsmith!

The one depiction we have of Nerevar's murder is a sketch Kirkbride did for Morrowind's 10th anniversary and it doesn't match a single one of the other versions we have, but because it's visual (and dramatic) it is burned into the fandom zeitgeist so it's worth mentioning.

So none of these line up completely, but there is some significant overlap between a few.

Interestingly, the Ashlander version of the build up to the War of the First Council and the events of the battle itself up until Nerevar goes to chat with the Tribunal is pretty much the same (with the exception of how the Dwemer disappeared) as Vivec's account to the Dissident Priests. Where they differ is in what happened to the Dwemer, Voryn, and Nerevar. To me that makes that sequence of events the most likely of all of the options from a "which is most likely canon" perspective, and the differences between the two come down to bias, with the Alandro Sul and the Ashlanders trying to bolster Nerevar's accomplishments and portray the Tribunal poorly, and Vivec trying to dissuade any suspicion that he killed Nerevar.

Also interestingly, Dagoth Ur's account matches Vivec's pretty closely, with Vivec claiming Nerevar (and the Tribunal) had to fight Voryn to get the tools back, and Dagoth Ur claiming Nerevar killed him (presumably to get the tools back), despite their completely opposing biases. That's gotta mean something. I'm not sure Voryn ever actually says the Tribunal murdered Nerevar now that I'm thinking about it (please correct me if I'm wrong), rather just implies they betrayed him (which could of course include murder though). Meanwhile, Vivec's secret message in the 36 Lessons is basically a murder confession.

This is so messy (in the best way).

SKIP HERE FOR JUST MY THOUGHTS!

So which one do I like? It depends. Like I've said before, I'm here for interpersonal tragedy among Nerevar and Co., so the version I prefer depends on what part of the tragedy you want to focus on. If I want an interpretation of the story that focuses mostly on Nerevar and the Tribunal's relationship, the Ashlander version where they murder him is the most juicy. But a version where he dies from his fight with Voryn, and the Tribunal watch him die, might be the most tragic. If I want the focus on Nerevar and Voryn's messiness, then perhaps his version where Nerevar kills him is the best fit. If I want a focus on Nerevar and Dumac, perhaps Nerevar dies from those wounds. One of my favorite things about Morrowind is that there is no right interpretation, so you can mix and match for the circumstances of what kind of story you want to tell! You don't even have to be consistent. So much angst potential! So much fun to be had!

If I had to create a best ""canon"" interpretation though based on all of those versions I just detailed, it would be this: Following the Ashlanders' and Vivec's account of the build up to the battle, with the Dwemer (and Nords and Orcs are there too I guess idc) on one side and all of the Chimer houses and tribes on the other, Nerevar, Voryn, and Alandro Sul (among others) end up in the Heart Chamber while the Tribunal lead the charge against the bulk of the Dwemer army outside of the mountain. During the fight in the Heart Chamber, Nerevar and Dumac fight one-on-one, ending with Nerevar very injured, but having killed Dumac (it's tragic and emotional. Poor Nerevar). With Dumac's death, the direction of the battle turns to Kagrenac, who is messing with the tools and the Heart. Knowing everything is about to close in on him, Kagrenac does... something... to the Heart and the Dwemer all disappear (I personally like to think it was a lot less planned and perfected than most like to think. It was a panic move). His tools are left behind, and Voryn gets them and tells Nerevar they should destroy them, considering what they just saw and what he knows personally of Kagrenac. Nerevar is pretty delirious and distressed, and doesn't trust himself enough to make the decision. Knowing he hadn't trusted the Tribunal as much as he should have about the Dwemer leading up to this point, he decides it would be best to get their input. He tells Voryn to stay with the tools, and while Voryn is hesitant to be there alone (that could be because he is nervous to be in the presence of the Heart with the tools, or because he doesn't want Nerevar alone with the Tribunal or getting their advice), Nerevar trusts him fully. He is helped out of the mountain and to the Tribunal, who are dealing with the aftermath of the Dwemer disappearing. Note that at this point in their lives, they are annoyed and frustrated with his leadership, and don't trust his decision making too much. They urge him to keep the tools, and he is not thrilled about it, but relents because he is tired. They all rest a few hours, and then go back into Red Mountain to get Voryn and the tools. There, for whatever reason, Voryn won't give them back (I'll get back to why in a minute), and things escalate very quickly, with the situation ending with Nerevar having killed him. Nerevar, now having killed two of his closest friends over this, changes his mind and decides against using the tools, making the Tribunal swear an oath to never use them, period. They aren't thrilled about this, and their animosity towards Nerevar just grows. They either bide their time and wait for Nerevar to die, or kill him themselves sometime after this, after which they use the tools and piss off Azura.

So back to the topic of Voryn, your point about him is interesting. I feel like there's so many ways to interpret him in this situation and how exactly he was invovled. How did he find out about what the Dwemer (or at least Kagrenac) were doing? What side was he on during the war? Was House Dagoth on his side? Did he mess with the tools when he was left alone with them? If he did, why?

Knowing he was probably closer with Dumac and Kagrenac (whether that be personally and/or politically) than most other Chimer, that could explain how he knew about the heart. I've had a thought in the past that perhaps one of them straight up showed him the Heart and the Numidium, which spurred him to warn Nerevar about it. What if that exposure to it fucked with his head a little, like radiation? Afterwards, he could always feels it's pull and beating, and it only got stronger when he got closer to the mountain. It's like a drug that gets you hooked instantly. My thought was perhaps that was the reason why 1) he is hesitant to watch the tools (and be alone with the Heart), 2) wanted the tools destroyed, knowing first hand how maddeningly powerful the Heart is, and 3) he gave in and messed with the Heart when left alone. There is a delightful irony to him being the first of the Chimer to use the tools despite being the one to most strongly urge not to.

On the other hand, it is from Vivec's account to the Dissident Priests that we get the idea that he had messed with the tools when left alone with them, and of course Vivec has reason to portray Dagoth Ur as insane and unreasonable and corrupted by the Heart to the priests. Perhaps though, Voryn had been faithful and hadn't done anything with them, and was instead unwilling to give the tools to Nerevar because he didn't want them in the hands of the Tribunal, who he believed wouldn't be so noble. Vivec only depicts this as an irrational and power hungry move as projection. On that note, I wish we could've gotten Almalexia and Sotha Sil's account of what happened. I'm sure they'd be just as dubious as Vivec's, but they would've been fun to analyze.

One last thing, I've always been curious about House Dagoth's involvement in the War of the First Council. While the Temple puts them on the side of the Dwemer, it's pretty safe to say this is a form of propaganda to make them look bad after their house was disbanded and essentially erased from history. Other sources give little mention of House Dagoth, but mention their leader, Voryn, as serving under Nerevar, so it's likely the house was on his side as well. I have had the curious idea before though that perhaps House Dagoth, having been more closely aligned and politically/culturally similar to the Dwemer compared to the other houses, had a fracturing caused by the war, with some following Voryn's leadership on the side of the Chimer, and others following the Dwemer. This could explain the conflicting accounts of whose side they were on (ignoring the propaganda angle). But that's more AU than a headcanon.

Anyway, TLDR: it depends! There is no one account that is particularly more canon than others (although i think some are more reliable than others). Different scenarios maximize different drama for different characters, so my interpretation depends on what you want to get out of depicting that battle!

Oh my god I am so sorry this is so long. I'm sure you didn't want this much, but I just have so many thoughts and I figured his would be a good opportunity to vomit them all into the world. If anyone actually read this whole thing, I appreciate you greatly!!

[anjumstar]

Why Katsuki reads as queer coded.

Long before I shipped bkdk, Katsuki read as a queer character to me. Not meaning that Hori was assigning a sexual orientation to him but that he has qualities that parallel or make sense within the common narrative of the (western, I'm reading this through a western lens) queer experience. Here's why:

Disclaimer that this isn't to say that these traits make someone queer or that Katsuki is being intentionally written as queer, it's just reading Katsuki through a queer theory lens 👍

1. Perfectionism

Katsuki, if nothing else, is an incredibly hard worker. It's clear that in middle school, he worked to be at the top of his class. While he's a naturally intelligent and talented guy--as we see with his early skills in both sports and kanji in flashbacks--it's implied that he works for it. He doesn't have to work as hard as Izuku does, but it seems as though he works harder than, say, Todoroki does. I interpret this due to the way he berates his friends for underachieving in class. He knows that he's inherently smart, but he also knows that he achieves what he does via hard work, and so--as with Izuku in the flashbacks--he doesn't understand why his peers don't achieve the same.

Perfectionism is a classic queer-coded trait because it's a shield. If I'm otherwise perfect, no one can hate me for the thing that makes me different. It's a queer impulse to try and disguise "negative" traits with armor in the form of positive traits. You see this in people who are bullied becoming the class clown, for example, using comedy as their armor. If a queer person is afraid of not being loved for who they are, there's an impulse to be valued for what they can offer. This can manifest in overachieving and overcompensating so that they are never looked at with scrutiny, so that they can never be found out.

Katsuki makes himself scrupulous. He has an interest in maxing out every merit-based skill that he can so that he is no longer able to be scrutinized. He even takes advantage of popularity despite not liking people, as it's social capital and makes him more untouchable. He doesn't ever want anyone to look deeper than the skills that he offers. And when this strategy is interrupted, we see--

2. Anger

Anger comes from fear of vulnerability. In the context of the queer experience, this can easily be a reflex to keep people at a distance, as the perfectionism does, and a manifestation of repression. For Katsuki, it's both.

I don't think I need to put much explanation into how anger distances Katsuki from others. People's first impression is to fear him and then either avoid him or follow behind him. This collapses somewhat at UA, where people don't fear him, but it keeps him from forming bonds with people on any other basis than mutual respect. There's not a lot of intimacy like we see in, say, the early Todoroki + Iida + Izuku dynamics.

There's an argument to be made that Katsuki's explosive personality is a nature/nurture mix from his mother. That he's mirroring her behavior and that's basically it. No repression or fear involved. But we don't see enough of his parents/childhood to really spell that out. What we do get a good view of is his early desires from Izuku.

In those aforementioned flashback scenes, we see Katsuki not simply being confused when Izuku is unable to juggle a soccer ball, skip stones, or read kanji--Katsuki is upset by it. He's having strong feelings that he doesn't understand (not necessarily romantic! They're young!) and he covers them with anger. This continues through to middle school, when Katsuki is angry that Izuku is applying to UA, angry when they're paired against each other in the first partner exercise and Izuku has some success, when they're paired together for the final exam. These are BIG feelings and what for?

At first, Katsuki wanted Izuku to be on his same level, in the flashback scenes, and he was let down when Izuku wasn't. Then, after the river scene, Katsuki switches, and wants Izuku to be pushed down, to prove his own superiority in the face of Izuku's inherent goodness. This pairs his need to be perfect with an inability to face his admiration for Izuku. When he begins to see enviable qualities in Izuku, he represses those positive impressions. Whether or not you're reading bnha through a bkdk lens, there is repression here. Katsuki doesn't want to feel that there is something desirable about Izuku, that there's something he could be given by Izuku. That feels unsafe to his sense of self, and hence: anger. Anger, which is a trait also found in--

3. Masculinity

Masculinity is different culture to culture, and I'm not cultured enough to unpack the differences between western and JP representations of masculinity, so we're just gonna cast a wide net here.

Katsuki's parents are fashion designers, yet Katsuki pursues the absolute most violent career path that exists. And yes, this is because being a hero is the best (meaning very public to a young child with the trappings of fame and valor), and because his quirk is compatible with it, but that's not where the story ends.

All Might is Katsuki's role model. And yet, the persona Katsuki takes up is nothing like All Might's. As stated earlier, Katsuki is smart. He's smart enough to recognize that All Might is kind, friendly, generous, and likeable and that those are inextricable parts of his brand. And yet, Katsuki goes out of his way to instead be cold, mean, and unapproachable.

Again, wide net, but these are masculine traits. They keep a person closed off and inaccessible. They make it impossible to get close enough to really see a person. This is the same kind of shield that the perfectionism provides: armor against intimacy and scrutiny.

And, of course, the thing that a man can never be is weak. Weak is feminine. For a man, weakness is queer.

Katsuki's greatest fear seems to be being found out as weak. We begin to see him unpacking this, as he begins to admit to himself that Izuku is stronger than him, but, of course, we also see just how much work goes into him unpacking it. It only comes from honest self-reflection about himself, his bad defense mechanisms, and his relationship with Izuku. With introspection, he fears weakness less.

In conclusion

Queer theory is about heteronormativity and what it means when a person deviates from the norm into queerness. Katsuki's story in bnha is very much one of a character having many layers of armor to make him free from scrutiny, and slowly peeling those off to reveal his imperfections. This is the queer arc of a character being closeted, to a character coming out. Again, it's not to say that Katsuki is literally in the coming out process, it's to say that his narrative arc is a very queer arc, and it always felt that way to me. And, of course, as a bkdk, I see both those original closeting moments and the coming out moments as pretty much all being linked to fundamental interactions with Izuku.

Tbh, this theory is still a little half-baked. I don't know enough about queer theory, and I'm lacking a bit of cultural knowledge to give Katsuki the full breakdown. But before I had a single bnha ship, it was my impression that Katsuki was gay coded, and I've had these thoughts rattling around in my brain for over three years and I finally wanted to get them out (after a previous attempt that tumblr ate, rip). Maybe later on I'll do an analysis about who I think that Deku's experience is all about compulsory heterosexuality, hehe. Thanks for reading!

[lingshanhermit]

Lingshan Hermit: Cultivation Is Nothing More Than Two Things

Once, someone asked me how one should practice cultivation. I told them, "Understand your teacher's words, and then act upon them. That is the entirety of cultivation." Then they asked, "Is it really that simple?" Of course, it is just that simple. But this seemingly simple task is something many may struggle with for an entire lifetime. Because it is not as easy as it sounds. Those who ask, "Is it really that simple?" have probably never truly cultivated. They do not understand how stubborn the human "ego" is, nor how the ego can distort what you hear into something completely different. They do not realize how difficult it is to genuinely trust someone, to completely set aside pride and concerns, and to act exactly as instructed. They do not know themselves and are unaware of the complexities and hardships of cultivation, which is why they believe these two steps are easy to accomplish.

Many people fail to understand their teacher’s teachings. On one hand, this is due to a lack of merit; on the other, it is because their "ego" interferes. When you lack merit, and your teacher says, "Wisdom is more important than morality," what you hear is, "Morality is not important at all. We should not be bound by morality. We must transcend morality, and transcending morality means abandoning it." When you hear, "You don’t need to be perfect; you just need to be yourself," you interpret it as, "You don’t need to listen to anyone else’s nonsense. Don’t care what others think. I’m fine as I am; if you think I have problems, it’s because you have problems."

See? The "ego" distorts what you hear from Buddhist teachings in this way. If you lack merit and proper guidance, it will interfere and turn what should be a weapon to kill the "ego" into a tool to protect it. The "ego" ensures that you misunderstand every sentence. And because most people do not have a true teacher, they rarely have the opportunity to hear the correct interpretation or receive timely corrections. Even those who do have teachers often miss the chance to understand the true meaning of their words for various reasons. Some are hindered by pride. Out of self-esteem, you may hesitate to ask questions in public, unwilling to expose your ignorance. Even when you do ask, you might frame your question differently to avoid damaging your image, asking questions that are not truly what you want to know. You don't want to appear rude, be seen as a troublemaker, or be regarded differently by others. So, you only ask a few surface-level questions to avoid taking up too much of everyone’s time. Here, the "ego" and self-esteem play a crucial role. They prevent us from speaking up, stop us from acting correctly, and block proper communication with our teacher. A mere glance from your teacher can leave you frozen, hesitant to approach. You worry about an uncontrollable situation or fear being treated like the previous questioner—whose question the teacher did not answer but only glanced at silently. Concerned about such awkward moments, you hesitate about whether to ask, and by the time you decide, your teacher has already left.

Although we consider ourselves cultivators and believe our "ego" is not as strong as that of non-practitioners (at least not stronger), the truth is that most people’s "ego" is no different from that of non-practitioners—perhaps even stronger. Like them, we all have a powerful and cunning "ego." This "ego-defense system," honed over billions of years of evolution, is strong enough to subdue anything that threatens it. For many "cultivators," their "ego-defense system" is so powerful it can instantly distort any Buddhist teachings or words from their teacher. When the teacher is teaching, your "ego" acts as a translator, reinterpreting the teacher's words before presenting them to you. After being processed by the "ego," what you hear is entirely different. It may resemble what the teacher said but is harmless to the "ego" and is no longer true Dharma. Yet, we believe it is the Dharma and that it comes directly from our teacher. This happens to many practitioners daily. The reason the "ego" succeeds every time lies partly in the inherent ambiguity of human language, which makes misinterpretation easy, and partly in our own egocentric nature. We love ourselves too much, care about ourselves too much. Because of this self-love, we resist seeking clarification, fearing it makes us look foolish. And because of this self-love, we miss countless opportunities for confirmation. Thus, when the teacher hands you a sword through the hands of your "ego," what you receive is merely the hilt. This is what the "ego" does to you and the Dharma daily. This happens to all of us. We’ve discussed at length how the "ego" distorts and alters the teacher’s words, transforming tools meant to annihilate the "ego" into instruments that protect it, ensuring you never fully understand the truth.

In addition to what has already been mentioned, there is another kind of misunderstanding—not an inability to understand, but an unwillingness to. For example, if your teacher instructs you to recite Guru Rinpoche’s mantra one million times, you may avoid asking how long it will take to complete. By not asking, the task remains open-ended, which pleases your "ego" because it can stretch the timeline indefinitely, delaying its demise. However, if you do ask, you might receive a clear answer like "within two years." This is certainly not what the "ego" wants. You dislike the feeling of being directed. You dislike being arranged, feeling a loss of control over yourself. You feel as though you are being assigned tasks and dislike the lack of autonomy.

When interacting with their teacher, many people like to play word games and hide-and-seek. This is because most of the tasks assigned by the teacher are things they do not want to do—tasks that erode the "ego" and are feared by it. Yet they cannot escape, so their "ego" resorts to tactics of deliberate ambiguity. They avoid fully understanding and resist clarifying the details because doing so would strip away more of their personal space. I have encountered such individuals before—people who never ask questions to clarify things. For a long time, I wondered why they avoided clear answers and specific details. Now, I understand they actually do not want a definitive answer. Clear instructions limit their room for maneuver and make them feel constrained. They dislike clarity and prefer ambiguity because it allows them to interpret the teacher’s words as they please. This way, they can execute tasks based on their own understanding, turning what should erode the "ego" into a resource for the "ego," thereby serving it instead. This is likely why many people avoid seeking clarity. They prefer ambiguity over precision because ambiguity gives their "ego" more room to operate, enabling it to alter the teacher’s requirements.

If you dig deeper into the motives of such people, you’ll find that, deep down, they do not truly trust the person assigning them tasks. Subconsciously, they do not fully believe in the teacher they call their mentor, nor do they believe following the teacher’s instructions will benefit them. They comply because the teacher requires it, and not doing so would violate the teachings—not because they see any substantial benefit for themselves. Sometimes, they make it seem as if they are doing it as a favor to the teacher, as if they are doing it for the teacher’s sake. This is quite peculiar. You seek out a teacher, ask for guidance on the path to liberation, and hope they will help dismantle your "ego." When they assign you tasks to break your habitual tendencies, these tasks often exceed your expectations and are entirely different from what you imagined. You find them unappealing but cannot avoid them, so you reluctantly comply. Over time, you start to feel like you’re doing these tasks for the teacher, as if you’re granting them a favor. This is absurd.

The root of this absurdity lies in not understanding what it means to use the teacher as a path. In Vajrayana, using the teacher as the path means transforming all interactions with the teacher into practice. Whether they ask you to perform 100,000 prostrations, make a silly noise while dining at a Michelin-star restaurant, pinch your sister-in-law’s cheek in front of your wife, or simply sit and peel a basin of garlic—all of these are opportunities for practice. If you carry out the tasks sincerely, your "ego" will weaken, and your habitual tendencies will begin to shrink. This approach uses one person’s fabricated "ego" to crush another person’s genuine "ego." Your "ego" is not allowed to fight back, refuse, or walk away mid-task. If used correctly, this can be the fastest way to dismantle the "ego." However, if misused, it can lead to the worst outcomes.

The "ego" is not an opponent that admits defeat easily. In its battle with the teacher, it is constantly learning, accumulating experience, and becoming increasingly cunning. It learns to exploit loopholes and swap meanings. If the teacher does not explicitly spell out every detail, the "ego" will take shortcuts, skip steps, and perform tasks in ways it prefers—ways that have no impact on its habitual tendencies. Because these methods are familiar to you, they reinforce the "ego" instead of challenging it. Completing the teacher’s tasks in a manner you enjoy or are accustomed to only strengthens the "ego," making it even more robust.

Do you see now how we often engage in a battle of wits with our teacher? As long as instructions are incomplete or leave room for interpretation, the "ego" will exploit these gaps and proceed in its own way. The fundamental reason for this behavior is that we do not truly desire liberation. I believe this is the most important reason. Because you do not genuinely seek liberation, you fail to understand the principles behind the path. You fail to comprehend why the teacher asks you to perform certain tasks. You fail to realize that every interaction with the teacher, in the context of using the teacher as a path, is part of your practice.

Because you lack understanding of these principles, you often perform tasks half-heartedly. When your "ego" is suppressed, you may feel resentment. At times, you might even think your actions have nothing to do with Buddhism, believing you are wasting your time. You might even suspect the teacher is using Buddhism as an excuse to take advantage of you or use you as free labor. This suspicion stems from your lack of interest in liberation. You only wish to use Buddhism to satisfy the "ego," so you lack faith in both the teacher and the teachings. You fail to understand the game rules and principles of liberation through the teacher as a path.

This is why many people cannot understand their teacher’s words or truly follow them. They lack faith in the teacher and the teachings. For the teacher, their doubts never completely cease; they just hide them well. Occasionally, fleeting thoughts arise: "Isn’t he supposed to be a Buddha? Shouldn’t he be free of afflictions? Why did he just seem angry? Why would a Buddha’s car break down? Why would he buy the wrong clothing size? Why does he still get sick? Would a Buddha really act like this?"

As for the teachings, they have all heard the story of Milarepa purifying karma by building houses. In theory, they understand that the Dharma is not just found in scriptures or sutras. A great teacher can use any activity to erode the "ego," and for it to be considered Dharma, it must affect our habitual tendencies. Theoretical knowledge cannot directly attack habitual tendencies; it requires a master of Dharma to apply it to your life for it to have an effect. Otherwise, it remains a useless theory. While people understand this in theory, their attitude changes when it comes to their own lives. Reading about Milarepa’s life might move us to tears, but if you were in his position, the experience would be entirely different.

When the "ego" is besieged and ground down repeatedly, and Mara whispers in your ear, you feel as though you are on a rollercoaster ride, teetering on the edge of madness. You begin to doubt whether your actions have any meaning. You wonder whether this is truly cultivation. You cannot understand how peeling garlic for a meal connects to attaining Buddhahood. But the teacher cannot explain why peeling garlic obediently will lead to enlightenment—because if they do, the practice loses its power. Only when you follow instructions willingly and without understanding why will your actions become true practice and align with using the teacher as a path. This is the game rule.

So, do you still think understanding and acting are easy? Only when you fully trust someone and have no doubts about the path and the teachings will you genuinely want to follow their instructions, no matter how difficult or uncomfortable they may be. But finding someone you can completely entrust your heart to, understanding the path and the teachings, and adhering to instructions are all incredibly challenging tasks that require immense merit.

Written by Lingshan Hermit on December 20, 2024. Published on December 21, 2024.

Copyright Notice：All copyrights of Ling Shan Hermit's articles in Simplified and Traditional Chinese, English, and other languages belong to the natural person who owns "Ling Shan Hermit". Please respect copyright. Publishers, media, or individuals (including but not limited to internet media, websites, personal spaces, Weibo, WeChat public accounts, print media) must obtain authorization from Ling Shan Hermit before use. No modifications to the articles are allowed (including: author's name, title, main text content, and punctuation marks). We reserve all legal rights.

灵山居士：修行不外乎两件事（修订）

以前有人问我修行到底应该是怎么修。我告诉他们：“听懂老师的话，然后去执行。这就是修行的全部。”然后他们问：“就这么简单吗？”当然就是这么简单。但是就是这么简单的事，很多人可能耗费一生时间都做不到。因为这件事完全不像听起来那么简单。能问出“就这么简单吗”的人大概是从未真正修行过。他们不了解人类的“自我”有多顽固，不知道“自我”会把你听到的东西扭曲成什么样子；不知道真正相信一个人真正抛弃面子和顾虑完全照他说的做有多难。他们不了解自己，不知道修行的复杂和艰辛，所以才会觉得这两件事很容易做到。

很多人都听不懂自己上师的话。这一方面是因为他们福德匮乏，另一方面是他们的“自我”在从中作梗。当你缺乏福德的时候，上师说：“智慧比道德更重要”，你听到的就是：“道德一点也不重要。我们不要被道德所约束，我们要超越道德，而超越道德的意思就是抛弃道德。”当你听到“你不需要完美，你只需要做你自己。”时，你听到的是：“不需要听别人放屁，不用理会别人的看法。我很好，我完全没有问题，如果你看我有问题那是因为你有问题。”

看到了吧。“自我”就是这样曲解你所听到的佛法，假如你的福德不够又缺乏正确的引导，它就会从中作梗，就会把本应杀死“自我”的武器变成保护“自我”的武器。“自我”会确保你把每一句话都理解错。而且因为大多数人没有真正意义上的老师，所以他们不会有机会听到正确的解释，更加不可能得到及时的纠正。即便是那些有老师的修行者，他们也会因为各种原因而错失了解这些法语真实涵义的机会。有些人是出于自尊，因为自尊的缘故，你不愿意在众人面前开口问问题，不愿意当众展示自己的无知，即便是问你也会因为担心自己的形象受损而问些并非自己真正想问的问题，你不愿意被当成缺乏礼貌的人，不愿意被当成麻烦，不愿意被人另眼相看。所以你只能简单地问几句以免别人觉得你占用了大家的时间。在这里“自我”和自尊扮演了极为重要的角色。他会阻止我们开口，阻止我们做正确的行为，阻止我们和上师之间建立正确的沟通渠道。本来我们想要去问的，上师的一个眼神就让我们的脚焊在地上了。我们担心出现不可控的局面，担心自己会获得和前一个提问者同样的待遇——他的问题上师并未回答，只是瞟了他一眼没说话。你担心出现这种尴尬场面，所以你还在犹豫自己要不要问的时候，上师已经起身离开了。

虽然我们都自认是修行者，虽然我们也都认为自己的“自我”不强大（至少没有那些不修行的人强大）。但其实大多数人的“自我”和不修行的人并无二致——可能还更强大些——和他们一样，我们都有一个强大又狡猾的“自我”，这个“自我”保护系统经过亿万年的进化已经强大到足以驯服任何对他有威胁的东西。对很多“修行者”而言，他们的“自我”保护系统已经强到可以即时扭曲任何佛言师语。当上师在说法时，你的“自我”会在旁边对上师的话加以翻译然后再传递给你。经过“自我”的翻译和加工，你听到的完全就是另外一套东西。这套东西和上师讲的很相似，但是对“自我”却完全无伤，也根本不是佛法，但我们会以为它是佛法，而且是上师告诉我们的佛法。这就是每天发生在很多修行者身上��事。而“自我”之所以能够屡屡得手，能够每次都成功，其原因在于人类的语言本身就是很模糊的东西，所以它很容易被曲解。另外一个原因是因为我们都是非常“自我”的人，我们太爱自己，太在乎自己。因为爱自己，所以我们很抵触向别人确认，这让我们看起来很蠢；也因为爱自己，我们会搞丢很多可以确认的机会。所以，当上师经由“自我”的手递过来一把利剑，最后到你手里就只剩个剑柄。这就是“自我”每天都在对你对佛法做的事。这样的事情发生在我们每个人身上。关于“自我”是如何篡改如何切割上师的话，如何把那些本应帮助你消灭“自我”的东西���成保护“自我”的东西，如何确保你绝对不会产生正确理解，关于这些我们之前已经讲的很多了。

除了之前所说的，其实还存在着另外一种听不懂。这种听不懂不是真的听不懂，而是不想听懂。如果你的上师跟你说你去念一百万遍莲花生大师的心咒，你绝不会去确认需要多长时间念完。因为假如你不去确认，这件事就没有结束日期，没有结束日期会让你的“自我”很开心，因为它尽可以把时间拉的很长，以延缓“自我”退场的时间。但是假如你去问了，你可能会得到一个类似于“两年内完成”这样的明确答复。这肯定不是“自我”想要的。你不喜欢这种不能自己做主的感觉。你觉得自己被安排了，你不喜欢被安排，不喜欢这种自己不能掌控的感觉。

在和上师互动的时候，很多人喜欢玩这种文字游戏，喜欢和上师捉迷藏。因为上师分派给你的大都是你不想做的，因为那都是对“自我”有磨损的，是你的“自我”所惧怕的。但是你又逃不开，所以“自我”想出的招就是尽量模糊。所以他们不想听懂，更不想把每个细节都确认清楚，因为这会让他们丧失更多的个人空间。以前我遇到过这样的人，他们什么事情都不问清楚。过去我一直奇怪他们为什么不问清楚也不确认细节，现在我知道他们其实并不想要一个太明确的答案。因为那会让他们丧失操作空间，会让他们感觉缚手缚脚。他们不喜欢太明确的东西，他们喜欢模糊一点，这样的话他们就可以肆意解释老师的话，可以按自己的理解去执行，就可以把这件本该消耗“自我”的事变成“自我”的供给站，为“自我”服务。这大概就是为什么很多人不愿意把每件事都问清楚的原因。他们喜欢模糊，不喜欢明确。模糊会让他们的“自我”有更大的腾挪空间，可以篡改上师的要求。

对于这样的人，假如你去深入发掘他们的动机，会发现他们之所以会这样，是因为他们潜意识里并不真正相信眼前的这个给他们派任务的人。在内心深处，他们并不完全相信这个他们称之为上师的人，也不相信照他说的做会带给自己好处。他们会去做，是因为这是上师要求他们做的，不做会违反上师教言，而不是因为他们觉得这么做对自己有多大好处。所以有时候他们会让你感觉他去做是在给上师面子。好像他是在为上师而做一样。这其实相当古怪。你来寻找上师，请求他指示你解脱之道，希望他能瓦解你的“自我”，然后为了击溃你的习气他开始给你分派任务，这些任务有点超乎你的想象，和你预期的完全不一样，你觉得这些不是你想要的，但你又不得不做，所以你做的很不情愿，时间长了你就会觉得你做这些是为他而做，是在给他面子。这实在是很荒谬。而你之所以会产生这种荒谬的想法是因为你并不真的知道什么是以上师为道。在金刚乘里，以上师为道被解释为以上师为修道的方式，把你和上师所有的互动都转为修道，无论是他让你去做十万遍大礼拜还是让你在米其林餐厅一边用餐一边用嘴巴发出放屁的声音或是让你在你老婆面前捏你大姨子的屁股，甚至只是让你坐在那里剥一盆蒜。假如你去做了，去认真执行了，你的“自我”就会被削弱，习气就会开始萎缩。这是用一个人假装出来的“自我”碾压另一个人真实的“自我”。你的“自我”不许还手，不许说不，不许中途退场。假如使用得当，它会是瓦解你“自我”最快的方法。但是假如使用不当，就会产生最不好的后果。“自我”绝非轻易就会认输的对手，在和上师的战斗中，它也在累积经验，而且在变得越来越狡猾。他学会了钻空子，学会了偷梁换柱，假如上师没有明确告知你必须要怎么怎么做，没有具体到每个细节，你就会偷懒，就会省掉很多步骤，就会按你惯常的方式去做，按照你喜欢的方式去做。但是这样做对你的习气毫无冲击。因为那是你习惯的方式。用你习惯的方式喜欢的方式去做上师分派的任务，除了增强“自我”的肌肉让他更加强壮之外不会有任何其他作用。看到了吧，我们就是这样和上师斗智斗勇的。只要没有说到位，只要还有一点没有说到，只要还留下一点空隙，“自我”就会钻空子，就会按他自己的方式做。而我们之所以会这么做，有很多原因，最根本的原因是因为你根本不想解脱，我认为这是最重要的原因。因为你不想解脱，所以你没搞清楚修行解脱的原理，没搞清楚上师让你这么做的原因，没搞清楚在以上师为道的修行中你和他的每个互动其实都是修行。因为你没搞清楚这么做的原理，所以很多事情你都做得很勉强，当“自我”被打压的时候，你还会心生怨怼，在某些时候你甚至会觉得自己做的事情和佛法一点关系也没有，觉得自己是在浪费时间，你甚至怀疑上师是不是在利用佛法作为借口占自己便宜，让自己当免费劳力。而你会这么想的根本原因是因为你对解脱缺乏兴趣，你只想用佛法满足自我，所以你缺乏对上师、对法的信心，也完全没搞明白上师为道的游戏规则解脱原理。这也就是为什么很多人听不懂上师的话，也无法真正执行的根本原因。他们缺乏对上师、对于法的信任。对于上师，他们其实一直都没有停止过怀疑，只是他们会把这些怀疑隐藏的很好。但时不时地，总会有些一闪而过的念头：他不是佛吗？不是应该没有烦恼吗？怎么刚才好像看见他生气了。为什么佛的车子还会抛锚停在半道上？他买衣服还会买错码？为什么他还会生病？佛会这样吗？而对于法，虽然他们每个人都听过米勒日���靠盖房子清净业障的故事。理论上每个人都知道法并不只是法本佛经上那些东西，伟大的老师可以通过任何事情消磨你的“自我”，而所有的法都必须要对我们的习气起作用才能叫法。理论无法直接攻击习气，它必须经由深谙佛法的人用在你身上才能起作用，否则它就只是无用的理论。理论上这些他们全都知道，但事情轮到自己身上他们就不那么想了。阅读米勒日巴的生平故事会让我们感动落泪，但是假如你是当事人米勒日巴，事情就完全不一样了。因为“自我”在被围剿，在被反复搓磨，魔王又时不时趴在你耳边低语，你像是在玩过山车，这让你有点抓狂，让你开始怀疑自己正在做的事情到底有没有意义？到底是不是修行？你想不通坐在那里剥一盆蒜准备大家的饭和成佛之间到底有什么关联。但是上师也不能告诉你为什么你乖乖地坐在那里剥蒜会让你成佛，因为说出来就不灵了。只有你在不知道为什么要这么做还能心甘情愿老老实实的去做的前提下，你做的这一切才能变成你的修行，才能是以上师为道。这就是游戏规则。

所以，现在你还觉得听懂做到很容易吗？我们只有在完全信赖一个人、完全对法道没有怀疑的前提下，才会想要按他说的做——即便那样非常难受。但是无论是找到一个全心托付的人、还是了解法道、还是依教奉行，都是无比艰难之事，都需要巨大的福德。

灵山居士写于2024年12月20日。首发于2024年12月21日。

[jrbenvs3000f24]

Week 5: Nature Interpretation Through Science

I was glad this week to have the opportunity to decide on a topic for ourselves, especially when studying nature interpretation through science. Scientific inquiry has always been the lens I most enjoy employing when viewing the natural world. From a young age, as any parent can tell you, we are all predisposed to asking “why?” whenever observing any natural phenomenon for the first time. This natural childlike curiosity is the basis for the scientific method, and I think, one of the most beautiful and profound ways of understanding nature.

I think this idea is counter-intuitive to some people, who see the natural world in the same way they see a magic trick. It’s interesting because it's mysterious, and to reveal the underlying mechanisms would dispel some of its beauty. For some people, hearing a lecture about ornithology might seem a perfectly good way to ruin a peaceful afternoon of bird watching. As we’ve learned, people learn in different ways, and every individual experiences nature differently. For some, understanding nature may not be about a scientific understanding of its workings, but about a meaningful connection.

In general, when picturing a scientific approach to nature interpretation we would tend to associate this with the field of biology. After all, nature is full of living things, the domain of the biologist. For me, one of the most fascinating ways to interpret our planet is at the cosmological level, through astronomy. Though it may seem strange to study our planet by looking pointedly away from it, a consideration of our universe I think offers a profound appreciation for our incredible earth. If we stop for a moment to really consider the vast emptiness around us. The cold, unforgiving landscape of space is the starkest contrast against our home planet. A home teeming with life and natural history, the only place that we know that can support not just us, but every living thing we’ve ever discovered.

My favorite piece of nature interpretation of all time is a discussion of this contrast, of our place in the universe. It’s one you’ve likely heard before, but if you haven’t I’ll embed it here and I can’t implore you enough to spend 3:26 listening to the late great Carl Sagan. This excerpt is from The Pale Blue Dot, a book well worth reading in its entirety. But this is by far the most famous portion. Narrated by Sagan himself, it still gives me goosebumps every time I listen. 

In 1990, Sagan was working for NASA on the Voyager mission. Voyager 1 had finished its exploration of the outer reaches of our solar system and was passing out of Neptune’s orbit. Sagan was the one to first propose taking one final image of our solar system, looking back towards the earth. It was risky, the instrumentation on the craft is sensitive to solar radiation, it risked damaging equipment. Instructions sent to the craft were slow and complicated to transmit, it would be expensive. And it held no objective scientific merit. It wouldn’t tell us anything new, there was no discovery to be made. It's goal was interpretive. It was, and remains to this day, the furthest distance photograph ever taken of our planet. It was taken as a form of nature interpretation: to show humans an accurate depiction of our planet’s place in the cosmos.

[tawakkull]

SPIRITUALITY IN ISLAM: PART 1:  INTRODUCTION

Sufism has been defined in many ways. Some see it as God’s annihilating the individual’s ego, will, and self-centeredness and then reviving him or her spiritually with the lights of His Essence. Such a transformation results in God’s directing the individual’s will in accordance with His Will. Others view it as a continuous striving to cleanse one’s self of all that is bad or evil in order to acquire virtue.

Junayd al-Baghdadi, a famous Sufi master, defines Sufism as a method of recollecting “self-annihilation in God” and “permanence or subsistence with God.” Shibli summarizes it as always being together with God or in His presence, so that no worldly or other-worldly aim is even entertained. Abu Muhammad Jarir describes it as resisting the temptations of the carnal self and bad qualities, and acquiring laudable moral qualities.

There are some who describe Sufism as seeing behind the “outer” or surface appearance of things and events and interpreting whatever happens in the world in relation to God. This means that a person regards every act of God as a window to “see” Him, lives his life as a continuous effort to view or “see” Him with a profound, spiritual “seeing” indescribable in physical terms, and with a profound awareness of being continually overseen by Him.

All of these definitions can be summarized as follows: Sufism is the path followed by an individual who, having been able to free himself or herself from human vices and weaknesses in order to acquire angelic qualities and conduct pleasing to God, lives in accordance with the requirements of God’s knowledge and love, and in the resulting spiritual delight that ensues.

Sufism is based on observing even the most “trivial” rules of the Shari'a in order to penetrate their inner meaning. 

An initiate or traveler on the path (salik) never separates the outer observance of the Shari'a from its inner dimension, and therefore observes all of the requirements of both the outer and the inner dimensions of Islam. Through such observance, he or she travels toward the goal in utmost humility and submission.

Sufism, being a demanding path leading to knowledge of God, has no room for negligence or frivolity. 

It requires the initiate to strive continuously, like a honeybee flying from the hive to flowers and from flowers to the hive, to acquire this knowledge. The initiate should purify his or her heart from all other attachments; resist all carnal inclinations, desires, and appetites; and live in a manner reflecting the knowledge with which God has revived and illumined his or her heart, always ready to receive divine blessing and inspiration, as well as in strict observance of the Prophet Muhammad’s example. Convinced that attachment and adherence to God is the greatest merit and honor, the initiate should renounce his or her own desires for the demands of God, the Truth.

After these [preliminary] definitions, we should discuss the aim, benefits, and principles of Sufism.

* Sufism requires the strict observance of all religious obligations, an austere lifestyle, and the renunciation of carnal desires. 

Through this method of spiritual self-discipline, the individual’s heart is purified and his or her senses and faculties are employed in the way of God, which means that the traveler can now begin to live on a spiritual level.

* Sufism also enables individuals, through the constant worship of God, to deepen their awareness of themselves as devotees of God. 

Through the renunciation of this transient, material world, as well as the desires and emotions it engenders, they awaken to the reality of the other world, which is turned toward God’s Divine Beautiful Names. Sufism allows individuals to develop the moral dimension of one’s existence, and enables the acquisition of a strong, heartfelt, and personally experienced conviction of the articles of faith that before had only been accepted superficially.

The principles of Sufism may be listed as follows:

1. Reaching true belief in God’s Divine Oneness and living in accordance with its demands.

2. Heeding the Divine Speech (the Qur'an), discerning and then obeying the commands of the Divine Power and Will as they relate to the universe (the laws of creation and life).

3. Overflowing with Divine Love and getting along with all other beings in the realization (originating from Divine Love) that the universe is a cradle of brotherhood.

4. Giving preference or precedence to the well-being and happiness of others.

5. Acting in accord with the demands of the Divine Will not with the demands of our own will and living in a manner that reflects our self-annihilation in God and subsistence with Him.

6. Being open to love, spiritual yearning, delight, and ecstasy.

7. Being able to discern what is in hearts or minds through facial expressions and the inner, Divine mysteries and meanings of surface events.

8. Visiting spiritual places and associating with people who encourage the avoidance of sin and striving in the way of God.

9. Being content with permitted pleasures, and not taking even a single step toward that which is not permitted.

10. Struggling continuously against worldly ambitions and illusions, which lead us to believe that this world is eternal.

11. Never forgetting that salvation is possible only through certainty or conviction of the truth of religious beliefs and conduct, sincerity or purity of intention, and the sole desire to please God.

Two other elements may be added: acquiring knowledge and understanding of the religious and gnostic sciences, and following a perfected, spiritual master’s guidance. Both of these are of considerable significance in the Naqshbandiyah Sufi order.

It may be useful to discuss Sufism according to the following basic concepts, which often form the core of books written on good morals, manners, and asceticism, and which are viewed as the sites of the “Muhammadan Truth” in one’s heart. They can also be considered lights by which to know and follow the spiritual path leading to God.

The first and foremost of these concepts is wakefulness (yaqaza), which is alluded to in the Prophetic saying (hadith): 

My eyes sleep but my heart does not, and in the saying of ‘Ali, the fourth Caliph: Men are asleep. They wake up when they die. 

[evelhak]

What are some series (any media) that aren't well known, but you enjoy, and would encourage other people to seek out?

I love this topic! Thank you for stopping me from aimless scrolling for another hour. It's always a little hard to determine what is well known but I'm just gonna have to go with my surroundings, so I'm gonna talk about some that I've never seen anyone mention on any social media.

Jean le Flambeur series by Hannu Rajaniemi

I feel like it should be quite well known, but maybe it's just not in the spaces I'm in or with people my age. But this is a very intricate and suspenseful sci-fi book trilogy by a Finnish author who writes in English. It begins with a thief trapped in a virtual prison. It's highly conceptual in the design of its world and the author is definitely not holding your hand explaining how everything works, but for me it was part of the charm and a wild and satisfying experience, it really sparked my imagination when I was attempting to visualize it all, and I didn't mind if I didn't understand everything because interpretation is the whole point of reading for me. The characters are also complex enough for a character driven taste. If you are looking for something that is highly stimulating for an abstract thinker, try it.

Syysmaa-sarja by Anu Holopainen

Sorry, this is just in Finnish... and the reason I never see anyone talking about it may just be that every Finnish fantasy nerd read it ten or more years ago like me. Although it would be nice seeing younger people find it now! It's a very overtly feminist fantasy series of 6 books, where people are divided into religions that worship a different tree. The mainstream worships oak which is very patriarchal, and the books focus on people (often women, queer or neurodivergent coded people) in very different and difficult life situations, who come in contact with a small group of rowan worshippers who are trying to create possibilities for a different kind of life and society. These were my favourite fantasy books as a teenager.

Lumikki Andersson series by Salla Simukka

These books have English translations, I don't know what quality, because I only read them in Finnish. But it's a YA "thriller" trilogy you should not read as thriller. It's a character driven modern Snow White with elements of thriller and mystery. Lumikki Andersson is not clear on everything that happened in her past, but she doesn't want to be a target so she has mastered the art of appearing insignificant and uninteresting in any given situation by impressive micro level acting and analysing people's every gesture. The main character is the point of this series and her internal world and observations are wonderfully written. If you like old mystery and gothic novels, if you read Sherlock Holmes for the character, if you love fairytales and satisfying analogies, you should read these poetic and insightful explorations on personality, trauma and survival.

Charity Bishop's books

These are speculative fiction books with a Christian twist, so proceed with caution if you need to. I got into them when I was studying theology and wrote my master's degree analysing different concepts of God in self-published Christian fiction. I am not religious and my interest in religion is psychological and anthropological and as such I often find fiction books written by religious people about religion interesting. In terms of literary merit, I've found these books to be the most enjoyable ones I've read in this genre, with well developed characters and plots where faith works as an organic part of the whole speculative element instead of the story just being a tool for preaching which is quite common in this genre.

I was going to do more than just books but I got tired now, so good night Tumblr. 💙 I'm always ready to give recommendations.

[vmures]

Thinking about Teen Wolf and it's funny (funny-strange, not funny-haha) to me how vicious some of the meta and discourse gets and how defensive people get over their favorite characters. Then you add in fanon and fandom creep with a nice dash of "this is how I understood that scene and that is the only way it can be understood (aka my headcanon is canon)," and you get a hot mess of ugliness.

Of the episodes I've watched, pretty much everyone on the show is a dick at one point or another, which tracks because they're teenagers and I remember the horrors of puberty and emotions all over the place. I find most of the fully adult characters worse because they don't have the excuse of youth--with its general lack of experience and fluctuating hormones. But there is not a single person who doesn't have several scenes where you go "wow, that was a dick move." And if you really look at the actions and words of the characters, there isn't anyone particularly nurturing either.

Stiles has those he considers his and he'd probably burn the world down for them, but most everyone else he can care less about. We do see moments where he does go out of his way to help someone not necessarily his (the scene in the library with the kanima and him running over to check on Erica comes to mind). Scott does try to look after others, even strangers, but also has moments where he blatantly manipulates those around him for his own gain (he blatantly uses Danny at the dance in season one to keep Finstock from kicking him out of the dance and the implication, at least to me, was that he knew Finstock wouldn't make a scene about kicking out Danny's date for fear of seeming homophobic). You can find examples of kindness and assholishness from each and every character is this show and the tendency trends towards asshole for all of them. Different types and varying levels of assholes, but still assholes. But you know what? That is okay. They're very human characters in that regard. Every single person on the planet has someone who thinks they are an absolute dick. Their complexity makes them fun to write.

But just because they're all assholes in their own way, doesn't mean I have to like them all. Just like shows that are comprised of characters that flip this metric (mostly nice with moments of dickishness) can have characters that just don't vibe with you. Just like in real life there are foods you don't like, music that isn't to your taste, and people who just grate on your nerves for one reason or another. It's just a matter of personal preference. The world would be very boring if we all liked the same things and reacted the same to everything.

So some people like some characters and focus on those points of view and their takes on the characters may be wildly divergent from your own, but it doesn't necessarily make them wrong. Where it gets even more tricky is the fandom creep and headcanons as canon additions. Because if you are willing to debate the merits and behavior of a character and you cite something that doesn't ever happen on screen, some are going to get frustrated because they don't see that as canon. We all have to add conjecture about what happened off screen to make a story make sense, but that is still conjecture and it's going to vary widely from person to person since everyone views a story through their own experiences and issues.

Sadly we seem to have culturally misplaced the art of debate and the notions of civility. In particular the "agree to disagree" notion where each side acknowledges that they are unlikely to persuade the other side and people move on to other things rather than rehash the same material over and over or devolve into outright harassment and suicide baiting. Muting tags and blocking people who frequently have takes you can't stand is so much better for your peace of mind.

So that's my take. I do not think this is the only way to interpret things, but it is one of the ways you can interpret it and it's what shapes my headcanons when I write. You can have different takes, but I am not required to agree with them and you are not required to agree with mine.

[birlwrites]

You mention mind magics sometimes, and how some family specialties are mind magics, but how well known/practiced are things like Occlumency or Legilimency practiced by the general public?

I don't know if Dumbledore being a Legilimense is well known, but even if it isn't, Occlumency is very useful for keeping secrets, especially ones as important as a Dark Arts study group at Hogwarts. Does every member have to learn at least the basics before they can really start studying anything? Or how does that work?

okay i was JUST talking about this so i'm going to copy-paste something from the comments of ch 58 of ttdl, then elaborate a little

(this originated as responding to a question about how much mind magic barty knows, the post shall get long so putting in a cut!):

he knows the basics, although he's no master - with the kind of dark arts that he's interested in (see nonsense abstruse) regulus figured it was a good idea to make sure he knew what he was doing on at least an intermediate level (if you think of it like. beginner, intermediate, advanced, expert)

how much mind magic someone knows in the dark network really depends on what sort of magic they're doing - obviously there are the mind magic families who are experts, but other than that it tends to be on an as-needed basis. the blacks learn it Very aggressively as a proactive defense measure against their specialty, but most families aren't like that, because most families have nice specialties that don't kill them oopsies

there is one thing mind magic is always great for, though, and that is lying to law enforcement! so barty was definitely going to learn it anyway - the fact that he went 'hm, i think i'm interested in brain-altering dark rituals' just doubled the importance (and meant that regulus held him to a much higher standard re: the skills he did learn, lmao)

but barty only really knows a very internally-focused occlumency - like, he's not prepared for a mental attack the way regulus or theophania nott are, but that's not out of the ordinary. occlumency takes a lot of work to learn and to be good at, so people generally learn it in a targeted way - focusing on exactly what they need to know and getting good at that. and barty's focused on keeping his mind in order, so it's a good thing he had regulus around to teach him, because that's also what regulus learned to do (just to a much more intense and flexible degree)

outside of the dark network, mind magic is significantly less common, because most people just have no reason to learn it (or at least, not one that's good enough to merit the boredom of it aghjslfkshdj). legilimency isn't a common tool for the DMLE, because it relies a lot on interpretation on both sides, and memories can be altered - even if they're altered poorly (like slughorn re: horcruxes), such that it's obvious that changes were made, that doesn't mean you know the truth about what happened

so crouch sr has no reason to know anything about mind magic, really, beyond the fact that it exists and it's annoying

in general anyone studying dark arts will pick up bits and pieces of occlumency as they go - being able to clear your mind is very important if you're doing any sort of elemental casting, for example, because otherwise you're gonna fuck some shit up the second you get emotional. but most dark arts don't fuck with you yourself on that level, so most people don't devote a lot of time to learning occlumency/mind magic for the sake of learning mind magic. it's definitely not unheard of, and it's not even all that unusual, but it's just more common for people to focus their time on something else since mind magic is a time-consuming skill and clearing your mind alone takes a lot of boredom and frustration and practice

OKAY END COPY PASTE. NOW MORE THOUGHTS

occlumency is good for keeping secrets *when confronted with a mental attack,* which is a very rare experience - mind magic in general just doesn't seem that common in canon, and it's difficult on top of being obscure

mind magic is VERY well-known in the dark network and generally considered to be basic best practice when you're fucking around with dark magic, but outside of the dark network it's very uncommon - note that there's no mind magic class offered at hogwarts (and, in general, no really self-focused magic is taught there)

so i'd say, sure, knowing occlumency definitely doesn't *hurt* your ability to keep secrets, but most people aren't in the sort of situation where they'd need it. legilimency isn't admissible evidence in court, and most people never make eye contact with albus dumbledore or even stand particularly close to him ajflsghljksdfd

so the focus within the dark network with mind magic is on how it protects you from the dangerous magic you're messing with, as opposed to law enforcement (unless you're barty who lives with crouch sr and must become a Flawless liar)

the general public doesn't really know much about mind magic (which has one foot on the side of 'illegal' already), and dumbledore being a legilimens is not well-known - IMO it's something he learned in his grindelwald days, and then kept honing when he realized how common it was for dark arts practitioners to learn occlumency

TL;DR:

people normally learn occlumency as needed to protect their minds from whatever magic they're practicing, as opposed to needing to learn occlumency before they can start practicing dark arts at all. outside of the dark network, it's not a well-known branch of magic

[chenvs3000f24]

Blog #6: The past influences your future

In the modern world, development is frequently pictured as a straight line, a train travelling forward on a level track in the direction of a better future. What occurs, though, if we choose to overlook and forget the hiccups, detours, and difficult passages of the past that influenced our path? The significance of remembering the past is aptly captured by the following quote:

There is no peculiar merit in ancient things, but there is merit in integrity, and integrity entails the keeping together of the parts of any whole, and if these parts are scattered throughout time, then the maintenance of integrity entails a knowledge, a memory, of ancient things. …. To think, feel or act as though the past is done with, is equivalent to believing that a railway station through which our train has just passed, only existed for as long as our train was in it.

The concept of integrity is timeless.

The core notion of Hyams' message is that integrity is about wholeness rather than merely being truthful or morally upright. Even if some of the story's elements span generations or even decades, it's important to maintain everything cohesive and ensure that they're all related. The present loses its basis when the past is absent, and the future turns into a house of straw.

Why we are unable to forget the past, just as a train cannot forget its course:

What if we take a slightly different approach to how we understand this quote? What if the train itself had to learn from the rough sections of the track it met, rather than merely traveling through stations of the past?

As it travels over tracks influenced by historical occurrences and cultural shifts, the train stands for the advancement of society. Rough portions represent conflicts and crises, whereas smooth sections represent peace and progress. The ride becomes challenging when the train encounters these rocky sections, but these difficulties also present important teaching opportunities. Ignoring the bumps would make it impossible to rectify the track's shortcomings, just as ignoring the unpleasant experiences of our past makes it more difficult for us to deal with and grow from them.

Forgetting the past = missed important developments

The idea of this emphasizes objective authenticity by tying historic moments to other tangible objects (Beck et al., 2018).

Think of it this way: if a train derails on a track because of a preventable problem and the cause is forgotten, the train will derail again on the same track. It can, however, steer clear of the same error in the future if it recalls what led it astray. Similarly, we will inevitably repeat past mistakes if we disregard them.

Building a better train

A train cannot make the necessary adjustments to function properly in the future if it forgets its rocky history. The same is true of human advancement. We must actively work to improve upon the negative experiences rather than merely avoiding them in the future. Every historical lesson contributes to the construction of a stronger, more resilient train that is better prepared to face obstacles in the future.

References:

Beck, L., Cable, T. T., & Knudson, D. M. (2018). Interpreting cultural and natural heritage for a better world (1st ed.). Sagamore Publishing.

[flints-black-spot]

I've recently seen a few people talking about media literacy in relation to Flint's sexuality and labels and figured I'd throw in my two cents on the discourse that seems to pop up every few months.

Because, I honestly think it does a disservice to Black Sails as a whole to focus on "gay vs. bi Flint" because like... does it matter? if Flint only has attraction to men, that doesn't change the fact that he's canonically, willingly, had sex with women (namely Miranda). But, on the other end of the spectrum, it's just as important to recognize how, societally and culturally, gender is a construct, which will inherently mean that sexuality is fluid! Flint can be a gay man with some level of attraction to women (hell, the majority of the fandom agrees that Anne is a lesbian, yet she's clearly in love and has sexual attraction to Jack, and that doesn't take away from her lesbianism!), and that attraction doesn't make him any less of a gay man! Or he could be bisexual, and that doesn't take away anything from the overarching narrative of his queer relationship with Thomas! The focus on a single 'correct' interpretation of his sexuality, in my mind, takes away from what the show is really trying to say about sexuality, which isn't the "this way" or "that way" to be queer, but the overarching connection that struggle and strife can bring to a community. (For a similar issue, see James Baldwin's response to critics arguing whether the main character from his novel Giovanni's Room is gay or bisexual, his response is incredible.)

And, on the other hand, it's also not entirely accurate or even fair to try and ascribe modern labels and perceptions of queerness to a character that existed long before those terms were even coined? In Flint's time, homosexuality was something a person did, not who a person was. While, yes, his queerness is inherent to his journey as a character, and he very clearly views it as a part of his identity, it's also very much worth noting that two things (homosexual love and desire, and heterosexual love and desire) can coexist, and not either way take away from his narrative as a whole.

Finally, then, there's the common thread of 'media literacy' in determining Flint's label (which, again, I honestly think is just a non-issue because it has such little impact on anything in meta discussions?). To present an opinion like "Flint is gay" is an example of an interpretation, one which can and should exist among others! To have a single, 'correct' interpretation of a piece of media, especially one like Black Sails, is an inherently flawed idea, because every interpretation should have its own merit on its own. Flint can be both bi and gay, and both arguments have perfectly equal weight, but in the end, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of Black Sails meta. Either way, Flint is queer, and that queerness was a defining feature of his character for the rest of the show. To assign such importance to "gay or bi" just feels unimportant.

[megabuild]

i've had a lot of time to think in the last few days about a lot of things, but for whatever reason what i keep coming back to right now is that same topic of the special place mcrp occupies somewhere simultaneously in and out of fiction and the inherent nebulous nature of a series like that, where some interactions are labelled as explicit out of character and some explicit in character and some are written roleplay and some are improv and already i'm starting to lose my train of thought just figuring out where to start explaining this but like, stay with me for a minute.

humans by default will seek pattern and sort things into little boxes because it feels good to organise, it's nice to label and set things aside in the "right" order, and that's everywhere, so naturally it's in mcyt too. we have c! and cc! and we have "lore" and theories and if a cc takes notice and "canonises" that then it's cause for celebration. everything is a callback to something. everything is a parallel to something. and there is fun in all of this! i'm not for one second suggesting there is not merit in this behaviour because i enjoy it myself and there is always merit in art and what humans create and enjoy because if there wasn't then what would life be worth living for yknow? but mcyt like i said before is a special case because the way it's designed is inherently muddied and so fans have a habit of cutting bits up and saying well this was canon and this wasn't, this is just friends having fun and this is the story, and everyone has different views on where that boundary lies. and- this is the important part, everyone has different views on what that all means, and that comes in a lot of different ways. so obviously you have people who are casual fans or younger viewers or just not interested in wider potential storylines who might watch an episode of grian's limited life smp and go "hey, this is a group of youtubers having fun" and then you also have people on the other end who view every interaction as canonical and rigid and character based, and then you have all sorts of people in between because i don't think any one mcyt fan will have the exact same opinions on anything and they fucking shouldn't is the point i'm trying to get to here. and this isn't just that but also not caring if someone interprets a dynamic differently or has a different headcanon or, like, maybe they disagree with what the ccs have said is "canon" and maybe they thought the ending to one series sucked and maybe they really like a decision you didn't, and the objective level on whether or not those decisions and series were actually good writing doesnt matter, yknow? i'm not going to sit and shoot down the narrative choices some ccs have made with their "canon lore" or when they "confirm" popular fan theories because at the end of the day it's also human creation but it's also like, i have the space to criticise that and interpret it however i want.

a long time ago i got complaints because i interpreted pixlriffs' empires series as a metaphor for very serious mental illness and it turned me away from creating content for a while despite it being something i loved, but now it's like, well, what the fuck? how can you be a mcyt fan and not look at what other people are making, given that it's not harmful or disrespectful, and think to tear it down when at the end of the day we're all just looking for different meaning in videos of a video game? i don't hate "canon lore" or "popular fanon" but i hate this constant push that it's the one true meaning. there is something special in it all as it being something created by people as a group like a patchwork of a little bit of all our brains but also the search for a definitive meaning and story in any of this will exhaust you, because you will never get something rigid from a media form that is anything but.

so just do whatever the fuck you're doing and what your friends and the artist you look up to and the blogger you follow are doing and stop trying to tuck it into little neat folders in the hopes that the cc will like it because while ccs can make good content and have as much a right to their own character and content as any of us it's also like, the exact opposite of what mcyt has always been to me to try and apply that meaning to a meaningful canon. i had more fun retroactively interpreting things from hermitcraft season 5 and 7 then i ever have with 8 and onwards. and then ccs turn around and play the same lore they were just trying to appeal to and profit from as a joke and it's like fuck man, i'll just kill myself, but anyway- all this to say that you're all wonderful people, mostly, and perhaps i'm just overly emotional and trying to get something out of my head and failing but please don't fall into the trap of thinking you have to comply to canon or seek out the exact meaning or only care about what other people want to care about because that's not the point, that's not the fucking point. and i fucking hate lore.

[tawakkull]

ISLAM 101: Spirituality in Islam: Part 173

What is sufism?

Sufism has been defined in many ways. Some see it as God’s annihilating the individual’s ego, will, and selfcenteredness and then reviving him or her spiritually with the lights of His Essence. Such a transformation results in God’s directing the individual’s will in accordance with His Will. Others view it as a continuous striving to cleanse one’s self of all that is bad or evil in order to acquire virtue.

Junayd alBaghdadi (d. 910), a famous Sufi master, defines Sufism as a method of recollecting “selfannihilation in God” and “permanence or subsistence with God.” Shibli summarizes it as always being together with God or in His presence, so that no worldly or otherworldly aim will even be entertained. Abu Muhammad Jarir describes it as resisting the temptations of the carnal self and bad qualities, and acquiring laudable moral qualities.

There are some who describe Sufism as seeing behind the “outer” or surface appearance of things and events and interpreting whatever happens in the world in relation to God. This means that people regard every act of God as a window through which they can “see” Him, live their lives as a continuous effort to view or “see” Him with a profound spiritual “seeing” that is indescribable in physical terms, and with a profound awareness of being continually overseen by Him.

All of these definitions can be summarized as follows: Sufism is the path followed by individuals who, having been able to free themselves from human vices and weaknesses in order to acquire angelic qualities and conduct pleasing to God, live in accordance with the requirements of God’s knowledge and love, and experience the resulting spiritual delight that ensues.

Sufism is based on observing even the most “trivial” rules of the shari’a in order to penetrate their inner meaning. An initiate or traveler on the path (salik) never separates the outer observance of the Shari’a from its inner dimension, and therefore observes all of the requirements of both the outer and the inner dimensions of Islam. Through such observance, this person travels toward the goal in utmost humility and submission.

Sufism, being a demanding path that leads to knowledge of God, has no room for negligence or frivolity. It requires the initiate to strive continuously, like a honeybee flying from the hive to flowers and from flowers to the hive, to acquire this knowledge. The initiate should purify his or her heart from all other attachments; resist all carnal inclinations, desires, and appetites; and live in a manner reflecting the knowledge with which God has revived and illuminated the heart, always ready to receive divine blessing and inspiration, as well as in strict observance of the Prophet Muhammad’s example. Convinced that attachment and adherence to God is the greatest merit and honor, the initiate should renounce his or her own desires for the demands of God, the Truth.

Sufism requires the strict observance of all religious obligations, an austere lifestyle, and the renunciation of carnal desires. Through this method of spiritual selfdiscipline, the individual’s heart is purified and his or her senses and faculties are employed in the way of God, which means that the traveler can now begin to live on a spiritual level.

Sufism also enables individuals, through the constant worship of God, to deepen their awareness of themselves as devotees of God. Through the renunciation of this transient, material world, as well as the desires and emotions it engenders, they awaken to the reality of the other world, which is turned toward God’s Divine Beautiful Names. Sufism allows individuals to develop the moral dimension of their existence, and enables the acquisition of a strong, heartfelt, and personally experienced conviction of the articles of faith that before they had only accepted superficially.

[hosette]

There’s this old myth about Doctor Who that says every companion only exists to scream and be saved (Classic Who) or serve as an exposition tool (NuWho), and while there’s some true to that, I think it’s a little reductionist and fails to account for the relationship between the Doctor and their companions, which changes very often and is key to the success of the show and whatever Doctor is on the screen, so I came up with this:

I think, historically, you can definitely organize Doctor Who companions and their function on the show on a three-headed spectrum of 1. Has the emotional intelligence the Doctor lacks, 2. is incredibly competent in their field, which makes them very valuable when shit goes down, and 3. just loves the absolute shit out of the Doctor and believes in them more than anything. Every companion has some level of those three qualities (specially 3) but they place on different points on that spectrum depending on the character and what each Doctor needs out of their companions and what works best them.

So for example you have the prototypical archetypal companions of each side of that spectrum

Type 1 are characters like Rory, Donna, Jo Grant, who are usually there to remind the Doctor of what is like to not be a Time Lord, that they have the responsibility to help people and to care, and, ultimately, ground the Doctor..

Type 2 have some of most of the heavily underrated companions like Martha and Zoe Heriot, and some recognized to be the best ever like Sarah Jane, Jack, Ace... these often do not need the Doctor to get shit done and have many stories in which they are on their own. They’re very good fighters or extremely intelligent or both, and curiously I found that this archetype happened a lot more in classic who then it does in nuwho.

And, finally, Type 3, who are ones who are better and make the Doctor better because of their special bond. I don’t think any companion is a better example of that than Amy, but there’s also characters like Peri Brown, Jamie McCrimmon and Rose Tyler.

These also somewhat reflect the roles of the 3 original companions: Barbara (Type 1), Ian (Type 2) and Susan (Type 3).

Of course these characters aren’t set to a specific role and they can develop and grow, they might even change where they place depending on the season or the Doctor they’re with. Some might even be prototypical of two different types, like Yaz (2 & 3), or Victoria (1 & 3) or Clara (arguably all 3). But overall I think this is a good baseline to understanding how companions actually work on Doctor Who.

So if you put everything on a graphic, you end up with something like this (NuWho only), which is definitely not entirely accurate and is up to interpretation and discussion, but is a good illustration of what I mean.

I don’t think any type of companion is necessarily better than the other but I do think there’s some relevant observations that can be taken from this, like 3 out of the 5 white men to have been companions in NuWho serving as a morality guide for the Doctor, or the argument that the reason why Clara is so controversial is because she fluctuates so much inside this spectrum, going from genius (Asylum), to the Doctor’s emotional and moral guide (Day of the Doctor, series 8), to the Doctor’s best friend ever (series 9) - I say this a big fan. I also didn’t get into how effective each companion is in their roles, which is definitely a big factor, but it’s also a lot more subjective, so I’m not touching that. There’s not value placed here, it’s just a simple interpretation of the text.

Anyway, this isn’t a perfect system, and maybe there’s more to be added or taken from this, but I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this and I do think it has some merits. At the very least it’s a lot better than the simplification of ‘screams for the doctor or not’.

[be-gay-do-heists]

hello yall :) the holy month of elul started last night, which is typically a time for contemplation, so since it is impossible for me to stop thinking about leverage, i decided to write an essay. hope anyone interested in reading it enjoys, and that it makes at least a little sense!! spoilers for leverage redemption

-----

Leverage, Judaism, and “Doing the Work”: An Essay for Elul

When it comes to Elul and the approaching High Holidays, Leverage might seem like an odd topic to meditate on.

The TNT crime drama that ran from 2008-2012, and which released a new season this summer following its renewal, centers on a group of found-family thieves who help the victims of corporations and oligarchs (sometimes based on real-world examples), using wacky heists and cons to bring down the rich and powerful. In one episode, the team’s clients want to reclaim their father’s prized Glimt piece that had been stolen in the Shoah and never returned, but aside from this and the throwaway lines and jokes standard for most mainstream television, there’s not a ton textually Jewish about Leverage. However, despite this, I have found that the show has strong resonance among Jewish fans, and lots of potential for analysis along Jewish themes. This tends to focus on one character in particular: the group’s brilliant, pop culture-savvy, and personable hacker, Alec Hardison, played by the phenomenally talented Aldis Hodge.

I can’t remember when or where I first encountered a reading of Hardison as Jewish, but not only is this a somewhat popular interpretation, it doesn’t feel like that much of a leap. In the show itself, Hardison has a couple of the aforementioned throwaway lines that potentially point to him being Jewish, even if they’re only in service of that moment’s grift. It’s hard to point to what exactly makes reading Hardison as Jewish feel so natural. My first guess is the easy way Hardison fits into the traditional paradigms of Jewish masculinity explored by scholars such as Daniel Boyarin (2). Most of the time, the hacker is not portrayed as athletic or physical; he is usually the foil to the team’s more physically-adept characters like fighter Eliot, or thief Parker. Indeed, Hardison’s strength is mental, expressed not only through his computer wizardry but his passions for science, technology, music, popular media, as well as his studious research into whatever scenario the group might come up against. In spite of his self-identification as a “geek,” Hardison is nevertheless confident, emotionally sensitive, and secure in his masculinity. I would argue he is representative of the traditional Jewish masculine ideal, originating in the rabbinic period and solidified in medieval Europe, of the dedicated and thoughtful scholar (3). Another reason for popular readings of Hardison as Jewish may be the desire for more representation of Jews of color. Although mainstream American Jewish institutions are beginning to recognize the incredible diversity of Jews in the United States (4), and popular figures such as Tiffany Haddish are amplifying the experiences of non-white Jews, it is still difficult to find Jews of color represented in popular media. For those eager to see this kind of representation, then, interpreting Hardison, a black man who places himself tangential to Jewishness, in this way is a tempting avenue.

Regardless, all of the above remains fan interpretation, and there was little in the text of the show that seriously tied Judaism into Hardison’s identity. At least, until we got this beautiful speech from Hardison in the very first episode of the renewed show, directed at the character of Harry Wilson, a former corporate lawyer looking to atone for the injustice he was partner to throughout his career:

“In the Jewish faith, repentance, redemption, is a process. You can’t make restitution and then promise to change. You have to change first. Do the work, Harry. Then and only then can you begin to ask for forgiveness. [...] So this… this isn’t the win. It’s the start, Harry.”

I was floored to hear this speech, and thrilled that it explained the reboot’s title, Leverage: Redemption. Although not mentioned by its Hebrew name, teshuvah forms the whole basis for the new season. Teshuvah is the concept of repentance or atonement for the sins one has committed. Stemming from the root shuv/shuva, it carries the literal sense of “return.” In a spiritual context, this usually means a return to G-d, of finding one’s way back to holiness and by extension good favor in the eyes of the Divine. But equally important is restoring one’s relationships with fellow humans by repairing any hurt one has caused over the past year. This is of special significance in the holy month of Elul, leading into Rosh haShanah, the Yamim Noraim, and Yom Kippur, but one can undertake a journey of redemption at any point in time. That teshuvah is a journey is a vital message for Harry to hear; one job, one reparative act isn’t enough to overturn years of being on the wrong side of justice, to his chagrin. As the season progresses, we get to watch his path of teshuvah unfold, with all its frustrations and consequences. Harry grows into his role as a fixer, not only someone who can find jobs and marks for the team, but fixes what he has broken or harmed.

So why was Hardison the one to make this speech?

I do maintain that it does provide a stronger textual basis for reading Hardison as Jewish by implication (though the brief on-screen explanation for why he knows about teshuvah, that his foster-parent Nana raised a multi-faith household, is important in its own merit, and meshes well with his character traits of empathy and understanding for diverse experiences). However, beyond this, Hardison isn’t exactly an archetypical model for teshuvah. In the original series, he was the youngest character of the main ensemble, a hacking prodigy in the start of his adult career, with few mistakes or slights against others under his belt. In one flashback we see that his possibly first crime was stealing from the Bank of Iceland to pay off his Nana’s medical bills, and that his other early hacking exploits were in the service of fulfilling personal desires, with only those who could afford to pay the bill as targets. Indeed, in the middle of his speech, Hardison points to Eliot, the character with the most violent and gritty past who views his work with the Leverage team as atonement, for a prime example of ongoing teshuvah. So while no one is perfect and everyone has a reason for doing teshuvah, this question of why Hardison is the one to give this series-defining speech inspired me to look at his character choices and behavior, and see how they resonate with a different but interrelated Jewish principle, that of tikkun olam. 

Tikkun olam is literally translated as “repairing the world,” and can take many different forms, such as protecting the rights of vulnerable people in society, or giving tzedakah (5). In modern times, tikkun olam is often the rallying cry for Jewish social activists, particularly among environmentalists for whom literally restoring the health of the natural world is the key goal. Teshuvah and tikkun olam are intertwined (the former is the latter performed at an interpersonal level) and both hold a sense of fixing or repairing, but tikkun olam really revolves around a person feeling called to address an injustice that they may have not had a personal hand in creating. Hardison’s sense of a universal scale of justice which he has the power to help right on a global level and his newfound drive to do humanitarian work, picked up sometime after the end of the original series, make tikkun olam a central value for his character. This is why we get this nice bit of dialogue from Eliot to Hardison in the second episode of the reboot, when the latter’s outside efforts to organize international aid start distracting him from his work with the team: “Is [humanitarian work] a side gig? In our line of work, you’re one of the best. But in that line of work… you’re the only one, man.” The character who most exemplifies teshuvah reminds Hardison of his amazing ability to effect change for the better on a huge stage, to do some effective tikkun olam. It’s this acknowledgement of where Hardison can do the most good that prompts the character’s absence for the remainder of the episodes released thus far, turning his side gig into his main gig.

With this in mind, it will be interesting to see where Hardison’s arc for this season goes. Separated from the rest of the team, the hacker still has remarkable power to change the world, because it is, after all, the “age of the geek.” However, he is still one person. For all that both teshuvah and tikkun olam are individual responsibilities and require individual decision-making and effort, the latter especially relies on collective work to actually make things happen. Hardison leaving is better than trying to do humanitarian work and Leverage at the same time, but there’s only so long he can be the “only one” in the field before burning out. I’m reminded of one of the most famous (for good reason) maxims in Judaism:

It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you free to neglect it. (6)

Elul is traditionally a time for introspection and heeding the calls to repentance. After a year where it’s never been easier to feel powerless and drained by everything going on around us, I think it’s worth taking the time to examine what kind of work we are capable of in our own lives. Maybe it’s fixing the very recent and tangible hurts we’ve left behind, like Harry. Maybe it’s the little changes for the better that we make every day, motivated by our sense of responsibility, like Eliot. And maybe it’s the grueling challenge of major social change, like Hardison. And if any of this work gets too much, who can we fall back on for support and healing? Determining what needs repair, working on our own scale and where our efforts are most helpful, and thereby contributing to justice in realistic ways means that we can start the new year fresh, having contemplated in holiday fashion how we can be better agents in the world.

Shana tovah u’metukah and ketivah tovah to all (7), and may the work we do in the coming year be for good!

------

(1) Disclaimer: everybody’s fandom experiences are different, and this is just what I’ve picked up on in my short time watching and enjoying this show with others.

(2) See, for example, the introduction and first chapter of Boyarin’s book Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man (I especially recommend at least this portion if you are interested in queer theory and Judaic studies). There he explores the development of Jewish masculinity in direct opposition to Christian masculine standards.

(3) I might even go so far as to place Hardison well within the Jewish masculine ideal of Edelkayt, gentle and studious nobility (although I would hesitate to call him timid, another trait associated with Edelkayt). Boyarin explains that this scholarly, non-athletic model of man did not carry negative associations in the historical Jewish mindset, but was rather the height of attractiveness (Boyarin, 2, 51).

(4) Jews of color make up 20% of American Jews, according to statistics from Be’chol Lashon, and this number is projected to increase as American demographics continue to change: https://globaljews.org/about/mission/. 

(5) Tzedakah is commonly known as righteous charity. According to traditional authority Maimonides, it should be given anonymously and without embarrassment to the person in need, generous, and designed to help the recipient become self-sufficient.

(6) Rabbi Tarfon, Pirkei Avot, 2:16

(7) “A good and sweet year” and “a good inscription [in the Book of Life]”