Solitude – a pre-history

In searching for a prototype modern hermit, one is confronted by the reality that after the Middle Ages, hermits in modernity were destined by authorities to disappear. In order to survive, eremitism transformed into solitude, and hermits transformed into solitaries.

Unlike historical hermits, however, who seem so similar regardless of geography, culture, or era, solitaries present more variable phenomena. Life styles of modern solitaries depend more on circumstance and personality. Solitaries were not necessarily more accesptible to society, but at least were more readily disassembled and concealed.

Today, the topic of solitude is standard fare in popular psychology. Even the most aloof bureaucrat to the most troubled artist is tolerated for solitary behavior, indeed, even redeemable and rewarded for eccentricity and showmanship. In offering solitude to their audiences, columnists bid us to cultivate solitude as a preliminary to big events: athletic, business, legal, artistic, or personal. Solitude is treated as a homeopathic remedy: not too much such as to appear strange, but just enough of a suggestive remedy to overcome a lack of confidence or mettle, a meditative moment before embarking on stress.

How far solitude has come in the modern mindset, stripped from its roots and mental character, far away from eremitism. Thus, pop psychology plays a contradictory theme. Solitude in small doses is good for a fighting spirit, but too much solitude is neurotic and dangerous habit. Too much solitude leads to loneliness, isolation, and depression — a chief malady of the old, we are told, who do not socialize enough. The goal of the populoar adviser is often mercenary and views solitude flippantly yet like a prescription. How can one approach solitude not as a temporary remedy but a “lfestyle” that does not undermine itself? Can its link to erenmitism be restored or reconstructed?

A useful model for beginning this project is found in psychologist Carl Jung’s 1931 essay on “The Stages of Life.” In this essay, Jung moves through the individual’s psychological stages, but within the context of the perennial factors of Nature versus Culture. Here the danger of oversimplification also obscures the real context of our lives and the stage of life. Nature is not merely heredity but the autonomy of the growing person to come into contact with Nature and its context of universals. This is where each life stage discovers not only its self-interests but its relationship to our universe. In contrast, Culture (what some writers call Nurture, a midsleading term) is society, relationships, institutions, ideologies,in short, all the binding contrivances that we encounter in the stages of life, their character and impact relevant to the moment, intertwining their contrived content with the capacities and vulnerabilities of the individuial in the given culture. This presentation by Jung gives full reckoning with the influences of stages or situations, so that we cannot think of stages outsideof the context of material and cultural contexts. We cannot make the stages mere abstrctions. We can never know the content of the psyche without understanding that Culture is not merely a context but is content, depending on the individual.

This is all prelude to understanding solitude. Solitude could come out of the individual will, but it also emerges in relation to Culture, so that we are obliged to ask why this phenomenon of solitude, why now at this stage, why in this social context what it is? Could it not have been different? In fact, is it different elsewhere? Resisting the temptation to dismiss solitude as subjective also means resisting the temptation to view solitude as social failure or unintention, society letting down its guard. Revisting Jung restores complexity, but also reinstates simplicity, addressing the inner and outer factors while inviting us to look at their conjunction, the conjunction of what the individual is made of and what society is really all about.

All of these factors were, ironically, visited by the Rousseau versus Hobbes debate about human nature. Jung refreshes the debate with a subtle presentation of the psyche that neither Enlightenment progenitor coulod have addressed. Rousseau, however, was quite willling to concretize the historical chasms; Jung merely goes back and illustrates them with logic from psychology. All that’s needed is to plug the hermit of history into the conversations.

Zen snippets

Here are a few favorite random snippets from Zen resources:

from Iron Flute.
14. Pai-Yun’s poem:
Where others dwell,
I do not dwell.
Where others go, 
I do not go.
This does not mean to refuse association with others;

I only want to make 
black and white distinct.
*****
from Gateless Gate.
19. “Everyday Life is the Path.”
Joshu asked Nansen: “What is the path?'”
Nansen said: “Everyday life is the path.”
Joshu asked: “Can it be studied?'”
Nansen said: “If you try to study it, you will be far away from it.”
Joshu asked: “If I do not study it, how can I know it is the path?”
Nansen said: “The path does not belong to the perception world, neither does it belong to the nonperception world. Cognition is a delusion and noncognition is senseless. If you want to reach the true path beyond doubt, place yourself in the same freedom as the sky. You name it neither good nor not-good.”
At these words Joshu was enlightened.
*****
[Added poem to 19. “Everyday Life is the Path.”]
In spring, hundreds of flowers;
in autumn, a harvest moon;
In the summer, a refreshing breeze;
in winter, snow will accompany you.
If useless things do not hang in your mind,
Any season is a good season for you.
*****
from Gateless Gate.
24. “Without Words, Without Silence.”
A monk asked Fuketsu: “Without speaking, without silence, how can you express the truth?”
Fuketsu observed: “I always remember springtime in southern China. The birds sing among innumerable
kinds of fragrant flowers.”
*****
from Iron Flute.
67. Genro:
The whole world is my garden.

Birds sing my song;

Winds blow as my breath;

The dancing of the monkey is mine;

The swimming fish expresses freedom;
The evening moon is reflected
In one thousand lakes,

Yet when the mountain hides the moon,
All images will be gone

With no shadow remaining on the water.
I love each flower representing spring
And each colorful leaf of autumn.
Welcome the happy transmigration!
*****
88. Yüeh-shan’s Lake.
Nyogen: “Zen monks like to dwell intimately with nature.
Most Chinese monasteries were built in the mountains or by a lake. Zen records many dialogues between teacher and monks concerning natural beauty, but there must also be many monks who never asked questions, simply allowing themselves to merge with nature. They are the real supporters of Zen — better than the chatterboxes with all their noise in an empty box.
*****
89. Hsüeh-fêng’s Wooden Ball.
Nyogen: When Yüan-wu gave a lecture on Hsüeh-tou’s selected koans and poems, he criticized one phrase after another, then published them all in book form under the title, Pi- yen-chi, or Blue Rock Collection. After his death, his disciple, Ta-hui, gathered all the publications together in front of the temple and made a bonfire of them. What the teacher builds in shape must be destroyed by the disciples in order to keep the teachings from becoming an empty shell. Western philosophers create their own theory, then followers continue to repair the outer structure until it no longer resembles the original. In Zen we say, “Kill Buddha and the patriarchs; only then can you give them eternal life.”
*****

A passing recluse

An acquaintance of an acquaintance indicates that a relation, a man nearly forty years old, has passed away. This man was scorned by family, rejecting of society, and clearly suffered much trauma. He was autistic, reclusive, anxious, depressed, obsessive-compulsive, suffered diabetes and cardiac issues, dying of heart failure. He eked out a life dependent on disability funds, and lived in a basement.

His life presents the involuntary solitude born of psychological trauma, brought low by illness, not at all conscious or deliberate solitude. The basement, an inexpensive hovel sufficient for his circumspect needs, was reflective of his entire self. Yet he had enlisted himself as an organ donor, perhaps because he despised his body, or because he played a final trick on the world, showing them that he was capable of “caring” wherein “they” were not. No one knows.

One cannot help but note an analogy to the famous basement dwellers of recent literature: Dostoyevsky’s anonymous denizen of Underground, and Ellison’s hapless Invisible Man. In literature, the subtleties of psychology are not over-analyzed. We are presented with a seamless lot of syndromes and maladies, to be accepted as a literary package, with the off-goal of entertainment, even as the authors hope for deeper appreciation of their protagonists and how they might reflect issues of the day.

But in the case of the afore-mentioned acquaintance, there is no reflecting or speculating. He is known-of and gone in the same instance. One might have imagined conversing with such a person (though it is said that he insulted anyone who came too close). How far away from the imagined cave-dwelling historical hermits, for example, Paul of Thebes, who would receive others and converse with them, if only to chide them about their tolerance of their worldly milieu. We have no right to inquire too much, but with our literary protagonists we can only nod and think that, yes, given their premises, they were bound to turn out the way that they did. Can we say as much to justify ourselves?

Insects, wisdom, poets

We often ascribe personality and character traits to animals: courage to lions, wisdom to owls, cheerfulness to beavers, for example. Simon & Garfunkel’s popular 1967 song “At the Zoo” offers a clever rendering: “The monkeys stand for honesty / giraffes are insincere / and the elephants are kindly but they’re dumb…”

Seldom are insects included among the popularized animals; their simplicity and lowliness ascribes no traits to them. But their lowliness has attracted pensive poets who respect the humility of insects and derive insight from the ways of these creatures. In the West, the Romantic poet Keats is usually cited for his poem “On the Grasshopper and the Cricket,” but the impact of the poem is probably based on its eccentricity. The Japanese poet Issa is an excellent representative of the poetic subject, often citing spiders, fleas, flies, cicadas, butterflies — and crickets – especially if we make cicadas the poetic equivalent of crickets. Another poet and observer is Mary Oliver, a closer contemporary looking at the cricket (more below).

For Issa, insects, like us, are subject to birth: “First cicada. life is cruel, cruel, cruel.”
Insects eke out a life: “Don’t kill the fly — it wrings its hands, its feet.” Sometimes insects are companionable: “Daybreak — working as one, two butterflies.” Sometimes they are even exuberant: “Moment of fierceness in the first butterfly.” But we know their fate, and ours: “Autumn cicada — flat on his back, chirps his last song.” The insects teach us quietly, humbly: “Weaving butterfly, I am no more than dust.” May they remain our companions always: “When I go, guard my tomb well, grasshopper.”

Mary Oliver perceives all that Issa does in her poem “Nothing is Too Small Not to Be Wondered About,” from her 2016 book Felicity.

The cricket doesn’t wonder if there’s a heaven
or, if there is, if there’s room for him.
It’s fall. Romance is over. Still, he sings.
If he can, he enters a house through the tiniest crack under the door.
Then the house grows colder.
He sings slower and slower.
Then, nothing.
This must mean something, I don’t know what.
But certainly it doesn’t mean
he hasn’t been an excellent cricket
all his life.

Bassui’s Zen and Eremitism

A characteristic of institutional religions, east and west, is consolidation of scripture and doctrine into ritual.

This is especially conspicuous for Westerners seeing the evolution of Christianity into a set of founding narratives followed by evolution of doctrine and rote ritual, primary institutions of church and monasteries, and the providence of bishops, priests, abbots, and monks. In the same way, eastern instances show that the chief institution is the monastery, and the presentation and condification of scripture, doctrine, and ritual comes to dominate.

The institutions in either Buddhism or Christianity present a dilemma for the historical hermit who arises out of either tradition. In the Zen tradition of Japan, the dilemma is expressed by contrasting the eremitic tendency, which concentrates on self-awareness and methods such as meditation, with the monastic tendency concentrating on successfully handling koans promoting instant enlightenment. In Japan, Rinzai Zen masters dominated the monastic institutions and drilled their novice monks with koans. Whether the monastery was large or small, the methodology came to dominate, as did the authoritarianism of the masters, who saw violence in word and action as legitimate tools of instruction or fostering of cirrect answers.

Dissent from this approach harkened back to the Japanese master Dōgen (1200-1253), the founder of Soto Zen. An example of these contemporary tensions is found in the life of Zen master Bassui (1327-1387).

Bassui was born questioning the customs and beliefs of his time; as a four-year-old child at his father’s funeral, seeing the food offerings presented, he wondered how his father would eat the food. Told that his father’s soul would receive the offerings, young Bassui asked what is the soul. And when Bawsui became a monk at twenty, he refused to wear monk’s robes because — he said — he became a monk to understand the great issues of life and death, not to wear robes. Later, after an enlightenment experience, confirmed by multiple masters, Bassui built a hermitage in the mountains, the first of many for the next seventeen years!

As Bassui translator Arthur Braverman has noted: “Bassui was very critical of the Rinzai practice of studying koans, perhaps because they were becoming more and more formalized, hence losing their original spirit. He seems to have been attracted to the Soto sect for its stress on being attentive to all one’s everyday activities.”

And in a famous letter written toward the end of his life, Bassui writes: “The gurgle of the stream and the sigh of the wind are the voices of the master. The green of the pine, the white of the snow, these are the colors of the master, the very one who lifts the hands, moves the legs, sees, hears. One who grasps this directly without recourse to reason or intellection can be said to have some degree of inner enlightenment. But this is not yet full enlightenment.”

It is not full enlightenment, concludes Bassui, but may be sufficient to end rebirth in one’s successive lifetime (thus addressing a representative doctrine). But when one does attain this point, one will see “that all the sermons of the Buddhas are nothing more than metaphors that point to the minds of ordinary people.”

Bassui’s emphasis on the ordinariness of mind, of self-disipline, of insight, refreshingly transformed Zen into the tool it became for art, expression, simplicity, appreciation of nature, and enlightenment. His apprroach was the fruit of eremitism combined with the inspiration of the great master Dōgen.

URL: https://www.hermitary.com/articles/bassui.html

Frazer’s strange hermits

Sir James George Frazer (1854-1941) is known for his multi-volume work: The Golden Bough: a Study in Magic and Religion. Although often described as anthropology, the voluminous title better represents the genre of folkloric anthologizing, collecting of stories and myths, more akin to Andrew Lang than Claude Levi-Strauss, Mircea Eliade, or even Joseph Campbell. The title was first puboished in1890,eventually appearing in three editions, twelve volumes, and a supplement, the last publication being in 1936.

With so many volumes and years for further research and emendations,then, why are there only two instances of “hermits” mentioned? The strange tales are both set in Southeast Asia, and repeated several times in subsequent volumes. Here they are:

1. In volume 1 of the first edition, in a chapter labeled “Departmental Kings of Nature” is the following:

“In the backwoods of Cambodia live two mysterious sovereigns known as the King of the Fire and the King of the Water. Their fame is spread all over the south of the great Indo-Chinese peninsula; but only a faint echo of it has reached the West. Down to a few years ago no European, so far as is known, had ever seen either of them; and their very existence might have passed for a fable, were it not that till lately communications were regularly maintained between them and the King of Cambodia, who year by year exchanged presents with them. Their royal functions are of a purely mystic or spiritual order; they have no political authority; they are simple peasants, living by the sweat of their brow and the offerings of the faithful. According to one account they live in absolute solitude, never meeting each other and never seeing a human face. They inhabit successively seven towers perched upon seven mountains, and every year they pass from one tower to another. People come furtively and cast within their reach what is needful for their subsistence. The kingship lasts seven years, the time necessary to inhabit all the towers successively; but many die before their time is out. The offices are hereditary in one or (according to others) two royal families, who enjoy high consideration, have revenues assigned to them, and are exempt from the necessity of tilling the ground. But naturally the dignity is not coveted, and when a vacancy occurs, all eligible men (they must be strong and have children) flee and hide themselves. Another account, admitting the reluctance of the hereditary candidates to accept the crown, does not countenance the report of their hermit-like seclusion in the seven towers. For it represents the people as prostrating themselves before the mystic kings whenever they appear in public, it being thought that a terrible hurricane would burst over the country if this mark of homage were omitted. Like many other sacred kings … the Kings of Fire and Water are not allowed to die a natural death, for that would lower their reputation. Accordingly when one of them is seriously ill, the elders hold a consultation and if they think he cannot recover they stab him to death. His body is burned and the ashes are piously collected and publicly honoured for five years. Part of them is given to the widow, and she keeps them in an urn, which she must carry on her back when she goes to weep on her husband’s grave.”

2. In the first edition of volume 2, in a sectiopn titled “External Soul in Folktales,” is the following:

“In a Siamese or Cambodian story, probably derived from India, we are told that Thossakan or Ravana, the King of Ceylon, was able by magic art to take his soul out of his body and leave it in a box at home, while he went to the wars. Thus he was invulnerable in battle. When he was about to give battle to Rama, he deposited his soul with a hermit called Fire-eye, who was to keep it safe for him. So in the fight Rama was astounded to see that his arrows struck the king without wounding him. But one of Rama’s allies, knowing the secret of the king’s invulnerability, transformed himself by magic into the likeness of the king, and going to the hermit asked back his soul. On receiving it he soared up into the air and flew to Rama, brandishing the box and squeezing it so hard that all the breath left the King of Ceylon’s body, and he died.”

Chickadees

Blck-cpped chickdee

By late December, when black bears have experienced a couple of significant snowfalls, and bear hibernation is assured, the black-capped chickadee utters its first modest cheeps. It’s feeder time, they suggest. Once established, chickadees will routinely visit the same feeder at the same hours, going through the rituals of appeasement and displacement as the core groups assemble around the feeder.

The chickadee is not a spectacular bird: a droll black, white, and, gray. Nor is winter it’s song season, naturally. What the chickadee excels at during winter is resilience. Born in spring, the chickadee will thrive in summer and fall, then prepare for winter hunkering down in a tree hollow or other safe place. Its seasonal home becomes its essential refuge in winter. One only imagines how this lowly bird can survive winter in a treehole! Resilient is as modest a characteristic as the bird itself — how can it survive sub-zero freezing conditions, even to leave their hollows and take their turn at a feeder without succumbing to weather that easiy overwhelms a comparably dressed human being? See chickadees hovering around a feeder while snow falls is unintentionally a spectacular sight.

Another characteristic of modesty is found in a simple comparison of the chickadee to other songbirds. The chickadee’s song is a modest several cheeps, essentially saying its name, sufficiently audible in moderate seasons, though not particularly melodious. While the poets of Japan celebrated the hototoguisu (cuckoo) for its haunting song, that is not a bird to be seen from its forest recesses, frustrating those who ever hope to view it. This is the hototoguiso’s strength or charm, after all, for its haunting song in Asian forests suggests mystery. The chickadee will pose no rivalry to the great songbirds.

Thoreau does not mention the chickadee, but the naturalist-popularizer John Burroughs (1837-1921), writing in his book Birds and Poets, declares the chickadee to be

“a truly Emersonian bird, and the poet [Emerson] shows him to be both a hero and a philosopher. Hardy, active, social, a winter bird no less than a summer, a defier of both frost and heat, lover of the pine-tree, and diligent searcher after truth in the shape of eggs and larvae of insects, preëminently a New England bird, clad in black and ashen gray, with a note the most cheering and reassuring to be heard in our January woods. I know of none other of our birds so well calculated to captivate the Emersonian muse.

“Emerson himself is a northern hyperborean genius — a winter bird with a clear, saucy, cheery call, and not a passionate summer songster. His lines have little melody to the ear, but they have the vigor and distinctness of all pure and compact things. They are like the needles of the pine — ‘the snow loving pine’ — more than the emotional foliage of the deciduous trees.” …

“Softly — but this way fate was pointing,
‘T was coming fast to such anointing,
When piped a tiny voice hard by,
Gay and polite, a cheerful cry,
Chick-chickadeedee! saucy note,
Out of sound heart and merry throat,
As if it said ‘Good day, good sir!
Fine afternoon, old passenger!
Happy to meet you in these places,
Where January brings few faces. …
Softly — but his way fate was pointing.
T’was coming fast to such anointing,
When piped a tiny voice hard by,
Gay and polite, a cheerful cry,
Chick-chickadeedee! saucy note,
Out if sound heart and merry throat,
As if it said ‘Good day, good sir!
Fine afternoon, old passenger!
Happy to meet you in these places,
Where January brings new faces.’”

Thus does Burroughs celebrate the lowly but indomitable and resilient chickadee. He notes that chickadees are “more or less complacent and cheerful during the winter.” But he holds that chickadees are reliant in winter because they find sufficient insects regardless of cold and freezing conditions.

“It is doubtful if these birds ever freeze when fuel enough can be had to keep their little furnaces going. And, as they get their food entirely from the limbs and trunks of trees, like the woodpeckers, their supply is seldom interfered with by the snow. The worst annoyance must be the enameling of ice our winter woods sometimes get … Indeed, the food question seems to be the only serious one with the birds.”

Is a share of seeds with the chickadees an extravagance? The birds are sociable — or at least, they live in society — and our sharing is a form of sociability. Without that proffering they would be silent and aloof in the woods, oblivious to human presence. Opportunism is the lowest motive we can ascribe to their interest in the seeds put out for them. Where the Japanese depicted the hototogishu as virtual hermit-artists or musicians aloof in the woods, pursuing their art as counterparts of the hermit poets, so, too, the chikadees, like Burroughs – and Emerson in his best solitude essays – remain aloof and never share a morsel with their human counterparts, just a musical morsel in the balmy summers of life.

Like all creatures, chickadees reflect the melancholy reality of impermanence. We see dozens of birds a day but how to distinguish them individually in the future? Is it not so with humanity, even as we lament over the fates of so many? The chickadee lives about a year and a half. Born in spring, robust in summer, reflective in autumn, they then undergo their first winter. Many of the chickadees at the feeder are doubtless of this age. If they survive the winter we would know of the progress of their modest time of life.
Then spring and summer return, their time to reproduce, to share their wisdom (if such could be done!). Like the leaves (but not, as Emerson celebrates, the leaves of the pine), autumn represents the waning of life, of the animating spark. Neither the hardwood leaves nor the the older chickdees will live another winter. How many birds at the feeder this morning will succumb, will pass away, in another year? We only know that the flow of life will continue. And tht the chickadees, so indistinguishable one bird from another, will not reveal their secrets for resilience, nor articulate their thoughts to us.

Gardens

The formal gardens of history were never intended to be places of respite and tranquility, rather the opposite. The formal gardens of Mesopotamia, Persia, later Spain and France, among others, were secluded spaces projecting the power of its resident monarch or autocrat, the aloofness and protected status of emperor and court.

Though the Garden of Eden was described as Paradise, the origin word “paridaiza” is the Persian term for “walled,” as in walled garden, a paradise for the ruler but not for a subject. The image of Eden depends upon its naive residents, not on the architect Yahweh, for its benignity.

The formal gardens are noted for symmetry and imposing dimensions, a large,forbidding landscape where ornament and artifice reign. For example, Xenophon records (in his book The Economist, 1 16-23) an anecdote of Lysander visiting Cyrus, the Persian emperor, and walking with the latter in his formal garden:

Lysander, it seems, had gone with presents sent by the Allies to Cyrus, who entertained him, and amongst other marks of courtesy showed him his ‘paradise’ at Sardis. Lysander was astonished at the beauty of the trees within, all planted at equal intervals, the long straight rows of waving branches, the perfect regularity, the rectangular symmetry of the whole, and the many sweet scents which hung about them as they paced the park. In admiration he exclaimed to Cyrus: “All this beauty is marvellous enough, but what astonishes me still more is the talent of the artificer who mapped out and arranged for you the several parts of this fair scene.” Cyrus was pleased by the remark, and said: “Know then, Lysander, it is I who measured and arranged it all. Some of the trees,” he added, “I planted with my own hands.” Then Lysander, regarding earnestly the speaker, when he saw the beauty of his apparel and perceived its fragrance, the splendour also of the necklaces and armlets, and other ornaments which he wore, exclaimed: “What say you, Cyrus? Did you with your own hands plant some of these trees?” whereat the other: “Does that surprise you, Lysander? I swear to you by Mithres, when in ordinary health I never dream of sitting down to supper without first practising some exercise of war or husbandry in the sweat of my brow, or venturing some strife of honour, as suits my mood.” “On hearing this,” said Lysander to his friend, “I could not help seizing him by the hand and exclaiming, ‘Cyrus, you have indeed good right to be a happy man, since you are happy in being a good man.'”

Doubtless such conversations surrounded all of the monuments of imperial antiquity up to the present, for the formal gardens are not sources of food but confections flattering their resident and owner, reflecting the imagined wisdom of king and emperor. The walls keep curious onlookers and peasants out, as much as do the castle walls, the fortress walls, the palace court, and the dungeons.

We are a long way from simplicity, even from aesthetics. The formal garden is vulgar, pompous, and completely unnatural. Symmetry projects the appearance of marching troops. Walls repel outsiders and nature itself, while imprisoning subjects and oher creatures. We should not admire “paradises.” Will we pine after them when they are inevitably lost? Expend our energies maintaining them for someone else, or for some ideal or vanity? We are better left cultivating our garden, imitating nature, then looking at someone’s else and longing for it rather than working on ours.

The Taoists of ancient China wanted their rulers to be anonymous, because their pompous edifices were not to be seen, indeed, did not exist. The Taoist Tillers school proposed that the king not have his own fields and forests, let alone gardens, but work shoulder to shoulder with peasants in the field. Shen-gong, the mythical first king of the Chinese, was lauded for being a healer, herbalist, and farmer — unseen by anyone, so perfectly did the kingdom function.

Contrast the formal garden, too, with the simple hermit’s hut: Kamo no Chomei, describing his hut, casually notes: “To the north of my little hut I have made a tiny garden surrounded by a thin low brushwood fence so that I can grow various kinds of medicinal herbs.” Adding, “Such is the style of my unsubstantial cottage.” The Buddhist monk-hermit and poet Ryokan considered Dogen’s “celestial garden” too abstract, too formal, instead celebrating wildflowers and even the weeds that offended Dogen so much.

How, then, to “garden”? Grow what is essential, edible (even flowers), nourishing, and substantial. Let scale and dimension reflect need, not excess or appearance. Mingle vegetables with flowers in conviviality. Establish perennials, for they will establish themselves forever (well, for a few years!) and return in greeting every spring to celebrate the passage of time and tenacity. Let all flourish, picking what is to be consumed the same day. Let nature express aesthetics, without too much human contrivance. If there are rock borders let them be overrun by creeping thyme. If there are walls, let flowering vines flourish climbing them, as if to mock the false boundary between nature and gardener. Individual bed spaces will be overlapped by prolific and flourishing plants. Let those plants that demand space be given their due, that they may reciprocate. Adding space is better than constricting self-development.

Here is a snippet about the garden, by Kahlil Gibran, from his “Sand and Foam”:

In the autumn I gathered all my sorrows and buried them in my garden. And when April returned and spring came to wed the earth, there grew in my garden beautiful flowers unlike all other flowers. And my neighbors came to behold them, and they all said to me, “When autumn comes again, at seeding time will you not give us of the seeds of these flowers that we may have them in our gardens?”