MDMD(8) Christ's true Pity

[Christine Karatnytsky]

Quoth Steve:

>The use of Dogs in Maire's analogy may allude to the L.E.D. or to the
>gospel story mentioned by Vaska, or to both, but I wouldn't go so far 
>as Vaska's claim that "Fr. Maire...is definitely referring to that New
>Testament episode." 

Indeed.  I think the statement is a clear allusion to Learned, which was
part of the point of my question, especially in light of the rest of the
text I cite.  I read "Christ's true pity" (used ironically by Pynchon, as
I say, given Maire's tone) as an analogue for "Mu."  The discussion
becomes one of  contrasts--the established, hierarchical religion of the
Holy Roman and Apostolic Church with its "usual hollow desires for
Authority and mindless O-bedience" vs. the anarchistic, heretical
comforts offered by an enchanted and buddha-natured Dog--"nothing
Ministerial, please."   Bless him.  While Christ's true pity *in it's
essence* is as authentic as the koan's "mercy," I believe the point is
being made in favor of Learned.  Goodness knows, Mason and Dixon don't go
off dreaming at the end of Maire.  (That'd be more like poor little
Stephen Dedalus's experience listening to the sermon.)  More than any
biblical allusion, for me Learned recalls the famous story of the saint
Yudhisthira in the Mahabharata.

Briefly (it'd better be):  During their pilgrimage to the Himalayas, the
queen Draupadi and her bothers the Pandavas die, being insufficiently
pure to enter the abode of God in their human bodies.  Yudhisthira, the
royal saint, journeys on, accompanied by his faithful dog.  When he
arrives at heaven, he is turned away by Indra, the king of the gods, who
tells him that the dog is not allowed to enter.   Yudhisthira and Indra
argue, as the former will not abandon *any* creature which loves, trusts
and relies upon him.  Both Yudhisthira and the dog are finally admitted
into heaven, upon which the dog is revealed as Dharma himself.  (Do I
remember this correctly?) 

I think Learned is Dharma.  Remember page 756 (spoiler alert, for any who
need it), when M&D encounter a "Norfolk Terrier, of memorable
Appearance," and  Meg Bland asks:

"What' ll his name be?"

"Fang," says Mason.

"Learned," says Dixon.

The Dog ignores both, as if his true Name is one they must guess.


This would be the name of God, I'd say.  At the end of this chapter,
Learned, the true prophet, reveals, "The next time you are together, so
shall I be with you."  This is a clear reference to their impending
deaths, as well as to the afterlife.  Interesting that as the novel
closes, Rebekah "with[draws] into Silence eventually complete," and Mason
and Dixon are united in an "eternal union [....]:  another kind of love."
 (Lawrence, Women in Love, p. 473, Viking)  What happens when your "mate"
dies is not the same as "what happens when your Mate dies."   It's a
realization of the Bruederschaft.  Mason and Dixon.  Perhaps:  Pynchon,
in memory of Farina.

There are many fascinating points of comparison between Lawrence and
Pynchon--a certain Luddism and a disdain for commerce, among other
things.  Recall this conversation between Rupert Birkin and Ursula
Brangwen:

"When I see this clear beautiful chair, and I think of England, even Jane
Austen's England--it had living thoughts to unfold even then, and pure
happiness in unfolding them.  And now, we can only fish among the
rubbish-heaps for the remnants of their old expression.  There is no
production in us now, only sordid and foul mechanicalness."

"It isn't true," cried Ursula.  "Why must you always praise the past at
the expense of the present?  Really, I don't think so much of  Jane
Austen's England.  It was materialistic enough, if you like--"

"It could afford to be materialistic," said Birkin, "because it had the
power to be something other--which we haven't.  We are materialistic
because we haven't the power to be anything else--try as we may, we can't
bring off anything but materialism:  mechanism, the very soul of
materialism."  (page 347-348, Viking)

Chris