Day 1, The Real Day 1: I greatly apologize for sending and posting my article before I found out that the 8 day festival of Hanukkah actually starts tonight, not last night. But, as thoughts have gone through my mind regarding what I am trying to do and what I am trying to shed light on, perhaps having an extra 3 days to wrap up might not be such a bad thing after all, for those actually interested in moving civilization forward, a premise upon which I base my thoughts and beliefs and something which is common to Nichiren Buddhism, western religion and secularism, particularly from the 1800s through 1970s, when elements of despair and cynicism greatly challenged the notion of progress which people such as John F. Kennedy championed.
And what better way to intro into the first comparison, in which I will present a way of thought and living that was so very different from the progressive spirit of continual advancement that characterizes the three above noted traditions. Nichiren's first comparison is between Buddhism and non-Buddhist teachings (of which, of course, we are talking about the non-Buddhist teachings he was familiar with, not the ones we are). It is noted as the “internal way” vs. the “external way” (Living Buddhism, Nov-Dec 2010, p. 94). “Buddhism teaches that the principal cause determining our happiness or unhappiness lies within our own lives, that we are the protagonists with the power to decide our own destiny.” (ibid.) “By contrast, a closer look at the non-Buddhist religions and philosophies revelas...that some do not recognize the principle of causality... [while others] expound doctrines of determinism or fatalism...” (ibid.) In order to avoid getting a challenge, since some of the readers of my article may have different perceptions of the various eastern philosophies and religions than do I or did Nichiren, I will avoid specifically naming all those he mentions except to briefly illustrate my point by comparing the Hindu concept of karma and the Buddhist one. Whereas Hinduism recognizes the concept of karma, and even did before Buddhism existed, as most of you probably can surmise from the caste system, the Hindu concept of karma views actions (which is what the Sanskrit word karma means) as being increasingly more powerful depending on whether they were made earlier rather than later. Hence, over the transmigration of countless numbers of lives, so much karma was created that our ability to change it in the present one is all but impossible, the actions taken over these uncountable number of lifetimes being too many for anyone to even think of overcoming through all one's actions in the present, no matter how “perfect” they are. Hence, if you are born an untouchable, an untouchable you will stay for countless lifetimes in the future and there's nothing you can do about it. In Buddhism, on the other hand, actions at any time carry equal weight and the effects of causes made are exhaustible, hence allowing present good causes to effect future good effects in like measure. This is a very scientific definition of freedom, that our present actions are totally up to us and therefore we are not bound by anything in our past or external to us in our present. Of course this also carries with it the weight of not being able to blame our past or anyone else for our circumstances.
Now what comparison in our western heritage corresponds to this? I can clearly state that the comparison we are looking for is that between Judeo-Christian monotheism and the religions which preceded it. I can already hear some people buzzing how the existence of an “external” God enables us any greater freedom than the existence of many “external” gods and goddesses? And, to a large degree, the fact that the Canaanites killed their first-born sons to supplicate these gods and goddesses so that they would favor them indicates a clear belief that their actions must have had at least a chance of having some impact on the deities. But the thing you must remember is that in order to elucidate the progression of our civilization from a child-slaughtering one into one in which we currently believe only terrorist-slaughtering, self-declared enemy slaughtering and serial killer slaughtering is justified (and one which many of us hope to progress further to one in which no killing whatsoever is justified), we need to understand that everything moves in gradations and shading and not in absolutes, even if God told Abraham to kill his first-born and then told him not to. I'd like to illustrate why this comparison nonetheless applies by a look at the Book of Genesis, looking at two of its features. In the first feature, the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, we will look at how it compares with the story of Oedipus Rex. Let's take the latter story first, as presented in the play of Sophocles. In it, an oracle comes to Oedipus' parents, telling them that Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother. In an effort to avoid this, his father travels to another country and gives the baby away to a poor family so that it will be impossible for him to get anywhere near his parents and do those horrible things that the oracle predicted lay in store for him and them. As this ancient myth, upon which Sophocles' play is based, recounts, however, somehow Oedipus later on in life ends up doing those very things that was predicted without him or his parents being aware that it is him. Before I contrast this with Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden, I must forewarn you that, while it might seem easy to dismiss this story as an example of the misguided thinking of extreme fatalism, which it indeed is, there is nonetheless wisdom contained within in. How many times do we end up against the very thing we put all our effort into avoiding? While I definitely agree that there is a much greater limitation in viewing life, the world and the cosmos as seeming to have a mind or logic totally independent of what we consider to be reason or good, than there is in believing we have power to alter destiny in favor of what we consider to be our unique ability to create value, good and happiness, I think it would be extremely unwise not to heed the wisdom contained in this ancient Greek perception of life by thinking “I can do anything” and that the trials and pitfalls that seem to accompany most endeavor are simply the result of a way of thinking. One need only observe the countless examples of people suffering with chronic issues who sincerely and even desperately try to reform only to fall flat on their face in the pitfall of their past behavior or circumstances once again to understand and respect the extreme difficulty that accompanies the endeavor to be free and in control of one's destiny.
Now the story of Adam and Eve is also a story that does not have a happy ending (although both Bibles, Jewish and Christian, as well as Milton's Paradise Regained all present a future that indeed does end very happily). But I think what makes this story not as gut-wrenching as that of Oedipus is only secondarily the fact that it does not contain an actual murder and maternal incest. For the subsequent story of Cain and Abel does contain a murder and you will agree that this story does not seem half as horrendous as that of Oedipus. The answer is simply thus: Adam and Eve choose to take the action that has dire consequences, not to avoid it. The story of Oedipus definitely conveys to us the sense that life is completely out of control and we are at the mercy of a relationship an all powerful universe has with us, who are totally lacking in power, like when a child, unaware of how to drive is at the wheel and we are in the passenger seat. The story of Adam and Eve on the other hand, as painful as the consequences are of their action, still yet contains the comfort that they understand that their suffering wasn't inevitable but something they freely brought about through an action they took. This brings us to the second significant point in the Book of Genesis, the fact that God created Man, and Woman, in His Own Image. In the original Hebrew text is the word, or phrase, “B'Atzmo”, which means ones own or same self. The reason this is important is because we're not just talking about a physical or visual resemblance but rather the possession of all the same attributes. In Buddhism there is the expression that one who practices as the Buddha teaches will attain all 32 attributes of the Buddha. This symbolizes the same totality that is envisioned uniquely in humans in the Book of Genesis. And, in terms of the argument I am making today, it is the attribute of freedom and power that God, in making Adam and Eve just as He Is, that is one of the defining qualities here attributed to humans, one, by contrast, lacking in the ancient Greek view of humans. God commands Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree containing the knowledge of good and evil but God deliberately chooses not to prevent them from doing so, should they so choose. Because their freedom is too important to sacrifice in order to save them from the suffering that will follow. In this, I can see the same entreaties of a parent to his or her child not to engage in actions that they know will cause them suffering in the future, fully knowing that they may engage in them anyway and that nothing they, as parents, say or do, can prevent them from doing so and experiencing the consequent suffering. For at least from suffering can come a lesson and wisdom, whereas to deprive one of freedom is to stunt one's growth, one's full development as a human being. It is for this reason I believe that the ancient religions eventually died out while the Judeo-Christian tradition survived and still survives very strongly even today. I believe it is has nurtured the more fully human side of us than those previous, more fatalistic world views. Perhaps it may partly explain the victory of the Jews over the much more powerful Syrians in the battle for control of the Jerusalem temple that underlies the celebration of Hanukkah. Of course, a little over 200 years later, the Jews fell at the hands of the Romans, who razed all but one piece of the western wall of the temple, a site at which Jews today pray fervently. I believe part of the explanation of why people sometimes win and sometime lose, even if they believe in their own autonomy and freedom, can be explained by the next comparison we discuss tomorrow, and I will set it up for you by leaving you with the question, even with our freedom, what makes it truly meaningful? Is being free alone enough?
Take care and hope you enjoyed tonight's discussion.
Marc
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment