"Yamamura smiled, 'I'm a lousy Buddhist.'" (p. 100)
So he is at least nominally a Buddhist.
"...he felt evil like a physical radiation. And that shook him, for his religion did not admit the existence of absolute malignancy." (p. 158)
So he does take his religion seriously.
This gives me some empathy with the character. I am not an ordained lay Buddhist but Buddhism is the religious tradition with which I have least disagreements. Insofar as a religion is a practice, my religion is Zen because I practice zazen as taught in a local Buddhist group. I do not accept the rebirth teaching but that is a philosophical disagreement between me and the Buddha. Possibly influenced by ancient Indian materialist philosophers, he taught anatta, "no soul," and therefore amended reincarnation of souls to "rebirth" of karmic effects but I go further in disagreeing with rebirth as well. However, karma (action) and its consequences are undeniable features of life and history.
The Buddha was a man, not a god, and, mythologically, was a teacher of gods and men. His dharma is neither an academic philosophy nor a theistic religion but a practical philosophy and a contemplative religion. Here, I am on the same wavelength as Trygve Yamamura.
16 comments:
Hi, Paul!
As a Catholic, I disagree with Buddhism in many ways. For example, the absolute malignancy felt by Trygve Yamamura makes me think he had a brush with Satan, the greatest of the angels and the one who chose to rebel against God. For, unlike orthodox Buddhism, orthodox Christianity affirms not only ony the reality of evil, but that that evil is being directed by a malevolent being who hates God and man.
I agree Buddhism is better described as a philosophy rather than a religion. So, it has puzzled me HOW or why Buddhism has acquired so many of the "trappings" of a religion: priests, abbots, nuns, monasteries, scriptures, even relics of Buddha or Buddhist "saints," etc. I know very little about any brand of Buddhism, but Tibetan Buddhism seems to be the most like a religion of them all. It also seems to me, unless I err, that many Buddhists these days consider Buddha a god, not a mere man or philosopher.
These comments by you about the Trygve Yamamura stories is getting me very interested in rereading the first and second novels. Particularly because of the SFnal and even supernatural elements you have noticed.
I'm also reminded of Poul Anderson's OPERATION CHAOS, where Steven Matuchek has several encounters with the Adversary and later infiltrated Hell itself with his wife to rescue their kidnaped daughter. I also recalled with interest the description of Heaven Matuchek obtained from the Russian mathematician who answered their prayer for heavenly assistance.
All this again makes me wonder how much of an agnostic Poul Anderson truly was, despite him telling me that was how he regarded himself in one of the letters he wrote to me. Anderson's poem "Prayer in War" again makes me wonder how skeptical he truly was of God's existence. And we have both noticed the respect with which Anderson treated honest believers in God in his works.
Sean
Sean,
I think that the Buddha Dharma is both a philosophy and a religion. The Buddha analyzed experience and also responded to the transcendent, understood as a state, not a being. The trappings of popular religion are there because the tradition is so old. We do not practise analytic philosophy in front of an an altar with an image of Socrates!
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
But how can Buddhism be a religion if "orthodox" Buddhism disbelieved in or ignored God or even the question of whether God exists? A religion, strictly, believes in God or gods. A view of "transcendence" as merely a "state" would seem to be too cold, remote, and implausible even for many Buddhists. Which might help explain why Buddhism adopted so many of the "trappings" of a religion.
As for age, Judaism, from which Catholic Christianity sprang, is even older. Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and the "writing" prophets who lived before 600 BC preached and taught before Buddha lived. But Judaism, aside from the relatively short lived Essene movement at Qumran, never developed a monastic tradition. Altho, as we both know, Christianity has a monastic tradition as well.
Sean
Jains believe in many souls reincarnating in an uncreated beginningless and endlessness universe so they are religious but atheist. I think that religion is response to the highest transcendence. There are two responses to transcendence: personification and/or contemplation. Personification is theism. Contemplative atheist religions are Jainism, Buddhism, Hindu Samkyha and Taoism. I meant that the practice of meditation occurs in temples with altars, offerings, images, incense etc because it originated so long ago that that was the way to do things. We can meditate anywhere without those popular religious trappings.
God is worshiped because he is (believed to be) a transcendent person, not because he is a person, so I think that it is the transcendence that counts. I also think that self and other are interdependent so that there cannot be an independent self-conscious being. Thus, the transcendent reality apprehended in religious experience has to be impersonal, unless some meaning can be found for "transpersonal."
Hi, Paul!
Thanks for your two notes. I'll reply to both in this comment of mine.
I agree that religion is a response to transcendence. But I do not agree that contemplation of transcendence has to be atheistic. That would surprise the MANY Christian monks who most certainly practiced both contemplation and firmly believe God is a Person.
And of course God would have to be the Infinitely Transcendent Other to BE God. So I agree transcendence is a necessary property of God's nature. And where Judaism and Christianity differs from the cold Unmoved Mover of the philosophers is in the unrelenting insistence that God is a Person who cares about his creation. Indeed, he cared so much that He became Incarnate as man for the salvation of humanity.
Sean
Sean,
Agreed that contemplative religion does not have to be atheist - but it can be.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
The idea that a religion can be atheistic still bemuses me. If God does not exist, that would seem to mean denying there can be any kind of "transcendence" at all. So, why bother to practice contemplation at all if there is no real end or purpose for doing so? No, contemplation makes the most sense if the person meditating also believes in God.
Sean
Sean,
Transcendence (going beyond) is natural. Consciousness transcends unconsciousness. Humanity transcends animality. Civilization transcends barbarism. Three dimensions transcend two or one. The supernatural, if it exists, transcends the natural.
I practise non-theistic meditation and it is helping me to transcend my karma, i.e., my previous motivations and actions with their consequences.
Paul.
Sean,
I should add that, to be more precise, I think that religion is response to the highest transcendence, however conceived. A religious response to a finite transcendence would be "idolatrous" in the sense denounced by the prophets - although what Pagans really worship is a divine presence within the idol.
In meditation, we approach or enter the transtemporal/eternal but do not personify it.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Thanks for your two comments, even if I still don't entirely agree with them. I certainly agree that intelligence and internal self awarness transcends animality. I would rather say, however, that civilization SURPASSES barbarism. Because we need the knowledge and skills of the barbarian to BEGIN the processes leading to civilization.
Interesting, if not wholly convincing, to call "A religious response to a finite transcendence would be "idolatrous" in the sense denounced by the prophets..." I would have thought polytheists worship a MULTIPLICITY of " divine presences," else paganism in that meaning would make no logical sense.
Sean
Sean,
Oh yes, maybe a different divine presence in one idol as against another. But Paganism, which includes Hinduism and Shinto, has no single theology: many gods; all gods are one; one god is supreme; gods are persons; gods are personifications; philosophical sceptics can join in tribal rituals; gods are our projections; gods exist independently of us; we are gods; worship one pantheon without worrying because your neighbour worships a different one etc. Meanwhile, Buddhists can say that the Buddha knew more than the gods. Anything goes.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
And, of course, that kind of anything goes "theology" is flatly rejected as simply not TRUE by the Judaeo/Christian tradition. God is not only real, a Person, with no other "gods" existing, but He acts in our universe. I do realize this fierce, uncompromising monotheism is probably not what you agree with or prefer.
Sean
Sean,
I do have philosophical disagreements with monotheism, eg, the creator before the creation would be a self without an other which, I think, is like a square without sides (but I also think we have been here before?)
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
I think we have touched on similar points in the past. I'm by no mans a trained theologian or philosopher, but I think I can make some suggestions.
God, if you assume for the sake of argument that He exists, is by definition both the Infinitely Transcendent Other and infinitely self sufficient. That is, He does not NEED anything or anyone else to be perfectly happy existing by Himself. Thus, God did not NEED to create other beings, angels and physically incarnate beings, to be happy. He did so out of generosity, that other beings, if given the chance, might also choose to love Him and to be eternally happy in His presence. I first came across this idea while reading Dante's DIVINE COMEDY.
Sean
Sean,
I understand that that is the belief. However, I think that self is recognized as such only by contrast with other, therefore that "self" and "other" are interdependent like "up" and "down." Thus, the one reality can become conscious of itself only by appearing to itself as other, then recognizing itself as the subject who is different from and conscious of the other. A final stage, not necessarily attained, is realization of self-other identity.
Paul.
Post a Comment