When the Eyrie men apprehend Jack Havig in Constantinople, his wife, Xenia, asks:
"'Who are they, Jon?...What do they want? Where is your saint?'" (p. 133)
Havig's "saint" was himself multi-locating to fight Eyrie men on a previous occasion. This time, two of them hold his arms so that he is unable to time travel. But Xenia's question shows the limits of her religion. She believes that saints can intervene. In Zen, Bodhisattvas are personifications of wisdom and compassion, not beings that can intervene to offer practical help. Meditation (maybe) helps us to cope with bad experiences but does not put us in touch with supernatural benefactors.
16 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Except you are missing a point, one so obvious I'm surprised you did. Xenia was very SICK, even close to dying at that moment of Havig being captured. She was too feverish and confused to think as clearly as it might have been possible at such a bewildering moment.
And, as a Catholic, I believe saints can and have intervened in human affairs.
Ad astra! Sean
In most varieties of Buddhism, Bodhisattvas are closely similar to Catholic conceptions of saints and -do- intervene in human affairs.
Religion, to be successful, must meet certain human desires and needs.
Sean,
Xenia did not know of time travel. She really did believe that a saint had helped them in that first fight with the Eyrie.
Mr Stirling,
You are right about Bodhisattvas. I was articulating only their role in the practice that I am familiar with.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: If you mean during the sack of Constantinople by the Venetians and Fourth Crusaders, I forgot about that one. I was thinking of when Havig was captured.
Mr. Stirling: Considering how Buddhism BEGAN as a philosophy founded by a man who had little interest in religion, I find it puzzling how it took on so many of the "trappings" of a religion. There has never been a Stoic religion or an Epicurean with abbots, monks, nuns, saints, etc., to name two Western examples.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
When Havig was captured, he still had not told Xenia about time travel.
Buddhism addressed our need for liberation/salvation and our relationship to the transcendent/eternal and therefore was fundamentally religious, just not theistic.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, but I don't think your comment about Buddhism makes sense. A RELIGION, if it deserves that name, is a set of ideas, beliefs, laws, customs, etc., about God or gods. I still think of "pure" Buddhism as simply a philosophy.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Please don't apologize when disagreeing. Religion is response to transcendence. God and gods are personifications of transcendence which can instead be understood as an impersonal reality or state. Non-theistic religions are Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism and Hindu Samkhya. A philosophy would be a theoretical understanding and maybe also a way of life but without any reference to transcendence.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I feel the need for a defining of terms. I would interpret "religion" in a hard, rather than a soft sense. A hard definition of "religion" is a faith which actually believes in God or gods according to a set of doctrines, ideas, beliefs, customs, laws, etc. A soft definition interprets as a religion what some might think of as simply a philosophy as being a search for or response to transcendence.
I would argue for the "hard" definition of "religion" as being less confusing than the "soft" one.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, that is merely terminological.
Buddhism, even if just a philosophy, had to pick up the trappings of references to supernatural beings etc because that was the prevalent world-view.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But Socrates, altho his obsession with the proper defining of terms so irritated the Athenians that they condemned him to death, did have a point. We need to understand what we mean when using terms like "religion" to avoid confusion.
I still can't help but think that by picking up the appurtenances of a religion, Buddhism merely ended up becoming needlessly muddled or at least off putting. Here I'm thinking of the rather garish example of Tibetan Buddhism.
Ad astra1 Sean
Sean,
Within Buddhism, we don't make judgments about other traditions.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm not so sure all Buddhists are so high minded!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. I am only speaking from my own experience.
Paul.
Sean: my take is that Buddhism (in most of its varieties) became more theistic because first, that was the overwhelmingly prevalent conception of the nature of the universe everywhere at the time, and second, because if people are going to have a religion, most want one with "personalities" they can interact with.
In a sense Buddhism is like its parent, Hinduism -- you can, if you're so inclined, have a "philosophical" form of Hinduism that is not based on Gods as discrete individuals, just a vague "spirit".
Meanwhile the overwhelming majority of Hindus accept the deities as discrete supernatural entities.
Having your cake and eating it too, so to speak.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Yes, that does make sense. Pure Buddhism was simply too vague and unreal for most people. So, they brought their gods into it.
And I think of "philosophical" Hinduism as a late spin off from what was simply an ordinary pagan pantheon.
Ad astra! Sean
The Rig Veda, the oldest scripture, says, "Truth is one. Sages call it by different names."
Post a Comment