Buddha and Myth
One of special features of Buddhism is the function of myth. When Shakyamuni Buddha aka Siddhartha Gautama set in motion the wheel of doctrine in 6th century BC, his approach to myth was revolutionary for that time anywhere. And it still is for many minds today.
(1) The Buddha did not dispense with myth, but instead pointed out we need not be limited by mythical narratives, nor should we continue disempowering ourselves by unconsciously objectifying as external to ourselves that which we cannot grasp, that is, the Reality-as-such. So, in history of Buddhism, the first strategic move was to undo the immense power locked in myth. The Buddha, hence, did not reject the mythical narrative as such, but decided to engage it's transformative power as long as we endeavour to look beyond the myth itself. (See his treatment of Aryan traditions in Sigalovada sutta: summary at Wikipedia here, the whole text here. This is a fine example of the way Buddha skilfully unpacked the potential of a symbolic instruction that his audience was already familiar with.)
As preserved in the Nikaya/Agama tradition (the textual collection known as Tipitaka in Pali, or Tripitaka in Sanskrt), such is the general treatment of myth. Interpretations of this textual collection vary from lineage to lineage. A general non-literalism, however, is a hallmark of genuine Buddhist hermeneutic, irrespective of vehicle or tradition, although it's easy to find examples of simplistic approaches, of course. Non-literalism was the basis for Gautama Buddha refusing to have his words formulated exclusively in Brahmanic Sanskrt - he chose instead to have it transmitted in vernacular along with linguae francae.
(2) In due course, the Dharma was once again revolutionized in the emergence of Mahayana, specifically in the teaching of "emptiness" (shunyavada), non-duality of samsara and nirvana, and the ideals of bodhisattva and mahasattva. There are many ways to conceptualize emptiness, depending on depth and specific application. "Emptiness of myth" signifies the radical transparency of the mythical narrative, which could be used now as a potent metaphor for Reality-as-such, namely suchness. Therefore, with the advent of Mahayana, we find the myth coming back in a big way - the grand figures of Buddhas historical and eternal, of Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, Samantabhadra and Vajrapani, and of protectors and numerous deities, populating and animating the spiritual world as allegories of transcendental virtues that adorn the peerless Bodhi. Such virtues were no longer static and abstract even to the less fortunate followers, who were told all such virtues of Bodhi are reflected in their own buddha-nature (Skt. sugata-garbha).
(3) When Mahayana gave rise to Mantrayana - or rather guhya mantranaya - it's most secret path, the myth was once again recharged with new limpidity and even luminosity. While exoteric Mahayana used myth to allegorize Reality by employing transparent symbols (along with using rationality and logic to analyze what could be analyzed), the esoteric approach went one step further: it used the mythical narrative to engender not symbols but veritable sacraments, embodiments of ecstatic intensity manifesting in the fusion of transcendent and immanent. Not gods or even mahasattvas, but esoteric Deities; embodiments not of a distant Goal, but of an immediate Path; not dualistic meanings, but non-dual mantras; not words and objects and actions, but microcosmic enactments of Reality-as-such. The esoteric Deity is always emptiness Itself, quite devoid of meaninglessness, here and now.
These three moves are as significant for us today, or perhaps even more so, since the majority of humanity is immersed in magic-and-myth, in miracle and literality.
(1) The Buddha did not dispense with myth, but instead pointed out we need not be limited by mythical narratives, nor should we continue disempowering ourselves by unconsciously objectifying as external to ourselves that which we cannot grasp, that is, the Reality-as-such. So, in history of Buddhism, the first strategic move was to undo the immense power locked in myth. The Buddha, hence, did not reject the mythical narrative as such, but decided to engage it's transformative power as long as we endeavour to look beyond the myth itself. (See his treatment of Aryan traditions in Sigalovada sutta: summary at Wikipedia here, the whole text here. This is a fine example of the way Buddha skilfully unpacked the potential of a symbolic instruction that his audience was already familiar with.)
As preserved in the Nikaya/Agama tradition (the textual collection known as Tipitaka in Pali, or Tripitaka in Sanskrt), such is the general treatment of myth. Interpretations of this textual collection vary from lineage to lineage. A general non-literalism, however, is a hallmark of genuine Buddhist hermeneutic, irrespective of vehicle or tradition, although it's easy to find examples of simplistic approaches, of course. Non-literalism was the basis for Gautama Buddha refusing to have his words formulated exclusively in Brahmanic Sanskrt - he chose instead to have it transmitted in vernacular along with linguae francae.
(2) In due course, the Dharma was once again revolutionized in the emergence of Mahayana, specifically in the teaching of "emptiness" (shunyavada), non-duality of samsara and nirvana, and the ideals of bodhisattva and mahasattva. There are many ways to conceptualize emptiness, depending on depth and specific application. "Emptiness of myth" signifies the radical transparency of the mythical narrative, which could be used now as a potent metaphor for Reality-as-such, namely suchness. Therefore, with the advent of Mahayana, we find the myth coming back in a big way - the grand figures of Buddhas historical and eternal, of Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, Samantabhadra and Vajrapani, and of protectors and numerous deities, populating and animating the spiritual world as allegories of transcendental virtues that adorn the peerless Bodhi. Such virtues were no longer static and abstract even to the less fortunate followers, who were told all such virtues of Bodhi are reflected in their own buddha-nature (Skt. sugata-garbha).
(3) When Mahayana gave rise to Mantrayana - or rather guhya mantranaya - it's most secret path, the myth was once again recharged with new limpidity and even luminosity. While exoteric Mahayana used myth to allegorize Reality by employing transparent symbols (along with using rationality and logic to analyze what could be analyzed), the esoteric approach went one step further: it used the mythical narrative to engender not symbols but veritable sacraments, embodiments of ecstatic intensity manifesting in the fusion of transcendent and immanent. Not gods or even mahasattvas, but esoteric Deities; embodiments not of a distant Goal, but of an immediate Path; not dualistic meanings, but non-dual mantras; not words and objects and actions, but microcosmic enactments of Reality-as-such. The esoteric Deity is always emptiness Itself, quite devoid of meaninglessness, here and now.
These three moves are as significant for us today, or perhaps even more so, since the majority of humanity is immersed in magic-and-myth, in miracle and literality.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home