Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Totem and Taboo
Simonthepilgrim
Veteran
At the same time as I was reflecting on the thread about desecration of the Q'ran, I read the following:
It led to reflection on how far we have removed ourselves from ancient notions of merit and taboo. I seem to recall that we had a discussion about merit acquired simply by seeing a monk's robes. The very idea appears to shock the Western sensibility.
Across the ages, places and objects have been deemed to bring blessings or curses but we know better, don't we! I once asked Fede whether she would enter a mosque or temple without removing her shoes. Moses was instructed to take off his shoes when he approached the burning bush. In the rain forest, in Goa, my guide suddenly removed his shoes, much to my astonishment. Then he pointed to a small stone, hidden in the bush: a Shivalingam he told me, making the ground around it sacred. In Aotearoa (New Zealand) the Maori continue to consider places tapu.
But we know better, dont we?
In the account of Saint Paul's visit to Ephesus, we are told of merchants selling images of Artemis to pilgrims. If you go to Ephesus today, as you come out of the ancient city, there are lines of shops, selling images of the Artemis, alongside other 'souvenirs'. All that has changed is that these images are no longer venerated.
The Protestant revolution was iconoclastic and destroyed many sanctuaries, images and relics. It would seem that it also managed to eradicate our sense of the wonderful, sacred and forbidden. Because we know better, dont we??
In actual fact, I think that the sense of veneration is still there but often misdirected. Artefacts that belonged to famous people sell for enormous sums, just as the relic sellers of the Middle Ages made fortunes from selling pieces of saints. I treat the thangka which was a gift from and signed by HHDL with great reverence, as do those who come to see it.
We are, however, far less aware of taboo, the dangers inherent in the sacred.
Or, perhaps, we know better!!??!!
The curious popular eagerness just to see, touch, and gather souvenires from "personalities", which in the West today is not regarded generally as a variety of religious effort, in the Orient is exactly that, as it was in our own Middle Ages; and the Future Buddha....is supposed to have been prepared to accommodate this desire to his system, as a popular, secondary, but by no means inconsequential adjunct. The Ceylonese relic of the Buddha's Tooth and the relics preserved everywhere in the reliquary mounds (stupas) of the Buddhist world, bring to mind those thoughts of the virtues of the virtuous by which "sins" - that is to say, wrong thoughts, and consequently, wrong words and acts - are washed away.
Joseph Campbell The Masks of God - Oriental Mythology (Penguin/Arkana. 1991pp. 267-8)
It led to reflection on how far we have removed ourselves from ancient notions of merit and taboo. I seem to recall that we had a discussion about merit acquired simply by seeing a monk's robes. The very idea appears to shock the Western sensibility.
Across the ages, places and objects have been deemed to bring blessings or curses but we know better, don't we! I once asked Fede whether she would enter a mosque or temple without removing her shoes. Moses was instructed to take off his shoes when he approached the burning bush. In the rain forest, in Goa, my guide suddenly removed his shoes, much to my astonishment. Then he pointed to a small stone, hidden in the bush: a Shivalingam he told me, making the ground around it sacred. In Aotearoa (New Zealand) the Maori continue to consider places tapu.
But we know better, dont we?
In the account of Saint Paul's visit to Ephesus, we are told of merchants selling images of Artemis to pilgrims. If you go to Ephesus today, as you come out of the ancient city, there are lines of shops, selling images of the Artemis, alongside other 'souvenirs'. All that has changed is that these images are no longer venerated.
The Protestant revolution was iconoclastic and destroyed many sanctuaries, images and relics. It would seem that it also managed to eradicate our sense of the wonderful, sacred and forbidden. Because we know better, dont we??
In actual fact, I think that the sense of veneration is still there but often misdirected. Artefacts that belonged to famous people sell for enormous sums, just as the relic sellers of the Middle Ages made fortunes from selling pieces of saints. I treat the thangka which was a gift from and signed by HHDL with great reverence, as do those who come to see it.
We are, however, far less aware of taboo, the dangers inherent in the sacred.
Or, perhaps, we know better!!??!!
0
Comments
Now, the fact that there are sacred things in our world, on the one hand, and the fact that there are all sorts of cultures coexisting on this one planet, on the other —these two things can make modern life very compliciKated indeed.
Just because someone holds the political or religious stances of others in DERISION does not mean that he or she necessarily scoffs at all things sacred. What is sacred to one may be anathema to another.
I certainly revere many things, but simply cannot revere authoritarian religious systems that confront any reasonable and holy hope on the part of other fellow human beings.
Human beings seem to have an innate sense of the sacred and, I believe, they are not likely to outgrow that sense by means of any other "knowledge" anytime soon.
- The Human Mind
- The Female body.
That's about it for me. Blessings and curses are nothing more than superstitions to me. Early man trying to explain the things he could not understand.
It really doesn't matter if a thing labeled sacred really is sacred or not. It's part of the mind training. One considers monk's robes, to use an example that Simon mentioned, as sacred because it trains the mind to view objects associated with the Dharma as being different than ordinary objects. The Dharma is the body of teachings which help us to realize our buddhanature, that is, our true essential being which is pure, unborn, undying and timeless. So we train our minds to respect the Dharma and anything that represents the Dharma. It really has nothing to do with the object of veneration, but rather the way we perceive it.
To wit, the story of the dog's tooth.
Once, long ago, a young man set off on a long journey to see the world and to visit the holy places associated with the Buddha. His elderly mother was sad to see him go off, but she made him promise to return with a relic of the Buddha for her to venerate. The son promised and set off with his head full of dreams and expectations, as young men are wont to do. He was gone for a long time and he experienced many wondrous things, but then the time came for him to return home. As he neared his country, he suddenly remembered the promise he had made to his dear old mother those many months ago. But he had brought her nothing! What was he to do?
As he turned this over and over in his mind, searching for some solution to please his mother, he came across the carcass of a dead dog. An idea came to him, and he bent over and worked a tooth loose from the skull. Then he proceeded home with a lighter heart.
When he entered his home, his mother looked up from her cooking, and her face lit up like the sun. She was so happy to see her son! She nearly bowled her son over rushing to hug him. After her tears had dried and her emotions settled down, she asked her son if he had brought her what she had asked for. Smiling, he reached into his pouch and extracted the dog's tooth. "See, mother, I have brought you a tooth of the Buddha!"
The old woman immediately prostrated herself on the floor to the holy relic and tears flowed from her eyes from joy. The son, although he felt a bit guilty at having lied to his mother, felt everything had turned out for the best, and he was happy to have made her so joyous.
For the rest of her life, the old woman venerated the dog's tooth as if it really were the tooth of the Buddha, and when she finally passed away, she attained enlightenment due to the vast storehouse of merit she had accumulated through her pure devotion. Yet the tooth remained just a dog's tooth with no special qualities or blessings.
Palzang
If the aged matriarch had had no sense of the sacred, she would not have acquired any merit even if it had actually been the World Honoured One's tooth. It is, as you so rightly point out, the sense of the sacred that is important and which, it seems to me, has been devalued and denied.
I wish I could agree with Nirvana but, even if it were true that humans have an innate sense of the sacred, KoB demonstrates that it can be "educated" out of them.
But, then again, I don't worship material wealth, either. I don't see the need for the biggest showiest house, car, or whatever.
Sacredness is an arbitrary distinction. Sacredness is based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something. A hoy book, for example, is considered sacred by individuals who place their faith in the sacred/divine nature of the words written therein.
A holy book is paper produced from wood pulp, ink produced from pigments and dyes, and words in a certain language that have been placed in a certain sequence. The sacredness of the book itself is determined by the amount of value an individual places on those words or what they believe those words to represent.
If the Buddha were alive today, would his shit be any more sacred than mine? Because the Buddha is considered to be "enlightened" by a large percentage of the population, the sacredness of his shit would be determined by the amount of value an individual placed on that shit or what they believe that shit represents.
That being said, the perception of "sacredness" can give rise to wholesome or unwholesome intentions. A holy book can inspire a person to give to the needy, but it can also inspire a person to kill those who deny the sacred or divine nature of what is written in that book. Like faith, sacredness is a double-edged sword.
Sincerely,
Jason
Yes, there is a story that goes with this one too.
One time there was a warthog that was being chased by a pack of dogs. The warthog was, obviously, desperate to escape the dogs, so it was running mindlessly through the woods when it came upon a stupa. Of course, it did not know what a stupa was, but just at that moment, it found itself surrounded by the dogs, so it took the only course of action it could at the moment, backed up to the stupa to protect its rear flank. Now, it so happened that during its wild flight some mud had become stuck to its tail. As it fought off the dogs, its tail wagged due to the sheer excitement the beast was experiencing. In doing so, it inadvertently repaired a small crack in the stupa (which was very old and somewhat in a state of disrepair).
What happened to the warthog is not told in the story, but many lifetimes later the warthog took rebirth as a human, a man named Pelgye, who lived at the time of the Buddha. This man was moved to seek ordination as one of the Buddha's monks and approached one of the Buddha's senior monks to request this. The monk carried the request to the Buddha, who then examined the merit of the man and found him lacking. Then he saw that the man had lived as the warthog who had inadvertently repaired the stupa, and through the merit gained by just this inadvertent and unconscious deed, he was able to take ordination and actually attain enlightenment in that life.
BTW, if you're wondering how the warthog came across a stupa many lifetimes before the life of the Buddha, I would just say that Shakyamuni Buddha was not the first Buddha and there were stupas before him.
Palzang
Dion Fortune, Spiritualism and Occultism
You say that sacredness is in the mind of the beholder, yet you say there are some things that are intrinsically sacred in and of themselves. Just out of skeptical curiousity, what do you believe makes a mound of earth, clay, or brick intrinsically sacred? Also, how is a mound of earth, clay, or brick capable of bestowing blessings on anybody?
Jason
Palzang
Palzang
The stupas that were originally built at the time of the Buddha were nothing more than mounds of earth and clay that were built to contain the Buddha's teeth, hair, ashes, et cetera. Certainly more elaborate stupas were built later on, being constructed of materials such as brick or stone or whatever else was available.
Perhaps the larger stupas that are built today, and even a large portion of those built during the last two thousand years, are more complex than simple mounds; nevertheless, a stupa, no matter how beautifully designed, is still a man-made structure that is essentially composed of earth, clay, brick, stone, et cetera.
I imagine that I will be demonized for saying this, but as for whether or not I believe mantras are sacred, I do not think that they are sacred unless a person places a great deal of faith in their "sacredness". Words are merely words, and no matter how articulate, they are simply conventional means of communication.
Jason
Since it is only an object made of atoms and molecules it should have no more value than any other collection of atoms and molecules. It is after all, nothing.
Palzang
And are you any more than this? Is the Buddha?
Yes, but that does not make them magical. Words can have a power affect on the mind, but sounds are merely the objects of hearing.
Jason
I think you may underestimate the power and nature of sound, Jason. It can reveal, heal and kill. Not 'magical' of course, any more than spectacles are magical cures for sight but certainly far more than "merely objects of hearing". This is particularly true when we realise that the spectrum of humanly audible sound is as limited as our visible spectrum. Light is, after all, more than merely an object of sight.
Yes, I understand the soundwaves can be used in echolocation, or that certain frequencies can damage human tissue. The point is that when it comes to what the Buddha taught in regard to the end of dukkha, you should train yourself thus, "In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized."
Sure, I might be wrong. I have been wrong about a great many things in life, and I am fairly certain that I will be wrong about a great many more things along the way. To err is human. But to be honest, it all comes down to an issue of faith. Where are rational people going to draw the line? While the Buddha did say that faith is an important part of the path, he certainly did not say to blindly accept everythig that you are told.
All the Buddha really said about faith is that to achieve the end of suffering, you have to have faith that an end is possible and that he knew this from experience. That is a lot to ask right there. I have read what you have written, and I do not agree with it; and, until such time as I have seen some evidence or have had some experience that leads me to believe that this is all true, I am going to have to continue to disagree with you.
Jason
To be honest, I hate to be so critical about subjects like this, but it disturbs me that what the Buddha taught has become enshrouded within such a superstitious aura—one where unintentional actions such as fixing a stupa as a warthog with a muddy tail and some magical words will get you closer to awakening.
Do not get me wrong, I am firm believer that things like stupas and mantras can act as wholesome conditions for the arising of skillful intentions or the arousing of effort along the path, but that does not mean that I am willing to label these things as sacred and beyond reproach merely because people make the claim that these structures or words have some kind of magical, transcendental quality.
It is absolutely no different than a Catholic making the claim that the water from Lourdes is sacred and can perform miracles because the Virgin Mary once made an appearance there. As Richard Dawkins cheekily remarked, the people who visit there each year have a statistically better chance of catching a disease from all of the other pilgrims visiting each year than miraculously getting rid of one.
In the modern world, people need to start having less faith in fanciful stories that have little to no evidence to support them, and start applying their critical thinking skills to evaluate their experience of the world. Science and religion should go hand in hand into the future, not in separate directions. This is one area where I completely agree with H. H. the Dalai Lama. We are not living in the Dark Ages.
Stories about water that cures diseases and stupa fixing warthogs are all well and good to instill faith in one's religion, but not much else. The Buddha took great pains to stress that we should work towards our deliverance with heedfulness and effort, not through unintentional actions, holy water, or incantations.
Sincerely,
Jason
Hahahaha... Is it wrong that I find this hilarious?
Buuuut, seriously. This discussion brings up some interesting thoughts for me. For one, it reminds me of the Qur'an in the toilet article that someone posted on this forum. While the book is considered sacred by most if not all Moslem people, it is also simply wood, pulp, ink, words, thoughts, etc. It has the same dual nature that we have... the buddhanature and "reality." Stephen Batchelor makes an interesting point about this, which I can't quote word for word because I lent my book out... he says that BOTH the reality we exist (and often suffer) in and the reality of our own buddhanature exist. Sometimes together, sometimes separately. That's a lot to mull over and I won't pretend to fully understand what it means, but my point is this: I think we must learn to see both aspects of ourselves/the world. The stupas are both mud, brick, dirt AS WELL AS sacred. Now I personally don't do the religion thing so much, but I believe they are sacred because they have buddhanature in them just like I do. Mud, pigs and people are all made of the same molecules, mixed and reformed into new things as we die and are born. (Is this making sense?! :eek: ) To explain why I think it is important to see both, I'll go back to the toilet Qur'an... if I can see it as both sacred and a transient object, I can accept that, even though someone tried to disrespect what I find holy about the book by flushing it, they can never actually do that, because all they really flushed was paper and ink. Yeah? All I know is that way of seeing the world would cause a lot less suffering in my life. Someone tell me I'm making sense.
This thread has given me great food for thought! And I don't think the differences of opinions expressed here make a huge difference in the long run. Whatever keeps you moving on the path is valuable/useful.
Sexy! (...this thread is)
Here is what Kyabje Kalu Rinpoche (a true Living Buddha) had to say on the subject of mantras:
In Tibet, the Buddhist tradition is ancient, the result being that everyone acknowledges reciting mantras has beneficial effects. As for Westerners, they often see the mantras only as words, just an activity of speech, and do not understand their effect. They do not clearly see how these words can act on the mind...
The importance words play in our studies is known; they are an indispensable vehicle. A Tibetan saying well emphasizes the power of speech: "Words are neither sharp nor cutting, but they can cut the heart of a human being."
Some Westerners, as previously stated, think that mantras are nothing but sounds without meaning, that reciting them is only wasting time, and that it is much better to meditate.
In a way, meditation should arouse even more doubts than mantras. One does nothing while meditating! Reticence concerning the recitation of mantras comes from two factors:
1. ignorance of the function and benefit of the mantras described by the Buddha
2. lack of reflection on the precious human existence, death and impermanence, law of karma and on the unsatisfactory nature of samsara [cyclic existence.]
Even if one has some knowledge of the Dharma [Buddhist teachings], but is lazy, reciting a mantra seems a difficult exercise.
~ Khyabje Kalu Rinpoche [d. 1989] at Samye Ling, March 1983
Indeed, mantras have effects which extend beyond our senses. They are an important part of the tantric practices which enable a practitioner to achieve enlightenment in this life. They function to align and purify the winds and channels. That may seem "superstitious" to one who has never made any attempt to extend his experience beyond his own pitiful senses, but winds and channels do indeed exist, whether or not science can detect them. (the same is true of acupuncture meridians, which science has only recently acknowledged - begrudgingly!)
So please keep an open mind about things you don't know about and stop being so judgmental. The Buddha taught that the human realm is characterized by doubt, so please bear that warning in mind. There are many things that exist in this world that are beyond our meager understanding.
Palzang
For some reason, this question reminds me of the Zen saying about not mistaking the finger for the moon. I suppose that what I am trying to say is that words can point towards that which is unconditional like a finger can point towards the moon, but the words themselves are not unconditional just as the finger is not the moon.
Jason
I believe that there are certain beneficial aspects of reciting mantras that are not superstitious, some that can be very "spiritual", but there are a lot of aspects that I would definitely label as being superstitious. Also, seeing as how this is the Buddhism in the Modern World forum, my opinion is that everyone could benefit from a little more rationality and a little less faith in the "mysterious".
In Thailand, everyone acknowledges that amulets, which are blessed by monks, have beneficial effects, but that alone does not prove the validity of this statement. That is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad numerum (i.e. an attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true). Same as above.
Certainly words are important, that in itself was never in question. It even states in Chapter 7 of the Dhammapada, "Better than reciting a hundred meaningless verses is the reciting of one verse of Dhamma, hearing which one attains peace."
I find this statement to be misleading. The main reason is that the vast majority of the methods of meditation that the Buddha instructed his disciples to practice are enumerated in great detail. As such, it is clear to see that one is not merely doing nothing while practicing meditation if it is truly right concentration. In mindfulness of breathing, for example, there should be at least the mental factors of (i) directed thought, (ii) evaluation, (iii) mindfulness, and (iv) awareness at all times—unless, of course, one is in a state of meditative absorption where certain mental factors like directed thought or evaluation are temporarily dropped. I would certainly agree that reciting mantras can also include all of these factors and be a useful method of meditation, but I do not agree with the statement that one does nothing while meditating. Mental actions are as relevent as verbal actions.
If we do not understand something, or find something to be inconsistent, then it is only natural that we should apply our critical thinking skills instead of denying that understanding is possible. We should never be afraid to attempt to raise our consciousness about our experiences or about what we think we know.
Jason
Palzang
If the evidence at hand supports the possibility that something is based upon superstition rather than fact, I see no reason not to say so.
Jason
It would help me to understand your position if you could be clearer about your definition of "spiritual", "mysterious" and "rationality".
Whilst I agree that appeal to numbers is a logical red herring, one has to be very careful in examining what is actually believed and how it impacts on one's own opinions. The arguments around the bases adduced for the value of democracy have been included in this fallacy by some! The value of certain scientific breakthroughs have been opposed by "peer review" which, itself, often uses the argument, as has the validity of texts or historical/archaeological conclusions. If "hearing a single verse" brings peace, how is this different from acquiring benefit from the sight of a monk's robes or settling the mind by reciting mantras? As a student of the sutras, I am sure that you have encountered notions, central to practice, which have not (yet?) been subjected to empirical proof, such as, for example, the jhanas. Are you suggesting that simply because these stages of progress are currently beyond the scope of empirical examination in laboratory conditions and are experiential rather than objective they should be discarded? Our "critical thinking skills" are limited and contingent, as I am sure you would agree. They are as "empty" as any other mental formation. What are the external criteria that you use to check that you are not deluding yourself? This is one of the real problems in discussing, for example, arguments based on texts, as those of us who have wasted time debating with "test proofing" Christians/Muslims/other text-based belief systems have discovered. The dangers of circular discussion are inherent in such debates, i.e. "what A says is true because A says it and A tells the truth", where "A" is, itself, the matter debated.
Perhaps I have misread you but I started this thread in "Buddhism in the Modern World" because I was commenting on the modern phenomenon of loss of belief in the sacred and the taboo. It would, perhgaps, have been more accurate to say that I believe that there is just such a sense but that people are not aware that they are arriving at what appear to be "rational" decisions based on it because its objects have changed. Perhaps, like the fish swimming in water, we do not notice how we swim through our mythic delusions, believing them to correspond to "reality".
Here I use "spiritual" in the sense of a profound experience that is not necessarily fully understood, "mysterious" in the sense of things that are conveniently said to be unknowable to mere mortals, and "rationality" in the sense of making sound judgments based upon things such as coherence, consistency, experience, evidence, logic, reason, et cetera.
I never said that the sight of a monk's robes or that the settling of the mind by reciting mantras are not beneficial. In fact, I clearly state that I believe (i) things like stupas and mantras can act as wholesome conditions for the arising of skillful intentions or the arousing of effort along the path, (ii) there are certain beneficial aspects of reciting mantras, and (iii) that reciting mantras can be a useful method of meditation. What I said in relation to the subject of mantras and such was that I am not willing to label these things as sacred and beyond reproach, or in other words taboo to discuss, merely because people make the claim that these things have some kind of magical, transcendental quality.
Various states of meditative absorption have been observed in laboratory conditions through various means such as brainwave scans. Also, I never said that personal experiences should be discarded; however, I would say that caution is needed that a person does not mistake the nature of certain experiences for something that they are not, et cetera.
Jason
Stupas, robes and symbols are the finger.... if you'll pardon the expression - !!
or shall I shaddup....?
Palzang
Not much, I know.
I'm not coming at this from an attitude of blind faith or superstitious belief. Mantra is demonstrably effective if you take the time to actually experience it and approach it with a mind that isn't already close to the idea. I am probably the last person on earth who would ever take anything on blind faith. I was trained as a scientist, and as a scientist I only accept things when I am thoroughly convinced of their validity. I am more than convinced of the validity of the effectiveness of mantra. I realize I can't convince you just by saying so (more's the pity!), but there it is. I didn't graduate from the University of Chicago with a master's degree in biology without being able to think logically, let me tell ya! Fuzzy-minded woo-woo flakes don't make it through that place (my apologies to all the woo-woo flakes in the audience).
So that's all I'm going to say. Do with it what you like. I really don't care. I'm outta here.
Palzang
Yeh, thanks for that, Palzang.
..........I'm comin' with ya....