Bohemian Rhapsody

I denne post i mit kommentatorspor bliver treenigheden kaldt for et kristeligt dogme. Store dele af menneskeheden vil sikkert betragte udsagnet som banalt og indlysende rigtigt. Jeg er uenig i påstanden om treenighedens kristelighed. Jeg betragter det som mere sandsynligt at treenigheden er et tværreligiøst fænomen som oprinder hos Buddha.

Hovedet fra en 15 meter lang liggende Buddha i Dambullas klippehuler, Sri Lanka

De Tre Juveler

Buddha snakkede om tre juveler (ti ratana), som kan være en dicipels tilflugtssteder: Buddha, Dhamma og Sangha.

Buddha er Buddha. Dhamma er verdens fænomener og de naturlove som styrer deres adfærd (herunder hører bl.a. kamma-lære). Sangha er ethvert væsen som er blevet oplyst igennem Buddhas lære.

Ti-Ratana er en hjørnesten i Buddhas lære, og tilflugts-ritualet er lige så sikker en bestanddel af den religiøse praksis i Theravada-buddhistiske lande som Fadervor er i de kristne lande.

De Tre Juveler = Treenigheden

Buddha = Faderen

Dhamma = Helligånden

Sangha = Sønnen

Hvis du dertil tilføjer at himlen er lig Nibbana, så fremstår Jesus som en rimelig ortodoks buddhistisk prædikant.

Sønnen er et produkt af Faderen, og Faderen i Himlen er større end Sønnen, da han ryddede vejen for Sønnen. Alligevel bliver det Sønnens rolle at frelse menneskeheden.

Sangha er et produkt af Buddha, og Buddha der har opnået Nibbana er større end Sangha, da han ryddede vejen for Sangha. Alligevel bliver det Sanghas rolle at lede menneskeheden til at frelse sig selv.

Helligånden spiller en formidlingsrolle. Den er en slags agerende og allestedsnærværende kraft i forholdet mellem Gud og mennesket.

Dhamma er universelt gældende principper (allestedsnærværende kraft), og det er den del af læren som den enkelte praktiserende har et konkret forhold til.

Et enkelt eksempel:

Matthæus, 11,27:

“Alt har min fader overgivet mig, og ingen kender Sønnen undtagen Faderen, og ingen kender Faderen undtagen Sønnen og den, som Sønnen vil åbenbare ham for.”

Matthæus, 11,27 oversat til ‘buddhistisk’:

Alt har Buddha overgivet mig, og ingen kender Sangha undtagen Buddha, og ingen kender Buddha undtagen Sangha og den, som Sangha vil åbenbare ham for.

Alt har Buddha overgivet mig… Buddha sagde igen og igen at han ikke tilbageholdte nogen del af hans lære. Der var ingen højere stadier, hemmeligholdte ritualer eller lignende. Det var altsammen offentligt tilgængeligt, og Buddha gjorde en pointe ud af at påpege dette.

…ingen kender Sangha undtagen Buddha… Oplysning er angiveligt (har ikke selv prøvet det) en så skelsættende begivenhed at selve oplevelsen af oplysningen er forudsætningen for virkeligt at erkende dybden i oplysnings-begrebet. Der er en gensidig forståelse som udefrakommende skal guides hen mod (…som Sangha vil åbenbare ham for).

Indskudt udfordring til alle kristne:

Find en Bibel-passage, hvor Jesus nævner Sønnen, Faderen eller Helligånden, som er uforenlig med en ‘oversættelse til buddhistisk’.

…og det er hverken umuligt eller usandsynligt at Jesus var i kontakt med Buddhas lære:

Buddhistiske pilgrimme havde besøgt Romerriget siden år 200 f.kr. Der var masser af kulturel udveksling med det mestendels buddhistiske Indien og området omkring Palænstina (se bl.a. her). Desuden er der næsten 20 år af Jesus liv som ikke bliver  redegjort for i Det Nye Testamente. Det har givet ham rig mulighed for at besøge Indien.

Konklusion:

Jeg har svært ved at forestille mig at to så ensartede doktriner, som befinder sig i det samme kulturelle rum, er opstået 100% uafhængigt af hinanden.

Occams Razor siger at tre-enigheds-læren er en arv fra Buddha, ikke et kristeligt dogme.

Se også:

Jesus i Koranen

Why I am not a Buddhist

Buddhism and Christianity

Jesus Lived in India (høj bullshit til visdom-ratio, men alligevel fyldt med gode pointer)

Without any vain hopes of writing in the vein of the two great atheist treatises that inspired my headline, Bertrand Russels ‘Why I am not a Christian’ and Ibn-Warraqs ‘Why I am not a Muslim’, allow me to introduce:

Why I am not a Buddhist

Unlike Russels and Ibn-Warraq, whom no one would accuse of either Christianity or Islam, it would be not be entirely unreasonable to call me a Buddhist. Allow me to explain;

I do try to follow the teaching of the Buddha on many points. I have gone for refuge, I try to observe the 5 basic moral precepts and I meditate two hours every day and have done so for about 12 years. I regularly go on meditation-retreats and I have volunteered and even organized scores of such retreats over the years. In the 12 years I have gone from being a mentally disturbed, borderline clinically depressed, drug-consuming, law-clashing unsettled bohemian traveller to the reasonably mellow and quite happy bohemian traveller that I am today. Some people might say; ‘hey, that’s pretty damn Buddhist behavior right there, you moron…’ Well, I beg to differ. Allow me once again to explain:

I do try to follow some of the teachings of the Buddha, but I do not equate that (or even consider it similar to) practicing Buddhism. You must by now be familiar with my refrain; allow me to explain:

What is Buddhism?

Buddhism is various things to various people, but most commonly (in the Theravada-traditions at least) Buddhism is considered to be a package. This package contains a set of beliefs believed to be taught by the Buddha, and a set of practices. The rebirth-doctrine, refuge, respect for the order of monks, various moral obligations, various teachings on human nature etc. Even though it is rare to see coercion used in the promotion of this package, Buddhism is certainly widely considered to be the whole package and not just select bits of it. That doesn’t mean that a Buddhist can’t pick and choose though.

Consider Buddhism to be a pizza with many great toppings, amongst them olives. Say you don’t like olives, what do you do? Do you throw away the entire pizza, and pronounce damnation upon the day that you bought such a horrible pizza? …or do you act more wisely and simply remove the olives and enjoy the rest? Well, Buddhism generally allows you to unsubscribe from certain beliefs or practices. Most Buddhists would allow you to remove the olives from Buddhism.

You don’t believe in rebirth? Fine, don’t believe it… You can still be a Buddhist and enjoy the rest of the package.

You don’t believe in the value of the 5th moral precept which obligates you to abstain from intoxicants? Fine, don’t believe it, have a beer… You can still be a Buddhist and enjoy the rest of the package (as and when you are sober enough to do so).

So in this ridiculously simplified manner I’ve told you that a) I follow a lot of The Buddhas teachings, and b) Buddhists are usually very free to pick which parts of Buddhism they follow. Which probably makes it even more dumb-founding that the question kicking off this article is the question of why I am not a Buddhist.

Why I am not a Buddhist – this time I’ll actually answer the question…

Buying a pizza and removing your least favorite topping is the wrong way of going about the thing. In life you have to select your own toppings, not approve or disapprove of another mans choices. Let me relate this pizza-analogy to the teachings of The Buddha:

The Buddha once gave a sermon, which to later generations got to be known as The Buddhas Charter of Free Enquiry. It pretty much ends with the following famous quotation:

* Do not accept anything on mere hearsay
* Do not accept anything by mere tradition
* Do not accept anything on account of rumours
* Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures.
* Do not accept anything by mere supposition.
* Do not accept anything by mere inference.
* Do not accept anything by merely considering the appearances.
* Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions.
* Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable
* Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (i.e. do not accept anything based on authority, not even any authority you might accord to The Buddha)

But when you know for yourselves – these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to ruin and sorrow – then reject them.

When you know for yourselves – these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness – then live and act accordingly.

Pretty cool discourse, eh…?

Now if The Buddha were merely trying to make a point about intellectual independence, then certainly he was making a dumb fuckin’ point.

Do not accept stuff because wiser men who have gone before you advocates it? Well, that would be society’s collapse if ‘accepting stuff’ wasn’t our default-mode. Not to mention a sure guarantee that tons of children won’t live to see adulthood, because they didn’t accept their parents advice of not playing amongst the cars on the highway.

Do not accept stuff due to your intellectual reasoning, but wait until you have gained experimental knowledge of the field yourself? Well, that would throw the entire field of theoretical astrophysics out the window. Not to mention that it would force me to question the existence of Australia, as I have no experiential knowledge of said continents existence.

Obviously the ‘don’t accept it until you’ve experienced it’ is not a universally applicable principle. I am convinced though, that it does apply to mental diciplines. It is a mental blockage to receive preconceived notions of morality, human nature, your own nature, the universe and your place in it. This is stuff you should strive to develop yourself.

Now such striving could – of course – be easily undertaken by a Buddhist. It can just as easily be undertaken by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, or whatever. Certainly no philosophical perspective, metaphysical convictions or nominal sectarian identity is a hindrance for stepping onto a path of self-development. But as for the progress on that path…

Building up to the conclusion

If you strive to get a grasp of morality, while subscribing to a set of morals, then your striving could very well be stunted by your intellectual and devotional commitment to those morals. You will be less equipped to intuitively practice that morality, because it will not be based on your own experiential understanding of its worth.

If you strive to get a grasp of your own humanity, while subscribing to a view of existence, then your striving could very well be stunted by your intellectual and devotional commitment to that view. You will be less equipped to intuitively live according to that view, because it will not be based on your own experiential understanding of its worth

The Buddhas Charter of Free Enquiry (not to mention common sense, the feeling in my gut, the thoughts in my brain and – oh, so ever importantly – MY EXPERIENCE) encourages you to go D.I.Y. Do It Yourself.

Do it yourself, and you can’t possibly be a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, whatever. And that, my friends, is why I am not a Buddhist.

Conclusion:

In my experience, D.I.Y. is the way forward. I am so convinced of this point, that I am not even going to argue it further due to my conviction that your intellectual conviction is irrelevant to the point that I have been trying to make.

If you choose to accept my larger D.I.Y.-point, then it should follow that teaching any -ism within the field of mental or moral growth is counterproductive to said growth. Whether you are a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever… Whether you are a ‘master’, guru, lama, imam, preacher etc., you’d be better off giving simple instructions as to how your student might choose to work on his own. The aim should be for the student to reproduce – as opposed to copy – whatever results you feel you have attained, and gives you an entitlement to teach. From there on, you can only hope that he or she ends up with whatever benefits, that you have gotten from your own practice.

And if you do that, whatever you are teaching can’t be labelled as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam etc. without violating the very thing, that you are teaching.

Dette er en boganbefaling, ikke en boganmeldelse. Jeg vil ikke gå langt ned i detaljer med det udvalgte værk, men blot anbefale det til menneskeheden i al almindelighed:

Charles Allen – The Buddha And The Sahibs

Bogen handler om de britiske gentlemen som genopdagede Buddhas Indien. Som tidligere omtalt på denne blog, så uddøde Buddhismen i Indien. Sarnath, Rajgir, Kushinagar, Bodhgaya m.m. var blot steder som levede i Sydøstasiatiske myter. De var ikke punkter på et landkort. De var ikke udforskede ærkeologiske udgravninger. De var ikke kilder til ny viden om gamle tider.

De lokale indere var ikke bekendt med idéen om en historisk Buddhas eksistens, de levede på  historiske steder i uvidenhed om deres signifikans. Men briterne… De fleste der gjorde karriere i East India Company nåede adskillige udstationeringer, og var i korrespondence med kollegaer i det øvrige Asien. De var både bekendte med Indien og historierne om Buddhas liv. Et par håndfulde entusiastiske herrer satte sig selv den udfordring at stedfæste de historier fra Buddhas Indien som fortaltes rundt omkring i Asien.

Historien om deres detektiv-arbejde, opdagelses-rejser, daterings-teoretiske overvejelser og absurde vildskud fortælles af Charles Allen med humor, et overlødighedshorn af viden og en entusiasme der gør læsningen til en ubetinget fornøjelse. Det bliver også ret nørdet undervejs. Som Martin Booth fra Sunday Times skriver i et blurp på bogens bagside:

…few books have so succinctly yet accessibly investigated such a less-known yet seminally important corner of Indian history.

Hvis det er dit bedste blurp, så har du ikke skrevet en bog for masserne. Men er du Buddha-nørd, Indiens-nørd eller ‘andet-buzzword-forbundet-med-denne-bog’-nørd, så er The Buddha and The Sahebs lige noget for dig.

Men hvorfor overskriften? Hvorfor er bogen et forsvar for orientalisme?

Bogen er historie-formidling og historie-fortælling i lykkeligt vellykket sammenblanding. Men selvom Charles Allen kun lige akkurat anerkender det, så er bogen tillige et forsvarsværk for orientalisme.

Orientalisme var engang et respekteret ord som betød noget i retning af Orienten-studier. Det formåede Edward Said at ændre på, da han bortdømte orientalismen . Han kaldte orientalismen et forsøg på at forstå Orienten fra et vestligt perspektiv og ikke på Orientens egne præmisser. Asiaterne og deres kultur blev reduceret til objekter af disse orientalister. Det er jo meget, meget slemt. En velrenommeret historisk diciplin fik pletter på sit ry. Men måske bør kritikerne stille sig selv dette spørgsmål:

Hvor havde vores viden om Indiens historie været henne idag, hvis ikke disse orientalister var kommet forbi og givet sig til at betragte Indien?

Jeg kan sagtens give Edward Said ret i at briterne betragtede Indien fra et entydigt vestligt perspektiv. Charles Allen beretter om ganske komiske vildskud som kun ignorante vesterlændinge ville affyre, f.eks. den fortjent kortlivede ‘Buddha kom fra Ægyptien’-teori eller ‘de britiske øer er beskrevet i klassisk hinduistisk kosmologi’-idiotiet. Men i det mindste betragtede de Indien. I det mindste observerede de, studerede de, udtænkte teorier, afprøvede teorier, tilpassede teorier, observerede igen, studerede igen, udtænkte nye teorier etc.

Ja, orientalister har et synderegister, når det kommer til objektificeringen af asiater. Men orientalisterne har også en prægtig trofæ-hylde, som sætter mig istand til at tilgive dem deres relativt beskedne synderegister. Orientalisterne har bl.a. store dele af æren for vores (og indernes) kendskab til Indiens tidlige historie. Det er Charles Allen ikke bleg for at gøre utvetydigt opmærksom på. …når han så samtidigt gør det på en underholdende og elementært spændende måde, så måtte det jo ende med en ubetinget begejstret boganbefaling.