 |
| The Temptation of St. Anthony, 1887 - by Paul Cezanne |
Perfection in an imperfect world[1] comes at a price. Are Perfects, Siddhas, Buddhas, Arhats/Arahants, Saints etc. perfect all the time, 24/7/365? Would it be tolerable for a religion if their fruits weren’t permanent? If the promised awakening, salvation, grace, sanctity, etc. weren’t permanent, would they still be searched after as badly? Wouldn’t it somehow weaken the strength and appeal of the good news (euangelion)?
Why would anybody set up oneself or another as a totally perfect being? Such a being would certainly stand out in an imperfect world, among imperfect beings, and would at least deserve respect from the imperfect ones, some sign of recognition for their perfection. How does one know someone is perfect if one doesn’t live with them all the time? How do we know perfects are perfect all the time, even if nobody is watching? How come we have a certain idea of how perfect beings behave? Who planted the idea of perfection in our heads?
Even though perfection is not possible in this world (and why would it be elsewhere?), we somehow seem to need to believe in it, both individually and collectively. This belief needs a certain maintenance, and it can even be very high maintenance depending on the level of perfection. If something perfect or a perfect being shows lacks or gaps, then the survival of the belief in perfection will need these to be filled or covered up. Filling up breaches in perfection can sometimes be a full time job and there are good and bad jobs, botched jobs hardly covering up the lack of perfection or even drawing attention to them.
“In the Pali canon the arahant emerges not simply as the revealer of the religion or the person worthy of receiving gifts but as one who has attained freedom of mind and heart, has overcome desire and passion, has come to true knowledge and insight, has crossed over the flood (of saṃsāra ) and gone beyond (pāragata ), has destroyed the āsavas (deadly attachments to the world), is versed in the threefold knowledge (tevijja ) of past, present, and future, has achieved the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment, and who has attained nibbāna.” Encyclopedia.comAccording to Buddhist sources, the Buddha had declared himself to be an Arahant (Worthy One), and was the one to confirm the state of Arahant in others. It takes an Arahant to know one. It takes a Worthy one to know another Worthy One. When a Worthy one has been confirmed as a Worthy one, is considered by all as a Worthy one, and yet may seem to have his (arahants are male) weaker moments, then questions may arise, and they did arise and according to the Vinaya, the Buddha answered them vigorously.
The Vinaya contains the various sets of vows that religious followers of the Buddha need to follow, the breaking of which may lead to suspension or to expulsion from the Saṅgha. When an Arahant, a perfect monk, seemed to have broken a vow, doubts and questions could arise and be put before the Buddha, like in the following case.
“Bu-Pj.1.10.17 MS.175 At one time a certain monk was lying down in the Jātiyā Grove at Bhaddiya,[22] having gone there to spend the day. And he had an erection because of wind. A certain woman saw him and sat down on his penis; and having taken her pleasure, she departed. The monks, seeing the moisture [kilinna],[23] informed the Master. Vin.3.38 “Monks, an erection occurs for five reasons: because of lust, because of excrement, because of urine, because of wind, because of being bitten by caterpillars. It is impossible, monks, it cannot be, that that monk had an erection because of lust. That monk is an arahant. There is no offence for that monk.” Vinaya Pitaka (1): Bhikkhu-vibhanga (the analysis of Monks’ rules) by I. B. Horner | 2014
Those who don’t see things as they are and don’t know the full context, could have got the wrong picture. They may have perceived lust, where there was none. They may have seen an erection and interpret it hastily as lust, without even considering the four other causes of an erection - thanks to his omniscience the Buddha saw at one glance it was due to wind. And above all they may have forgotten, caught up as they were in their own emotions, that the monk lying down with a harmless erection, was an arahant and therefore beyond lust. That a lustful woman doesn’t notice perfection when it stares her in the eye is one thing, but that followers of the Buddha can’t see the full scope of reality beyond mere appearances must have been a real disappointment to the Buddha.
“It is impossible, monks, it cannot be, that that monk had an erection because of lust. That monk is an arahant. There is no offence for that monk.”One can read between the lines this wasn’t the first time the Buddha had to make this point to his recalcitrant followers. Have a look at the other Vinaya stories (same link). Hopefully they learned their lesson and wouldn’t have been so quick to jump to conclusions the other times an Arahant was found in an awkward situation.
***
[1] “The Buddha taught that all phenomena, including thoughts, emotions, and experiences, are marked by three characteristics, or “three marks of existence”: impermanence (anicca), suffering or dissatisfaction (dukkha), and not-self (anatta).” The Three Marks of Existence
Because of caterpillars! That's great.
RépondreSupprimerI did some research on that and the only information I found going into that direction was on a bite by the banana spider.
RépondreSupprimerhttps://www.wired.com/2015/02/gmo-spider-venom-may-be-the-next-viagra/
“Brazilian Wandering Spiders, or Banana spiders (Phoneutria nigriventer) are big: over a 5 inch leg span, or 13 cm. They hunt nocturnally in tropical forests, usually bothering no one except the small animals they eat. They have a reputation that is as as oversized as their body; these spiders rarely travel on bananas, despite their name.
In case studies of 422 Brazilians bitten by these spiders, >90 percent of the bites weren't medical emergencies. The most common symptoms were pain, sweating, and elevated heart rate. So why are banana spiders so notorious? In a few rare cases, their bite causes priapism. Destin described it well in this video: "Priapism is a medical emergency involving the penis which is terrifying."
Penises are not supposed to have blood pooling in them for hours at a time. When blood stops circulating, it begins to coagulate and clot. One's penis is not a good place to develop congestion. Needles, and sometimes scalpels, are involved in fixing that problem.
Researchers working to identify naturally-derived chemicals that might help with ED noticed the reports of priapism. And that's how the path to GMO Spider Viagra began.”
Spiders! That's also funny. I was imagining the sensations of a caterpillar walking on the Arhant's member and causing arousal. It would be strange if monks were using aphrodisiacs, caterpillar-derived or otherwise. There is a lot of silly stuff in the Vinaya, especially around sex. I once wrote an article about it. Very likely words were put into the Buddha's mouth when it felt convenient and justified. Since the 'historical' Buddha was supposedly married and fathered a child, I presume he wouldn't be as naive as some of the compilers of these stories In the sutta, the monks see the moisture and thus it seems that the arhant had an orgasm. 'Wind' could also mean energy... I have a lot of skepticism about the women who are depicted as taking their pleasure while arhants remain asleep. There is no record that he tried to stop her!
SupprimerYou would think that the arhant would be awakened by being sat upon by a woman! And why 'perfection' doesn't admit sexual desire is odd for me. I think the story props up misogynistic views!
There's another drawback:
RépondreSupprimerBuddhist proponents of other Buddhists' perfect enlightenment need to be right about such enlightened persons' perfection all the time. However, if these Buddhists themselves are not perfectly enlightened, they, as a matter of Buddhist doctrine, are actually incapable of verifying whether any other person or any conduct at all is perfectly enlightened or not.
So, their belief in perfection is quite literally blind while their judgments on others' perfection are meaningless. That makes for a very defensive mindset indeed, constantly beset by cognitive dissonance—call it a siege mentality and a mission impossible.
Meanwhile, opponents of such a belief need one single instance of imperfection to dissipate the cognitive dissonance that momentarily entertaining the idea of others Buddhists' perfection might cause in them.
As Shantideva said many, many years ago: it's much easier to put on shoes than to cover the world with leather.
As I see it, there are several aspects to this. On the whole, Buddhism doesn’t like definite statements and to restrict itself to a binary logic. The Middle path offers for a lot of leeway, and “eel wriggling”, an ironic joker might say. Not completely yes, not completely no, a third outcome is always possible.
RépondreSupprimerOf course the Buddha is considered perfect, and its teaching, perfect in the beginning, the middle and the end, can lead others to perfection. The perfection of some followers was confirmed during the Buddha’s lifetime. All that is part of the Buddhist legend. That being said, in practice no Buddhist follower could immodestly call themselves perfect, in other words an arhat or a Buddha. And to call someone else perfect would imply one has oneself the capacity to see that person’s perfection (to know the minds of others, a feature of a saint), which would be lacking modesty too. Therefore it’s part of perfection, to not definitely state one’s own or another’s perfection.
There is a rule that no monk “shall make false claims to spiritual attainments except under the pain of being expelled from the Order”. The advantage of this rule is that like with Schrodinger’s cat, all monks are potentially arhats, or not, and if they were, then this couldn’t be claimed anyway. Nobody knows for sure. Therefore it’s better to treat them all as if they were perfect. A great recipe for cognitive dissonance indeed...
Mahāyāna’s bodhisattva path offers further possibilities. Everybody is potentially a Buddha and seeing and treating others as such allows one to receive the blessings of a Buddha. Paying homage and praising others as a Buddha or a Buddha-to-be helps to develop the sacred outlook of one’s future Buddhaland and Buddhahood. Criticizing them (calling out their faults) could slow down or even block one’s own progress. Since bodhisattvas appear in all sorts of forms, it is wise to not criticize anybody and to only focus on one’s own faults. This is often taught in the great sūtras. Doing so would be to endow oneself with a charisma of perfection. Another great recipe for cognitive dissonance.
Even though individual or universal perfection may not be actualised yet, it will be one day, so Mahāyāna Buddhists believe, because such is their vow. And if it will be so one day, we may as well pretend it already is perfect, especially since doing so will boost our spiritual progress. Everything that we experience, see and know is only the old world if we still want to focus on it in that way. There are ways to learn to see its future perfection right now, and act as if it’s already there. The sacred outlook of a Buddha land filled with bodhisattvas. The only faults that are seen there are that of our own individual deficient sacred outlook. Understanding that, be kind to yourself and don’t degrade yourself whilst exposing your lack of perfection to others. Please don’t be a spoilsport.
The Dalai-lama didn’t disgrace Sogyal, he said “Sogyal Rinpoche, my very good friend, disgraced”, because his students made things public… He invites others, students, to make things public, but won’t make things public himself. He doesn’t invite his colleagues, teachers, monks, etc. to make things public either, because that would move them away from their own path towards perfection, and would shatter their credit and image of perfection. “Making public”, calling out faults, is for the most brave, clueless, reckless or desperate ones on the very outer circles of the maṇḍala of perfection, and whose lack of perfection-credit wouldn’t suffer too much in doing so anyway.
There's a certain irony in arguing that the Buddhist idea of perfection comes down to no more than a communal faking it until you're making it. For such abstract spectacles presuppose a very concrete division of labour: there are those who enjoy the spoils of this theatre-of-make-believe (let's say those Buddhists who Buddhists bow to while they fill their bowls), and those who toil to provide them with such spoils (let's say those Buddhists who do the bowing while filling those Buddhists' bowls).
SupprimerThe Dalai Lama, likewise, has a very distinct idea about the division of labour between himself and other Buddhists. Not only does he exhort others to call out Buddhists' faults (e.g. sexual abuse) in media, he himself routinely ignores such reports in media while he continues to endorse and elevate the selfsame Buddhists whose faults were reported. The Buddhist 'maṇḍala of perfection' as a win-win situation for some, and a lose-lose situation for others: how very convenient!
Yes! HH has been disappointing in regard to 'calling out' misconduct by lamas.
SupprimerApologists are fond of arguing that since the Dalai Lama is not a 'pope,' he's incapable of intervening in any way. That's plain silly. It simply doesn't follow that because he's not a 'pope' he can't do anything. He has full control over his own actions, in particular his numerous endorsements of dubious Lamas, gurus, cult leaders, and (neo-)nazis. Imagine for a moment how much he could have accomplished by doing nothing—not endorsing, not writing forewords, not presenting awards, not appearing on stage.
SupprimerThank you Rob.
RépondreSupprimerYes the Buddhist maṇḍala of perfection is a play with a clear distribution of roles: the good, the bad and the ugly, the ones existing by the grace of the others in both ways. A meritocracy, where the merit needed for the winning roles allegedly comes from former lives and perfection, and where the merit accumulated by the bad will allegedly provide them with better roles and conditions in their next lives. As for the ugly… Their function in the maṇḍala is to scare the bad and push them to perfect themselves further.
Thanks, Janus. Meritocracy within one lifetime and meritocracy over many lifetimes are two very different ideas. The latter would better be called the afterlife-meritocracy. In real life, I'm afraid, Buddhist afterlife-theatrics readily devolve into the fatalism of being stuck with a predestined role forever. As in most religions, the Buddhist playing fields in the here and now tend to be slanted in favour of the high and mighty.
SupprimerLila: There is a lot of silly stuff in the Vinaya, especially around sex. I once wrote an article about it
RépondreSupprimer:-) At the same time I find the Vinaya honest and even endearing, it sees humans (men and women) as they are, no nonsense, and the rules (how ridiculous they sometimes may be) underline the need for safeguards. No room for crazy wisdom there! Casuistry is often funny, it is like a team of lawyers brainstorming on all the possibilities and actually working them out and listing them. Misogynistic yes, either women are objectified as obstacles or means to an end (tantra).