The religious view of the cosmos and the origin of life that is still in use in our times is a God-centered one in a geocentric model, where “matter”, both subtle and gross, is a combination of the four elements, held together by “intellect” and “life”, and often infused with a “higher consciousness” (nous). From a modern scientific point of view, regardless of the existence of “God”, or a creator, it is an outdated view. Yet, the whole religious spiritual path is built on such a view, which hasn’t changed for thousands of years. The cosmos in which we live and the religious cosmos have irrevocably driven apart. Religions live in the past, because that’s where their divine revelations and references are, that may not be interfered with at loss of authority. Interpretations are the only way for minor temporary adjustments that will last as long as the next interpretation, whether seen and presented as a return to tradition or as progress.
The ancient cosmos and “nature” (“physics”) were considered to be animated by agents, called “daimones” or “genii”, both for believers and “unbelievers”. The “nature” of so-called “natural philosophers” was an animated one. There were debates about whether the intellect was a byproduct of the four elements, or the four elements a product/emanation of the intellect, but there was no doubt that “nature” was animated. Both “theists” and “non-theists” (anachronism) would have agreed on that. This was a given and all would turn to whatever “natural” means and “natural” agents (daimones) available to improve their lives, with perhaps some few exceptions such as Heraclites, Democritus, Epicure etc.
Religion is a given too. There is no point in denying this. Regarding religion, the śramaṇa Buddha may be considered as a minimalist. Śramaṇa ascetics were Do-It-Yourself daimonifiers. They would follow “natural” laws (of which transmigration could be a part) like everybody else, but, when possible, independently of “natural” agents. They measured their “progress” by their “ascension” in the cosmos in order to go beyond (unbind). But “what” exactly was making that ascension? The conglomerate of the four elements with consciousness as a byproduct? Such a conglomerate could only go so far, because earth and water won’t last in the higher and therefore more fiery spheres. The intellect (buddhi)? A “higher consciousness” (nous)? Is there such a thing, independently of the four elements and preexisting them, in Buddhism? In theory no. But in practice? How essenceless is the non-self, and how empty is emptiness, when there is thought to be some sort of a Divine Intellect or Light “above” it? The old Buddha refused to answer this sort of questions, the later ones loved to go into all the details and are still producing revelations that they plug into the minds of recently incarnated “daimones”.
Religions follow tradition, because this is necessary for the religious path to work, just like it did in the past. By following the same old religious maps one has the best chance to end up in the same old spheres, heavens, Pure lands, bhūmis etc. of the same old geocentric model cosmos, and the same material and/or immaterial “bodies”, piloted by something like a “higher consciousness”, that in the highest spheres would shed their burden (bhāra-sutta) and move on all by itself in order to join the Divine Light or something in that neighborhood. Wouldn’t this be like using an old flat world map or sat nav with directions, places, routes, service platforms and commodities that no longer exist? A flat world with the various stages of a huge and endless axis mundi.
Sure, this is a very materialistic way of looking at it, but, knowing what we know now, and living now, is there really any other way? This is the basic religious reference material. It is clearly outdated with regard to the modern view of the cosmos, the elements, and all the biological and neurological discoveries. How can it still “work”? Can a “reference” still work as a symbolic or mock reference, in spite of the huge gap, because of the principle of “I believe because it is absurd” (Credo quia absurdum)? For the first Christians and Buddhists however this view wasn’t absurd at all, it was the only one available, so how would the “absurdum” principle have “worked” for them? Moreover, and for different reasons, some contemporary Christians and Buddhists seem to believe it’s not absurd at all, on the contrary they believe it is true, but in ways that would go beyond our ordinary understanding. To them it somehow corresponds to the core of our awakened psychic or archetypal spiritual make-up, a deeper inner reality, or a higher reality…that hopefully would constitute a way out.
The same thing goes for the various agents (daimones) of “animated nature”. In the Tibetan Buddhist practice, like in all “polytheistic” practices in the past and still in the present, offerings made to “daimones”, deities, lamas, gods and demons are done on a daily basis. In esoteric Buddhism, our subtle body, is the microscopic copy of the macrocosmos, with its own internal axis mundi and its various levels (cakras), inhabited by deities, gods and demons, because “as above, so below”. The “actualized” unified macrocosmos and microcosmos is the same old animated geocentric model. How does a modern practitioner manage to live in two “cosmoses” at the same time? Through living a double life? Through imagining that our modern cosmos is actually an illusion (māyā) and the old one the real thing (sacred outlook)? What law should be followed then, those of the City of Man or of the City of God? The laws of one’s “temporary” countries or the religious laws? To whom should we turn in case we need help in practical matters (health, mental health, infamy, obstacles, obstacles for babies etc.), to worldly helpers or to daimones? “So many questions”.
One solution to try and close the growing gap between religion and philosophy was to continue the established rites of worship (tradition) whilst believing in the true nature of the gods/Gods/God for those who, for various reasons, liked to worship just like their ancestors. This was the case for the Greek Plutarch[1] (1st century BCE) and for the Indian Ratnākaraśānti[2] (11th century). The traditional continuation of worship (puja) is essential, like sacrifices were for Confucius for “the harmony between man and the general order of the world”. But “practice”, or rather praxis, is also the continuation, acting out, or embodiment of a theory, ideology or belief, through which it is tested against the reality (“ehi passiko”, come and see) it seeks to explain or transform, if that is indeed what one would like to do…
Food for thought. Ninety-eight percent of our thought is unconscious. “Most of your ideas, thoughts and opinions exist in your brain without you having any awareness of them. They just seem to automatically be there.” “These unconscious beliefs help determine our deeply-held moral, social and political beliefs.” “Powerful metaphors and frames, often repeated by politicians and the media, sink into our unconscious and create a concept of "common sense” — even when the ideas behind them are the opposite of sensible.” “Knowing that most thought is unconscious, campaigns focus on symbolic language, repetition, and emotional appeal.” “Once certain frames become established in the unconscious, they can be incredibly resilient. This is why changing someone's political opinion can be nearly impossible. Their cognitive frames need to be shifted, not just their conscious thoughts. That is very hard to do.” Quotes from FrameLab, a project by Gil Duran and George Lakoff.
Repetition, automatisms, can lead to “natural” and “spontaneous” reflexes and experiences, “that seem to be automatically there”, but “emerge” in fact from the ninety-eight percent of unconscious thought. Saṃskāra and vāsanā, as a Buddhist could say. Therefore we should be careful with the metaphors and frames we use and reproduce.
***
[1] “If, then, you listen to the stories about the Gods in this way, accepting them from those who interpret the story reverently and philosophically, and if you always perform and observe the established rites of worship, and believe that no sacrifice that you can offer, no deed that you may do will be more likely to find favour with the Gods than your belief in their true nature, you may avoid superstition which is no less an evil than atheism.” "On Isis and Orisis," translation by Frank Cole Babbitt. Also see Bill Thayer online
[2] “(4) Or, if one meditates only on the true nature of what the deities stand for and not the deities, then in this case too, one would attain Buddhahood in many countless aeons but not quickly.
(5) Therefore, the meditation of both [the mind as deities and the true nature of the deities at the same time], because it is extremely pleasant to the mind and because it is a special kind of empowerment, causes one to obtain the highest perfect awakening very quickly.” “Madhyamakanising” Tantric Yogācāra: The Reuse of Ratnākaraśānti’s Explanation of maṇḍala Visualisation in the Works of Śūnyasamādhivajra, Abhayākaragupta and Tsong Kha Pa Daisy S. Y. Cheung
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire