Missing the Point of the Many Masks [was: dvija varNa]

[Ven. Tantra]

And so, if we may have your permission to thoroughly
break faith with the millennia-long tradition of
fairytale weaving.� Please, boys and girls, we do not
wish to cause misunderstanding here, nor give
conniptions to the closeted believers among us. Nor
would we dare to attempt to dismiss the feasibility
that "The Buddha" - whomever that may or may have not
been - actually ever existed. Yet, at this point we
really do need to "keep it real" and sincerely ask
ourselves what true historical evidence there is in
support of an "existence" - not "_alleged_ existence."

So once again: A commonly held working presumption is
that 'hagiography has built a superstructure on the
historical figure to such a degree that it is
impossible discern the historical substratum of *a
presumed original figure*.' One would therefore
discount practically everything the "tradition" has
told him concerning that figure, and yet, one can
still not suppose that this "conjuring tradition"
could possibly have invented, and reinvented, its
original premise out of - as it were - "a whole
cloth."

And it is upon this flaw, this rent cloth, this torn
tissue that "the tradition" has inevitably constructed
its "past" from its own contemporaneous dreams and
aspirations. Or put like this: Trying to establish
whether a person - or persons - called The Buddha,
Siddhartha, Shakyamuni, Gotama, Angirasa, Bhagavan,
The Jina, and so forth and so on, in fact ever lived
on planet Earth is one thing; but ascertaining the
"significance" of such an existence or non-existence -
*such existences or non-existences* - is altogether
something else.

In the case of Buddhism, its entire history is
crucially pinned on the vague mythic notion of a
paranormal "Buddhic enlightenment" that more or less
functions as "heaven" does in the Christian mythic
sense. Yet still, it is left to the folks here and now
to determine what that summum bonum might possibly
have meant, or not meant. This really ought to be the
thematic domain of the Academic Field of Buddhism -
and not the Church. So we question: Have the pros been
doing their job? Or have they rather inadvertently
proved the old saying that "present perception
reinvents the past," as the boat creates the wake, and
not vice versa?

Every soteriological movement seems to be founded on a
similar sort of multi-level pandering of some exalted
state-of-being called heaven, paradise, nirvaa.na,
mok.sa, enlightenment, and the rest. But religionists
have always been extremely chary to question the basis
of the glib little ploy itself, as they would rather
impulsively spend their time polemically deriding the
virtue, authority and goal of the competition. Now,
academia has traded hugely in these same market
shares, which is exactly why it bodes so menacingly �
at least from a historiographic point of view � to
expose the blaring inconsistencies of certain remotely
prehistoric religious figures. For to deal with this
seriously would necessitate a radical shift in
methodological tack away from a discourse on the
influences of various historical players -
philosophers, religious leaders, their antagonists,
etc. - to a history of the very pathogenesis of the
fraud-impulse itself.

I have recently observed this syndrome of denial in
the scholarly discussion as pertains to the history of
the Dhyana-yoga School of Buddhism, otherwise known as
Ch'an or Zen. In _Zen Buddhism: A History (vol. 1
Indian & China_), Heinrich Dumoulin does a remarkable
job in substantially burying the Bodhidharma myth. But
Yaroslav Vassilkov proves far more radical and
thoroughgoing in discrediting the historicity of the
hallowed Zen-figure Hui Nung, together with the sutra
attributed to him. Ostensibly, Vassilkov's work is a
new translation of _The Platform Sutra of the Sixth
Patriarch_ in light of the documents unearthed at the
Silk Road oasis town of Duhuang. But the thesis put
forward in his long Introduction greatly out shines
his work of translation. Interestingly, if not
confusingly, Dumoulin hardly makes mention of
Vassilkov's work. Dumoulin, one suspects, has too much
at risk, as the meat of his literary career depends
directly on the perpetuation of the Zen enlightenment
myth. This may also demonstrate how analyzing cult in
terms of its own highly specialized and stylized argot
acts strongly to condone, if not altogether honor the
cult-itself, and obviously precludes any thoroughgoing
analysis.

Frankly speaking, Buddhism today is a highly cultic,
sentimental mess where, in the name of "tradition,"
even top-notch scholars persist in notorious
rationalization and kid themselves into crediting
purely human aspirations to a factitious paranormal
being. Of first importance is to clean this mess up,
because if we don't, the enchanted myth gets conferred
on one more generation.

Ven. Tantra

Artistic reference:
R. Christgau, "Missing the Point of the Many Masks,"
http://www.latimes.com/news/asection/20010218/t000014524.html



























__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/