[Buddha-l] Historical vs Psychological Religious Narratives

[Franz Metcalf]

Gang,

Regarding truth claims and historical rootedness, Richard mentions,

> For many (perhaps most Christians) the Biblical narratives, especially 
> those
> concerning the crucifixion and resurrection, are of vital importance; 
> if they
> were fictitious stories serving as vehicles for some great ideas, 
> something
> indispensable would be missing.

The Abrahamic religions are all centrally concerned with 
Heilsgeschichte, the history of the inbreaking of the divine into the 
world. Christianity adds another dimension of historical concern, since 
it must focus on the physical incarnation of the divine in the human. 
For the central Christian dogma that Christ has redeemed the world to 
be valid, this remarkable narrative, in my own view, not just "should" 
but MUST have historical validity. Marginal forms of Christianity have 
taught that this narrative can be metaphorically extended to a notion 
of the incarnation being what Mahayanists might call the "Christ 
Nature" in all of us. In this case, the Redemption is not
a fait accompli, but a process of mutual sacralization of the world 
akin to the unending path of bodhisattvas awakening along with all 
beings. It is here (again in my opinion) that Buddhist-Christian 
dialogue is most fruitful on the theological level.

The basic point here is that the Abrahamic religions traditionally 
self-identify as religions of history, that is, their narratives are 
rooted in the revelation of God in specific places to (and perhaps in) 
specific persons and cultures. Such revelations (and their historical 
veridicality) are inseparable from the religions. Without the history, 
no Judaism, no Christianity, no Islam.

(Of course I wonder how much Stan Ziobro and Dan Lusthaus and others 
will agree with my sweeping generalizations here.)

Richard then comments,

> I cannot think of any narrative in Buddhism
> that would be indispensable in quite the same way.

Agreed, so long as by "any narrative" you mean something like 
"historical narrative in the canon." I say this because there is at 
least one core narrative that remains indispensable in Buddhism. You 
mention it yourself, it is the narrative contained within the Four 
Noble Truths. It is a psychological or ontological narrative, rather 
than a historical one, but it emphatically IS a narrative. We suffer. 
That suffering is caused by our clinging, which in turn is caused by 
our ignorance. We follow the Eightfold Path. We cease to suffer.

I would add that *some* forms of Buddhism--notably the Zen tradition 
and the lineage-focused forms of Vajrayana--do in fact cleave to 
historical narratives of awakening and, should these narratives be 
shown to be false, lose their institutional authority. One thing 
fascinating about contemporary Western Zen practice is that this has 
happened and yet many folks go on practicing without the belief in the 
unbroken transmission narrative. Focus now falls squarely on the 
narrative of teacher and student, rather than on the narrative of the 
teacher's awakening and authority. To show my age, I comment, "Right 
on!"

Franz