[Buddha-l] Historical vs Psychological Religious Narratives

[Leigh Goldstein (deneb)]

>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. 

I think the dichotomy would not just be between Buddhism and Abrahamic
religions, but between Buddhism and traditional theistic religion in
general.

The above quote is not only true of Abrahamic religions, but their
Hamito-Semitic predecessors.

The ancient Egyptians identified specific geographical features, such as a
hill or village site, with specific historical events relating to the
divine, such as the creation of something, the birth, death or resurrection
of a god, etc. The divine entered the world historically not only through
such events which were ancient/historical to the ancient Egyptians, but
through events that were current for them. For example, some of their kings
(and a queen) claimed to have a god as a father. They also believed, or at
least it was accepted doctrine, that they would be resurrected to eternal
life as a god in heaven with the other gods. Temples were believed to be on
the very site of some specific event. The deity was also believed to, at
least at times, be physically present in the temple.

The kings sometimes claimed to be the physical incarnation of a God, or a
God in their own right. As god-kings, they served the people by fulfilling
their needs and mediating with the divine world on their behalf. The belief
that the dead king resurrected as a God who could be worshipped and
petitioned was historically more common (or at least more often overt) than
belief in the living king as a divine incarnation equal to the Gods. Similar
claims of divine ancestry and of living divinity were also made by some
ancient Mesopotamian rulers.

Another form of divine intervention in the world, which was found in many
ancient religions in the region including Greece, was the divine oracle, in
which a deity would directly answer queries of humans, often in some
miraculous way. (Such divine oracles are of course also found until today in
Tibetan Buddhism and are common in the traditional religions of tribal or
native peoples.)

For these ancient Egyptians, the truth of these historical and contemporary
divine interventions was crucial to the structure and stability of their
society. It was the source of their morality, of justice and truth in the
social order, which was also enforced through a system of divine post-mortem
judgement and reward. 

Their devotion and love for their creator God, and at least in the case of
kings their personal relationships with their creator God and other deities,
is revealed in the deep piety of their religious hymns and texts (e.g.
Akenhaten's famous hymn to Re.)

My experience with Buddhists raised in Buddhist cultures, rather than
Western converts, is that the truth of historical narratives can be more
important to them. For example, the common claim by Tibetan lamas is that
the Mahayana sutras were actually spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha, and that the
Vajryana teachings also originate with him. These claims seem to be
important to them. The biography of Gotama Buddha's life is often the
introduction to Buddhist teachings, and the claim for the truth of Buddhist
teachings is at least in part, or rhetorically, grounded in the authority of
his historical awakening. 

There is also a connection between belief in the historical biography of
Buddha, belief in reincarnation, and the enforcement of moral behavior and
social order through karmic retribution and reward in future lifetimes.

On the other hand, Christianity also has psychological narratives, such as
the concept of original sin, etc. Although I am not familiar with them,
there must be extensive Christian writings on human psychology, as there are
on philosophy, that support Christian doctrines of salvation.

Perhaps the more key difference between traditional Buddhism and traditional
theistic religion is the role of a deity in granting salvation through
petition. The less such claims can be supported by reason and experience,
the greater the importance of magical events and the divine origin of texts.






-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com
[mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Franz Metcalf
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 20:23
To: Buddhist discussion forum
Subject: [Buddha-l] Historical vs Psychological Religious Narratives

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.

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

_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l