We in the West, and at least for now we are the dominant culture ( notice I said for now), have a tendency toward literalism, a side affect of the Rational Enlightenment. All plusses have minuses attached and this is a big one.
Let's look at Buddhism. The oldest Buddhist scriptures are the Pali canon, written about the time of Jesus. They are said to have been written about 500 years after Gautama Buddha lived. Yet, they are filled with the sayings of this man. Are they actual quotes? Well, I have trouble remembering what I said 20 minutes ago and I seldom make long, detailed, intricate comments on the nature of the Universe and its relation to human consciousness. I have trouble believing that his precise words, and they are exceedingly precise, were remembered for 5 centuries. Yes, I know that in so-called primitive cultures, knowledge is passed and preserved orally and we are told that this is done to perfection, to which I say, "phht." If oral traditions say that a giant lizard ate the village chief 342 years ago, must we believe that? I don't.
What about that belief that he lived around 500 BC? Well, that is what most Western references say and so do many Indian histories. But, other Indian histories place that time about 1000 BC, plus or minus a few hundred years, as do some Chinese histories and some Arab histories (remember, the Arabs were trading with China for many centuries before the Roman Empire was dreamed of).
Those promoting the 500 BC idea say that some Buddhist scriptures point out that shortly after the death of Gautama, a king, Ashoka, converted to Buddhism and created an idyllic kingdom. True, there was a King Ashoka in the 3rd century BC but recent research seems to be showing that his reign was considerably less than idyllic. However, the same research has shown that there was another Ashoka who's, by what accounts we have, did have a fairly pleasant kingdom. However, he lived about 2500 BC. Now you have a gap of 2000 years between Gautama's life and the first written record of his words.
Then to complicate matters more, about 100 years after the Pali canon, new saying of the Buddha began to be written by the Mahayanists, often contradicting the original sayings. They pulled a standard trick, saying that the new teachings were what he taught advanced students, the others were for dumb laymen. This same tactic has been used much by Christians trying to explain why Jesus often contradicted himself in the Gospels.
In other cultures, there is not the obsession with literalism that we Westerners have. That is a good thing in ways and a bad thing in other ways. They can follow a figurative teacher, we have to believe our teachers were real and that every word they are said to have spoken was actually spoken. I suppose the first is a better way of thinking but, why not just test the ideas for yourself, see what you find, and stop worrying about what someone said in the dim recesses of time.
My point? All ancient writings are suspect. For that matter, so are all modern ones, and tales of the ancients must be taken no more than semi-seriously. If you think they make sense, and are of some use to you, great. Just don't hammer others over the head with your beliefs. If some of what is written in these texts make no sense to you, then you are probably right, but, again, be easy with those who believe them. Unless they start hammering you with them. Then respond as you see fit.
No comments:
Post a Comment