Tolkien spiritualty... A hint of Buddhism?

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

A good story takes you where you never had been before. A great story takes you back to the places you knew, points at something, and makes you say, "Oh, something I missed!"

I made the quote up (just yestre day, really!) For you, Baran, LR is just a good story, because you've never been in the same "place" (i.e., the same mindset, for lack of better words) as Tolkien have. For me, Tolkien's pacifism and distaste for machinery is a place I've never been in. But from my Christian point of view, LR (and the Silm) takes me to places I know--my thoughts, my experiences--and it show it to me in a new light. So for me, LR is more than a good story.

Kinda like how you rep people, eh. The ones that make you slap your head and say "Why didn't I think of that?!"

Well, mostly: except davem's. I know I could never think like that.

You're just rambling here now . . .

[Child of the 7th Age]

I ran across an article on the net entitled A Buddhist Reading of J. R. R. Tolkien: Middle Earth and Middle Path.

While I know nothing of the author or his background, it seems carefully written and pertinent to this thread so I am posting the link here.

[HerenIstarion]

Thanks for the link, Child

It is indeed pertinent, though I have one (at least and hasty) but, and the but consists of the following:

Originally Posted by author of the article

Another angle is to see the three characters who make the final journey, Frodo, Sam and the tragic Gollum, as aspects of one personality. If for example, Gollum is seen as a personification of the defilements, hopelessly addicted to sangsaric becoming ("my precious!") then the climatic scene at the Crack of Doom takes on a profound significance.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

...on a symbolic plane, I daresay, the trio somehow forms itself into one and the same person. Frodo being eternal and Sam and Gollum temporal parts of the personality.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

... when Frodo (eternal part) gives in (rendered as claim and than fight with Gollum, mortal and evil part, as contrasted to Sam, mortal and good part), direct Divine Intervention occurs, and Gollum falls down (or, mortal/evil part of the Personality is mortified). And what with Sam representing mortal/good part of FSG, he is also left behind once Frodo goes West.

Quoted from Tolkien, for the love of Eowyn thread.

My point being – it occurs without Buddhist connotations – I was not thinking about sangsara when contriving the analogy. In fact, it is a Christian idea – nothing and noone can be reborn to New Life unless going through Death first. And nothing can go to Heaven unless the mortal parts are mortified. (Straigth Road – explicit – no mortal flash can walk it etc etc) So, in a complex symbol FSG (what an ugly abbreviation! ) is purified when ‘berid’ of its mortal ‘anchors’.
But, on the whole, let me repeat after the author:

The fact that a Christian with pagan sensibilities could write a book of such profound spiritual meaning for non-Christians is a real tribute to Tolkien's spiritual depth. His religious vision was not a narrow one. He seems to have tapped into some of the deep layers of truth that underlie all the great religious traditions. And, not least, it is a profound and deeply moving story

And some archetypes are universal, after all

[lindil]

Alot of great posts. Most everyone seems to have agreed that there is no direct Buddhist influence in the Legendarium and any resmeblances are due to the universality of many of the facets of Truth.

Several times folks have made statements to the effect of Buddhism believes _______.

But a crucial point is I think being missed. No religion has changed so much from it's inception [with the likely exception of Protestant Chrtistianity]. As 2 of the branches or Vehicles as they are often translated, of Buddhism has. At least from my studies and talks w/ Buddhists. The Buddha originally refused to speak to re-incarnation, existence or permanence of the soul and several other points that Mahayana [incuding Zen] and Vajrayana [primarily TIbetan B.] have dogmatized.

So to speak of Buddhism as monolithic makes it difficult to discuss specifics in Tolkien [or Buddhism for that matter ]

My readings on Buddhism are a decade or so old, so I may be off...

One does find many sources for Tolkien's writings, he never to my mind tried to hide them.

He digested virtually the entirety of Northern European Mythology and Roman Catholic CHristianity and gave it back to the world both new and improved and, an "Older Testament" if you will.

But I see no more hint of Buddhism than of Zorastrianism or Shintoism.

[Aiwendil]

You make a very good point, Lindil. The history of Buddhism is a very long and complex one; many ideas that are central to Mahayana Buddhism did not exist at all in the original teachings of Siddhartha (which probably more closely resemble modern Therevada Buddhism). Even within any one major branch there is considerable variety, both historically and at present. Zen/Chan Buddhism, for example, bears little resemblance to Pure Land Buddhism in practice, despite the fact that both are Mahayana. And in practice Buddhist traditions often merge with or incorporate elements of folk religion.

Still, I think that one can identify some fundamental Buddhist concepts that at least make it sensible to talk about Buddhism simpliciter:

Life is suffering.

Suffering is caused by attachments.

By eliminating these attachments one can transcend this existence and achieve a higher state of being.

I must say that I don't see any of these concepts embodied in Tolkien's work.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Life is suffering.

Suffering is caused by attachments.

By eliminating these attachments one can transcend this existence and achieve a higher state of being.

I must say that I don't see any of these concepts embodied in Tolkien's work.

Melkor to me represesents the human personality, which cannot conceive of the fact that it is a transient illusion. Melkor cannot exist separate from Eru: Melkor is Eru.

There is no coming or going in Tolkien's world. Every character accomplishes the task that we all know he will accomplish. The only exception to this is the relationship between Frodo and Smeagol. We do not think Smeagol will destroy the Ring; we do not think Frodo will end up lonely and unfulfilled. The fact is that their fates are the same: both will cease to exist, unless Eru and Melkor exist as separate entities after the Final Battle.

The teachings of Tolkien are not the teachings of Tolkien.

As an addendum, I should say I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

I disagree. I think The Lord of the Rings is quintessentially Buddhist. Tolkien understood the Divine Conceit: Time and Godhead cannot both exist. This is the central tenet of Buddhism. Melkor represesents the human personality, which cannot conceive of the fact that it is a transient illusion. Melkor cannot exist separate from Eru: Melkor is Eru.

There is no coming or going in Tolkien's world. Every character accomplishes the task that we all know he will accomplish. The only exception to this is the relationship between Frodo and Smeagol. We do not think Smeagol will destroy the Ring; we do not think Frodo will end up lonely and unfulfilled. The fact is that their fates are the same: both will cease to exist, unless Eru and Melkor exist as separate entities after the Final Battle.

Eucatastrophe is a Rational Orgasm. It cannot exist unless it exists right now.

The teachings of Tolkien are not the teachings of Tolkien.

As an addendum, I should say I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Can not agree less (there, you lured me out....)

Or, to put it otherwise, I would agree with three statements, but with some provisos:

1. Melkor cannot exist separate from Eru

I daresay. But does it logically follow that they are one and the same? No and no. I can not exist without eating or breathing – does it mean that I and the air I breathe, I and the food I eat, are one and the same? The Melkor/Eru relationship may be imagined to be similar to that – all things that make existence of Melkor possible are good and come from Eru. His mind, his might, his fëa, his very existence come from Eru, and is a gift of Eru, and in that sense, Melkor, to find a better word than separate, can not be without Eru.

2. Every character accomplishes the task that we all know he will accomplish

Maybe. But if I recollect correctly, I did not know per se, I could just make educated guesses, given the data I already had and given the fact I was outside the story and could see more patterns than any given character knew of.

But does it mean my knowing somehow affected their doing? I think not.

Suppose I have some data about you – like, that you have eaten hot burrito an hour ago, and haven’t had a chance to water it down with any kind of drink, and I see you standing near the pub. I’m almost sure you are going to go over there and buy yourself a drink. Did my knowledge affect your action? I think not

Besides, do the characters know it? They don’t.

3. Eucatastrophe is a Rational Orgasm. It cannot exist unless it exists right now

Rational from the point of view of God, but again, 1) If I, being outside the story and seeing the patterns, can predict Eucatastrophe, thus making it in some way Rational (rational for me, that is, as it was rational all way through for God who planned it), does it make it less joyful or less needed or less welcome? 2) Character inside the story can’t perceive the patterns the way I do, for them Eucatastrophe may seem unperceived, unexpected, something that happened all of a sudden

Hence follows the reasoning:

Time and Godhead cannot both exist – why, they can. To say it simpler – knowing or seeing how somebody does something, does not mean forcing them to do it

It cannot exist unless it exists right now May I be so bold as to extend it and say that nothing can exist unless it exists right now – verily, the past is frozen, the future did not happen yet? Being is either in present, or in eternity, the present being the very spot time shares with eternity. So to say, it is always now for us, but it maybe so that it’s always now for God too, making coexistence of Time and Godhead, Providence and Free Will possible.

[I believe] He did not listen to my prayer yesterday to think about it today and than change something in the universe tomorrow to grant it – he sees me praying/acting/not acting now and sees the effect I have/will have on the whole creation now (= eternally). And again – refer to the above – seeing someone doing something is not making them do it.

PS I imagine, if you set out to deliberately find Buddhism in there, you may give me loud yes to all my questions (such as me and my food being the same), but there is such a thing as Occam’s Razor to shave reasoning with in this case here – with more plausibility and less strain Christian philosophy may be used to explain this, so why seek beyond and try to fit round screws into square holes? )