Tolkien spiritualty... A hint of Buddhism?

[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? )

[Son of Númenor]

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.

First of all, I should clarify this by saying that I am not talking about Buddhism as an ideology. I am talking about Buddhism as what is. This is haughty and presumptuous on my part, but bare with me.

Tolkien's book is not about duality (Good vs Evil), but triality. Three examples are

Eru, Melkor, and the Ainur
Flame Imperishable, Void, and Ea (That Which Is)
Aragorn, Arwen, and Elrond

In the Tolkienian cosmology, each of the individuals in these trialities is both a free agent and divinely attached to the other two

Eru is Supreme One
Melkor is one who desire to be All
the Ainur are Many in the service of the One
The emergent conflict is Ea

Now, if Eru has a plan for Ea, there can be no conflict. Yet we all know that the stories in the Silm, LotR and TH are conflict narratives.

Life is suffering.

Suffering is caused by attachments.

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

The Illusion in Buddhism is the separateness of life and death. We suffer because we feel we have to act according to whatever moral code we inherited from our parents and our parent-culture in this life - death is our only adviser on how to live life. Tolkien saw through the parent-culture: he recognized that industrialization is a Yang force, the God separated from the Goddess. The Lord of the Rings is his linguistic-alchemical attempt to unite God and Goddess.

What he overlooked is the illusion that birth and death exist.

There can be no divine will in a free agent.

The body is a musical note: it is born, dances, and dies.

Frodo is attached to saving the Shire. He suffers for the Shire, is unfulfilled, and then dies. It doesn't get more Buddhist than that: it doesn't get more real than that.

How could 'Frodo' possibly retain his body-mind form after death? How can Eru create an Eternal body which did not exist when Eru began?

Realizing that there is no difference between Divine Will and Free Agency, that every act Frodo carried out was both fully manifested in himself and in Eru at all times throughout the novel, is not Paradox: it is Liberation, Gnosis, Eucatastrophe to simultaneously know and feel that God has no plan for you, that you and you alone are that which you seek.

Buddhism offers rational practice to the individual to realize this in the Here & Now.

I propose that one could achieve eucatastrophe solely by combining Mahayana Buddhist practice with the Eru-Arda cosmology: but then, on what plane would the two meet?

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

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? )

Yes, but we have to talk about which Christian philosophy - there are many.

The Eru-Arda cosmology, I propose, is Tolkien's inner Ekklesia - outward-ecclesiastical Catholicism was not the outward manifestation of this self-Gnosis: it was his Prison, his banishment from Eden. He saw the destruction of the natural world in temporal-spatial reality and understood it transcendentally: his writing, like all writing, was a reflection of his knowledge of the dialectic movement in our world toward God-Goddess Unity. What he was unable to do was accept the fact that he suffered because he was attached to the outcomes of events in his life like the deaths of his parents, the Great Wars, etc. (All presumptuous, I still readily admit - I do not Know J.R.R. Tolkien.)

In my opinion, Occam's Razor is a blade that was dulled before it was forged, some 2,500 years ago; the interplay of the three Illusion-forming gunas in the Mahabharata, when compared with the relationship of the Three Elven Rings to the One Ring of Power, is a decent metaphor for my purposes:

Narya, the kindler of passion -- Rajas, activity; the myth that something is happening -- is sacrificed by Gandalf to rid Ea of the One Ring, the Burden. Through this act Gandalf becomes Formless again.

Nenya, the earth-preserver -- Sattva, kindness -- is sacrificed by Galadriel in order to rid Ea of the One Ring. Through this act Galadriel is allowed to return to the West from her exile, though the earth with which she has associated her existence ceases to be beautiful.

Vilya -- Tamas, ancestor-worship -- is not Elrond's real sacrifice. The real sacrifice he makes is not to Ea, but to his own desires: Vilya means nothing to him, Arwen everything. He sacrifices her to mortality, and in doing so passes into the West -- alive but not really whole.

Through these three forces the power of the Ring is undone.