Siddhartha (novel) & Herman Hesse

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[christopher:::]

In a sense, I agree. Romanticized Buddhism is kinda like the West's answer to Pureland Buddhism and some of the other more "popular" Asian Dhamma brands which don't ask one to do too much hard work. Just pray to Buddha, or reflect on the Interconnectedness of all Things and we'll get to the Pure Land, return to our original Oneness with the Universe, Awaken to the Buddha Within....

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[Hanzze]

Go Left, Go Right

A Western monk at WatBa Pong became frustrated by the difficulties of practice and the detailed and seemingly arbitrary rules of conduct the monks had to follow. He began to criticize other monks for sloppy practice and to doubt the wisdom of Achaan Chah's teaching. At one point, he went to Achaan Chah and complained, noting that even Achaan Chah himself was inconsistent and seemed often to contradict him self in an unenlightened way.

Achaan Chah just laughed and pointed out how much the monk was suffering by trying to judge others around him. Then he explained that his way of teaching is very simple: "It is as though I see people walking down a road I know well. To them the way may be unclear. I look up and see someone about to fall into a ditch on the right-hand side of the road, so I call out to him, 'Go left, go left' Similarly, if I see another person about to fall into a ditch on the left, I call out, 'Go right, go right!' That is the extent of my teaching. Whatever extreme you get caught in, whatever you get attached to, I say, 'Let go of that too.' Let go on the left, let go on the right. Come back to the center, and you will arrive at the true Dharma. "

from A still forest pool

[Annapurna]

:shock:

wow.

Reminded me of a school teacher I once had...

...

Well posting actually is inseparable from textual analysis if one's post refers to something someone else has written. And yes, textual analysis is a subject in school that actually is very helpful especially in the context of buddhism and its texts.


Kind regards

I'm sorry that my reply left you dissatisfied.

But thank you for your attempts to teach me more, although I didn't ask you to.

Edit: Not that I mind, mind you. Always happy to learn more.

[PeterB]

I'll try to summarize that tomorrow. Meanwhile, Thanissaro's book "purity of heart" has a typically brilliant essay which is relevant to this discussion. Couldn't find it at ATI, but here is an article from the tricycle archives which might fill in the background information. [url][/url] http://www.tricycle.com/feature/romancing-buddha?page=0,0
Read this first. Everyone needs background information before making assumptions about Hesse, and what, if anything, his book can tell us now.

Superb.. thank you.
Although he lets Jung off far too lightly imo. This a major player in the creation of a faux dhamma that actually subverts the aims of Dhamma.*..He was also responsible for for a whole industry of faux psychotherapy, that actual psychotherapy that works has taken decades to recover from.


* he clearly was aware of this, at various points in various of his writings he warned westerners sternly not to become involved with the actual practices of "Eastern religions" as opposed to the academic study of them.. including Buddhism. References supplied if needed.

[Kim OHara]

Dear friends,
romantic should not be an object to follow, but it could keep one warm not getting frozen before one gets cool...

Hello, Hanzze,
I'm not sure that you have caught the meaning of the word 'Romanticism' in the way that it has been used here.
It is nothing to do with love, the way 'romantic' is most commonly used in English, but is almost the opposite of 'rationalism':

Romanticism, attitude or intellectual orientation that characterized many works of literature, painting, music, architecture, criticism, and historiography in Western civilization over a period from the late 18th to the mid-19th century. Romanticism can be seen as a rejection of the precepts of order, calm, harmony, balance, idealization, and rationality that typified Classicism in general and late 18th-century Neoclassicism in particular. It was also to some extent a reaction against the Enlightenment and against 18th-century rationalism and physical materialism in general. Romanticism emphasized the individual, the subjective, the irrational, the imaginative, the personal, the spontaneous, the emotional, the visionary, and the transcendental.

(If you didn't need that explanation, I apologise for doubting your English skills.)
Does that make the other posts seem more sensible?

Kim

[christopher:::]

New discussion branching off from this one, on the article alan linked, for anyone interested...

Thanissaro Bikkhu: Romancing the Buddha

[Hanzze]

Our mind is capable of passing beyond the dividing line we have drawn for it. Beyond the pairs of opposites of which the world consists, other, new insights begin.
Hermann Hesse

[PeterB]

The world does not consist of "pairs of opposites" thats just some notion that Hesse got from Daoism and slung into the mix. Its all Asian and mysterious and exotic after all. Its good enough for folk music.
The world with its opposites and sames and neutrals arises dependently.

[Hanzze]

I was just waiting that the PC cools down and opened a book. As I saw that the page I opened is about something a little similar the the end of the book, maybe that page is useful:

The Joy of the Buddha

If all is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and selfless, then what is the point of existence? One man watches a river flow by. If he does not wish it to flow, to change ceaselessly in accord with its nature, he will suffer great pain. Another man understands that the nature of the river is to change constantly, regardless of his likes and dislikes, and therefore he does not suffer. To know existence as this flow, empty of lasting pleasure, void of self, is to find that which is stable and free of suffering, to find true peace in the world.

'Then," some people may ask, "what is the meaning of life? Why are we born?" I cannot tell you. Why do you eat? You eat so that you do not have to eat anymore. You are born so that you will not have to be born again.

To speak about the true nature of things, their voidness or emptiness, is difficult. Having heard the teachings, one must develop the means to understand. Why do we practice? If there is no why, then we are at peace. Sorrow cannot follow the one who practices like this.

The five aggregates are murderers. Being attached to body, we will be attached to mind, and vice versa. We must cease to believe our minds. Use the precepts and calming of the heart to develop restraint and constant mindfulness. Then you will see happiness and displeasure arising and not follow either, realizing that all states are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and empty. Learn to be still. In this stillness will come the true joy of the Buddha.

A still forest pool

[Nibbida]

I can't quite figure out what possessed Hesse to write this story and then call it Siddhartha. So he thinks he can improve on the Buddha's story. Okay, fine. The Buddha was just a cool dude who said some stuff, but Hesse figured it all out. Okay, fine. But then why call it Siddhartha??? Wouldn't that seem a little confusing? Maaaybe a little misleading to the large numbers of people who don't know the Buddha's story?

That's like if I wrote a book called Jesus, about a guy named Jesus...Smith, who lived in the time of Jesus Christ, and who was also the son of a carpenter named Joseph and a virgin named Mary, born in a Manger and visited by three Kings who just happened to be wandering through the desert in December following a star. BUT don't confuse Jesus Smith and Jesus Christ based on these striking similarities between the characters which seem to serve no apparent purpose other than to bewilder generations of college students. So then J.S. grows up, gets all spiritual and stuff, and meets J.C., who is more or less cool, but decides not to hang out with him because he knows the real deal. Then he gets a job working on a boat. The End.

[PeterB]

I think your hero was actually called Brian, Nibbida.... And I take your point....

[Annapurna]

I can't quite figure out what possessed Hesse to write this story and then call it Siddhartha. So he thinks he can improve on the Buddha's story. Okay, fine. The Buddha was just a cool dude who said some stuff, but Hesse figured it all out. Okay, fine. But then why call it Siddhartha??? Wouldn't that seem a little confusing? Maaaybe a little misleading to the large numbers of people who don't know the Buddha's story?

That's like if I wrote a book called Jesus, about a guy named Jesus....

Go ahead, then don't talk, but be better.

[Hanzze]

Every man is more than just himself; he also represents the unique, the very special and always significant and remarkable point at which the world's phenomena intersect, only once in this way, and never again.
Hermann Hesse

[Kim OHara]

Every man is more than just himself; he also represents the unique, the very special and always significant and remarkable point at which the world's phenomena intersect, only once in this way, and never again.
Hermann Hesse

Now *that* is pure Romanticism - the Self as the centre of the universe, the "very special and always significant and remarkable point at which the world's phenomena intersect"!!!

Kim

[Annapurna]

Every man is more than just himself; he also represents the unique, the very special and always significant and remarkable point at which the world's phenomena intersect, only once in this way, and never again.
Hermann Hesse

Is that from Siddharta?

[Hanzze]

Every man is more than just himself; he also represents the unique, the very special and always significant and remarkable point at which the world's phenomena intersect, only once in this way, and never again.
Hermann Hesse

Now *that* is pure Romanticism - the Self as the centre of the universe, the "very special and always significant and remarkable point at which the world's phenomena intersect"!!!

Kim

Dear Kim,

well the interpretation is unique even if it agreed as similar from many - that is creating a "ism". That is also for the feeling of romantic, isn't it? "You are so rational darling!"
Pleasant feeling - unpleasant feeling - neutral feeling Romaticism - Spartanism - Rationalism - so many "ism" like feelings.

The "ism" stays as objective as the observer but will never be true. The truth as a world phenomena which is a common interpretation? So which feeling to choose? Or is it better: What will make the pendulum swing freely again? What could lead us to Emanuel Kant.

Annapruna,

I don't know.

[tiltbillings]

I don't know.

We know.

[Hanzze]

Knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom. One can find it, live it, be fortified by it, do wonders through it, but one cannot communicate and teach it.
Hermann Hesse

[tiltbillings]

Knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom.

Well, then so much for the Buddha's teachings.