Having
read both Mircea Eliade and Michael Novak, the first a mytho-philosopher who taught
in the History of Religion Department at the University of Chicago, and the
second a renowned Christian philosopher, in The
Myth of the Eternal Return or Cosmos and History, and Belief and Unbelief, I find that I see a gap in their lack of
understanding of Buddhist thought and the “middle way.” For they both, though
most articulate and with a great expanse of knowledge and understanding, are
limited by mindset and dualistic belief. Eliade presents a human condition in
which one is either “sacred or profane,” locked into either an “archaic
cosmological (sacred)” or a “modern historical (profane)” system of belief and
existence. Novak claims that one “chooses” belief in God or not, which, in my
estimation, rather, is an “evolving awareness” than any kind of decisive
choice.
Eliade’s contrasts the archaic/cosmological/cyclical
(circular)/spiritual man with the modern/historical/linear/scientific man. From
the Western dualistic perspective, his conclusions are dramatic and
fascinating. Similar to Novak, Eliade’s spirit versus matter, belief in God
versus unbelief in God present a diametrical opposition, the option of
either-or; the twain cannot meet. Eliade is compelling and concludes that the
only obvious choice is that of archaic man: belief in God, specifically the
Christian God. Throughout his book, he seems to objectively present the
arguments of both sides, even as Novak presents those of the believer versus
the non-believer, be he atheist or agnostic.
Both Eliade and Novak both perceive
only from the Western (Judeo-Christian) dualistic mind. They both fail to
present the “middle way” of Buddhism which reveals a mind-body unity rather
than opposition or at least a co-existence between spirit and matter with an
avoidance of extremes, be they physical or spiritual. The body has its place,
its realm, as does the mind/spirit/soul. Eliade does include Buddhism in his
discussion but essentially dismisses it as leading to “negativism.” This is an
oversimplification which, in itself, is only a part of the equation of being as
presented in Buddhism (though there are many different Buddhist sects and
perspectives) and is accordingly inaccurate.
I adhere to the notion of the Middle
Way. Its primary principle is that through practice of Buddhist meditation one
comes to see and understand the transitory and temporary nature of the flesh
and the material world, and, consequently, is no longer so utterly occupied and
directed by it in one’s actions and being. With such an understanding, one
realizes that one cannot abandon one’s survival in the body and the world as
long as one exists in it and of it. But one is no longer in bondage to the
flesh or the world, which is to say that the body is recognized in itself and
as itself, that is, with its appetites. One naturally adopts and adapts a
moderation in both the physical and the spiritual process of living. Such is
the logic of the Middle Way as I see it—and it remains easier said than done. I
have been practicing zazen for forty-five years and I can see that this kind of
mind-body co-existence with the extremes of over-indulgence or
self-mortification is a possible synthesis of human life.
There is much more to be said about
this topic and I hope to approach it more in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment