Another Forgotten Early Western Buddhist

Now here’s a book that somewhat curiously includes several subjects that I am quite interested in – Buddhism, travel, horticulture or at least plants, colonial Ceylon, and biographies. It’s about Reginald Farrer (1880-1920), still appreciated amongst gardening enthusiasts but virtually unknown beyond. I have heard of him because of his plant-hunting expeditions in Korea, northern Burma and the borderlands of Tibet, but I have never read his famous and still consulted best-seller My Rock Garden. But I never knew that he was also a well-informed and devote Buddhist. I have not read this, I think, first biography of him, but I plan to get it soon. You can read more about it here.

 http://www.legendabooks.com/titles/isbn/9781909662858.html

Bringing A Death To Life

The passing of the Buddha as described in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta is one of the most interesting, not to say moving, text in the Tipitaka. Despite its composite nature and somewhat artificial language it transmits the very real drama and pathos of this momentous event. Not surprisingly, throughout history the ‘Great Decease’ had occupied the talents of a long line of sculptors, poets and painters. Most of these are anonymous but one who is not is Hanabusa Itcho (1652-1724). A versatile genius, Itcho excelled in calligraphy and haiku but is most widely known today for his paintings.  One of my favourites is his delightful depiction of a cat cleaning itself on the roof of a tea house. He must have had a playful nature as is suggested by the many satiric scenes he painted, an example being his Blind Men Examining an Elephant illustrating the Buddha’s famous parable from the Udāna 67-9. One work in which Itcho’s restrained his playfulness is his famous The Death of the Buddha which he painted in 1713 and which is now in the possession of Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts. Itcho used as his guide to the contents of his painting the Mahāyāna Parinirvāna Sūtra, a text with a complex history.

Like many Mahāyāna sūtras it was added to over the centuries as new ideas evolved and needed to be given a seal of authenticity by being put into the mouth of the Buddha. In its present form the sūtra was probably composed in southern India some time around 100-200 CE and is an elaboration of an earlier work, which in turn was based on the Pāḷi Mahāparinibbāna Sutta. One of the most striking parts of the Mahāyāna Parinirvāna Sūtra is that which describes all the animals coming to pay their last respects to the Buddha. Itcho took full advantage of this incident to demonstrate his skill at realism and observation, depicting elephants and peacocks, domestic chickens and beetles, dragon flies and tortoises all mourning for the Buddha.  The Death of the Buddha became famous even during Itcho’s own lifetime and records show that pilgrims  flocked to the temple where it was displayed annually for 150 years to see it.

Right now the Museum of Fine Arts and the Freer Gallary of Art have joined forces to repair and conserve and Death of the Buddha, which they call “the most important Buddhist painting of its time.” You can see the ongoing conservation  here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHfv1Jz0OXc

 

Religion And The US Elections

Studies have shown that some 40% of Americans attend church regularly although another study conducted from the 1980s  to the present has shown that it might be only half that.  Nonetheless, even 20% is high when compared to other developed countries. And in survey after survey Americans assert that they have a deep commitment to religion, even when they do not go to church regularly. Some denominations are more pious than others. Amongst Mormons 67% say they attend church once a week or more, and 89% say they pray daily.  Controversies over issues that overlap on religion are  regular occurrences in America and you haven’t a chance of winning an election, local or national, in the country unless you  claim to be “a person of faith”.

I bring this up because of the US presidential election which is to take place in a few days. Even a casual observer like myself cannot but be dismayed  by how much rancour, bitterness, calumny and mutual recrimination  have marked this election. Mr. Trump, who says the Bible is his favourite book, seems to be the worst offender, Mrs. Clinton much less so. But the supporters of each have pulled out all stops in their efforts to bad-mouth their candidate’s opponent. The book many of them claim to read and guide their lives buy is pretty clear, “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18) but not much notice seems to be taken of this or other biblical teachings. The advocacy group Grass Roots North Carolina, operating in the so-called Bible Belt, is holding a competition to raise funds for Mr. Trump; first prize being a AR15 rifle, a thousand rounds of ammunition and a target with Mrs. Clinton on it. Mr. Trump has been married three times, his many adulterous affairs are common knowledge and yet this  and recent revelations about his sexual advances towards woman have caused only a slight drop in support for him by evangelicals who always say how concerned they are about “family values”.

I have long  given thought to what statements such as “I’m very religious”, “I believe in (fill in the gap)”,  “I’m a man of faith”, actually mean or what they might tell us about the persons making them, whatever their religion. Generally I have come to the conclusion that they don’t mean very much and they tell you almost nothing about how those persons might behave in the ordinary process of living. It seems to me that considerable numbers of people who think of themselves as religious take their belief mainly as a sort of totem, a peg to hang  their identity on, as notions that give them comfort or a feeling of belonging, as something to cling to, rather than as instructions about how to behave, particularly towards their fellow human beings. 

As far as I can see, when a religion, any religion, is thought of as a social necessity the way Christianity is in the US or Buddhism is in Sri Lanka, etc;  or when it is made compulsory as it is in parts of the Middle East, it does not make people pious, it just makes them  hypocrites. And when religion  gets  involved  in politics  the religion concerned and the individuals who do it are usually both discredited.  I think  genuine religiosity flourishes best when it  remains a matter between the individual and his or her conscience. And people who spend more  effort removing the beam from their own eye rather than trying to push their faith in the public domain are likely to be the least hypocritical.