Buddhist Romanticism

Buddhist
Romanticism
by
Ṭh ānissaro Bh ikkh u
(Geof fre yDeGraf f)
2
copyr ight 2 0 15 ṭ hā nissa r o bhikkhu
ThisworkislicensedundertheCreativeCommonsAttributionNonCommercial4.0Unported.Toseeacopyofthislicensevisit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
“Commercial”shallmeananysale,whetherforcommercialor
non-profitpurposesorentities.
que stions a bout t his book may be a ddr e sse d to
MettaForestMonastery
ValleyCenter,CA92082-1409
U.S.A.
a dditiona l r e sour ce s
MoreDhammatalks,booksandtranslationsbyṬhānissaro
Bhikkhuareavailabletodownloadindigitalaudioandvarious
ebookformatsatdhammatalks.org.
pr inte d copy
Apaperbackcopyofthisbookisavailablefreeofcharge.To
requestone,writeto:BookRequest,MettaForestMonastery,PO
Box1409,ValleyCenter,CA92082USA.
3
“Bothformerlyandnow,it’sonlystressthatI
teach,andthecessationofstress.”—TheBuddha
“Religionisthesensibilityandtasteforthe
infinite.”—FriedrichSchleiermacher
“Godhatestheunbound.”—Friedrich
Hölderlin
4
Acknowledgements
Inthecourseofpreparingthisbook,Ihavediscussed
myfindingswithanumberofDhammagroups,and
havebenefitedgreatlyfromtheirfeedback.Thesegroups
includetheLagunaBeachParisa,theSatiCenterfor
BuddhistStudies,andAgainsttheStream.Iamalso
indebtedtoalonglistofindividualswhoprovidedme
withmaterialsthathelpedmakemyresearchpossible
and/orgavevaluablefeedbackonthemanuscriptasit
wasinpreparation.Thislistincludes,inadditiontothe
monkshereatthemonastery:MichaelBarber,William
Chu,PatrickComstock,ClaudeDavodeau,Orin
Hargraves,ClaudeLeNinan,LionelNeykov,Emer
O’Hagan,NonaOlivia,AddieOnsanit,Nathaniel
Osgood,V.A.Ospovat,PeterDaleScott,Isabella
Trauttmansdorff,andBarbaraWright.Isabella
Trauttmansdorffinparticularhelpedtotrackdownand
translatepassagesfromSchleiermacher’sConfidential
LettersConcerningFriedrichSchlegel’sLucinde,aworkthat
hasnever,asfaraswecantell,beentranslatedinto
English.ShealsohelpedwithmytranslationsofSchiller
andHölderlin.
Theeffortsofallthesepeoplehavehelpedtomakethis
amuchbetterbookthanIcouldhavemanagedonmy
own.Anydefectsitcontains,ofcourse,aremy
responsibility.
Twotechnicalnotes:1)Inallquotationsfromothertexts,
Ihaveaddedemphasis—initalics—inonlyonecase,
whichIhavenoted.Inallotherinstances,theemphasisis
presentintheoriginal.
2)Inquotationsfromotherwriters,Ihavekepttheir
spellingofPaliandSanskritterms.
5
Ihavefoundtheresearchandwritingofthisbookto
bebothaneducationalandanenjoyableexperience.I
hopethatthereaderwillfindthesamequalitiesinthe
bookitself.
ṬhānissaroBhikkhu
(GeoffreyDeGraff)
MettaForestMonastery
S e p t e m b e r, 2 015
6
INTRODUCTION
QuestioningBuddhistRomanticism
ManyWesterners,whennewtoBuddhism,arestruckbytheuncanny
familiarityofwhatseemtobeitscentralconcepts:interconnectedness,
wholeness,spontaneity,ego-transcendence,non-judgmentalism,and
integrationofthepersonality.Theytendnottorealizethattheconcepts
soundfamiliarbecausetheyarefamiliar.Toalargeextent,theycomenot
fromtheBuddha’steachingsbutfromtheirhiddenrootsinWestern
culture:thethoughtoftheearlyGermanRomantics.
ThenamesoftheearlyRomantics—Schleiermacher,Schlegel,Schelling,
Hölderlin,andNovalis—arelargelyforgotten,buttheirideasarestillvery
muchaliveinWesternculture.Theywereamongthefirsttoanalyzethe
problemofwhatitfeelsliketogrowupinmodernculture,wherescience
teachesadizzyingperspectiveofdeepspaceanddeeptime,andwhere
rationalizedeconomicandpoliticalsystemsfosterasenseoffragmentation
withinandwithout.TheRomanticanalysisofhowspirituallife,
approachedasanartoftheemotions,canenhanceinnerpsychological
healthandouterharmonyinmodernculturehascontinuedtoshape
popularideasontheseissuesuptothepresentday.
IftheinfluenceofearlyRomanticismonmodernBuddhismwentno
furtherthanafewisolatedconcepts,itwouldnotbemuchofaproblem—
simplyamatterofmappingfamiliarWesterntermsontounfamiliar
BuddhisttermssothatBuddhistconceptswouldmakeintuitivesenseto
peoplewithaWesternbackground.Theonlyissuewouldbedetermining
whetherthetermswereproperlyapplied,andtweakinganythatwereoff
themark.AnditmightbearguedthatfittingRomanticconceptsintoa
BuddhistframeworkautomaticallychangesthoseconceptsinaBuddhist
direction.Butthesituationistheotherwayaround.Theinfluenceof
RomanticismonmodernBuddhismhaspenetratedthroughthesurfaceand
intothebone,shapingnotonlyisolatedconceptsbutalsotheunderlying
structuresofthoughtfromwhichthoseconceptstaketheirmeaning.In
otherwords,Romanticismhasprovidedtheframeworkintowhich
7
Buddhistconceptshavebeenplaced,reshapingthoseconceptstoward
Romanticends.
WhenwecomparetheDhamma—theteachingsoftheBuddha—tothe
religiousthoughtoftheearlyRomantics,weseethattheydifferradicallyon
astructurallevelinhowtheydefinealltheimportantquestionsconcerning
thepurposeofreligion,thenatureofthebasicspiritualproblem,thecureto
thatproblem,howthecurecanbeeffected,andtheeffectofthatcureonthe
personcured.
•FortheRomantics,religionisconcernedwithestablishingaright
relationshipbetweenhumanbeingsandtheuniverse.FortheDhamma,
religionisconcernedwithgainingtotalfreedomfromsufferingandstress,
beyond“humanbeing,”“universe,”oranyrelationshipatall.
•FortheRomantics,thebasicspiritualproblemisignoranceofhuman
identity—thateachpersonisanintegralpartoftheinfiniteorganicunityof
thecosmos.Thisignorance,inturn,leadstoanalienatingsenseof
separation:withinoneself,betweenoneselfandotherhumanbeings,and
betweenoneselfandnatureatlarge.FortheDhamma,thebasicspiritual
problemisignoranceofwhatsufferingis,howit’scaused,andhowitcan
beended.Infact,theDhammalistsamongthecausesofsufferingthe
attempteventodefinewhatahumanbeingisorahumanbeing’splace
withintheuniverse.
•FortheRomantics,thebasicspiritualcureliesingaininganimmediate
feltsenseofunitywithinoneselfandbetweenoneselfandtheuniverse.For
theDhamma,afeltsenseofunifiedawarenessispartofthepathtoacure,
buttheultimatecureinvolvesgoingbeyondfeelings—andeverythingelse
withwhichonebuildsasenseofidentity—toadirectrealizationofnibbāna
(nirvāṇa):adimensionbeyondOnenessandmultiplicity,beyondthe
universe,beyondcausalrelationships,andbeyondthedimensionsoftime
andspace.
•FortheRomantics,therearemanywaystoinduceaspiritualcure,but
theyallinvolveinducingasenseofreceptivitytoallthingsastheyare.For
theDhamma,thereisonlyonewaytonibbāna—thepathofskillscalledthe
nobleeightfoldpath—againstwhichallmentalstatesarejudgedasskillful
andunskillful,withskillfulstatestobefosteredandunskillfulonestobe
abandonedinwhateverwayiseffective.
•FortheRomantics,thecureisneverfinal,butmustbecontinually
pursuedthroughoutlife.One’sunderstandingofinnerandouterunitycan
8
naturallydeepenovertime.Witheachnewexperienceofthatunity,one
feelsanaturaldesiretoexpressit:Thisdesireistheoriginofreligious
traditionsandtexts.Butbecauseunityisinfinite,andexpressionsof
feelingsarefinite,noreligioustraditionhasthefinalwordonhowinfinite
unityfeels.Andbecauseanyexpressionofafeelinghastobeshapedby
timeandplace,eachpersonisdutyboundtoexpressthefeelingofinfinite
unityinever-newways.Onlythiscankeepreligionaliveascultures
change.
FortheDhamma,however,full,finalawakeningispossibleinthislife,
andthetextscitepeoplebythethousandswho,intheBuddha’stime,
confirmedthisfactforthemselves.Oncegained,fullawakeningisfully
understood.TheBuddha,inteaching,wasnotinterestedinexpressinghis
feelingsabouttheinfinite.Instead,hisinterestlayinexplainingthepathof
actionbywhichotherpeoplecouldreachnibbānaandininducingthemto
followit.Becausethepathistimeless—andbecauseithasstoodupto
repeatedtestingformorethan2,600years—thereisnoneedtoformulateit
innewways.Infact,thegreatestgiftonecangivetootherpeoplenowand
intothefutureistopassalongknowledgeoftheBuddha’spathinas
faithfulawayaspossible,sothattheycantestitforthemselves.
WhenweexaminethewayBuddhismiscurrentlybeingtaughtinthe
West—and,insomecases,inAsiatopeoplewithaWesterneducation—we
findthatitoftensideswiththeRomanticpositionandagainsttheDhamma
onallfiveofthesequestions.Andbecausequestionsshapethestructures
thatgiveconceptstheirmeaningandpurpose,theresultisthatmodern
BuddhismisRomanticinitsbody,andBuddhistonlyinitsoutergarb.Or
touseanotheranalogy,modernBuddhismislikeabuildingwhose
structureisfullyRomantic,withBuddhistelementsusedasdecorations,
reshapedtofitintotheconfinesofthatstructure.Thisiswhythistrendin
modernBuddhismisbestreferredtoasBuddhistRomanticism,ratherthan
RomanticBuddhism.
FromaRomanticpointofview,evenastructuralchangeintheDhamma
isnoseriousproblem,forsuchachangewouldsimplyfallinlinewiththe
Romanticnotionthatallpathsofopenreceptivityleadtothegoal,sothat
replacingonepathwithanotherwouldmakenopracticaldifference.But
fromthepointofviewoftheDhamma,theRomanticgoaloffersonlya
limitedpossibilityoffreedom.IftheRomanticgoalisregardedastheone
andonlyaimofspirituallife,itstandsinthewayofthefurthergoaloftotal
9
freedom.
Infact,aswewillseewhenweexaminethelogicalimplicationsofthe
Romanticworldview,theideaoftheuniverseasaninfiniteorganicunity
offersnopossibilityofgenuinefreedomofchoiceforanypartofthatunity.
Ifyourkidneys,forexample,werefreetodowhattheychose,theycould
goonstriketodemandmoredignifiedwork,andyourbodywoulddie.
Similarly,inauniversewhereallarepartofalargerOneness,noonehas
freedomofchoiceevenincommon,everydaymatters.Peoplesimplyhave
tofollowtheirnature,withnochoiceastowhatthatnaturemightbe.But
astheBuddhapointedout,iftherewerenofreedomofchoice,theideaofa
pathofpracticewouldmakenosense,becausenoonewouldbefreeto
choosewhetherornottopracticeit.
So,foranyonesincerelyinterestedinthepathtothefreedompromised
bytheDhamma,BuddhistRomanticismisverymuchaproblem.Itcloses
thepathtotwogroupsofpeoplewhomistakeitforgenuineDhamma:
thoseattractedtoRomanticideas,andthoserepelledbythem.Itteachesthe
firstgroupaverylimitedideaofhowmuchfreedomahumanbeingcan
possiblyexperience.ItteachesthesecondgroupnottotaketheDhamma
seriouslyatall.
Forbothgroups,theproblemisalackofawareness:notknowingthat
BuddhistRomanticismisonething,andtheDhammaanother.So,forthe
sakeofbothgroups,it’simportanttoraiseawarenessofhowBuddhist
RomanticismandtheDhammaaretwodifferentthings—overlappingin
someareas,butneverthelesscomingfromradicallydifferentassumptions
andleadingtoradicallydifferentgoals.Inthisway,membersofthefirst
groupwillbeinapositiontomakeaninformedchoice:Dotheywantto
stayinthecomfortzoneofRomanticideas,ordotheywanttostrivefor
somethingmorepromisingeventhoughit’smorechallenging?
Asformembersofthesecondgroup,theywillbeinabetterpositionto
opentheirminds,gainaccesstotheactualDhamma,andjudgeitonits
ownterms.Inbothcases,theadvantagewillbethat,whenchoosinghow
muchtotakefromtheDhamma,theirchoiceswillbeinformed.
Unfortunately,theignorancethatallowspeopletoconfuseBuddhist
RomanticismwiththeDhammaisverycomplex,andexistsonmanylevels.
First,thereissimpleignoranceaboutwhattheBuddhaactuallytaught.This
ispartlythefaultofpastBuddhists,someofwhomcontinuedtocreatetexts
thattheyattributedtotheBuddhamanycenturiesafterhispassing.Ontop
10
ofthis,therehasbeenatendencyintheWesttomisquotetraditional
Buddhisttexts,attributingthemisquotestotheBuddhahimself,oftenon
theRomanticprinciplethattoforceanancienttexttospeaktotheneedsof
modernpeopleistodoitafavor,evenifthatmeansradicallychanging
whatthetexthastosay.
Ironically,anevengreaterreasonforignoranceaboutBuddhist
RomanticismisageneralignoranceinWesterncultureaboutitsown
history,andthehistoryofRomanticideasinparticular.Insomecases,this
canbetracedtoawidespreadbeliefthatsocietyandculturehavechanged
somuchinthe21stcenturythatwearenolongerinfluencedbythepast;
thus,thereisnoreasontoknowanythingaboutwhatpeopleinthepast
thought.Thisattitudeblindsustothefactthatmanyofthoseancient
thoughtsstillactuallyinfluencethewaywethinktoday.
Anotherreasonforourignoranceaboutthepastisthebeliefthatideas
aliveatpresenthavesurvivedwhereotherideashavediedbecausethe
survivorsaremoreobjectivelytrue.Thereforethere’snopointinlearning
aboutideasthatperishedalongthesideoftheroad,orabouthowthe
survivorscametosurvive.Thisbelief,though,ignorestheextenttowhich
ideascanbeforgottenevenwhentheyaretrue.Italsoignorestheextentto
whichideascansurvivenotbecausetheyaretruebutbecausetheyare
useful,andthatthere’saneedtolookintowhatusesandwhoseusesthose
ideasarebeingpressedtoserve.Otherwise,whenadoptingtheideas
aroundus,weriskservingpurposes—bothwithinusandwithout—that
cannotbetrusted.
Butevenamongpeoplewhohavesomeknowledgeandinterestin
historythereisageneralignoranceabouttheRomanticsandtheirinfluence
onpresentthought.Eveninscholarlyliterature,therehasbeenno
comprehensivestudyofRomanticideasonreligionandtheirimpacton
latergenerations.Thisleavesuswithnothingbutpopularperceptionsof
theRomantics,whichoftenturnouttobemisinformed.
Forexample,acommonmisperceptionoftheRomanticsisthatthey
opposedscienceandexaltedtheemotionsoftheSelfoverthehardfactsof
theworld.Actually,though,theRomanticsrespondedpositivelytothe
sciencesoftheirtime,which—inthecaseofastronomy,biology,
paleontology,andgeology—sawtheuniverseasaninfinite,evolving,
organicOneness,andeachhumanbeingasapartofthatOnenessinan
interactiverelationshipwithitsenvironment.Fromthisview,the
11
Romanticsdevelopedthetheoryofthemicrocosm:thatbecauseeach
humanbeingwasshapedinternallybythesameforcesthatoperated
externally,astudyofone’sinneremotionswasneitherself-indulgentnor
egotistical.Itactuallygaveobjectiveknowledgeabouttheforcesactingona
largerscaleinthecosmos.Atthesametime,knowingthelatestscientific
findingsaboutexternalprocessesatworkinthecosmoswouldgive
objectiveknowledgeoftheprocessesworkinginternally,inone’sownbody
andmind.
So,insteadofgazingonlyinsideandexaltingtheSelfovertheworld,the
Romanticslookedbothwithinandwithoutforbetterwaystoknowboth
selfandworldsothattheycouldbetterfostertheforwardevolutionof
both.
Becausethisfactissopoorlyunderstood,wehavetheironicsituationin
whichsomemodernBuddhistteachers,whiledenouncingtheRomantics
forbeingunscientificandegotistical,proposethatBuddhismshouldbe
alteredtofitinwiththeparadigmsofmodernscienceortoplacegreater
importanceonourcollectiveinterconnectedness—unawareofthefactthat
bothoftheseproposalsareexactlywhattheRomanticsthemselveswould
haveespoused.ThisisoneofthereasonswhymodernBuddhistteachers,
thoughsometimesopenaboutthefactthattheyarealteringandupdating
theDhammaastheyinterpretitfortheWest,areneverthelessunawareof
wheretheirinterpretationscomefrom.
Giventhesemanylevelsofunawareness,itshouldcomeasnosurprise
thatBuddhistRomanticismhasrarelybeenquestioned.Itissimply
acceptedasavalidversionoftheDhammaforourplaceintime.Eventhe
scholarlyliteratureonWesternBuddhism—totheextentthatithastaken
noteofBuddhistRomanticism—tendstoviewtheriseofBuddhist
Romanticismasbothnecessaryandgoodintermsofthelawsofcultural
change.Thescholarsthemselvesrarelystoptoaskwherethosesupposed
lawscamefrom.Anditturnsoutthattheyoriginatedwiththeearly
Romantics.Infact,aswewillsee,theacademicstudyofreligionisoneof
themainvehiclesbywhichRomanticviewsonreligionhavebeen
transmittedtothemodernworld.
Butthereisafurtherirony.OneoftheprinciplesoftheDhammathathas
beenadoptedbyBuddhistRomanticismisthattheDhammashouldnot
simplybeacceptedonfaith.Instead,itshouldbeputtothetest,inpractice,
toseeifitreallyworks.ButiftheDhammaisfilteredthroughBuddhist
12
Romanticism,itwon’tgetafairhearing,foritsmessagewillbegarbled.
Andifitdoesn’tgetafairhearing,there’snowaytosubjectittoafairtest.
Atthesametime,ifBuddhistRomanticismisnotrecognizedassomething
differentfromtheDhamma,thereisnowaythatitcanbetestedinaway
thatallowsforafaircomparisonastowhichbodyofteachingsgivesbetter
results.
Thusthisbook.
ItspurposeistoraiseawarenessaboutthefactofBuddhist
Romanticism,sothatpeoplewhoareinterestedinputtinganendto
sufferingwillbeabletoaskinformedquestions,bothabouttheDhamma
andaboutBuddhistRomanticism,andtogainasenseofthepractical
implicationsofchoosingoneovertheother.
Partoftheinspirationforthisbookcamefromstudyingtheprocessby
whichBuddhismenteredChinamanyyearsago.Intheirfirstthree
centuriesofcontactwithBuddhism,theChinesehadTaoismastheir
Dhammagate.Inotherwords,whenChineseintellectualsfirstlearned
abouttheDhamma,theyinterpreteditinlinewithTaoism,placing
BuddhistconceptsinthecontextofaTaoistworldview.Infact,early
translatorsusedthewordtaototranslateawiderangeofBuddhist
concepts,suchasdhamma,yoga,awakening(bodhi),andpath(magga).
TheseandotherDhammaconceptswerethenappliedtoanswering
questionsthatarosefromwithintheTaoistcontext.Atthesametime,the
mythdevelopedthattheBuddhahadactuallybeentaughtbytheTaoist
sage,Lao-tze,andthatunfamiliarelementsintheBuddha’steachingcould
beattributedtothefactthatIndians,beingbarbarians,hadgarbledLaotze’smessage.ThiswashowisolatedBuddhistideasbeganentering
Chineseculture.
However,inthefourthcentury,monkssuchasTao-an(312–385)andhis
disciple,Hui-yüan(334–circa416)begantorealizethatBuddhismand
Taoismwereaskingdifferentquestions.Asthesemonksrootedoutand
exposedthesedifferences,theystartedusingBuddhistideastoquestion
theirTaoistpresuppositions.Thiswastheoriginofalargermovementto
trytounderstandBuddhismonitsownterms,andtogetthemostoutof
theDhammabyadoptingthequestionsitasked.Inthisway,Buddhism,
insteadofturningintoadropintheTaoistsea,wasabletoinjectsomething
genuinelynewintoChineseculture.
ThequestionhereintheWestiswhetherwewilllearnfromtheChinese
13
exampleandstartusingBuddhistideastoquestionourownDhammagate
—Romanticism—toseeexactlywherethegateandtheDhammaarein
alignmentandwheretheyarenot.Ifwedon’traisethesequestions,werun
theriskofmistakingthegatefortheDhammaitself,andofnevergoing
throughittotheotherside.
So,tofollowtheexampleofTao-anandHui-yüan,wewilladoptan
approachinthisbookthatreversesacommontendencyinmodern
Buddhism.InsteadofquestioningtheDhammafromtheRomanticpointof
view,wewillquestionBuddhistRomanticismfromthepointofviewofthe
Dhamma.
Forthepurposesofthisbook,IwilltreatBuddhismnotasasingle
religion,butasafamilyofmanyreligions,theprimarythreebeing
Theravāda,Mahāyāna,andVajrayāna.AlthoughBuddhistRomanticism
hasshapedallofthesereligionsastheyhavecometotheWest,myfocus
herewillbeontheDhammaastaughtinthesuttas,ordiscourses,ofthe
PāliCanon,whichformsthebasisfortheTheravāda.Idothisforthree
reasons:
1)OfallthevarioussourcesoftheBuddha’steachings,thePālisuttas—
togetherwiththePāliVinaya,ormonasticrules—seembyfartobethe
closestrecordwehaveoftheBuddha’steachings.
2)ThisistheBuddhistreligionwithwhichIammostfamiliarandin
whichIwastrained.
3)OfalltheBuddhistreligions,theTheravādacontainsteachingsthat
differmostsharplyfromRomanticideas.Yetmoderndiscussionsevenof
thePālisuttasarestronglyinfluencedbyRomanticprinciples,whichmeans
thatmodernTheravādaprovidesacleartestcaseforhowpervasive
BuddhistRomanticismcanbe,eveninatraditionthatoffersthefewest
possiblepointsofoverlap.
Tomaintainthisfocus,whenIquotefromthewritingsofBuddhist
Romantics,IwilllimitmysourcestothoseBuddhistteacherswho—
whethertheyidentifythemselvesasTheravādinornot—engagewiththe
PālisuttaswhencommentingonwhattheBuddhataught.
Thebookisarrangedinsevenchapters,followedbyan appendix.
ChapterOnebeginswithsomebiographicalsketchestogiveasenseof
thepeopleresponsiblefortheideasthatarethefocusofthebook.Itstarts
withasketchoftheBuddha’slife—for,althoughitcan’tbesaidthathislife
14
storyisunknownintheWest,theversionofthestorythatmostpeople
knowdatesfromsourcesmuchlaterthanthePāliCanon.ThePāliversion
oftheBuddha’slifestory,whilesomewhatlessdramaticthanthemore
widelyknownversion,containsmanydetailsthatmakeitpsychologically
moreinteresting.
AsfortheearlyRomantics,theirlives—eventheirnames—arelargely
unknown.Theynevercalledthemselves“Romantics,”theirfriendships
werevolatile,andsomeofthemembracedtheRomanticworldviewmore
thoroughlythanothers.Soit’softenhardtosaywhocountsasanearly
Romanticandwhodoesn’t.Still,fivethinkerswerebyfarthemost
influentialinconstructingearlyRomanticreligiousideas,sowewillfocus
onthem:Novalis(FriedrichvonHardenberg),FriedrichSchlegel,Friedrich
Schleiermacher,FriedrichHölderlin,andFriedrichSchelling.
ChapterTwoprovidesabriefsketchoftheDhammataughtinthePāli
suttas.ThisismeanttoactasabaselineagainstwhichRomanticideas
aboutreligioningeneral,andaboutBuddhisminparticular,canbe
assessed.ThePāliistheoldestextantcanonofteachingsattributedtothe
Buddha.Althoughtherehavebeenmanyeffortsinthescholarlyworldto
questionitsreliability,thoseeffortstendtorevealmoreaboutthepeople
makingtheeffortthanaboutthePāliitself.Threepointsinparticular
recommenditasanauthorityforunderstandingtheDhamma:
1)NoevidencecontemporarywiththeBuddhacontradictsanything
foundinthePāliCanon.
2)MahāyānaandVajrayānatextspresupposetheteachingsfoundinthe
PāliCanon,butthePāliCanondoesn’tpresupposetheteachingsfoundin
them.
3)WherethePāliCanoncanbecomparedwithfragmentsofotherearly
canons,wefindthatmanyelementsincludedinthoseothercanonswere
oftenkeptoutofthePāliCanonandplacedinsteadinthecommentaries
thatgrewuparoundit.Thissuggeststhatthepeoplewhomaintainedthe
PāliCanon,beginningatleastatsomepointintime,triedtobescrupulous
indrawingaclearlinebetweenwhattheyhadreceivedfromtraditionand
whatwasnovelintheirdayandage.
SoitseemsreasonabletotakethePāliCanonasthebestavailable
primarysourceforlearningwhattheBuddhataught.
ThenextthreechaptersprovideahistoryofRomanticreligionandits
survivalintothe21stcentury.Because,asInotedabove,therehasbeenno
15
adequatescholarlyoverviewofthistopic,Ihavehadtogiveitafairly
extensivetreatment.Mygeneralapproachtothishistoryissimilartowhat
MichelFoucault,followingNietzsche,hascalledgenealogy:focusingon
historynotasagrandnarrativeshowingaclearanddefinitepurpose,but
asaseriesofaccidentsandreversals,followingarandomandsomewhat
arbitrarycourse.Onlyifweappreciatehowarbitrarythepasthasbeencan
wesenseourfreedomtoshapethepresentintosomethingbetterthanitis.
Onlyifweappreciatetheironyofhistorycanwebegintodistance
ourselvesfromtheideasinwhichwehavebeenraised.
UnlikeFoucault,however,ItakeasomewhatBuddhistapproachto
genealogy.WhatthismeansisthatIaminterestedinferretingouttheway
inwhichindividualsfreelyshapetheirenvironment,inadditiontobeing
shapedbyit.Thisapproachfollowsaprinciplecommonbothtothe
DhammaandtotheRomantics:thatpeopleexistinareciprocalrelationship
withtheirenvironment,andthatinfluencesbetweenthetwocangoinboth
ways.ButwhereastheRomanticssawthissortofreciprocalrelationshipas
asignthatindividualswerepartofalargerorganicwholewhosepurpose
wastoworktowardthewellbeingofallitsparts—andthathistorythushas
agoal—theDhammaregardsreciprocityasinherentlyunstableand
withoutanoverarchingpurpose.Thisiswhygenealogyisclosertothe
BuddhistviewofhistorythantotheRomantic.
ChapterThreeprovidessomebackgroundonthescientific,political,
philosophical,andliterarysituationtowhichtheRomanticswere
responding.
ChapterFourgivesanoutlineoftheirthoughtandthetypeofBildung—
ortraininginart,culture,andcharacter—thattheyhopedwouldfoster
freedominGermanyandamonghumanityatlarge.Asthechapterpoints
out,theirnotionoffreedomisparadoxical,inthattheirviewoftheuniverse
asaninfiniteorganicunityprovidesnoroomforfreedom.Nevertheless,
eachoftheRomanticsstruggledinhisownwaytoresolvethisparadox,
andasaresulteachbequeathedadistinctiveandinfluentialunderstanding
offreedomtothemodernandpostmodernworld.
ChapterFiveshowshowFriedrichSchleiermacherinparticulartookthe
Romanticviewsonartisticcreationandappliedthemtothefeltexperience
oftheinfinitethat,inhiseyes,constitutedreligion.Italsoshowshowthe
otherRomanticsrespondedtohisthoughtsonreligiontocreateadistinct
bodyofthoughtthatcanbecalledRomanticreligion.Thechapterendswith
16
twolistsoftwentypoints:thefirst,enumeratingthepointsthatidentify
Romanticreligion;thesecond,showinghowtheDhammadiffersfrom
Romanticreligiononalltwenty.
ChapterSix tracesthedevelopmentofRomanticreligionintothe21st
centuryinfourareas:literature,psychology,historyofreligions,and
perennialphilosophy.Here,too,theemphasisisongenealogy,showing
howthesurvivalofRomanticreligionwascontingentonmanyfactorsthat
couldhaveeasilygoneotherwise,andyethowRomanticideas—oncethey
hadbecomeenshrinedinscholarlyfields—gainedanauraofscientific
objectivity.
ChapterSevendocumentstheexistenceofBuddhistRomanticismby
quotingpassagesfromthewritingsandtalksofmodernBuddhistteachers
thatconformtothedefiningpointsofRomanticreligion.BecauseBuddhist
Romanticismisaculturalsyndrome—awidespreadpatternofbehavior
thatissociallyreinforced—Ihavenotidentifiedtheteachersquoted.One
reasonforthisisthattheiraudiencescarryasmuchresponsibilityforthe
syndromeasthey.Teacherstendtosensewhentheiraudiencesrespond
positivelytoateaching,andcaneasily—oftenunconsciously—fallunder
theswayofwhattheiraudiencewantsandexpects.Atthesametime,Iam
followingapointofBuddhistetiquette:whenteachingtheDhammain
public,nottocriticizeotherteachersbyname.Itislessimportanttoknow
whosomeofthemainexponentsofBuddhistRomanticismare,andmore
importanttolearnwhatitis,andhowtorecognizeitstenetsnomatterwho
isexpoundingthem.
BecauseoneofthetenetsofBuddhistRomanticismisthatthereis
ultimatelynopracticaldifferencebetweenadheringtotheDhammaofthe
PāliCanonortoBuddhistRomanticideas—thatbothleadtothesamegoal,
althoughBuddhistRomanticismmaygettheremoreeffectively—this
chapterconcludeswithadiscussionofhowchoosingBuddhist
RomanticismovertheDhammaactuallyleadstoalowergoalthatgetsin
thewayofthehighergoalthattheDhammaoffers.
The AppendixcontainsmanyofthePālisuttapassagesonwhichthe
discussioninChapterTwoandthecritiquesattheendsofChaptersFive
andSevenarebased.
Someoftheideaspresentedinthisbookhavealreadyappearedintwo
publishedarticles:“TheRootsofBuddhistRomanticism”(alsopublished
17
underthetitle,“RomancingtheBuddha”)and“TheBuddhaviatheBible.”
Inmyoriginalconceptionforthisbook,Iplannedsimplytopatchthose
twoarticlestogether.Butafterdoingfurtherresearch,Irealizedtheneed
foramuchlargerwork.Thiswaspartlytocorrectsomeofthemistakesin
thosearticles(forinstance,IoriginallyidentifiedSchillerasaRomantic,but
nowIunderstandwhyit’smoreaccuratetotreathimaspre-Romantic),and
partlytofillinalargegapintheexistingliteratureonRomanticreligion.
Theearlierarticlespromptedsomecriticismsandobjections,threeof
whichIwouldliketorespondtohere.
•ManyfeaturesofRomanticreligionresembleMahāyānadoctrines,so
thequestionis:TowhatextentcanBuddhistRomanticismreallybetraced
toRomanticism,andtowhatextentisitsimplytheimportingofMahāyāna
ideasintoTheravāda?Thisquestion,however,begstwootherquestions:(1)
CentralMahāyānaideas,suchasemptiness,interconnectedness,andthe
innategoodnessofBuddhanature,areinterpretedinAsiainawidevariety
ofways.HereintheWest,though,theinterpretationsclosesttoRomantic
religionarepredominant.Whatisthat,ifnotasignoftheinfluenceof
RomanticreligioninWesternMahāyāna?(2)WhywouldaWesternteacher
trainedinTheravādawanttoimportMahāyānaideasintotheDhammaifit
werenotforthefactthatthoseideascorrespondtoideasalreadypopularin
Westernculture?
•Theapproachadoptedintheabovearticlesandinthisbookis
sometimesdismissedasfundamentalist.Butthisbegsanotherquestion:
Whatdoes“fundamentalist”meaninaTheravādaBuddhistcontext?Given
thatthetermhasappliedbothtoBuddhistmonksinAsiawhoadvocate
genocide,andtoBuddhistmonksinAmericawhoargueagainstcondoning
anyformofviolence,evena“justwar,”is“fundamentalist”anythingmore
thanapejorativemeanttoputastoptotheconversation?Theusualimage
offundamentalismequatesitwithunquestioningfaithinharmfuland
irrationalbeliefs.Althoughit’struethatweareheremeasuringBuddhist
RomanticismagainstfundamentalDhammateachings,Ihopetoshowthat
thosefundamentalsarefarfrombeingharmfulorirrational.Andthewhole
thrustofthebook,insteadofadvocatinganunquestioningattitude,isto
raisequestionsthathaven’tpreviouslybeenasked.
•ThegrowthofBuddhistRomanticismissometimesportrayedasa
dialoguebetweenancientBuddhistandmodernWesternideas,adialogue
thatneedstohappenifBuddhismisgoingtomakesenseintheWest.Butas
18
Ihavealreadysuggested,theterm“dialogue”hardlyappliestothecurrent
situation.BuddhistRomanticismhasbeenmoreofamonologue,inwhich
modernteachersandtheiraudiencesdeterminethetopic,setthequestions,
andchoosewhattheancienttextsareandaren’tallowedtosay.Inmany
cases,thereishardlyanyawarenessthattheremightbeanothercogentside
tothediscussion:TheclaimisthattheBuddha’struemessagewasabout
interconnectedness,wholeness,spontaneity,ego-transcendence,nonjudgmentalism,andintegrationofthepersonality,whileanythingelsein
thetextsissimplyaflawintransmission.
OnlyifwerecognizethatBuddhistRomanticismdiffersradicallyfrom
theDhamma,andallowtheDhammatospeakonitsownterms,cana
genuinedialoguebegin.
TheneedforthisdialoguewasshownbyaquestionIwasaskedrecently
whenIledadaylongdiscussiononthethemeofBuddhistRomanticism.
Themorninghadbeendevotedtolistingthetwentypointsthatdefine
Romanticreligion.Theafternoonwastobespentshowingtheactual
positionoftheDhammaonalltwenty.WhenwehadarrivedatPoint3or4
intheafternoon,oneoftheattendees—whohadparticipatedinmany
Buddhistretreats—raisedhishandandasked,“Sowhatyoutaughtusthis
morningwasn’ttheDhamma?”ThetwentyRomanticpointscopiedso
accuratelywhathewasaccustomedtohearingasDhammathathehad
blockedoutallmyearliercommentstothecontrary.Thissortofconfusion
canhappenonlywhentheDhammaisdeniedavoiceinthediscussionof
modernBuddhism,andBuddhistRomanticismhastheforumtoitself.
Thetypeofdialogueneededisshownbyacommentmadeattwoother
daylongdiscussionsonthethemeofBuddhistRomanticismthatIled
duringthepastyear.Towardtheendofeachday,afterIhadoutlinedthe
maintenetsofRomanticreligion,anattendeewouldsayplaintively,“These
areallthereasonsIcametoBuddhisminthefirstplace.”Irespondedin
bothcasestotheeffectthat“It’slikepsychotherapy.Therecomesatime
whenyousensethatsomedeeplyburiedideasthatmayhaveworkedfor
youwhenyouwereachildarenowgettinginthewayofyourgrowingup.
Ifyoucandigupthoseideasandquestiontheminthelightofanadult
intelligence,you’reinabetterpositiontooutgrowthemandmoveon.”
Thepurposeofthisbookistostartadialogueofculturalpsychotherapy,
sothatpeopleattractedtoBuddhistRomanticismcandecideiftheywantto
outgrowtheirattractiontoitinordertobenefitmorefromwhatthe
19
Dhammahastooffer.Andwhenmorepeoplecanseethedifference
betweenBuddhistRomanticismandtheDhamma,peoplewhoarenot
attractedtoRomanticreligionwillbeinabetterpositiontobenefitfromthe
Dhammaaswell.
HOWTOREADTHISBOOK
Theheartoftheargumentcanbefoundin ChapterTwo,intwosections
of ChapterFive—“TheReligiousExperience”and“RecognizingRomantic
Religion”—andin ChapterSeven.Ifyoutendtogetboggeddownwhile
readinghistory,youcanreadthesepassagesfirst.However,I’minclinedto
agreewiththeearlyRomanticsthateveryideahasahistory,andthatto
reallyunderstandanideayouneedtoknowwhereitcamefrom.Soevenif
youdon’tlikehistoryingeneral,Iwouldrecommendgivingthehistorical
chaptersatry.Otherwise,you’llmissnotonlymanyofthesubtletiesofthe
issuessurroundingBuddhistRomanticismandtheDhamma,butalsothe
opportunitytomeetsomeofthemostfascinatingindividualsinthehistory
ofWesternandBuddhistthought.
20
CHAPTERONE
DramatisPersonae
Onaverybroadlevel,theBuddhaandtheGermanRomanticssharetwo
pointsofresemblance.LiketheBuddha,theRomanticswerebornintoa
periodofgreatsocialferment:political,cultural,andreligious.Likehim,
theyweredissatisfiedbythereligioustraditionsinwhichtheywereraised,
andtheysearchedforanewwaytounderstandandtocuretheirspiritual
dissatisfaction.
There,however,theresemblancesend.Whenwefocusonspecifics,the
differencesbegintoappear.SomeofthedifferencesbetweentheBuddha
andtheRomanticsstemfromdifferencesintheirrespectiveenvironments:
theprecisenatureofthesocialupheavalstheyexperiencedandthespecific
religioustraditionsthatweredominantintheirtimeandplace.
IntheBuddha’scase,themainsocialupheavalresultedfromtheriseofa
monetaryeconomy.Kingsbackedbymoneylenderswereexpandingtheir
realms,assumingabsolutepowersandabsorbingsmalloligarchicrepublics
intolargecentralizedmonarchies.Atthesametime,awidevarietyofnew
religionsarose,assertingtherightofreasontoquestionallthebasictenets
oftheBrahmanicalreligionandpromotingawidearrayofworldviewsin
itsplace.Somearguedforastrictmaterialistdeterministicviewofthe
universe;others,auniverseoftotalchaos;others,auniverseinwhich
humanactionplayedarole.Sometaughttheexistenceofanunchanging,
eternalsoul;others,thattherewasnothinginanindividualthatwould
survivedeath.Inshort,everypositiononthenatureoftheworld,ofthe
humanbeing,andoftherelationbetweenthetwowasupforgrabs.
InthecaseoftheRomantics,however,themainsocialupheavalcame
fromtheFrenchRevolution,whichoccurredwhentheRomanticswerein
theirlateteensandearlytwenties.TheRevolutionwassomethingofa
mirrorimageofthechangesinthetimeoftheBuddha,inthatitattempted
toreplacetheabsoluteruleofmonarchiesandoligarchieswithaneworder
thatwouldembodytheidealsofliberty,equality,andfraternity.
21
Asforreligion,theEuropeoftheRomanticswasmuchmoremonolithic
thantheBuddha’sIndia.Onereligion—Christianity—dominated,andmost
religiousissueswerefoughtwithintheconfinesofChristiandoctrine.Even
anti-religiousdoctrineswereshapedbythefactthatChristianitywasthe
onereligionwithwhichtheyhadtocontend.Thecenturypriortothe
Romanticshadwitnessedtheriseofarationalisticanti-Christian
worldview,basedonthemechanicallawsdiscoveredbyIsaacNewton,but
astheRomanticsweregainingtheireducation,newscientificdiscoveries,
suggestingamoreorganicviewoftheuniverse,werecallingthe
Newtonianuniverseintoquestionaswell.
Inadditiontopoliticalandreligiousupheavals,though,theEuropeof
theRomanticswasalsogoingthroughaliteraryupheaval.Anewformof
literaturehadbecomepopular—thenovel—whichwasespeciallysuitedto
exploringpsychologicalstatesinwaysthatlyricpoetryanddramacould
not.Havingbeenraisedonnovels,youngEuropeansborninthe1770’s
tendedtoapproachtheirownlivesasnovels—andinparticular,togive
greatweighttoexploringtheirownpsychologicalstatesandusingthose
statestojustifytheiractions.Aswewillseeinthenextchapter,it’sno
accidentthattheterm“Romantic”containstheGermanandFrenchword
fornovel,Roman.
ForallthesocialdifferencesseparatingtheBuddhafromtheRomantics,
anevengreaterdifferencelayinhowtheytriedtoresolvethespiritual
dissatisfactionfromwhichtheysuffered.Inotherwords,theydifferednot
simplybecausetheywereonthereceivingendofdifferentoutside
influences.Theydifferedevenmoresharplyinhowtheydecidedtoshape
theirsituation.Theirproactiveapproachtotheirtimesexplainsagreatdeal
aboutthedifferencesseparatingtheirteachings.
Thereissomethingbothfittingandveryironicaboutthisfact.It’sfitting
inthesensethattheBuddhaandtheRomanticsagreedontheprinciplethat
individualhumanbeingsarenotmerelypassiverecipientsofoutside
stimulifromtheirenvironment.Instead,influencesarereciprocal.People
interactwiththeirenvironment,shapingitastheyarebeingshapedbyit.
What’sironicisthateventhoughtheBuddhaandtheRomanticsagreedon
thisprinciple,theydrewdifferentimplicationsfromit—whichwewill
examineinChapterFour—andtheydisagreedinactiononhowbestto
applyittotheirlives,apointthatwewillexaminehere.Actingontheir
environmentsindifferentways,theycametodrasticallydifferent
22
conclusionsbasedontheiractions—inparticular,concerninghowmuch
freedomhumanbeingshaveinchoosingtheiractions,andhowmuch
freedomhumanactioncanbringabout.
Afewbriefsketchesoftheirliveswillindicatewhatthesedifferences
were.
THEBUDDHA
TheversionoftheBuddha’slifemostwidelyknownintheWestwas
firstcomposedmanycenturiesafterhispassing,whenBuddhistsinIndia
wantedacompletebiographyofthefounderoftheirreligion.Thiswasto
fillinwhattheyperceivedasalackintheirtradition,becausetheearliest
records—suchasthoseinthePāliCanon—containedglimpsesofthe
Buddha’slifestoryonlyinfragmentaryform.
However,thevariousbiographiescomposedtomeetthisfeltneeddidn’t
simplyfillintheblanksleftbythefragments.Sometimestheyintroduced
incidentsthatcontradictedwhatthefragmentshadtosay.Aprime
exampleisthestoryoftheBuddha’schildhood.Thelaterbiographies
presentedasomewhatfairy-talelikestoryofayoungprince,heirtoaking,
keptcaptiveinthepalaceuntilafterheismarried,andwholeavesthe
palacesecretlyinthedarknessofnight—afterseeingforhisveryfirsttimea
sickperson,anoldperson,acorpse,andawildernessascetic—inhopesthat
thelifeofanasceticmightleadtofreedomfromthefactsofaging,illness,
anddeath.
AstoldinthePāliCanon,however,theeventssurroundingthe
Buddha’sdecisiontoleavehomeandtakeupthelifeofawildernessascetic
weremuchsimplerandmorerealistic.Inaddition,theygivegreaterinsight
intohischaracterandthevaluesthatdrovehisquest.
Theseaccountscarryasenseofimmediacyinthattheyaretoldfromthe
firstperson.Infact,theyconstituteoneoftheearliestspiritual
autobiographiesinrecordedhistory.BecausetheBuddha’scentralteaching
wasonthepowerofskillfulkamma,oraction,andtheroleofintentionin
shapingkamma,thisisappropriate.Intellinghislistenersofwhathedidto
attainawakening,andhowthisinvolvedtraininghisintentionstobecome
moreandmoreskillful,hewasgivinganobjectlessoninhowtheycould
developtheskillsneededtoreachawakeningthemselves.
23
IntheBuddha’stelling,hisfatherwasnotaking.Instead,hewasan
aristocrat,amemberofthenoblewarriorcaste,livinginasmalloligarchic
republic—thetypeofsocietythatwasfastdisappearingduringthe
Buddha’slifetime.Theyoungbodhisatta,or“beinginsearchofawakening,”
wasbroughtupinextremeluxury.Littleissaidoftheeducationhe
received,butafterhebecameBuddhahewouldillustratehisteachingswith
similesshowinganintimateknowledgeofthemilitaryartsandofmusic.
Andhisskillatcomposingextemporaneouspoetryshowsthathewas
trainedintheliteraryarts,too.Giventheemphasisthatthenoblewarrior
casteplacedonlearningstrategyandskills,it’spossibletoseetheinfluence
ofhisoriginalcastebackgroundontheBuddha’seventualadoptionofa
strategicapproachtothereligiouslifeaswell.
Withthepassageoftime,thebodhisattacametofeelgreat
dissatisfactionwithhissituation.Thetextsdescribehisdecisiontoleavethe
luxuriesofhispalaces—andtotakeupthepathofawildernessascetic—as
aresultofthreemindstates.
ThefirstisanemotionthatinPāliiscalledsaṁvega,whichcanbe
translatedasterrorordismay.Theyoungbodhisattawasstruckbyan
overwhelmingsenseofthefutilityoflifeinwhichpeoplequarrelingover
dwindlingresourcesinflictharmononeanotheronlytodieintheend.
Iwilltellofhow
Iexperienced
dismay.
Seeingpeoplefloundering
likefishinsmallpuddles,
competingwithoneanother—
asIsawthis,
fearcameintome.
Theworldwasentirely
withoutsubstance.
Allthedirections
wereknockedoutofline.
Wantingahavenformyself,
Isawnothingthatwasn’tlaidclaimto.
Seeingnothingintheend
butcompetition,
Ifeltdiscontent.—Sn4:15
24
Thebodhisatta’ssecondmindstatewasasenseofsoberingappreciation
ofthefactthathe,too,wouldage,growill,anddiejustliketheold,sick,
anddeadpeoplethathehad,uptothatpoint,despised.
“EventhoughIwasendowedwithsuchfortune,suchtotal
refinement,thethoughtoccurredtome:‘Whenanuntaught,run-ofthe-millperson,himselfsubjecttoaging,notbeyondaging,sees
anotherwhoisaged,heisrepelled,ashamed,&disgusted,oblivious
tohimselfthathetooissubjecttoaging,notbeyondaging.IfI—who
amsubjecttoaging,notbeyondaging—weretoberepelled,
ashamed,&disgustedonseeinganotherpersonwhoisaged,that
wouldnotbefittingforme.’AsInoticedthis,the(typical)young
person’sintoxicationwithyouthentirelydroppedaway.
“[Similarlywiththetypicalhealthyperson’sintoxicationwith
health,andthetypicallivingperson’sintoxicationwithlife.]”—AN
3:39
Thethirdmindstatewasasenseofhonor.Giventhatlifewasmarked
byaging,illness,anddeath,hefeltthattheonlyhonorablecoursewouldbe
tosearchforthepossibilityofsomethingthatdidn’tage,growill,ordie.
“Andwhichisthenoblesearch?Thereisthecasewhereaperson,
himselfbeingsubjecttobirth,seeingthedrawbacksofbirth,seeksthe
unborn,unexcelledrestfromtheyoke:unbinding(nibbāna).Himself
beingsubjecttoaging…illness…death…sorrow…defilement,
seeingthedrawbacksofaging…illness…death…sorrow…
defilement,seekstheaging-less,illness-less,deathless,sorrow-less,
undefiled,unexcelledrestfromtheyoke:unbinding.Thisisthenoble
search.”—MN26
Byframinghisgoalasthe“deathless,”thebodhisattawasfollowingan
oldtraditioninIndia.However,aswewillsee,hebrokewithtraditionin
thestrategybywhichhefinallyreachedthisgoal.
TheCanonstatesthat,havingmadeuphismindtosearchforthe
deathless,thebodhisattacutoffhishairandbeardinhisparents’presence
—eventhoughtheyweregrievingathisdecision—putontheochrerobeof
awildernessascetic,andwentforthintothewilderness.
Hissearchforawakeningtooksixyears.Whenlaterdescribingthis
25
search,hekeptreferringtoitnotonlyasasearchforthedeathless,butalso
asasearchforwhatwasskillful(MN26).Andhenotedthathisultimate
successwasduetotwoqualities:discontentwithregardtoskillfulqualities
—i.e.,heneverlethimselfrestcontentwithhisattainmentsaslongasthey
didnotreachthedeathless—andunrelentingexertion(AN2:5).Although
hedescribedhisfeelingsleadinguptohisdecisiontogoforth,heclaimed
thatfromthatpointforwardheneverletthepainsorpleasureshegained
fromhispracticeorfromhiscareerasateacherinvadeorovercomehis
mind(MN36;MN137).
Atfirst,hestudiedwithtwomeditationteachers,butaftermastering
theirtechniquesandrealizingthatthehighestattainmentstheyyielded
werenotdeathless,hesetoutonhisown.Mostofhissixyearswerespent
engagedinausterities—inducingtrancesbycrushinghisthoughtswithhis
willorbysuppressinghisbreath,goingonsuchsmallamountsoffoodthat
hewouldfaintwhenurinatingordefecating.Whenfinallyrealizingthat,
althoughhehadpursuedtheseausteritiesasfarashumanlypossible,they
gavenosuperiorknowledgeorattainment,heaskedhimselfiftheremight
beanotherwaytothedeathless.Afteraskingthisquestion,heremembered
atimewhen,asayoungman,hehadspontaneouslyenteredthefirstjhāna,
apleasantmentalabsorption,whilesittingunderatree.Convincinghimself
thattherewasnothingtofearfromthatpleasure,hebeganeatingmoderate
amountsoffoodsoastoregainthestrengthneededtoenterthat
concentration.
Itwasthusthatheenteredthepathtoawakening.Onthenightofhis
awakening,afterattainingthefourthjhāna—amorestableandequanimous
state—hegainedthreeknowledgesthroughthepowerofhisconcentration:
Thefirsttwowereknowledgeofhisownpastlivesandknowledgeofhow
beingsdieandarerebornrepeatedly,onthemanylevelsofthecosmos,
basedontheirkamma.Thelargerperspectiveaffordedbythissecond
knowledgeshowedhimthepatternofhowkammaworked:intentions
basedonone’sviewsandperceptionsdeterminedone’sstateofbecoming,
i.e.,one’sidentityinaparticularworldofexperience.
Byapplyingthisinsighttotheintentions,views,andperceptions
occurringatthepresentmomentinhismind,theBuddhawasabletoattain
thethirdknowledgeofthenight:theendingofthementalstatesthatledto
renewedbecoming.Thiswastheknowledgethatledtohisattainingthe
deathless.
26
Thekeytohisawakeninglayinhisrevolutionaryinsightthatthe
processesleadingtobecomingcouldbebestdismantledbydividingthem
intofourcategories—stressorsuffering(dukkha),thecauseofstress,the
cessationofstress,andthepathofpracticeleadingtothecessationofstress.
Eachofthesecategoriescarriedaduty.Stress,hesaw,shouldbe
comprehendedtothepointofdevelopingdispassionforitscause.Itscause
wasthentobeabandoned,sothatitscessationcouldberealized.Todoall
ofthis,thepathhadtobedeveloped.Ashelatersaid,onlywhenhe
realizedthatallfourofthesedutieshadbeenbroughttocompletiondidhe
affirmthathewastrulyawakened.
Thisstrategyofreachingthedeathlessbyfocusingontheproblemof
stressinthepresentmomentconstitutedtheBuddha’sradicalinnovation
withintheIndianreligioustradition.Thefourcategoriesheusedin
analyzingstressbecameknownasthefournobletruths,hismost
distinctiveteaching.
TheBuddhalaterusedtwoformulaetodescribetheknowledgethat
camewithtrueawakening.Althoughthetwodiffersomewhatintheir
wording,theessentialmessageisthesame:Totalreleasehadbeenattained,
therewasnothingleftinthemindthatwouldleadtorebirth,andtherewas
nofurtherworktobedoneforthesakeofmaintaininghisattainment.
“Knowledgeandvisionaroseinme:‘Unprovoked[uncaused]is
myrelease.Thisisthelastbirth.Thereisnownofurtherbecoming.’”
—SN56:11
“Myheart,thusknowing,thusseeing,wasreleasedfromthe
effluentofsensuality,releasedfromtheeffluentofbecoming,
releasedfromtheeffluentofignorance.Withrelease,therewasthe
knowledge,‘Released.’Idiscernedthat‘Birthisended,theholylife
fulfilled,thetaskdone.Thereisnothingfurtherforthisworld.’”—
MN4
TheBuddhathenspentthenextsevenweeksexperiencingtheblissof
release:areleasethatwasconsciousbutlaybeyondtheconsciousnessof
thesixsenses—countingthemindasthesixth—andbeyondtheconfinesof
spaceandtime(§§46–47 ;DN11).Attheendoftheseventhweek,andat
theinvitationofaBrahmā,hedecidedtoteachwhathehadlearnedabout
thepathofawakeningtoothers.Eventhoughhismindhadgonebeyond
27
pleasureandpain,hehadnotbecomeapathetic.Quitethecontrary:He
devotedhimselftoestablishingbothateachingandamonasticvehiclefor
preservingthatteachingthatwouldlastformillennia.
ThereareafewpoemsintheCanonthataretraditionallyheldtoexpress
theBuddha’sfeelingsonreachingawakening.Forexample:
ThroughtheroundofmanybirthsIroamed
withoutreward,
withoutrest,
seekingthehouse-builder.
Painfulisbirthagain
&again.
House-builder,you’reseen!
Youwillnotbuildahouseagain.
Allyourraftersbroken,
theridgepoledismantled,
immersedindismantling,themind
hasattainedtheendofcraving.—Dhp153–154
Notice,however,thatalthoughthispoemexpressesastrongfeelingof
relief,itendsnotwithafeelingbutwithafact:theendofrebirthhasbeen
attainedthroughtheendingofcraving.Thusthepoemteachesapractical
message.AndwhenwelookattheCanonasawhole,wefindthatthe
numberofpassagesexpressingfeelingsaboutawakeningarenextto
nothingcomparedtothenumberofpassageswheretheBuddhateaches
otherpeoplehowtoreachawakening,oratleasttopursuethepathto
awakening,themselves.Inotherwords,hefocusedonconveyingthepath
asaskillforotherstomaster.Ashesaid,thethingshecametoknowon
awakeningwereliketheleavesinaforest;whathetaught—thefournoble
truths—wasjustahandfulofleaves(SN56:31).Theleaveswerechosen,he
said,becausetheywouldbeusefulinhelpingothersreachrelease.Inother
words,insteadofexpressinghisfeelingsaboutthedeathless,hefocusedon
whatcanbecalledamoreperformativeanddescriptivestyleofteaching:i.e.,
usingwordsthatwouldhavetheeffectofgettingotherpeopletowantto
practiceforthesakeofthedeathless,anddescribingtothemexactlyhowto
goaboutdoingit.
TheBuddhaspenttheremaining45yearsofhislifewanderingover
northernIndia,teachingtheDhammaandestablishingaSaṅgha,or
28
community,ofmonasticfollowers.Inthefirstyear,hetrainedalarge
numberofmentobecomearahants,orfullyawakeneddisciples,capableof
teachingtheDhammathemselves.Thenhereturnedtohishometoteach
hisfamily.TheCanonrecordsthathissonandseveralofhiscousins
eventuallybecamearahants,andthathisstepmotherbecamethefirst
memberoftheSaṅghaofnuns.TheCommentaryaddsthathisformerwife
andfatherbecamearahants,too.InthiswaytheBuddhawasableto
providehisfamilywithaninheritancemuchgreaterthananythinghecould
haveprovidedhadhestayedathome.
AlthoughtheBuddhacontinuedtomeetwithgreatsuccessinleading
otherstoawakening,hiscareerwasnotwithoutdifficulties.Amongthem,
therewerethehumandifficultiesofsettingupSaṅghas—oneformen,one
forwomen—toprovidealastingsystemofapprenticeshipwhereby
succeedinggenerationswouldbeabletotrainintheDhamma.Therewere
alsothedifficultiesofhavingtodebatewithmembersofrivalsectswho
werejealousofhissuccessandwhodidn’talwayscontentthemselveswith
debate:SometimestheyalsoleveledfalseaccusationsagainsttheBuddha
andthemembersoftheSaṅghas.
Therewerealsodifficultiesofanon-humansort.Havingseenonthe
nightofhisawakeningthatbeingscanberebornonmanylevelsofthe
cosmos,healsorealizedthatthereisabeing—calledMāra—whoexerts
controlthroughouttherealmsofbecoming,eventothelevelsofthehighest
gods(MN49),andwhojealouslytriestopreventbeingsfromgaining
awakeningandescapinghiscontrol.TheBuddhaalsorealizedthatMāra
hasallieswithineachunawakenedmindintheshapeofsuchunskillful
qualitiesassensualpassion,craving,andhypocrisy.Mārahadtemptedthe
bodhisattatogiveuphisquest,andevenaftertheBuddha’sawakening
kepttestinghim—andhisdisciples—toseeiftheirawakeningwasreal.
Inthefaceofallthesedifficulties,theBuddhaactedwithhonorand
dignity.Evenonthedayhewastopassaway,hewalkedallday—afteran
attackofdysentery—fromPāvatoKusinarāsothathecouldteachtheone
lastpersonheknewhehadtoteach.Hisfinalteaching,whichhegaveto
thatperson,wasthenobleeightfoldpath,thesameteachingwithwhichhe
hadbegunhisfirstsermon45yearspreviously.Throughouthislastday,he
showedgreatnobilityandcalm:comfortinghisdisciples,givingthemone
lastchancetoquestionhimabouttheirdoubtsconcerningtheteaching,
evenensuringthatthemanwhohadprovidedthelastmealthathad
29
broughtonanattackofdysentery,insteadofbeingreproachedforthemeal,
wouldbepraisedforhavinggivensuchameritoriousmeal.After
encouraginghisdisciplestoachieveconsummationinthepracticethrough
beingheedful,heenteredthevariousstagesofconcentrationandthenwas
totallyunboundfrombecomingofeverysort.
Aftersevendaysoffuneralcelebrations,hisfollowerscrematedhis
body.Therelicswerethenenshrinedinmonumentsinthemajorkingdoms
ofnorthernIndia.IntheTheravādatradition,theSaṅghaofmonksthathe
establishedhaslasteduntilthepresentday.
FIVEEARLYROMANTICS
WhendiscussingtheearlyGermanRomantics,oneofthefirstproblems
isdeterminingwhocountsasamemberofthegroupandwhodoesn’t.
Hereourtaskismadesomewhateasierbythefactthatwearefocusingona
specificaspectofearlyRomanticthought—Romanticviewsonreligion—so
wecanlimitourdiscussiontothoseRomanticswhofocusedonissuesof
religioninlightoftheRomanticworldview.
TheobviouscandidatestoincludeinanydiscussionofearlyRomantic
religionareFriedrichSchleiermacherandFriedrichSchlegel,astheywere
theRomanticswhowrotemostprolificallyonthetopic.Infact,
Schleiermacher’sTalksonReligionforItsCulturedDespisers(1799)wasthe
firstmajorbooktotreatreligionfromaRomanticstandpoint.Itisthe
definingtextofRomanticreligion.
AnotherobviouscandidateforinclusionisFriedrichvonHardenberg,
whoisbetterknownunderhispenname,Novalis.NovaliswasSchlegel’s
philosophicalandliterarypartnerintheyearsduringwhichbothofthem
workedouttheimplicationsoftheRomanticworldview,andhisideason
thetopicofauthenticityseemtohavebeenamajorinfluenceon
Schleiermacher’sthought.
Twoothercandidatesforinclusionaresomewhatmorecontroversial.
OneisFriedrichHölderlin.Althoughhisviewsonreligionwerevery
similartoSchlegel’s,heissometimesexcludedfromthecategoryofearly
Romanticonthegroundsthathewasonlytangentiallyconnectedtothe
circleoffriendswho,duringthelate1790’s,gatheredintheuniversitytown
ofJenaatthehomeofAugustSchlegel,Friedrich’sbrother,andtowhom
theappellation“Romantic”wasoriginallyapplied.However,Hölderlin’s
30
notebooksshowthathewasapparentlythefirstGermanthinkerto
formulatewhatbecametheRomanticworldview.Also,thenovelhe
publishedduringhislifetime—Hyperion—containsmanypassagesthatdeal
withreligiousissuesinlinewiththatworldview.Atthesametime,his
unpublishedphilosophicalessaysshowthatheworkedoutthereligious
implicationsofhisworldviewinmanyoriginalways,foreshadowingthe
thoughtoflaterthinkers,suchasCarlJung,whoadoptedandtransmitted
Romanticideasonreligion.
Hölderlin’sphilosophicalessayswerenotpublisheduntilthemiddleof
the20thcentury,soitcan’tbesaidthattheywereinfluential.Still,someof
hisreligiousviewsseemtohavereachedtheJenacirclethroughHyperion,
throughhispoetry,andthroughconversation.Atthesametime,those
viewsareofintrinsicinterestinanyhistoryofRomanticreligioninthat
theyshowhowsomeofthestrandsofRomanticreligionthatcametolight
onlymuchlaterwereactuallyrealizedearlyon.So,forbothofthese
reasons,hedeservestobeincludedinthediscussionhere.
AnothercontroversialcandidateasanearlyRomanticreligiousthinker
isFriedrichSchelling.SchellingwasamemberoftheJenacircle,hehada
stronginfluenceonSchleiermacherandSchlegel,andhewroteextensively
onreligionhimself,soitseemsnaturaltoincludehimasanearlyRomantic
religiousphilosopher.Thereasontherewouldbesomecontroversyaround
hisinclusionisthattherearetwodifferentcriteriafordeterminingwho
countsasanearlyRomanticphilosopherandwhodoesn’t.Schellingmeets
oneofthecriteria,butnottheother.
Theonehedoesn’tmeetdefinesearlyRomanticphilosophybyitsstyle.
Schlegel,Novalis,Hölderlin,andSchleiermacherallrejectedtheideathat
anadequatedescriptionofexperiencecouldbebuiltlogically,likea
building,onafoundationofrationalfirstprinciples.Afterall,theysensed,
therewassomuchinexperiencethatwasfalsifiedassoonasitwas
expressedinalogicaljudgment.Inparticular,theybelievedthatthemost
directintuitionofexperienceisthatallBeingisOne.Thisintuition,
however,cannotbeadequatelyexpressedinasentence(or,astheycalledit,
ajudgment),eveninthesimpleformofA=A,becausejudgmentshaveto
dividethingsbeforetheycanputthembacktogether.Forthisreason,
philosophy—whichiscomposedofjudgments—canonlyapproachthe
actualOnenessofexperiencebyapproximation,withouteverfully
explainingorexpressingit.Asaresult,insteadofbuildingphilosophical
31
systems,thesefourthinkerswrotephilosophyintheformofdialogues,
letters,novels,myths,andaphorisms.Thisstyleofphilosophyiscalled
anti-foundationalism.
Schelling,however,duringthelate1790’s,wasafoundationalist.He
agreedthatthemostdirectintuitionofexperiencewasthatallBeingisOne,
andthatthisexperiencecouldnotbeadequatelyexpressedinajudgment.
Still,henotedthateventosaythismuchistoassumeagreatdealabout
experience.Andfortheseassumptionstobepersuasive,therewasaneedto
showthattheywereconsistent.Tobeconsistent,hefelt,theyhadtofollow
logicallyfromarationalfoundation.Thiswaswhy,eventhoughSchelling
believedthatphilosophicalsystemscouldn’texpresseverything,hesawa
needtowritephilosophyinthetraditionalstyle:buildingsystems—andhe
builtmanydifferentsystemsduringthelate1790’s—foundedonthe
principleofA=A.Onlyinhislateryearsdidhebecomeanantifoundationalisthimself.Thusonthiscriterion,Schellingwouldcountasa
lateRomanticphilosopher,butnotasanearlyone.
However,thereisanothercriterionfordefiningearlyRomantic
philosophy,andthat’sbyitsworldview.Allfiveofthesethinkersagreedthat
theuniverseisaninfiniteorganicunity,andthathumanbeingsareintegral
partsofthatunity.Becausethesethinkersalsodefinedreligionasanissue
oftherelationshipofhumanbeingstotheuniverse,thisseemsthemost
relevantdefinitionofRomanticphilosophywhendiscussingRomantic
religion.AndbecauseSchellingmeetsthiscriterion,he,too,deservestobe
includedinanydiscussionofearlyRomanticreligiousviews.
WewillpresenttheculturalreasonsforwhytheRomanticsdeveloped
thisworldviewandthisunderstandingofreligioninChaptersThreeto
Five.Herewewillbrieflysketchtheirbiographiestogiveanideaofsome
ofthepersonalreasonsforthewaytheyarrivedatRomanticreligion.
WewillstartwithNovalisfirst.
Novalis(1772–1801)
GeorgPhilippFriedrich,FreiherrvonHardenberg,theonlyoneoftheearly
Romanticstocomefromanoblebackground,wasbornonthefamilyestate
intheHarzmountainstoparentswhoweredevoutPietists(see Chapter
Three).HestudiedlawinJena,Leipzig,andWittenberg.WhileatJena,he
readphilosophyaswell.Thiswasduringaperiodwhenoneofthemajor
32
issuesatJenawashowtointerpretImmanuel
Kant’sphilosophy.Kanthadnotbuilta
philosophicalsystemonfirstprinciples,and
theissueforhisinterpreterscamedownto
whetheritshouldberewrittensoasto
grounditwithafirstprinciple,tomakeit
morecomplete,orleftwithoutasingle
foundation,tostayfaithfultoKant’sstyle.
Hardenberg’stutorsbelongedtotheantifoundationalistcamp.
In1793,whileatLeipzig,Hardenberg
becamefriendswithFriedrichSchlegel.The
twobeganacorrespondencethatwastolast,
offandon,totheendofhislife.
1795wasHardenberg’swatershedyear.Hestartedreadingthe
philosophyofJohannFichte,aKantianwhoproposedrebuildingKant’s
philosophyonfirstprinciples(see ChapterThree).Atfirsthewastaken
withFichte’sideas,andthiswasoneofhisreasonsformovingtoJena.
TherehemetbothFichteandHölderlin,whowasstudyingunderFichteat
thetime.Laterinthatyear,however,hestartedwritingcritiquesofFichte’s
philosophyinhisnotebooks,graduallyarrivingatwhatwastobecomethe
Romanticworldview.(Thiswasacommonpatternamongmanyofthe
earlyRomantics:AtfirstenamoredofFichte’sphilosophy,theyendedup
adoptingtheRomanticworldviewinreactiontoit.)Hardenberginthese
earlycritiquesalsoarrivedatthebasicRomanticviewongenre:thatthis
newworldviewwasbestexpressedthroughliterature,ratherthanthrough
academicphilosophy.
Onamorepersonallevel,HardenbergbecameengagedinMarch1795to
SophievonKühn,whowasonlythirteenatthetime.InSeptemberofthat
year,heenteredtheMiningAcademyofFreiberginSaxony,wherehe
studiedgeologywithAbrahamWerner(see ChapterThree).InNovember,
however,Sophiedied,andHardenbergspentmanyanightathergrave,
mourningherloss.Thisexperienceledtoanextravagantseriesofpoems
thatwerelaterprintedasHymnstotheNightin1800.Ahighly
RomanticizedversionofSophie,asthepersonificationofwisdom,also
becameoneofthemaincharactersinanovel,HeinrichvonOfterdingen,
whichHardenbergbeganwritingtowardtheendofhislife.
33
In1796,hewrotetoFriedrichSchlegelabouthisreasonsforbreaking
withFichte—reasonsthatalsoreflectedtheviewoflifehehaddevelopedin
thecourseofmourningthelossofhisfiancée.
“IfeelmoreineverythingthatIamthesublimememberofan
infinitewhole,intowhichIhavegrownandwhichshouldbethe
shellofmyego.MustInothappilysuffereverything,nowthatIlove
andlovemorethantheeightspansofspace,andlovelongerthanall
thevacillationsofthechordsoflife?SpinozaandZinzendorfhave
investigatedit,theinfiniteideaoflove,andtheyhadanintuitionof
itsmethod,ofhowtheycoulddevelopitforthemselves,and
themselvesforit,onthisspeckofdust.ItisapitythatIseenothingof
thisviewinFichte,thatIfeelnothingofthiscreativebreath.Butheis
closetoit.Hemuststepintoitsmagiccircle—unlesshisearlierlife
wipedthedustoffhiswings.” 1
Nevertheless,despitehisbreakwithFichte’sphilosophy,Hardenberg
continuedtobeongoodtermswithFichtetheperson.Aftermeetingwith
himagaininJenain1797,hewrotetoSchlegel:
“AtFichte’sIspokeofmyfavoritetopic—hedidnotagreewith
me—butwithwhattenderconsiderationdidhespeak,forheheldmy
opiniontobeeccentric.Thiswillremainunforgettable.” 2
DuringthisperiodHardenbergstartedstudyingPlatonicandNeoPlatonicphilosophy,andinthewinterof1797–98heprinted—underthe
name,Novalis,whichmeans“onewhoopensupnewland”—theonly
philosophicalworkthathewastopublishduringhislifetime.Thework,
calledPollen,wasintheformofshortthoughtsandaphorisms.Thetitleis
explainedbythepoemthatservesasitsepigraph:
“Friends,thesoilispoor,wemustsowabundantseeds
Sothatevenmodestharvestswillflourish” 3
Inthisbook,Novalis—aswewillcallhimfromhereon—formulated
whatweretobehismostinfluentialideas:thatfreedomconsistsoflearning
toromanticizeone’slife—tomakeitintoanovel(Roman)—andthatonlya
personwhocanaccomplishthisfeatistrulyauthentic.
Towardtheendof1798,Novalisbecameengagedasecondtime,butthe
34
marriagenevertookplace.Thefollowingyearhestartedworkasa
managerofthesaltminesinSaxony.Still,hefoundtimetocontinuehis
philosophicalandreligiousreadings,inparticularthewritingsofthemystic
Christian,JakobBöhme.Healsocommencedworkontwonovels—Heinrich
vonOfterdingenandTheNovicesofSais—butonlythesecondwasanywhere
nearcompletionwhenhedied.
In1800hecontractedtuberculosis,whichwastoprovefatal.During
Novalis’finalillness,Schlegelreportedhavingkepthimwell-suppliedwith
opium—whichwasavailableintinctureforminthosedays—toeasehis
pain.Ashisendneared,Novalishadlittlestrengtheventoread.Ashe
wrotetoafriend,“Philosophyliesnexttomeonlyinthebookcase.” 4
Afterhisdeath,SchlegelandtheRomanticauthorJohannLudwigTieck
publishedhisnovels.Theyalsokepthispoetryinprint,andformanyyears
Novalis’reputationwasprimarilyasanauthorandpoet.
AnotherfriendextractedpassagesfromNovalis’unpublished
philosophicalwritingsandprintedthemasacollectionoffragments,but
theseleftnogreatimpression.Onlyinthe1950’sand60’swerehis
philosophicalessayseditedandprintedintheirentirety.Andthusitwasn’t
untilthemiddle20thcenturythathecametobeappreciatedasa
philosophicalthinkerofgreatbreadthandoriginality.
FriedrichSchlegel(1772–1829)
BorninHanover,theyoungestsonofa
Lutheranpastor,KarlWilhelmFriedrich
Schlegelwasapprenticedtoabankeratan
earlyage.Unhappywiththisoccupation,he
pleadedsuccessfullywithhisparentstobe
allowedtostudylawattheuniversityin
Göttingen,wherehiselderbrother,August,
wasalreadystudyingtheclassics.Thetwo
brothersbegantostudyaestheticsand
philosophytogether—Friedrichlater
commentedthathereadallofPlatointhe
Greekin1788.From1791to1793,he
continuedhisstudyoflawinLeipzig,where
hemetNovalisandSchiller.
35
WhileinLeipzig,Friedrichfellintoaseveredepression,fromwhichhe
partlyrecoveredwhenhedecidedtoabandonlawandtofocuson
philosophyandclassicalliteratureinstead.Shortlythereafter,August,then
inAmsterdam,askedFriedrichtoactasaguardiantohismistress,Caroline
MichaelisBöhmer(1763–1809),whowasstayinginDresden.Caroline—a
womanwithavivaciouspersonalityandstrikingintellect,andwholater
becameoneoftheleadingmembersoftheRomanticcircleinJena—
convincedFriedrichthatheshouldtryacareerasaliterarycritic:avery
uncertainprofessioninthosedays,butonethatappealedstronglyto
Friedrich’snormallyeffervescenttemperament.Oncehehaddecidedon
thiscareerpath,hisdepressionwasfullygone.
Hebeganwritingandpublishingreviewsandliteraryessays.From1794
to1795,hechampionedclassicalliteratureagainstmodernliterature,butby
1796hispreferencesbegantoshiftinfavorofthemoderns.
AmajorinspirationforhisshiftwasFichte’sphilosophy,whichhehad
begunreadingin1795.Ashelatersaid,themainattractioninFichte’s
thoughtwasthelatter’ssupportoftheFrenchRevolutionandthecauseof
freedomingeneral.In1796SchlegeltraveledtoJenaandmetFichteforthe
firsttime,whichturnedoutinsomewaystobeadisappointingexperience.
Partofthedisappointmentwasanissueoftemperament.Schlegel,aperson
ofbroadinterests,wassurprisedtolearnthatFichtehadnouseforhistory
orscience.Inoneofhisletterstoafriend,Schlegelreportedwhatwasto
becomeoneofFichte’smostfamousutterances:thathewouldrathercount
peasthanstudyhistory.
TheotherreasonforSchlegel’sdisappointmentinFichtewasmore
philosophical.Fichte,inhiseyes,wastoomuchofafoundationalist.In
anotherletter,Schlegelcomparedthe“transcendental”aspectofFichte’s
philosophy—concerningprinciplesofthoughtthattranscendedthesenses
—tothe“transcendence”ofadrunkenmanwhoclimbsuponahorsebut
thentranscendsitandfallsdownonotherside.Still,aswasthecasewith
Novalis,Schlegel’sphilosophicaldisagreementswithFichtedidnotprevent
themfromremainingfriends.Forawhile,infact,histermforhisfavorite
socialactivity—discussingphilosophyinanopen-endedmannerwithhis
friends—wasto“fichtesize.”
Tofurtherhisliterarycareer,SchlegelmovedtoBerlinin1797,wherehe
attendedthesalonsofRahelLevinandHenrietteHerz.Therehemet
Schleiermacherandotherswhowerelatertobecomemembersofthe
36
RomanticcircleinJena.Infact,Schlegel’sfriendshipwithSchleiermacher
becamesoclosethattheysharedahousewithtwootherfriendsfrom1797
to1799.
ItwasintheHerzsalonthatSchlegelalsoencounteredDorothea
MendelssohnVeit(1764–1839)—thefirstwomanhehadmetwithanything
likeCarolineBöhmer’sintellectandcharm.Dorothea,thedaughterofthe
eminentEnlightenmentphilosopherMosesMendelssohn(see Chapter
Three),wastrappedinalovelessmarriagetoabanker.Inwhatwas
apparentlyacaseofloveatfirstsight,sheandSchlegelbegananaffair.
Afterobtainingadivorcefromherhusbandin1798,shemovedinwith
Schlegel.Thetwodidnotbecomemarried,however,until1804,because
hadtheymarriedbeforethenshewouldhavelostcustodyoftheyounger
ofhertwosurvivingsonswithVeit.
Basedontheaffair,Schlegelwroteanovel,Lucinde,whichhepublished
in1799.Immediatelydenouncedaspornographic,thenovelprovokeda
stormofcontroversyinBerlin.Bymodernstandards,thereisnothing
pornographicaboutthenovelatall,andevenbythestandardsofthetime,
thedescriptionsoflovemaking,thoughfervid,wereveryvague.What
apparentlyoffendedthegoodpeopleofBerlinwasthatthetwomain
charactersinthenovel,Schlegel/JulianandDorothea/Lucinde,were
havinganadulterousaffairandyetwerenotpunishedattheendofthe
novelfortheirsins.Instead,thenovelwasanunapologeticcelebrationofa
lovepresentedasfarmoreholythanformalmatrimony.
Theword“holy,”here,wasnotmeanttobestrictlymetaphorical.
SchlegelannouncedthatheintendedLucindetobethefirstofaseriesof
booksthatwouldconstituteanewBibleformoderntimes.However,as
wastobecomeatypicalpatterninhislife,henevercompletedtheproject.
Still,LucindeisanimportantdocumentforthestudyofRomanticreligion,
andwewilllookmorecloselyatitsreligiousimplicationsinChaptersFour
andFive.
ToescapethescandalinBerlin,SchlegelandDorotheamovedtoJena,
whereAugust—nowmarriedtoCaroline—hadbecomeaprofessoratthe
university.There,atAugustandCaroline’shome,the“Jenacircle”beganto
meet.
ThecoremembersofthecircleweretheSchlegelbrothersandtheir
wives,Schelling,Schleiermacher,Tieck,ClemensBrentano,andSophie
Mereau.Novaliswouldjointheirdiscussionswhenhisworkpermitted,
37
andevenFichte—whoisbestclassedasapre-Romantic—alsometwith
themfrequently.Themembersofthecirclewerequiteyoung.Caroline
Schlegel,at36,wastheeldest;Brentano,at20,theyoungest.Most,like
DorotheaandFriedrichSchlegel,wereintheirlatetwenties.Theymet
often,ifonanirregularbasis,tolistenandrespondtotalks,todiscusswhat
theyhadbeenreading,andtoreadtheirlatestwritingsaloudtoone
anotherforfeedback.Discussionsrangedthroughphilosophy,thesciences,
culture,history,politics,andallthearts.
HistorianshavecitedtheJenacircleasaprimeexampleofwhatcan
happenwhenagroupofstrong,livelyintellectschallengeoneanother—in
anatmosphereofcooperationcombinedwithcompetition—todevelop
theirthoughtstoahigherpitchofsophisticationandoriginalitythanthey
mightotherwisehavereachedhadtheybeenworkinginisolation.What
theyachievedasagroup,eventhoughtheydidn’tagreeoneverything,was
tosparkarevolutioninWesternthought.
TheirmeetingsinspiredDorotheaSchlegeltowritetoafriendinBerlin,
“[S]uchaneternalconcertofwit,poetry,art,andscienceassurroundsme
herecaneasilymakeoneforgettherestoftheworld.” 5 Herhusband,too,
adoptedamusicalmetaphorwhenhedescribedJenaasa“symphonyof
professors.”Anditwasapproximatelyduringthisperiodthathecameup
withanewtermforthesociable,open-endedtypeofphilosophical
discussionsinwhichtheJenacircleexcelled:“symphilosophy.”
Duringtheyears1798–1800,theSchlegelbrothersalsopublisheda
literaryjournal,Athenäum.Thisjournalwastheprimaryvehiclethrough
whichthemembersoftheJenacircledisseminatedtheirideasthroughout
theGerman-speakingworld.
FriedrichSchlegel’scontributionswereamongthemostprovocativein
thejournal.Inadditiontoessays,hecomposedfragments—pithyaphorisms
andshortpassages,oftenironic,playful,andself-contradictory—that
coveredawidevarietyoftopicsinliterature,philosophy,religion,art,
politics,andcultureinastylethatcontrastedsharplywiththemoreformal
andpedanticdiscussionsofthesetopicsinotherjournals.Schlegel’s
fragmentsalertedthepublictothefactthattheJenacirclewasengaged,not
onlyinnewthoughts,butalsoinnewwaysofthinking.
TheJenacircledidn’tlastlong.Fichtewasforcedtoleavetheuniversity
in1800,afterrefusingtoapologizeforwhatsomeofhisdetractorshad
denouncedasatheisticelementsinhisphilosophy.FriedrichSchlegel
38
lecturedinphilosophyforoneyearinhisplace,butthelectureswere
poorlyattendedandhiscontractwasnotrenewed.In1803,Augustand
CarolineSchlegelweredivorcedsothatCarolinecouldmarrySchelling(see
below),butthecontroversyaroundthedivorceprovedsorelentlessthatall
threeleftJenaforgood.Withtheirdeparture,theearlyRomanticperiod
effectivelycametoanend.
Meanwhile,FriedrichandDorotheahadbegunanitinerantlife.In1802,
theyhadmovedtoParis,whereFriedrichstudiedSanskritandedited
journalsinGermanreportingontheartsinParis.In1804,thecouplemoved
toCologne,wherehestudiedGothicarchitectureandlecturedprivatelyon
philosophy.Throughtheseyears,Dorotheaengagedintranslationwork,
whichwasapparentlywhatkeptthecouplesolventduringtheir
wanderings.
Theyear1808sawtwoeventsthatmarkedFriedrich’spublicbreakwith
hisRomanticperiod.Thefirstwasthepublicationoftheresultsofhis
Sanskritstudies,OntheLanguageandWisdomoftheIndians.Thisbook,
whichpraisedSanskritastheoriginallanguagewhoseexcellencehadled
directlytotheexcellenceoftheGermanlanguage,sparkedalong-term
interestamongGermanscholarsinIndianstudies.However,despiteits
praiseofSanskritandtheIndianmindingeneral,thebookalsocontaineda
strongdenunciationofBuddhism,whichSchlegel—basedonhislimited
reading—characterizedasaformofpantheism:“afrighteningdoctrine
which,byitsnegativeandabstract,andthuserroneous,ideaofinfinity,led
bynecessitytoavagueindifferencetowardbeingandnon-being.” 6 It’s
hardtotellwhereSchlegelgottheideathatBuddhismispantheism,buthis
ownearlierRomanticideasaboutreligiondefinitelywerepantheistic.So,in
attackingBuddhism,hewasactuallydistancinghimselffromhisearlier
Romanticpantheism.Thisfactwasunderscoredbythesecondmajorevent
inFriedrichandDorothea’slifein1808:theirconversiontoCatholicism.
LittleisknownastowhytheyabandonedtheirRomanticreligious
ideas.OnemoderntheoryisthattheirstayinParishaddestroyedtheir
earlierfaithinfreedomandprogress.Atanyrate,Friedrich’sonly
explanationtotheirfriends—incredulousovertheconversion—wasthat
“TobecomeCatholicisnottochange,butonlyfirsttoacknowledge
religion.” 7
Italsoenabledhimtofindsteadyemployment.AsaCatholic,he
qualifiedfor—and,in1809,received—apositionintheAustriancivil
39
service.MovingwithDorotheatoVienna,heeditedananti-Napoleonic
newspaperandaidedtheAustriandiplomat,Metternich,indrawingup
planstore-establishaconservativeorderinGermanyafterNapoleon’s
defeat.
Atthesametime,Schlegelbeganasecondcareerasapublicspeaker,
givinglectureseriesinViennaonsuchtopicsashistoryandliterature,and
thephilosophyoflife,literature,andlanguage.In1823,whenheand
Dorotheapublishedhiscollectedworks,theyomittedLucindefromthe
collection.
Hediedwhileonaspeakingtour,inDresden,in1829.Afterhisdeath,
DorotheamovedtoFrankfurtamMain,whereshesettledwithheryounger
son,PhilippeVeit,apainterintheNazarenemovement.Shediedin1838.
In1835,however,aleaderoftheYoungGermanmovement,Karl
Gutzkow,hadpublishedLucindeforasecondtime,togetherwith
Schleiermacher’sdefenseofthebook(seebelow).Eventhough—or
perhaps,because—thesebookssparkedanotherstormofcontroversy,they
becamerallyingtextsforthemovement:anexampleofhowearlyRomantic
ideas,evenwhenrenouncedbytheearlyRomantics,wereadoptedby
succeedinggenerationsandgivenanextendedsecondlife.
FriedrichSchleiermacher(1768–1834)
BorninBreslau,FriedrichDanielErnst
Schleiermacherwasthesonofaclergymanin
theReformedchurch.Hisearlyeducation
waswiththeMoravianHerrnhutter
Brotherhood,thesamePietistgrouptowhich
Novalis’fatherbelonged.Sufferingfrom
growingboutsofskepticismaboutChristian
doctrine,hetransferredtotheuniversityat
Halle,whereheneverthelessmajoredin
theology,withphilosophyandphilologyas
minors.
HepassedhisclericalexamsinBerlinin
1790,butdidnotimmediatelyapplyfora
positionwiththechurch.Instead,heworkedasaprivatetutorforthree
years,afterwhichhewasfiredforsympathizingwiththeFrench
40
Revolution.DuringthisperiodhebeganstudyingKantinearnest,onlyto
growcriticalofKant’srationalistapproachtoreligion.Afterreading
Herder’swritingsonSpinoza(see ChapterThree),hebegancomposing
essaysonreligionthatcombinedHerder’sinterpretationofSpinozawith
whathestillsawasworthwhileinKant’sthought.Theseessays,though,
wereratherdry,andattractedlittleattention.
In1794Schleiermachertookonhisfirstclericalposition,asapastorin
Landsberg,andthenin1796hewasappointedchaplainattheCharité
hospitalinBerlin.HisstayinBerlinmarkedhisblossomingasanoriginal
religiousthinker.Historiansofreligioncredithischaplaincyforhis
growingappreciationoftheroleoffeelinginalifeoffaith.Historiansof
philosophycredithisexposuretotheintellectualsalonsofBerlinforhis
growthasathinker.Hehimselfdescribedthediscussionsatthesalonsas
“themostcolorfulhurly-burlyofargumentsintheworld.”
In1797,attheHerzsalon,hemetFriedrichSchlegeland,asnotedabove,
thetwobecamehousemates.TheirongoingdiscussionsledSchlegelto
deepenhisappreciationofreligion—uptothatpoint,hehadbeen
somethingofanatheist—atthesametimeleadingSchleiermachertorealize
thatSchlegel’sideasonartcouldhelphimarticulatehisown
understandingofwhatitmeanstobereligiousinauniversalratherthana
strictlyChristiansense.
ThefactthatSchleiermacherwasstraddlingthedividebetweentwo
worlds,religiousinstitutionsandtheintellectualsalons,puthiminanideal
positiontoactasaninterpreterbetweenthetwo.Hisfriendsatthesalons
beganurginghimtoputhisideasonreligiononpaper.Atfirst,hesimply
composedfragmentsforAthenäum.Then,in1798,HenrietteHerzpresented
himwith“alittleboxforyourthoughts.”FromNovemberofthatyearuntil
MarchofthefollowingyearhewascalledtoPotsdamonacommission,a
periodawayfromhisfriendsthatgavehimtimetocomposewhatwasto
becomethedefiningbookonRomanticreligion:TalksonReligionforIts
CulturedDespisers.
Asthetitleindicates,thebookwasintendedtodefendreligiontothose
who,inthesalons,hadcometoviewitwithdisdain.Wewilldiscussitin
moredetailinChapterFive.HerewewillsimplynotethattheTalkson
Religionargued,notforanyspecificreligion,butforatranscendentalidea
ofreligionthathadtobetrueforallpeopleatalltimesandinallcultures.
TheTalkscontainedtwodefinitionsofreligionthatweretobecome
41
distinctivefeaturesofRomanticreligion:One,religionisamatterof
aesthetics:“atasteandsensitivityfortheinfinite.”Two,religionisnota
relationshipbetweenhumanbeingsandGod;itis“arelationshipbetween
humanbeingsandtheuniverse.”
ThefactthattheTalksdisplayedaknowledgenotonlyofmodern
philosophybutalsoofmodernscienceaddedtotheappealofthebook.It
wastogothroughmanyprintingsduringSchleiermacher’slifetime,and
waswidelyreadonbothsidesoftheAtlantic.
In1799,SchleiermacherandSchlegelembarkedonwhatwastohave
beenalong-termjointproject:theretranslationofallofPlato’sdialogues
intoGerman.Butthis,too,wasaprojectinwhichSchlegelquicklylost
interest,afactthatledtoacoolinginSchleiermacher’sfeelingstowardhim.
Thelatterneverthelesscontinuedthetranslationsonhisown,andalthough
hedidn’tcompleteallthedialogues,hemanagedtopublishalargenumber
ofthemintheyears1804–1828.Hisexperiencewiththeprojectledhimto
developtheoriesonlanguage,translation,andhermeneutics—orthe
scienceofinterpretation—thatweretoexertgreatinfluenceevenintothe
21stcentury.Infact,heisoftenregardedasoneofthefoundersof
hermeneutics,famousforfirstarticulatingwhatiscalledthehermeneutic
circle:thattounderstandthepartsofatext,youhavetofirstunderstand
thewhole;buttounderstandthewhole,youfirsthavetounderstandthe
parts.Theartofhermeneuticsliesinworkingone’swaybackandforth
betweenthesetworequirements.
Meanwhile,Schleiermacherhadbecomeinvolvedwithtwoscandals.
ThefirstwastheuproarsurroundingLucinde.In1800hewroteanovelof
hisown,ConfidentialLettersConcerningFriedrichSchlegel’sLucinde,inwhich
hedefendedLucindeasaholybook.Then,in1804,hisownseven-yearaffair
withamarriedwoman—EleonoreGrunow,thewifeofaBerlinclergyman
—cametolight,forcinghimtofleeBerlin.Forafewyears,helecturedat
theuniversityinHalle,wherehewasaccusedofatheism,Spinozism,and
pantheism.Nevertheless,theuniversityofficialssupportedhim,andhis
lecturesremainedpopular.In1806hepublishedashortliterarydialogue,
ChristmasEve,whichextolledreligionasamatteroftheheartthatshouldbe
centeredonthefellowshipofthefamilyratherthanonthestate.
When,in1807,HallefelltoNapoleon’sforces,Schleiermacherreturned
toBerlin.TherehesoonmarriedHenriettevonWillich,theyoungwidowof
oneofhisfriends,andreceivedanappointmentasapreacheratTrinity
42
Church.
In1810,heplayedapartinthefoundingoftheUniversityofBerlin,
wherehewasappointedasprofessoroftheology.In1811,hewas
appointedtotheBerlinAcademyofSciences.Inspiteofhisacademic
duties,hecontinuedtopreacheverySundaytoappreciativecrowds.
Alsoin1811,hewroteABriefPresentationofTheologicalStudiesinwhich
heoutlinedacourseofstudiesthatwouldpreparepastorstomeetthe
needsofthemodernworld.Thecoursewasconsideredrevolutionaryatthe
timeincallingforpastorstobeconversantwiththelatestadvancesin
philosophyandpsychology.Inlinewiththisprogram,helecturedatthe
universitynotonlyonsubjectsobviouslydealingwiththeologicalissues—
suchasNewTestamentexegesisandthelifeofJesus—butalsoon
dialectics,aesthetics,psychology,pedagogy,thehistoryofphilosophy,
hermeneutics,translation,andpolitics.Hisforaysintotheseareas,
however,broughthimintoconflictwithprofessorsinotherdepartmentsof
theuniversitywhoresentedhisinvadingtheirturf.
Overtheyears,astheTalksonReligioncontinuedtogothroughseveral
printings,Schleiermacherwouldcitetheselatereditionsasproofthathe
hadnotabandonedhisearlierviews.Nevertheless,hekeptmakingchanges
inthebookthatsteereditawayfromauniversalRomanticorientationand
towardamorespecificallyChristianone.Forexample,hisoriginal
definitionofreligionas“man’srelationtotheuniverse”became“man’s
relationtotheHighest.”Andinplaceofapassageinthefirstedition
arguingthat,giventheinfinitenatureoftheuniverse,humanitywould
havetoinventaninfinitenumberofreligions,allequallyvalid,hesimply
statedthatreligionis“thesumofallman’srelationstoGod.”
Mostimportant,heentirelyrecasthisdiscussionoftheconceptof
“God.”Inthefirsteditionheexplainedthisconceptasonlyonepossible
productofthereligiousimagination—andnoteventhehighestproductat
that—whereasinlatereditionsheinsistedthattherewasnowayto
conceiveoftheuniverseasawholewithoutalsoconceivingitasexistingin
God.
ThiswasamajorretreatfromhisearlierespousalofRomanticreligion.
Despitethisretreat,though,heremainedliberalbothinpoliticsandinhis
interpretationofChristiandoctrine.Intheareaofpolitics,hecampaigned
fortherightoftheChurchtodetermineitsownliturgywithoutinterference
fromthestate.Intheareaofdoctrine,hismostcomprehensivebookon
43
theology,TheChristianFaith(1821–22),becamethefoundingdocumentof
liberalProtestanttheologyinthe19thcentury.Thisbookfocusedonfaithas
afeelingofdependencyonGodthatwastransmitted,notthroughtheBible
orthroughrationalargument,butthroughamorepersonalcontactwith
JesusChristviathefellowshipoftheChurch.Bytakingthisposition,
SchleiermacherreturnedsomewhattohisPietistroots.Asaresult,hefound
himselffendingoffattacksontwosides—fromtraditionaldoctrinal
theologiansontherightandfromrationalistsontheleft—fortherestofhis
life.Oneoftherationalistattacks,fromHegel,wewilldiscussinChapter
Six.
Schleiermacher’sonlyson,Nathaniel,diedin1827,aneventthat,he
said,“drovethenailsintomyowncoffin.”Helived,however,foranother
sevenyears,dyingofpneumoniain1834.
FriedrichHölderlin(1770–1843)
AnativeofSwabia,JohannChristian
FriedrichHölderlinwasthesonofamanager
ofLutheranChurchestateswhodiedwhen
youngFriedrichwastwo.Hismothersoon
remarried,butthestepfatherdiedwhen
Friedrichwasnine.Thedoublelossleftboth
motherandsonemotionallyscarred.Because
ofthemadnessthatHölderlinsufferedlater
inlife,thefactsofhisearlychildhoodhave
beensubjectedtointenseposthumous
scrutinyasalikelysourceforhiseventual
breakdown.Thebarefactsseemtoindicate
thathismotherbecamegloomyandpious,
eagertoofferhersontoGodasaformof
penance;thathewassensitiveandproneto
extremeswingsofmood;andthatherattemptstoforcesomestabilityand
pietyonhim,evenwellintohisadulthood,exacerbatedhiscondition.
Atherinsistence,in1788heenteredtheseminaryatTübingen,wherehe
roomedwithHegelandSchelling.Becausebothofhisroommateswenton
tobecomethepreeminentphilosophersof19thcenturyGermany,therehas
beensomespeculationastowhatinfluencethethreehadononeanotherin
44
theirseminarydays.Schelling—notonetoeasilygivecredittoother
thinkers—regardedHölderlinashismentorinphilosophicalmattersat
leastuntil1795.
ThecurriculumattheTübingenseminarywasdedicatedtofinding
harmonybetweenChristiandoctrineandtheclassics.ThusHölderlin,in
additiontojoiningapoetryclub,wrotethesesonthehistoryofthefinearts
inGreeceandontheparallelsbetweentheProverbsofSolomonand
Hesiod’sWorksandDays.Hesoonrealized,however,thathisinterestslay
withtheancientGreeksandnotwiththeChurch.Hepetitionedhismother
totransfertoauniversity,butsherefused,sohecompletedhisstudiesand
passedhisclericalexamsin1793.
DespiteherpressuretoserveGodandtakeaclericalposition,Hölderlin
begantopursuetheintellectuallymoreindependent,iffinanciallyriskier,
lifeofaprivatetutor.Hadhismotherwanted,shecouldhavesparedhim
theneedtolookforwork,becausehisfatherhadlefthimasubstantial
patrimony.She,however,intimatedthatthepatrimonywasverymeager;
eveninlateryearswhenhewasinextremefinancialneed,shewouldspare
himnomorethanapittanceatatime.OnlyafterHölderlin’sdeathwasit
discoveredthat,onpaperatleast,hehadbeenarichmanallalong.
WiththehelpofSchiller,whowastobehisheroandpatronforseveral
years,Hölderlinobtainedapositionin1793astutortothesonofawidow
whosharedhisliteraryinterests.Duringthisperiodhebeganwritinghis
novel,Hyperion,whichwastogothroughseveraldraftsbeforeits
publication,intwoparts,in1797and1799.
In1794,HölderlinaccompaniedhispupiltotheuniversityatJena,
whereFichtehadjusttakenupaposition.Hölderlinsignedupforafull
scheduleoflectures,butsoonfoundhimselfsoenthralledwithFichte’s
teachings—andespeciallywithFichte’sespousalofthecauseoffreedom—
thatheneglectedhisothersubjects.WhileinJena,healsometNovalis,who
wasattendingFichte’slectures,too.
However,likeNovalis,Hölderlinsoonbegantohavedoubtsabout
Fichte’sfoundationalistapproachtophilosophy,andnolaterthanMay
1795,hewrotedownashortpiece,BeingandJudgment.Thiswasthefirst
writtenexpressionanywhereofwhatwastobecomethebasicRomantic
viewpoint:thatnature,intheformofPureBeing,istheoriginalAbsolute,
embracingbothsubjectandobject,andtranscendingallformsofdualism;
andthatthisAbsolutecanbecomprehended,notthroughsystematic
45
reasons,butonlyaesthetically—i.e.,throughthefeelings.He
communicatedsomeoftheseideastoSchellingin1795.
In1796heobtainedanewpositionastutorinFrankfurtamMainforthe
childrenofabanker,JakobGontard.Quicklyhediscoveredakindred
sensitivesoulinGontard’swife,Susette(1769–1802),andthetwobeganan
affairthatlasteduntil1800.SusetteGontard,however,wasmorethana
mistressorloverforHölderlin.Shewasboththesupportivepresencethat
hehadlackedinhisearlylifeandthemusetoinspirehimtogreaterfeatsas
awriter.CriticsnotethatonlyduringthisperioddidHölderlinbeginto
showtruegeniusasapoet.HeaddressedmanyofhispoemstoSusette,
callingherDiotimaafterthemysteriouswomanwhowasSocrates’teacher
inmattersoflove.HealsorewroteHyperionsothatthecharacterof
Diotima,Hyperion’slover,becameatransfiguredversionofSusette:calmly
attunedtonatureanddeeplywise.
WhileatFrankfurt,Hölderlinalsohelpedhisoldroommate,Hegel,find
ajobwithanearbyfamily,althoughlittleisknownofthephilosophical
discussionstheymayhavehadatthistime.
JakobGontarddiscoveredtheaffairin1798,andHölderlinwas
summarilydismissed.Hesettlednearby,inHomburg,sothatheand
Susettecouldcontinuemeetingclandestinelyonanirregularbasis.
WhileatHomburg,Hölderlinrevivedafriendshipwithanotherold
schoolmate,IsaakvonSinclair,whowastoprovidehimwithfinancialand
emotionalsupportoffandonforthenextseveralyears.Infact,thetwoof
them,togetherwithotherfriends,formedanintellectualcirclethatsome
historianshavetermedtheHomburgcircle,whichwaslooselyconnected
withtheJenacirclethathadformedatthesametime.
However,HölderlinwasnotenamoredofthejournalAthenäumthatthe
Schlegelbrotherswereproducing.Inadditiontobeginningamajornew
literaryproject,adramaonthesuicideofEmpedocles,hestartedwriting
philosophicalpiecesinpreparationforajournalthatheproposedtoedit.
OneofthepieceswasareviewofSchleiermacher’sTalksonReligion.
Ironically,despiteHölderlin’sdifferencesintemperamentfromFriedrich
Schlegel,hisreviewcametosomeofthesameconclusionsasSchlegel’s
ownreviewofthebook:thatbecausereligionisconcernedwithafeeling
fortheinfinite,andbecauselanguageisfinite,theonlyproperlanguagefor
religionmustdealinmythsandallegories,asthesearetheonlymodesof
speechthatclearlypointtosomethingbeyondthemselves.Duringthefew
46
yearsofrelativesanityremainingtohim,Hölderlinwastowritemany
religiouspoemsinaprophetictonethatcombinedthemythsandimagesof
classicalGreecewiththoseoftheBibleintoapantheismandpolytheismof
hisown.
1799provedtobeacriticalyearforHölderlin.Hiseffortstofindbacking
forhisnewjournalmetwithnosuccessandhecouldfindnootherwork
nearFrankfurt,whichmeantthattheaffairwithSusettehadtoend.Hisold
moodswingsbegantorecur,andSinclairwasoftencalledontointervene
whenhisperiodicshoutingragesand“strummingonhispiano”provoked
angrythreatsfromhisneighbors.Feelingrejectedonallsides,Hölderlin
abandonedhisphilosophicalwritingsanddecidedtodevotehiswriting
talentstotallytopoetry.HeacceptedworkoutsideofGermany,firstasa
tutortoafamilyinSwitzerland,thenasatutortothefamilyofthe
HamburgconsulinBordeaux.Inneithercase,though,washestable
enoughtoholdhispositionforlong.Inbothcases,hewalkedtohisnew
positionandthenbackhometoGermanyalone.
OnhisreturnfromFrance,in1802,hereceivedaletterfromSinclairwith
newsthatSusettehaddiedofmeasles.Thenewsofherdeath,combined
withtherigorsofthetrip,leftHölderlinabrokenman,bothphysicallyand
mentally.Schelling,writingtoHegelaftermeetingHölderlinatthistime,
diagnosedhisstateas“derangement.”SinclairarrangedforHölderlinto
obtainmedicaltreatmentwithaphysicianwhofoundthatreadingHomer
toHölderlinintheoriginalGreekwasmosteffectiveincalminghismind.
AsHölderlin’sconditionbegantoimprove,Sinclairfoundhimworkthat
wouldnottaxhishealth.
Despitehisbrittleemotionalstate,Hölderlinwasabletocomplete,and
getpublished,histranslationsofSophocles’OedipusRexandAntigone.The
translationswerecriticizedatthetimeforbeingtoostrange—Hölderlinhad
hewncloselytothesyntaxoftheGreek—buteventuallytheybecamemore
widelyappreciated.Healsocontinuedworkonmultipledraftsofhis
tragedy,TheDeathofEmpedocles,buttheworkremainedunfinished.
Healsoputintowriting,bothinessaysandpoems,histhoughtson
tragedy.TruetohislovefortheGreektradition,hesawtragedyas
intimatelyconnectedwithreligion.Becausehealsofeltthatreligionwas
primarilyamatteroffeeling,hiswritingsontragedyprovideawindow
ontohisfeelingsatthistime.
Atragicpoem,hesaid,isametaphorofaparticularintellectualpointof
47
view:“theawarenessofbeingatOnewithallthatlives.”Manypeople
wouldfindthisawarenesscomfortingratherthantragic,butHölderlin’s
viewofOnenesswasstronglycoloredbyhisemotionalinstability.Only
duringmanicperiodsdidhefeelatOnewiththedivineinnature,butwhile
manichehadnounderstandingofwhathewasdoingorsaying.Only
whenthemaniahadpassedcouldheunderstandwhathadhappened,but
thatunderstandingwasaccompaniedbyadarksenseofisolationand
despair.Inhiswords,
“Therepresentationofthetragicismainlybasedonthis,thatwhat
ismonstrousandterribleinthecouplingofgodandman,inthetotal
fusionofthepowerofNaturewiththeinnermostdepthofman,so
thattheyareOneatthemomentofwrath,shallbemadeintelligible
byshowinghowthistotalfusionintoOneispurgedbytheirtotal
separation.” 8
Hölderlin’spoetryduringthisperiodmovedintonewmodesof
expression,veryintenseandverymodernintheirdisjointedsyntaxand
strikingimagery.Oneofthehymnsfromtheseyearsendswithapassageof
warning:Tocommunicatethedivinewastoplaywithlightning.
Yet,poets,forusitisfittingtostand
bareheadedbeneathGod’sthunderstorming,
tograsptheFather’sray,theFatherhimself,withourown
hand
andtopresenttopeopletheheavenlygift,
swaddledinsong.
Forifonlywearepureinheart,
likechildren,withourhandsunburdenedwithguilt,
theFather’sray,thepure,willnotscorch
and,thoughdeeplyconvulsed—thesorrowsoftheStronger
One,
compassionate,thetumultuousstormsof
theGodwhenhedrawsnear—theheartwillstandfast.
But,ahme!Whenof
Ahme!
AndsonowIsay
48
thatIapproachedtoseetheHeavenly.
Theythemselvescastmedown,deepdown
belowtheliving,intothedarkness,
falsepriestthatIam,tosing
thewarningsongofthosewhoknow.
There
In1805,Sinclairwaschargedwithhightreasonforplottingtokillthe
GrandDukeofWürttemberg,andHölderlinwasimplicatedinthecase.
Theshockoftheaccusationsapparentlydrovehimovertheedge.Although
thechargesagainstbothmenwereeventuallydropped,Hölderlinwas
clearlyinneedofintensivemedicalcare,andSinclairwasnolongerina
positiontohelp.In1806Hölderlinwascommitted,muchagainsthiswill,to
theAutenriethasyluminTübingen,wheretreatmentsincludedbelladonna,
digitalis,straitjackets,maskstostoppatientsfromscreaming,andforced
immersionsincoldwaterinsideacage.FriedrichSchlegeltriedtovisithim
duringthisperiod,butwastoldthatHölderlinwas“notpresentable.”
Meanwhile,ErnstZimmer,acarpenterlivingnearby,learnedof
Hölderlin’splight.HavingbeendeeplyimpressedbyHyperion,he
convincedthedoctorsattheasylumthatHölderlinwouldrespondbetterto
aquietdomesticenvironment.So,in1807,Hölderlinwasreleasedintohis
care.ZimmerandhisfamilyprovidedHölderlinwithaquiettowerroomin
theirhouseinTübingen,overlookingtheNeckarRiver.Doctorsexpected
Hölderlintolivefornomorethanthreemoreyears,buttheZimmerfamily
endeduplookingafterhimforanother36.
Itwastobealifeofleadencalmafterthepassingofthestorm.Atfirst,
HölderlinbegandraftingacontinuationofHyperion,inwhichDiotima—
whohaddiedofabrokenheartinPartTwoofthenovel—speaksfromthe
afterlife,buthesoonabandonedtheproject.Nolongergivingventtohis
wildmoodswings,hewouldaddressvisitorswithexaggeratedpoliteness
andformality,writingshortpoemsatrequest.Afewofthemoreaffecting
oneshintedatasadnesshedidn’tdareexpress,butotherwisetheywere
nothingbutsurface.Hewouldsignthem“Scardinelli,orsomethingofthe
sort,”andgivethemfictionaldates,suchas1648or1759.Asidefromone
visit,fromhisstep-brother,hisfamily—includinghismother,whodiedin
1828—nevercametoseehim.Theydid,however,insistthatZimmertake
Hölderlin’spoetrynotebooksfromhimforthemtoputinsafekeeping—a
harshbutperhapswisemove.
49
AlthoughtherewassomeappreciationofHölderlin’swritingsduring
the19thcentury—Nietzsche,forone,wasanavidadmirerofHyperion—
onlyintheearly20thcenturywerehiscollectedpoemspublished.Many
poetsatthetime,includingRilkeandCelan,werestruckbytheoriginality
ofHölderlin’slanguageandimagery,andcametoregardhimasoneof
theirown:aSymbolist,anImagist,evenaSurrealistwellbeforehistime.
Sincethen,hisreputationasapoethascontinuedtogrowtothepoint
wheremanypoetsandcriticsregardhimasoneofthepremierpoetsthat
Europehasproduced.
Hisphilosophicalwritingsdidnotcometolightuntilthemid-20th
century,soonlyrecentlyhavescholarsbeguntoappreciatehimasa
Romanticphilosopheraswellasapoet.
BecauseoftherenewedinterestinHölderlin’swritings,therehavebeen
manyeffortsatposthumouspsychoanalysistodiagnosehisfinal
breakdown.Themorecommonverdictsincludeschizoidpsychosis,
catatonicstupor,andbipolarexhaustion.However,whatisperhapsthe
mostperceptivediagnosiswasacommentthatZimmeroncemadeabout
Hölderlin’sconditiontoafriend:“Thetoo-muchinhimcrackedhismind.”
Hediedofpulmonarycongestionin1843.
FriedrichSchelling(1775–1854)
FriedrichWilhelmJosephSchelling,theson
ofPietistparents,wasborninWürttemberg
notfarfromHölderlin’sbirthplace.Infact,
thetwofirstbecamefriendsatanearlyage
whenbothwereinLatinschool,where
HölderlinprotectedtheyoungSchelling
frombullies.
Averyprecociouschild,Schellingwas
admittedtotheTübingenseminaryattheage
of16,fouryearsshortofthenormalageof
enrollment.There,asnotedabove,he
roomedwithHölderlinandHegel,bothof
whomsparkedhisinterestinrevolutionarypoliticsandphilosophy.In
1794,attheageof19,hepublishedhisfirstbookonphilosophy,before
completinghistheologicaldegreein1795.
50
Schelling’searlyphilosophicalwritingswerewellreceived,andeven
thoughhekeptshiftinghisphilosophicalpositionsthroughouthiscareer,
hisreputationamongGermanintellectualsandacademicsremainedhigh.
Theconstantrevisionsinhisthoughtfromonebooktothenextinspired
HegellatertoremarksarcasticallythatSchellinghadconductedhis
philosophicaleducationinpublic.
TheunderlyingtensionthatpropelledtheevolutionofSchelling’s
thoughtcanbeillustratedbytwodeclarationshemadein1795.Writingin
OftheIasthePrincipleofPhilosophyorOntheUnconditionalinHuman
Knowledge,atreatisethatwasintendedtoofferbothsupportanda
correctiveforFichte’sphilosophy,hedeclared,verymuchinFichte’sspirit,
“Thebeginningandendofallphilosophyisfreedom!”However,inaletter
toHegelwritteninthesameyear,hedeclared,“Meanwhile,Ihavebecome
aSpinozist!”Apparently,underHölderlin’sinfluence,hehadbeendrawn
toSpinoza’smetaphysicalsystembuiltonaprincipleofAbsoluteBeingthat
transcendedalldualities.However,inSpinoza’ssystem,aswewillseein
ChapterFour,onlyGodisfree.Peoplehavenofreedomofchoiceatall.The
burdenofSchelling’sphilosophicaleffortsoverthenextseveralyearslayin
reconcilingthesetwoirreconcilablepositionsonfreedom.Despitehisearly
enthusiasmforFichte,Spinozawastowin.
In1796,Schellingwasemployedasatutortotwosonsofanaristocratic
family.AtriptoLeipzigwithhischargesin1797exposedhimtomodern
developmentsinscience,particularlybiologyandchemistry.Thisexposure
inspiredhimtotakeupanindependentstudyofallthesciences.Formany
years,hekeptabreastofthelatestscientificdevelopments,andduringthe
years1799to1804hewroteseveralsystematictreatisesthattriedto
incorporatethesciencesintotheRomanticphilosophicalviewofthe
universeasaninfiniteorganicunity,foundedonanAbsoluteprincipleof
Identitytranscendingalldichotomies,eventhoseofmatterandenergy,and
ofselfandnot-self.
ItwasduringtheLeipzigtripthatSchellingalsometNovalisandthe
Schlegelbrothersforthefirsttime.
In1798,attheageof23,hewasappointedanextraordinaryprofessorof
philosophyatJena—the“extraordinary”meaningthattheappointment
wasfundedbytheDukeofSaxe-Weimer,whoapparentlyofferedthe
positiontoSchellingatGoethe’ssuggestion.ThusbeganSchelling’s
involvementwiththeJenacircle.
51
Atfirst,hisrelationswithFichtewerecordial.But,unlikeSchlegeland
Novalis,whoquicklybrokewithFichteoverphilosophicaldifferencesbut
wereabletoremainfriendswithhimonapersonallevel,Schelling’s
philosophicalsplitwithFichtewassomewhatprotracted;whenthebreak
finallycame,in1801,itwastotal.InalettertoFichte,demandingthatthe
latternolongerregardhimasacollaborator,Schellingwrote,“Iamnot
yourenemy,althoughyouareinallprobabilitymine.”Oncethelinewas
drawn,therewasnopossibilityoffriendlycommunicationbetweenthe
two.Thispatternwastorepeatitselfseveralyearslater,in1807,when
SchellinghadaparticularlybitterbreakwithHegel.
In1800,SchellinghadbecomeengagedtoAugusteBöhmer,Caroline
Schlegel’sdaughterfromapreviousmarriage.Auguste,however,diedof
dysenterylaterthesameyear.AsSchellingandCarolinecomfortedeach
otheroverAuguste’sdeath,theyfellinlove.Carolineaskedherhusband,
August,foradivorce,onthegroundsthatshehadfinallymettheloveof
herlife,andAugustmagnanimouslyconsented.
ThetownspeopleofJena,though,werenotappeased.Rumorhadit
eitherthatCarolinehadpoisonedherdaughtertohavetheyoungSchelling
forherself,orthatSchellingwastheonewhohadadministeredthepoison.
Auguststoutlydefendedthecouple,butthescandalrefusedtodiedown,
andthecoupledidn’tfeelsafetomarryinJena.Soin1803,Schellingtooka
positionatanewuniversityatWürzberg,andthecouplewasfinally
married.Asnotedabove,AugustSchlegelalsoleftJenainthesameyear;
thedepartureofthesethree,thelastremainingmembersoftheRomantic
circleinJena,markedtheendofearlyRomanticism.Theyear1803also
markedSchelling’slastencounterwithHölderlin.Henevervisited
Hölderlinduringthelatter’sfinalillness,anddidn’tattendhisfuneralin
1843.
In1806,WürzbergwasannexedbyCatholicAustria;Schelling,a
Protestant,losthisjob.SohemovedtoMünich,wherehewasoffereda
postasastateofficialwiththeBavarianAcademyofSciencesand
Humanities;later,hewasalsoappointedtotheRoyalAcademyofFine
Arts.
In1809,hepublishedthelastiterationofhisphilosophytoappear
duringhislifetime:PhilosophicalInvestigationsontheEssenceofHuman
Freedom.Inthistreatise,hearguedthattheideaoffreedomofchoicelayat
therootofallevil,andthatonlyGodwasfree.Virtue,hesaid,layin
52
obeyingtheimpulsesofone’snature,becausethesourceofthatnaturewas
divine.Butbecauseonecouldnotchooseone’snature,thismeantthat
virtuehadnofreedom.
Thustheretreatfromhisearlierposition—thatphilosophybeginsand
endsinfreedom—wascomplete.Godmaybefreeinthebeginningand
end,buthumanbeingshavenogenuinefreedomatanypointinthe
timeline.
Asthebookwasbeingreadiedforpublication,Carolinedied.Many
commentatorshavesuggestedthatherdeathkilledSchelling’ssparkto
keeponpublishing.Nevertheless,hemarriedagain,in1812,tooneof
Caroline’sfriends,PaulineGotter,andthetwoapparentlyhadacalmand
happymarriedlife.Atthesametime,Schellingcontinuedtoteachandto
develophisthoughtsonphilosophy.Althoughhewroteprolifically,he
neverpublishedhiswritings—perhapsbecausehispositionscontinuedto
evolve,perhapsbecausehesensedthatHegelwasreadyandeagerto
pounceonwhateverhemightputintoprint.
Thegeneralthrustofhisthoughtduringthisperiodwasantifoundationalist.Hecametoseethatthesearchforafirstprincipleonwhich
tobaseallphilosophywasabigmistake;thefactthatanideamaybe
coherentintherealmofthoughtdoesn’tproveitstruthintherealmof
reality.Instead,hefelt,religionandmythologywerethetruepositive
complementstothenegativeapproachoflogicalandspeculative
philosophy.Alltruth,inhiseyes,beginswiththefactthatGodisfreefrom
allconstraints,includingtheconstraintsofreason.
Hegel,whohadbeenlecturingtogreatacclaimattheUniversityof
Berlin,diedsuddenlyin1831.Nevertheless,hisinfluencecontinuedto
dominateacademiccirclesinBerlin.ThekingofPrussia,concernedabout
Hegel’sunorthodoxviewsandtheirimpactonthePrussianpublic,
summonedSchellingtoBerlintolectureonphilosophyandreligiontohelp
“stampoutthedragon-seedofHegelianpantheism.”Thefactthattheking
sawthefateofthePrussianstateasrestingonSchelling’slectureseries,
whichhedeliveredin1841–42,givesanindicationoftheperceived
importanceofphilosophyinGermanyatthetime.
Thelectures,however,wereafailure.Schelling’sincreasingly
conservativeviewsonGodandphilosophywerecompletelyoutofstep
withthetimes,andhiscloseassociationwiththepowersthatbe,bothin
BavariaandPrussia,gavetheimpressionthathewaslittlemorethantheir
53
lackey.Ifanything,thelectureshadareverseimpact,inthattheyinspired
youngleft-wingHegelians,suchasKarlMarx,toregardtheabolitionof
religionasthefirstorderofbusinessinbringingabouthumanfreedomand
ajustsociety.
However,thelectureswerealsoattackedbytraditionalChristian
thinkers.In1843,HeinrichPaulus,atheologianwhohaddevelopedan
animosityforbothHegelandSchellingovertheyears,publishedpirated
transcriptsofthelecturestoexposeSchelling’sviewsasincoherent.
Schellingtried,butfailed,tohavethebooksbanned.Andsohestopped
lecturingforgood.
Theconservativedriftinhisphilosophyparalleledasimilardriftinhis
politicalviews.In1792,hehadcelebratedamajorvictoryintheFrench
Revolution.In1848,whenanotherwaveofrevolutionssweptthrough
Europe,hesuggestedangrilythatalltheriotersbeshot.
HediedinSwitzerlandin1854.Hissons,intheyears1856–58,finally
publishedauthorizedversionsoftheBerlinlectures,infourvolumes.
AlthoughSchelling’sreputationasaphilosopherquicklywentinto
decline,hisobservationsonthedisjointbetweenthoughtandactuality—
thatjustbecausereasonsayswehavetothinkaboutthingsinacertainway
doesn’tmeanthatthingsactuallyarethatway—wastoprovideinspiration
formanymodernandpostmodernmovementsinEuropeanculture.
ShapingtheRomanticExperience
UnliketheBuddha,whotaughtreligionasamatterofskill—theskillof
findingalastingandblamelesshappiness—allfiveoftheseRomantic
thinkerstaughtreligionasamatterofaesthetics.Inthelanguageoftheir
time,thismeanttwothings:(1)thatreligiondealtwithfeelingsanddirect
experiences,ratherthanreason;and(2)thatitwasanart.Inlinewiththeir
personalviewsonart,religion-as-arthadtobeexpressive.Inotherwords,
religiousideascannotdescribethewaythingsare.Instead,theycanonly
expressthefeelingsoftheindividualwhohasareligiousexperience.
Theirpositiononthisissue,ofcourse,containsaparadox:Itdescribes
howreligionhastoact,whileatthesametimesayingthatdescriptions
aboutreligionarenotgenuine.InChaptersFourthroughSevenwewill
explorethisparadoxanditslong-termeffects.
54
Here,however,wewilltaketheRomantics’positionatfacevalueand
askaquestionthatgrowsfromplacingitagainsttheirlifestories:Given
theirviewthatreligionmustgrowfromadirectexperience,onwhatsortof
directexperiencesdidtheybasetheirreligiousviews?
Ingeneralterms,theiranswerineverycasewouldbethatreligiongrew
fromanexperienceofOnenesswiththeinfiniteorganicunityofthe
universe.Forthem,thisexperiencelayatthebasisofallreligion.
Schleiermacher,infact,heldthatreligionwastheexperienceoftheinfinite,
andthatanyexpressionofthefeelingafterthefactwassimplyashadowof
religion.Theothers,however,includedtheexpressionsofreligiousfeelings
undertheterm“religion”aswell.
Therewasalsogeneralagreementthatthisexperiencecamenaturally
duringtwoactivities:(1)intheactofcreatingaworkofexpressiveart,
duringwhichoneopenedoneselftotheinfinityofnatureandthen,when
aninnerfeelingnaturallyresponded,givingexpressiontothatfeeling;and
(2)intherelationshipoftruelove.
Fromtheirlifestories,though,wecanseethattheseexperienceswere
differentforeachofthem.Take,forinstance,theirexperienceoflove.
Love,forNovalis,wassomethinglargelydisembodiedandabstract.
Apparently,hisloveforhisfirstfiancéebecameespeciallyintenseonlyafter
herdeath.Althoughsparkedbyasadevent,thesenseofOnenesswith
naturethathegainedwhilemourningherlosswaseventuallyreassuring.
Hefeltthathewasstillintouchwithherbecauseherspirit,likehis,was
Onewiththeuniverse.Inthisway,theuniverseretaineditsmagic.Hefelt
himselftobeasublimememberofaninfinitewhole.Eventhoughthis
membershiprequiredthathesuffer,hissufferings,hefelt,shouldbe
embracedwithintheperspectiveofthelargerwholeandhappilyendured.
SchlegelandSchleiermacher,however,wroteofthedivinesenseof
Onenessexperiencedinloveattheheightoftheiraffairs.Aswewillseein
ChaptersFourandFive,inneitherSchlegel’swritingsnorSchleiermacher’s
isthereanyhintofsadnessintheirexperienceoftheOnenessoferoticlove.
Schellingneverpublishedhisfeelingsaboutlove,butitisworthnoting
thathisteachingsonthenecessityoffollowingone’sinnerimpulsesas
expressionsofdivineinspirationcameafterhehadbegunhisrelationship
withCaroline,anddidnotchangeafterherdeath.
Hölderlin,however,hadamoreconflictedrelationshiptolove.Writing
inHyperion,duringhisaffairwithSusette,heallowedthecharacterof
55
DiotimatodieinadvertentlyasaresultofHyperion’srashactions.
Nevertheless,Hyperionstatesattheendofthebookthathehasfound
peace,secureintheknowledgethatheandDiotimawillnevertrulybe
separated—sheispresentthroughoutnature—andthattheinfinite
dimensionsoftheuniverseembraceandforgiveanymistakesthathuman
beingsmightmakeonthissmallEarth.Thisseemstoreflecthisfeelings
abouthisaffairwithSusette:Eventhoughtheirlovewasforbidden,the
comfortitgavethembothwasallthatmattered.Theuniversewould
ultimatelyforgivethemforbreakingsocialconventions.ThustheOneness
oftheuniverse,asheexperienceditinhisloveforSusette,wasbittersweet
butultimatelycomforting.
However,afterSusette/Diotimaactuallydied,Hölderlin’sperceptionof
Onenessradicallychanged.Henowsensedthattheuniversewaspunishing
themboth.Becausetheirlovewasforbidden,hehadhadtoleaveher;yet,
inhiseyes,hisleavingherhadcausedherdeath.ThusthesenseofOneness
hehadexperiencedinhisloveofSusettenowcarriedasenseofthedivine
asdangerous,atragicsensemissinginthewritingsoftheotherfourearly
Romantics.
Inparticular,hestruggledwithatragicviewoflovethatcalledinto
questiontheexistenceofdivinemercyandjustice.Inoneofthepoems
writtenpriortohisadmittancetotheclinicatTübingen,hecomplained
forcefullyaboutthe“stingofthegods”:Humanbeingslivewithdualities
anddonotknowwhichchoiceisbest;becauseoftheirignorance,theyare
drawntothegodsinspiteofdivineinjustice.However,inanotherpoem,
writtenafterhisreleasefromtheclinic,Hölderlinneverthelessexpressed
thewanhopethatsomewheretherewasagodwho,throughharmonyand
recompense,wouldmakewholethediverseanddiverginglinesofhuman
life.
Thus,likeNovalis,Hölderlinsensedthesadnessnecessarilycontained
withinanysenseofOneness,giventhevagariesoflifeanddeath.Unlike
Novalis,however,hedidnotfindthethoughtthoroughlyreassuring.He
heldononlyprecariouslytoasensethatthingssomehow,someday,would
bemaderight.
Thedifferencesinthesewriters’experiencesoflovecarriedoverinto
theirexperienceofOnenessinthecourseofcreatingtheirart.
Schelling,thoughhewroteextensivelyaboutart,wasnotaliteraryartist
atall,sohehadnofirst-handexperiencewiththeprocessofartistic
56
creation.
ForNovalis,Schlegel,andSchleiermacher,theactofcreationwas
pleasurable.Tocreateart,theysaid,onesimplyhadtoinducewithin
oneselfanattitudeofopenreceptivitytonature,andtotrustthatthe
feelingsthatwelledupwithinthatstatewereexpressionsofnatureaswell.
Ifthoseexpressionsbrokealltheestablishedrulesofwhatartshouldbe,
wellandgood.Insteadofbeingasignoftheirinferiority,itwasactuallya
signthattheywereattheforefrontoftheevolutionofconsciousness.Thisis
whythesewriterstendedtowritespontaneouslywithaminimumamount
ofediting.
Theimportantpointintheireyeswasforartistsnottotaketheir
creationstooseriously.AsSchlegellikedtosay,thepointofcreationwas
nottheartproduced,buttheactofcreationitself.Tobetrulyfree,anartist
couldnotconcernhimorherselfwiththeresultsofyesterday’screation,for
thatwouldinterferewithone’sabilitytobeopentonewcreative
inspirationstoday.It’shardnottosee,inSchlegel’slackofconcernforthe
consequencesofhiscreativepowers,aparallelinhisattitudetowardhis
affairwithDorothea.
ForHölderlin,however,theactofcreationcameafterhismanicperiods,
whenhehadgainedasenseofOnenesswiththedivineexpressedasa
wrathfulpower.Onlywhenthespellofthewrathbrokewasheinafitstate
toreflectandputhisthoughtsonpaper,buttheperiodofreflectionwas
alsoaccompaniedbyadeepsenseofseparationandunworthiness.Thus,in
hisexperience,eventhoughasenseofOnenesscouldbeecstatic,itwasalso
acurse.“Ifonlyoneweren’tsoperiodic!”heonceexclaimed.Unlike
Schlegel,hewasdeadearnestabouthispoetry.Thiswasoneofthereasons
whyTheDeathofEmpedocleswasneverfinished,andwhyhishymnsand
odeswentthroughrepeatedrevisions,oftendrastic.Eachnewexperience
ofOnenesslefthimdissatisfiedwithwhathehadlearnedfromearlierones.
Whenwecomparethewaythesewritersapproachthereligious
experiencewiththeBuddha’sapproach,threepointsstandout.
•Thefirstisthatnoneofthemapproachedtheissueofreligious
experiencewithanythingneartherigoranddisciplineoftheBuddha’s
searchforthedeathless.Instead,theyapproachedreligionthrough
symphilosophy—discussionsthatwerepursuedlesswiththepurposeof
comingtofirmconclusionsandmorewiththepurposeofentertainingand
exploringoriginalideas.
57
Schleiermacheristheonlyoneofthefivetorecommendspecific
meditativereflectionsforinducingafeelingofOneness,reflectionsthat
wereprimarilyexercisesoftheimagination.AswewillseeinChapterFive,
oneofhisrecommendedexerciseswastoimaginestrippingawayevery
aspectofone’sselftothepointwherenothingisleft.Onlythenisthere
roomfortheinfiniteplenitudeoftheuniversetoappearwhereone’sfalse
attachmentshadpreviouslybeen.Anotherexerciseworkedintheopposite
direction:Tolookateveryfacetoftheuniversewithaneyetorealizingthat
everythingthathaseverexistedorwilleverexistintheworldoutsideis
alreadypresentwithinoneselfrightnow.
Ineachcase,though,Schleiermachernotedthatthesimpleperformance
oftheexercisewasnotenoughtoensureanexperienceofinfiniteOneness.
TheInfiniteitselfalsohadtoact,enteringintotheemptyvessel.Ifitdidn’t,
onesimplyhadtotrytomaintainanattitudeofopenreceptivityand
acceptanceuntilthepropitiousmomentofInfinitegracearrived.
SchlegelandNovalishadanotherwayofinducinganexperienceof
Onenessthattheymentionedonlyintheirprivateletters,andnotintheir
publishedworks.Thatwastheiropiumtincture.(Asfortheotherthree
writers,Ihavefoundnoclearrecordastowhethertheyusedopiumornot.)
ItwouldbeamistaketoattributetheRomanticcultofOnenesstoopium
use—afterall,ideasaboutOnenesswererifeinthescientificand
philosophicalcultureofthetime—butstill,thefactthatopiumwas
availableandthatthesetwowriterswereusingittoputthemselvesinwhat
theycalledan“Indianstate”explainsagreatdealabouttheir
unquestioningconfidenceinOnenessasaGoodThing.
Whenin1802Schlegelhadcompletedadrama,Alarcos,thatwaspoorly
received,hementionedinaletterthattheworkwouldhavebeenbetterif
onlyhehadn’trunoutofopiumwhilewritingit.Otherpassagesinhis
writingsandNovalis’,however,givetheimpressionthattheirtincturewas
notalwaysinshortsupply.OneisSchlegel’sessay,inLucinde,extollingthe
virtuesof“purevegetating,”whichwewilldiscussinChapterFour.
AnotheristhepassageinNovalis’novel,TheNovicesofSais,defininglove
asadesiretobecomeliquid:
“Whoseheartdoesnotleapwithjoy,”criedtheyouthwith
glitteringeye,“whentheinnermostlifeofnatureinvadeshiminall
itsfullness!Whentheoverpoweringemotionforwhichlanguagehas
noothernamethanlove,expandswithinhimlikeanall-dissolving
58
vaporand,tremblingwithsweetfear,hesinksintothedark,alluring
heartofnature,consumeshispoorpersonalityinthecrashingwaves
oflust,andnothingremainsbutafocusofinfiniteprocreativeforce,a
yawningvortexinanimmenseocean?Whatistheflamethatis
manifestedeverywhere?Aferventembrace,whosesweetfruitsfall
likesensuousdew.Water,first-bornchildofairyfusions,cannot
denyitsvoluptuousoriginandrevealsitselfanelementoflove,and
ofitsmixturewithdivineomnipotenceonearth.Notwithouttruth
haveancientsagessoughttheoriginofthingsinwater,andindeed,
theyspokeofawatermoreexaltedthanseaandwellwater.Awater
inwhichonlyprimalfluidityismanifested,asitismanifestedin
liquidmetal;thereforeshouldmenrevereitalwaysasdivine.How
fewuptonowhaveimmersedthemselvesinthemysteriesoffluidity,
andtherearesomeinwhosedrunkensoulthissurmiseofthehighest
enjoymentandthehighestlifehasneverwakened.Inthirstthis
worldsoulisrevealed,thisimmenselongingforliquefaction.” 9
ThefactthattheRomanticsdidnotpursuetheexperienceofOnenessin
anysystematicorrigorouswayhelpstoexplainthreefeaturesoftheir
religiousthought.
One,theycouldnotteachreligionasaskill.Forthem,Onenesswasa
communionbetweeninsideandoutsideforces.Thus,theoutside
contributionwasjustascrucialastheinsideone.Ultimately,theoutside
contributionwasthemoreimportantofthetwo,for—asthesewriters
recognized—thereweresomemomentswhentheytriedtoexperience
Onenessbutcouldnot,butothermomentswhenOnenesswasforcedon
themwithouttheirhavingpreparedforit.Thisiswhytheirreligion,even
thoughitaccommodatedawidevarietyofconceptsofthedivine,
neverthelessheldthattheexistenceofasingledivineforceattheheartof
theuniverseisanecessaryprincipleofreligiouslife.Therecouldbeno
religiousexperience,intheireyes,withoutit.Thustheirdefinitionsof
religioncenteredontheword,“relationship”:Intheireyes,afelt
relationshipbetweentheindividualandadivineprinciplewasneededto
makereligionpossible.
Two,becausesymphilosophytaughtthemthatideasdidnothaveto
cometospecificconclusions,theyallowedthemselvestobesatisfiedwitha
religiousgoalthatneverreachedaconclusiveattainment.Religion,likean
on-goingdiscussion,wastobepursuedasanon-goingprocesswithno
59
needtoarriveatafinalgoal.
Three,theyofferednotestforwhatcountsasagenuinereligious
experience.OneoftheparadoxesofafeltsenseofOnenesswiththe
universeisthatwhenanindividualpersonfeelsit,nooneelseinthe
universecanfeelthatindividual’sexperience.AfeelingofOnenessisnot
trulyshared.Thusthereisnoexternalmeasureforjudgingwhetherthe
feelingisgenuine,orifitactuallyprovesthattheuniverseisOne.Whatis
neededisaninternalmeasure—aseriesofguidelinesfortheperson
experiencingthefeelingsothatheorshecantest,frominside,whetherthe
feelingofOnenessisreallyandfullyOne.ButbecausetheRomantics
simplyacceptedthetruthoftheirfeelingswithouttestingthem,theywere
abletooffernotesttoanyoneelse.
Infact,aswewillseeinChapterFive,theirphilosophicalbeliefsonhow
apersonacquiresknowledgeabouttheuniverseactuallyprecludedthe
possibilityofexperiencingtheInfiniteasinfinite,becausefinitemeansof
knowinghavenowayoffullycomprehendinganythingbiggerthanthey
are.ThustheRomanticideaofthereligiousexperiencewasnotonly
untested.Itwasalso,intheirsystemofthings,untestable.
Onthispoint,theydifferedsharplyfromtheBuddha.Althoughhe
taughtthattheexperienceofnibbāna,orunbinding,isalsopurelyinternal,
hewasabletoofferaseriesofteststohisdisciplessothattheycould
determinefromwithinwhethertheirexperienceconstitutedtrue
awakeningornot.
Allofthesepointsontheissueofreligionasaskill,takentogether,
constitutethefirstpointofdifference.
•Thesecondpointofdifferenceconcernsthedefinitionofwhatisnoble
inlife,andthedutiesthatnobilityentails.FortheBuddha,spiritualnobility
consistedofthesearchforahappinessthatisdeathless,ahappinessthat
wasnotonlylastingbutalsoblamelessinthat—becauseitdependedonno
conditions—itplacednoburdenorhardshiponanythingoranyoneatall.
Thedutyfollowingonthisprinciplewasthatthepathofpracticeleadingto
truehappinesshadtobeharmlesstoallbeingsaswell.Theprincipleof
harmlessnesscarriedfurtheraprincipleofhonor:thatonewouldbe
ashamedtopursue,forthesakeofone’spleasure,anyactionthatwould
causeothersharm.Inotherwords,thereweretimeswhenitwouldbe
necessarytosacrificeone’sfeelingsforthesakeofone’sduty.
FortheRomantics,however,spiritualnobilitylayinattainingan
60
authenticfeelingofOnenesswiththedivine.Eventhough,intheir
experience,thisfeelingwasonlytemporary,ithadintrinsicworth—so
muchworth,theyfelt,thattheyneednotconcernthemselvesiftheir
pursuitofthatfeelingharmedotherpeople.
Forexample,Schlegel—speakingthroughJulian,hisalter-egoinLucinde
—claimedthat,aftergaininganexperienceofOnenessthrougheroticlove,
hecametofeelafraternalloveforallbeings,andthatthisloveinspired
lovingactsthathadnoneedforrules.ThustheresultsoffeelingOne
naturallyledtosociablebehavior.ButthewayhepursuedthatOneness
showedlittleconcernfortheeffectofthatpursuitonothers.
Especiallyiftheywerephilistines.Theterm“philistine,”whichwas
actuallyfirstusedinJenatorefertotownspeoplenotaffiliatedwiththe
university,bythistimehadcometoacquireitsmodernmeaningas“a
personofnoaestheticsensibilities.”Novalis,perhapsbecausehis
bureaucraticcareerbroughthimintoconstantcontactwithmany
philistines,stronglydefendedthesuperiorityofpeoplewhowereauthentic
—thosewhocouldromanticizetheirexperienceandseetheinfinitewithin
thefinite.Thusauthenticpeoplewereofmoreaccountthanphilistines,who
bydefinitionwerenotauthentic;andthefeelingsoftheauthentic—because
theyweremoresensitive—matteredmore.They,inhiseyes,werethe
naturalaristocracy.
EvenHölderlin,inhisnovelHyperion,suggestedthatactions,inthelong
term,havenoeffectontheuniverse,andsonoharmiseverreallydoneby
rashmistakes,regardlessoftheirimmediateeffects.One’squestfor
Onenesswiththedivinejustifiedone’sactions,justasthefeelingof
Onenessprovidedsolacethat,despiteappearances,allwouldbewell.This
attitudebecameconflictedinhismindafterSusette’sdeath,buttheodes
andhymnshewroteduringthatperioddidn’tcometolightuntilacentury
later.
ThustheconceptofnobilityinRomanticreligionwasconcerned,not
withtheeffectsofone’sactionsonothers,butwiththesensitivityofone’s
feelings.Dutyinvolvednosenseofhonor.Insteadofrequiringsacrificesso
asnottoharmoneselforothers,dutysimplyrequiredpursuing,in
whateverwaynecessary,theultimatefeeling:thatofOnenesswiththe
divine.
Thatistheseconddifference.
•Thethirddifferenceisthat,whereastheBuddhadidn’tteachuntilhe
61
hadarrivedatatimelesssolutionforwhathesawasthebasicreligious
problem,theRomanticspublishedtheirthoughtsaboutreligionbefore
havingtestedtheirlong-termconsequences.Theirfocuswasonmaking
theirideaspublicwhilestilltimelyandbeforegoingoutofdate.For
Schlegel,whowastryingtomakealivingoffhiswriting,thepressureto
publishhisthoughtsasquicklyaspossiblewasespeciallyacute.
Inarrivingattheirviews,theRomanticsusedastandardthatthe
Buddhacalled,“agreementthroughponderingviews”(MN95).Inother
words,accordingtothisstandard,truthcanbefoundbycomparingviews
andacceptingthosethatmakesensetogether—whetherthatsenseis
logicallycoherentor,inthecaseofSchlegel,cogentinamoreironicway.
AstheBuddhapointedout,however,theconclusionsdrawnbythis
methodaresometimestrueandsometimesnot,soherefusedtousethis
standardashisownstandardfortruth,asitwastooirresponsible.A
teacherwhocouldn’tspeakresponsiblyontheissueofwhatisskillfulor
not,inhiseyes,providesnotruerefugetohislisteners(§8 ).
TheupshotisthattheBuddhataughtaconsistentdoctrinefromhisfirst
sermontohislast,buttheRomantics—iftheylivedandmaintainedtheir
sanitylongenough—allendeduprepudiatingtheirearlierRomanticviews
onreligion,andreturningtomoretraditionalformsofChristianity.Yet
eventhoughtheyhadabandonedRomanticreligion,thewritingsinwhich
theyhadexpressedtheprinciplesofRomanticreligioncontinuedtospread
throughEuropeandAmerica,keepingthoseprinciplesalivetothepresent
day.Oncethecowwasoutofthebarn,therewasnowaytogetitbackin.
TheRomanticjustificationforpublishingviewsthattheylaterdisowned
wasthatthetruth,intheireyes,wasnotstatic.Theyhadtopublishtheir
viewswhilethoseviewswerestillfresh,tokeeptheirfellowGermans
abreastofthelatestdevelopmentsofthehumanmind.Thustheysaw
nothingirresponsibleinpublishingsomethingthatseemstruetodayevenif
itisnolongertruetomorrow.Andso,eveninultimatelyrepudiatingmany
oftheirRomanticviews,theystillremainedtruetotheRomantic
assumptionthatnotruthdiscoveredbyhumanbeingscanbetimeless.
Theironyisthatthisassumptionwastheonetruththeydidregardas
timeless.InmanycircleswhereRomanticinfluenceshavespread,even
thoughthistruthhasneverbeenproven,itisheldtobetimelesseventothe
presentday.
62
Thuswhatwehave,growingfromtheRomanticexperienceofreligion,
isabodyofreligiousteachingswhoseultimategoalwasuntestedand
untestable;whosesenseofdutyinvolvednosenseofhonor—inthatit
focusednotontheconsequencesofone’sactionsbutonthesensitivityof
one’sfeelings;andwhoseattitudetowardtruthoffersnoguaranteeoftruth
overtime.
Itwouldbetooflippanttosaythattheseviewswereinspiredsolelyby
sex,drugs,andnovels,fortheRomanticswereheirstoasoberEuropean
traditionofscience,philosophy,andliteraturethatprovidedthemwiththe
materialsfromwhichtheyconstructedtheirworldview,andthattaught
themhowtopresenttheirviewsinasubtleandsophisticatedway.Butthe
factthatatraditionofthissorthasbecomeoneofthedominantcurrentsin
Westernreligiousthoughtisenoughtogivepause.Andthefactthatthis
bodyofteachingshasbecomeoneofthemainstandardsagainstwhichthe
Dhammaismeasured,andtowhichitisoftenforcedtoconformasitcomes
totheWest,givesrisetotwoquestions:
Howdidithappen?
AndisthisthebestwaytogetthemostoutoftheDhamma?
Thesecondofthesequestionsisthemoreimportantofthetwo,soto
providesomeperspectiveonhowtoanswerit,thenextchapterwillfocus
onwhattheDhammateaches,withparticularattentiontopointsthatrun
countertowhattheRomanticstaught.Thatway,whenwethenaddressthe
firstquestion,wecanstandsomewhatoutsideofourowncultureaswe
watchthewaythatculturegaverisetoRomanticreligionandfosteredits
spreadthroughthemodernworld.Thiswillalsohelpgiveusasenseof
whatisatstakeinallowingRomanticreligionthefinalwordon
determiningwhatcountsasDhammahereandnow.
63
CHAPTERTWO
AnAncientPath
TheBuddhadidnotinventtheDhamma.Ashesaid,hediscoveredan
ancientpaththatBuddhasofthepasthaddiscovered,butthathadsince
becomeovergrown.Hisjobwassimplytoclearthepathagainandteach
otherstofollowit(§1 ).
IndescribingtheDhammaasapath,hewaspointingtothefactthathe
wasnotteachingaphilosophicalsystem.Instead,hefocusedallhis
instructionsonhowtosolveasingleproblem:theproblemofdukkha,which
canbetranslatedas“suffering”or“stress”(§2 ).Hissolutionofthis
problem—apathleadingtototalfreedomorreleasefromsuffering—he
treatedasaskilltobemastered(§3 ).Allofhisteachingsconvergeonthis
topic;anyissuesirrelevanttothemasteryofthisskillheputaside.
Becauseaproperunderstandingoftheproblemofsufferingisan
importantpartoftheskillhetaught,hedidaddressanumberof
philosophicalissues,butonlytotheextentthattheywererelevanttohis
focus.ThisisoneofthemostdistinctivefeaturesofhisDhamma:hiscareful
choiceofwhichquestionshewaswillingtoanswerandwhichoneshewas
not.Infact,theskillofknowingwhichquestionstoaddressandwhichto
putasidewasanintegralpartoftheskillrequiredtoreachfreedomand
release(§4 ).
Contrarytoapopularmisunderstanding,theissuestheBuddhachoseto
addresswerenotdeterminedbyhisculturalenvironment.Hisfocusonthe
issueofsufferingwasentirelynewanddistinctivetohim,aswashis
unwillingnesstoaddressmanyofthehotphilosophicalissuesofhisday,
suchaswhethertheworldwasinfiniteornot(§5 ; §7 ).Evenwhentaking
onissuesthatwereavidlydiscussedbyhiscontemporaries—suchasthe
questionofthepowerofaction(kamma)anditsrelationshiptorebirth(DN
2)—heprovidedananswerthatwasunlikeanythinganyoneelseinancient
Indiahadtaught.
So,insteadofbeingdeterminedbyhisculturalsurroundings,therange
64
ofhisteachingwasentirelydeterminedbytheproblemofsufferingitself.
Tounderstandhischoiceofwhichtopicstoaddressandhowfartoaddress
them,it’simportanttounderstandhisanalysisofwhatsufferingwas,how
itwascaused,andhowitcouldbebroughttoanend.
Suffering,ItsCause,ItsCessation
AccordingtothePālisuttas—theoldestextantrecordoftheBuddha’s
teachings—therearethreekindsofsufferingandstress:thestressofpain,
thestressoffabrication,andthestressofchange(SN38:14).Thesecondof
these—thestressoffabrication—isthestressthatactuallyweighsonthe
mind,andsothatisthestressthattheBuddha’steachingsaimtosolve.
Onceitissolved,theothertwotypesofstressdonotburdenthemindat
all.
“Fabrication”(saṅkhāra)isatechnicaltermthatliterallymeans,“putting
together.”ItcarriesmanymeaningsintheBuddha’steachings,butthe
meaningmostrelevanttoourpurposesisthatoftheintentionalactivityof
themindthroughwhichitshapesitsexperience.
IntheBuddhistview,themindisnotpassive.Becauseitisresponsible
forabodywithmanyhungersandneeds,ithastotakeanactiveapproach
insatisfyingthoseneeds.Evenpriortosensorycontact,itconditionsitself
throughitsintentionstoshapethosecontactstowardsatisfyingwhatever
needsitwantstofulfill(§25 ).Becauseitisactive,itneedstokeepitself
nourishedaswell(§26 ).
Thismeansthatthemindisdrivenbyhungersbothphysicaland
mental.Toidentifyandsatisfythesehungers,itfabricatesfivetypesof
activities:
•itssenseoftheformofthebody,
•feelings,
•perceptions,
•mentalfabrications,and
•sensoryconsciousness.
Thesefiveactivities,calledaggregates(khandha),arealwaysatplayin
themind’ssearchforfood.Itinhabitsandusestheformofthebodytofind
food;ittriestoavoidfeelingsofhungerandtocreatefeelingsof
satisfaction;itlearnstoperceivewhatkindsofhungerithasandwhat
65
foodswillassuagethem;ithastofabricaterawexperiencesintoaformthat
canbeconsumedasfood;andithastobeconsciousofalltheseactivitiesfor
themtosucceed.
Becausetheseactivitiesaresoessentialtofeeding,themindtendsto
feedonthemaswell(§19 ).Thissecondleveloffeedingiscalledupādāna,a
wordthatcanmeanboth“sustenance”and“clinging.”Clingingcantake
fourforms:clingingtosensualpassion,clingingtohabitsandpractices,
clingingtoviews,andclingingtodoctrinesonthetopicoftheself.
TheactofclingingtothefiveaggregatesistheBuddha’sdefinitionofthe
sufferingoffabrication(§3 ),andfortworeasons:theactofclingingitselfis
stressful,andthethingsclung-toareconstantlychanging—alternating
betweenpleasantandpainful—sothatthemindcanfindnorest.
TheBuddhaidentifiedthecauseofthisclingingasthecravingthatleads
tobecoming(§3 ).“Becoming”(bhava)isanotherwordwithatechnical
meaning.Itreferstotheactoftakingonanidentityinaparticularworldof
experienceforthesakeofsatisfyingadesire—“world,”here,meaning
eitheraphysicalworldoramentalworld,onalargeorsmallscale.
Examplesoflarge-scalebecomingwouldincludeyoursenseofyourplace
inhumansocietyorofyourplaceintheuniverseatlarge.Asmall-scale
becomingwouldariseinresponsetoaparticulardesire.Forinstance,ifa
persondesiresanicecreamcone,therelevantworldconsistsofwhatever
mightenablehimtogettheicecreamorstandinthewayofhisgettingit.
Otheraspectsofthephysicalworldwouldbeirrelevanttothatparticular
craving.Hisidentityherewouldtaketwoforms:identifyingwithasenseof
selfthatwillenjoythepleasureonceit’sobtained(theconsumer),andwith
thesenseofselfcomposedofone’srangeofskillsorpossessionsthatwill
eitherfacilitateone’sdesireorgetinthewayofitssatisfaction(the
producer).Otherskillsorpossessionsare,forthatparticularbecoming,
irrelevant.
Whatthismeansisthatbecomingscanchangefrequently,evenfrom
momenttomoment,dependingonthedesiresonwhichthemindfocuses.
Evenlarge-scalebecomingsarefleeting,inthatthemindisnotalways
concernedwithitslargerplaceintheuniverse—aswhenchocolategelato
becomesanall-consumingdesire.
However,becomingdoesnotoccuronlyontheinternal,psychological
level,becausewhatstartsasapsychologicalprocesscanleadtorebirthon
anyofthemanyexternalworldsfoundinthecosmos.Infact,ifthe
66
processesofbecomingarenotstopped,theyprovidethesustenancethat
cancauseyoutokeeptakingondifferentidentitiesindifferentrebirths—in
sensualrealms,realmsofform,andformlessrealms—indefinitely(§§9–10 ).
Therearethreetypesofcravingthatleadtobecoming.Oneisthe
cravingforbecomingitself.Anotheriscravingforsensuality,whichmeans
themind’spassionformakingplansforsensualpleasures.Inotherwords,
thepleasuresthemselvesdon’tcausesuffering,nordotheyleadto
becoming.Themind’sobsessionwiththinkingabouthowtogainsensual
pleasureisthecauseforboth.
Thethirdtypeofcravingthatleadstobecomingis,paradoxically,
cravingfornon-becoming,i.e.,thedesiretodestroyaparticularbecoming
onceithasarisen.Thisactuallyleadstofurtherbecomingbecause,in
pursuingthiscraving,youtakeontheidentityofadestroyer.Onthemacro
level,thiskindofcravingcanleadtorebirthinanunconsciousrealmfrom
whichyouwilleventuallyreturntoconsciousnessandtheprocessesof
craving(DN1).
Thecessationofsufferingcomeswiththecompleteabandoningofthe
threekindsofcraving.Theresultingfreedomiscallednibbāna.Thisword,
incommonPāliparlance,meanstheextinguishingofafire.Inthetimeof
theBuddha,aburningfirewassaidtoclingtoitsfuel(again,upādāna).
Whenitletgoofitsfuelandwentout,itwassaidtobereleasedor
unboundintoastateofcalm,coolness,andpeace.Thusthebesttranslation
fornibbānaisunbinding.Atthesametime,theimageryimplicitintheword
“unbinding”connectsdirectlytotheimageoffeeding,andmakesan
importantpoint:Youarenottrappedbyyourfood.Instead,youare
trappedbyyourownactofclingingandfeeding.Freedomcomesfrom
lettinggooftheobjectsonwhichyoufeed.
Althoughunbindingistheultimatehappiness,itcannotbeclassedasa
feeling,foritshowsnoneofthesignsthatfeelingsexhibitofarisingor
passingaway(§51 ; §§53–54 ).NorisitastateofOnenessornon-duality,for
—astheBuddhaobservedfrompractice—eventhehighestnon-duality
arisesandpassesaway(§23 ).Infact,unbindingisnotevenclassifiedasa
worldwithinthecosmos.Instead,it’sanelementaryproperty(dhātu)or
dimension(āyatana)thatliesoutsideofspaceandtimebutcanbetouched
bythemind(§52 ; §§47–48 ).
Furthermore,unbindingisnotareturntothesourceofallthings,for
tworeasons:(1)AstheBuddhasaid,allphenomenaoriginate,notinpurity,
67
butindesire.Infact,unbindingistheendofallthings(§11 ).(2)If
unbindingwereareturntoasource,thenitwouldn’tbefinal:Itcould
becomeasourceagainforfurtherbecomings.Similarly,unbindingisnota
returntoasupposedlyinnocentstateofchildhood.Becauseachild’smind
isignorantanddrivenbydesire,therewouldbenovalueinreturningto
thatstate(§34 ).
Instead,unbindingistotallyunfabricated(§§50–51 ),soittotally
transcendsbecoming.Infact,oneofthefirstrealizationsonreachingfull
awakeningisthatthereisnofurtherbecoming.Thisiswhyitentailstotal
releasefromsufferingandstress.Giventhatallfabricationentailssuffering,
onlyanunfabricateddimensionfreefrombecomingcouldprovidethat
release.
Becauseunbindingisunfabricated,itcannotbecausedbyanyactsof
mind,butitcanbereachedthroughapathofpractice,inthesamewaythat
aroadtoamountain,eventhoughitdoesn’tcausethemountaintoexist,
canstillenableyoutogetthere.Thisisanotherreasonwhythepracticeis
calledapath.Itconsistsofskillsthatstrengthenthemindtothepoint
whereitnolongerneedstofeed,enablingittodevelopasenseof
dispassionforallformsofclingingandcraving.Becausepassioniswhat
drivesthemindtofabricate,dispassionbringsallfabricationstoanend
(§30 ).
ThePath
Thepathtothecessationofsufferingiscalledthenobleeightfoldpath
becauseitleadstoanoblehappiness—freefromaging,illness,anddeath—
andbecauseitiscomposedofeightfactors:rightview,rightresolve,right
speech,rightaction,rightlivelihood,righteffort,rightmindfulness,and
rightconcentration(§58 ).Eachofthesefactorsis“right”inthesensethatit
actuallyworkstoputanendtosuffering.Eachisclearlydistinguishedfrom
itswrongcounterpart.Acanonicalanalogycomparesthefactorsofthe
wrongpathtotheattempttogetmilkfromacowbytwistingitshorn.
Followingtherightpathisliketryingtogetmilkfromacowbypullingon
theteatsofitsudder(§59 ).
Becausethepathtothecessationofsufferingissomethingfabricated,
whereasunbindingisunfabricated,thepathhastobeapproached
strategically(§50 ).Itrequiresdesireandevenclinging—toskillfulhabits
68
andpracticesandtoskillfulviews—thatgiverisetoskillfulstatesof
becoming(§§11–13 ).Oncetheseactivitieshavedonetheirwork,though,
theyhavetobeabandoned.AnimageintheCanoncomparesthisstrategy
totheactofgoingtoapark:Desireisrequiredtomaketheefforttogoto
thepark,butwhentheparkisreached,thedesireisabandoned.Another
imageisoftakingaraftacrossariver:Youholdontotheraftwhilecrossing
theriver,butwhenyoureachthefurthershoreyouleavetheraftthereas
yougoonyourway.
Forthisreason,therearemanystagesinthepath,afactreflectedinthe
twofactorsofthepaththat,undertheheadingofdiscernmentorwisdom,
mostdirectlyconcernushere:rightviewandrightresolve.
Rightviewconsistsofthehypothesesthatneedtobeadoptedtofollow
thepath.Thesefallintothreemainlevels.
Thefirstlevel,calledmundanerightview,adoptstheprinciplesthat
pleasureandpainresultfromyouractions,thattheseactionscanhave
resultsthatcarryfromonelifetimetosubsequentlifetimes,andthatthere
arepeoplewhohavepracticedwelltothepointwheretheyknowthese
principlesthroughdirectknowledge,andnotjustthroughhearsay(§62 ).
Theseprinciplesfulfilltwofunctions.Theyexplainhowthepathcan
workandtheyalsogivemotivationforfollowingit.
Intheirfunctionofexplaining,theytakestandsonthreemajor
philosophicalissues:thenatureofaction,theworkingsofcausality,andthe
questionoffreedomofchoice.
Action,orkamma,theBuddhaidentifiedwiththeintentionmotivating
thoughts,words,anddeeds(AN6:63).Thisiswhyanyattempttosolvethe
problemofsufferingandstressmustfocusonthemind’sintentions.
Intermsofcausality,theBuddhataughtthateachperson’shappiness
andpainresultfrompastactionsandfrompresentactions.Ifeverything
camefrompastactions,nothingcouldbechangedinthepresent,andthere
wouldbenopossibilityoffollowinganewpathofaction(§8 ).Therehasto
befreedominchoosingwhatone’spresentactionswillbe.Fortheretobe
suchapossibility,causalitycannotbelinearormechanical.TheBuddha’s
depictionofcausalityisamorecomplexprocess—hecomparesittothe
flowofwater—inwhichresultscanturnaroundandhaveanimpacton
theircauses,justasstreamscanhaveeddiesandcounter-currents.
Fromtheaspiringstudent’spointofview,freedomofchoicehastobe
69
acceptedasaworkinghypothesis,forotherwisetherewouldbeno
motivationtomaketheeffortrequiredbythepractice,oreventobelieve
thatonecourseofactionwasmoreskillfulthananother.Onlywiththe
attainmentofawakening,andthetotalfreedomthatresults,doesone
confirmthatrelativefreedomofchoicewithintherealmofcausalityisreal.
Theseprinciplesonkamma,combinedwiththeteachingthatkamma
hasanimpactontheprocessesofrebirth,alsoprovidethemotivationfor
followingthepathtothecessationofsufferingbyfosteringtwoemotions.
Thefirstemotionisheedfulness:therealizationthat,becauseone’s
actions—evenone’sintentionalthoughts—canleadeithertolong-term
sufferingorlong-termpleasure,onemustbecarefulinchoosingtofollow
theskillfulcourseofactionatalltimes.AstheBuddhanotes,this
realizationiswhatliesatthebasisofallskillfulthoughts,words,anddeeds
(§33 ).Inotherwords,hedoesnottakeastandonwhetherthemindis
innatelygoodorbad.Ashenotes,themindiscapableofallkindsof
actions,andcanchangesoquicklythatthereisnoadequateanalogyfor
howquickitistochange(§§31–32 ).Theonlythingthatkeepsitacting
skillfullyisasenseofheedfulness:thatitsactionsmatter,andthat
happinessdependsonchoosingthemwisely.
Thesecondemotionelicitedbymundanerightviewissaṁvega,aterm
thatmeansterror,urgency,ordismay.Whenfeelingsaṁvega,youseethat
theroundofrebirthispotentiallyendless,andthatitprovidesnoguarantee
ofsafety—apersoncanworkmanylifetimesonskillfulactionsandattaina
pleasantrebirthasaresult,butthenbecomecomplacentandheedless,
fallingbackintounskillfulways.Thissenseoftheoverwhelmingdangers
ofrepeatedbirthsandrebirthsiswhatprovidesthemotivationforseeking
awayoutoftheroundentirely(§§27–28 ;AN5:57).
Becausetheseprinciplesaboutkammaandrebirtharenecessaryfor
understandinghowthepathtotheendofsufferingcouldwork,they
constitutethemainareainwhichtheBuddhadirectlyaddressed
metaphysicalissues:therealityofcausality,therealityofaction,thepower
ofactiontoshapeexperienceandthepowerofcravingtosustainactsof
consciousnessastheydropthebodyattheendofonelifeandheadto
anotheroneforthenext.
Asnotedabove,theBuddha’streatmentoftheseissuesdidnotsimply
followthebeliefsofhistime.Questionsofkammaandrebirthwerehotly
contestedbyhiscontemporaries.Somephilosophicalschoolsdoubtedthe
70
realityofbothkammaandrebirth.Others,maintainingthatbothwerereal,
deniedthatkammahadanyimpactonrebirth.Evenamongtheschoolsthat
didteachthatkammadeterminedrebirth,theunderstandingofthecausal
relationshipbetweenthetwowaslinearanddeterministic.Onceyouhad
donesomething,therewasnowaytomitigateorshapetheresultsyou’d
experience(DN2).Youhadnofreedomofchoice.ThustheBuddha’s
teachingsonthesetopics,andtheirrelationshiptotheprocessofbecoming
withinthemind,weretotallynewanddistinctive.
It’simportanttonotethatmundanerightviewdealsintermsof
becoming:peopleactinginwaysthatleadthemtotakeonidentitiesinone
worldafteranother.
Thesecondlevelofrightview,transcendentrightview,dropstheseterms
entirely.Thisishowitavoidstheconundrumposedbythefactthatboth
cravingforbecomingandcravingfornobecomingactascausesof
suffering:Itentirelydropsallquestionsandconceptsdealingwithworlds
andidentities.Instead,itdirectsattentiontoviewingexperienceintermsof
thefournobletruthsaboutstressandsufferingoutlinedabove:that
sufferingconsistsofclingingtothefiveaggregates,thatthethreeformsof
cravingarethecauseofsuffering,thattheabandoningofthoseformsof
cravingisthecessationofsuffering,andthatthenobleeightfoldpathisthe
pathtothecessationofsuffering.Noneofthesetruthsinvolvesissuesof
identityorworldsatall.
Rightviewonthislevelnotonlydividesexperienceintothesefour
categories,butalsogivesdirectionsastowhattodowitheach:Sufferingis
tobecomprehended,itscauseabandoned,itscessationrealized,andthe
pathtoitscessationdeveloped(§3 ).
Thethirdandultimatelevelofrightviewisadoptedwhenalltheseduties
havebeenfulfilledandtheonlydutyremainingforthemindistoletgoof
everythingthatarisesandpassesaway,eventhepath,evenrightview
(§63 ).Inthisway,thelevelsofrightviewleadtotheirowntranscendence
(§7 ).Thisishowafabricatedpathleadstotheunfabricated.It’salsowhat
makesrightviewright.
Rightresolve,thesecondfactorofthepathdealingwithdiscernment,
alsooperatesonmundaneandtranscendentlevels,asitresolvestoacton
themundaneandtranscendentinsightsofrightview.Onthemundane
level,thismeanstheresolvetoabandonthreetypesofunskillfulresolves—
sensuality,illwill,andharmfulness—andtoreplacethemwiththeirskillful
71
alternatives:renunciation,goodwill,andcompassion.Theseskillful
resolvesthenprovidethemotivationforcarryingouttheremainingfactors
ofthepath.
Hereit’simportanttonoticetwofeaturesofmundanerightresolve:(1)
Asindicatedbythefirstiteminthelistofunskillfulresolves,thereisno
roomforsensualpassioninthepathtotheendofsuffering.(2)Goodwill
andcompassionarenomoreinnatetothemindthanaretheiropposites,
giventhatthemindissochangeableandhaspotentialsforbothskillfuland
unskillfulactions.Thustherehastobetheresolvetodevelopgoodwilland
compassion,andthisresolvehastobemotivatedbytheinsightsof
mundanerightview:thatunskillfulintentionswillleadtosuffering,and
skillfulonestohappiness.Inotherwords,theseskillfulresolvesallhaveto
bemotivatedbyheedfulness,thedesiretoactcarefullysoastoavoid
suffering.
Atthesametime—again,giventhechangeablenatureofthemind—the
Buddhadidnottrustthatskillfulresolves,withoutfurtherdirection,would
alwaysleadtoskillfulactions.Afterall,anattitudeofgoodwillmaybe
ignorantofthelong-termconsequencesofactionsthatappearskillfulonthe
surface.Forthisreason,heformulatedspecificpreceptstodefineright
speechandrightaction,preceptsthatherecommendedbeintentionally
followedinallcircumstances(SN42:8;AN4:99).Healsodescribedthe
goodandbadconsequencesofactionsthatdidnotlendthemselvestobeing
formulatedinabsoluteprecepts(MN135).Andheadvocatedwaysof
trainingthemindinintegrity,sothathisfollowerscouldlearnhowto
observecarefullytheresultsoftheiractionsontheirown(MN61),andin
mindfulness—theabilitytoholdthingsinmind—sothattheycouldkeep
applyingthelessonstheylearnedtoallfutureactions(§35 ).
Inthisway,mundanerightresolvedoesnotendsimplywithgood
intentions.Throughthetrainingofthepath,itaimsatcarryingoutthose
intentionsskillfullyineverydaylife.
Oncemundanerightresolvehassucceededindroppingallthree
unskillfulresolves,itleadsontoitstranscendentlevel:resolvingonthe
mentalqualitiesthatallowthemindtoenterandremaininright
concentration(MN117).Rightconcentrationisatypeofbecoming,ona
non-sensuallevelofformorformlessness,butbecauseofitsstillnessand
clarityitallowsrightviewtoferretoutevermoresubtlelevelsofclinging
andcravinguntilallthatremainsistheactofclingingtothepathitself.
72
Thatiswhentheultimatelevelofrightviewcandoitsworkinabandoning
allformsoffabrication,leadingtorelease.
HowtheBuddhaTaught
WhenweunderstandthewayinwhichtheBuddhaapproachedand
solvedtheproblemofsuffering,it’seasytoseewhyhewasselectivein
choosingwhichissuestoaddressandwhichtoputaside.Theprimary
issueshehadtoaddressconcernedissuesofactionandfreedomofchoice,
forthesewerecentralpremisesforanypathofactionthatwouldleadtothe
endofsuffering.Healsohadtoaddressthewaysinwhichthemind,asan
activeprocess,arrivedatknowledgeandviews,andclungtoitsknowledge
andviews,fortheseissueswerecentraltounderstandinghowitcreates
sufferingforitselfandhowthatsufferingcanbeundonefromwithin.In
otherwords,thesolutiondidnotrequireoutsideintervention.Itrequired
usingskillfulmentalprocessestoabandonunskillfulmentalprocesses,and
thenrefiningthoseskillfulprocessesuntiltheyopenedthewaytoan
experiencebeyondprocessesofeverysort—physicalormental.
Inthisway,hisapproachcanbecalledradicallyphenomenological,which
meansthatitdealswithyourexperienceasyouexperienceitdirectly—the
partofyourexperiencethatnooneelsecanlookintosee,andthatyou
can’tsharewithanyoneelse.Themainproblemonthislevelisthesuffering
youexperiencedirectly,somethingthatnooneelsecaneitherfeelor
comprehendforyou.Thesameholdstrueforthehungerthatcauses
suffering:Youaloneexperienceit,soyoualonecanabandonit.Thepathfor
solvingtheproblemalsoconsistsofprocessesyouexperiencedirectly,
whichiswhyeachpersonhastodevelopthepathforhimorherselfalone.
Andthesolution,whenitcomes,isalsoexperiencedonthislevel,whichis
whyoneperson’sexperienceofunbindingissomethingthatnooneelsecan
directlyknow.
BecausetheBuddha’sDhammaisfocusedonthislevel,hehadto
developaspecialvocabularytodescribeit.Hedealtwithquestionsdealing
withpeople’ssharedrealityonlywhenthesequestionshelpedtofocus
attentionbacktosolvingtheproblemofsufferingonthephenomenological
level.
Forinstance,inthecaseofquestionsframedintermsofbecoming—the
identityoftheself,thenatureororiginoftheworld—hetreatedthese
73
provisionallyonthelevelofmundanerightview.Hemadeuseofconcepts
ofselfonthislevel,alwaysfocusing,however,onissuesofwhattheself
coulddo,ratherthanwhatitwas.Thiswassothathecouldconvincehis
listenersthattheyhaditintheirpowertofollowthepath.Similarly,he
delineatedtheworldstowhichactionscouldlead,sothatpeoplewouldbe
stirredtoheedfulnessaroundtheiractions.Heobservedthatallworlds
lackedanintrinsicpurpose(DN1),sothatpeople—realizingthattheir
sufferingsservednohigherplan—wouldfeelfreetomakeittheirown
purposetoputsufferingtoanend.Buthenevergotinvolvedinquestions
ofwheretheuniversecamefromorwhatitsultimatedimensionsinspace
andtimemightbe(DN11;AN4:45;AN4:77).
Ontheleveloftranscendentrightview,however,theBuddharefusedto
addressissuesframedintermsofselfandworldentirely—asidefrom
dismantlingthem—becausethesimpleactofthinkinginthoseterms,
regardlessofhowyouansweredthequestionstheyelicited,wouldgetin
thewayoftheendofsuffering.
Thiswaswhyheputasidemanyquestionsthatobsessedthe
philosophersandtheologiansofhisday,andthathaveobsessedthinkers
throughoutrecordedhistory:Whatistheself?Doesitexist?Doesitnot
exist?Isitthesamethingasthebody?Isitseparatefromthebody?Howis
itknown?Directly?Indirectly?Isitessentiallygood?Essentiallybad?Isthe
worldeternal?Isitnot?Isitfinite?Infinite?IseverythingaOneness?Is
everythingaplurality?(§5 ; §11 ; §§15–17 ; §25 )
TheBuddha’swayaroundthesequestionswastorecommendthathis
listenerslookattheactionsandintentionsthroughwhichconceptsof“self”
and“world”areformedinthemind,toseethattheseactionsnecessarily
involveclingingandbecoming—andthussuffering.Hismostcomplex
expressionofthecausalprincipleunderlyingtheseactionsandintentions—
dependentco-arising(paṭiccasamuppāda)—explainshow“self”and“world”
areformedthroughprocessesthatdon’thavetobeframedintermsof
“self”and“world.”Inthisway,heshowedhowthesetermsarenotbasicto
experience,andthatexperiencecanbeusefullyunderstoodwithouthaving
tofallbackonthem(§25 ).
Asnotedabove,healsoshowedhowthecausalrelationsthatgiveriseto
thesetermsareneitherdeterministicnorpurposeful.Inotherwords,they
don’thavetohappen,andtheydon’tserveanylargerpurposethattakes
precedenceoverthemindthatcreatesthem.Thismeansthatpeoplearefree
74
nottocreatethem.Theyarefreetounderstandexperiencesimplyasactions
leadingtosufferingorawayfromit,andfreetodecidewhichdirectionthey
wanttheiractionstogo.Thepurposeofthisanalysiswasthatoncehis
studentssaw(1)theconnectionbetweentheactionsandintentionsleading
toconceptsof“self”and“world,”(2)thesufferingthatresulted,and(3)the
factthattheydidn’thavetokeepproducingthoseactionsandintentions,
theywouldnaturallywanttodevelopactsleadingintheotherdirection,
awayfromsuffering.
Actsofthissortbeginwiththepracticesdesignedtodevelopdispassion
fortheclingingandcravingthatideasof“self”and“world”entailed.
Becauseclingingtonotionsofselfisoneofthemostfundamentalformsof
clinging,theBuddhafocusedparticularattentiononshowinghowany
possibleassumptionaboutself—thatitpossessesformorisformless,thatit
isfiniteorinfinite—isultimatelynotworthholdingto(§§18–19 ).In
particular,hesingledouttheideathattheselfisidenticalwiththecosmos
asespeciallyfoolish,perhapsbecauseittotallydistractedattentionfrom
focusingonthesenseofselfasamerefabricationoraction(§§21–22 ).It
alsodistractedattentionfromseeingthisactof“selfing”onthe
phenomenologicallevel,whichisthelevelwherethesufferingentailedin
selfingcanmostdirectlybeseen.Thepurposeofallthisanalysiswasnotto
cometotheconclusionthatthereisnoself,butsimplytodevelop
dispassionforanyattempttoidentifyanythingasoneself,because
dispassioniswhatleadsthemindtorelease.
Inthisway,boththecontentoftheBuddha’steachings—whathetaught
—andtheirtacticalapproach—howhetaught—keeppointingtowhathe
calledthe“unprovokedreleaseofawareness.”Thisreleaseistotalandfinal
inthatitfreesthemindfromeverypossibleburdenorlimitation(§39 ).Itis
unprovokedintwosensesoftheterm:(1)Itisnotcausedbytheprovocation
ofanycausalfactor.(2)Itcannotbeprovokedtocauseanythingelse.Once
itisattained,thereisnomorekamma,nomorehunger,andsononeedfor
desire.Thisleavesnomeansbywhichthemindcouldeverreturnto
becoming.
Becausethisreleaseisneithercausenorresult,itliesbeyondall
conditionedorfabricatednature(§§48–49 ).Becauseitisnotastateof
becoming,itdoesnotbelongtotherealmof“world”or“cosmos”orany
placeinphysicalormentalspaceatall.Thisiswhythosewhoattainthis
releaseare“everywherereleased”(§§42–44 ).Outsideoftimeaswell,itis
75
notsubjecttochangesincultureorhumansociety,oreventotheevolution
ordevolutionofthecosmosasawhole.ThustheBuddhaidentifieditasthe
essenceoftheteaching—theword“essence”(sāra)alsomeaning
heartwood,thepartofthetreethatremainsstandingevenwhentheless
permanentpartsofthetreedieaway(§11 ; §§39–41 ).
KeepingthePathOpen
AlthoughtheBuddhadidnotclassthepathtoreleaseaspartofthe
essenceoftheteaching,hedidseethepathashavingaspecialrelationship
totheessence,justasthesoftwoodofatreeisdirectlyconnectedtothe
heartwood.Inthisway,thefreedomofthisreleaseisthecommontasteof
allhisteachings(§41 ).
Oneoftherealizationsthatfirstoccurstoameditatoruponthefirsttaste
ofawakeningisthatthereisnootherpaththatcanleadthere,forthenoble
eightfoldpathistheonlywaybywhichthefabricationsthatstandinthe
wayofreleasecanbedismantled(§57 ).ThisiswhytheBuddhaclassed
rightviewasacategoricalteaching—trueacrosstheboard—becauseit
dealswithmentalprocessesinawaythattranscendsculture(§46 ).
Anotherrealizationfollowingonthefirsttasteofawakeningisthatthis
pathisnotfoundoutsidetheteachingsoftheBuddhas(§§55–56 ).Other
religiousteachingsmaycontainelementsofthenobleeightfoldpath,such
asthepracticeofvirtueorstrongconcentration,butbecausetheylackright
view—andthusfailtoasktherightquestionsthatwouldinducetotal
dispassionforeventhesubtlestlevelsoffabricationinthehigheststatesof
concentration—theyremainstuckinstatesofbecoming.
TheBuddha’sclaimsfortheexceptionalnatureofhisDhammadidnot
springfromprideorignorance.Afterall,aswehavenoted,hedidnot
claimtohaveinventedtheDhamma,oreventohavebeenthefirsttofind
it.Thepathisnottruebecauseitis“his.”It’struebecauseit’stheonlypath
thatworksinleadingtofullrelease.
Inthisway,theBuddha’sauthorityisthat,notofacreatorgod,butofan
expertwhohasdiscoveredandperfectedaskill,andwhowantstopassit
onintact.Andbecausethisskillwasnotsimplyaneducationin
understandingwords,butatrainingoftheentirecharacter,herecognized
thatithadtobetransmittedthroughfriendshipandfrequentassociation
withthosewhohadalreadymasteredthoseskills.Infact,hecited
76
admirablefriendship—withpeopleendowedwithconviction,generosity,
virtue,anddiscernment—asthemosteffectiveexternalfactorinleadingto
awakening(§§64–65 ).
Forthesereasons,theBuddhanotonlytaughtabodyofteachings,but
alsosetupasystemofapprenticeshipinthemonasticordershefoundedso
thattheskillscouldbepassedonfromgenerationtogeneration.Because
sensualdesirewasanobstacletothepath(§§13–14 )—andbecausehe
wantedtheseorderstobeunburdensometotheirsupporters—he
formulatedrulestomakesurethattheseorderswerecelibate.Andto
ensurethattheteachingswereclearlyunderstood,heestablishedwithin
theseordersacultureofcross-questioning,wherestudentswere
encouragedtoaskquestionsaboutalltheteachingssoastoclarifyany
unclearpointsthatwouldpreventtheirbeingputintopractice.TheBuddha
contrastedthisculturewiththatofacultureof“bombast,”wherethe
teachingsaimedmoreatpoeticandexpressivebeauty,andstudentswere
notencouragedtoquestionexactlywhattheymeant(§66 ).
TheBuddhaknewthattheabilitytopassonhisskillswouldbesubject
tothevagariesoftimeandcivilization,soheestablishedstandardsfor
judgingwhetherteacherswerereliablementors,andwhetherthetexts
handeddownwerereallygenuine(§67 ).Healsoestablishedstandards
showingstudentshowtomeasurethemselvesastowhethertheywere
worthytopassjudgmentonthesematters(MN110;MN113).
Eventhen,heknewthattherewouldeventuallybethosewhowould
wanttochangehisteachings.Hedidnotregardthisasapositive
development,becausetheskillshetaughtwereonesthattranscendedthe
conditionsoftime.Althoughheencouragedhislistenersnottosimply
believewhathesaid,buttoputhisteachingstothetest(§61 ),healsoknew
thatanyfairjudgmentofthemwouldrequirethattheybemaintained
intact.
So,todiscourageanddelaychangesintheDhamma,hecriticizedinno
uncertaintermspeoplewhomisquotedhim,callingthemslanderers(§68 ).
Andinparticular,hewarnedthemonks—theprimarycustodiansofhis
teachings—thatanychangesintheDhammawouldmakepeopledoubtthe
legitimacyofthetrueDhamma,justastheexistenceofcounterfeitmoney
makespeopledubiousevenofgenuinemoney.BecausefalseDhamma
couldnotgivethesameresultsastrueDhamma,itwouldeventuallycause
peopletoloseinterestinDhammaaltogether.ThusthetrueDhamma
77
woulddisappear(§69 ).
ThisiswhytheBuddhastated,towardtheendofhislife,thatthe
practiceoftheDhammainaccordancewiththeDhammaiswhatwould
keepthetrueDhammaalive(§60 ; §70 ; §73 ).Aslongaspeoplecontinueto
gainthegenuinefreedomthatresultsfromDhammapractice,theywilldo
theirbest—outofgratitude,loyalty,andrespect—tokeeptheBuddha’s
teachingsintacttohelpleaveopenthepossibilitythatfuturegenerations
willfindgenuinefreedom,too.
78
CHAPTERTHREE
AnAgeofTendencies
IncontrasttotheBuddha,theearlyRomanticsintentionallyfocusedon
creatingabodyofthoughtthat,insteadofbeingtimeless,wasinstepwith
—andafewstepsaheadof—theirtimes.So,tounderstandthem,it’s
necessarytogainasenseofthetimestowhichtheywerespeaking.
FriedrichSchlegeloncelistedthethreegreat“tendencies”oftheagein
whichheandhisfellowRomanticsreceivedtheireducation,andtowhich
theirthoughtwasaresponse:theFrenchRevolution;JohannGottlieb
Fichte’sphilosophicaltreatise,theWissenschaftslehre;andGoethe’snovel,
WilhelmMeister’sApprenticeship.Thelistwasmeanttobeprovocativeinat
leasttwoways.First,byplacingtwoGermanbooksonaparwithoneofthe
definingsocialandpoliticalupheavalsofthemodernworld,itinsinuated
thatbooksandtheideastheycontaincanbeasimportantastheactionsof
crowdsoverthrowingwholesocialsystems,andthatGermanideaswereon
theforefrontofEuropeanprogress.
Second,asSchlegelexplainedinalateressay,heusedtheword
“tendencies”toindicatethathisentireagewasanAgeofTendencies.
Further,hereferredtothesetendenciesasthingstobe“correctedor
resolved.”Inotherwords,thepreviousgenerationhadmovedtheworldin
acertaindirection,buthadleftitinanimperfectandunresolvedstate.
Schlegelquestionedwhethertheseimperfectionswouldberesolvedby
hisgeneration—oranygeneration—buthislistoftendenciesisusefulin
indicatingthreemaindimensionsofthebackgroundfromwhichtheearly
Romanticsconsciouslydrewandonwhichtheyhopedtoimprove:
political,philosophical,andliterary.Wewillusethesethreedimensionsas
thecategoriestoframethediscussioninthischapter.
However,thelistleavesoutthecomponentthatmoststrongly
influencedthecontoursofearlyRomanticthought:thesciencesofthelate
18thcentury.TherearetwopossiblereasonsforwhySchlegelneglectedto
mentionthisinfluence:eitherhewasfocusingonprovocativetendencies—
79
andbeingprovocativehimself—orelsethescientificinfluencewasso
pervasiveintheeducatedcirclesinwhichhetraveledthathetookitfor
granted.Buttrendsinthesciencesofthetimeprovidethekeyto
understandinghowtheearlyRomanticsframedtheirthoughtsabout
politics,philosophy,andliterature.
AlloftheRomantics,intheirvariousways,showednotonlya
knowledgeofcontemporarysciencebutalsoaconvictionthatscientific
knowledgewascrucialforunderstandingthemselvesandtheworldin
whichtheylived.Novalis,inhisnovel,HeinrichvonOfterdingen,stated
explicitlythattheeducationofeverygoodpoetshouldbesolidlybasedon
astudyofthelatestadvancesinthesciences.Schelling,whenheswitched
hisstudiesfromtheologytophilosophy,spentseveralyearsreadingupon
thesciences,andcontinuedtostayabreastofscientificdevelopments
throughouttheearlypartofhiscareer.Schlegel,onmeetingFichteforthe
firsttime,expressedsurprisethatsuchapreeminentphilosopherwould
expressnointerestinscienceorhistoryatall.Schleiermachersprinkledhis
book,TalksonReligion,withfrequentallusionstoastronomy,chemistry,
andbiology.EvenHölderlin,themostpoeticallyinclinedoftheRomantics,
plannedatonepointtopublishajournalwhosemissionwastounitethe
scienceswiththehumanities.
Soit’scompletelyinlinewiththeRomanticworldviewthatwepreface
ourdiscussionofRomanticviewsonpolitics,philosophy,andliterature
withabriefsketchofthescientifictrendsthatexertedthestrongestpullon
theRomanticimagination.
There’sacommonbeliefthattheearlyRomanticswereanti-scientific,
thattheyrejectedtherationalistscientificapproachpromotedbythe18th
centuryEnlightenmentinfavorofamoreintrospective,poeticapproach,
privilegingtheimportanceoftheirownemotionsandimaginationoverthe
hard,dryfactsofthematerialworld.Andalthoughitistruethattheearly
Romanticsgavegreatimportancetothelifeoftheiremotionsand
imagination,theyfeltthattheyhadscientificreasonsfordoingso.As
childrenoftheEnlightenment,theymayhaverebelledinsomeways
againsttheirparents,butinotherwaystheyinheritedmanyofthe
Enlightenment’stendencies.
Oneofthosetendencieswasthat,inexploringtheiremotionsand
imagination,theysawthemselvesaspioneersinthescienceofthemind.
Furthermore,theysaweachhumanbodyandmindasamicrocosmof
80
humansocietyingeneral,andoftheuniverseatlarge.Thismeantthatin
exploringthemselvesfromwithin,theybelievedtheyweregaining
objectiveknowledgethatputthemmoreintouchnotonlywiththemselves,
butalsowiththeirfellowhumanbeingsandwithnatureasawhole.
Theimageofamicrocosmdrawsdirectlyfromthecurrentsinlate18th
centurysciencethatdistinguisheditfromthescienceoftheearlierpartof
thecentury.Thehugegulfcreatedbytheseshiftingcurrentscanbe
illustratedbyasimpleimage.ImmanuelKant,writingin1789andresisting
mostofthenewcurrentsinscientifictheory,spokeoflookingupatthe
nighttimeskyandbeinginspiredbythesublimesenseoforderhesaw
thereinthestars.FriedrichSchleiermacher,writingtenyearslater,spokeof
lookingupatthesamestarsandseeingchaos.
SCIENCE
IsaacNewton,inthe17thcentury,hadsetforthhislawsofmotionwith
suchrigorandclaritythattheyinfluencedEuropeanthoughtfarbeyondthe
realmofpurescience.Theypromotedaviewoftheuniverseasavast
machine,operatinginlinewithstrict,invariablelaws.Theinvariablenature
oftheselawspromotedtheideathattheuniversewasessentiallystatic.The
starswerefixedintheirplaces,theplanetsintheirorbits,andthe
coordinatesofspacehadnotbeenalteredsincethebeginningoftime.
Matterwasinherentlyinert,asitcouldnotmoveunlesssomethingelse
movedit.God’sroleintheuniversewasreducedtothatofawatchmaker
whoassembledthecosmicwatch,wounditup,andleftittorunonitsown
whileheapparentlyturnedhisattentionelsewhere.
Themechanicalanduniversalnatureoftheselawspromotedtheidea
thatcausalityineveryareaoflifewasalsomechanistic.Thisideathenled
toacontroversyinphilosophyastowhethertherewassuchathingasfree
willand,ifso,howitcouldhaveanimpactonamaterialworldwhose
motionswerealreadydeterminedbyfixedcausallaws.Eitherthehuman
mindwasnothingmorethanmatteritself,inwhichcasefreewillwasa
totalillusioninasmuchasmatterwastotallypassiveandinert;oritwas
radicallydifferentfrommatter,inwhichcaseitwas,inafamousphrase,a
ghosttrappedinamachine.Andifitwasaghostinamachine,there
remainedthequestionofhowitcouldhaveanyinfluenceonthecontrols.
Towardtheendofthe18thcentury,however,scientificthinkersbegan
81
toquestionthemechanicalworldviewofNewtonianphysics,andthestrict
divisionbetweenmindandmatter.Thisnewlineofquestioningderived
fromnewdiscoveriesinthefieldsofbiology,geology,paleontology,and
astronomy.
Inbiology,thestudyoforganismshadrevealedtwomajordiscoveries:
one,thatcausalitywithinanorganism,andbetweentheorganismandits
environment,wasreciprocal;andtwo,thatelectriccurrentswereatworkin
thetransmissionofimpulsesalongthenervesandinthemovementsofthe
muscles.
Thefirstdiscoveryresultedinanewviewofcausalitythatwasnot
strictlydeterministic.Ananimalrespondedtostimuliinitsenvironment
notinsimplypassiveormechanicalways,butthroughanactivefaculty
calledsensibility:itsabilitytoorganizeitsintakeofandresponsetostimuli.
Thisabilityhadtwoimplications.Thefirstwasthatlifewasnotsimply
passive.Inconstantinteractionwithitsenvironment,itwasalternately
passiveandactive,adaptingtoitsenvironmentandappropriatingits
environmentassustenance.Thesamereciprocalpassive/activeinteraction
alsotookplacewithintheorganism,amongtheindividualorgansofwhich
itwascomposed.Themoreadvancedtheformoflife,themorecomplexthe
sensibilityitdisplayed.
Thesecondimplicationofsensibilitywasthatlifeinteractedwithits
environmentwithapurpose:survival.
Theresultingviewofbiologicalcausalitythusdifferedfrommechanical
causalityintworespects.Itwasbothreciprocalandteleological,i.e.,actingfor
anend.
Theseconddiscovery—oftheroleofelectricityinmovinglivingtissues
—showedthatmatterwasnotinert,afactthathelpedtoerasetheline
betweenmatterandmind.Insteadofsimplybeingdead“stuff,”matterwas
nowseentohaveaforceorpotencysimilartothatofthemind.Thisled
somethinkerstospeculatethatmindandmatterdifferednotradicallyin
kind,butsimplyinthedegreeoftheirsensibility.Perhapsthephysical
universewasactuallyalessadvancedformoflife.Otherthinkersremoved
the“perhaps”andtreateditasaprovenfact:Mindandmatterwere
nothingbutdifferentaspectsofalargerunifiedpatternofenergy.
Althoughthesecurrentsofthoughtwerenotuniversallyembraced,they
wereechoedinnewtheoriesappearinginGermangeologyand
paleontology.Geologists,whenexploringcavesorfar-distantlocations,had
82
foundfossilsandoldbonesofanimals—suchasmammothsandgiant
lizards—thathadneverbeenseenalive.Thequestionwas,werethese
animalsstilllivinginunexploredregionsoftheEarth,orhadtheybecome
extinct?Andwhenthefossilsboreafamilialrelationshiptoknownanimals,
whatwastherelationshipbetweenthem?OneprominentGerman
paleontologist,JohannFriedrichBlumenbach(1752–1840),proposedthat
lifeevolved.Inhiseyes,theBildungstrieb—drivetodevelop—forcedplant
andanimallifetogeneratenewformsandnewspeciesinlinewiththe
evolutionofitsphysicalenvironment,andhadgonethroughthreemajor
epochs,parallelingthoseofhumansociety:themythic,theheroic,andthe
historical.Inotherwords,thegeneraltrendwasfromlargerandstronger
organisms—thegiantlizardsofmythictimes,themammothsofheroic
times—tothesmaller,weaker,andmoresensitivehumanbeingsofhistoric
times.
Thistheorywenthand-in-handwithanewgeologicalconceptionofthe
Earth,asfossilswereusedtodatetherockstratainwhichtheywerefound,
revealingapictureoftheEarthasimmenselyoldandchangingradically
withtime.TwomajorGermangeologists,JohannHeinrichMerck(1741–
91),andAbrahamGottlobWerner(1749–1817)—Novalis’geologyprofessor
—proposedthattheEarthhadgrownorganicallyandwascontinuingtodo
so.
Manyofthesetheorieswerehotlydebated,bothfromthesideofreligion
andfromthesideofreligiousskepticism.FerventChristianswereoffended
bythehugetimespansthatthegeologistswereproposing,andbytheidea
thatcurrentformsoflifedidn’tcomedirectlyfromthehandofGod.
Religiousskepticsobjectedtotheideaofalifeforceimbuingallmatter,in
thatitallowedGod,asalivingforce,toplayacontinuingroleintheaffairs
oftheworld.
Themostdecisiveeventinstrengtheningtheorganicviewofthe
universewasthepublication,in1789,ofapaperbytherenowned
astronomer,WilliamHerschel,discovereroftheplanetUranus.Herschel,a
nativeofGermanylivinginEngland,hadcurriedfavorwithGeorgeIIIby
originallynaminghisnewplanet“theGeorgianstar”—anamethat
fortunatelydidnotstandthetestoftime.Itpersistedlongenough,
however,forhisfriendsintheRoyalAcademyofSciencessuccessfullyto
lobbythekingtoprovideHerschelwiththefundstobuildanimmense
telescopeoutsideofLondon,byfarthelargesttelescopetothatdateinthe
83
world.Herschel’sreputation—hewasoneoftheearlysuperstarsofscience
—togetherwiththesizeofhistelescope,gaveaddedauthoritytohis
subsequentdiscoveries.
In1789,Herschelpublishedsomeofhisfindingsinapapermodestly
titled“CatalogueofSecondThousandNebulaewithRemarksonthe
ConstructionoftheHeavens.”However,theobservationshereportedin
thepaper,andtheconclusionshedrewfromthem,wereanythingbut
modest.
Herschelnotedthat,withtheimprovedpowerofhistelescope,hehad
discoveredthatmanyofthe“nebulae”inhiscataloguewerenotreally
nebulae,butactuallyseparategalaxies,andthatoursolarsystemwas
locatedinonlyoneofthemanygalaxieswithinhisnewly-expandedfieldof
view.
Hismostimportantobservation,however,wasthatsomegalaxies
showedsignsofbeingmoreevolvedthanothers,afactthatheexplainedby
detailinghowagalaxymightgrow,develop,anddieinlinewiththelaws
ofgravity,anorganicprocessthatinvolvedimmensespansoftime.Inother
words,themoreevolvedgalaxieswerefarolderthanthelessevolved,
whichinturnmeantthatthegalaxieswerenotallcreatedatthesametime.
Herschel’spaperaccomplishedseveralthingsatonce.Itturned
astronomyfromascienceconcernedprimarilywithnavigationtoone
focusedonissuesofcosmology:theoriginsofthestarsandtheevolutionof
theuniverse.Intermsofthecontentofthescience,iteffectedarevolution
evenmoreradicalthantheCopernican.Copernicushadsimplymovedthe
centeroftheuniversefromtheEarthtotheSun,whereasHerschelargued
thattherewasnocenteratall.Moreover—becausegalaxieswereof
differentageseventhoughobeyingthesamelawsofphysics—itsuggested
thattherewasnosinglebeginningpointincreationortime.
Thesetwopropositionswerearadicalchallengetoreceivedreligionin
theWest.Theyconfirmedthelargespansoftimeneededtoexplain
geologicalandbiologicalevolution,andquestionedthecentralityofhuman
lifeinthegeneralschemeoftheuniverse.
Aboveall—atleastintermsofwhattheRomanticsdidwiththisnew
discovery—Herschel’spaperreinforcedtheorganicviewoftheuniverse.
Asonemodernwriterhasobserved,thepaperturnedastronomyintoalife
science,concernedwiththeevolutionofstarsandgalaxiesovertime.To
emphasizethispoint,Herschelthroughouthispaperdrewhisanalogies
84
andimageryfromtherealmofplantlife.
Theuniverserevealedbyhistelescope,hesaid,waslikeagarden.
“Youthandagearecomparativeexpressions;andanoakofacertainage
maybecalledyoung,whileacontemporaryshrubisalreadyonthevergeof
itsdecay.…TocontinuethesimileIhaveborrowedfromthevegetable
kingdom…theheavensarenowseentoresemblealuxuriantgardenwhich
containsthegreatestvarietyofproductions,indifferentflourishingbeds…
andwecanextendtherangeofourexperience[ofthem]toanimmense
duration.”Justasapersoninagardenisable“successivelytowitnessthe
germination,blooming,foliage,fecundity,fading,witheringandcorruption
ofaplant,”inthesameway,ahumanobserverlookingthroughatelescope
wasabletosee,inasinglemomentandfromasingleplace,“avastnumber
ofspecimens,selectedfromeverystagethroughwhichtheplantpassesin
thecourseofitsexistence.” 1
Thisvisionofourgalaxyasagiantorganismwithinavastgardenof
othergiantorganismswasquicklypopularizedintheworkofpoets,
includingCharlesDarwin’sgrandfather,ErasmusDarwin.Asitspread
throughEurope,itprovokedmanyquestions:Whatisourplace,as
organisms,inthelifeofthelargerorganismofwhichwearepart?And
whatmeaningdoeslifehaveinavastuniverseinwhichorganismsare
takingbirthanddying,overandoveragain?Isthereasingle,larger
organismofwhichthegalaxiesthemselvesarepart,oristhegarden
randomandchaotic?Andwhatpowersdowehavetoanswerquestions
aboutsuchvaststretchesofspaceandtime?
ThemanyanalogiesfromastronomythattheRomanticsusedintheir
writings—suchasHölderlin’sreferenceinhisnovelHyperiontothe
nighttimeskyasa“gardenoflife”—showthattheywerefamiliarwith
Herschel’sworkandtookseriouslythequestionsitraised.Theanswersat
whichtheyarriveddrewontheotherthreeareasofEuropeanculturethat
mostinfluencedtheirworldview:politics,philosophy,andliterature.
POLITICS
FriedrichSchlegel,incitingtheimpactoftheFrenchRevolutiononhis
age,wassimplypointingtothemostdramaticpoliticaleventthatoccurred
duringhislifetime.ButotherpoliticaleventspredatingtheRevolutionhad
anevenmorepervasiveinfluenceinshapingthequestionsheandhis
85
fellowRomanticsaddressedandhowtheyaddressedthem.
Germanyduringhistimewasstillrecoveringfromthedevastation
causedmorethanacenturyearlierbytheThirtyYearsWar(1618–48).That
warhadpittedCatholicagainstProtestantcountriesalloverEurope,but
mostofthebloodshedanddestructionhadoccurredonGermansoil.Some
principalities,suchasWürttemberg,hadlostmorethanthreequartersof
theirpopulation.WhatwasleftofGermanyafterthesigningoftheTreaty
ofWestphaliain1648wasapatchworkofprincipalities—some,like
Prussia,relativelyextensive,othersnolargerthanavillage—eachwithits
ownlaws,customs,andformsofgovernment.Infact,somehistoriansinsist
thattheword“Germany”duringthisperiodshouldalwaysbeputin
quotationmarks,toactasareminderthattherewasnothing—notevena
fullycommonlanguage—tobindtogetherwhatwenowknowofGermany
intoasinglepoliticalorculturalunit.
Inmostcases,theseprincipalitieswereruledbycouncilsofnoblesor
pettymonarchs,who—ineachcase—hadbeengiventherighttochoosethe
establishedchurchinthelandundertheirjurisdiction:Protestantor
Catholic.Becausetheywereindependentofoneanother,someofthemore
powerfulmonarchsdevelopedroyalpretensions,seekingtoturntheir
courtsintosmallversionsofthemodelthattheFrenchwerecreatingat
Versailles.
Thisrequiredmoney.Thesolution,insomecases,wastoadoptanother
modelexportedfromFrance:theideal,promotedbytheFrenchphilosophes,
oftheenlighteneddespot,i.e.,amonarchwhoranhiscountryonrational
principleswithanefficientbureaucracy.Thephilosopheshadespoused
efficiencyandrationalitywithaneyetofairness,butthepettyprincesof
Germanyhadtheireyesmoreonanothergoal:efficienttaxcollection.This
combinationofefficientadministrationcoupledwithautocraticrule,asit
developedonGermansoil,combinedtheworstofboththemedievaland
themodernworld:arbitraryruleefficientlyenforced.Infact,someofthe
complaintsaboutrationalistgovernmentthatweassociatewithmodernists
andpostmodernistswerefirstexpressedbywriterssuchasNovalisinlate
18thcenturyGermany.
Totrainthebureaucratsneededtostafftheirbureaucracies,thevarious
principalitiessupportedtheirlocaluniversities,orcreatednewoneswhere
theydidnotyetexist.Theuniversities,however,foundthemselvessplitby
dualrequirements.Toattractgoodstudents,theyhadtoprovideanup-to86
datecurriculum,whichoftenmeantkeepingupwiththelatestliberal
trendsfromEnglandandFrance;buttomaintainthesupportoftheir
sponsors,theyhadtoensurethatwhattheytaughtwouldnotbesoliberal
astoupsetthestatusquo.Thusthestudentsattheseuniversitiesfound
themselvesinaschizophrenicenvironmentofever-changingstandardsfor
whatcouldandcouldnotbetaught.
Theschizophreniadidnotendwiththeirgraduation.Iftheywerelucky
enoughtosecurejobsintheGermanbureaucracies,theyfoundthemselves
dealingwiththevagariesofthelocalmonarchsorlegislativecouncils,who
oftenrequiredtheirofficialstoactindirectcontradictiontotheprinciples
learnedatschool.This,ofcourse,hasbeenarecurringprobleminhuman
history,butinlate18thcenturyGermanyitwasfeltespeciallyacutely,as
Germanpoliticalrealitieslaggedsofarbehindthoseofitsneighborstothe
west.
Historianswritingaboutthisperioddescribetheprevailingmood
amongeducatedGermansasoneofalienationandseparation:feeling
dividedwithinthemselvesbecauseofthedisconnectbetweentheliberal
principlesinwhichtheyhadbeeneducatedandtheconservativeprinciples
thatstillgovernedthesocietywheretheylivedandworked;anddivided
fromalargersenseofcommunionwithlike-mindedpeoplebythe
fragmentedsocialandpoliticallandscape.Intermslaterpopularizedbythe
FrenchRevolution,therewasafeltlackofliberty,equality,andfraternity.
Withlittlepracticalhopeofattainingthefirsttwoofthesethreeideals,
manyeducatedGermansfocusedtheirenergiesonthethird.Here,
leadershipcamefirstfromanotherconsequenceoftheThirtyYearsWar:
thegrowthofPietism.
Althoughmodernhistorianshavesuggestedthattherealcausesofthe
warwereeconomic,thoseinthemidstofthewarsawitasalife-and-death
battleoverthefutureoftheProtestantReformation.TheCatholicChurch
hadbeeneagertoseetheReformationsuppressedbymilitarymeans,as
hadhappenedtoearlierheterodoxmovementsthroughouttheMiddle
Ages.TheProtestantdenominations,inresponse,recognizedtheneedto
becomemoreorganizedandtoseekmilitarysupportoftheirown.In
exchangeforthissupport,however,theyfoundthemselvesforcedto
becomemoreandmoresubservienttotherulersalliedtotheircause.The
altar,tousethetermsofthetime,becamesubjecttothethrone.Tomake
thisfactmorepalatable,participantsinthewarjustifieditintermsofthe
87
veryminordifferencesofdoctrineseparatingtheProtestantsfromthe
Catholics.Afterthirtyyearsofkillingoneanotheroverquestionsofhowto
understandtheonenessoftheTrinity,orGod’spresence—orlackthereof—
inconsecratedbreadandwine,peoplebegantowonderifthiswasreally
whatChristianitywasallabout.ThejadedresponsewasYes,whichledto
thegrowthoftheanti-Christiansecularmovementsofthe18thcentury,
especiallyinScotlandandFrance.
TheunjadedresponsewasthegrowingbeliefthattheChristianmessage
wasonenotofthehead,butoftheheart.AsatrueChristian,oneshouldbe
measurednotbyone’sunderstandingoftheTrinitybutbyone’sright
feelingofloveforGod,howeveroneconceivedHim.This,inturn,wasto
bemeasuredindailylifebyone’srightlovingrelationshiptoone’sfellow
humanbeings.Variousreligiousmovementsgrewoutoftheseconvictions.
OnethatdevelopedinEnglandfromaparalleldisillusionmentwiththe
organizedchurchwasMethodism.TheprimemovementinGermanywas
Pietism.
Pietismappealedlargelytoanti-intellectuals,butitalsoattractedpeople
ofamorescholarlybent,whousedtheirphilosophicaltrainingtoshow
that,contrarytotheschooltheologians,nohumanbeingcouldforman
adequateconceptofGod,andsonoself-styledauthoritieshadtherightto
saythattheirconceptwasrightandanyoneelse’swrong.Becausethe
foundingprincipleoftheuniversecouldnotbeadequatelyconceptualized,
thebestuseofone’senergieswastodevelopaprovisionalconceptthat
workedinfosteringthelovethattheChristianmessageclearlycalledfor.In
otherwords,religioustruthsshouldbejudgedbypragmaticstandards:
theirability,nottorepresentrealityfully,buttoinspireacorrect
relationshiptoone’sGodandone’sfellowhumanbeings.
PietismwasoriginallyamovementwithintheLutheranChurch,butit
soonsparkedsimilarmovementsinCatholicpartsofGermanyaswell.
However,becausetheadministrationofchurchesinGermanywasoften
subjecttopoliticalinterferencefromlocalauthorities,themovement
developedalooserelationshiptoexistingchurchorganizations.Infact,it
fosteredaperceptionthattheRomanticsadoptedandhassincegrown
commonthroughouttheWest:thatorganizedreligionisinimicaltothe
genuinereligiouslifeoftheheart—orwhatwecurrentlycallthesplit
betweenreligionandspirituality.
Largevoluntarybrotherhoodsdeveloped,crossingstateboundaries,in
88
whichlike-mindedmenandwomencouldliveandworktogetherintheir
questtodeveloptherightqualitiesofheart.Oneoftheprimeactivitiesof
thesebrotherhoodswastoholdBible-readingcirclesinwhichmembers
wereencouragedtokeepdiariesofthestateoftheirsouls,tobesharedin
the(ideally)safeenvironmentofthecirclesothattheycouldlearnfromone
anotherhowtodeveloptherightattitudesofspirituallove.Otheractivities,
designedtobringthisloveintotheworld,includedthefoundingof
orphanagesandhospitalsforthecareofthepoor.
TheBible-readingcirclesofthePietistssooninspiredsecular
counterpartsamongtheeducatedadministrativeclassesofGermany:bookreadingclubsinwhichpeoplepursuedtheirownfurthereducationand
culturalimprovement,beyondtherote-learningtheyhadreceivedin
university.TheGermanwordforthisideal—aself-directedimprovement
ofnotonlyone’sknowledgebutalsoone’sgoodtaste,character,maturity,
andoverallculture—isBildung.BecausethereisnoEnglishwordadequate
totranslatethisconcept,wewillkeeptheGermanwordthroughoutthis
book.BildungwascentraltothesenseofaGermanculturalidentitythat,
duringthisperiod,begantotranscendstateboundaries.Insomeways,it
wasthesecularequivalentofpiety,inthatitwasamatterofthematurity
andqualityoftheentirecharacter,shapedbyphilosophyandliterary
sensibility,consciouslycultivatedinaself-directedway,andgoingfar
beyondtheeducationorganizedbythestate.
AlthoughBildungwasacquiredthroughone’sentirelifeexperience,it
wasinfluencedbyideaspickedupfrombooksanddiscussedinthebookreadingclubs.Book-publishingduringthisperiodexpandedatafasterrate
inGerman-speakingpartsofEuropethananywhereelse—asignnotonly
thatmoreGermanswerebecomingliterate,butalsothattheywerelooking
moreandmoretobooksfortheiremotionalandintellectualsustenance.
TheLeipzigcatalogofnewbooks,forinstance,listedapproximately1,200
titlesin1764,but5,000by1800.Favoritegenresincludedplays,travel
writing,essays,popularphilosophy,andnovels.Travelbooksallowed
peopletoimagineanddiscussalternatewaysoflifeinamannerthatthe
authoritiesdidnotfindthreatening.Annualessaycontestsprovoked
responsesfromalltheGermanlands,andsparkedwidespreaddiscussion
ofsuchtopicsasthemeaningofEnlightenment,therelationshipbetween
reasonandfeelings,andthefutureofGermanliterature.Popular
philosophybooksaddressedtheBigQuestionsoflife,butwithoutrequiring
89
technicalrigorfromtheirreaders.EvenKantwrotealayperson’sguideto
aestheticsthatwentthroughmoreprintingsduringhislifetimethananyof
hisotherworks.
Novelsinparticular,withtheirabilitytoexploresubtletiesoftheir
characters’psychologicalandemotionaldevelopmentinawaythatother
genrescouldnot,encouragedreaderstoseetheimportanceofexploring
theirowninneremotionalgrowth—athemewewillexplorefurtherbelow.
ThiswastheenvironmentintowhichnewsoftheFrenchRevolution
burstin1789.Asmightbeexpected,youngGermanuniversitystudents
wereoriginallyamongthemostardentsupportersoftheRevolution.
Hölderlin,Schelling,andHegel,onlearningofanimportantvictoryinthe
Revolution,planteda“treeofliberty”anddancedaroundit,inhopesthat
thegoodinfluenceoftheRevolutionwouldtakerootinGermanlands.But
evensomeolderportionsoftheeducatedGermanpublicresponded
positivelytotheRevolutionaswell.ImmanuelKant,forone,maintainedto
hislastcoherentdaythatithadbeenaGoodThinginadvancingthecause
ofhumanliberty.
ButastheRevolutionprogressedintoitsdarkerphases—theTerrorand
theEmpire—attitudesinGermany,evenamongtheenthusiastsfor
freedom,begantochange:Whathadgonewrong?Conservatives,ofcourse,
gloatedoverthefailureoftheRevolution,claimingitasproofthatliberty
andequalityhadtobestampedoutwherevertheyrearedtheirhead.
Moreliberalthinkers,however,begantolookforanotheranswer,one
thatmightshowasaferroutetoaGermansocietyinwhichliberty,equality,
andfraternitycouldultimatelyprevail.Oneoftheanswerstheyultimately
proposedwaspeculiarlyGermaninthesensethatitgrewfromGerman
conditionsfosteredbytheThirtyYearsWar:TheRevolutionhadfailed
becausetheFrenchlackedthekindofBildungneededtohandleliberty.The
follow-upquestionsthenbecame:WhatkindofBildungmightthatbe?And
howcoulditbefosteredtotakerootinGermansoil?
ThesequestionswerethelegacythattheFrenchRevolutionlefttothe
earlyRomantics.Toanswerthem,theRomanticsturnedtolookatthestate
ofcontemporaryGermanBildung.Philosophy—atthattimethequeenof
thesciencesinGermanuniversities—wasoneofthefirstplacesthey
looked.
90
PHILOSOPHY
Fourphilosophers—threelivingandonedead—provedmostinfluential
inshapingearlyRomanticthought.ThedeadphilosopherwasPlato,whom
wewilldiscussattheendofthissection,becausehisinfluencewasfiltered
throughwhatthelivingphilosopherswereteaching.
Amongthelivingphilosophers,onlyone—JohannGottliebFichte(1762–
1814)—wasaphilosopherbyprofession.Theothertwo—FriedrichSchiller
(1759–1805)andJohannGottfriedHerder(1744–1803)—wereknown
primarilyfortheirliteraryaccomplishments,buttheirphilosophical
writingsproved,inthelongrun,moreinfluentialthanFichte’sinshaping
thewaytheearlyRomanticsthoughtaboutartanditsrelationshipto
freedomandlifeingeneral.
Allthreeoftheselivingphilosophershad,atonepointoranother,been
studentsorfollowersofImmanuelKant(1724–1804),andallhadbroken
withhimforvariousreasons.TheRomantics,inturn,endedupbreakingin
variouswaysfromallthree—insomeinstancesreturningtothemesthe
threehaddiscardedfromKant;inothers,goingevenfurtheraway.Soto
understandtheRomantics,wehavetostartwithasketchofwhatitwasin
Kantthattheyfoundmostusefulandmostinneedofcorrection.
Kant
ThemainthemeofmodernEuropean
philosophywasonethattheBuddhawould
haveclassedasaquestionultimatelynot
worthanswering,inthatitwasframedin
termsofbecoming:Whatisahumanbeing’s
placeintheworld?Inethicalterms,dowe
havefreewilltoactintheworld,orarewe
simplyautomatonswhocannotknowor
controlthereasonsfortheiractions?Asthese
questionswerepursued,theysparked
furtherself-reflectivequestions:Istherea
self?Isthereaworldoutsideofone’sown
mind?Howcouldoneknowthesethingsfor
sure?
91
Sometypicalanswerswerethese:
•Theworldisjustasweperceiveit,anditcanbeunderstoodbyworkingdown
tofirstprinciples—aboutwhatthingsareintheiressence,bothintheworldandin
themind—andthenderivingourexperiencefromthoseprinciples.
•Theworldexistsonlyinthemind,whichistheonlyessentialsubstancethere
is.
•Thereisnowaythatwecanknowtheessencesofthings,forallweknoware
representationsderivedthroughthesenses.Wecan’tevenknowifcausalityis
reallyatworkbehindoursensedata,becausecausalitycanneverbeseeninaction.
Evenourselfisunknowable.It’ssimplyanassumptionthatliesoutsidetherange
ofoursenses.
Kantgainedhisreputationasamajorphilosopherbecauseofthenovel
andprovocativewayheaddressedthesequestions.Insteadoffocusingona
questtoconfirmordenyessencesoutsideorinside,helookedattheway
consciousnessinteractedwiththeinputofthesenses,showingthatthe
basicrawmaterialofknowledgeiscomposednotofsensedata,butof
judgmentsaboutsensedata.Inotherwords,whatweperceivedirectlyis
notthings-in-themselvesintheworldoutsideortheselfinside,butthe
workingsofreasoninshapingexperienceinthemiddleground.Wemake
ourexperience,and—asKantoftensaid—weknowbest,notwhatis,but
whatwemake.
However,thisfactdoesnotpreventusfromcomingtoobjective
conclusionsaboutourplaceintheworld,forifweexamine,through
introspection,theworkingsofreasoninaction,wecanpenetratebeyond
thesubjectivecontentofourexperiencestotheirobjectivestructureorform,
whichhastobethesameforallconscious,rationalbeings.Inotherwords,
welearnobjectivefactsabouttheworldofexperiencebyobservingthe
waysourreasonhastoshapeit.Kantcalledthisapproachcritical,inthatit
tookacriticalviewofthepowersandlimitationsofreason,and
transcendental,inthatitsoughttodiscovernecessary,objectiveformsof
consciousactivitythattranscendedthepurelysubjectivelevel;i.e.,all
subjectiveexperiencehadtopresupposeandfollowtheseforms.(Kant’s
meaningofthetermtranscendentalherediffersfromthemeaningsthatother
thinkerswillbeusingthroughoutthisbook,sotakenoteofhowthese
meaningschange.)
Oneoftheconsequencesofthiscritical,transcendentalapproachisthat
Kantdevelopedanovelcriterionfortruth.Becausethings-in-themselves
92
cannotbeknown,thereisnowaytomeasurethetruthofajudgmentby
seeinghowwellitrepresentsreality“outthere.”Instead,itstruthhastobe
measuredbyitscoherencewithone’sotherjudgments“inhere.”Because
coherencehasobjective,rationalstandards,one’sassessmentoftruthisnot
entirelysubjective,butitnevertheless,byKant’sreasoning,becomesan
internalqualitywithinconsciousness.
Inhissearchforcoherence,Kantbeganbydividingreasonintotwo
sorts:theoreticalandpractical.Theoreticalreasondealtwithbeliefs
concerningsuchquestionsastherealityofcausality,theexistenceofan
immortalself,andtheexistenceofGod.Kantfeltthat,onthegroundsof
theoreticalreasonalone,causality—themechanicalcausalityofthe
Newtonianuniverse—hadtobeacceptedasanobjective,transcendental
formofsensoryexperience,whereastheexistenceofGodandanimmortal
selfcouldneitherbeprovennordisproven.
Practicalreasondealtwiththeareaofaction,andit,too,hadanobjective
formthatwasuniversalforallrationalbeings:respectforone’sdutyas
dictatedbyreasonintheformofwhatKantcalledthecategoricalimperative,
i.e.,animperativethatwasthedutyofallrationalbeings.Hisprimary
formulationofthisimperativewasthatoneshouldactonlyonmaximsthat
onewouldwillforallotherbeingstoactonaswell.Forthisimperativeto
havepowerinpractice,itrequired—andsojustified—assumingtwo
principlesthattheoreticalreasoncouldnotprove:theexistenceofGodto
provideapurposeformoralactions(byhavingapurposefortheuniverse),
andtheimmortalityofthesoul(toreceivetherewardsfromhelpingto
fulfillthatpurpose).
Theimperativealsogavepracticaljustificationfortheassumptionthat
humanbeingswerefreeintwosenses.Thehigherofthetwosenseswas
autonomy:thefreedomfromone’spassionsthatresultedfromtakingthe
dutyofreasonasthesolemotivationforone’sactions.Thelessersenseof
freedomwasspontaneity:freedomtoactinwaysnotdeterminedbythe
lawsofstrictcausalitysothatonecouldchoosetofollowthoseimperatives
ornot.Theassumptionofthesetwoformsoffreedom,however,flewinthe
faceofoneofthenecessaryformsoftheoreticalreason:thatexperience
followstrict,mechanicalcausallaws.Whenthisisthecase,howcana
personhavefreewilltoactinawaythatinfluencesexperience?
Otherthinkersmighthaveconcludedthatfreedomofwillwasthusan
impossibility,butnotKant.Forhim,everythingworthyofrespectineach
93
humanbeingcamefromfreedominbothhissensesoftheterm.Anyone
whobelievesthatgovernmentsshouldnotoppresspeople—thatpeople
deservetobetreatedasendsinthemselvesandnotasameanstoone’s
ends—hastorespecttheprinciplethatpeoplehavethedignityoffreedom.
Ifyouhaveanyrespectforhumanthoughtatall—eitheryourownorthat
ofothers—youhavetorespecttheprinciplethatpeoplearefree.
However,Kantdidnotproposethattheprinciplesoftheoreticalreason
shouldbediscardedtomakewayfortheprincipleofpracticalreason.He
expressedtheconflicthereasagenuinedilemma.
Still,hedidproposetwoapproachesfordealingwiththisdilemma,
neitherofwhichsatisfiedtheRomantics—ormanyothers,forthatmatter.
Thefirstapproachwastostatethatthereweretwolevelsofself:the
phenomenalself,ortheselfasexperiencedintherealmofnature,which
meantthatitwassubjecttothecausallawsofnature;andthenoumenalself
—theselfin-and-of-itself—whichlayoutsidetheworldofnatureandso
wasnotsubjecttothoselaws.Thisdistinction,however,createdadivided
self,withtherelationshipbetweenthetwoselvesleftunexplained.Italso
meantthattheselfin-and-of-itselfwasunknowable—justasthings-inthemselves,outsideourexperience,werealsounknowable—anditfurther
lefthangingthequestionofhowsuchaselfcouldactuallyinfluencethe
worldofexperience.
Kant’ssecondapproachwastocallinanotherareaofphilosophy:the
fieldofaesthetics,orthestudyofbeauty.Theexperienceofbeauty,he
claimed,didnotprovethattherewasaresolutionofthedilemma,butitdid
intimatethatfreedomofwillmight,onasupersensiblelevel,becompatible
withcausalityonthesensiblelevel.Hisargumentherecenteredontwo
concepts.
Thefirstwasthebeautiful.Beautifulthingsexpressfreedominthatthey
excitethefreeplayofourimaginativefacultiesaswecontemplatethem.In
fact,Kantinsistedthattherewerenoobjectivestandardsofbeauty,
probablywiththepurposeofmaintainingthattheexperienceofbeautywas
oneoffreedom.Atthesametime,though,beautifulobjectsexpress
necessityinthattheysuggestthatalltheirpartsaremeanttoserveasingle
aim.Inthisway,theyarelikebiologicalorganisms.Thewordsuggesthere
isimportant,becausewecanhavenoproofthatthecreatorofabeautiful
objecthadanypurposeforit.Still,thebeautyoftheobjectexcitesastrong
intimationthatthisisso.Andthus,Kantargued,thesamecanbesaidfor
94
biologicalcreation:Thepurposivenessofanimalandplantlifesuggeststhat
thereisapurposefortheuniverseasawhole.Inthissense,beautyisa
symboloftherealityofthemorallaw.Itisalsoasymbolofthefitnessof
thepartsoftheuniversetooneanother,suggestingthatthetranscendental
patternsofreasonfitwellwiththewaythingsactuallyareinandof
themselves.
Kant’ssecondconcept—whichhadalongpasthistory,stretchingback
totheEpicureans—wasthatofthesublime.Sublimeobjectsgobeyondbeing
beautifulbecausetheyaresoimmensethattheygiverisetoasenseofterror
andawe.Typicalexamplesincludemountains,canyons,waterfalls,and
sunsets.(Asonewildernesswriterhasnoted,thetheoryofthesublime
providedtheimpetusfortheAmericanexperimentinsettingasidelandfor
nationalparks.Onlyinthe1930’swasanon-sublimepieceofwilderness,a
swamp,setaside.)
Duringthe18thcentury,whentheconceptofthesublimetookonnew
life,thinkersweredividedastowhetherthesublimedimensionsofnature
weretrulyterrifying,inthesensethattheycalledintoquestionthe
possibilityofanylarger,benevolentforcebehindthem,oriftheywere
ultimatelyreassuringindemonstratingthat,nomatterhowgreatthey
were,thebenevolentGodwhocreatedthemhadtobeevengreater.Kant
fellintothesecondcamp.Theoverwhelmingimmensityofsublime
experiences,togetherwithasenseoftheirorderlinessinfollowingcausal
laws,hesaid,exciteswithinthemindafeelingthattheremustbea
supersensiblefacultyatworkintheuniverse.Infact,Kantfeltthatthesheer
possibilityofthinkingsuchathoughtwithoutcontradictioncouldbeseen
asasignofasupersensiblefaculty,outsideoftimeandplace,atwork
withintheminditself.Thus,forhim,theexperienceandthoughtofthe
sublimesuggested—eventhoughtheydidnotprove—bothabenevolent
Godandanimmortalself—andaconnectionbetweenthetwo.
Kant’sdiscussionofbeautyiswherehemostclearlyshowshisPietist
roots.Infact,thereissomejusticeintheview,occasionallyexpressed,that
hisphilosophycanbereadasasustainedattempttoprovidePietismwitha
rigorous,philosophicallyrespectableform.Certainly,manyofthe
inconsistenciesanddilemmasheleftunresolvedcanbeexplainedbyan
underlyingPietistagenda,consciousornot.
Asalreadynoted,Kant’sproposedwaysoutofthedilemmaheposed
betweentheoreticalandpracticalreasondidnotsatisfytheRomantics—or
95
anyofthethreephilosopherswhohadamoredirectimpactonthe
Romantics.ButitwasatributetothepowerandoriginalityofKant’s
reasoningthathisphilosophy,eventhoughimperfect,excitedsomuch
thoughtthroughoutEuropeandbeyondinresponse.Inparticular,six
aspectsofhisphilosophyprovedespeciallyattractivetotheRomantics:
•hisapproachoflookingattheworkingsofthemind,asanactive
principle,toexplainexperienceasawhole,
•hisstandardoftruthasaninternalquality,
•hisinsistencethatmanymetaphysicalissuescouldnotberesolvedby
theoreticalreason,
•hisinsistenceonthecentralityoffreedominanyrespectable
philosophy,
•hisproposalthataestheticsmightholdthekeyforsolvingproblems
beyondtherealmofthepurelyaesthetic,and
•hisdoctrineoftheexperienceofthesublimeasanintimationofthe
divine.
AllofthesethemesprovidedtheRomanticsandtheirteacherswith
amplefoodforthought.
Fichte
OneofthemajorflawsinKant’sphilosophy
washisinsistence,ontheonehand,that
reasonrequiresacomplete,coherent
explanationforallofexperience,and,onthe
other,thatreasonhastorecognizeits
inabilitytoprovidesuchanexplanation.
Manyofhisfollowerstriedtoresolvethis
inconsistency,oneofthemostcreative
attemptsbeingthatofJohannGottliebFichte,
whointurntaughtphilosophydirectlyto
manyoftheearlyRomantics.Fichtefeltthat,
insmoothingoutmanyofthetwistsand
turnsinKant’sreasoning,hewasbeingtrue
tothecriticalspiritofKant’sphilosophyevenashechangedmanyofits
basicoutlines.
96
FichtefollowedKantingivingprimacytotheneedforphilosophyto
respecttheprincipleoffreedom,andhedefinedfreedominthesametwo
sensesthatKantdid:autonomyandspontaneity.
Infact,intheareaswherehedepartedfromKant,Fichtegaveevenmore
primacytotheseprinciplesoffreedomthanhadhismaster.Tobeginwith,
hedroppedthedivisionbetweentheoreticalandpracticalreason,saying
thatinrealitytherewasonlyoneformofreason:practical.FollowingKant’s
maximthatweknowonlywhatwedo,Fichtearguedthatgenuine
knowledgecancomeonlybydoing,andnotbypurethinking.Because
practicalreasonhastoassumefreedom,theargumentsoftheoreticalreason
fordeterministic,mechanicallawsatworkinnaturehavenovalidity.
Thismeansthatthereisnoneedtosaythatfreedomisinanyway
paradoxicalorthattheselfisunknowable.Fichtearguedthat,infact,the
selfisdirectlyknownthroughanactof“intellectualintuition,”which
meantthatthisknowledgewasnotmediatedthroughthesensesandtheir
attendantconcepts,butthroughadirectexperienceoftheself’sactivity.
Thisactivitycouldbedirectlyexperiencedastheselfstrivedtoimposeits
reasononwhateverpartsofnaturewere“not-self.”Becausethisknowledge
isdirect,theselfhasnoessencelyingbehinditsactivityofstriving;infact,
theselfispurestriving.Itiswhatitmakesitself,anditsknowledgeofitself
isnodifferentfromwhatitmakesitself.
ThisprincipletakesKant’smaximthatweknowonlywhatwemaketo
anaudaciousextreme.Giventhat,inmanyChristiantheologicalsystems—
suchasthatofThomasAquinas,whosetheologybecametheofficial
doctrineoftheCatholicChurchduringtheCounter-reformation—thestatus
ofbeingpureactivityidenticalwithpureself-knowledgewasreservedonly
forGod,it’seasytoseewhyFichteeventuallyranafouloftheauthorities.
AlthoughFichtesawtheselfasfreeinthespontaneoussense—thatit
wasabletostrivetomakeitselfanythingatall—hedidnotbelievethattrue
freedomwastotallyarbitrary,fortheonlywaytheselfcouldknowthatit
wasnotaslavetoitspassionswouldbeforittoexerciseautonomyaswell.
Inotherwords,itwastrulyfreeonlywhenittookonKant’scategorical
imperativeastheprincipleguidingitsactions.
Becausewhatisnot-selfwillneverfullysuccumbtothestrivingofthe
self,theexperienceoftheselfisoneofendlessstriving.Thiscertainlywas
trueofFichte’sownlife,inthathelosttwoprofessorships—firstinJena,
theninBerlin—asaresultofstandingupforhismoralprincipleswhen
97
universityofficialshadaskedhimtocompromisethem.
Fichteadmittedthattherewasacircularitytohisreasoning:Becausehe
deniedthevalidityoftheoreticalreason,hecouldnotprovideapurely
rationaljustificationfortheprincipleoffreedom.Sohesimplyassertedthat
therewasamoraldutytobelieveinfreedom.Butfortheretobesucha
thingasamoralduty,theprincipleoffreedomhastobetrue.Inother
words,beliefinmoraldutyrequiresabeliefinfreedom,butbeliefin
freedomrequiresabeliefinmoralduty.Fichteofferednowayoutofthis
circle.
IntheearlyyearsoftheFrenchRevolution,studentswerewillingto
overlookthiscircularitybecauseFichte’steachingsonfreedomprovidedan
attractiverallyingpointfortheirrevolutionaryaspirations.Histeachingson
theselfasbeingdirectlyknowableinitsspontaneousself-creation
remainedattractivetotheearlyRomanticsevenastheyeventuallyrejected
otheraspectsofhisphilosophy.However,astheFrenchRevolutionentered
itsdarkstages,theideaofthesingle-mindedpursuitoffreedombeganto
losesomeofitsluster.
AstheearlyRomanticsbegantoarticulatetheirdisenchantmentwith
Fichte’sphilosophy,twoissuesstoodout.First,hisaccountoftheselfas
nothingbutstriving—actingontheworldwhileresistingbeingactedonby
theworld—struckthemasnarrowandone-sided.Fromtheirpointofview,
developedpartlyfromtheirlessonsinbiology,afullaccountoftheself
wouldalsohavetoaccountforhowtheworldactedontheself.
Second,inabolishingthedilemmabetweentheoreticalandpractical
reason,Fichtehadalsoremovedtheneedforaestheticstoplayaroleinhis
philosophy.Anditwasinpursuitofaserviceableunderstandingoftherole
ofaestheticsindevelopingBildungthattheearlyRomanticsreturnedto
Kantforhisdoctrineoftheexperienceofthesublime.Buttheyfoundhis
conceptofthebeautifultoolifelessinthatitignoredtheroleofdesire.Fora
moreadequateconceptofbeauty,theythusturnedtotwoofKant’sother
formerfollowers—SchillerandHerder—andeventuallytoPlato.
Schiller
FriedrichSchillerwasaplaywrightandpoet,notaprofessional
philosopher.Infact,heisbestknowntoposterityforhisOde,“ToJoy,”
whichBeethovensetextravagantlytomusicintheNinthSymphony.Still,
98
Schillerhadaphilosophicalandmedical
educationunderautocraticconditionsthat
inspiredalife-longinterestintheissueof
freedom.Inseekingtodeepenhis
understandingofthisissue,heundertooka
thoroughstudyofKant’sphilosophy,atfirst
agreeingwithKant’sconclusions,andthen
finallyarrivingatapositionofhisown.
ThemainoutlineofSchiller’sposition
paralleledKant’s:thattheaestheticiswhat
mediatesthesplitinhumannature,allowing
forthepossibilityoffreedom.Butbecause
Schiller’sviewofwhatahumanbeingis
differedradicallyfromKant’s,hecametoa
radicallydifferentconclusionaboutwhatfreedommeansandhowitis
found.
Kanthadstatedinhistreatise,ReligionWithintheLimitsofReasonAlone,
thateachhumanbeinghadthreedispositions:animality,humanity,and
personhood.Animalityisthedispositiontophysicalself-love,expressedin
thedrivetosurvive,topropagatethespecies,andtoengageinsocial
activity.Humanityisthedispositiontoself-lovethatcomparesoneselfto
otherhumanbeingsandcompeteswiththem,firsttoattainequality,then
togainmasteryoverthem.Personhoodistheinnatedispositiontorespect
one’sdutyforitsownsakeasasufficientincentivetobehavemorally.
ForKant,onlythethirdaspectofhumannaturewasgenuinelyworthy
ofrespect,asitwastheonlyaspecttrulyfreeinanautonomoussense.Thus
ithadtobedevelopedsothatitcouldoverridetheothertwodispositions.
Infact,Kantinsistedthatactionswereauthenticallymoralonlywhen
motivatedbypurerespectforduty.Actionsinlinewithone’sdutythatalso
happenedtobemotivatedbyconsiderationsthatservedone’sanimality
andhumanity—say,tosurviveortobesociable—didnot,strictlyspeaking,
qualifyasmoral.
ThiswasthepointthateventuallystuckinSchiller’scraw.Theshort
versionofhisresponsewasawittylittleversewhose“verdict”satirized
Kant’sposition:
TheScrupleofConscience
99
‘Iservemyfriendsgladlybut—sadly—withfondness.
So,often,I’manxiousthatIamnotvirtuous.’
TheVerdict
‘There’snootheradvice:Youmuststrivetodespisethem,
AndthenwithdisgustdowhatDutydemands.’(trans.Beiser)
ThelongversionofSchiller’sresponsecameintwobooksonmoral
issues:GraceandDignityandLettersontheAestheticEducation[Bildung]of
Man.Thebasicpositionofthesebooks,takentogether,canbesummarized
asfollows:
SchilleragreedwithKantthatthereisastrictdichotomywithineach
humanbeingbetweenanimaldrives(Treib)andthedrivesofreason.
However,hecametotheconclusionthatKant’spictureofhowthesedrives
functionwithinthehumanbeing—andhowthemoraldrivesareeven
knowninthefirstplace—wasbothunhealthyanduntruetothefacts.This
conclusioniswhatledhimtodevelopadoctrineoffreedomthatdiffered
sharplyfromKant’s.
Schiller’sviewsonhumannaturecamefromthetheoryofmedicine—
calledphilosophicalmedicine—inwhichhehadbeentrained.This
approachtreatedthebodyandmindnotasradicallyseparate,butastwo
differentbutinteractivepartsofasingleorganism,inwhichthehealthof
onepartisnecessaryforthehealthoftheother.Foradoctor,thismeant
thatdiseasesinthebodydidnotnecessarilystemonlyfromphysical
causes.Theircureoftenrequiredthatdiseasesofthemindbetreatedas
well.Idealhealth,eventhoughitcouldneverbefullyaccomplished,wasto
bepursuedbytryingtobringthesetwosidesoftheorganismtowholeness
andharmoniousbalance.
Fromthisperspective,Schillerdevelopedbothapsychologyofmorals
andagenealogyofmorals—i.e.,atheoryofhowpeoplecometoknowthe
morallawanddevelopafeelingforitintheirlives.
Thepsychologyisbasedontheprincipleofthehealthofahumanbeing
asawholeorganism.If,asKantclaimed,moralactionshadtoserveone
partoftheorganism—one’spersonhood—attheexpenseofone’sanimality
andhumanity,theycouldn’tbetrulyhealthy.ThusSchillerconcludedthat
freedomwasnotamatterofonepartofthehumanmindlegislatingatthe
expenseoftherestofthehumanbeing.Instead,freedomwastheabilityto
100
findharmonyamongthevariousdrives—bothphysicalandmental—that
madeupthehumanbeingasawhole.
Thisisaconceptoffreedomradicallydifferentfromanythingadvocated
byKantorFichte—anddifferentfromanythingtheywouldhave
recognizedasgenuinefreedom.Itleavesnoroomforfreedomas
autonomy,andplacessevererestrictionsonthefreedomofspontaneity.
Freedomisnowsubjecttothevariouscompetingdrivesthathavetobe
broughtintobalance,withnowaytoliberateitselffromthosedrives.By
makingfreedomthepursuitofinternalwholenessandbalance,Schiller
madeitlessanethicalcategorythananaestheticone.Infact,inoneofhis
earlierwritings,hehadcementedtheconceptoffreedomtoaestheticsby
tweakingKant’sformulafortherelationshipbetweenfreedomandbeauty:
Insteadofbeingasymboloffreedom,beautyinSchiller’seyeswasthe
appearanceoffreedom—thewayharmonylooks,bothbyinferencetothe
observeranddirectlybythepersonwhoisabletoactinharmoniousways.
Becausefreedom,forSchiller,isthepursuitofharmoniouswholeness,it
parallelsthepursuitofthehealthoftheindividualinthatitisanunending
pursuitratherthanagoaltobeattained.Thisdefinitionoffreedomalso
affectsSchiller’sdefinitionoftheunderlyingmotivationforthemorallife.
Insteadofbeinginspiredbyaninnaterespectforduty,themorallifeisnow
inspiredbythedesireforwholeness.
Schiller’sgenealogyofmoralsattemptedtoexplainhowthisdesireis
cultivatedinthefirstplace.Indoingso,heshowedthatbeautyismorethan
justtheappearanceoffreedom.Anaestheticsense,inhiseyes,isactually
whatmakesanethicalsensepossible.
Ahumanbeing,hesaid,doesnotstartwithaninnaterespectforthe
morallaw.Instead,onestartswithajumbleofpredispositionsthatfallinto
threemajorcategories:thesensedrive,thedrivetosatisfybasicphysical
needs;theplaydrive,theaestheticdriveforpleasuresthatarefreely
creative;andtheformdrive,thedriveforreasonandmorality.Theplay
driveistheonlydrivefreefromcompulsion,anditiswhatbringsthesense
driveandtheformdriveintoharmony:i.e.,theplaydriveiswherefreedom
isfound.Infact,theexerciseoftheplaydriveiswhatmakespeopleaware
oftheformdrivetobeginwith.
Whenlifeisnothingbutastruggletosurvive,peoplehavenotimeor
energytobeevenawareoftheirformdrive,muchlesstofollowit.Instead,
theyaredevotedonlytotheneedsoftheirsensedrive,whichoftenbrings
101
themintoconflictwithoneanother.However,whentheirbasicneedsare
met,theyturntoplay:singing,dancing,tellingstories.Astheydoso,they
findenjoymentinoneanother’scompany.
Ifdonecarelessly,theexerciseoftheplaydrivecanleadtodissolute
harmandfurtherconflict.Butifdonewithreflection,itcaneventuallylead
peopletothinkinmoralterms:howbesttolivetogetherwithoneanother
infairnessandharmony—fraternity,inthesenseoftheRevolution,or
wholenesswritlarge—soastofindmoreenjoymenttogetheroverthelong
run.
Whatthismeansisthatone’ssenseofmoralitydoesnotdevelopin
contradictiontoone’sfeelingsandsocialdrives,asitdoesinKant’stheory.
Instead,themoralsensecomesaboutasaresultofone’sfeelingsandsocial
drives—whenthesearetrainedthroughareflectiononhowone’slongtermwellbeingdependsonpursuingwholenessbothwithinandwithout.
Thisiswhereaestheticeducationcomesin:trainingtheplaydriveso
thatitleadsinamoraldirection.Schiller’sownexperiencewithstatesponsorededucationconvincedhimthatgovernmentswereill-equippedto
providethesortofeducationthatpeopleneededinordertobecomefree.
Ideally,governmentswoulddirecttheeconomicordersothatpeoplewere
notalienatedfromtheirlabor—aswhentheyhadnocontroloverthe
objectstheymade—orfromoneanotherthroughunfairexploitation.Atthe
veryleast,governmentsshouldprovidetheeconomicconditionswhereby
allmembersofsocietyhadtheirneedswellenoughmetsothattheyhad
timeandleisuretoenjoythearts,suchasthetheaterandbooks.
Oncepeoplewerereadyforthearts,though,itwastheartist’sdutyto
providetheiraestheticeducation.Thepurposeofthistypeofeducationwas
toleadthemtothe“aestheticcondition”—astateofmindwheretheycould
stepbackfromtheimmediateconcernsoftheirsensedrivesand
contemplate(1)thefactthattheyalsohadformdrives,and(2)thatthey
wereinapositiontochoosewhethertobringtheirformdrivesandsense
drivesintoharmony.Inotherwords,atrueworkofartshouldnotpreach
morality,forthatwouldbetediousandself-defeating.Instead,itshould
raisemoralquestionsandgetitsaudiencetoseetheirownlivesas
involvingmoralissues.Thenitwasuptothemtoexercisetheirfreedomof
choicetopursuethegoalofharmonizingtheirvariousdrives.
Schillerdelineatedtwotypesofmoralactionsthatcanresultwhenthe
moralsenseisdeveloped:thoseperformedwithgraceandthoseperformed
102
withdignity.Actionsperformedwithgracearethemoralideal:thosein
whichone’sfeelingsandpreferencesareinharmonywithone’sknowledge
ofwhatthemorallawrequires.Youwanttodowhatyouknowyouought
todo.Wheninnerharmonyisachievedthroughself-training,thegracethat
characterizestheresultingactionsistheappearanceoffreedom.Thisisone
ofthewaysinwhichmoralityparallelsart:Aworkofartisbeautifulwhen
thereisnosensethattheauthorhadtostraintoforceitsvariouspartsintoa
harmoniouswhole.Infact,inSchiller’seyes,theultimateworkofartisthe
beautifulsoul,asdisplayedintheactionsitfreelyperforms.
Actionsperformedwithdignityarethosewhereone’sfeelingsareat
oddswithwhatthemorallawrequires—youdon’twanttodowhatyou
oughttodo—andyetoneisabletoovercomethosefeelingstodowhatis
right.Theseactionslackthebeautyofgracefulactions,fortheyare
obviouslydoneunderduress,buttheyareneverthelessinspiringtoothers
whoarealsostrugglingwiththeirownresistancetothemorallaw.Asa
playwright,Schillerknewthatthedepictionofthesekindsofactionsmade
forbetterdramathangracefulactions—andforamoreeducationaldrama
aswell,inthattheyhighlightedmoralissueswithoutshrinkingfromthe
difficultiesthatthepursuitofwholenessmightbring.
Schiller’sLettersontheAestheticEducationofManwaswrittentoaddress
aquestionprovokedbythefailureoftheFrenchRevolution:howBildung
couldpreparepeopleforasocietyinwhichtheycouldbegenuinelyfree.
ThustheselettersspokedirectlytoanissuethatfascinatedtheRomantics.
Inparticular,theycontainedtwomaximsthathadahugeimpactnotonly
ontheearlyRomanticsbutalsoonmanylatergenerationsofartistsand
psychologists:(1)“Humanbeingsplayonlywhentheyare,inthefullsense
oftheword,human;andtheyarefullyhumanonlywhentheyplay.”(2)“If
manisevertosolvetheproblemofpoliticsinpracticehewillhaveto
approachitthroughtheproblemoftheaesthetic,becauseitisonlythrough
beautythatmanmakeshiswaytofreedom.” 2 Takentogether,these
maximsoutlinetheprogramtheRomanticspursued:howtotraintheplay
drivesoastobringaboutfreedom.
Asnotedabove,Beethoven,too,wasinspiredbySchiller’sdreamof
usingartasameanstofreedom.Infact,whenhesettheOde“ToJoy”to
music,hechosetheversionthatSchillerhadrevisedin1803tobetterreflect
hismaturethoughtsonhowthejoyofplayleadstowholenesswithinthe
humanrace:
103
Joy,lovelysparkofthegods,daughterofElysium:
Weapproach,drunkwithfire,yourheavenly,holyshrine.
Yourmagicreuniteswhatcustomsternlyrendsapart.
Allmenbecomebrotherswhereyourgentlewinghasspread.
Schillerknewthat,becauseoftheinnatedichotomyineveryhuman
being,thisbrotherhoodwasagoaltobepursuedeventhoughitcould
neverbefullyachieved.Thisviewtoo—thatfreedomandharmonywereto
befoundinprocess,andnotinanyfinalattainment—hadahugeimpacton
theRomantics,eventhoughtheyultimatelyrejectedthepsychologyon
whichitwasbased.Forthebasicpremiseoftheirownpsychology,they
turnedinsteadtoHerder.
Herder
OneoftheironiesoftheRomanticmovement
isthatoneofitsprimefathers—Johann
GottfriedHerder—receivedsolittleexplicit
acknowledgementfromtheearlyRomantics
themselves.Perhapsthiswasbecausehis
influencewasstructural:Heprovidedthem
withthebasicoutlinesfortheirworldview,
fortheirunderstandingofart,andfortheir
senseoftheirownplaceintheworldandin
history.Becausestructureliesunderthe
surface,itoftengoesunnoticedbypeople
standingrightnexttoit.
AnotherreasonwasthatHerderwas
activelydislikedbyKantandpeopleloyalto
Kant,suchasFichte.OfthevariousstudentswhobrokeawayfromKant,
HerderexcitedwithinKantthestrongestfeelingsofbetrayal,forHerder—
inKant’seyes—hadgoneovertotheenemy.
Herderhadcomefromapoorbackground.Kant—seeinghistalent—
hadarrangedforhimtoattendhislecturesgratis,anddevotedagreatdeal
oftimetoHerder’sgrowthasastudent.However,Herdercameunderthe
influenceofamysticalthinkerlivinginKönigsberg,JohannGeorg
Hamann,andeventuallydecidedthatKant’sbeliefinpure,universal
104
rationalprinciplesgoverningtheentirelifeofthemindwasfartoonarrow.
Inhiseyes,thereasonsofthehumanheartandmind—asexemplifiedinthe
vastrangeofhumancultureoverthelongcourseofhistory—weremuch
toowonderfullyvariegatedtobeadequatelyjudgedandunderstoodby
universalrules.HealsorejectedKant’sideathataestheticappreciationwas
tobetreatedsimplyasasubjectiveissue,forthatwoulddenythe
possibilitythatimportantlessonscouldbelearnedbyconsciously
developingone’saesthetictastes.
Herder’slifepurposethusbecamethequestforprinciplesthatwould
allowonetoappreciateallproductsofhumancultureontheirownterms—
whathecalledthedevelopmentofan“infinitesphereoftaste,”notthe
narrowtastesof18thcenturyrationalism.AshewroteinhisFourCritical
Groves:
“Toliberateoneselffromthisinnateandenculturated
idiosyncrasy…andultimatelytobeabletorelish—withoutnational,
temporalandpersonaltaste—thebeautifulasitpresentsitselfinall
timesandallpeoplesandallartsandallformsoftaste…totasteit
purelyandtobesensitivetoit.Happyishewhocansorelish!Heis
theinitiatedintothemysteriesofallthemusesandallthetimesand
allthemementosandalltheworks:thesphereofhistasteisas
infiniteasthehistoryofmankind.” 3
Throughhiswritingsandresearches,Herderlaidthegroundworkfor
manymodernandpostmoderndisciplines:culturalanthropology,folk
studies,andintellectualhistoryamongthem.Healsorevived,almost
single-handedly,appreciationfortheworksofShakespeare—whointhe
18thcenturywasatthenadirofhiscriticalreputation—andhewasamong
thefirstEuropeanphilosopherstoexpressadmirationforthereligionsof
India.Healsodevotedhissparetimetocollectingfolksongs,firstinLatvia,
wherehewasbrieflypostedasaLutheranminister,andthenlater,together
withGoethe,inGermany.Ifdiversitystudiescouldhaveadeadwhitemale
asitspatronsaint,Herderwouldbetheone.
Educatedinphilosophy,Herdertriedtofindphilosophical
underpinningstojustifyhisinterests.Thephilosophyheeventually
developedgrewfromthreeprinciples:vitalism,thetheorythattheuniverse
isanimatedbyanorganiclivingforce;historicism,thebeliefthatsomething
canbeunderstoodonlythroughitsownhistoryanditsplaceinthelarger
105
historyoftheuniverse;andmonism,thetheorythattheuniverseisallOne.
Hederivedthesethreeprinciplesfromthreedisparatesources.Thevitalism
camefromtheorganicviewsofsciencethatweredevelopingatthetime
(Herderwasafriendofthegeologist,JohannHeinrichMerck,andcited
AlbrechtvonHaller’sresearchesintotheroleofmagnetismandelectricity
inbiologicaltissues).Thehistoricismcamefromthefounderofarthistory,
JohannJoachimWinckelmann(1717–1768);andthemonism,fromKant’s
nemesis,BenedictSpinoza(1632–1677).
Onagenerallevel,thereisalogicconnectingallthreesources.Haller’s
vitalistictheoriesfitwellwithmonisminthattheyclaimedtoeraseany
clearlinedividingmindandmatter;Winckelmann’saesthetictheoryfit
wellwithvitalismthroughhistheorythatstylesofartdeveloped
historicallyinorganicways.However,whenwelookatthedetails,wefind
thatHerderhadtomakemajoradjustmentsinSpinoza’sphilosophyforit
tofitwiththeothertwosources.Spinoza,hadhebeenalive,wouldhave
beennomorepleasedthanKantwaswiththeresult.
HerderhadbeenattractedtoSpinoza’smonismforitsvisionofa
universenotonlyOne,butalsoOnewithinGod.ThisjustifiedHerder’s
interestinallthingshuman,astheycouldbeexplainedasexpressionsof
thedivineactinginandthroughhumannature.However,Spinoza’s
monismhadentailedsomelessattractiveconclusions.Hetaughtthatthe
universecouldhaveonlyonesubstance,whichwasGod,andthat
everythingelsewasjustanaccidentofthatsubstance.Thephysicalworld
andmentalworldweresimplytwoaspectsofoneunderlyingsubstance.
Eachaspect,observedonitsownterms,couldbeseentoobeyitsownlaws,
butbecausethephysicalwasnotessentiallydifferentfromthemental,
thoselawswereactuallyparallel.
Now,physicallaws,inSpinoza’saccount,werepurelylogicaland
mechanical,predeterminedbynecessityfromthereasoninnateinGod’s
nature,andactingwithoutapparentwillorpurpose.Thismeantthat
everythinghappeninginthemindwaspredeterminedbynecessityaswell.
Spinozaevenwrotehismajorphilosophicalwork,theEthica,alongthelines
ofEuclid’sGeometry,toshowhowthebehaviorofthings,inboththeworld
ofobjectsandtheworldofthemind,wasderivednecessarilyfromasingle
firstcause.
BecauseGodwastheonlysubstance,onlyGodhadfreedom,which
Spinozadefinedasthepowertofollowone’sownnature.Humanbeings,
106
as“finitemodes”ofGod’ssubstance,hadnofreedomofchoicebecause
theyacted,ofnecessity,inlinewithGod’sreasons.Freedomforthem—for
theirminds—consistedsolelyinthepowertoformaconceptionofthe
universethatwasadequateforhelpingthemtorecognizeandassenttothe
necessityofthewaythingswere.Thiswouldthenfreethemfromtheir
passionsandallowthemtoliveinequanimousacceptance.Similarly,only
Godwasimmortal;ahumanbeingcouldtasteimmortalityonlyby
acceptingthewaythingswere—althoughhowonehadthefreedomto
choosetoacceptornotacceptthesethings,Spinozaneverexplained.
Spinoza’sphilosophyisoftenseenasareactiontothereligious
intoleranceofhistime.Hearguedthat,asfinitemodes,humanbeings
couldneverfullycomprehendGodorhispurpose—ifhehadany—andso
itwasunreasonabletokillotherswhoseconceptionsofGodandGod’s
purposeweredifferentfromone’sown.However,byidentifyingGodwith
pure,necessaryreasons,SpinozahadtoexplainawaymuchoftheTalmud
andBible,inasmuchastheGodofthosebookswashardlytheembodiment
ofreason.Soheinsistedthatreligiouswritingsthatdefiedreasonhadtobe
understoodasnothingmorethanallegories,andtheirpoeticeffusions
discarded.
EventhoughKanthadasimilarviewoftheBible,it’seasytoseewhyhe
feltsuchanimusforSpinoza’sviewofman’splaceintheuniverse:Itwas
antitheticaltoeverythingKantfoundinspiringinthehumanheartand
mind.Freedom,inKant’sdoublesenseoftheword,wasimpossiblein
Spinoza’sphilosophy.
Herder’sconcernforfreedomdifferedfromKant’s.Hewasinterestedin
freedomlessasamoralissuethanasanaestheticone—thefreedomto
developaninfinitesphereoftaste—buttherewasnoroomforeventhis
sortoffreedominSpinoza’smechanisticviewoftheuniverse.SoHerder
simplyupdatedthatuniverse,replacingitwithwhathesawasthenew
scientificorthodoxy:theuniverseasorganism,developingandevolvingall
thetime.Thelawsofthisuniversewerenecessary,buttheywerealso
reciprocal,inconstantinteractionandinterconnectedness,sothatnot
everythingwaspredetermined.Andtheyactedteleologically,likealloflife,
forthepurposeofachievingends.Astheuniverseevolved,itslawsevolved
aswell,forhigherandhigherpurposes.
Becausetheuniverse,inHerder’sview,wasamanifestationofGod’s
substance,thismeantthatchangingtheuniverserequiredchangingGodas
107
well.Godwasnolongertimelessandimmutable.He,too,evolvedover
time.Infact,hewastheforcethat,throughthenecessityofhisorganic
innerlaws,droveevolution,andhadawillandpurpose.Asaforce,his
operationsweretobefoundineverything,frommatteronupthroughall
theactivitiesofthemineral,plant,andanimalworld.Theselevelsdiffered
fromoneanothernotinkind,butonlyincomplexity.Butbecausethese
forcesformedanorganicwhole,everythingwasunifiedinleadingtothe
bestpossiblegoal.AsHerderlookeduponthisuniverse,hesawthatit—
andeverythingwithinit—wasgood:
“Everythingthatwecall‘matter’is,therefore,moreorlessselfanimated;everythingisarealmofactiveforcesthatformawhole,not
onlyinappearanceforoursensesbutalsoinaccordancewiththeir
natureandtheirrelation.Oneforcedominates.Otherwise,there
wouldbenounity,nowhole.Variousforcesserveonthemost
diverselevels;butallpartsofthisdiversity,eachofwhichisperfectly
determined,neverthelesspossesssomethingcommon,active,
interactive.Otherwise,theywouldnotformaunity,awhole.Because
everythingismostwiselyinterconnectedintherealmofthemost
perfectpowerandwisdom;andbecausenothinginthisrealmcan
combine,sustain,orformitselfexceptaccordingtotheinherent,
necessarylawofthethingsthemselves;wethereforeseeeverywhere
innatureinnumerableorganicwholes,andeachinitsownwayisnot
simplywise,good,andbeautifulbutratherissomethingcomplete,
thatis,acopyofthewisdom,goodness,andbeautysuchascanbe
madevisibleinthisinterconnection.” 4
Astheoverarchingforcereachedhigherandhigherlevelsofevolution
inthehumanheart,Herderfeltthatitshoweditsmostadvancedformsnot
onlyinprinciplesoftheoreticalreason,butalsointheemotions—which,as
witheverythingelse,differedfromreasonnotinkindbutinlevelsof
complexity.Initshighestform,thisforcebecamethedesiretobeexpressive.
Itspurposewastocommunicatethroughitscreativeactivity.
ThispointconnectedwithHerder’sviewofart—andallhumancreative
expression.BecauseGodisever-evolving,hisexpressionthroughhuman
creativitymustevolveaswell.Thusthereisnosinglestandardforjudging
humancreationsasrightorwrong,beautifulornot.Everythingistobe
judgedbyhowsuitablyitexpressesGod’sforcefortheparticulartimeand
108
placewhentheworkofartwascreated.
HereHerderborrowedaprinciplefromtheworkofJohann
Winckelmann,whohadalmostsingle-handedlyinventedthefieldofart
history.Winckelmann,anardentadmirerandstudentofGreekart,had
developedthetheory—acommonplacetoday—thatartshouldbe
appreciated,notintermsofeternalrules,butinlinewithitsculturaland
historicalsituation.Thismeantappreciatinghow,ontheonehand,awork
ofartfitintothecultureatthemomentitwascreated,inrelationtothe
philosophy,institutions,andmoresofthetime.Ontheotherhand,itmeant
seeinghowtheworkofartrelatedtootherworksofartofasimilarstyle
thatprecededandinspiredit—orthatit,inturn,inspired—toshowwhere
itfitintotheorganiclawsofthebirth,growth,flowering,ordeclineofthat
particularstyle.
Tothistheoryofart,Herderaddedtwoelements.One,allhuman
creativeendeavors—thisincludednotonlythearts,butalsoscience,
philosophy,andreligionaswell—shouldbeapproachedasart:i.e.,notfor
theirtruthvalue,butforwhattheyexpressedoftheheartmotivatedto
bringthemintobeing.Two,becauseGodwastheforceshapingnotonly
theartist’sinspirationbutalsothecontextinwhichtheartistworked,the
studyofthehistoryofhumancreativeendeavorswasnotsimplyapastime
fortheidle,butawayofdevelopingabroaderappreciationofthedivine
willatworkintheuniverse.
ThevastdistanceseparatingHerderfromSpinozacanbeillustratedby
howeachtreatedtheBible.Asnotedabove,Spinozafoundnothing
worthwhileintheBibleasidefromuniversal,rationalprinciplesonhowto
behavemorally.ForHerder,themostinterestingpartsoftheBiblewerethe
poems,especiallythePsalms,becausetheywerethemostaccessibly
characteristicexpressionsofthecultureinwhichtheywerecomposed.He
wrotearevolutionarybook,TheSpiritofHebrewPoetry,showinghowthe
imageryofthePsalmsperfectlyexpressedthedistinctivestrengthsofearly
HebrewcultureandgaveaninsightintoGodthatwasmissinginlater
cultures.
Thisapproach,nowcalledculturalrelativism,succeededbothinelevating
anddemotingtheBible—andeverythingelsetowhichHerderappliedit.It
elevatedaspectsofancientliteraturethathiscontemporariesfoundrough
andbarbaric,showingthatthey,too,hadtheirinnerlogicandcharm.
However,itdemotedthembydenyingthattheymighthaveuniversal
109
validityorauthority.
Theideathatnohumanthoughtcouldhaveuniversalvaliditywould
havebeenrepugnanttoSpinoza,inasmuchasheidentifiedGodwith
universalprinciplesofreason.Nevertheless,Herderwassopersuasivein
thewayhepresentedhisappreciationofSpinozathatforthemany
succeedinggenerations,“Spinoza”meantHerder’srecastingofthelatter’s
doctrine.WhentheearlyRomanticsspokeofcombiningwhattheysawas
thetwooppositepolesofphilosophy—FichteandSpinoza—intoanew
synthesis,theywereactuallytryingtouniteFichteandHerder.
ForallhisdifferenceswithSpinozaontheissueofcausality,it’shardto
saythatHerderfullyavoidedthedifficultiesofSpinoza’sdoctrineof
freedom.Herder,too,sawfreedomasnothingmorethanthepowertoact
inlinewithone’snature.Eventhoughhebroadened“one’snature”to
includefarmorethanone’sabilitytoformadequateconceptsofreason,this
doctrinestillplacedlimitsonhowfreeahumanbeingcouldbe.Thechief
limitwasthatonewasnotfreetochangeone’snatureortheforcesacting
withinone.Asanartist,onehadsomefreedominexpressingthoseforces,
butnofreedomtostepoutsideoftheboundsofone’stimeandplace,orto
defythelawsoftheorganicevolutionofhumanculture—which,for
Herder,wereasnecessaryastheeternallawsoflogichadbeenforSpinoza.
Herderdidgrantagreatermeasureoffreedomtotheinterpreterofart,for
thelatter,throughconsciousBildung,couldcomprehendthelawsof
culturalevolutionandsoriseabovesomeofthelimitationsimposedonthe
artist.Butthiswasanidealmoretobepursuedthanfullyattained.Andin
expressingone’sappreciation,onewasboundbythesamerestrictions
imposedontheartist.
Herderwasamoreenthusiasticthanasystematicthinker,sohefailedto
addressmanyoftheweaknessesandinconsistenciesinhisthought.The
majorweakness,fromKant’spointofview,wasthattherewasnoempirical
basisforerasingthelinebetweenmindandmatter.AsKantarguedina
reviewofHerder’swork,thefactthatmatterpossessesenergy,intheform
ofelectricityandmagnetism,isnoproofthatitactspurposefullyforany
specificend.Weknowpurposefulactivityonlywithinourownminds,in
observingourselvesactforthesakeofideasandprinciples,butthereisno
waywecangetinsidemattertoknowifitactsforthesakeofideasand
principlesaswell.ThismeansthatHerder’smainprincipleforexplaining
theuniverseasOne—auniversalforceactingforpurposefulends—
110
explainsthingsthataredirectlyexperiencedbymeansofsomethingthat
cannotbeexperiencedatall.
AsfortheinconsistenciesinHerder’sviews,onestandsout:Ifwe
assumethatGodactsinallhumancreations,whydosomecreationsofa
particulartimeandplacebetterexpresshisenergythanothers?Andwhy
aresomeculturesmorereceptivetohisinfluence,andotherslessso?
Herderwassatisfiedwiththetypicalmonisticanswertotheproblemof
evil:thattoseesomethingasevilsimplymeantthatonedidn’tunderstand
itsroleinthelargerschemeofthings.Buthewasbedeviledbytheproblem
ofthe18thcenturyFrench:Howcouldanentireculturebe,fromhispoint
ofview,sonarrowanddismissiveinitstastes?Howcouldtheyfitintothe
largerschemeofthings?Whatpossiblepurposecouldtheyserve?And
whatcouldapersonboundinanarrowculturedotoescape?
ThedifficultiesinHerder’sconceptoffreedom,andtheweaknessesand
inconsistenciesinhisthought,carriedoverintoRomanticviewsofthe
worldandhumanpsychology:Whatproofistherethateverythingisan
expressionofdivineforce?Evenifoneacceptsthedivineoriginofforces
withinandwithout,howisonetodecidewhichtofollowandwhichones
not?Isonereallyfreetochoose?
Asfortheproblemofnarrow-mindedcultures,theRomantics’issuewas
notthenarrownessofFrenchculture.ItwasthenarrownessoftheGerman
cultureallaroundthem.Togaininsightintohowtotranscendthose
confines,theywentoutsidethatculturetotheancientphilosophermost
congenialtotheirproject:Plato.
Plato
Plato,inhisSocraticdialogues,hadleftatwofoldlegacy.Ontheone
hand,therewasSocratestheskeptic,whowhittledawayatthepositionsof
hisopponentsuntilnothingwasleft,butthenwascoyaboutestablishinga
positionofhisown.Ontheother,therewasSocratesthemystic,whospoke
withgreatfeelingonissuesoffriendship,love,beauty,andtheeternallife
ofthesoul.
ThelatterSocratesappealedtoalltheearlyRomantics,buttheformer
hadhisRomanticadmirersaswell.Inparticular,FriedrichSchlegelextolled
Socratesforhisirony:hisabilitytotakeupaposition,argueforit,then
argueagainstit,andtokeepmovingon.This,Schlegelfelt,exemplified
111
philosophyasaliving,dialecticalprocess,ratherthanasadeadsystem,and
providedhimwiththemodelforhowhewantedtodophilosophy,too.
ButSocratesthemysticprovidedtheRomanticswiththepositivegoal
forsuchaprocess:thesearchforinspirationinthecreationoftruly
beautifulandexpressiveworksofart.ThetwodialoguesinwhichSocrates
spokemostrhapsodicallyonthesetopics—thePhaedrusandtheSymposium
—weretheonestheRomanticsturnedtomostoften.
Bothdialoguestaughtthatloveofbeautywasaconduittothedivine.In
thePhaedrus,Socratesaddressedtheproblemofloveasmadness,
explainingitasamadnesswithadivineorigin.Hedelineatedseverallevels
ofdivinelyinspiredmadness,thenext-to-highestbeingthemadnessthat
inspiredpoetstocompose;thehighestbeingloveforabeautifulperson.
Thislovewasdivinelyinspired,Socratessaid,becausethesightofa
beautifulpersonstirredinchoatememoriesofthegodsasseeninaprevious
lifetime,alongwithassociationsthatthosememoriesprovoked.Once
provoked,thoseassociationsdroveonetopursuethebeloved.Thispursuit,
however,couldleadineitheranexaltingoradebasingdirection.
Socratesillustratedthispointwithananalogy.Thesoul,hesaid,was
likeachariotyokedwithtwohorses:onenoble,theotherbase.Ifthebase
horseoverpoweredthecharioteerandthenoblehorse,thelovewouldlead
tonothingbutthepursuitofcarnalpleasure.However,ifthecharioteerand
noblehorsemaintainedcontrol,thelovewouldleadtheloverstoabstain
fromsuchpleasuresandtoexploretogetherthedelightsofphilosophy
instead.Thiswouldleadtheirsoulsontoahigherreincarnationafterdeath.
IntheSymposium,Socratesreportedthelessonshehadlearnedabout
lovefromDiotima,amysteriouswomanfromtheEast—andtheonly
person,Schlegelnoted,withwhomSocratesneverargued.Diotimataught
thatlovewashalf-mortal,half-immortal:themediumthroughwhich
humanbeingsinteractedwiththedivine.Loveofbeautywasdrivenbythe
purposeoffindingimmortalitythroughprocreation.Onthelowestlevel,
thismeantcreatingbabies.Onthehighest,though,itmeantcreatingnoble
philosophicalthoughts.
Toachievethehighestlevelrequiredtraining—Bildung,inthemindsof
theRomantics.Itstartedwiththeloveofabeautifulbody,butthenwasto
betrainedtoseethelimitationsofthatparticularbeautybydetectingthe
samebeautyalsoexistinguniversallyinotherbodies,andonahigherlevel
withinmanyindividualminds.Goingbeyondindividuals,thesoulwas
112
taughttoappreciatehigherandmorerefinedlevelsofbeauty—incustoms,
laws,andinstitutions—untilitwasable,incontemplation,toperceivethe
eternalformofbeautyitself.Fromthatcontemplationonewasabletogive
birth,“nottoimagesofvirtue—becauseoneisintouchwithnoimages—
buttotruevirtue—becauseoneisintouchwiththetrueBeauty.Theloveof
thegodsbelongstoanyonewhohasgivenbirthtotruevirtueand
nourishedit,andifanyhumanbeingcouldbecomeimmortal,itwouldbe
he.” 5
Inbothdialogues,Socrateswasquiteinsistentonthepointthatalthough
appreciationofbeautymaybeginwitheroticlust,itquicklyhastooutgrow
sexualactivityifitistoleadupward.Thispoint,though,wentrightpast
theRomantics.TheyweremorestruckbythefactthatSocrates—unlike
ChristianityandphilosopherssuchasKant—taughtthatlustwasfarfrom
beingantitheticaltothedivineandwasinsteadanecessarypartofthepath
leadingthere.Loveforanotherpersonactivatedone’sappreciationforthe
divineforcesatworkintheworld.Thatappreciationwasthenextended,
throughloveofhumanity,loveofnature,andloveofart,toalevelwhere
one’sexpressiveartisticcreationsabsorbedmoreandmoreoftheuniverse,
andsowereabletotranscend—asmuchashumanlypossible—the
limitationsofone’sculture.Insodoing,theycouldinspireinothersthe
senseofloveandfellowshipthroughwhichatrulyfreesocietycouldgrow.
Aslongasone’slovecouldstimulatethesehigherdimensions,theearly
Romanticsthought,therewasnoneedtoabandonthebeautiesofcarnal
pleasures.
ThiswaswheretheideologyofRomanticlove,asbothapersonalanda
politicalprogram,began.
LITERATURE
Withlovesuchanimportantpartofthegrowthofwisdomandasense
ofone’strueplace—visàvistheworldanditscreator—itbecameobvious
totheearlyRomanticsthatphilosophy,astaughtintheuniversities,was
notthebestmediumforexpressingandgeneratingthewholeofwisdom.
Therewasnoplaceforloveintheacademicclassroom.Atbest,academic
philosophycouldofferrigorinexploringonlypartofhumannature:
reason.Thewholeofhumannature,inallitsemotionalvariety,requireda
differentandvastergenreentirely:literature.
113
Herderhadarguedearlierthat—becausehumanlanguagedealt
primarilyinanalogies,andbecauseliteraturewasmoresophisticatedthan
philosophyinitshandlingofanalogies—onecouldlearnmoreabout
humannaturethroughliteraturethanthroughphilosophy.ButforHerder,
literatureprimarilymeantpoetry:dramatic,epic,andlyrical—theworksof
Homer,Sophocles,Dante,andShakespeare.
TheRomantics,however,hadgrownupinaculturethatwasmore
profoundlyshapedbyanewgenreofliteraturethatwasconcernedless
withanalogiesthanwithpsychologicaldevelopment.Thatgenrewasthe
novel:derRomaninGerman,leromaninFrench.
Inthelate18thcentury,thenovelwasstillanewartform.Because
ancientGreeceandRomehadhadnonovels,therewerenoancient
standardsforjudgingwhatanovelshouldorshouldn’tdo.Sonovelists
tookalmosteverythingastheirsubjectmatter,andexperimentedwitha
widevarietyofstyles,sometimeswithinanindividualwork.The
experimentalfictionofthepresentisnomoreexperimentalthanwhat
manynovelists,suchasLawrenceSterne,weredoingthen.Officially—i.e.,
intheliterarytheorytaughtintheuniversitiesofthetime—dramaticpoetry
wasconsideredthehighestformofart.Butbecausenovels,unlikedrama,
wereprimarilyintendedtobereadbyindividuals,novelistswerefreeto
exploresubjectsthatdramadidpoorlyatbest:revealingtheorganically
developinginnerlifeandthoughtsoftheircharacters.
Thefactthatnovelswereexpressingsomethinggenuinelynewwas
illustratedbytheunprecedentedsensationcausedbytwonovelsinthe
latterhalfofthecentury:Rousseau’sJulie,ortheNewHéloïse(1761)and
Goethe’sTheSorrowsofYoungWerther(1774).Julie,insixvolumes,tolda
storyofdoomedloveinwhichthemaincharactersdescribedandanalyzed
thedevelopmentoftheirfeelingsinextravagantdetail.Werther,intheform
oflettersexchangedamongthetwomaincharactersandtheirfriends,told
ofayoungmanwho,inlovewithawomanbetrothedtoanother,endedup
committingsuicide.Thislatternovelstrucksucharawnervethatarashof
suicidesfolloweditspublication—afactthatcausedGoethenoendof
regret.Andbothnovelsbegatindustries:Switzerlandsawanuptickinthe
numberoftouristswantingtovisitlocationswherescenesinJuliehadtaken
place;inGermany,itwaspossibletobuycollectibleplatesillustratedwith
scenesfromWerther.Becauseoftherealismofbothnovels,manyreaders
wereconvincedthattheywerenotfictions,butportrayedactualevents.
114
Butwhatsortofrealismwasthis?Juliehadsparkedacriticalrowin
GermanywhenMosesMendelssohn—oneofthelastgreatfiguresofthe
GermanEnlightenment,andDorotheaSchlegel’sfather—hadarguedthat
Juliewasunreadable,firstbecauseitslongdiscussionsofemotionwere
hardtostomach.“Ibelieve,”hesaid,“thatthereisnothingmore
unbearablethanwhenthepatheticbecomestheloquacious.” 6 Evenworse,
hesaid,thenovel’slongdeclarationsofloveweretotallyunrealistic:
Nobodyinreallifewhowasreallyinlovewouldeverspeakthatway.
Inresponse,JohannGeorgHamann,Herder’smysticalmentor,replied
thatMendelssohnhadnoappreciationforthe“truenatureoftheromantic.”
Novels,heargued,exposedandexploredadeepleveloftruththatthe
stricturesofsocietyusuallykepthidden.Itdidn’tmatterwhethermost
peopletalkedthatway.Therewasapartofthehumansoulthatwantedto
—andnovelsprovidedthenecessaryoutletforitsexpression.
Mendelssohnwasnotsilencedbythisresponse.HetookHamann’s
phraseandrearrangedit,sayingthatthe“romanticnatureoftruth”hadto
abidebytherulesofalltruth:tobecogent,coherent,andorderly.Hamann
wasdemandingaleapoffaithinallowingforatruththathadnoorderat
all.
Thisexchangemarkedoneofthefirsttimes“romantic”wasusedasan
adjectivetodescribeatypeoftruth.AndalthoughMendelssohnhadthe
lastwordinthisparticularskirmish,Hamann’spositioneventuallycarried
theday.Theviewthatnovels—eventhoughtheirstoriesmightbe
improbableandextreme—exploredpsychologicaldevelopmentwitha
realismthatnoothergenrecould,becamemoreandmoreinfluentialuntilit
wastakenforgranted.
Goethe,inhislaternovel,WilhelmMeister’sApprenticeship(1795–96),
triedtoarticulatewhatwasdistinctiveaboutthegenrebycomparingit
withdrama.Drama,hesaid,isconcernedwithcharacterandaction;novels,
withsentimentandevents.Inotherwords,novelsfocuslessonthe
characters’motivationforaction,andmoreonhowtheyfeelaboutevents.
Infact,sentimentsshouldpropelthestory.Ifthepropulsionwasslowand
organic,thatwastobeexpectedandevenenjoyed.Nomatterhowlongthe
characterstooktosortouttheirfeelings,therewasplentyofroomtotake
thereaderthroughallthesteps.
Fateshouldplayamajorroleindramas,Goethewentontosay,butnot
innovels.Novels,tobetruetolife,neededtomakeroomforChance.In
115
fact,thedrivingforceofthenovelshouldnot
beexternalFatebutinternalemotional
developmentinresponsetochance
occurrences.
Finally,Goethenotedthatnovelistic—i.e.,
romantic—traitswerenotlimitedtonovels.
Infact,thisdiscussionofgenresinWilhelm
Meisterwasapreludetoadiscussionof
Hamlet,inwhichthecharactersnotethat
Hamletwasdrivenmorebysentimentthan
bycharacter,andsoShakespeare’sportrayal
ofhimwasactuallyan“expansionofa
novel.”WhatmadeHamletatruedramain
theireyeswasthefactthatFateledtoa
necessaryandtragicend.
ThisdiscussionisapparentlywhatledSchlegelandhisfellowRomantics
tolistShakespeareasa“romantic”author,eventhoughShakespearenever
wrotenovels.Romanticism,asSchlegeldefineditunderGoethe’sinfluence,
waslessagenreofwritingandmoreageneralapproachtoliteratureasa
whole.
WilhelmMeisteritselfisaprimeexampleofthisapproach:anovel
impelledbysentimentandchanceevents.Thestoryisprimarilyconcerned
withtheemotionaldevelopmentofthetitlecharacter—itwasoneofthe
firstGermanBildungsromane,ornovelsofhowayoungpersongrowsand
matures.Wilhelmstartsoutbright,inquisitive,andarticulate,but
emotionallyimmature.Astheeventsunfold,hemakesmanydecisions
aboutwhattodowithhislife,butinalmostallcases,themorehisdecisions
comefromhishead,themoredisastroustheyturnouttobe.Intheend,
events—andthekindlyinterventionofpeoplearoundhim—teachhimhow
tofindhappinessbylisteningtohisheartandlearningtoappreciatethe
wisdomofthosewhogenuinelylovehim.Althoughtheapprenticeshipof
thetitleseemsatfirsttorefertoWilhelm’spursuitofacareerinthetheatre,
hedropsthatinteresttowardtheendofthebook,afterwhichtherecomes
therevelationthathisapprenticeshipisreallyaseriesoflessonsinhowto
masternothinglessthantheartoflivingitself.
Asnotedabove,SchlegelcitedWilhelmMeisterasoneofthethreemajor
“tendenciesoftheage.”Aswiththeothertendencies,hefeltthatthebook
116
haditsimperfections,butbyandlargeheandhisfriendsthoughtvery
highlyofit,andregardedit—togetherwithitsauthor—asoneofthefew
brightlightsofGermanliteraryculture.Novalis,althoughhelaterchanged
hismindonthebook,hadaveryfavorablefirstimpressionofit,callingit
the“AbsoluteNovel.”Schlegel,inoneofhiscriticalfragments,added,
“WhoevercouldmanagetointerpretGoethe’sMeisterproperlywouldhave
expressedwhatisnowhappeninginliterature.Hecould,sofarasliterary
criticismisconcerned,retireforever.” 7 Inbothcases,theappealseemstobe
thattheysawitasaninspiringexampleofhowanovelcancontributeto
theBildungofareaderwhowantstomastertheartoflivingaswell.
ForNovalis,oneoftheprimelessonsinWilhelmMeisterlayinits
elementofmagic.TheAbbé—wise,kindly,andold—watchesover
Wilhelm’sapprenticeshipfromafarwithoutWilhelm’sknowledge,and
occasionallyinterferesfrombehindthescenestoalertWilhelmtothefact
thatthereismoretotheworldthanheconceives.TheAbbé’sknowledgeof
Wilhelm’smind-statesandactivities—whichhecopiesintoamanuscript
thatheshowstoWilhelmtowardtheendofthebook—cannotbeexplained
bynormalhumanpowers,andGoetheseemstoimplythatnoexplanation
isrequired.Theattractivenessoftheidea—thatthereisabenevolent,
omniscientbeingoverseeingone’sspiritualprogress—isofferedas
explanationenough.Novalislateremployedasimilardevicetowardthe
beginningofhisunfinishednovel,HeinrichvonOfterdingen,inwhichyoung
Heinrichfindsanancientillustratedbutincompletebook,writtenin
Provençal,whichclearlycontainsthestoryofhislife.Novalis,however,
doesofferanexplanationforthisbitofmagicwhenhestatesthatnature
containsmagicaldimensionsthatareclosedtothosewhodon’tapproachit
withasenseofimagination,butareopentothosewhodo.Inotherwords,
imaginationaddsnothingfalsetonature.Itsimplybringsoutthemagic
alreadypotentiallyandauthenticallythere.
ThissenseofmagicwaswhatNovalishadearlierrecommendedwhen
hestatedthat,“Lifemustnotbeanovelthatisgiventous,butonethatis
madebyus.” 8 Asonesawthemagicalintheordinary,one“romanticized”
life—thiswashisterm—andonetherebymadeoneself“authentic”—again,
histerm.Theabilitytoturnthecommonplaceandordinaryintothe
mysteriousandsublimewaswhatconfirmedone’sfreedomandpowerto
shapeone’sexperience,totasteone’sshareoftheinfinite.WilhelmMeister,
eventhoughNovalislaterrepudiateditfortakinganironicstancetoward
117
thearts,neverthelesshadofferedhimlessonsinwhataromantic,authentic
viewpointcouldbe.
ForSchlegel,theappealofWilhelmMeisterwasmorecomplex.Inan
extendedreviewwrittenforAthenäum,hestatedthatthenovel’slessonsin
Bildungoperatedonthreelevels.
Thefirstlevelconcernedthebook’scontent.ThestagesinWilhelm’s
Bildungillustratemanyprinciplesonhowtoeducateone’sownsentiments.
Andtheseprinciplesarenotmerelyimplicitintheevents.Goethefillsthe
novelwithdiscussionsamongthecharactersaboutart,love,philosophy—
allaspectsoflife,eventhemosttastefulwaytodecorateahomeand
entertainguests.(TheGermanfashionofhavingmusicinthebackground
duringmeals,butwiththemusicianshiddenfromview,wasapparently
inspiredbyGoethe’srecommendationsonthepoint.)Asthecharacters
revealthemselvesintheirwordsandactions,theyofferthereaderample
foodforthought:bothinspiringexamplesofliveswell-lived,andaffecting
examplesoflivesgoneastray,seekingredemption,anddeserving
compassioninunexpectedways.Simplytoreadthebookonthislevelisto
learnagreatdealaboutlife.
However,thesecondlevelofBildungthatSchlegeldetectedinthebook
wentdeeper.Thiswasthechallengeofferedbythebook’sform—orrather,
itslackofanyeasilydiscernibleform.InlinewithGoethe’stheoryof
Chance,thestoryisepisodicandoftencausesthereadertowonderifitis
goinganywhereatall.Schlegelnotedtherandomnessofthenovel,buthe
calledita“cultivatedrandomness”:randomnesswithahigherpurpose.He
sawitnotasaweaknessbutaspartofthenovel’sstrengthasanagentof
Bildung.Inhiseyes,areadergainedBildungnotonlybybeingexposedto
theeventsofthestorybutalsobybeingforcedtoreflectandcontemplate
thestructureofthenovelonadeeperlevelsoastomakesenseofthe
whole.Thisexerciseinimaginativereflection,then,trainedthereadertosee
notonlythewholenessandcoherenceofthenovel,buttodetectwholeness
andcoherenceinhisorherownlife.Inthisway,evenafterleavingthe
novel,onewouldbeachangedperson.AsSchlegelsaidinoneofhis
fragmentsextollingthe“syntheticwriter,”apparentlyreferringtoGoethe:
“Theanalyticwriterobservesthereaderasheis;andaccordingly
hemakeshiscalculationsandsetsuphismachinesinordertomake
theproperimpressiononhim.Thesyntheticwriterconstructsand
createsareaderasheshouldbe;hedoesn’timaginehimcalmand
118
dead,butaliveandcritical.Heallowswhateverhehascreatedtotake
shapegraduallybeforethereader’seyes,orelsehetemptshimto
discoverithimself.Hedoesn’ttrytomakeanyparticularimpression
onhim,butenterswithhimintothesacredrelationshipofdeepest
symphilosophyorsympoetry.” 9
Byenteringintothe“sacredrelationship”ofthisdialoguewiththe
author,onesharpensone’scriticalpowersandbecomesco-authorofthe
book.Insodoing,onegainsheightenedappreciationoftheprocessesof
sensibilityinalllifethattheRomanticslearnedfromtheirbiology
professors:thatonehastolearntobebothreceptivetooutsidestimuliand
activeinshapingthemtoparticipatefullyintheongoing,organiclifeofthe
universe.
Thisdialoguewiththeauthorleadstoathirdlevelinthenovel’slessons
inBildung:adeepexposuretowhatwas,inGoethe’scase,atrulycultivated
mind.BecausetheRomantics,throughtheirscientificeducation,hadcome
toseethehumanmindasamicrocosmoftheinfinite,it’seasytoseewhy
Schlegelviewedtheopportunityforexposuretothegreatmindofa
cultivatedauthorasanopportunitytoseethewholeworldanew.Inoneof
hisfragments,hestated:
“Manyoftheverybestnovelsarecompendia,encyclopediasofthe
wholespirituallifeofabrilliantindividual.” 10
InhisreviewofWilhelmMeister,headded:
“Thereaderwhopossessesatrueinstinctforsystem,whohasa
senseoftotalityorthatanticipationoftheworldinitsentiretywhich
makesWilhelmsointeresting,willbeawarethroughouttheworkof
whatwemightcallitspersonalityandlivingindividuality.Andthe
moredeeplyheprobes,themoreinnerconnectionsandrelationsand
thegreaterintellectualcoherencehewilldiscoverinit.Ifthereisany
bookwithanindwellinggenius,itisthis.” 11
Partofthisindwellinggenius,Schlegelfelt,wasGoethe’sstanceas
narratorofthenovel.Althoughthenarratorshowsaffectionforallofhis
characters,hemaintainsasomewhatironicdistancetowardthem
throughout,givingthemroomtodemonstratetheirfoiblesandweaknesses.
Thisallowsthereadertoformhisorherownjudgmentsand,atthesame
119
time,toexperiencedirectlytheheightenedviewoflifethatanironic
distancecanafford.Aswewillseeinthenextchapter,theprincipleof
ironicdistanceasameansofappreciatingthewholenessoflifewascentral
toSchlegel’sownphilosophy.
SchlegelwasconvincedthattheorganizingprinciplebehindWilhelm
MeisterwasGoethe’sattempttopresentatheoryofartanditsplaceinlife.
Healsofeltthat,bypresentingthistheoryintheformofanovel,Goethe
hadfoundawaytoconveyaphilosophythatmorethancompensatedfor
whatitlackedinlogicalrigorbybeingaliveandcompelling.
“Itwassomuchthepoet’sintentiontosetupacomprehensive
theoryofartorrathertorepresentoneinlivingexamplesand
aspects,thatthispurposecandiverthimintointroducingevents
whicharereallyonlyepisodes.…[Yet]itispossible,indeed,tofinda
systemintheauthor’spresentationofthisphysicsofpoetry—notby
anymeansthedeadframeworkofadidacticstructure,butstageafter
stageofeverynaturalhistoryandeducationaltheoryinliving
progression.” 12
Inotherwords,SchlegelfeltthatGoethehadlearnedhowtoexploitthe
strengthsofthenovelasagenrenotonlytoconveypsychologicalinsights
butalsotocommunicateatotalphilosophy,includinghistoryandscience,
inaliving,evolving,progressiveway.WilhelmMeisterhadcombined
“poetry”—i.e.,fineliterature—andphilosophyintoone.This,forSchlegel,
wasthemostimportanttendencyexhibitedbythebook,foritsuggesteda
waytorescuephilosophyfromthestuffinessoftheacademyandbringitto
life.Ashesaidinoneofhisfragments,“NovelsaretheSocraticdialogues
ofourtime.Andthisfreeformhasbecometherefugeofcommonsensein
itsflightfrompedantry.” 13
Forthisreason,thedesiretounitepoetry—i.e.,anyfineliterature
writteninanovelisticstyle—withphilosophybecameoneoftheearly
Romantics’majorcrusades.Schellingwasanotableexceptiontothisdesire,
buttheotherfourmajorearlyRomanticsallwrotenovelsandother
“romantic,”“synthetic”piecesofliteratureastheirprimaryvehiclesfor
expressingtheirphilosophicvision.Andgiventheviewoftheuniverse
theyhadadoptedfromHerder—asaninfinite,organicunity,inwhichthe
partsevolvethroughcontinualinteractiontowardanunknowablegoal—an
open-endedgenrethatallowsforphilosophytobeexpressedthrough
120
dialogue,irony,intuition,love,andpsychologicaldevelopmentwasan
idealmediumforconductingthephilosophicalenterpriseinthecontextof
thatuniverse.
TheearlyRomanticsdidnotcallthemselves“Romantics.”Eventhough
theyusedthetermfreelytodescribetheliteraturetheyadmired,thefirst
persontoapplyittothemwastheirfirstgreatFrenchadmirer,Madame
GermainedeStaël,inherbook,OnGermany(1813).Sheherselfwasa
novelist,andincallingSchlegelandhiscohorts“Romantics”shemeantto
underlinethewayinwhichtheirphilosophytookanovelisticform.
However,shealsoregardedthemasapolitical,whichwassomethingofa
mistake.AsSchlegel’scommentaboutthetendenciesoftheagesuggests,
heandhisfriendssawtheirengagementwithphilosophyandliteratureas
havingapoliticaldimension,too.Howevermuchtheydisagreedwith
Schilleronthedetailsofhisaesthetictheory,theyagreedwithhimthat,“It
isonlythroughbeautythatmanmakeshiswaytofreedom.”Towardthis
end,theywantedtocombinephilosophyandliteratureinawaythatwould
provideGermanswiththeBildungtheyneededtofindliberty,equality,and
fraternitywhileatthesametimeavoidingthemistakesoftheFrench
Revolution.
MadamedeStaëlmayhavedismissedtheearlyRomantics’political
programbecauseshewaswritingaboutthemshortlyaftertheirgrouphad
disbandedwithouthavingproducedanycoherentpoliticaltheoryor
tangiblepoliticalresults.Therewereseveralreasonsfortheirfailureonthis
part,and—aswewillseeinthenextchapter—oneofthemainreasonswas
thatthescientificworldviewunderlyingtheirphilosophyunderminedthe
possibilityofpersonalfreedom.Theirattemptstosynthesizethetendencies
oftheiragefellapartbecausesomeofthosetendenciescouldnotbe
reconciledwiththelessonsthatWilliamHerschelhadseeninthestars.
121
CHAPTERFOUR
TheRomanticUniverse
InGermanyofthelate1790’s,therewasnothingunusualinthefactthat
theearlyRomanticsmetfrequentlytodiscussissuesofphilosophy,
literature,andBildung.Thetasteforthispastimewassomethingthey
sharedwithmanyoftheotherbook-readingclubsoftheirtime.Whatset
themapart,though,werefivefactors:
•Thespeedwithwhichtheyabsorbedandconsolidatedthelatest
developmentsinmanybranchesofthearts,thesciences,andrevolutionary
politics.
•Thethoroughnesswithwhichtheyworkedoutthephilosophicaland
artisticimplicationsoftheirnewlyconsolidatedworldview.
•Theimaginationwithwhichtheytriedtoresolvetheinconsistencies
withinthatworldview.
•Theradicalnatureoftheimplicationsoftheirdeliberationsconcerning
themajorissuesofphilosophy—inKant’sterms,purereason,morality,and
aesthetics;inPlato’sterms,truth,goodness,andbeauty.
•Theirsensethattheywereatthecuttingedgeofhumanconsciousness,
andthemissionaryzealwithwhichtheycommunicatedtheirfront-line
reportstotherestoftheworld.Novalis’wordscapturetheirsenseof
themselves:“Weareonamission.OurvocationistheBildungoftheEarth.” 1
Thesefivefeaturesoftheir“symphilosophy”transformedwhatcould
havebeenjustanotherbookclubintoarevolutionaryforceinEuropean
thought.TheculturedpublicofGermanyintheearly1790’shadregarded
Kant’sworkinphilosophyasarevolutiononaparwiththeFrench
Revolution,andinfactsawKant’sworkastheintellectualcounterpartof
thepoliticalforcesthattheFrenchRevolutionhadunleashed.However,
readingKanttoday,it’shardtoseehimasinhabitingthesameuniversewe
do.ReadingtheRomantics,though,it’sobvious—allowingforsomeofthe
excessesoftheirstyle—thattheywerethefirstinhabitantsoftheuniverse
weliveinnow.
122
Partofthissimilarityliesinthesimplefactthat,unlikeKant,theylooked
upatthenighttimeskyandsawwhatweseethere:anever-changing
universeofinfinitedimensionsinspaceandtime.Butbeyondthat
similarity,theirconclusionsaboutwhatthosedimensionsmeantintermsof
thegoodlifeonEarth—thesubjectivenatureoftruth,thedutytobetrueto
one’semotions,andthepositionoftheartistattheforefrontofthe
evolutionofhumanconsciousness—arestillverymuchup-to-date.Their
revolutionwentbeyondKant’sandmovedintothecultureatlarge.
Threeaspectsoftheirthoughtwereespeciallyimportantinextending
thisrevolutionintotheareaofreligion,andultimatelyintoBuddhist
Romanticism:theworldviewtheydevelopedincommonasaresultoftheir
symphilosophy,theirdifferingviewsontheroleofhumanfreedomwithin
thisworldview,andthetypeofBildungthroughwhichtheyhopedto
converttherestoftheworldtotheircause.
Thesethreeissuesarethethemesofthischapter.
SYMPHILOSOPHY
AstheRomanticsengagedinsymphilosophy,theirconversations
developedacentral,paradoxicaltheme.Thetheme’scentralityiswhat
providedthecommongroundfortheirdiscussions.Itselementofparadox
iswhatkeptthediscussionsgoing,aseachmemberofthegroupworked
hisorherownvariationsonthethemetomakesenseoutoftheparadox.
ThiscentralthemewasonethattheBuddhawouldhaveclassifiedas
definingaparticulartypeofbecoming—thenatureofthecosmosandthe
placeoftheselfinthatcosmos.Whatisespeciallyproblematicfromthe
Buddhistperspectiveisthattheycelebratedthattypeofbecomingand
deniedthepossibilityofanythingbeyondit.
Thethemeiscomposedoftwopropositions:
Eachindividualisanorganicpartofacosmosthatisaninfiniteorganicunity.
Nevertheless,eachindividualhasthecapacitytobefree.
Wewilltreatthefirstpropositionfirst,asitwasthepointonwhichthe
Romanticsheldviewsincommon.Then,inthenextsection,wewilltreat
thevariouswaystheytriedtoreconcilethiscommonviewwiththe
paradoxicalissueoffreedom.
Clearly,theRomanticsderivedtheirfirstpropositionfromcurrentsin
123
theastronomyandbiologyoftheirtime:Herschel’stheoryofaninfinite,
organiccosmos,andthebiologists’theoryofaunifiedforcebridgingthe
gapbetweenmindandmatter.Thispropositionalsobearsastructural
resemblancetoHerder’sworldview,althoughtheRomanticsputmuch
moreemphasisonthe“infinite”thanhe.Further,thedistinctive
implicationsthattheydrewfromthispropositionconcerningtruth,beauty,
andgoodnesswillbecomeapparentonlywhenweexamineindetailtheir
understandingofthewords,infinite,organic,andunity.
Wewillstartwiththelastwordfirstandworkbackwards.
Unity
TheRomanticsheldthat,althoughthereappeartobemanydualitiesin
experience—betweentheindividualandnature,betweentheindividual
andsociety,andbetweenthevariousfacultieswithintheindividual—these
dualitiesareactuallynothingmorethandifferencesindegree,ratherthan
kind.Inotherwords,thetwosidesofeachdualityarenotradically
separate.Theyaresimplytwomanifestationsofforcearisingfromasingle
originalforceandexistinginatensionenclosedbyalarger,harmonic
Oneness.
Tobeginwith,thereisnoreallineintheactofknowingbetweensubject
andobject.Becausesubjectandobjectareactuallydifferentexpressionsofa
singleforce,theyarepartsofahigherunity.Ontheexternallevel,this
meansthatthereisnolineseparatingoneselffromotherpeopleorfrom
natureatlarge.Ontheinternallevel,thereisnolineseparatingbodyfrom
mind,orfeelingsfromreason.Anytensionsexistingbetweenthetwosides
oftheseseemingdualitiescanbereconciledbecauseoftheircommonorigin
andcommonnature.
Inerasingthelinebetweensubjectandobject,theRomanticsfeltthat
theyhadhealedthreehugesplitsinEuropeanphilosophy.Thefirstwasthe
splitbetweenmindandmatter.Ifmindandmatterareradicallydifferent,
thereisnosatisfactorywayofexplaininghowtheycouldinteract:howa
materialobjectcouldbecomeknownbythemind,orhowthemindcould
haveanimpactonthebodyorontheexternalmaterialworld.Youmight
easilyexplainhowmatteractsonmatter—tomoveonebilliardball,you
simplyhititwithanother—butifthemindissimplythecapacitytoknow
andrepresenttheworldtoitself,withwhatmeanswouldthiscapacity
124
“hit”theatomsofyourarmtomovethem?Andhowwouldmatterhitthe
mindsothatthemindcouldknowthepresenceofmattertobeginwith?
Butifmindandmatterareexplainedsimplyasdifferentlevelsofenergy,
thenit’seasytoexplainhowonelevelofenergycouldinteractwith
another.
Thesecondsplitwasthesplitbetweenthemind’sinternalworldandthe
externalworldofthingsinthemselves.Ifthemindstandsapartfromnature
—asinKant’sandFichte’sphilosophy—allitcanknowareitsown
representationsofnature:thewayitpicturestheworldtoitself.Andif
that’sthecase,howcanitgetbehinditsrepresentationstocheckwhether
theyaccuratelyrepresenttheworldoutside?Evenifitsrepresentationsare
coherent,thatwouldbenoproofthattheyaccuratelyrepresentedthe
externalworld.Themindwouldthusbewalledwithinitself.Butifthe
mindisregardedaspartoftheworldofnature—ratherthanstandingapart
fromit—thenitisnotconfined“inhere,”initsownworld.Itcanbe
understoodasactingasapartofnature,inlinewithnature’slaws.Onecan
learnaboutthemindbystudyingitsobjects,andaboutitsobjectsby
studyingtheworkingsofthemind.
ThustheRomanticstookwhatKantclassedasamereintimationderived
fromtheexperienceofbeauty—theharmonybetweenmindandnature—
andmadeitthefirstpropositionoftheirphilosophy.Forthem,though,this
principlewasmorethananintimation.Itwasadirectexperience—what
Schelling,borrowingFichte’sterm,calledanintellectualintuition:adirect
perceptionoftheself’sactivity,unfilteredbyconcepts.Inthiscase,though,
theactivitydirectlyintuitedisnottheself’sstrivingagainstnature,asit
wasinFichte’sphilosophy.Instead,it’stheharmoniousinteractionbetween
selfandnature.Wesenseourinterconnectednesswithnaturedirectly
throughperceivingthattheselfshapesnatureatthesametimebeing
shapedbynature,andthattheveryexistenceofbothselfandnatureliesin
thisinteraction.
ThethirdsplitthattheRomanticsfelttheyhadhealedwastheinternal
splitbetweenfeelingandreason.Feelingswerenolongerregardedas
passionsorweaknessesthatposedanexternalthreattothefreedomand
independenceofone’sreason.Instead,feelingsandreasonswereplacedon
aunifiedinternalcontinuumofmentalforcesthatallfollowedthesame
laws,andsoshouldnaturallyworkinharmony.
Byassumingthatfeelingandreasonfollowedsimilarratherthan
125
radicallydifferentlaws,theRomanticscollapsedthevariousfacultiesthat
Kantfoundintheindividual—animality,humanity,andpersonhood—into
one.TheyevencollapsedthedistinctionsthatSchillermadebetweenthe
formdriveandthesensedrive.AlthoughSchillerhadseentheneedto
harmonizethesetwodrives,hestillsawthemasdifferinginkind.Moral
lawpulledinonedirection;theneedsofthesensesinanother.Forthe
Romantics,though,thesedrivesdifferedonlyindegree.Thustherewasno
inherentneedforone’smoraldutytoconflictwithone’sfeelings.Theykept
Schiller’smotivationformoralaction—theaestheticdriveforwholeness—
buttheyremovedanybasisforactionsthatSchillerwouldhave
characterizedasshowingdignity.Instead,theRomanticmoralideal
consistedsolelyofwhathewouldhavecharacterizedasgrace.Andgrace,
forthem,wasnotachievedthroughtrainingone’sfeelingstolearntolike
themorallaw.Itwasachievedthroughsensingthatone’sfeelingsand
reasons,ifinformedbyaninsightintoOneness,wouldnaturallyfallinto
harmony.
Thiscreatedaproblem,though,inthatitcalledintoquestionthe
traditionalbasisforunderstandingwhatcountedasamoralduty,andhow
thatdutyderiveditsauthority.Intheeyesofallthephilosophersfrom
whomtheRomanticsdrew,theauthorityofmoraldutiescamefromthe
factthatdutieswerenotderivedfromother,moresubjectiveaspectsofthe
individualperson,suchasfeelingsorbodilydrives.Instead,theyderived
fromobjectivereasoning,basedonunchangingprinciples.EvenHerder,
despitehisgeneralbeliefinculturalrelativity,stillbelievedinthe
universalityandobjectivityofmorallaw:ItwasonepartofGod’sinfinite
substancethatdidnotchange.TheRomantics,however,incollapsingthe
partsoftheindividualintoaunity,deniedanysourceformoralitythatwas
independentfromfeeling.Still,theyfelt,somefeelingsweremoremoral
thanothers.
Theirpositiononthisissue—andtheirdifferencesfromtheir
predecessors—canbeillustratedbycomparingGoethe’sTheSorrowsof
YoungWertherwithSchlegel’sLucinde.InWerther,noneofthecharacters
evenconsiderthepossibilitythatWertherandLottemightviolatethe
latter’svowstoherhusband:thusthestruggleandthetragicending.In
Lucinde,however,thereisnotragedy.Theonlystruggleisthestruggleto
articulateandgiveoneselfovertoone’snaturalfeelingsofgenuinelove,
basedonasenseofinnateOneness.JuliusandLucindenevermentionthe
126
latter’svowstoherhusband—whoseveryexistenceisrelegatedtothe
shadows—andactuallysaythatbecausetheirloveistrue,itisholierthan
emptyweddingvows.
Whatmakesittrueandholyisthatitisinlinewiththeinnatedivinity
andinnocenceoftheunifiedforceoflife.AsJuliustellsLucinde:
“Thereexistsapurelove,anindivisibleandsimplefeelingwithout
theslightesttaintofrestlessstriving.Eachpersongivesexactlywhat
hetakes,eachliketheother;everythingisequalandwholeand
completeinitself,liketheeternalkissofthedivinechildren.” 2
“Whenonelovesaswedo,thenevenhumannaturereturnstoits
originalstateofdivinity.Inthesolitaryembraceoflovers,sensual
pleasurebecomesoncemorewhatitbasicallyis—theholiestmiracle
ofnature;andwhatforothersisonlysomethingaboutwhichthey’re
justifiablyashamedbecomesforusagainwhatitisinandofitself:
thepureflameofthenoblestlifeforce.” 3
“We’renotjuststerileblossomsintheorderofnature;thegods
don’twanttoexcludeusfromthegreatchainofproductivethings;
andtheygiveusunmistakablesignsoftheirwill.Andsoletusearn
ourplaceinthislovelyworld,letusbearalsotheimmortalfruits
whichthespiritandthewillcreate,andletusenterintothedanceof
humanity.Iwanttoplantmyselfintheearth,Iwanttosowandreap
forthefutureandthepresent,Iwanttouseallmypowersaslongas
itisday,andthenintheeveningrefreshmyselfinthearmsofthe
motherwhowillforeverbemybride.” 4
Theseattitudes,whichtheearlyRomanticsallembraced,showthatthey
kepttheideasofmoralimperativeandholiness,evenastheyrejectedthe
previousgeneration’sunderstandingofwhatthoseideasmeant,where
theyoriginated,andwheretheyderivedtheirauthority.Insteadofcoming
fromabasicdualityinnature,theseideasnowcamefromtheimperatives
ofwhatitmeanstobepartofaunitythatisorganic.Onemustfollow,not
thelawsofreason,butthelawsoforganicgrowth.Kantwouldhaveargued
thattheRomanticswereteachingdutywithoutdignity—theBuddhamight
havesaiddutywithouthonor—buttheRomanticsfeltthattheevolving
universewasontheirside.
127
Organic
Fromtheirstudyofbiologyandpaleontology,theRomantics
extrapolatedthreeconnectedprinciplesoforganicgrowthandcausality
thattheyappliedtotheactivityofhumanorganismswithinthelarger
organismoftheuniverseasawhole.
1)Thefirstprincipleiswhatdefinesanorganism:Anorganismis
composedofpartsthatworktogethertowardacommonpurpose,whichis
thesurvivaloftheorganismandtheproductionoffurtherlife.Organic
causalityisthusnotblindandmechanical.Instead,itisteleological—i.e.,it
strivestowardaparticularpurpose.Thispurposeiswhatgivesthe
organismitsunity,andalsowhatturnsthefactoflifeintotheimperativeof
life:Everypartoftheorganismhasthedutytofurtherthepurposeofthe
organism.Anyactionfurtheringthatpurposeisgood;anyinterferingwith
thatpurposeisbad.
Becauseoneofthepurposesofeachorganismistocreatemore
organisms,itisconnectedtothelargerprocessofcontinuinglife.Its
purposethusgoesbeyonditsownsurvival.However,thisfactalonedoes
notconnecttheorganismwithlife—ortheuniverse—asawhole.It
connectstheorganismonlywithitsowndescendants.Thelarger
connection,theinterconnectivenessofalllife,willcomefromthethird
principle,below.
2)Thesecondprincipleisthatorganismsachievetheirpurposeby
evolving.Thisprincipleappliesmostobviouslyontheindividuallevel,in
thedevelopmentofanorganismfromanembryotoitsadultform.Butit
alsoappliesonthelargerscale,tothehistoryoflife.Aslifeevolves,the
lawsoforganicgrowthandthenatureoforganicactivityevolveaswell.
Thusearlyformsoflifestrivedsimplytosurvive,butaslifehasadvancedit
hasgrownmoreandmoreconscious:moreawareofitselfandits
surroundings.Fromconsciousness,ithasdeveloped—especially,inhuman
beings,thehighestformoflife—thedrivetoexpresstheforceswithinit
throughlanguageandotheractsofcreation.Thusthepeculiarlyhuman
contributiontotheevolutionoflife,thecontributionthatputshumanityon
thecuttingedgeofevolution,istheever-advancingfreedomandabilityof
humanbeingstoexpressoutwardlytooneanotherthelifeforcethatthey
sharewithinthem.
3)Thethirdprincipleisthatorganismsevolvethroughtheprincipleof
128
reciprocity.Ontheinternallevel,thismeansthatthepartsoftheorganism
allexertareciprocalinfluenceononeanother.Eachpartexertsaninfluence
ontheothers,atthesametimebeinginfluencedbythem.Ontheexternal
level,thesameprinciplealsoapplies:Organismsshapetheirenvironment
atthesametimethattheirenvironmentshapesthem.
Organiccausalityisthusnotone-sided.Instead,itisaconstantbackand-forthflow.Ahealthyorganismisonethatadaptstotheinfluencesof
itsenvironmentjustasittakesportionsofthatenvironmentforitsown
sustenanceandsurvival,producingnewlifebackintotheenvironment.In
otherwords,itachievesitsends—atleastinpart—byhelpingother
organismsachievetheirs,justastheyachievetheirs—again,atleastinpart
—byhelpingits.
Atthesametime,organiccausalityisnotdeterministic.Inotherwords,
theactionsoftheorganismarenotentirelydeterminedbyitssurroundings
orbyphysical/chemicallaws.AsSchellingobserved,thefactthatan
organism,asanobject,receivesstimulicanbeexplainedbychemistry.The
factthat,asasubject,itorganizesitsreactions,cannot.Here,Schellingsaid,
theempiricalstudyoforganismsasobjects,viewedfromwithout,must
end,andonemustexaminefromwithinwhatitmeanstobebothasubject
andanobject.Thenecessaryresultofthatinternalexamination,he
concluded,wouldbethatallobjectsarealsosubjects,andallareanimated
byasingleorganicpotencyoperatingthroughoutnature.
ThisishowtheprincipleofreciprocityledtheRomanticstotheideaofthe
interconnectednessofalllife.Becausenooneorganismcanexistonitsown,
eachiscomprehensibleonlyaspartofalargerwhole.Itsverybeingis
interconnectedtoallBeing.Fromthisprinciple,NovalisandSchellingin
particularextrapolatedtheideathattheorganicsystemofallindividual
livingthingsformsasingleindividuallivingthing:theWorldSoul.All
individualorganismsthusmuststrivetowardtheadvancementofthe
WorldSoul’sultimatepurpose,eventhoughtheywillnotsurviveas
individualstoseethatpurposeachieved.However,becauselifefeedson
thedeadremainsofotherlife,allthepartsofeachdeadorganismbecome
newlife.Thisisthesenseinwhichlifeisimmortal.
Schelling—who,amongtheRomantics,thoughtmostsystematically
abouttheimplicationsoftheseprinciples—furtherstatedthatthepurpose
oftheWorldSoulwastobringaboutunitywithindiversity.Being(witha
capitalB)hadstartedfromunity,hadsplitintodiversity,andwouldreach
129
completiononlywhenitachievedahigher,conscious,andfullyexpressed
unitywithindiversity.Now,thephrase,“unitywithindiversity”hada
longhistoryinthephilosophyofaesthetics:Thequalitythatmadean
artworkbeautifulwasthefactthatitsdiverseelementscouldbeperceived
tofitharmoniouslyintoaunifiedwhole.Thus,inSchelling’sterms,the
WorldSoulwasprimarilyanartist,strivingtocreatetheultimateworkof
beauty.Itwasalsoaphilosopher,strivingtobecomefullyconsciousofthat
beauty.Thusartistsandphilosopherswerenaturallyintheforefrontofthe
advancementoftheevolutionoftheuniverse,showingtheway—through
Bildung—toothers.
Ofthethreeprinciplesoforganicgrowth,thethird—thereciprocityand
interconnectednessbetweentheorganismanditsenvironment—wasmost
centraltotheRomanticprogramforBildung.Tobeginwith,theysawitas
themostimmediatelyintuitedofthethree.IncontrasttoFichte,theyheld
thattheselfknewitselfnotonlyinitsstriving,asitshapeditsenvironment,
butalsoinitsopennesstotheinfluencesoftheenvironmentshapingit.
This,forthem,wasthemostdirectproofthattheselfandtheenvironment
hadtobepartsofalargerorganicwhole.
Hereit’simportanttonotethatinseeingreciprocityasanecessarysignof
organicunity,theRomanticsweresimplyfollowingthesciencesoftheir
time.Morerecentsciencehasshownthatreciprocalinteractionscanalso
occurwithinsystemsthatarenotorganic,thathavenogeneralpurpose,
andinparticularnopurposetoworkforthecommonwellbeingofalltheir
inter-actingparts.Inotherwords,interdependencedoesnotalwaysmean
Oneness;interdependentactivitiesdonotalwaysshareacommongoal.
ThispointwillbeimportanttorememberaswecompareRomanticideasof
reciprocalcausationwithBuddhistideasonthesametopic.
Nevertheless,theRomanticsalsohadanothermotiveforfocusingonthe
principlesofreciprocityandinterconnectednessassignsofalargerorganic
unity.Thatwasbecausethesetwoprinciplesmadetheimperativesoflife
sociableratherthanselfish.Ifanorganism’sbrutesurvivalwereitsonly
purpose,thelawsoforganicgrowthcouldnotprovideausableparadigm
forsocialharmony.Butifhumanbeingscanbemadeconsciousofthefact
that,aspartsofalargerorganicunity,theirwellbeingdependsonthe
wellbeingofthewhole,theywillbemorelikelytoexercisetheirpowersfor
thegoodofall.
Theexperienceofreciprocity—sensitivitytotheeffectsofthe
130
environmentuponone,andsensitivitytoone’seffectonone’senvironment
—thusbecamethetouchstoneoftheaestheticandpoliticalimperativesthat
theRomanticswantedtoexpressthroughtheirartforthesakeoftheirown
Bildungandthatofothers.Art,ideallyforthem,shouldspringfromadirect
experienceoftheinterconnectednessofallBeing,atthesametimeinspiring
asimilardirectexperienceofinterconnectednessintheiraudience.Only
thencouldartcontributetowardthepurposesoftheuniverse.
Fromallthreeoftheseprinciplesoforganicgrowth,theRomantics
developedthreeimperativesforaestheticcreation.
Thefirstwasthattheartistneededtotrainhimselftobereceptive:to
openhimselftothehealthyinfluencesofhisenvironment,suchasthelove
ofothersandthebeautiesofnature.Onlythenshouldheallowhissoulto
respondtothoseinfluencesnaturallyincreatingaworkofart,justasa
plantwouldproducefruitonlyafterbeingopentotheinfluencesofthe
worldaroundit.InNovalis’terminology,theartistmustpracticeselfalienation,makinghimselfconformtohisexternalobject,whichwouldthen
leadtoappropriation,makingtheobjectconformtohiswill.“Selfalienation,”hesaidinPollen,“isthesourceofallself-abasement,butalso
justtheopposite:thebasisofallself-elevation.”Thishecalled“thehighest
philosophicaltruth.” 5
Theresultofthistwo-wayprocess,inhiseyes,wasthateachsidewould
bringtheotherclosertothecompletionofitsdevelopment.Theselfgrows
andextendsitselfbybeingreceptivetotheworld,justasitsactivityin
shapingtheworldaidsintheworld’sevolutiontowardgreaterbeauty.In
thisway,allthreeprinciplesoforganicgrowth—(1)apurpose(2)evolved
through(3)reciprocity—arefosteredbytheactofartisticcreation.
Schlegelalsoextolledthevirtueofmakingoneselfopenandreceptiveto
theinfluencesofone’senvironmentinpreparationforanaturalcreative
response.InapassageinLucinde,heexpressedtheorganicnatureofthis
processinevenmoregraphicterms.Hischoiceofwordsfordescribingthis
process,however,wassomewhatunfortunate,andmayhavebeeninspired
byhis“Indianstate.”Hecalledtheprocess“idleness”and“pure
vegetating.” 6
“Really,weshouldn’tneglectthestudyofidlenesssocriminally,
butmakeitintoanartandascience,evenintoareligion!Inaword:
themoredivineamanoraworkofmanis,themoreitresemblesa
131
plant;ofalltheformsofnature,thisformisthemostmoralandthe
mostbeautiful.Andsothehighest,mostperfectmodeoflifewould
actuallybenothingmorethanpurevegetating.”
Schleiermacher,althoughhedidn’tfollowSchlegel’swordchoice,made
thisfirstaestheticimperative—receptivity—thecornerstoneofRomantic
religion.
Thesecondaestheticimperative,whichgrewdirectlyfromthefirst,was
thatartshouldbeexpressive,ratherthanimitative.Whatthismeansisthat
thedutyoftheartistisnottoimitateorrepresentwhatheseesoutsidehim,
buttoexpressthefeelingsthatarisewithinhiminresponsetowhathesees.
Thisisbecausetheaimoflifeasawhole,asithasevolved,isnottoimitate
otherforms,buttoexpressitself.Inexpressingone’sfeelings,oneisnot
simplyindulginginasubjectiveexercise.Instead,oneisgivingexpression
totheorganic,unifiedforceoflifeasitevolves,presentingitselffreshlyin
thepresentmoment.Onlyinthiswaycouldoneinspireinone’saudiencea
feelingforthesharedlifeforceactingwithinthemselves.Byidentifying
withtheauthor/artist,theycouldempathizewithhisattemptatexpression
andfeelacorrespondingdesiretoexpressthatsamelifeforce,too.This
empathyiswhatbroughtaworkofarttolife,andinspiredfurtherlife
throughtheexperienceofart.
ThusSchlegelcommented,inextollingtheromantic—i.e.,novelistic—
styleofliterature,that“therestillisnoformsofitforexpressingtheentire
spiritofanauthor:sothatmanyartistswhostartedouttowriteonlya
novelendedupbyprovidinguswithaportraitofthemselves.” 7 Inother
words,thepurposeofromanticartwasnottocreateanobjectofbeautyfor
thefreeplayofdisinterestedcontemplation,asKantwouldhaveit.Instead,
itwastoconnecttheaudiencetowhatismostaliveintheauthor.
CasparDavidFriedrich,apainterinfluencedbytheRomantics,putthe
pointmorebluntly:
“Theartistshouldnotonlypaintwhatheseesbeforehim,butalso
whatheseeswithinhim.If,however,heseesnothingwithinhim,
thenheshouldalsoomittopaintwhatheseesbeforehim.Otherwise
hispictureswillresemblethosefoldingscreensbehindwhichone
expectstofindonlythesickoreventhedead.” 8
Thustheonlylegitimateartisticactivity—whichtheRomanticsviewed
132
astheparadigmforallhumanactivity—isnottorepresentorimitatethe
trueappearanceornatureofthingsoutsidethemind.Instead,itisto
expressfeelingswithinthebodyandmind.Thispointwouldhavean
importantbearingonhowtheRomanticsviewedtheactivityofreligion.
ThethirdaestheticimperativethattheRomanticsderivedfromorganic
principleswasthatartmustevolve.Anartistshouldnotbeboundbythe
examplesoraestheticrulesofthepast,butshouldinsteadfindaformthat
issuitabletoexpresseachinnerinspirationasitpresentsitselfinthehere
andnow.Infact,oncehehascreatedaworkofart,theartistmustabandon
itsothatitdoesnotinterferewiththeevolutionofhissensitivitytothelife
forceasitwillexpressitselfinthenextmoment,andthenthenext.
Otherwise,hisartwillnotcontributetotheevolutionofhumansocietyor
oflifeasawhole.Thispoint,too,hadamajorbearingonhowthe
Romanticsviewedreligionasahumanactivity.
Thesethreeaestheticimperatives,takentogether,providewhatmightbe
calledanovelisticapproachtothecreationandreceptionofaworkofart.
Inotherwords,theytreattheartistandhisaudienceasanovelistwould
treathisorhercharacters,focusingattentionawayfromtheworkofart
itselfandtowardthepsychologicalprocessesthatgiverisetoitandresult
fromempathizingwithit.GiventhattheRomanticslearnedfromHerder
theprinciplethatallhumanactivityshouldberegardedasworksofart,it
shouldcomeasnosurprisethat—aswewillseebelow—theRomantics
appliedthesameprinciplestotheirunderstandingofphilosophyand
religion:Truthinbothofthesefieldswasamatter,notofstatementsor
texts,butofthepsychologicalprocessesleadingapersontocreatesuch
things,andofthepsychologicalresponseofthosewhoreadthem.
AllthreeoftheRomantics’aestheticimperativeswerecontroversial.
Findingareceptiveaudienceamongsomepeople,theyprovokedthe
extremeireofothers.Howcouldartinspiredbyidlenessbesuperiortoart
achievedthroughtrainingandamasteryofone’scraft?Whyareaperson’s
feelingsabouttheworldmoreinterestingthanadepictionoftherealitiesof
theworld?Howcanonerelatetoaworkofartifonecannotdiscernwithin
itanyrecognizableform?
Facedwiththesequestions,theRomanticsrealizedthattheyhadto
educatetheiraudiencetoappreciatetheirart.Aswewillseebelow,they
concludedthattheBildungtheywereofferingtoothershadtodependnot
onartalone,butalsoonother,ancillarywaysofsensitizingtheiraudience
133
tothewondersofthelawsoforganicgrowth.
ForallthedifficultiesthattheRomanticsencounteredintryingtoget
otherstoadopttheiraestheticimperatives,thepoliticalimperativesthey
triedtodevelopfromthelawsoforganicgrowthpresentedevengreater
problems.Thiswasbecausetheselaws,evenastheyprovidedthegeneral
outlineforthoseimperatives—everyoneshouldliveinharmony—undercut
anyindividualimperativesabouthowtoachievethatharmony.Further,
theyundercuttheobjectivestatusofanytruthsonwhicheventhemore
generalimperativescouldbebased.
ThegeneralRomanticpoliticalimperativewasthattheidealworkofart
shouldbringsocietyclosertorealizingthepurposeoflifeasawhole.For
SchlegelandHölderlin,thispurposewasfreedomandharmony;for
Schelling,unityindiversity.Althoughitispossibletoviewthesetwo
principlesassimplytwodifferentwaysofexpressingthesamething—
peopleshouldexercisetheirfreedomsresponsiblyinawaythatdoesnot
damagetheunityandharmonyofsociety—wewillseebelowthatthe
Romanticshadmanyconflictingideasofwhatfreedommightmeaninan
infiniteorganicunity.
Intryingtofurtherarticulatetheirpoliticalimperatives,theRomantics
ranintoevengreaterproblems.Thefirstwasthatadoctrineofconstant
evolutionallowedfornoobjectiveuniversalprinciplestogovernsocial
relationships.Ifeachindividualwasfreetointuitthedictatesofthelife
forcewithinhim,andthelifeforcewasconstantlychanging,howcould
otherindividualssayhewaswrongwhenhisintuitionsconflictedwith
theirs?
Evenmorefundamentalwasthefactthat,ifmoralimperativeswere
derivedfromthepurposeoflife,howwasthatpurposetobeknown?It’s
allveryfinetospeakofunityindiversityastheultimategoaloflife,but
howcanthisprinciplebeknown,muchlessproventoothers?This
problem,inparticular,wasexacerbatedbythethirdaspectoftheRomantic
worldview:thattheorganicunityofthecosmoswasinfinite.Howcould
humanbeings,asfinitebeings,comprehendthetruepurposeofaninfinite
universe?ItwasintryingtoanswerthisquestionthattheRomanticscame
upwiththeirdistinctiveconceptionofwhatconstitutesatruth.
Infinite
134
Theinfinitudeoftheorganicunityofthecosmos,anideathatthe
RomanticspickedupfromHerschel,iswhatdistinguishedtheirworldview
fromHerder’s.ForHerder,thecosmoswasonlyoneofGod’spotentially
infiniteaspects,meaningthattherewasmoretorealitythantheorganic
unityofthecosmos.Godhadother,extra-cosmicaspectsaswell.Forthe
Romantics,however,theorganicunityofthecosmosencompassed
everything—theinfinitudeofallBeing—withnoroomforanything,even
God,outside.TheinfiniteGod—theWorldSoul—wasOnewiththeinfinite
cosmos.Bymakingthisassertion,theyfeltthattheywerefreeinghumanity
fromtheultimateduality:thedualitybetweenGodandhiscreation.For
them,Godwasnotsomethingseparate,transcendingcreation.Instead,he
wasimmanentwithinit.Asmightbeexpected,thisaspectoftheir
worldviewbecameadefiningfeatureoftheirreligiousviews.Butitalso
presentedthemwithmanychallengesastheyworkedoutitsimplications
intermsoftheiraestheticandpoliticalprogram.
Thefirstproblemwashowaninfiniteorganismcouldbeencompassed
inahumanconcept.Finiteorganismsaredefinedbythefactthattheyhave
apurpose,whichtheyachieveininteractionwiththeirenvironment.Butan
infiniteorganism,bydefinition,hasnoexternalenvironmentwithwhichto
interact.Sowhatkindoforganismwasit?Andwhatkindofpurposemight
suchanorganismhave?Spinoza,inhiscontemplationofGodasinfinite
substance,hadalreadyraisedthisquestion,andhadsuggestedthatevenif
therewasananswer,nofinitebeingcouldcomprehendit.Ashesaid,the
purposeofsuchaninfinitesubstancewouldbenomoresimilartoourown
conceptionof“purpose”thantheDogStar,Sirius,issimilartoadogthat
barks.
SchellingwastheonlyRomanticwhotriedtotacklethisproblem,but
hismodernscholarlycommentatorsagreethathisproposedsolutionswere
confused,andcreatedmoreproblemsthantheysolved.Onepointonwhich
hewasclear,though,wasthatalthoughtheinfiniteorganismwasheaded
towardunity,itwouldneverfullyarrivethere.Total,staticunitywasan
unachievablegoal.Theuniverse,tobetrulyinfinite,wastobeforeverin
process—anideathatalltheRomanticsshared.Thishowever,createda
furtherprobleminthatthepurposeoftheorganismwaswhatgaveitits
unity-in-process,butifthepurposewasnevertobeachieved,wouldn’tthat
meanthattheunitywasillusory?Schellingwrestledwiththisissueaswell,
butwithnocoherentresults.
135
ThisisaseriousweaknessintheRomanticworldview.Theirassumption
thattheuniversehadapurposewaswhathadallowedthemtoassertthatit
wasanorganicunity.Theprincipleoforganicunity,inturn,waswhat
convincedthemthatthehumanmindcouldbridgethegapbetweensubject
andobject.Onlywhenthisgapwasbridged,theyfelt,couldweknow
abouttheoutsideworldbyexaminingourselves,andaboutourselvesby
examiningtheoutsideworld.Butifthepurposeoftheuniverseasawhole
isincomprehensible,thentheunderlyingmetaphorofRomanticthought
collapses.Insteadofhealingthesplitsthatmadetheuniverse“outthere”
unknowable,theyareleftwithauniverseunknowableinadifferentway:It
canbeunderstoodonlyifithasapurpose,butitspurposecannotbe
achievedorevenconceived.Thismeansthatnothingcanbeunderstood.
Anotherproblem,whichalltheRomanticsdidtackle,was—supposing
thattheuniverseisaninfiniteorganism—howfinitehumanbeingscould
knowaninfiniteorganismasatruth.Aspartofaninfiniteorganism,each
finiteorganismcouldseeandunderstandonlyasmallpart.Andbecause
theinfiniteorganismwaschangingovertime,thatsmallpartwaseven
furtherlimitedbythefactthatitspointofviewwasconfinedtoaparticular
timeandplace.Thustherewasnosuchthingasaprivilegedpointofview
fromwhichafinitebeingcouldgraspandgiveanadequaterepresentation
oftheinfinitewhole.
Aswehavealreadyseen,thechangingnatureoftheorganiccosmoshad
ruledoutthepossibilitythatthelawsofreasonwouldbeuniversally—
alwaysandeverywhere—true.Butbypositinganinfinitecosmos,the
Romanticswerealsorulingouttheothercommonlyclaimedsourcefor
universaltruthsintheWesterntradition:Christianrevelation.The
ChristiantraditionhadmaintainedthatGod—asinfiniteBeing,creatorofa
finitecosmos—wasessentiallyunknowablebythefinitebeingswithinthat
cosmos,butthetraditionhadfurthermaintainedthatGodhad
circumventedthisproblembymakinghimselfandhispurposeknown
throughactsofrevelationtothehumanrace.Butnow,withnoGodoutside
oftheuniversetoexplainhisinfinitepointofviewtofinitehumanbeings,
andwiththeWorldSoulnothingmorethanthetotalityofBeing,therewas
nooutsideauthoritytoexplainthegoaloftheinfiniteuniverseinfinite
terms.
ThustheRomanticsabandonedbothofthereceivedcriteriaforobjective
truthclaimsintheWesterntradition:reasonandrevelation.Thequestion
136
facingthem,then,waswhatcriteriatoofferintheirplace.
ThegeneralRomanticsolutiontothisproblemwastoadmitthatfinite
beingscannotfullyunderstandinfinity,butbecauseoftheorganiclawsthat
finitebeingshaveincommonwithinfiniteBeing,humanbeingsin
particularcangainintimationsoftheuniversalpurposeofinfiniteBeingby
lookinginsidethemselves.TheRomanticsgavetworeasonsforwhythisis
so.Thefirstreasonisthathumanbeingsareatthecuttingedgeof
evolution.Byobservingthemselvesfromwithinastheyactcreatively,
humanbeingsareabletosensethegeneralthrustofwherelifeisgoing.In
fact,theyaretheagentswhodecidewhereitisgoingrightnow.AsSchlegel
said,“Godisreallyonlyataskforus,andwecreatehimthroughourown
actions.” 9 InlinewithKant’sdictumthatweknowonlywhatwemake,the
Romanticsfeltthatweknewthedirectionoftheinfiniteuniversebecause
wewereagentsinitsmaking.Thiswouldbeespeciallytruewhenhuman
beingsdevelopedtheirsensibilitiesthroughtheproperBildung.
Thesecondreasonwhyintrospectionisthebestwaytointuitthe
purposeofthecosmosisthateachhumanbeingisamicrocosm:asmall
replicaofthecosmos,operatingbythesameorganiclaws,andexhibiting
thesamebehavior.AsSchleiermacherputit,everyindividualisa
“representationoftheinfinite.” 10 OrinNovalis’words:“[I]snotthe
universewithinourselves?…Eternitywithitsworlds—thepastandfuture
—isinourselvesornowhere.” 11 Themoreonecanbecomeconsciousofthe
innerworkingsofone’sbodyandmind,themoreonecansenseand
expresstheanalogousinnerworkingsofthecosmosasawhole.Thisiswhy
theRomanticsfeltthatintrospectionledtotruthsthatwerenotmerely
subjective,butalsoapplied,byanalogy,totheentirecosmos.Schlegel,
borrowingtheChristianterm,calledthetruthsderivedfromintrospection
“revelations,”indicatingthattheywerebynaturedivine.
Theproblem,ofcourse,washowtojudgetherelativemeritsofeven
divinetruthsthatwere,bytheRomantics’ownadmission,partialand
subjecttochange.Inresponsetothisproblemtheydevelopedseveral
distinctivedefinitionsofwhatconstitutedatruthandhowthattruthwas
bestconveyed.
SchellingwasaloneamongtheminfollowingKant’scriterionfortruth:
thatitberationallyconsistentandcoherent.Heagreedwithhisfellow
RomanticsthattheprimaryintellectualintuitionwasoftheOnenessofall
Being,buthealsobelievedthatthisintuitionhadtruth-valueonlyifone
137
coulddevelopaconsistentviewoftheuniversefromit.Forthisreason,he
composedsystematictreatises,tryingtoexplainallknowledge—everything
fromconcretescientificfactstoabstractphilosophicalprinciples—inline
withtheprincipleoftheOnenessofallBeing.
Theprimaryfeatureofthesesystemswasthattheyweredynamic,
explainingnotastaticuniverse,suchasNewton’s,butanevolvingone.
EachofhissystemswasaimedatexplaininghowtheOnenessofBeing,asa
thesis,produceditscontradictoryantithesis,andthenthroughthetension
betweenthetwocreatedahighersynthesis,whichthen,asanewthesis,
producedanewantithesis,andsoon,thusprovidingtheimpetusfor
continuedevolution.ThefactthatSchellingwasneversatisfiedwithhis
efforts,producingandthendiscardingsystemaftersystem,mayhavebeen
whatdeterredhisfellowRomanticsfromattemptingtocreatephilosophical
systemsthemselves.
Buttheyhadotherreasonsforavoidingsystem-building,too.Schlegel,
inhisearlywritings,maintainedthatthedrivetoprovideasystematic
explanationofallrealitywasbothnecessaryandimpossible:necessaryin
thatthemindbynaturewantstoseethingswhole;impossibleinthatits
finitudekeepsitfromeversucceeding.Thushetookanovelisticapproach
tosystem-building—i.e.,helookedatthesystem-builderasanovelist
mightpresentacharacterinanovel.Thesourceofsystem-building,he
maintained,wastobefoundnotinabstractfirstprinciples,butinthe
system-builder’spsychologicaldriveforunityofknowledge.Asheputit,
allphilosophybeginswiththeprinciple,“Istriveafterunityof
knowledge.” 12 Inanhonestphilosophicalsystem,everythingshouldbe
aimedatexploringtheimplicationsofthephilosopher’spsychological
motivation.Truthwastobefound,notinthesystem,butbyturningbackto
lookintothemindthatwantstocreateit.Aswithart,thetruthof
philosophylaynotinacoherentrepresentationoftheuniverse,butin
expressingandunderstandingthedesiretorepresentitcoherently.
Novalisalsorecommendedfocusingonsystem-buildingprimarilyasan
issueofthepsychologicaldevelopmentofthesystem-builder,buthis
judgmentoftheunderlyingmotivationwasharsherthanSchlegel’s.Hesaw
itaspathological,a“logicalsickness.”“Philosophy,”hesaid,“isactually
homesickness—theurgetobeeverywhereathome.” 13 Inhiseyes,tobeat
homewastobeawayfromthecuttingedgeofchange.Thedesiretohave
everythingexplainedandfamiliarwasanattempttocloseoneselfofffrom
138
wonderandnewnessofeachpresentmoment.Iftheuniverseistruly
evolving,nosystem—evenasystemtoexplainitsevolution—candojustice
totheauthenticexperienceofbeingbothapassiveandanactiveparticipant
inthatevolution.
Soinsteadofstrivingfortruthascoherence,Novalisfeltthatoneshould
striveforthetruthofauthenticity:beingtruetothefactthatweareevolving
creaturesatourownparticularplaceandtime,whileatthesametime
risingabovethoselimitations,throughourpowersofimagination,totaste
theinfinite.Forhim,authenticitywastheoppositeofbeingaphilistine,
someoneconfinedtothemechanicalrepetitionofeverydayhabits.An
authenticpersonwasonewholivedoutsidethecommonplace,whowas
abletotransformtheexperienceofthecommonplaceintosomething
continuallymagicalandnew.
Thustheprimaryguaranteeofanauthenticparticipationinthe
evolutionoftheuniversewasthatitromanticizedthecommonplace—a
processthatNovalisadmittedcouldnotbeexplainedeventhoughitcould
beexperienced.Inhiswords,
“Romanticizingisnothingotherthanaqualitativeraisingtoa
higherpower.Thelowerselfisidentifiedwiththebetterselfinthis
operation.…Thisoperationisasyetquiteunknown.Bygivinga
highermeaningtotheordinary,amysteriousappearancetothe
ordinary,thedignityoftheunacquaintedtothatofwhichweare
acquainted,themereappearanceofinfinitytothefinite,Iromanticize
them.” 14
Romanticizingthecommonplace,Novalisthought,encourageda
sensitivitytothetwofoldprocessofself-alienationandappropriationthat
allowedthemindtobebothmoreresponsivetotheworldandtobemore
self-directedinshapingtheworldthroughtheimagination.Moreover,by
providingaglimpseofthecosmiccategoriesofthesublime—mysterious
andinfinite—inthemicrocosmofone’sexperience,theactofromanticizing
alsoguaranteed,atleastsubjectively,thetruthoftheparallelsbetweenthe
finiteorganismandtheinfiniteorganicunityofwhichitwasapart.To
sensewhatmightbecalledthemicrocosmicsublimewastoknowone’s
power,likethatofaninfinitebeing,toriseabovetheparticularsofone’s
finitetimeandplace.Thusthepowersoftheimagination,ratherthanbeing
emptyfabricationsandlies,wereactuallyasourceoftruth.ForNovalis,
139
thistruthwasprovenbythefactthatordinaryexistenceiswretched,and
thusunnatural.Inhiswords,
“Doweperhapsneedsomuchenergyandeffortforordinaryand
commonthingsbecauseforanauthentichumanbeingnothingis
moreoutoftheordinary—nothingmoreuncommon—thanwretched
ordinariness?” 15
However,themereactofromanticizing,evenifnaturalandtrue,was
powerlesstoconveythetruthofone’spersonalrevelationstoothers.
Becauseauthenticitywastobeexperiencedonlyfromwithin,thetruthof
anymoment’srevelationwastotallysubjectiveandcouldnotbetested
fromwithout,inasmuchasnooneelsecanoccupythesamepositionin
timeandplaceasanyotherperson,andnooneperson’spositionintime
andplaceismoreauthoritativethananyoneelse’s.Thebestapersoncando
toconvinceothersofthetruthsofhisorherownrevelations,Novalis
concluded,istopersuadethemindirectly,throughpoetryandnovelsthat
portrayedtheworldasmagical.
Schlegel,ashisthoughtdeveloped,cametoadoptasimilarpositionon
themicrocosmicsublime.Forhim,thefeelingofthesublimeinone’s
immediateexperiencewastheguaranteefortherealityoftheinfinite,but
thisfeelingwasa“fiction,”meaningthatitcouldnotbeproventrueor
false.
Thushe,too,feltthatliteraturewasthebestwayofpersuadingothersof
thetruthoftheinfinite.However,hedevelopedhisownlineofthoughton
howbesttocommunicatethefactthattheinfinitewasconstantlychanging.
Asaresult,hedevelopedtwoconnectedconcepts—ironyandidea—that
constitutedhisdistinctivecontributiontoRomanticnotionsoftruth.
Thefirstconceptconcernedthestanceoftheauthortowardhisworks.
Toconveytheincessantnatureofchangewhileatthesametimetryingto
stepoutsideit,oneshouldassumeastanceofirony.Theauthorshould
createaworkofarttoconveyatruthwhileatthesametimerealizingthat
thetruthisdestinedtochange.Thusheshouldbeseriousabouthis
messageandyettakeacomic—andcosmic—distancefromit.InSchlegel’s
ownwords,irony“containsandarousesafeelingofindissoluble
antagonismbetweentheabsoluteandtherelative,betweenthe
impossibilityandthenecessityofcompletecommunication.Itisthefreest
ofalllicenses,forbyitsmeansonetranscendsoneself;andyetitisalsothe
140
mostlawful,foritisabsolutelynecessary.” 16 “Ironyistheformofparadox.
Paradoxiseverythingsimultaneouslygoodandgreat.” 17 Irony,for
Schlegel,wasbothaninternalqualityoftheauthor,“themoodthatsurveys
everythingandrisesinfinitelyabovealllimitations,evenaboveitsownart,
virtue,orgenius”andanexternalqualityofthestyleoftheauthor’sworks,
“themimicstyleofanaveragelygiftedItalianbuffo.” 18
AlthoughSchlegelfoundironyinmanygenres—hesawtheSocratic
dialogue,forexample,asthegreatestphilosophicalgenrebecauseitssense
ofironytranscendedtherigidityofphilosophicalsystems—heperfectedhis
ownpersonalgenretoconveytheironicnatureofthetruth.Thisgenrewas
thefragment:astatementshortenoughtobepithy,butlongenoughto
containatleasttwocontrarynotions,andsuggestiveenoughtohintat
implicationslyingbeyondboththoughts—thelargerwholeofwhichthe
fragmentisjustapart.Theidealfragment,hesaid,conveyedanidea:“An
ideaisaconceptperfectedtothepointofirony,anabsolutesynthesisof
absoluteantitheses,thecontinualself-creatinginterchangeoftwo
conflictingthoughts.” 19
Inotherwords,an“idea”inSchlegel’sspecialsenseofthetermdoesnot
simplyassertthedynamicnatureofreality.Itportraysthatrealityby
presentingtwooppositethoughtswithoutcommittingtoeitherofthem.
Furthermore,bypresentingideasinfragmentswithanironicattitude,an
authornotonlyportraysandembodiesthechangingnatureofreality,but
alsoisabletosuggestthatthetruthliesbeyondthewords.Schlegelcalled
thisabilitytowritewiththisironicattitude,versatilityandagility:
“Versatilityconsistsnotjustinacomprehensivesystembutalsoinafeeling
forthechaosoutsidethatsystem,likeman’sfeelingforsomethingbeyond
man.” 20 “Ironyistheclearconsciousnessofeternalagility,ofaninfinitely
teemingchaos.” 21
Ofcourse,evenaphilosophyofironyhasitsunderlyingassumptions
abouttruth.InSchlegel’scase,thatassumptionwasborrowedultimately
fromthePietists:Truthistobejudgedbyitspragmaticuses.Inthiscase,as
a“poet”—histermforanyliteraryartist—hehadtoadoptaphilosophy
thatencouragedthepoet’spowertocreate.“Thenwhatphilosophyisleft
forthepoet?Thecreativephilosophythatoriginatesinfreedomandbelief
infreedom,andshowshowthehumanspiritimpressesitslawonallthings
andhowtheworldisitsworkofart.” 22 Thisphilosophy,whichSchlegel
wasquickenoughtolabela“myth,”wasamythtobeadoptedasatruth
141
becauseofthegoodeffectithadonthepeoplewhoadoptedit.
Hölderlin,too,adoptedapragmaticcriterionfortruth,buthisstandards
for“pragmatic”werefocusednotonlyonthetruthsneededbytheartistor
author.Hewasmoreconcernedwiththequestionofwhichtruthsaneverchangingindividualshouldadoptinanever-changingworld.Giventhe
factthathelatersufferedatotalpsychologicalbreakdown,thereisa
poignancytohiscriterion:Eachindividual,hesaid,shouldchoosethe
philosophythatbestcreatesasenseofinternalpsychologicalunityand
harmony.Astheindividualchanges,thephilosophyheorsheneedswill
alsohavetochange:aprincipleheillustratedinhisnovel,Hyperion,and
explainedinhisphilosophicalsketches.
Forinstance,speakingoftheconflictingphilosophiesofSpinoza—
denyingfreedomofchoice,andadvocatingpassiveacceptance—andFichte
—affirmingfreedomofchoice,andadvocatingactivestruggle—Hölderlin
maintainedthatSpinoza’ssenseoftheunityofnaturerepresentsalost
ideal,whereasFichte’sviewexpressesthestruggletoregainparadise.
Theseopposingviewsaresuitedtodifferentstagesinlife,althoughneither
isnecessarilymoreadvancedthantheother.Inotherwords,onemightfind
comfortandinspirationbyshiftingbackandforthbetweenthese
philosophiesasneeded.TheimageHölderlingaveforthisprocesswasthe
ellipticalorbitofaplanet,nowgrowingnearertoonefocalpointofthe
ellipse,nowgrowingnearertotheother.
Inotherwords,truthforHölderlinwasamatterofindividualchoice,
whichnooneshouldforceonanyoneelse.Andnooneelsecouldrequire
theindividualtobeconsistentinstickingtoanyparticularchoice.
Consistency,forHölderlin,meantbeingfaithfultothepragmaticneedfor
innerwholenessandpeace,witheachpersonthebestjudgeofwhichtruth
wasmostpragmaticatanygivenjunctureinspaceandtime.
Thisattitudetowardtruthworksonlyifonebelievesthatone’sideas
aboutreality—andinparticular,aboutaction—havenoeffectonanything
asidefromone’speaceofmindinthepresentmoment.And,aswewillsee
below,thisispreciselythebeliefthatHölderlinadvocated.Inhiseyes,the
infinite,teeminglifeoftheuniversemeansthatalthoughindividualpeople
maybehurtbyone’sactions,lifeasawholeisneverdamaged.Its
overflowingenergyhealsallwounds.Theconflictsoftheworldcomefrom
notrealizingthatourviewsofrealitycanoffernothingmorethanpartial
andfleetingglimpsesofthetruth.Whenseenfromalargerperspective,
142
conflictsofopinion—likeallotherconflicts—arenomorethantemporary
dissonancesintheevolvingharmonyoftheentirecosmos.
This,however,raisestwoimportantissueswithregardtoalltheearly
Romantictheoriesoftruth:Iftheorganicinfinitudeofthecosmosmeans
thatallhumanideascanofferonlypartialandtemporaryglimpsesofthe
truth,whatdoesthatsayabouttheideathatthecosmosisanorganic
infinitude?Isthatidea,too,onlypartialandtemporary?Ifso,then(1)
wouldn’tthatallowforthepossibilitythattheactualstructureofthe
universewasnotanorganicinfinitude?Andwouldn’tthatfurtherallowfor
thepossibilitythattheuniversehadadifferentstructure,onethatcouldbe
graspedbyideasthatdidofferadequateanduniversalviewsofthetruth?
(2)Iftheideaofanorganicinfinitudewasonlypartiallytrue,wouldn’tit
meanthatthesenseofcomfortofferedbytheideaoftheharmonyofthat
infinitudeisillusory?Afterall,thepurposeoftheorganicinfinitudeis
essentiallyunknowable,sohowcanitbetrustedtobebenevolent?Isn’tit
terrifyingtobeinacosmoswherelifedisposessoeasilyoflife—wherelife
actuallyfeedsondeath—andwhosepurposecannotbeunderstood?
Inresponsetobothoftheseobjections,theRomanticsinsistedthatthe
ideaoftheinfiniteorganicunityofthecosmoshadaspecialstatus.Unlike
ordinaryhumanideas,itwasnotsubjecttothelimitationsofthesenses.
Instead,itwasdirectlyintuitedbythesensitivemind.It,inawaysimilarto
Kant’scategories,wasbuiltintothestructureofhowadirectintuition
occurred.Andtheexperience,onceobtained,showedthatthemiseriesof
lifeasperceivedthroughthesenses—aging,illness,anddeath—only
seemedtobemiseries.Thelargerviewaffordedbythisexperiencewas
infinitelycomforting.DespiteallthemiseriesfromwhichHölderlin
suffered,hehadthenarratorofHyperionstate:
“Ihaveseenitonetime,theuniquespiritthatmysoulsought,and
theperfectionthatweprojectfarupwardabovethestars,thatwe
postponeuntiltheendoftime,Ifeltitspresence.Itwasthere,the
highest,inthiscircleofhumannatureandofthings,itwasthere!
“Iasknomorewhereitmaybe;itwasintheworld,itcanreturn
intheworld,itisnowonlyconcealedinit.Iasknomorewhatitmay
be;Ihaveseenit,Ihavecometoknowit.” 23
Andthenagain:
143
“Osoul!soul!Beautyoftheworld!youindestructible,enchanting
beauty!withyoureternalyouth!youare;what,then,isdeathandall
thewoeofmen?—O!manyemptywordshavebeenutteredbythe
strangebeings.Yetallensuesfrompleasure,andallendswith
peace.” 24
Similarly,whenSchlegelspokeofachaosthatlayoutsideofany
systematicthought,hedidnotimplythattheworldbeyondthoughtwas
oneofdangerordisorder.Itwasonlyoneofseemingdisorder.Thedirect
experienceofaperson’sorganicinteractionswiththeuniverseintheactof
creation,heheld,servedasthatperson’sownproofthatthesublimeinfinite
washarmonious,andnothingtobefeared.
Still,thisexperiencecouldnotbeproventoothers.Itcouldonlybefelt
within.Toprovethatitwasnotpurelysubjective,though,theRomantics
neededtoinduceotherpeopletobecomesensitivetothesameexperience.
Andtheonlywaytodothatwastomaketheideaofsuchanexperience
attractive.
Asaresult,alargepartoftheRomanticBildungforcreatingafree
harmonioussocietylayintheirattemptstomaketheexperienceofOneness
anattractiveidea.Tosomeextent,theburdenofthistaskfelltotheir
literaryskills.Butperhapsthemostattractivepartoftheirprogramlayin
theirexplanationofwhatfreedommeantinthecontextofaninfinite
organicunity.
THEATTRACTIONSOFFREEDOM
BothKantandFichtehadarguedforciblythattheviewofamonistic
cosmos—acosmosinwhichallareOne—deniedthepossibilityoffreedom
inthetwosensesofthetermthatweremostvitaltohumandignity:
autonomy,theabilitytoformulatetherationallawsforone’sactions;and
spontaneity,theabilitytoexercisefreedomofchoice.Ifhumanbeingswere
simplypartofalargerunityoverwhichtheyhadnocontrol,thenthe
purposesofthatunity,whatevertheymightbe,wouldautomatically
overridehumanfreedom.Withnofreedomofchoice,humanbeingscould
notbegrantedthedignitythatcomeswithresponsibility.
TheRomanticswerewellawareofthesearguments,andyettheyeach,
intheirownway,maintainedthathumanbeingswerefreeeventhough
144
theywerepartsofaninfiniteorganicunity.Thewaytheyfoundaround
thisparadox,ofcourse,wastoredefinewhatfreedommeant.Andwhenwe
examinethewaysinwhichSchelling,Novalis,Schlegel,andHölderlin
attackedthisparadox,wewillseeineachcasethattheirresolutionwas
directlyconnectedtotheirindividualideasofwhatconstitutedatruth.
Schelling—theonlyonewhoheldtothecriterionthattruthshouldbe
logicallyconsistent—cametothebleakestviewofthefourastowhat
constitutedfreedom.Arguingfromtheunityofthecosmos,heconcluded
thathumanbeings,asfinitebeings,donotevenexist,inthesensethat
nothingcanexistinandofitself.Fromthisconclusionhefurtherargued
thatfinitehumanbeingshavenofreedomofchoice.Infact,heultimately
concludedthattheveryideaoffreedomofchoicewasactuallythesourceof
allevil.Tofosterthegoodoftheuniverse,humanbeingshadtoacceptthat
theironlyfreedomwastobeopentothedivineforceactingwithinthem.
Becausethisopennessexpressedtheirinnernature,aspartsofthewhole,
freedomthusmeantexpressingone’sinnernature.
This,ofcourse,wasSpinoza’sdefinitionoffreedom,whichamountedto
nofreedomatall.Afterall,onehadnochoiceorresponsibilityfor
determiningwhatone’sinnatenaturewasorforhowthedivineforce
wouldact.TheonlydifferencebetweenSpinozaandSchellingwasthat,for
theformer,one’sinnatenaturewasone’srationality,whereasforSchelling
one’sinnatenaturewasthesumtotalofalltheforces—physicaland
mental,feelingsandthoughts—actingthroughandwithinone.
UnlikeSchelling,theremainingthreethinkers,whendefiningfreedom,
openlydeniedthattheprincipleoflogicalconsistencyhadanyauthority
overthem.This,infact,waspartoftheirexpressionoffreedom:If,tobe
logicallyconsistentwiththeprincipleofaninfiniteorganicunity,onehad
todenyoneselfanyfreedomofchoice,thenoneassertedone’sfreedomby
declaringindependencefromtheprincipleoflogicalconsistency.Thisdid
notmean,however,thattheymadenoefforttobecoherent.Theysimply
lookedforcoherenceinotherterms.
ForNovalis,freedomconsistedofone’sabilitytoromanticizeone’slife.
Onlytotheextentthatyoucoulduseyourpowersofimaginationtoseethe
sublimeinthecommonplacecouldyouknowthatyouwereplayingarole
inshapingthecosmos,andthatyousharedinthecreativefreedomofthe
infinite.
ForSchlegel,freedomconsistedinversatility,theabilitytonotbetied
145
downbyanysideinconflictingissues.Thushecouldmaintaintwototally
contradictoryideasaboutfreedominasingle“idea”:that,ontheonehand,
theOnenessandharmonyoftheuniversewasthesoleideaofhis
philosophy;and,ontheother,thathumanbeingscometoknowthemselves
intheactivityoftryingtodefinethemselvesbecausethatactivityofselfdefinition,inandofitself,makesthemwhattheyare.Theabilitytohold
bothviewsatonceinanattitudeofirony,committedtoneither,freedone
fromtheconfiningconditionsofone’stimeandplace,andenabledoneto
partakeofaninfinitepointofview.
Similarly,forHölderlin,freedomconsistedoftheabilitytochangeone’s
pointofviewasneededforthesakeofone’sspiritualandpsychological
wholenessandhealth.This,inturn,wasafunctionofone’sspontaneity,a
termthatHölderlinborrowedfromKantwhilegivingitanewmeaning.
Insteadofabsolutefreedomofchoice,spontaneityforHölderlinmeantone’s
abilitytoimposeone’screativeforcesontheworldaroundone.Tobetruly
spontaneous,onehadtobelievethatonecouldchoosetoviewrealityin
anywayonelikedsoastofosterone’sinnerharmony.
Despitetheirattemptstoassertfreedomofchoiceinaninfiniteorganic
unity,allthreeofthesethinkersendedupsimplyaffirmingthefactthat
freedom,forpartsofanorganicunity,canmeannothingmorethanthe
freedomtofollowone’sownnature,yetwithnofreedomtochooseor
changethatnature.Theabilitytoromanticizelife,tomaintainanattitudeof
irony,ortobespontaneousinchoosingone’sviewofreality,mayfeelfrom
theinsidelikeanexerciseoffreedom.Butifdescribedfromoutside,aspart
ofaninfiniteorganicunity,theseabilitiescanbenothingmorethanan
expressionofimpulsesoverwhichonehasnocontrol.
Sohereagain,theRomanticswerecaughtintheconflictbetween
descriptionandexpression.Inclaimingthatexpressionsoffeelingswere
true,theyhadtoofferadescriptionofrealitythatjustifiedtheirclaim.But
theirdescriptionofrealityconflictedlogicallywithanotherclaimthey
wantedtomake:thattheirexpressionswerefree.
HavingreadKant,allthreeofthesethinkersseemtohaverecognized
thisconflict.Thisiswhytheyabandonedtheideaoflogicalcoherence
derivedfromfirstprinciples,andreplaceditwithaprincipleofaesthetic
coherence:onethatmadesense,notinlogicalorrationalterms,butin
artisticones,expressedbothwithinaworkofRomanticartandintheactof
creatingsuchawork.Ontheonehand,thiskindofcoherenceresemblesthe
146
coherenceofacharacter’smotivationsasmightbepresentedinanovel:
Youcanunderstandwherethecharacteriscomingfrom,andwhatheor
sheistryingtoachievebyaparticularaction,evenifthecharactercan’tcite
logicalfirstprinciplestojustifythataction.Ontheotherhand,the
coherenceofthesedoctrinesoffreedomresemblesthecoherenceinthe
author’sattitudewhenputtingenergyintotheactofartisticcreation:As
Schlegelsaid,apoetneedstobelieveinthepowerofthehumanspiritto
impressitslawsonallthings.Nottobelieveinthatpowerwould,foran
author,bedebilitating.
Thesedoctrinesonthemeaningoffreedom,whatevertheirvalidityas
guidelinesforaspiringartists,weretotallyinadequateasguidelinesfor
implementingasocialprogram.That’sbecause,despitetheirdiffering
emphases,theysharedonepointincommon:Theyteachfreedomwithout
accountability.Thereisnodiscussionoftheconsequencesofone’sactions,
orofhowtoresolveconflictsarisingwhenoneperson’sexerciseofhisor
herfreedomgetsinthewayofsomeoneelse’s.Asocialphilosophythat
offersnomeansbywhichindividualswouldbeheldaccountablefortheir
actionsandnomeansforadjudicatingconflictsisnosocialphilosophyat
all.It’sarecipeforchaos.
TheRomantics,ofcourse,insistedthatifallpeopleweretoexercisetheir
freedomfromadirectintuitionoftheinfiniteorganicunityofthecosmos,
therewouldbenoabuseoffreedomandnoconflicts.Asenseoffellowfeelingwouldinspireeveryonetotreatoneanotherwithtendernessand
compassion.Butthedisturbingfeatureoftheirviewsonfreedomisnot
simplythatissuesofresponsibilityarenotmentioned.Thewholeideaof
responsibilityandaccountabilitybecomesimpossible.
ItmightbearguedthatNovalis,Schlegel,andHölderlin—withtheir
ironic,magical,novelisticapproachtofreedomandtruth—weresimply
embodyingSchiller’sdoctrineoftheplaydrive:Peoplefindfreedomand
learnaboutmoralitythroughplay.Totakeanironicstancetowardthe
world,ortolookforthemagicalinthecommonplace,istoexerciseone’s
freedomtoplay.Fromplay,comesmorality.ButthisRomanticversionof
Schiller’sidea,whenregardedfromSchiller’soverallviewpoint,ismissing
animportantstep.Theplaydrive,inhiseyes,hadtobetrainedtoleadtoa
senseofmoralresponsibility:therealizationthat,forplaytobealong-term
activity,onehadtoactresponsibly,inlinewithrulesofreason,andthat
one’sfeelingshadtobetrainedtolovethoserules.Otherwise,thegameof
147
societywouldfallapart.ButfortheRomantics,therewerenorulestoplay
by,andnoaccountabilityifone’sfeelingsofOnenessledtoactionsthat
otherpeoplemightobjectto.Forthem,theobjection,andnotthefeeling,
wouldbewrong.
Thispointbecomesevenclearerwhenwecomparethegeneraloutlineof
theRomantics’thoughtwiththatofKant’s.LikeKant,theystatedthatthe
purposeoftheuniverse“outthere”isessentiallyunknowable,andthatthe
onlythingdirectlyknowableisthewayinwhichthemindshapesits
experienceofthatuniverse.Likehim,theyalsostatedthatmanyofthe
seemingconflictsofhumanreasoncanberesolvedbyrecoursetoan
aestheticsenseoftheharmonycommunicatedbythebeautifulandthe
senseofinfinitudecommunicatedbythesublime.
However,theseviewsontheirowncouldeasilyleavepeopleadrift,as
theywouldallowpeopletoshapetheirexperienceandtofindharmonyin
theexperienceofbeautyincompletelyarbitraryways.Kantavoidedthis
trapbyinsistingontheobjectivityofthemorallaw.Peopleareworthyof
respect,inhiseyes,becausetheyareaccountabletotheobjectivedemands
ofreason.ItwasthishumansenseofaccountabilitythatinspiredKant’s
remarkabouttheorderlinessofthenighttimesky:“Twothingsfill[my]
dispositionwithevernewandincreasingrespectandawethemore
frequentlytheyengage[my]thinking:thestarryheavensabovemeandthe
morallawwithinme.”Theorderlinessofthemorallawwithiniswhat
givestheindividualanintuitionoftheorderlinessbehindthesublime
nighttimesky.Respectforthemorallawiswhat,inhiseyes,raiseda
personabovethelevelofhumananimality,andgavedignitytothehuman
heart.
TheRomantics,however,offerednoobjectiveprincipletopreventtheir
worldviewfrombeingusedinarbitraryways.ThisiswhatSchleiermacher
meantwhenclaimingtoseechaosinthestars:Theorganicnatureofthe
infiniteunityoftheiruniversemadetheexistenceofuniversalmorallaws
impossible.Theunityofthatinfiniteorganicprocessmeantthatnoone
individualcouldreallybeheldaccountableforhisactions,andsotherewas
noneedforhimtoexplainthereasonsforhisactionsinuniversally
acceptableterms.Theonlyprotectionagainstarbitrariness,intheRomantic
worldview,wasfaiththattheforcesatworkintheuniversewere
essentiallygood.Thustherewasnoneed,theyfelt,foramorallawbeyond
theimperativetocultivateone’ssensitivitytotheunityofallthings.
148
ThisiswhytheRomanticviewdenigratedanyattempttojudge
another’sactionsagainstanykindofmorallaw.Instead,thedutyofthe
sensitivesoul,alsointunewiththeunityofthecosmos,wastoempathize
withthepsychologicalmotivationsforallkindsofbehavior,regardlessof
whattheconsequencesofthoseactionsmightbe.Inthisway,the
perspectiveforjudgingactionschangedfromthatofmoralphilosophyto
thatofthenovel.Andtheidealnovel,inthiscase,triedtopresentan
infinitepointofviewinwhichevenmistakenactionshavetheirplaceinthe
glowingvitalityofthewhole.
Hölderlin’sHyperionisacaseinpoint.Thenovelisasadone,centering
ontheemotionalupheavalsofthenarrator’slife.AyoungGreekofthelate
18thcentury,Hyperionfindsanexcellentfriend,Alabanda,andfallsinlove
withanevenmoreexcellentwoman—Diotima,namedafterSocrates’
teacher.Hyperion’smainproblem—muchliketheauthor’s—isatendency
towardextravagantandimpulsiveswingsofmood.Learningofan
attemptedrevolutionagainsttheTurks,heleavesDiotima,muchagainst
herbetteradvice,tojoin—andeventually,togetherwithAlabanda,tolead
—agroupofrevolutionaryforces.Thebarbaricbehaviorofhisforceson
capturingaporttown,however,leaveshimdisillusionedwiththe
revolution,andsohedecidestoreturntohislove.Butitistoolate.Shehas
learnedfalsereportsofhisdeathand,heart-stricken,hastakenillandwill
soondie.Learningthatheisalive,shewritestohim,tellinghimnotto
returnhome,asherfamilywillseekvengeanceforherdeath.
Inasimilarvein,Alabanda—again,inaseriesofeventsinitiatedby
Hyperion’sactions—diesatthehandsofasecretcriminalbrotherhood.
Hyperionisthusforcedintoexile,butaftermanyyearsreturnshome.
Thereheadoptsthelifeofahermitandfinallyfindspeace,assuredthathe
neverreallyhasbeenseparatedfromDiotima,andneverwillbe.Toward
theendofthenovelheconcludes,“Allthedissonancesoftheworldarelike
lovers’strife.Inthemidstofthequarrelisreconciliation,andallthatis
separatedcomestogetheragain.Thearteriespartandreturnintheheart,
andallisoneeternal,glowinglife.”
AsHölderlinstatesinhisprefacetothenovel,Hyperion’sstoryisnotto
bereadforthesakeofthemoral—whichwouldobviouslybenottotrust
one’simpulses—buttoappreciatethe“resolutionofdissonancesina
particularcharacter.”FromtheinfiniteperspectivethatHyperiondevelops
attheendofthestory,evenhisgravemistakesarenothingmorethan
149
minordissonancesintheharmonicprogressionoftheuniverse.Theycarry
noharmfulconsequences,andHyperionhastogivenomoreaccountofhis
actionsthanthattheyweremotivatedbyhischaracter.Theuniverse,inits
infinitevitality,will—byreturningeverythingtoOneness—takecareofthe
rest.
Thisviewoffreedomwithoutaccountabilitybecameoneoftheprime
sellingpointsfortheRomanticviewofthecosmos.Thisisunfortunate,for
itofferednolessonsonhowtolearnfromone’smistakes.Instead,theonly
lessonitofferedwasonhownottosufferfromtheknowledgeofone’spast
mistakes:Oneshouldviewthemasunreal.Althoughthisviewoffreedom
taughtthatactionshadnorealconsequences,theadoptionoftheviewled
tomanyunfortunateconsequencesinreallife.
THEROMANTICPROGRAM
Aswehavenoted,theRomanticsadoptedSchiller’sdoctrinethathuman
beingswouldachieveharmonyandfreedomonlythroughanaesthetic
education.Butbecausetheirunderstandingofhumanpsychologydiffered
radicallyfromhis,theirunderstandingofwhatwasinvolvedinthat
educationwasalsoradicallytheirown.Insteadoftryingtomaketheir
audienceawareoftheneedtobringharmonytotwodisparatepartsoftheir
humanity—asinSchiller’sprogram—theRomanticssawtheirdutyas
makingtheiraudienceawareofthepre-existingunityandharmonywithin
themselves,withinsociety,andwithintheuniverseatlarge.Havingmade
theiraudienceawareoftheideaofthispre-existingunityandharmony,the
nextstepwouldbetoinducethemtohaveadirectexperienceoftheinfinite
organicunitymanifestingitselfwithinthem.
ThusthereweretwoaspectstoBildungintheeyesoftheRomantics:
descriptive—talkingandwritingabouttheinfiniteorganicunity;and
performative—talkingandwritinginawaythatwouldgiverisetoan
immediatesenseofit.
TheRomanticsusedmanygenresinthedescriptivesideoftheir
program,suchasliterarycriticismandessaysonapplyingtheperspective
oforganicunitytodifferentaspectsoflifeandknowledge.Also—inthe
mannerofGoetheandothernovelists—theyinsertedpassagesintheir
novelsdevotedtodiscussionsofthesetopics,eitheramongthecharacters
orasnarrativeasides.Thesedescriptionswereoftenadhocand
150
fragmentary,alongthelinesofSchlegel’sobservationthatfinitewordsare
betteratsuggestingtheinfinitethanatdescribingit.
Schelling,however,feltthatbecauseallthingsexistonlyaspartofa
whole,theycouldbeunderstoodonlybyshowingindetailhowtheyfit
withinthewhole.That,inturn,couldbeshownonlybyofferingadynamic
pictureofhoweachthingwasconstructedbytheunifiedforceanimating
thewhole.Inotherwords,onehadtoshowitsplaceinthehistoryofthe
universe.
Thisapproach,aswenotedwhendiscussingHerder,iscalledhistoricism:
thebeliefthatsomethingcanbeunderstoodandappreciatedonlythrough
itsownhistoryanditsplaceinthelargerhistoryoftheworld.For
Schelling,thepastwasnotarandomseriesofevents.IncontrasttoFichte’s
evaluationofhistoryasmoreboringthancountingpeas,Schellingfeltthat
history—whenapproachedastheprogressoftheWorldSoul—wasavast
andinspiringdrama.Allofhisphilosophicalsystemscontainedthis
historicalelementasanessentialexplanatoryprinciple.Thingscouldbe
understoodandevaluatedonlybyplacingthemonatimeline,withintheir
properhistoricalplace.
InhisMethodofAcademicStudy(1803),heargued—withgreatinfluence
intheGermanscholarlyworld—thatallacademictopicsshouldbe
approachedaschaptersinthehistoryoftheWorldSoul,withtheaimof
furtheringitspurposesofunityandharmony.Forexample,professorsof
lawshouldinquireintothewaysinwhichpublicandprivatelifecouldbe
broughtintogreaterharmonyintheidealstate.Aboveall,thestudyof
historyitselfshouldbeconductedwithreferencetothelawsofdivine
organicgrowth.Ashesaid,
“Historyattainsconsummationforreasononlywhentheempirical
causesthatsatisfytheunderstandingareviewedastoolsandmeans
fortheappearanceofahighernecessity.Insuchapresentation,
historycannotfailtohavetheeffectofthegreatestandmost
astoundingdrama,whichcouldbecomposedonlyinaninfinite
mind.” 25
Thistypeofhistoricismturnshistoryfromacollectionoffactstoan
assigningofvalues.Dependingonone’sviewofthegeneraltrendof
history—up,down,down-up-down,up-down-up—thesimplefactthatx
precedesycomestobeseenasajudgmentthatxiseitherbetterorworse
151
thany.Withthisvaluejudgment,thedescriptionbecomesprescriptive:The
generalcourseofthepastshowsnotonlywhathashappened,butevenmore
importantly,whatpeopleshoulddointhepresenttofollowtheintentionsof
theinfinitemind.This,ofcourse,assumesthatonecanintuit—eitherbefore
one’sinvestigationofthepastorafterit—whatthoseintentionsare.
Becausehistoricismdevelopedatatimewhenpeopleknewthattheir
knowledgeofworldhistorywasstilllimited,thetendencywastointuitthe
divineplanofhistorybeforethefactswerein.Forexample,Herder,the
fatherofmodernhistoricism,hadapersonalfondnessfororigins.Early
thingsweregoodbecausetheywereclosertotheoriginalOnenesstowhich
weshouldeventuallyreturn,andtheypurelyandinnocentlyshowedthe
seedsofallthatcamelater.Thusheinspiredtheview,adoptedbysome
Romantics,thatEurope’scurrentsicksocietycouldbestbebroughtbackto
healthbystudyingtheculturesofancienttimesanddistant,moreinnocent
lands.Thus,forHerder,thetrajectoryofhistoryhadbeenup-down,but
couldpotentiallyberedeemedtobecomeup-down-up.
Schelling’sview,whichwaslaterdevelopedbyHegelandHerbert
Spencer,tracedadifferenttrajectory:Modernthingswerebetterthan
primitivethingsbecausetheyweremoreevolved.Thebestwaytointuitthe
rightwayforwardwasthrough(a)seeinghowmodernEurope,asthemost
advancedsociety,haddevelopedawayfromtheprimitivestateofearlier
timesanddistantlands,andthen(b)continuingthearcevenfurtheraway
fromtheprimitive.ThusforSchelling,thetrajectoryofhistorywasdownup.
Herder’sandSchelling’sviewsonthegeneralarcofhistoryhaveboth
playedaroleinBuddhistRomanticism.WhenBuddhistRomanticswantto
dismissteachingsinthePāliCanonofwhichtheydon’tapprove—suchas
kammaandrebirth—theyfollowHerder’strajectory,arguingthatthese
teachingsactuallypostdatedtheBuddhaand,becausetheyarelater,are
inferior.TobringBuddhismbackuptoitsoriginalmessage,theyargue,
theseteachingsshouldbediscarded.However,whenthesameBuddhist
RomanticswanttoadoptlaterBuddhistteachingsnotfoundintheCanon
—suchasBuddhanatureorNāgārjuna’sinterpretationsofemptiness—
theyfollowSchelling’strajectory,arguingthatbecausetheseteachings
camelater,theyaremoreevolvedandthussuperiortowhatcameearlier.
Inthisway,thehistoricismofBuddhistRomanticismbendsthearcof
historyfromup-down-uptodown-uponacase-by-casebasis.
152
AsfortheperformativesideoftheRomanticprogram:Hölderlinspoke
formostoftheearlyRomanticswhenhewrotethattheexperienceofthe
infiniteorganicunitywasbestinducedinoneoftwoways:throughlove
andthroughtheapprehensionofbeauty.Here,ofcourse,Hölderlinwas
inspiredbyPlato,buttheRomanticviewoftheorganicunityofreality
causedhimtodepartfromPlatoinhisunderstandingofthewaysinwhich
loveandbeautyworkontheindividualsoul.
Rememberthatthemostdirectexperienceoftheinfiniteorganicunityof
thecosmoswas,fortheRomantics,theprincipleofreciprocityinthe
organicpart:thegive-and-takeoftheorganismwithitsenvironment,
passivelyacceptingoutsideinfluencesfromitssurroundingsandthen
activelyshapingitssurroundingsinresponsetothoseinfluences.The
recognitionoftheinterconnectednatureofthisgive-and-takeiswhat,in
theireyes,thenleadstoasenseofunity.
Thisisalso,accordingtoHölderlin,thelessontaughtbytruelove,
becauseloverequiresbothresponsiveness—hiswordforthefullacceptance
ofandreceptivitytotheother—andspontaneity—hiswordforthefreedom
ofone’sactiveresponse.Loveexistentiallysolvestheproblemofhowto
unitethesetwoimpulsesintoharmony,asonefreelywillstotrustthefree
choicesexpressedbytheother.Whenloversfindharmonywitheachother,
thesenseofdistinctnessthatcomeswheneachsideisallowedtoactfreely
isheldinasenseofunitylargeenoughtocontaindifferences.Thiscanthen
bedirectedtowardagreatersenseofunitywithlifeasawhole.
Schlegel,inLucinde,wroteinglowingtermsofbothoftheseaspectsof
whathasrightlycometobecalledRomanticlove.First,thesenseoforganic
unity,whichgivesintimationsofbeingpartofalargerOneness:Juliussays
toLucinde,
“Therewillcomeatimewhenthetwoofuswillperceiveina
singlespiritthatweareblossomsofasingleplantorpetalsofasingle
flower,andthenwewillknowwithasmilethatwhatwenowcall
merelyhopeisreallyremembrance.
“Doyoustillrememberhowthefirstseedofthisideagrewinmy
soul,andhowitimmediatelytookrootinyoursaswell?” 26
Second,thewayinwhichtheloveoftwopeopleleadstoasenseofunity
withhumanityandwithnatureatlarge:HereSchlegeldescribestheeffect
ofLucinde’sloveonJulius:
153
“Juliusseemedtobeinspiredwithafeelingofuniversal
tenderness,notjustsomepragmaticorpityingsympathyforthe
masses,butthejoyofwatchingthebeautyofmankind—mankind
whichlivesforeverwhileindividualsvanish.
“Andhewasmovedalsobyalively,opensensitivitytohisown
inmostselfandthatofothers.…Nolongerdidhelovetheideaof
friendshipinhisfriendsbutlovedthemforthemselves.…Buthere
toohefoundfullharmonyonlyinLucinde’ssoul—thesoulinwhich
thegermsofeverythingmagnificentandeverythingholyawaited
onlythesunlightofhisspiritinordertounfoldthemselvesintothe
mostbeautifulreligion.” 27
ThefactthatJuliuskeepsreturningtoLucindeforspiritualnurtureis
whereSchlegel’sviewoflove—sharedbytheotherRomantics—differs
fromPlato’sviewthatcarnallovehadtobeoutgrown.Thisisbecause,for
Schlegel,theultimatespiritualrealityliesnotinabstract,unchanging
FormsofBeautyitself,butintheinterconnectedgive-and-takeof
immediateexperience.Thus,fortheearlyRomanticsingeneral,spiritual
loveneverneededtooutgrowcarnallove.Instead,continuedcarnallove
waspreciselythemeanstomakespirituallovemoreandmoremature.In
contrasttoPlato,whosaweroticloveasatemporarystepinaprogression
leadingfromatemporaltoaneternalrealm,theRomanticssawloveas
eternityunitedwiththemoment.AsJuliussaystoLucinde,
“Loveisnotmerelythequietlongingforeternity:itisalsotheholy
enjoymentofalovelypresence.Itisnotmerelyamixture,atransition
frommortaltoimmortal:ratheritisthetotalunionofboth.” 28
Asforthesecondmeansforinducingasenseoftheinfiniteorganic
unityofthecosmos—theappreciationofbeauty—Hölderlinheldthat
literaryartistswerethemediatorswhosensitizedotherstothephysical
beautiesofnatureandthebeautyofthemindthroughtheirworksofart.
Thisisbecauseartbringsunitytowhatwouldotherwiseseemtobethe
fragmentedpiecesoflife.Althoughitmightbesaidthatphilosophy,in
tryingtoattainunityofknowledge,servesasimilarfunction,Hölderlinfelt
thatliteraturewasmuchbettersuitedtoconveyingthefactthatBeingis
alwaysinaprocessofBecoming—undergoingorganicchange—andonly
literaturecanportraythisprocessinaction,asthecharactersandnarrators
154
trytofindbalanceandharmonyamongthechangingdissonancesoflife.
Therewaslittlenewinthispartofhistheory.Afterall,theroleofartin
conveyingunityindifferenceandtheresolutionofconflictshasbeen
recognizedsincethebeginningofliterature.TheuniqueRomantic
contributionwasthatthefocusofliteraryartwasprimarilypsychological:
ThisiswhatSchlegelmeantwhenhestatedthatallliteratureinhistime,
evenlyricpoetry,wasromantic.Allliteraturefollowedthenovelinbeing
focusedontheissueofpsychologicaldevelopment.
Thisfocuswastwofold.Ontheonehand,theaimofliteratureinthe
RomanticBildungwastohelpthereaderdeveloppsychologicallytowardan
intuitionoftheinterconnectednessoftheuniverse.Ontheother,themeans
toaccomplishthisaimwastoportray,inempatheticterms,the
psychologicaldevelopmentofacharacterornarrator.Thisthemeoforganic
psychologicaldevelopmentwastobedevelopedbothinthecontentofa
workofliteratureandinitsform—whichexplainstheRomanticinsistence
thatworksofartshouldnottrytoconformtoestablishednorms,but
shouldgroworganicallyfromtheirparticularmessage.
TheearlyRomanticsdevelopedmanytheoriesabouthowliterature
shouldbestembodytheseideals,butthetheoriesmostrelevanttotheir
viewsonreligionconcernedthenatureoftheempathyideallyinspiredbya
workofart.HereSchlegel,inparticular,followedtwoofHerder’sdicta
abouthowideallytorelatetoart.Tobeginwith,oneshouldlookinthe
workofart,notforarepresentationofanoutsidereality,butforan
expressionoftheauthor’ssoul.AsHerderhadwritteninapiececalled,
“TreatingoftheArtofMakinganImageoftheSoulofAnother”:
“Thefirstthingistoshowtheuniquemannerofmyauthor,andto
notetheoriginalstrokesofhiswayofthought:adifficultbutauseful
endeavor.…IcarenothingaboutwhatBaconthought,butonlyabout
howhethought.Animageofthatsortisnotdead;ittakesonlife,it
speakstomysoul.” 29
Schlegelwasmakingthesamepointwhenhereferredtoauthorswho
“startedouttowriteonlyanovelendedupbyprovidinguswithaportrait
ofthemselves.”Thatportraitofthemselvesiswhatleadsthesensitive
readertoempathizewiththem;empathyiswhatthenleadstoasenseof
interconnectedness,opentoabsorbingtheauthors’messageandthen
inspiredtorespondcreativelytothatinterconnectedness.
155
SchlegelalsoabsorbedaseconddictumfromHerder,theideaofinfinite
taste,anddevelopedhisowncreativeresponseastowhatinfinitetastein
termsofempathymightmean.InSchlegel’swords:
“[T]otransportoneselfarbitrarilynowintothis,nowintothat
sphere,asifintoanotherworld,notmerelywithone’sreasonand
imagination,butwithone’swholesoul;tofreelyrelinquishfirstone
andthenanotherpartofone’sbeing,andconfineoneselfentirelytoa
third;toseekandfindnowinthis,nowinthatindividualthebe-all
andend-allofexistence,andintentionallyforgeteveryoneelse:ofthis
onlyamindiscapablethatcontainswithinitselfsimultaneouslya
pluralityofmindsandawholesystemofpersons,andinwhoseinner
beingtheuniversewhich,astheysay,shouldgerminateinevery
monad,hasgrowntofullnessandmaturity.” 30
Perceptively,Schlegelsaidthatthiscapacityforinfiniteempathywasan
aspectofirony.Inotherwords,onecouldidentifywithanotherhuman
beingbutatthesametimemaintainone’sdistance,simultaneously
committingandyetnotcommittingtothetruthofthatindividual’s
expression.Onefoundunitywiththeauthorbyidentifyingwithhim,atthe
sametimeknowingthatonewasaseparatepersonwithinthatunity.For
Schlegel,thisdoubleabilitykeptoneorientedtotheinfinitethatlaybeyond
bothoneselfandtheauthor.However,theironicaspectofinfiniteempathy
standsinthewayofcommittingtothelessonspickedupfromanyone
author.Appliedtonovels,thislackofcommitmentwouldbenoserious
problem,butaswewillsee,theRomanticsproposedapplyingthesame
attitudetoreligioustexts.Ifthetextgivesinstructionsonhowtoliveone’s
lifeskillfully,anunwillingnesstocommittoitsinstructionslongenoughto
givethemafairtestdoesbecomeaproblem.Andaswewillfurthersee,this
attitudeofironicempathyhasresurfacedintheBuddhistRomantic
approachtoancientBuddhisttexts.
Bothmeansofinducingasenseoftheinfiniteorganicunityofthe
cosmos—loveandanappreciationofbeauty—werecombinedinthe
literaryworksforwhichtheearlyRomanticsarebestknown:novelsand
poemsdealingwithlove.Andthecommonperception—thatthedepiction
ofloveintheirwritingswasoverwroughtandunrealistic—iswellfounded.
Lucinde,Julius,Diotima,andHyperion,forinstance,areallimpossibleto
imagine,evenwiththebestwillintheworld,asrealhumanbeings.Even
156
laterRomanticsfoundtheearlyRomanticdepictionsofloveandlovers
hardtotake.Forexample,thepoetHeinrichHeine,writingin1836,
dismissedLucindeas“ludicrouslyRomantic.”InareferencetoSchlegel’s
laterconversiontoCatholicism,hefurtherremarkedthatalthoughthe
MotherofGodmayhaveforgivenSchlegelforwritingthebook,theMuses
neverwould. 31
However,ifNovalishadbeenalivetohearthesecriticisms,hewould
haveinsistedthattheymissedthepoint.Ofcoursethedepictionswere
unrealistic.Theywerelessonsinhowtofindthesublimeinthe
commonplace.Afterall,itwasonlyinthisprocessofromanticizationthat
onecouldknowone’spowerstorespondcreativelytotheinfluencesofthe
cosmosastheymanifestedthemselvesinone’sconsciousness,andtotaste
one’sshareoftheinfinite.Toromanticizeone’slovewastoexpressone’s
freedomfromnecessity.
AsnotedinChapterOne,SchlegeldisownedLucindelaterinlife,butat
thetimeofitswritinghewouldhaverespondedtocriticismsofthebookin
anotherway:thatasensitivereaderwouldhavedetectedtheimplied
infiniteattitudeoftheauthorintheplayfulironysurroundingthe
depictions.Theywerenotmeanttoberealistic.Theywerepartofaselfconsciousmyth,andnoself-consciousmythshouldbetakenatfacevalue.
It,too,shouldbeapproachedwithanironicattitude,bothseriouslyand
playfullyatonce.ThisapproachcametomarktheRomantic—and
BuddhistRomantic—viewofreligioustextsaswell:thattheyshouldallbe
read,notforobjectivetruths,butasmythstobeapproachedwithanironic
empathy.
Infact,SchlegelwroteLucindewhilebeginningtoseetheconnection
betweenreadingnovelsandreadingreligioustexts.Asalsonotedin
ChapterOne,heintendedLucindetobethefirstinaseriesofbooks,
plannedbutneverfinished,thatwouldformtheBibleofanewreligionfor
themodernworld.Heformulatedthisplanfromtherealizationthatthe
aestheticviewheandhisfriendsweredevelopinghadreligious
dimensions,too.Originallyhehadbelievedthat,aspeopletrainedmore
andmoreinRomanticBildung,therewouldbelessandlessneedfor
religion.Now,though,hesawthatreligionwasactuallythehighest
Bildung,andthatthemeansofRomanticBildung—loveandthe
appreciationofbeauty—shouldbedevotedtorevivingarenewedspiritual
appreciationoftheinfiniteinthemodernandpostmodernworld.
157
Hisinspirationingainingthisconvictioncamefromanothermemberof
theearlyRomanticcircle:FriedrichSchleiermacher.
158
CHAPTERFIVE
RomanticReligion
FriedrichSchleiermacher,intheconversationsthatissuedinhisbook,
TalksonReligionforItsCulturedDespisers(1799),wastheagentprimarily
responsibleforconvincinghisfellowearlyRomanticsthattheirviewof
artisticcreationwasactuallyanidealmodelforreligiousexperienceaswell.
Justasartistsshouldopenthemselvesandrespondcreativelytotheorganic
influencesoftheinfiniteunityofthecosmosimmediatelypresenttotheir
awareness,allpeopleshouldopenthemselvestoanintuitionandfeelingof
Onenesswiththeinfinite,andthenexpressthatfeelingcreatively.That
feeling,hesaid,wasreligion.InthesamewaythathisfellowRomantics
tookanovelist’sapproachtoartandphilosophy,Schleiermachertooka
novelist’sapproachtothereligionsoftheworld.
The“cultureddespisers”inthetitleofhisbookwerepeoplewhohad
becomedisillusionedwithChristianityorJudaism,bothfromhavingread
modernphilosophyandfromhavingwitnessed,withdismay,thebehavior
ofestablishedreligiousinstitutions.Modernphilosophytaughtlawsof
reasonandconsciousnesswithaclarityandconsistencythatmadethe
beliefsystemsofconventionalmonotheismseemmurkyandcrude.
Religiousinstitutions,tiedtothestateortooldcustomsandtexts,seemed
tobetraywhatwererecognizedasthegoodprinciplesintheirteachings,
suchasharmony,forgiveness,andlove.
Atthesametime,Schleiermacherthoughtthattheeffortsofprevious
philosopherstomakereligionrespectabletoculturedpeoplebyproviding
itwitharationalbasishadactuallyendedupdebasingit.Inparticular,
withoutnamingnames,heheapedridiculeonKant’sandFichte’seffortsto
justifyreligionsimplyasafoundationforthemorallaw.This,hesaid,
madereligionaservanttonarrow,time-boundstricturesofrightand
wrong.Tokeepreligionfrombeingdespised,Schleiermachersawtheneed
toportrayit,notasameanstoasocialgood,butasanendinandofitself.
HissolutiontotheseproblemsowedanobviousdebttohisPietistroots.
Hedefinedreligionnotasasystemofbeliefs,abodyofinstitutions,ora
159
philosophicalsystem,butasafeeling.And,justasthePietistuniversehad
roomforonlyonegenuinereligiousfeeling—afeelingofGod’spresence—
Schleiermacher’suniversehadroomforonlyonereligiousfeeling,
regardlessofone’sreligiousbackground.However,he,likehisaudience,
hadabandonedtheviewsoftheuniverseinwhichthePietistsandorthodox
followersofeveryothermonotheisticreligionbelieved.Soheexplainedthe
religiousfeeling,notinmonotheistictermsasafeltrelationshiptoGod,but
intermsofthepsychologyandcosmologyofinfiniteorganicunity:afelt
relationshiptotheinfinite.
Further,Schleiermacherclaimedtoprovideanobjectiveexplanation,not
ofaparticularreligion,butoftheuniversallawsofthereligiousfeeling
itself.Inhisterms,hewasdescribing,“notonlysomethingthatmaybein
religionuniversally,butpreciselywhatmustbeinituniversally[italics
added].” 1 Hewasattemptingatranscendentalanalysis—inKant’ssenseof
theterm—ofwhatthestructureofthereligiousexperience,asanatural
phenomenon,hadtobeforallhumanbeingseverywhere.Inhiseyes,there
wasonereligiousexperiencecommontoall—composedofanintuition
combinedwithafeelingfortheinfinite—thatindividualpeopleinterpreted
invariouswaysinlinewiththeirtemperament,theirindividualBildung,
andthegeneralcultureoftheirtimeandplace.However,these
interpretationsfellintoafixednumberoftypes,basedonthestructureof
humanpersonalityandthestructureofhowanintuitionandafeeling
occurred.
Schleiermacherpresentedthesetheoriesinlinewiththegeneral
Romanticviewoftheuniverseasaninfiniteorganicunity,atthesametime
makingspecificreferencestothenaturalsciencesonwhichthatviewwas
based.Someofhismoststrikingimagescamefromastronomy,chemistry,
andbiology;andthesesciencesinfluencedmorethanjusthisimagery.His
understandingofthepsychologyofthereligiousexperienceandtheplace
ofreligionintheongoingdevelopmentoftheuniversewerestrongly
shapedbythebiologyandastronomyofhistime.Thesesciencesprovided
thetranscendentalcategoriesthat,hefelt,governedthewayallreligious
experienceshadtooccur.
THERELIGIOUSEXPERIENCE
Theobjectofreligion,accordingtoSchleiermacher,wastherelationship
160
ofhumanitytotheuniverse.Now,metaphysicsandmoralityalsohavethis
samerelationshipastheirobject,soSchleiermacherfounditnecessaryto
showhowreligiondiffersfromthem.Metaphysics,hesaid,isconcerned
withdescribingtheplaceofhumanitywithinthesystemoflawsthat
governtheuniverse.Moralityisconcernedwithformulatingrulesforhow
humanityshouldbehaveintheuniverse.Religion,however,issomething
moreimmediateandpersonalthaneitherofthese.Itisafeelingderived
fromadirectexperienceoftheinfiniteuniverseactingdirectlyonone’s
consciousness.
Schleiermacheranalyzedthisdirectexperienceasacombinationoftwo
processes—intuitionandfeeling—startingfromamomentinwhichboth
processesareexperiencedasasingleprocessandbeforetheysplitinto
separatephenomena.Ontheonehand,thereistheintuitionoftheinfinite
actingonone’sconsciousness.HereSchleiermacherisusingtheword
“intuition”inhisowntechnicalsense.Inlinewiththepsychologythathe
learnedbothfromKantandfromSchelling,henotesthateveryintuitionof
everykindistheimpressionofanobjectactingonone’sconsciousness.This
impressiondoesnottellyoueverythingabouttheobject,fortworeasons.
First,ittellsyouonlyaboutthatparticularactionoftheobjectonyour
consciousness.Itcannottellyouanythingmoreabouttheobjectthanthat.
Thisrighthereraisesthequestionofhowonecouldknowthatthe
infinitewasactuallyactingonone’sconsciousness,asthereisnosuchthing
asaninfiniteactionthatafinitemindcouldcomprehendasinfinite.Allthe
mindcanregisterarefiniteactions,beyondwhichitcannotsee.Whatfeels
infinitemaysimplybeReallyBigbutneverthelessfinite.Thisproblemis
fataltoSchleiermacher’stheory—howcanonehaveatastefortheinfiniteif
onecannotknowthatwhathasleftanimpressionisactuallyinfinite?—but
hebrushesrightpastit.
Schleiermacher’ssecondreasonforwhytheimpressiondoesnottellyou
everythingabouttheobjectisthatthelevelofyourreceptivitytothe
intuitionwilldeterminehowyouregistertheimpactandwhatyoutake
awayfromit.This“whatyoutakeawayfromit”—yoursubjectiveresponse
totheintuition—isafeeling.Atthemomentofcontact,theintuitionand
feelingseemtobeoneandthesame,butwhentheintuitionends,the
feelingcontinuesonitsown.Itthengrowsintoanaturalurgetoexpressthe
feelingtoothers.
Inacaseofthedirectexperienceoftheinfinite,themomentwhen
161
intuitionandfeelingareOne—whentheindividualfeelstotallyOnewith
theimpactoftheinfinite—isthesacredmomentoftheencounter.This
momenthasahealingeffectonthemindbecause,asSchleiermacherheld,
thehumanpersonalityisdividedintothreeparts:oneorientedinward,to
one’sownself;oneorientedoutward,totheworldoutside;andathird,
runningbackandforthbetweentheothertwoandneverfindingrestuntil
theyarebroughtintounion.ThuswhenthereisafeelingofOnenesswith
theinfinite,thepersonalityasawholeisbroughtintoOnenessaswell,and
allthepartsfindrest.Schleiermachercomparesthismomenttothebrief
lengthoftimeinalover’sembracewhenoneexperiencestheotherasone’s
self.
Thishealingmoment,however,cannotlastforever.Itis,afterall,
conditioned,dependentonactionsbothwithinandwithout—theinner
receptivityoftheindividualandtheouteractionoftheinfinite—thatcan
lastonlyabriefspanoftime.Hereagain,Schleiermacherleaves
unansweredthequestionofwhy,iftheinfiniteisreallyinfinite,itcanact
onanindividualonlybrieflyinthisway.However,thisissueisnotcentral
tohisdiscussion,foreveniftheinfinitewereactingontheindividual
incessantly,thelimitedreceptivityoftheindividualwouldbeenoughto
supporthisconclusion:thateventhoughonemayintuittheinfinite,one
cannotexperiencetheinfiniteasatranscendentdimension,i.e.,lyingoutside
ofspaceandtime.(NotethattranscendentinthissensediffersfromKant’s
useofthetermtranscendental.)Theindividual’sintuitionoftheinfinite,like
allintuitions,istotallyimmanent,i.e.,containedwithintheconditionsof
organiccausalityandthedimensionsofspaceandtime.
Whentheintuitioninevitablyends,thereremainsjustthefeelingof
havingbeenhealed.Thisfeeling,accordingtoSchleiermacher,isreligion.
Ashephraseditinoneofhismostfamousdefinitionsofreligion,
“[R]eligionisthesensibilityandtastefortheinfinite.” 2 Inotherwords,
religionbelongsnottothecategoryofknowledgeorreason,buttothe
categoryofaesthetics:Itisataste,inKant’sterms,forthesublime,butit
sensesthefeelingofthesublimeasatherapeuticratherthanaterrifying
experience.
Fromthisfeelingcomeallformsofreligiousexpression—attemptsto
communicatetruthsderivedfromthatfeelingconcerningtherelationship
ofhumanitytotheuniverse—definingwhatahumanbeingisandcan
know,describingwhattheuniverseis,andwhattheproperrelationshipis
162
betweenthetwo.Oftentheseexpressionscomeintheformofworldviews,
beliefsabouttheinfinite,beliefsaboutgods,moralcodes,etc.These
expressions,however,arenotreligion,andtheyshouldnotbetakenas
representinganyeternaltruthsabouttheinfinite.Theyaresimply
expressionsofthatparticularfeelinginthatparticularindividualatthat
particularpointintime.
Inotherwords,theexpressionsofreligiousfeelingareabranchofart:
thecreativeexpressionofhumanfeelings.Forthisreason,in
Schleiermacher’seyes,theseexpressionsshouldfollowtheimperativesthat
theRomanticssetforallart.Wehavealreadyseentwooftheseimperatives
atworkinhistheory—thatreligionmustresultfromareceptivestateof
mindandthatitmustbeexpressive—butSchleiermachergaveevenmore
spaceinhisargumentforthethird:thatreligionmustevolve.Afterall,the
infiniteasanorganicunityisconstantlyevolving,soone’sunderstanding
ofone’splacewithinitmustevolveaswell.
Forthisreason,whenonehasexpressedone’sreligiousfeelings,one
shouldnotmakeafetishofthoseexpressions.Otherwise,oneclosesoffthe
possibilityofhavingfurtherreligiousexperiences.Evenmoreso,other
peopleshouldnottakeone’sexpressionsasauthoritativeorasimposing
dutiesforthemtofollow,forthatwouldstifletheirinnatepotentialfor
havingreligiousexperiencesoftheirown.Themoreonetriestosystematize
theexpressionsofreligionintoacoherentworldviewormoralsystem,the
furtheronegrowsfromgenuinereligionandthemoreoneisleftwith
nothingbut“deadletters”and“emptymythology.”
Thesearepsychologicalreasonsfornotgivingauthoritytoany
expressionofreligion.Inaddition,Schleiermacheralsogivescosmological
reasonsdrawnfromtheastronomyofhistime.Becausehumanbeingsare
finite,anystatementorsystemofrulesformulatedbyfinitehumanbeings
hastobefiniteaswell.Buttheuniverseisinfinite,sonofiniteideascan
encompassit.Furthermore,theuniverseisinfinitenotonlyinsize,butalso
initspowertoevolveandproducenewformsoflifeandexpression.Thus,
whatmaybetrueforonemomentintimecannotpossiblyholdtruefor
othermomentsintime.Thisiswhyreligiousexpressionsfromthepastare,
inhisimage,nothingbetterthanflowersthathavediedafterbeing
pollinated.Inhiswords,“Religionisneversupposedtorest.” 3 Inthisway,
religionfunctionsasanorganismwithinthelargerorganismofthe
universe,andsohastoevolveinordertosurvive.
163
TheobversesideofSchleiermacher’sclaimthatnoexternalexpressionof
religioncarriesauthorityishisclaimthatallreligionsmustbeacceptedand
tolerated.Noonepersoncanjudgeanotherperson’sreligiousexpression,
fornoonecanjudgethatperson’sintuitionoftheinfinite.Onemustaccept
allreligiousexpressionsasappropriatefortheirparticularplaceandtime.
HereagainSchleiermachergivesbothpsychologicalandcosmological
reasonsforhisclaim.Thepsychologicalreasonfortoleratingallreligionsis
thatthemoreoneisabletoempathizewitheverypossibleexpressionofthe
experienceoftheinfinite,themoreonewillbeabletointuittheinfinite
oneself.Ifone’sviewsaboutwhatcanandcannotbetoleratedinreligious
expressionarenarrow,one’smindwillbetoonarrowtoreceivetheactions
oftheinfiniteonit.Asforthecosmologicalreasonsfortolerance,
Schleiermacherstatedthatbecausetheuniverseisinfiniteinitspower,it
hastodisplaythatpowerbyproducingeverypossibleformofbehavior.
Becauseitisinfiniteinscope,thereisroomforallthesepossibilitiesto
coexistwithoutinfringingononeanother.Eachdeservesitstimeandspace.
Schleiermacherwasquicktonotethat,totheuneducatedear,these
claimsmaysoundlikeeveryotherviewabouthumanbeingsandtheir
placeintheuniversethatderivesfromthereligiousexperience—inother
words,theseclaimsshouldberegardedasexpressionsoffeelings,rather
thandescriptionsofthetruth.Inlinewithhisgeneraldismissalofother
religiousworldviews,thiswouldmeanthattheyshouldcarrynoauthority.
Butheassertsthatthisisnotthecase:Hisclaimsarederivedfromthevery
structureofwhatitmeanstointuittheinfinite,andthus—likeKant’s
transcendentalcategories—conveyahigherleveloftruth.However,
Schleiermacherdoesnotexplainthispointanyfurther,andaswewillsee,
thisissuewastobecomeacontinuingparadoxwhereverRomanticviews
onreligionarefound:Theyclaimthatnoreligiousviewabouthumanity
andtheuniversecarriesauthority,buttheirargumentsforthisclaim
dependonacceptingasauthoritativetheirviewsabouthowhumanbeings
relatetotheuniverseasawhole.
RELIGIOUSBILDUNG
AsimilarironymarksSchleiermacher’srecommendationsforhowto
formulateaBildungthatwillencouragepeopletoexperiencereligion
directlyforthemselves.Asnotedabove,everyintuitionisshapednotonly
164
bytheexternalobjectactingonthemind,butalsobythemind’sreceptivity
tothataction.Inanagelikehis,heclaims,whereeconomicactivityhas
consumedtheattentionsofalllevelsofsociety,theinnatehumandesire
andreceptivityforcontactwiththeinfinitehasbeenstifled.However,
individualscancultivatetheirtasteandsensibilityfortheinfiniteandso
reawakentheirinnatepotentialtobereceptivetothesenseofhealing
Onenessthatanintuitionoftheinfinitecanprovide—whentheinfiniteis
movedtodoso.Infact,Schleiermacherstatesthatthisisthepurposeofhis
talks:toinducehislistenerstoundertakethiscultivationsothattheywillbe
preparedwhentheinfinitechoosestoact.
Herehefacesaquandary,inthat—properlyspeaking—nooneperson
canteachreligiontoanother,andnoonecantellanotherexactlyhowto
opentotheinfinite.Becausereligionisamatteroftaste,eachpersonwill
havetodevelopatastefortheinfiniteinhisorherownway.Thisiswhy
thereisnosinglepathtotheinfinite,andeachpersonhastotakethepath
heorshefindsmostattractive.
Still,Schleiermacherhopesthattherearesomepeoplewhowillresonate
withhismessage,andforthemheoffersareligiousBildungthatparallels
thegeneralRomanticBildung.Ithasitsdescriptiveside—talkingaboutthe
religiousexperienceinaninspiringway—anditsperformativeside:
recommendingspecificactivitiestoinduceareceptivemind-statethatwill
allowanintuitionoftheinfinitetooccur.Butmorethantosimplyoccur—
andthisiswheretheironycomesin.Despitehisstricturesthatreligious
expressionsshouldnotbejudgedandthatthereisaplaceinthecosmosfor
everykindofreligiousexpression,Schleiermacherbelievesthatsome
religiousexpressionsaremoreevolvedthanothers.Thisisbecausethe
peoplewhogaintheexperienceonwhichthoseexpressionsarebasedwere
firstprimedtoseetheuniverseinamoreevolvedway.Hisproposed
Bildungisaimedatpriminghislistenersinthisdirection.
Inhisanalysis,therearethreewaysofintuitingtheinfinite.Theleast
evolvedistoseeitasanundifferentiatedunity—asinglemassofchaotic
events.Thiswayofintuitingtheinfinitecomesfromnottryingtolookfor
lawsgoverningitsbehavior,andtendstoproduceanimisticreligions,in
whichpeopleworshipidolsandfetishes.
Amoreadvancedwaytointuittheinfiniteistoseeitasamultiplicity,a
systemofdiscrete,separatethings,interactinginlinewithorderlylaws,but
withnooverallunity.Thiswayofintuitingtheinfinitecomesfromlooking
165
forthelawsthatgovernitsbehaviorbutnotyetsucceedinginfindingany
overarchingsystemforthoselaws.Thistendstoleadtopolytheistic
religions.
Thehighestwaytointuittheinfiniteistoseeitasamultiplicity
encompassedinanoverallunity—e.g.,liketheorganicunityofthe
Romanticuniverse.Thiswayofintuitingtheinfinitecomesfromfinding
theoverarchingsystemoflawsthatgovernsallbehaviorintheuniverse.
Thislevelofintuitionmayyieldamonotheisticreligion,although
Schleiermacherheldthatahigherformofthisintuitiondispenseswitha
personalGodentirely,andseesthewholeoftheinfiniteanimatedbya
WorldSoul.Inotherwords,thehighestreligionseesinfinityasentirely
immanent,withnotranscendentdimensionoutsidetheinfinityofthe
cosmos.Moreover,truereligiondoesnotseekpersonalimmortalityoutside
oftheuniverse,forthatwouldbecontrarytotheidealreligiousdesire:to
loseoneselfintheinfinite.Instead,immortalityshouldbesoughtinthe
moment:“TobeOnewiththeinfiniteinthemidstofthefinite,”hesaid,
“andtobeeternalinamoment,thatistheimmortalityofreligion.” 4
Here,again,Schleiermachermaintainsthathisthreecategoriesare
descriptiveratherthanmerelyexpressive.Theyarenottheresultofa
religiousfeeling.Instead,theyderive,again,fromthestructureofwhatit
meanstointuittheinfinite.Butyetagain,hedoesnotexplainhispoint
further.However,heexplainshisrankingofthesethreecategories—with
mereunityasthelowest,andunityencompassingmultiplicityasthe
highest—asbasedonanoverviewofhowreligionshavedevelopedand
progressedthroughouthumanhistory.Inhiswords,echoingSchelling,
historyshowsreligionas“aworkoftheworldspiritprogressinginto
infinity.” 5 Schleiermacher’sBildungisdesignedtocontinuethearcofthat
progress,byinducingthemindtolookforunitywithinmultiplicity.
JustastheperformativesideofthegeneralRomanticBildungtoinduce
anexperienceoftheinfiniteorganicunityoftheuniversewasbasedon
cultivatingsensitivityintwoways—throughloveandthroughan
appreciationofbeauty—theperformativesideofSchleiermacher’sreligious
Bildungwasbasedoncultivatingeroticloveontheonehand,andan
appreciationofthebeautyoftheinfiniteontheother.
Love,hesays,isanecessarypreparationforreligioninthatwhenone
hasfoundanotherpersonwho,inone’seyes,reflectstheentireworld,one
realizesthatone’sownhumanityislackingifonedesiresonlysmallselfish
166
goals.One’shumanitywillbecompleteonlyifonebroadensone’shorizons
anddesirestheinfinite.Thisdesireiswhatthenopensonetotheenjoyment
oftheinfinite.
Infact,theexperienceoflove,forSchleiermacher,isnotonlya
preparationforreligion.Itisactuallyanimage—andcanbeadirect
manifestation—ofthereligiousexperienceitself.
“Thefirstmysteriousmomentthatoccursineverysensory
perception,beforeintuitionandfeelinghaveseparated,wheresense
anditsobjectshave,asitwere,flowedintooneanotherandbecome
one,beforebothturnbacktotheiroriginalposition—Iknowhow
indescribableitisandhowquicklyitpassesaway.…Itisasfleeting
andtransparentasthefirstscentwithwhichthedewgentlycaresses
thewakingflowers,asmodestanddelicateasamaiden’skiss,asholy
andfruitfulasanuptialembrace;indeed,notlikethese,butitisitself
allofthese.Amanifestation,aneventdevelopsquicklyandmagically
intoanimageoftheuniverse.Evenasthebelovedandever-soughtforformfashionsitself,mysoulfleestowardit;Iembraceit,notasa
shadow,butastheholyessenceitself.Ilieonthebosomofthe
infiniteworld.AtthismomentIamitssoul,forIfeelallitspowers
anditsinfinitelifeasmyown;atthismomentitismybody,forI
penetrateitsmusclesanditslimbsasmyown.Withtheslightest
tremblingtheholyembraceisdispersedandnowforthefirsttimethe
intuitionstandsbeforemeasaseparateform;Isurveyit,andit
mirrorsitselfinmyopensoulliketheimageofthevanishingbeloved
intheawakenedeyeofayouth;nowforthefirsttimethefeeling
worksitswayupfrominsideanddiffusesitselfliketheblushof
shameanddesireonhischeek.Thismomentisthehighestflowering
ofreligion.IfIcouldcreateitinyou,Iwouldbeagod;mayholyfate
onlyforgivemethatIhavehadtodisclosemorethantheEleusinian
mysteries.” 6
AsforBildunginlearningtoappreciatethebeautyoftheinfinite,
Schleiermacherrecommendsmeditationsthatopenthemindtotheinfinite
bothwithoutandwithin.Althoughhedoesnotmaketheconnection
himself,themeditationsherecommendsfallintotwotypesthatseemto
correspondtothefirsttwotypesofpersonalorientation—inwardand
outward—and,beginningthere,strengthenwithinbothorientationsthe
167
thirdtypeoforientation:theonethatmovesbackandforthbetweenthe
twoandwillfindnorestuntiltheyarebroughttogetherasOne.
Someofthemeditationsarequiteextended,buttwoshortversionswill
giveanideaofthelongerones.First,ameditationthatbeginswithinandis
aimedatdissolvingallsenseofself,leavingjusttheinfinite:
“Observeyourselveswithunceasingeffort.Detachallthatis
yourself,alwaysproceedwithever-sharpersense,andthemoreyou
fadefromyourself,theclearerwilltheuniversestandforthbefore
you,themoresplendidlywillyouberecompensedforthehorrorof
self-annihilationthroughthefeelingoftheinfiniteinyou.” 7
Second,ameditationthatbeginswiththeworldoutsideand,througha
back-and-forthmovement,findsthateverythingoutsideisinsideaswell:
“Lookoutsideyourselftoanypart,toanyelementoftheworld,
andcomprehenditinitswholeessence,butalsocollecteverything
thatitis,notonlyinitselfbutinyou,inthisoneandthatoneand
everywhere;retraceyourstepsfromthecircumferencetothecenter
evermorefrequentlyandinever-greaterdistances.Youwillsoon
losethefiniteandfindtheinfinite.” 8
Toaidwiththissecondtypeofmeditation,Schleiermacherrecommends
astudyoftheinfinitevarietyofthereligionsoftheworld.Whatisstriking
aboutthereligionshementionsisthat—eventhoughHerderandothers
hadmadefragmentsofIndianreligioustextsavailableinGerman
translations,andIslamhadlongbeenknowntoEurope—Schleiermacher’s
listcoversonlyfivereligions:Egyptian,Greek,andRomanreligions,along
withChristianity,andJudaism.
Hismainpoint,however,wouldholdforthestudyofanyreligion:One
mustbecarefultoapproachallreligionswiththepropermethod.Insteadof
judgingreligionsasrightorwrong,highorlow,nobleorgrotesque,one
shouldlookforthewayinwhicheveryreligiousexpressioncomesfroman
intuitionoftheinfinite,seeinghoweachhasitsplacewithintheinfinite’s
boundlessproductivepower.This,aswehavenoted,istoapproach
religionsastheRomanticswouldadviseapproachinganovel.Whenone
triestoinhabittheperspectiveofothersandtoempathizeevenwithwhat
seemsmoststrange,oneseesoneselfwithinthem,andthemwithinoneself.
168
Thishelpstobreakdowntheboundariesbetweenwhatisinwardand
outward,andallowsthemindtobecomereceptivetoanintuitionofthe
infinite.
“Fromthesewanderingsthroughthewholerealmofhumanity,
religionthenreturnstoone’sownselfwithsharpenedmeaningand
better-formedjudgment,andatlastfindseverythinginitselfthat
otherwisewasgatheredfrommostdistantregions.…Allofthe
innumerablemixturesofdifferentdispositionsthatyouhaveintuited
inthecharactersofotherswillappeartoyouasmerearrested
momentsofyourownlife.…Thereweremomentswhen…you
thought,felt,andactedthisway,whenyoureallywerethisorthat
person.Youhavereallypassedthroughallthesedifferentforms
withinyourownorder;youyourselfareacompendiumofhumanity;
inacertainsenseyourpersonalityembracesthewholeofhuman
nature.…Inwhomeverreligionhasthusworkedbackagaininwardly
andhasdiscoveredtheretheinfinite,itiscompleteinthatpersonin
thisrespect.” 9
Ofcourse,theBildungthatSchleiermacherrecommendsaimsatmaking
religioncompleteinmorethanjustthatrespect.Whenonehasdiscovered
theinfinitewithinandwithout,one’sexpressionoftheresultingfeeling
shouldideallycontributetothecontinuedevolutionofreligion.Inthisway,
one’srelationshipwithreligionbecomesfullyorganic,fallinginlinewith
thegeneralRomanticprogram:togrowbybeingopentotheinfluencesof
theinfinite,andtohelptheuniversegrowtowardperfectionbyresponding
creativelytothoseinfluences.
AfewmorequotationsfromSchleiermacher’sTalkswillhelptoround
outhispictureofreligionandshowitsparallelswithRomanticthoughtin
general.
Onthemiracleofthecommonplace:
“‘Miracle’ismerelythereligiousnameforevent,everyoneof
which,eventhemostnaturalandusual,isamiracleassoonasit
adaptsitselftothefactthatthereligiousviewofitcanbethe
dominantone.Tomeeverythingisamiracle…Themorereligious
youwouldbe,themoreyouwouldseemiracleseverywhere.” 10
169
Ontolerance:
“Whenyouhavepersuadedanotherpersontojoinyouindrawing
theimageoftheBigDipperontothebluebackgroundoftheworlds,
doeshenotneverthelessremainfreetoconceivetheadjacentworlds
incontoursthatarecompletelydifferentfromyours?Thisinfinite
chaos,whereofcourseeverypointrepresentsaworld,isassuch
actuallythemostsuitableandhighestsymbolofreligion.…
Individualpersonsmayhavetheirownarrangementandtheirown
rubrics[forarrangingtheirreligiousintuitions]theparticularcan
therebyneitherwinnorlose.” 11
Onthedangerofgivingauthoritytoreligioustexts:
“Everyholywritingismerelyamausoleumofreligion,a
monumentthatagreatspiritwastherethatnolongerexists;forifit
stilllivedandwereactive,whywoulditattachsuchgreatimportance
tothedeadletterthatcanonlybeaweakreproductionofit?” 12
Ontheillegitimacyofimposingreligiousdutiesorrulesforbehavior:
“Religion…mustnotusetheuniverseinordertoderiveduties
andisnotpermittedtocontainacodeoflaws.” 13
Andontheneedforreligionstoevolve:
“Whenwehavefoundoutwhatiseverywherepreservedand
promotedinthecourseofhumanityandmustsoonerorlater
inevitablybevanquishedanddestroyedifitcannotbetransformedor
changed,weregardourownactionintheworldinlightofthis
law.” 14
SCHLEIERMACHER’SRECEPTION
Schleiermacher’sTalksprovedverycontroversial,andashegrewolder
herevisedthem,in1806and1821,tosoftensomeoftheirmoreunorthodox
positions.
ButamonghisearlyRomanticfriends,thefirsteditionoftheTalksfound
aneagerandreceptiveaudience.Schlegelquibbledwithsomeof
170
Schleiermacher’spoints,butforthemostparttheRomanticsacceptedhis
ideaswholeheartedly.Andtheydidmorethanjustacceptthem.They
respondedtothemcreatively,astheybeganaddressingthetopicofreligion
themselves.Insomeways,theysimplyechoedhisthoughts,aswhen
Schlegelwrotethat“Everyrelationofmantotheinfiniteisreligion;thatis,
manintheentirefullnessofhishumanity.” 15 Schlegelalsoagreedthatthe
experienceoftheinfinitewaspriortoanyconceptofGod,andthatsucha
conceptexpressedaperson’sfeelingsmorethanitrepresentedanactual
being.InSchlegel’sterminology,itwasaproductoftheimagination:“The
mind,saystheauthoroftheTalksonReligion,canunderstandonlythe
universe.LetimaginationtakeoverandyouwillhaveaGod.Quiteright:
fortheimaginationisman’sfacultyforperceivingdivinity.” 16 And:“A
definiterelationshiptoGodmustseemasintolerabletothemysticasa
particularconceptionornotionofGod.” 17
Inotherways,theearlyRomanticsexpandedonSchleiermacher’sideas.
HölderlinandSchlegel,forinstance,writingindependentlyofeachother,
drewsimilarconclusionsfromSchleiermacher’spointthatreligioustexts
shouldbereadprimarilyfortheirexpressiveness.Becausethefeelingfor
theinfinitewasimmediateanddirect,andbecausefinitewordsgetinthe
wayofthatdirectness,theyargued,thereisnowaythatlanguagecan
adequatelyexpressthatfeeling.Andyetthereisthefeltneedtoexpressit.
Thesolutiontothisdilemmawastorealizethattheonlyappropriate
languageforreligionwasthatofmythandallegory,becausethesemodesof
languagetoldstoriespointingexplicitlytomeaningsbeyondthem.Myth
andallegoryunitedthehistorical—concretedeedsanddescriptions—with
theintellectual—themeaningbehindthosedescriptions.Becauseitwas
blatantlysuggestive,theirlanguagewasthebestwayforwordstopoint
beyondthemselves.Thismeant,inHölderlin’swords,that“Allreligionis
initsessencepoetic.” 18
HereHölderlinwasshiftingSchleiermacher’smeaningof“religion”
fromthefeelingoftheinfinitetotheexpressionofthatfeeling.Schlegel,inhis
Ideas,shiftedthemeaningofthewordinthesameway.Thisshiftwasto
haveimportantconsequencesfortheacademicstudyofreligionlateron.As
wewillsee,humanisticpsychologyandcomparativereligioncametofocus
onthesetwinpolesintheirstudyofreligionasapsychologicaland
historicalphenomenon.
Inthisarea,too,theearlyRomanticsledtheway,primarilyin
171
Schelling’sandSchlegel’sprogramsonhowthestudyofreligioncould
functionasapartoftheBildungthatwouldfurthertheprogressoffreedom.
Thedescriptive/prescriptivesideofthisBildunglayintheirprogramfor
howtheyandfuturegenerationsshouldapproachtheacademicstudyof
religion.Schelling,inhisMethodofAcademicStudy,calledfortheologiansto
lookatthehistoryofreligion,notthroughthelensoftheirbeliefsystems,
butfroma“supra-confessional”perspective.The“supra-”here,ofcourse,
means“above.”Schellingfeltthathistheoryofthedevelopmentofthe
universethroughtheactivityoftheWorldSoulaffordedahighervantage
pointfromwhichallreligiousactivityshouldbeunderstood.Whatever
truthswerecontainedwithinaparticularbeliefsystemshouldbeviewed
simplyasproductsofthatsystem’shistoricalcircumstances.Historicism
wastohavethefinalwordonthevalueofthosetruthsandhowfartheir
validityshouldextend.
Schlegel,inhisarticle,“OnPhilosophy”(1799),hadalreadyoutlinedthe
basicassumptionsonwhichsuchastudyshouldbebased.Inareferenceto
Kant’sReligionWithintheLimitsofReasonAlone,hecalledforastudyof
“religionwithinthelimitsofart.”Bythishemeantthatthestudyof
religionshouldpayattentiontohowthefiniteandinfinitewerecombined
inmythic,symbolicforms“whosesymbolismconsisted…inthatbywhich,
everywhere,theappearanceofthefiniteisplacedinrelationwiththetruth
oftheeternalandinthismanner,preciselydissolvedtherein.”Whether
thosefinitesymbolswereoriginallymeanttosymbolizetheinfinitewasnot
aquestionthatSchlegelthoughttoask.Religionwasaboutone’s
relationshiptotheinfinite,period.Asfortheunderlyingassumptionsof
thiscourseofstudy:“Theinfinitudeofthehumanspirit,thedivinityofall
naturalthings,andthehumanityofthegods,shouldremainthegreateternal
themeofallthesevariations.” 19 Inotherwords,whateveraparticular
religionsaidaboutthesetopics,Schlegel’sassumptionsabouthumanity,
nature,andthegodsweretobetreatedashighertruthsfromwhichthat
religionshouldbejudged.
InhisConversationsonPoetry(1800),Schlegelofferedthesomewhat
postmoderncommentthattheseassumptionswereamyth,justlikethe
mythsthattheyweremeanttojudge.Butthenheaddedthatthehistorian’s
mythservedapragmaticpurpose:Itfurtheredtheprogressofhuman
freedombyofferingaframeworkforunderstandinghowthemeaningand
purposeofhistoryheadedinthedirectionofthatfreedom.Herethe
172
descriptivepowerofthisstudybecameprescriptive,asitwasin
Schleiermacher’sTalks:Thestudyofthehistoryofreligionsshowednot
onlythefactthatreligionschangeovertime,butalsothattheyshouldchange
—orbechanged.Schlegel’sprogramcalledfortheliberationofreligion.
“Liberatereligion,”hesaidinoneofhisIdeas,“andanewraceofmenwill
beborn.” 20 Andfurther,“Letusawakenallreligionsfromtheirgravesand
throughtheomnipotenceofartandsciencereanimateandreorganizethose
thatareimmortal.” 21
Forguidanceonhowreligionshouldbeliberatedthroughartand
science,SchlegellookedtoIndia,becausewhatlittleheknewofIndian
religionconvincedhimthatIndiaembodiedRomanticideals.“Inthe
Orient,”hesaid—andbythishelatersaidhemeantIndia—“wemustseek
thathighestRomanticism.” 22
WhathemeantbyRomanticisminthiscase,hefurtherexplainedin
VoyagetoFrance(1803):“[T]hespiritualself-denialoftheChristianandthe
wildest,mostexuberantmaterialisminthereligionoftheGreeksboth
foundtheirhigherarchetypeinthecommonfatherland,inIndia.”This
“sublimemannerofthinking,”inwhichtheseextremesarebrought
togetherundertheconceptof“divinitywithoutdifferenceinitsinfinity”
providedthefoundationsofa“trulyuniversalBildung.” 23 Itwasforthis
reason,Schlegelintimated,thathehadgonetoFrance,tostudySanskritin
Paris.
Now,aswe’vealreadygatheredfromLucinde,Schlegelwasobviously
notinterestedinwhatSanskrittextstaughtaboutspiritualself-denial.His
focuswasmoreonIndia’sexuberantside.This,hefelt,wouldprovide
justificationfortheperformativesideofhisBildung:theclaimthaterotic
loveofferedagenuineanddirectexperienceoftheinfinite,andsoshould
beregardedasaholysourceofreligiousrenewalwithineachperson.Here
SchlegeltookathemethatSchleiermacherhadtouchedoninhistalksasan
“Eleusinianmystery”andstateditopenly:
“ThereligionIhavereturnedtoistheoldest,themostchildlike
andsimple.IworshipfireasbeingthebestsymboloftheGodhead.
Andwhereistherealovelierfirethantheonenaturehaslocked
deeplyintothesoftbreastofwoman?Ordainmepriest,notsothatI
mayidlygazeatthefire,butsothatImayliberateit,awakenit,and
purifyit:whereveritispure,itsustainsitself,withoutsurveillance
173
andwithoutvestals.” 24
[JulianisaddressingLucinde:]“Everythingthatwelovedbefore,
weloveevenmorewarmlynow.It’sonlynowthatafeelingforthe
worldhasreallydawnedonus.You’vecometoknowtheinfinityof
thehumanspiritthroughme,andI’vecometounderstandmarriage
andlife,andthemagnificenceofallthingsthroughyou.Forme
everythinghasasoul,speakstome,andisholy.” 25
WhenLucindewasprinted,itmetwithachorusofprotestthatitwas
immoral.Schleiermacherrosetoitsdefensein1800,writinganentirenovel
intheformoffictionalletters,ConfidentialLettersConcerningFriedrich
Schlegel’sLucinde,torefutethecriticismsandtoassertinsteadthatthebook
wasactuallyaholytext,embodyingtheprinciplesoftruereligionand
showingthatatasteandsensibilityfortheinfinitecouldbedeveloped
througheroticlove.AsErnestine—Schleiermacher’sfemininealteregoin
thebook—comments,aphysicalembraceisactuallyanexperienceofthe
embraceofGod:
“Godmustbeinthebeloveds,theirembraceisactuallyHis
enveloping,whichthey,inthatsamemoment,feelincommunion,
andforwhichthereaftertheyyearn.” 26
Thus,whentheRomanticsdescribedloveasholyorasanactof
worship,theywerenotengaginginmerehyperbole.Theywantedtobe
takenseriously:thateroticlovewasaportalfortheinfiniteandasourcefor
renewinggenuinereligionandmoralityinaworldwherereligious
teachingsandinstitutionshadsentreligiontoitsgrave.Byengagingin
trulylovingrelationships—evenifadulterous—theywerenotabandoning
theirmoralduty.Instead,theywereobeyingahighermoraldutythat
wouldbringwhatisfiniteanddividedbackintoinfiniteOneness.
RECOGNIZINGROMANTICRELIGION
BecausethefollowingchaptersaimatshowinghowtheseRomantic
viewsonreligionsurvivedintothe20thand21stcenturies,itwillbe
convenienttohaveashortchecklisttoidentifypreciselywhatcountsas
Romanticreligion.ThatwaywewillbeabletorecognizeRomantic
religiousideasastheyaretransmitted,togaugetheextenttowhichthe
174
transmissionaltersthem,andtorecognizethemastheyresurfacein
BuddhistRomanticism.
SohereisalistofthetwentymainpointsthatcharacterizeRomantic
religion.Theremainderofthisbookwillmakefrequentreferencetothese
points,sobeartheminmind.
Thefirstpointidentifiesthequestionthatallreligion,accordingtothe
Romantics,aimstoanswer.
1)Theobjectofreligionistherelationshipofhumanitywiththeuniverse.
ThenexttwopointsgivethebasicRomanticanswertothatquestion.
2)Theuniverseisaninfiniteorganicunity.Thismeans,amongother
things,thatcausationintheuniverseis(a)reciprocalratherthan
mechanicalanddeterministic;and(b)teleological—ithasapurpose
—ratherthanblind.However,whatthatpurposeisliesbeyond
humancapacitiestoknoworcomprehend.Theassertionthatthe
universeisaninfiniteorganicunityalsomeansthatthereisno
transcendentdimensionoutsideoftheorganicprocessesofthe
universe.
3)Eachhumanbeingisbothanindividualorganismandapartofthe
largerinfiniteorganicunityoftheuniverse.Asanorganism,onehas
bothphysicalandmentaldrivesthatshouldbetrustedandsatisfied.
Aspartsoftheorganicunityoftheuniverse,onehasnofreedomof
choice,butonlythefreedomtoexpressone’snatureaspartofthe
cosmos.Thus,toexpressandfulfillone’snature,onehasthedutyto
trustthatone’sinnerdrivesaregood,andthattheoverallpurposeof
theuniverseisgood,evenifunknowable.Onealsohasthedutyto
worktowardfulfillingthatpurposeasbestonecanunderstandit.
Thesefirstthreepointsarethebasisforalltheremainingpoints.
Thenextsixpointsfocusonthereligiousexperienceandthe
psychologicalillnessthatitheals.
4)Humanbeingssufferwhentheirsenseofinnerandouterunityislost
—whentheyfeeldividedwithinthemselvesandseparatedfromtheuniverse.
175
5)Despiteitsmanyexpressions,thereligiousexperienceisthesamefor
all:anintuitionoftheinfinitethatcreatesafeelingofunitywiththe
universeandafeelingofunitywithin.
6)Thissenseofunityishealingbuttotallyimmanent.Inotherwords,(a)
itistemporaryand(b)itdoesnotgivedirectexperienceofanytranscendent,
unconditioneddimensionoutsideofspaceandtime.Therearetworeasons
forthis.Thefirstisthathumanperception,asaconditioned,organic
process,hasnoaccesstoanythingunconditioned.Thesecondreason
isthat,asalreadystated,thereisnotranscendentdimensionoutside
oftheinfiniteorganicunityoftheuniverse.
7)Anyfreedomofferedbythereligiousexperience—thehighestfreedom
possibleinanorganicuniverse—thusdoesnottranscendthelawsoforganic
causation.Itisconditionedandlimitedbyforcesbothwithinandwithout
theindividual.
8)Becausethereligiousexperiencecangiveonlyatemporaryfeelingof
unity,religiouslifeisoneofpursuingrepeatedreligiousexperiencesinhopes
ofgaininganimprovedfeelingforthatunity,butneverfullyachievingit.
9)Althoughthereligiousexperienceisnottranscendent,itdoescarry
withitanabilitytoseethecommonplaceeventsoftheimmanentworldas
sublimeandmiraculous.Infact,thisabilityisasignoftheauthenticityof
one’ssenseofunitywiththeinfinite.ThispointparallelsNovalis’
definitionofauthenticityandtheromanticizationoftheworld.
Thenextfourpointsfocusonthecultivationofthereligiousexperience.
10)Peoplehaveaninnatedesireandaptitudeforthereligiousexperience
—infact,thereligiousexperienceisatotallynaturaloccurrence—butthe
cultureoftheirtimeandplacemaystifleit.Nevertheless,theycaninducea
religiousexperiencebycultivatinganattitudeofopenreceptivitytothe
infinite.Becausereligionisamatteroftaste,thereisnoonepathfor
developingthisreceptivity.Themostthatanyteachercanofferarehisorher
ownopinionsonthematter,intheeventthatotherpeoplewillresonatewith
them.
11)Oneofthemanywaystocultivateareceptivitytotheinfiniteis
througheroticlove.
176
12)Anotherwaytocultivateareceptivitytotheinfiniteistodevelopa
toleranceofallreligiousexpressions,viewingthemasfiniteexpressionsofa
feelingfortheinfinite,withoutgivingauthoritytoanyofthem.Thispoint
parallelsSchlegel’sinstructionsonhowtoempathizewiththe
authorsofliteraryworks,andhastwoimplications.Thefirstisthatit
makesthestudyofreligioustextsabranchofthestudyofliterature.
Thesecondisthatone’sempathyandtolerancecontainanelementof
irony:Onesympathizeswiththefeeling-sourcethatoneisableto
identifyintheexpression,butmaintainsone’sdistancefromthe
expressionitself.
13)Infact,thegreatestreligioustexts,ifgrantedtoomuchauthority,are
actuallyharmfultogenuinereligion.
Thefinalsevenpointsdealwiththeresultsofthereligiousexperience.
14)Becausethemindisanorganicpartofthecreativelyexpressive
infinite,it,too,iscreativelyexpressive,soitsnaturalresponsetoafeelingof
theinfiniteistowanttoexpressit.
15)However,becausethemindisfinite,anyattempttodescribethe
experienceoftheinfiniteislimitedbyone’sfinitemodeofthought,andalso
byone’stemperamentandculture.Thus,religiousstatementsandtextsare
notdescriptiveofreality,butsimplyexpressionsoftheeffectofthatreality
onaparticularperson’sindividualnature.Asexpressionsoffeelings,
religiousstatementsdonotneedtobeclearorconsistent.Theyshouldbe
readaspoetryandmyths,pointingtotheinexpressibleinfiniteandspeaking
primarilytothefeelings.
16)Becausereligiousteachingsareexpressiveonlyofoneindividual’s
feelings,theyhavenoauthorityoveranyotherperson’sexpressionofhisor
herfeelings.Thetruthofeachindividual’sexperienceliesinthepurely
subjectivedirectnessofthatexperience,anddoesnotcarryoverto
anyexpressionofit.
17)Althoughareligiousfeelingmayinspireadesiretoformulaterulesof
behavior,thoserulescarrynoauthority,andareactuallyunnecessary.When
oneseesallofhumanityasholyandOne—andoneselfasanorganicpartof
thatholyOneness—thereisnoneedforrulestogovernone’sinteractions
177
withtherestofsociety.One’sbehaviortowardallnaturallybecomesloving
andcompassionate.
18)Infact,whenonehasagenuineappreciationfortheinfiniteorganic
unityoftheuniverse,oneseeshowthatunitytranscendsallideasofright
andwrong.Theinfinitudeoftheuniversehasmorethanenoughroom
toembraceandencompassbothrightandwrongbehavior,andmore
thanenoughpowertohealallwounds.Thereforethedutiesimplied
byideasofrightandwrongbehaviorhavenolegitimateplacein
religiouslife.
19)Althoughallreligiousexpressionsarevalid,somearemoreevolved
thanothers.Thusreligionmustbeviewedundertheframeworkof
historicism,tounderstandwhereaparticularteachingfallsintheorganic
developmentofhumanityandtheuniverseasawhole.Regardlessofwhat
aparticularreligionsaysaboutitsteachings,thoseteachingsaretobe
judgedbyone’sunderstandingoftheplaceofthatreligioninthe
generalevolutionofhumanspiritualactivity.
20)Religiouschangeisnotonlyafact.Itisalsoaduty.Religionsare
organic,likeeverythingelseintheuniverse,andsopeoplemust
continuetomodifytheirreligioustraditionsinordertokeepthem
alive.Thisdriveanddutytochange—tobecome—issomethingtobe
celebratedandextolled.
SowehavetwentypointstoapplyinidentifyingtheRomanticinfluence
onmodernWesternBuddhism.Schlegel’sconceptofironyappearsinthe
list,asonepossibleinterpretationofPoints15–17,butthereisalarger,
unintendedironyunderlyingthelistasawhole,towhichwehavealready
alluded.AlthoughPoints16–18insistthatnooneperson’sreligiousbeliefs
abouthumanidentityanddutiesintheuniversehaveanyauthorityover
anyoneelse’sbeliefs,alltwentypointsderivetheirauthorityfromthebelief
systemexpressedinthefirstthree.Inotherwords,youarefreetobelieveor
disbelievewhatyouwant,butnotfreetodisbelievethefirstthreepoints.
ThereisalsoanunderlyinginconsistencyinthatPoints17and18deny
anyspecificdutiesofrightandwronginthereligiouslife,whereasPoints3
and20insistonthedutytotrustone’sinnerdrivesandtofurtherthe
organicdevelopmentoftheuniverseasawhole.Thisinconsistencyis
furtheraggravatedbytheRomantics’ownconflictingideasofwhatduty
178
meansforahumanorganismthatispartoftheinfiniteorganicunitythatis
thecosmos.
TheseconflictingideascomefromthevariouswaystheRomantics
definedfreedomandinnerOnenessforsuchahumanbeing.Aswesawin
theprecedingchapter,SchlegelandHölderlinmaintainedthatfreedom
meantbeingfreetocontradictoneselffrommomenttomoment.For
Hölderlin,innerOnenessmeantadoptingwhateverphilosophyintegrated
wellwithone’semotionalneedsatanyparticularmomentsoastoarriveat
asenseofinnerpeace.ForSchlegel,innerOnenessmeantadopting
whateverphilosophyallowedforthegreatestfreedominexpressing—
again,atanymoment—one’screativepowers.Thusforbothofthem,one’s
dutywastofollowtheneedsofone’sinnernature,asexpressedinone’s
emotions,soastoexperienceinnerOneness.
ForSchelling,however,thewholeideaoffreedomwasapernicious
myth.Thebeliefinindividualfreedomofchoice,hetaught,wasthesource
ofallevil.Aspartoftheoverarchingorganicunityoftheuniverse,one’s
dutywastorenounceone’sindividualwillandtoacceptthewillofthe
universeasitactedthroughone’sinnatenature.Onlythencouldone
experiencethefreedomfrominnerconflictthat,forSchelling,waswhat
innerOnenessmeant.
Thesearemajorinconsistencies.TheRomantics,withtheirattitude
towardinconsistency,mighthavearguedthatinconsistenciesofthissort
areactuallyaformoffreedom,which—asSchlegelcommented—isthe
wholepurposeofformulatingthesereligiousviewstobeginwith.Butif
youdon’tacceptthegeneralRomanticviewaboutthenatureofthe
universe,theirargumentsaboutinconsistency,duty,andfreedomdon’t
hold.
Aswewillsee,theseinconsistencies,thedifferingnotionsofduty,and
thelimitednotionoffreedomintheRomanticreligiousBildunghave
carriedoverintoBuddhistRomanticism.Inparticular,theinconsistencyis
manifestnotonlyinthespecificchangesthatBuddhistRomanticsforceon
theDhamma,butalsointheirjustificationfordoingso.Somechangesare
justifiedonthegroundsthatRomanticprinciplesofreligionareobjectively
true,thatallgreatreligionsshouldrecognizethem,soifBuddhismlacks
anyofthem,peoplearedoingitafavorbyintroducingthemintothe
Dhamma.Otherchangesarejustifiedonthegroundsthatthereareno
objectivelytrueprinciplesofreligion:Eachindividualhasnotonlytheright
179
tocreatehis/herownsetofbeliefs,butalsothedutytochangehis/her
tradition.Sothetraditionhasnorighttoobjecttowhateverthosebeliefs
mightbe.Eitherway,theDhammalosesout.
Thisconnectswithasecondirony:Althoughmostofthescientificand
philosophicalunderpinningsforthetwentypointshavesincefallenaway,
thepointsthemselveshavecontinuedtoexertinfluenceoverWesternviews
onreligioningeneral,andBuddhistRomanticisminparticular,tothe
presentday.Thiscontinuedinfluencecanbeexplainedbythefactthat,
regardlessofhowscienceandphilosophyarecurrentlytaughtinthe
academy,thesepointshavegainedandmaintainedthestatusof
unquestionedassumptionsinthreeareasofthought:humanistic
psychology,theacademicstudyofthehistoryofreligions,andpopular
writingson“perennialphilosophy.”Thenextchapterwillexaminehow
thishashappened,andhowthesethreeareasofthoughthavehelpedto
create—andjustifythecreationof—BuddhistRomanticism.
Butfirst,tohelpclarifywhatactuallydoesanddoesn’tcountasa
RomanticinfluenceonBuddhistRomanticism,it’susefultoreviewwhat
theDhammateachesaboutthetwentypointslistedabove.Sohereisa
secondlist,drawnfromChapterTwo,thatwillallowyoutocomparepointby-pointwheretheDhammaandRomanticismaresimilarandwherethey
partways.ThiswayyouwillbeabletorecognizewhatisBuddhistand
whatisRomanticinmodernBuddhistRomanticism.
Thesetwolistsdivergeattheoutset.Theydifferonthepurposeof
religion,thenatureoftheuniverse,andtheplaceoftheindividualwithin
theuniverse.BecausethesefirstthreepointsarebasictotheRomantic
program,thismeansthattheDhammaandtheRomanticprogrampart
waysfromthegroundup.However,it’salsoimportanttonotethatthey
containsimilaritiesinsomeofthemorederivativepoints—similaritiesthat
haveallowedforDhammaandtheRomanticprogramtobecomeconfused
witheachother.
OntheobjectoftheDhamma:
1)TheobjectoftheDhammaisnottherelationshipofhumanitywiththe
universe,buttheendofsufferingandstress(§2 ).Tofocusondefiningthe
placeofhumanityintheuniverseistothinkintermsofbecoming,which
actuallygetsinthewayofendingsufferingandstress.
180
Ontheindividualandtheuniverse:
2)Thequestionsofwhetherornottheuniverseisinfinite,andwhetheror
notit’sOne,areirrelevanttoendingsufferingandstress.Infact,toinsist
ontheOnenessandinfinitudeoftheuniverseistostrayawayfromthepath
totheendofsuffering(§6 ; §25 ).Althoughitistruethatcausationinthe
universeisnotdeterministic,theuniverseitselfdoesnothaveapurpose.To
insistthatithasapurposeandmeaningallowsfortheideathatsuffering
servesapurpose,thusmakingithardertoseethatsufferingisbestbrought
toanend.
3)Toholdtoadefinitionofwhatone“is”asahumanbeingstandsinthe
wayofabandoningthesufferingthateverysuchdefinitionentails(§17 ;
§20 ).Notallhumandrivescanbetrusted—mostcomefromignorance—so
thereisaneedtobeheedfulinchoosingwhichdesirestofulfillandwhichto
resist.And,infact,humanbeingsdohavefreedomofchoice.Butbecausethe
universehasnopurpose,theyhavenodutytofurtheritsgrowth.
Ontheultimatereligiousexperienceandthespiritualillnessitcures:
4)Humanbeingssufferfromthecravingandclingingthatleadto
becomingandthatresultfromignoranceofhowsufferingiscausedandhow
itcanbebroughttoanend(§3 ; §25 ).
5)Alongthepathtotheendofsuffering,ameditatormayexperiencea
feelingofunitywiththeuniverseandafeelingofunitywithin.The
DhammaagreeswithRomanticismthatthisfeelingistemporaryand
inconstant.However,thisfeelingisnotthehighestreligiousexperience
(§23 ).Therearemanypossiblereligiousexperiences.TheCanonnotesthat
teacherspriortotheBuddhahadmistakenthevariouslevelsofjhāna,or
mentalabsorption,asthehighestpossibleexperience,butthattheselevelsof
concentrationareallfabricated,andthusfallshortofthehighestgoal.The
highestexperienceisunbinding,whichisnotafeeling,butgoestotally
beyondthesixsenses(§§45–47; §54 ).
6)Unbindingistranscendent,anunconditioneddimensionoutsideof
spaceandtime(§§48–49; §51 ).
7)Thefreedomattainedwithunbindingisthusfreefromalllimitations
181
andconditions(§20 ).
8)Althoughtherearestagesofawakening,whenfullawakeningis
achievedthereisnomoreworktodoforthesakeofone’swellbeing.Thegoal
hasbeenfullyattained.Thehealingandhealthofunbinding,becausethey
areunconditioned,arenotsubjecttochange(§50 ).
9)Asenseofthesublime—inKant’ssenseofinspiringterror—isoneof
thegoadstopracticefortheendofsuffering.Asfortheabilitytosee
commonplaceeventsasluminous,thatisastagethatsomepeopleexperience
onthewaytoawakening,butitisactuallyanobstacleonthepaththathas
tobeovercome.Andtoseeallthingsassublimeistoerasethelinebetween
whatisskillfulandwhatisnot,deprivingthemindofasenseofheedfulness,
andthusundercuttingallmotivationforthepractice(§33 ).
Oncultivatingawakening:
10)Theexperienceofawakeningdoesnothappennaturally(§50 ).Ithas
tobeconsciouslypursued,oftenindirectcontradictionto“natural”desires
andimpulses.Thispursuitinvolvesmuchmorethanopenreceptivity.In
fact,openreceptivitycanweakenheedfulness,whichistheactualbasisforall
skillfulaction(§33 ).Toattainawakening,alleightfactorsofthenoblepath
—whichistheonlypathtoawakening—havetobedevelopedheedfullytoa
pointofconsummation(§§58–60).
11)Friendshipwithadmirablepeopleisthefirstprerequisiteinfollowing
thepath,butbecausesensualpassionisoneofthecausesofsuffering,there
isnoroomforeroticloveinadmirablefriendship.Eroticloveisanobstacle,
ratherthananaid,onthepath(§§64–65; §13 ).
12)Otherreligionsmaybetolerated,notwiththeviewthattheyarevalid
alternativepathstotheendofsuffering,butsimplyasapointofgood
manners.TheBuddharecognizedthatotherreligionscancontainelements
oftheDhamma,butthefullpathtoawakeningcanbefoundonlywherethe
nobleeightfoldpathistaughtwithoutcontradiction(§60 ).Hedid,however,
arguestronglyagainstanyreligionteachingthatactionhasnoconsequences
(§8 ),andadvisedthemonkstoexpelfromtheSaṅghaanymonkwhotaught
aviewthatseriouslycontradictedtheDhamma.
182
13)SimplerespectforthePāliCanonisnotenough—itsteachingsmust
betestedbyputtingthemintopractice(§61 )—buttogranttheCanon
provisionalauthorityisnotanobstacleonthepath.
Ontheresultsofawakening:
14)Themindisanactiveprincipleinshapingitsexperience—onthis
pointtheDhammaagreeswiththeRomantics—butitsactivityismorethan
merelyexpressive.Itcanaccuratelyobserveanddescribehowsuffering
arisesandhowitcanbebroughttoanend,eventhoughunbindinglies
beyondwordsandsocannotbeexpressed.AndalthoughtheCanoncontains
somepoeticpassagesexpressingthejoyofawakening,itfocusesmostofits
attentiononthemostusefulresponsetoawakening:practicalinstructions
onhowothersmayachieveawakeningforthemselves.
15)Thetruthsofhowsufferingarisesandpassesawayarecategorical—
universallytrue—andnotspecifictoanyparticularculture(§6 ).
Instructionsonthesemattersarenotsimplyexpressionsoffeelings,norare
theymythspointingtotheinexpressible.Theyaccuratelydescribereal
actionsthatcanbemastered.Becausetheseinstructionsaremeanttobe
carriedout,theyshouldbetaughtinacontextwherestudentsare
encouragedtoaskquestionsabouttheirmeaningwiththepurposeof
understandinghowtoimplementthem(§66 ).
16)TheBuddhahastheauthorityofanexpert,andhisteachingsdonot
simplyexpresshisfeelingsabouthowtoendsuffering.Theyaretruthsthat
canbetestedintheexperienceofothers.Theextenttowhichtheypassthe
testshowsthatthosetruthshavebeenaccuratelyreportedinthePāliCanon.
17)Althoughthegoodwillandcompassionfosteredbythepathinspire
onetobehavewelltowardothers,here,too,heedfulnessisneededsothat
thesequalitiesdon’tgetmisledbyignorance.Thustheyneedtheguidanceof
theprecepts,whichareanessentialpartofthepathtoawakening.And
althoughawakenedpeoplenolongerdefinethemselvesintermsofthe
precepts(MN79),theyabidebythepreceptsconsistentlyandprotectthem
withtheirlife(AN3:87;Ud5:5).
18)Oneoftheresultsofawakeningistherealizationthatactionsdohave
consequences,andthattheprinciplesofskillfulandunskillfulbehaviorare
183
categoricaltruths(AN2:18).Similarly,thedutiesappropriatetothefour
nobletruths,althoughnotimposedbyoutsidepersonalauthority,mustbe
followedbyanyonewhowantstoputanendtosufferingandstress(§3 ).
19)ThehistoricalmethodisnojudgeoftheDhamma.TheDhammacan
beknownandtestedonlythroughone’sownattemptstoputitintopractice.
20)TheessenceoftheDhammaistimelessandunchanging(§39 ; §§48–
49 ).TheteachingsabouttheDhammawilleventuallydisappearas
counterfeitDhammareplacesthem(§§69–71 ),butthisdevelopmentisnot
tobeextolled.ThedisappearanceofteachingsabouttheDhammacanbe
postponedbypracticingtheDhammaandbynot“improving”itwithnew
formulations(§§72–74 ).TokeeptheDhammaalive,itisimportantnotto
changethoseteachings,sothatotherswillhaveachancetolearnwhatthe
Buddhataughtandgiveitafairtestforthemselves.
Threeofthesepointsareespeciallyimportant:
•Point1,thattheDhammaisnotconcernedwiththesamequestionas
Romanticreligion,andthattheRomanticquestionisphrasedintermsthat
(a)placelimitationsonone’sabilitytoexperiencethetranscendentand(b)
standinthewayofansweringthequestiontheDhammaaddresses;
•Point5,thatunbindingliesbeyondthehighestreligiousexperience
recognizedbytheRomantics;and
•Point7,thatthefreedomtheDhammaoffersisnotconfinedbythe
limitationssurroundingtheRomanticnotionoffreedom.
ThesethreepointsshowclearlythattheDhammaliesoutsidethe“laws”
and“duties”thattheRomanticsformulatedforthereligiouslife.Thisis
becausetheDhammafocusesonanissueentirelydifferentfromthe
Romanticconceptionofthefocusofreligiouslife,andpointstoafreedom
vastlysuperiortothehighestfreedomtheRomanticsproposed.It’sironic,
then,thatBuddhistRomanticismtreatstheDhammaunderRomanticlaws.
Thefollowingchapterwilllookatsomeofthereasonswhythisironic
situationcameabout,andwhyBuddhistRomanticismgivesmoreauthority
toearlyRomantictheoriesthantothebestavailablerecordsoftheDhamma
theBuddhataught.
184
CHAPTERSIX
TheTransmissionofRomantic
Religion
PeopleatpresentrarelyreadSchleiermacher.Mosthavenevereven
heardofhisname,andthesameholdstrueoftheotherearlyGerman
Romantics.Nevertheless,theirideasonartandreligionhaveinfluenced
manythinkersintheinterveningcenturies,thinkerswhosenamesaremore
familiarandwhohavehadawidelyrecognizedinfluenceoncurrent
culture—intheareasofliterature,humanisticpsychology,comparative
religion,comparativemythology,andperennialphilosophy.Ashortroster
ofthesemorerecognizedthinkerswouldincludeSirEdwinArnold,Helena
Blavatsky,JosephCampbell,RalphWaldoEmerson,G.W.F.Hegel,
HermannHesse,AldousHuxley,WilliamJames,CarlJung,J.Krishnamurti,
AbrahamMaslow,FriedrichNietzsche,RudolphOtto,HustonSmith,
HenryDavidThoreau,SwamiVivekananda,andWaltWhitman.Andthere
aremany,manyothers.Thesearethepeoplewhohavetransmitted
Romanticreligiontothepresent,andwho—throughtheirinfluence—have
madeBuddhistRomanticismpossible.
PartoftheRomantics’continuinginfluencecanbeexplainedbythefact
that,eventhoughsomeofthemcouldbequiteobscureinexpressingtheir
moreabstractthoughts—WilliamHazlittstartedhisreviewofA.W.
Schlegel’sVorlesungenüberdramatischeKunstundLiteraturwiththequip,
“ThebookisGerman,”togiveanideaofhowimpenetrableitwas—they
foundchampionsinanumberofEnglishandFrenchwriterswho,inthe
early19thcentury,developedanenthusiasmforGermanthoughtandwere
abletopopularizeitwithgreaterclarityintheirownlanguages.Amongthe
English,SamuelColeridge(1772–1834)andThomasCarlyle(1795–1881)
weretheforemostadvocatesofGermanRomanticthought;evenHazlitt
(1778–1830),whenwritingaboutShakespeare,borrowedheavilyfromthe
verybookhehadsavagedforbeingGerman.AmongtheFrench,Madame
deStaël(1766–1817),whomwehavealreadymet,wasanearlyadmirerof
185
theGermanRomantics,andVictorCousin(1792–1867)wasanother.
TheseinterpreterspresentedearlyRomanticthoughtasanatural
extensionofKant’sphilosophy,inthatbothKantandtheRomantics
focusedonunderstandingallaspectsofhumaninquiryintermsofthe
psychologyofthehumanmindmakingtheinquiry.Inotherwords,the
emphasiswasnotontheworldoutside,butonthemindasanactive
principle,shapingitsexperienceoftheworldbothwithinandwithout.This
conflationofKantwiththeRomanticsgaveaddedauthoritytothethought
oftheearlyRomanticsinWesterncultureatlarge,eventhoughtheearly
Romanticsthemselveshadlargelyabandonedthetheoriesoftheiryounger
days.
AnotherexplanationfortheRomantics’continuedinfluencein20thand
21stcenturythoughtisthat,insomecases,theearlyRomanticsthemselves
andthefirstgenerationoftheirfollowersactuallyinitiatedthefieldsof
inquiryinwhichtheirinfluencehassurvived.Oneofthefoundingtextsof
comparativemythology,forinstance—TheSymbolicandMythologyof
AncientPeoples(1810–12)—waswrittenbyascholar,FriedrichCreuzer,who
wasinspiredbySchelling’sMethodofAcademicStudy.Similarly,thebasic
premiseunderlyingperennialphilosophy—theprinciplethatmonismisthe
centraldoctrineofallgreatreligions—wasfirstsuggestedbyHerderafter
readingsomeEnglishtranslationsoftheBhagavadGīta,whichhethen
renderedintoGermaninawaythatemphasizedthemonismthathehad
readbetweentheirlines.Herder’spremisewasthenexpandedand
popularizedbySchlegelinhiswritingsonIndiabeforehefullyabandoned
theRomanticismofhisyouth.
PerennialphilosophyisstillessentiallyaRomanticenterprise.Asforthe
historyofreligionandcomparativemythology,thesefieldsofinquiryhave
sincecometoquestionmanyoftheRomanticassumptionsthatengendered
them,buttracesoftheseassumptionsstillunderliethewaytheyconduct
theirinquiries.
Oneoftheironiesofthesecontinuedinfluencesisthatthebasicscientific
assumptionofRomanticreligion—theinfiniteorganicunityoftheuniverse
—didnotsurvivelongintothenineteenthcentury.However,largely
throughtheworkoftheAmericanpsychologistWilliamJames,the
principlesofRomanticreligionweredivorcedfromtheworldviewthat
formedtheiroriginalcontextandweregivenindependentlifeand
respectabilityinanewcontext:asscientificpsychologicalprincipleswith
186
pragmaticvalueforthehealthyfunctioningofthehumanmind.Thus,even
astheparadigmsforthephysicalandsocialsciencescontinuedtochange,
theprinciplesofRomanticreligionwereabletosurviveregardlessofwhat
shapesthoseparadigmstook.
Atpresent,thereisnouniversallyacceptedscientifictheoryfor
understandingtheuniverse,andyetthisfact,too,hashelpedRomantic
ideastosurvive.Assumingthatthepurposeoftheuniverseisunknowable,
thentheRomanticprogramoffocusingonthemind—notasan
embodimentofreason,butasacollectionoforganicprocesses,feelings,and
emotions,insearchofhealthandwellbeing—makessense.Ifwecan’t
understandthepurposeoftheuniverseovertime,thethinkinggoes,we
canatleasttrytofindasenseofinnerhealthinthepresent.Andalthough
themodern/postmodernstudyofthemindcontainsmanycurrentsof
thought,thecurrentthatgrantsreligionapositiveroleinthepursuitof
innerhealthtendstothinkintermsofRomanticconcepts,suchas
integrationofthepersonality,non-dualism,receptivity,nonjudgmentalism,andthespiritualbenefitsoferoticlove.
Eventhoughmanyoftheseconceptsrestonveryshakyassumptions,
theirabsorptionintoacademicfieldshasgiventhemacademic
respectability.Becauseofthisauraofrespectability,theycarryagreatdeal
ofauthoritywhenbroughtintothepopularculture.Thisauthorityhas
madetheirunderlyingassumptionsinvisible—afactthathasgiventhem
powerinshapingattitudesinmanyareasofWesternculture.Those
attitudes,inturn,haveservedtoshapeandjustifythedevelopmentof
BuddhistRomanticism.
AthoroughstudyofallthechannelsthroughwhichRomanticideas
haveenteredintomodernDhammawouldbebeyondthescopeofthis
book.SointhischapterIwillsimplysketchtheideasofafewofthe
prominentthinkerswhohavetransmittedRomanticreligiontothepresent.
MypurposeistoshowwhichpartsofRomanticreligionwerealteredinthe
transmission,whichpartsremainedthesame,andhowcontingentthe
wholeprocesswas:Muchofitwasshapedbythepersonalconcernsofthe
individualauthors;thingscouldhaveeasilycomeoutinaverydifferent
way.Ialsowanttoshowhowvariousthinkerspickeduponsomepointsof
Romanticreligionwhilerejectingothers,andyetthecumulativeeffect—as
wewillseeinthenextchapter—hasbeenthatalltwentyofthemainpoints
ofRomanticreligionhavereconvergedinBuddhistRomanticism.The
187
processhasbeenlikeariverthathassplitfromonelakeintomany
channels,onlyforthechannelstoreuniteinanotherlakedownstream.
Iwilldealwithfourmainareas:literature,humanisticpsychology,the
historyofreligion,andperennialphilosophy.AlthoughIhaveorganized
thediscussiontotreattheseareasseparately,wewillseethatwriters
focusingononeareawereofteninformedbythetheoriesanddiscoveriesof
writersintheotherareasaswell.ThepsychologistMaslow,forinstance,
washeavilyinfluencedbytheperennialphilosopher,Huxley;Jamesand
Jungwereinfluencedbyadvancesinthestudyofthehistoryofreligion.
Thechannelsoftheriverintermingledevenbeforetheyreunitedinthelake
ofBuddhistRomanticism.
Intheareaofliterature,Iwillfocusononewriter,Emerson,partly
becauseheisoneofthefewmajorwritersinEnglishwhodirectlyread
Schleiermacher—Jameswasanother—andpartlybecausehisinfluence
spreadintoallfouroftheaboveareasofthought.Hiswritingswerethe
English-languagelakefromwhichmanychannelsofRomanticthought
diverged.
EMERSON
RalphWaldoEmerson(1803–1882)wasthe
leadingfigureinagroupofNewEngland
thinkersandwriterswhobecameknownas
theTranscendentalists.Othersinthegroup
includedHenryDavidThoreau,Bronson
Alcott,OrestesBrownson,MargaretFuller,
ElizabethPeabody,andTheodoreParker.
ThetermTranscendentalistwasfirstapplied
tothegrouptoridiculethem,butthe
Transcendentalistsquicklydecidedto
embracetheinsult,adoptingthenamefor
themselvestodepriveitofitssting.
Theoriginalimpliedinsultpointstoone
oftheironiesoftheirpositioninAmerican
literature.AlthoughlatergenerationscametoregardtheTranscendentalists
asamongthefirstgenuinelyAmericanthinkerswritinginEnglish,their
unenamoredcontemporariessawthemasblatantlyapingtheGermansin
188
theirthought.ThetermtranscendentalinthiscasecamefromKant’s
transcendentalcategoriesasfilteredthroughColeridge’sRomantic
interpretationofthem.ThecriticsoftheTranscendentalistswereaccusing
themoftryingtobelittleKants.Aswewillsee,however,Emersonwas
muchclosertotheRomanticsthantoKantbothinthestyleandinthe
substanceofhisthought.
Emersonwrotemanyessays,butneverasystematictreatiseonhis
religiousviews.Infact,theideaof“system”wasanathematohissenseof
howreligionworked.HetookseriouslySchleiermacher’sdictumthat
becausereligionwaspurelyamatterofinternalexperience,itcouldnot
properlybetaught.Atmost,onepersonmighttrytoprovokeotherpeople
tolookinwardtofindreligionwithinthemselves,butthatwasall.Asa
result,Emersontookontheroleofprovocateur,stringingtogether
epigramsthatwouldnowtakeoneextremepositionandthenanotherone,
oftenincontradictiontothefirst,inhopesthatthiswouldinducehis
listenerstoquestiontheireverydayassumptionsandsobecomemore
receptivetotheinfinitewithin.
ThisaspectofEmerson’sstylehasRomanticroots,specificallyin
Schlegel’s“ideas”andsenseofirony.LikeSchlegel,heregardedtheability
tocontradictoneselfasasign,notofmuddledthinking,butofanabilityto
riseabovefiniteconcernsandlimitationsandadoptaninfinitepointof
view:
“…tolookwithconsiderategoodnatureateveryobjectin
existence,aloof,asamanmightlookatamouse…enjoyingthefigure
whicheachself-satisfiedparticularcreaturecutsintheunrespecting
All.”(“TheComic”)
Emerson’sadoptionofRomanticreligion,however,wasnotsimplya
matterofstyle.Itwasalsoamatterofsubstance.Inalmostallareasof
religiousthought—andEmersonwasfirstandforemostareligiousthinker
—hefollowedtheRomanticparadigm.
LiketheRomantics,hedefinedtheobjectofreligionas“man’s
connectionwithnature.”Nature,forhim,wasaninfiniteorganicunity,
animatedbytheOver-Soul—animmanent,impersonalprinciplethat,like
Schelling’sWorldSoul,wasalwaysevolving:
“…thatgreatnatureinwhichwerest,astheearthliesinthesoft
189
armsofatmosphere;thatUnity,thatOver-soul,withinwhichevery
man’sparticularbeingiscontainedandmadeonewithallother.”
(“TheOver-Soul”)
“Innatureeverymomentisnew;thepastisalwaysswallowedand
forgotten;thecomingonlyissacred.Nothingissecurebutlife,
transition,theenergizingspirit.…Notruth[is]sosublimebutitmay
betrivialto-morrowinthelightofnewthoughts.”(“Circles”)
Eachhumanbeingwasanorganicpartofthisongoing,evolvingunity,
andyetsufferedwhenfeelingdividedfromit.Thissenseofdivisionwas
endemicbecauseeachpersonalsofeltdividedwithinhimorherself.The
basiccure—which,EmersonagreedwiththeRomantics,isavailabletoall—
wastoregainasenseofthepre-existingunitythroughadirectintuitionof
itspresence.
“Theheartintheeistheheartofall;notavalve,notawall,notan
intersectionisthereanywhereinnature,butonebloodrolls
uninterruptedlyinanendlesscirculationthroughallmen,asthe
wateroftheglobeisallonesea,and,trulyseen,itstideisone.”(“The
Over-Soul”)
“Thereasonwhytheworldlacksunityisbecausemanisdisunited
withhimself.…Weliveinsuccession,indivision,inparts,in
particles.Meanwhile,withinmanisthesoulofthewhole,thewise
silence,theuniversalbeauty,towhicheverypartandparticleis
equallyrelated,theeternalOne.Andthisdeeppowerinwhichwe
exist,andwhosebeatitudeisallaccessibletous,isnotonlyselfsufficingandperfectineveryhour,buttheactofseeingandthething
seen,theseerandthespectacle,thesubjectandtheobject,areone.”
(“TheOver-Soul”)
Indescribingthisunitybothasapre-existingcharacteristicoftheinfinite
universeandasadirectexperience,Emersonplacedmoreemphasisonits
mentalaspect,andlessonthephysicalaspect,thantheRomanticshad.
Individualmindswerepartofaunifieduniversalmind.Thisshiftin
emphasismeantthathegavelittleimportancetophysicaldrives,andtotal
importancetothemessagesthemindreceivedasaresultoftheexperience.
Emersoncalledthesemessages“laws,”whichsignalsanothershiftof
190
emphasisonhispart.Infact,thisparticularshiftwashismostdistinctive
contributiontoRomanticreligion.Forhim,intuitionsoftheinfinitewerea
matternotofaesthetictaste,butofmoralandsocialimperatives.Whenthe
infiniteimpresseditselfonthehumanmind,ityieldednotjustageneral
feeling,butalsoadirectintuitionofone’sduty.Inneronenessexpressed
itselfasthewillingnessnottoresistthoseintuitions,wherevertheymight
lead.However,unlikeKant’ssenseofdutyasauniversal,immutablelaw,
Emerson’s“duty”wasconstantlyopentochange.Infact,itschangeswere
signsthatitwasintunewiththelivinguniverse.Becausetheuniversewas
constantlyinastateofBecoming,evolvingwitheveryday,noexternallaws
shouldoverrideaperson’sevolvinginnerintuitionofhisorherduty,
whichwouldnecessarilychangeonadailybasis.
“[TheTranscendentalist]resistsallattemptstopalmotherrules
andmeasuresonthespiritthanitsown.Inactionheeasilyincursthe
chargeofanti-nomianismbyhisavowalthathe,whohastheLawgiver[within],maywithsafetynotonlyneglect,butevencontravene
everywrittencommandment.”(“TheTranscendentalist”)
“Withconsistencyagreatsoulhassimplynothingtodo.Hemay
aswellconcernhimselfwithhisshadowonthewall.Speakwhatyou
thinknowinhardwordsandto-morrowspeakwhatto-morrow
thinksinhardwordsagain,thoughitcontradicteverythingyousaid
to-day.”(“Self-reliance”)
Emersondistinguishedthemind’sowninnerlawsfrommerevoluntary
“notions,”andhefeltthateveryonehadtheinnateabilitytodiscernwhich
thoughtswereofdivineoriginandwhichwerenot.
“Everymandiscriminatesbetweenthevoluntaryactsofhismind
andhisinvoluntaryperceptions,andknowsthattohisinvoluntary
perceptionsaperfectfaithisdue.”(“Self-reliance”)
Havingintuitedtheseinnerlaws,onethenexpressedtheauthenticityof
one’sintuition,notbyromanticizingtheworld,butbyfollowingone’s
innervoiceofduty,evenwhen—especiallywhen—thedutiesandcustoms
ofsocietypointedinacontrarydirection.Oneromanticizedone’sactions
first,andtheromanticizationoftheworldwouldfollow.
Inthisway,Emersongaveamoralandsocialdimensionnotonlytothe
191
intuitionsoftheinfinite,butalsototheideaofauthenticity.Bothofthese
shiftsinmeaninghavehadimportantconsequencesinshapingRomantic
religionuptothepresent.
EmersonagreedwiththeRomanticsthattheexperiencebywhichpeople
attaininwardunityisessentiallythesameforall.Henoted,though,that
someindividuals—andherehegaveanecumenicallistofdivinelyinspired
people,bothChristianandnot,suchasSocrates,Plotinus,Porphyry,the
ApostlePaul,GeorgeFox,andSwedenborg—feelastrongersenseof
transformationthanothers.
Theseintuitionsofinfiniteunity,or“revelations”inEmerson’sterms,
cannotlast.Comingfromanimmanentsource,theyareimmanentin
nature.Emerson,likeSchleiermacher,didnotpositatranscendent
dimensionoutsideoftime,andrejectedthedesireforpersonalimmortality
asanactofwandering“fromthepresent,whichisinfinite,toafuture
whichwouldbefinite.”Thuseventhoughheviewedrevelationsas
transcendingordinaryinputofthesensesinimportance—thisisthesense
inwhichheisaTranscendentalist—hedidnotviewthemasgivingaccess
toarealmtranscendingspaceandtime.
Becauserevelationscanofferonlyfinite,momentaryglimpsesofthe
infinite,religiouslifeisanaffairofcontinuallypursuingrepeatedglimpses,
inhopesthatone’scomprehensionofthoseglimpseswillgraduallydeepen.
Neverwilltherecomeapoint,though,whereonecanattaintotal
comprehension.Thereligiousquestisthusacontinualprocesswithnofinal
attainment.Andaswenotedabove,thesenseoffreedomgainedfromthese
experiencesislimitedtothatofbeingtruetoone’snatureandhaving
warranttodefysocialnorms.
EventhoughEmersonmeasuredtheauthenticityoftheseexperiencesby
one’sabilitytospeakandactinlinewiththedutiestheyimpose,healso
hadroominhisthoughtforNovalis’senseofauthenticity:theabilityto
transformthecommonplaceeventsoflifeintothemicrocosmicsublime.
“Theinvariablemarkofwisdomistoseethemiraculousinthe
common.”(“TheOver-Soul”)
“Thusreveringthesoul,andlearning,astheancientsaid,that‘its
beautyisimmense,’manwillcometoseethattheworldisthe
perennialmiraclewhichthesoulworketh,andbelessastonishedat
particularwonders;hewilllearnthatthereisnoprofanehistory;that
192
allhistoryissacred;thattheuniverseisrepresentedinanatom,ina
momentoftime.Hewillweavenolongeraspottedlifeofshredsand
patches,buthewilllivewithadivineunity.”(“TheOver-Soul”)
Asforthemeanstodevelopthissenseofunity,Emersonagreedfully
withtheRomanticsthattheaptitudeforareligiousexperiencecouldbe
cultivatedbyadoptinganattitudeofopenreceptivity.Healsoagreedthat
thisreceptiveattitudecouldbedevelopedinawidevarietyofways,inline
withone’stemperamentandculture.
UnliketheRomantics,though,hesawlittleroleforeroticlovein
developingthisattitude.HistakeonlovewasmorePlatonic:Theearly
stagesoflovemaybringtheloverintoahigherspiritualstate,butonemust
outgrowone’sfascinationwiththebeautyofthebelovedifonewantedto
growspirituallyandappreciatethehigherbeautyofconsciousness.And
this,hetaught,requiredthatonego,insolitude,intonature.Onlytherecan
oneabandonthesenseofselfthatinterfereswithanopenreceptivitytothe
infinite.
“Standingonthebareground,—myheadbathedbytheblitheair,
andupliftedintoinfinitespace,—allmeanegotismvanishes.I
becomeatransparenteye-ball;Iamnothing;Iseeall;thecurrentsof
theUniversalBeingcirculatethroughme;Iampartorparticleof
God.Thenameofthenearestfriendsoundsthenforeignand
accidental…Iamtheloverofuncontainedandimmortalbeauty.In
thewilderness,Ifindsomethingmoredearandconnatethanin
streetsorvillages.Inthetranquillandscape,andespeciallyinthe
distantlineofthehorizon,manbeholdssomewhatasbeautifulashis
ownnature.”(“Nature”)
EmersonsharedtheRomantics’ambivalentattitudetowardreligious
traditionsassourcesforspiritualinspiration.Hisessay,“History,”
illustratesthispointwell.Anextended“idea,”inSchlegel’sspecialsenseof
theword,theessayfirstadvocatesthebenefitsofstudyinghistorywhen
approachedinthecorrectway.Becauseeachmindispartoftheuniversal
mind,thecorrectwaytounderstandhistoryistoregarditasthestoryof
one’sowndevelopment.Whenreadinghistory,oneisreadingabout
oneself,andoneshoulddevelopanironictoleranceforallactions,good
andbad,thathavecomefromtheuniversalmindovertime.
193
Then,however,theessayshiftsgears:
“Itisthefaultofourrhetoricthatwecannotstronglystateonefact
withoutseemingtobeliesomeother.Iholdouractualknowledge
verycheap.…Thepathofscienceandoflettersisnotthewayinto
nature.Theidiot,theIndian,thechildandunschooledfarmer’sboy
standnearertothelightbywhichnatureistoberead,thanthe
dissectorortheantiquary.”
Inotherwords,recordsofthepastmayhavetheiruses,buttheypale
nexttonatureasaguidetotruereligiousinspiration.Thisshiftingears
makestheessayan“idea”inSchlegel’ssenseoftheterm.
Evenwhensacredtextsdooffersustenanceduringone’sdarkhours,
Emersonfeltthattheyshouldberead,notasstatementsoffact,butas
mythsandpoetry:symbolsandallegorieswhosemeaningsthereaderis
freetointerpretcreativelyasheorsheseesfit.
“[One]mustattainandmaintainthatloftysightwherepoetryand
annalsarealike.”(“History”)
“TheGardenofEden,thesunstandingstillinGideon,ispoetry
thenceforwardtoallnations.Whocareswhatthefactwas,whenwe
havemadeaconstellationofittohanginheavenasanimmortal
sign.”(“History”)
Ifgrantedtoomuchauthority,religioustextscangetinthewayoftrue
intuitions.
“Therelationsofthesoultothedivinespiritaresopurethatitis
profanetoseektointerposehelps…If,therefore,amanclaimsto
knowandspeakofGod,andcarriesyoubackwardtothe
phraseologyofsomeoldmoulderednationinanothercountry,in
anotherworld,believehimnot.Istheacornbetterthantheoakwhich
isitsfullnessandcompletion?Istheparentbetterthanthechildinto
whomhehascasthisripenedbeing?Whence,then,thisworshipof
thepast?Thecenturiesareconspiratorsagainstthesanityand
authorityofthesoul.”(“Self-reliance”)
Emersonalsosharedtheidea,advocatedbytheRomantics,thatthe
194
naturalresponsetoanexperienceoftheinfinitewastoexpressit,andthat
thisresponsewouldbedictatedbyone’stemperamentandculture.Aswe
havenoted,however,hesawthisresponsemoreinmoralthaninaesthetic
terms—although,again,Emerson’ssenseof“moral”wasverymuchlike
Schlegel’sandSchleiermacher’sinthatitallowedfornorulesorcodesof
behavior.Inultimateterms,peoplecoulddonothingbutfollowtheir
nature.Evenifthatinvolveddoingharm,Emerson,likeHölderlin,held
thattheuniversewaslargeenoughnottobewounded.
“Onmysaying,‘WhathaveItodowiththesacrednessof
traditions,ifIlivewhollyfromwithin?’myfriendsuggested—‘But
theseimpulsesmaybefrombelow,notfromabove.’Ireplied,‘They
donotseemtometobesuch;butifIamtheDevil’schild,Iwilllive
thenfromtheDevil.’Nolawcanbesacredtomebutthatofmy
nature.Goodandbadarebutnamesveryreadilytransferabletothat
orthis;theonlyrightiswhatisaftermyconstitution;theonlywrong
whatisagainstit.”(“Self-reliance”)
“Allloss,allpain,isparticular;theuniverseremainstotheheart
unhurt…Foritisonlythefinitethathaswroughtandsuffered;the
infiniteliesstretchedinsmilingrepose…Thereisasoulatthecentre
ofnatureandoverthewillofeveryman,sothatnoneofuscan
wrongtheuniverse.”(“SpiritualLaws”)
Finally,EmersonsharedwiththeRomanticstheideathatthe
modificationofareligioustraditionwasnotonlyahistoricalfact.Itwas
alsoadutyinlightoftheongoingprogressoftheOver-Soul.Thismay
soundparadoxical:Iftheuniverseisultimatelyindifferent,whatsenseof
dutycouldtherebe?Emerson’sanswerwasthatinthelivingfactofchange,
thesoulcouldbestexpressitstruenature.Inotherwords,thedutyhere
wasadutytoone’snature,andnottotherestoftheworld.
Thethemeofone’sdutytomakereligionevolvewasonetowhich
Emersonoftenreturned,withevenmorefeelingthantheRomantics.
“Whenwehavebrokenourgodoftradition,andceasedfromour
godofrhetoric,thenmayGodfiretheheartwithhispresence.”(“The
Over-Soul”)
“YetseewhatstrongintellectsdarenotyethearGodhimself,
195
unlesshespeakthephraseologyofIknownotwhatDavid,or
Jeremiah,orPaul…Whenwehavenewperception,weshallgladly
disburdenthememoryofitshoardedtreasuresasoldrubbish.”
(“Self-reliance”)
TherewereseveraldiscrepanciesbetweenEmerson’sthoughtandhis
life,whichcamelargelyfromhisdesire,asafinitebeing,toexpressan
infinitepointofview.Oneisthat,eventhoughhepreachedtolerancefor
eachperson’sintuitionoftheinfinite,hebalkedwhenotherpeopleactually
tookhimathisword.OnecasewasWaltWhitman,who—following
Emerson’sdictum—wastruetohisinnernaturewhenheexpressedhis
sexualityfranklyinLeavesofGrass.Onreceivingacopyfromthepoet,
EmersonwasshockedandadvisedWhitmantodeletetheoffendingpoems.
AnothercasewasEmerson’sbreakwithmanyofhisfellow
Transcendentalistsoverissuesofsocialaction.Althoughheinsistedthat
religiousinspirationwasbestexpressedinwordsandactions,hechided
Fuller,Brownson,andParkerwhentheyarguedthatreligiousinspiration
shouldfirstbeexpressedinsocialchange,onthegroundsthatonlywhen
societywasfaircouldallindividualsbefreetocommunewiththeirinner
nature.FromEmerson’sperspective,socialchangewouldbegenuineonly
afterinnerchangehadtakenplace.Theissueofwhichshouldcomefirst—
socialchangeorinnerchange—wastobecomearecurringboneof
contentioninRomanticreligion,andhasresurfacedinBuddhist
Romanticismaswell.
Inbothofthesecases,thedisparitybetweenEmerson’swordsand
actionsstemmedpartlyfromadominantfeatureofhiswritingstyle.He
wroteinepigrammaticsentences,eachsentencepolishedsothatitcould
standonitsown,andmanyofhisessaysreadlikeaseriesofSchlegel’s
fragmentsstrungtogetherinaflowingbutfairlyarbitraryorder.Thusit
waseasyforhisreaderstoextractindividualepigramsfromtheirlarger
context,takingpartofthemessageforthewhole.AlthoughEmersonmight
haveobjectedtotheirdoingthis,sayingthatthatwasn’twhathemeant,his
readerscouldcounterthatthatwaswhathehadsaid.
Emerson,inhislateryears,derivedcongenialspiritualnourishment
fromIndianreligioustexts,primarilytheUpaniṣads,buthenever
contemplatedadoptinganIndianreligion,andhisinterestwasmoreofan
eclecticsort:lookinglessfornewideasthanforconfirmationofideasthat
healreadyheld.Ironically,theinfluencewasreciprocal.Duringhislifetime
196
manyofhisessays—inparticular,“TheOver-Soul”—wereprintedinIndia,
wheretheyinspirededucatedIndianswhowereintheprocessof
developinganewuniversalIndianreligion,nowcalledNeo-Hinduism,
basedontheUpaniṣadsandtheBhagavadGīta.Wewillreturntothispoint
below.
AsatransmitterofRomanticreligion,Emersondeviatedfromhis
Germanmentorsononlytwomajorissues:themoralratherthanaesthetic
importofreligiousexperiences,andtheroleofErosininducingsuch
experiences.Otherwise,histhoughtdifferedfromtheirsprimarilyinterms
offourpointsofemphasis.
•HetendedtodwellmorethantheRomanticshadonthepointthat
therecanbenocategoricalstandardsforjudgingthereliabilityofreligious
experiencesorofthesenseofdutythatonegainedfromthem.
•Relatedtothispointwashisrecastingofauthenticityasamoralrather
thananaestheticquality:theabilitytoremaintruetoone’sownsenseof
rightandwrong,regardlessofhowinconsistentitmightbefromdayto
day,andregardlessofwhatsocietymightsay.
•Thisfurtherrelatedtohisimplieddefinitionoffreedomaslicenseto
flauntsocialnormsinthenameofone’sinnernature,whateverthatnature
mightbe.HealsoplacedmoreemphasisthanthemajorityofRomanticson
theideathatactions,inultimateterms,havenorealconsequencesinthe
overalleconomyoftheuniverse.
•Andhewrotemoreferventlythantheyincelebratingtheconstant
evolutionoftheworldandthesoulasthehighestaspirationofhumanlife.
FromtheBuddhistperspective,allthesepointsofemphasisare
problematic.
•Tosaythattherecanbenostandardsforjudgingrightorwrongis,in
theBuddha’swords,toleavepeopleunprotected(§8 ).Theywillhaveno
waytojudgeoneintentionassuperiortoanother,andnowaytoprotect
themselvesfromengaginginunskillfulactions.Emersonassumedthat
peoplecanclearlydistinguishbetweentheirindividualnotionsandtheir
trustworthyperceptions,butexperienceshowsthatthisisnotthecase.
•Similarly,todenythatthereareconstantstandardsforjudgingone’s
dailyintuitionsofrightandwrong,andtodenythatthereisanythingof
worthtolearnfromothers,makesitimpossibletolearnanysenseofskillin
theconductofone’sactions.
197
•Freedomdefinedastheabilitytodefysocialnormsinremainingtrue
toone’sinnernatureisnorealfreedomatall,andleavesoneatthemercy
ofdeludedstatesofmind.
•Tosaythatactionshavenorealconsequencesinthelongtermis
irresponsible,andagainmakesitimpossibletogiverisetoheedfulnessand
thedesiretodevelopskillinone’sconduct.
•Tocelebratetheprocessofbecoming—therepeatedassumptionof
newrolesandidentitiesinthestoryoftheuniverse—asthebestuseof
humanlifeistostaymiredinsufferingandstress,withnopossibilityof
gainingrelease.
EventhoughEmerson’semphasisonthesepointsrunsdirectlycounter
tosomeofthemostbasictenetsoftheDhamma,wewillseebelowthat
theirinfluencehasspreadthroughmanychannelstoshapethebasictenets
ofBuddhistRomanticism.
PSYCHOLOGYOFRELIGION
RomanticreligionwastransmittedtoBuddhistRomanticismthrough
severalchannelsinthefieldofthepsychologyofreligion,particularly
throughthebranchthatcametobeknownashumanisticpsychology.One
ofthetwomainchannelscame,viaEmerson,throughthewritingsof
WilliamJames;theother,drawingbothonJamesanddirectlyontheearly
Romantics,camethroughthewritingsofCarlJung.Bothofthese
psychologistsinturnhadamajorinfluenceonAbrahamMaslow,oneofthe
foundersofhumanisticpsychologyandadirectinfluenceonmanyWestern
teachersofBuddhism.
ThewaythesepsychologistsadoptedRomanticideasaboutreligionwas
determinedbythedominantparadigmsinthesciencesoftheirtimes.As
wewillseewhenweexamineJames’thought,theorganicviewofscience
onwhichtheRomanticsdrew,andwhichSchellinginparticularhad
promoted,hadquicklyfallenintodisfavorinthe19thcentury,asmore
materialistichypothesesconcerningphysicaleventsledtomoreuseful
experimentalresults.Basedontheseresults,deterministicmaterialism
becamethedominantscientificparadigm,thuscallingintoquestionthe
possibilityofanymeaningtolife:Iftheuniversewasdrivenby
deterministiclaws,howcantherebefreedomofchoice?Andhowcouldthe
physicalprocessesthatmakeupthebody—andperhapsdrovemental
198
processesaswell—existtoserveapurpose?
Inanattempttoanswerthesequestions,James—andlater,Jung—found
Romanticideasaboutreligionhelpfulinfosteringpsychologicalhealthboth
forthemselvesandfortheirpatients.Tocarveoutroomfortheseideasin
thefaceofatoxicscientificworldview,bothJamesandJungstartedwith
thephenomenologyofconsciousness,i.e.,consciousnessasitis
immediatelyexperiencedfromwithin.Because,foreveryhumanbeing,
consciousnessisamoreimmediaterealitythanphysicalprocesses,which
areknownonlyatsecondremove,boththinkersarguedthattherealityof
consciousnessmusttakepriorityoverthesupposedrealityofphysicallaws.
Andbecauseconsciousnessispurposeful,anyinterpretationoftheuniverse
thatdeniespurposecannotbetakenasultimatelytrue,andcertainlynot
trueforconsciousness.“True”foranyconsciousbeinghadtobedefinedas
whatwasconducivetothehealthyfunctioningofconsciousness.
AsforMaslow,hewaswritingatatimewhen,ashesaid,sophisticated
theologiansandsophisticatedscientists“seemtobecomingcloserand
closertogetherintheirconceptionoftheuniverseas‘organismic,’ashaving
somekindofunityandintegration,asgrowingandevolvingandhaving
directionand,therefore,havingsomekindof‘meaning.’” 1 Inotherwords,
hesawhimselfasbackintheorganic,unifieduniverseoftheRomantics,in
whichbiologicalfactscouldcarryinherentmeaningandpurpose.Thus,
giventhathumanbeingsarebornwithcertainpotentials,hearguedthatwe
mustassumethatthosepotentialsaremeanttobeactualized.Inother
words,thefactofanypotentialimpliedanought:Peopleoughttobe
trained,andsocietyoughttobeordered,sothatallhumanbeingshavethe
opportunitytofullyactualizetheirinnatepotentials.Thetraininghe
proposedthuscameclosetotheRomanticconceptofBildung:arounded
educationforafullyfunctioninghumanbeinghopingtofindandfulfillhis
orherpurposeinapurposefuluniverse.
ItshouldnotbesurprisingthatMaslowfoundtheorganicRomantic
viewofspirituallifecongenialtohisapproach,asit,too,wasderivedfrom
theprinciplesofbiology.However,eventhoughthephenomenological
approachwasnotnecessarilytiedtobiology,bothJamesandJungended
upadoptingmanyoftheorganicprinciplesofRomanticreligionwhen
fleshingouttheirapproachaswell.Infact,itwasJameswhoinspiredboth
JungandMaslowinthisdirection.Apparently,Jamesadoptedthese
principlesbecausehesawthemasthebestexampleofanon-materialistic
199
butscientificapproachavailableintheWest.Atthesametime,the
RomanticconceptofthedividedselfalsospoketoJames’understandingof
hisownpersonalpsychologicalissues.
Butwhateverthereason,eventhoughRomanticideasgavethese
psychologiststoolstoadvancetheircauseagainstdeterministic
materialism,thoseideasalsoendedupplacingwhatwere,fromthepointof
viewoftheDhamma,severelimitationsontheirthought.Theselimitations
—whichwerethenpassedontoBuddhistRomanticism—willbecomeclear
asweexaminewhichprinciplesofRomanticreligionthesepsychologists
transmitted,whetherintactorwithmodifications,tothe20thand21st
centuries.
James
WilliamJames(1842–1910)playeda
paradoxicalroleinthetransmissionof
Romanticreligiontothepresent:rejectingthe
monistic,organicRomanticviewofthe
universe,andyetarguingthatmanyofthe
principlesofRomanticreligioncouldthrive
evenwhendivorcedfromtheiroriginal
metaphysicalcontext.InfactthiswasJames’
maincontributiontothesurvivalof
Romanticreligion:givingitsprinciples
scientificrespectability—atleastwithinthe
scienceofpsychology—evenasthefashions
ofthephysicalsciencesmovedawayfrom
organicmetaphorsforunderstandingthe
universeandbacktomoremechanicalones.
PartoftheparadoxinJames’accomplishmentcanbeexplainedbyhis
trainingbothinphilosophyandinpsychology.Asaphilosopher,he
rejectedthemonismthatunderlayRomanticthought.Infact,thebattle
againstmonisticidealism—thebasicmetaphysicalassumptionbothofthe
RomanticsandofEmerson—wasoneofthedefiningcrusadesofJames’
philosophicalcareer.Asapsychologist,however,hefounduseful
inspirationintheRomantic/Transcendentalistteachingonthereligious
experienceasameansofhealingdivisionswithinthepsyche.
200
Asaresult,Jamesdivorcedthepsychologicalaspectofthereligious
experience—afeelingofunification—fromitsoriginalmetaphysicalcontext
inaunifieduniverse.Hefurtherarguedthateveniftheexperiencetoldus
nothingabouttheactualnatureoftheuniverse,itcould—andoftendid—
functionasanimportantstepinpromotingthepsychologicalhealthofthe
humanorganism.Assuch,itwasafittingsubjectforscientificinquiry.
Toseparatepsychologyfrommetaphysics—and,insodoing,togive
psychologypriorityovermetaphysics—was,forJames,adeliberateand
momentousact.Inpart,hewassimplyfollowingageneraltrendinthe
studyofpsychologyduringhistime.Insteadofbeingtheprovinceof
novelists,psychologyhadbecomeascientificfieldinitsownright—even
though,aswewillsee,itcontinuedtoframesomeofitsissuesintermsthat
hadoriginatedintheRomanticnovel.Infact,whatwehavetermedthe
novelist’sviewofreality—inwhichtruthisamatternotofmetaphysical
statements,butofthepsychologicalprocessesleadingapersontomakesuch
statements—continuedtoprovidethedominantparadigmwithinthefield.
Inaddition,psychologyasafieldofstudywasalsobeginningtodivorce
itselffromthefieldofphilosophy,particularlyasitdevelopeditsown
methodologyforexperimentation.Hereagain,though,therewasstillsome
overlapbetweenthetwofields,afactthatJameshimselfwasabletouseto
greatadvantageinhisprofessionalcareer.
However,theactofgivingpsychologypriorityovermetaphysicsalso
hadgreatpersonalmeaningforJames.Asayoungman,hehadsuffereda
prolongedandsometimesseveredepression,whichhisbiographershave
diagnosedasbothpersonalandphilosophicalinorigin.Thepersonalorigin
layinhisrelationshiptohisfamily.Thwartedbyadomineeringfatherin
hisearlycareerchoices,Jamescametobetroubledbytheideahemightnot
havefreewill.ThephilosophicaloriginforJames’depressionlayinhis
growingconvictionthatthequestionoffreewillwasnotmerelyhisown
problem;itwasaproblemforallbeingsinamaterialistuniverse.His
doubtsaboutfreewillwerefurtherexacerbatedbythescientificeducation
hehadreceivedinmedicineandbiology.
Hereit’susefultotakestockofwhathadhappenedinthephysical
sciencesbetweentheearly-andthemid-19thcentury.Rememberthat,for
theRomantics,biology,geology,andastronomytaughtmutually
reinforcingmessagesinwhichallaspectsoftheuniversehadanorganic
purpose.Schelling,inparticular,hadrecommendedacourseofresearchfor
201
thesciencesthatwouldfurtherexploretheunityofallsciencesinpursuitof
knowledgeabouthowtheWorldSoulwasbringingaboutitspurposein
theuniverse,bothasawholeandinitsminutestoperations.
ByJames’time,though,Schelling’sprogramhadbecomediscredited.It
hadinspiredsomeusefulresearchinthefieldofelectricity,butmoreoften
thannotithaddirecteditsfollowersdownlinesofinquirythathadproven
fruitless.Themostproductiveresearchintheearly19thcenturyhadeither
ignoredSchelling’sprogramorhadbeendevotedtodebunkingit.Asa
result,sciencehadprogressedbyignoringlargertheoriesofuniversal
purposeandfocusinginsteadondiscoveringmechanicallawsofphysical
andchemicalbehavior.
Inthisway,themechanisticmodeloftheuniversehadagainbecome
ascendant,thebiologicalmodelhadbeendiscarded,andthevarious
scienceshadgonetheirseparateways.Inastronomy,Herschel’sbiological
analogyforthedevelopmentofstarsandgalaxieswaspushedaside.The
dominantviewcametobethatcomplexsystemscouldgrowanddecay
withoutourhavingtoassumethattheyformedorganicunitiesorthatthey
weredrivenbyateleologicalpurpose.Thisviewcametogovernnotonly
astronomy,butalsogeology.
Inbiology,researchhadtakenadifferenttack.CharlesDarwin’swork
hadconvincedmanyifnotallbiologiststhatthetheoryoftheevolutionof
lifehadasoundempiricalbasis.Andalthoughthephilosophical
implicationsofDarwin’sworkcouldbeinterpretedinmanydifferent
directions,theyoungJamesfocusedonthemeansbywhichlivingbeings
evolved,notingthatnaturalselectionthroughaccidentsofenvironment
andgeneticmutationwasablindprocess.Thisseemedtoimplyno
overridingdirectionordesigntolifeatall.Lifeevolved,butnotwitha
purpose.Evolutionwasnothingmorethananaccidentofmechanicallaws
—anideathatexacerbatedJames’senseoffatalism.
Inotherwords,hewasbackinthemechanisticuniverseinhabitedby
Kant,Schiller,andFichte.Hissolutiontothisdilemma—thesolutionthat
gothimoutofhisdepressionandintoaproductivecareer—bears
comparisonwiththeirs.Infact,itwasthroughreadingtheessaysofa
FrenchNeo-Kantian,CharlesRenouvier(1815–1903),thatJamescametothe
insightthatstartedhimonhisroadtorecovery.Renouvierhadarguedfor
thepossibilityoffreewillbasedonaninternalpsychologicalobservation,
whichJamesnotedwithexcitementinhisdiary:“thesustainingofa
202
thoughtbecauseIchoosetowhenImighthaveotherthoughts.” 2 Inother
words,one’schoicetothinkonethoughtratherthananothershowed
freedomofwillinaction,somethingthatnooutsidefactcoulddeny.Inhis
laterlanguage,Jameswouldcallthisa“livedfact.”ItledtohisFichtean
motto,“Myfirstactoffreewillshallbetobelieveinfreewill.” 3
Italsoledtohischoiceofcareer,attheintersectionofpsychologyand
philosophy,focusedontheissueoffeltexperience.Asapsychologist,
Jameshadbeentrainedprimarilyinphysiologicalpsychology,an
outgrowthofthephilosophicalmedicineinwhichSchillerhadtrained.But
James’researchinterestscametofocuslessonthephysiologyof
psychologicalstatesandmoreontheirphenomenology:howthosestates
feltfromwithinandcouldbecuredfromwithin.Similarly,asa
philosopher,hefocusedontheissueofwhatitfeelsliketobeanacting,
willingbeing.Philosophicalissuesshouldstartwithin,withthefactoffelt
experience,andnotfromwithout,withmetaphysicalassumptionsabout
theworld,evenifthoseassumptionswerebasedonthesciencesoftheday.
InanimportantpassageinTheVarietiesofReligiousExperience(1902),he
argued,“Solongaswedealonlywiththecosmicandthegeneral,wedeal
onlywiththesymbolsofreality,butassoonaswedealwithprivateand
personalphenomenaassuch,wedealwithrealitiesinthecompletestsenseofthe
term.” 4 ForJames,therealmoftheprivateandpersonalwaswherelifewas
actuallylived.Theknowledgeprovidedbyphysicalscienceswas
peripheraltotheconductoflife;theknowledgeprovidedbyhisstyleof
psychologyandphilosophywaswheretheconductoflifebegan.Thushis
embraceofpragmatism—thedoctrinethatphilosophicalissuesshouldbe
addressedonlyiftheymadeadifferenceintheconductoflife,andshould
beansweredinwaysthatweremosthelpfultothatconduct.
Thusalsohisassertion,inTheWilltoBelieve(1897),thatthereweretwo
typesoftruth:whatmightbecalledtruthsoftheobserver—thefactsthatcan
bediscoveredonlybysuspendingone’sdesirethatthetruthcomeoutone
wayortheother(thisappliedtophysicalscientifictruths);andtruthsofthe
will—eventsandaccomplishmentsthatcanbemadetrueonlythrougha
unifiedactofdesireandwill.Truthsofthewillwerethetruthsthat
matteredmostinlife.Infact,onlythroughactsofwillcouldhumanbeings
canmakesenseofwhatJamesfamouslycalledthe“blooming,buzzing
confusion”ofsensoryinput.Theexperienceoflifeevenonthemostbasic
sensorylevelthusrequiresaninteractiveprocess—whichtheRomantics
203
wouldhaverecognized—ofbothpassivereceptivityandactive
engagement.James,however,viewedtheachievementofmeaninginlifein
muchmoreheroictermsthanhadtheRomantics,perhapsbecausehehad
neededtoexertaheroicmentalefforttocurehisdepression.Health,for
him,wasatruthofthewill.
Jamessawthattruthsofthissortcouldbedevelopedeffectivelyonlyif
therewasabasicinnerunitytothepsyche,whatwenowcallthe
integrationofthepersonality.Andthisiswherehisinterestinreligious
experiencecamein.Eventhoughhehadovercomehisdepressiontothe
extentofdevelopingahighlyfunctioningwill,hestillfeltanagging
divisioninhispsyche.UnliketheRomantics,hecastthisdivision—whathe
calledthedividedself—asasplitnotbetweenreasonandfeeling,butasa
splitwithinthewillitself.Tobefullyhealthy,hedecided,hehadtoheal
thissplit.
Infact,Jamescametosee—muchlikeEmersonandtheRomantics—that
thesenseofdividedselfwastheprimaryspiritualillness.Emerson’s
discussionsofthemalaiseofaselfdividedagainstitselfstruckapersonal
chordinJames;Emerson’sdiscussionsofthehealingpowerofadirectlyfelt
senseofinnerandouterunityhadhimintrigued.So,bothasapersonaland
asaprofessionalpursuit,Jamesbegantoresearchthetopic—studying
unusualreligiousmovements,readingautobiographicalandotheraccounts
ofreligiousexperiences,evenexploringspiritualismanddrug-induced
ecstasies(hisownandothers’)—toseeifEmersonwasright.Towardthe
endofhislife,hesummarizedhisfindingsinaseriesoflecturesthathe
thenputintobookformasTheVarietiesofReligiousExperience.Thisbook
wasnotonlyoneofthefoundingworksinthefieldofthepsychologyof
religion.Itisalsostillwidelyreadforpleasureandeducationtoday.
WheretheRomanticsandEmersonhadformulatedtheirviewsabout
religiousexperiencesbyextrapolatingfromtheirownexperiences,Jamesin
theVarietiesquotedfrommanyreligioustraditions—andfrommany
untraditionalsources.Whatisstriking,however,ishowheusedalarge
numberoftermsreflectingRomanticassumptionsaboutthenatureand
functionofreligiousexperiencetoanalyzethosesources.Heactually
reducedthevarietyofexperienceshereportedbysqueezingthemintoa
smallsetofRomanticcategories.Thiswasoneofthemainironiesofthe
book,andatthesametimethemainaspectofRomanticreligionthatJames
transmittedtolatergenerationsandtoBuddhistRomanticism.
204
LiketheRomantics,Jamesdefinedreligionasanissueofrelationship,
althoughinhiscasethedefinitionruns:“Feelings,acts,andexperiencesof
individualmenintheirsolitude,sofarastheyapprehendthemselvesto
standinrelationtowhatevertheymayconsiderthedivine.” 5 Jameswasnot
verypreciseinexplainingwhathemeantby“divine”inthisdefinition,
althoughhedidstatethatheintendedthetermtobebroadenoughtocover
theBuddhistnirvāṇa(nibbāna)aswellastheJudeo-ChristianGod,along
withotherconceptionsof“divine”inotherreligionsthatdonotposita
personalGod—oranyGodatall.
ThefactthatJamesputthewordfeelingsfirstinhisdefinitionwasno
accident.Ashealsostated,inintroducingtheworkinghypothesisofhis
research,“Iftheinquirybepsychological,[then]notreligiousinstitutions,
butratherreligiousfeelingsandreligiousimpulsesmustbeitssubject.” 6
Withthisstatement,theRomanticassertion—borrowedfromthePietists—
thatreligionisprimarilyamatteroffeelingbecameenshrinedasa
fundamentaltenetforprofessionalpsychologicalinquiry.Thisinturn
broughttheRomanticapproachtoreligion—viewingitasanovelistwould,
focusedlessonthetruthvalueofstatementsthanonthetruthofthe
psychologicalprocessesleadingtoandresultingfromthosestatements—
intothebasicstructureofpsychologyofreligionasadevelopingfield.
AnotherRomanticassertionunderlyingtheVarietiesistheassumption
thattheapparentvarietyfoundinreligiousexperiencesactuallymasksan
underlyingidentity:Thereisasinglebasicreligiousexperience,oneof
innerunification.Jamesoffersnoproofforthisassertion.Itis,forhim,
simplyafact.BorrowingatermfromMethodism,hecallsthisexperienceof
unificationconversion,althoughhisexplanationofconversionismore
RomanticthanMethodistinthathedeniesthatthereisanythingmysticalor
transcendentabouttheexperience.
Hegivestworeasonsforissuingthisdenial.Thefirstisthatareligious
senseofunificationissimplyamoreintenseversionofaprocessthatevery
personalityhastoundergoatsomepointinadolescence:theintegrationof
thepsyche,bringingitfroma“dividedself,”withwarringimpulsesand
drives,toaunifiedselfinwhichtheinnerdriveshavereachedameasureof
orderandhierarchy.Whatsetsreligiousexperiencesapartasspecialisthat
theyoftenconveyastrongsensethatonehaslearnedimportanttruths
aboutone’srelationshiptothedivineand/ortheuniverseasawhole.This
processcanbeeithergradualorsuddenanddramatic.ThedramaJames
205
attributestoapersonalitytrait:Peoplewhohavedramaticexperiencestend
tohaveamoreactivesubconsciousthanpeoplewhodon’t.
James’secondreasonfordenyingatranscendentdimensiontothe
religiousexperienceishissenseofwhatahumanbeingisandthereforecan
know:Inhiseyes,humanbeings,asfiniteorganisms,cannotdirectly
experienceatranscendent,unconditionedrealm.Fromapsychological
viewpoint,religiousexperiences,likeallintegrativeexperiences,comefrom
thesubconscious.AlthoughJamesleavesopenthepossibilitythatadivine
forcemightbeactingthroughthesubconscious,suchadivineinputwould,
fromtheperspectiveoftheknowingsubject,lieonthe“otherside”ofwhat
canbedirectlyexperienced.Becauseitcannotbemeasuredor
experimentedon,itcannot,inascientificpsychologicalstudyofreligion,
playanexplanatoryrole.
Asfortheinformationconveyedbytheexperience,Jamesconcedesthat
ithasstrongmeaningforthepersonundergoingtheexperience,butcannot
betakenasauthoritativeforothers.This,too,followstheRomantic
paradigm—althoughJamesdiffersfromtheRomanticsinquestioning
whether,despitethestrongsenseofauthorityconveyedbythereligious
experience,thepersonhavingtheexperiencereallyshouldtakethe
informationitconveysasauthoritativeevenforhimorherself.In
particular,speakingasanoutsideobserver,Jamesexpressesdoubtthatthe
experienceactuallydoesgiveknowledgeaboutthedivine.Thisdoubt
comespartlyfromhisphilosophicalassumptionsaboutwhatahuman
beingcanandcannotknow,andpartlyfromthehistoricalfactthatpeople
undergoingreligiousexperienceshavecomeawayfromthemwithsomany
contradictorymessages.
Jamesalsonotesthatpeoplewhohaveundergonereligiousexperiences
oftendescribe,asoneoftheirstrikingfeatures,aheightenedsenseofthe
miraculousincommonplaceevents:whatwehavetermedthemicrocosmic
sublime.Hereagain,though,Jamesdoesnotseethissenseofsublimeas
confirmingauthenticityoftheexperience.Itissimplyapsychologicalside
effectofinnerunification.
ThemanyaccountsofreligiousexperiencesthatJamesquotesshowthat
theycanbeinducedinawidevarietyofvoluntaryandinvoluntaryways—
although,unliketheRomantics,henevermentionseroticloveasapossible
triggerforareligioussenseofunion.Hedoesnote,however,thata
surrenderofthewillisoftenacrucialelementinthereligiousexperience,
206
butforthispoint,too,heoffersapsychologicalexplanation.Becausethe
experienceisoftenbrewinginthesubconsciouslongbeforeitbreaks
throughtotheconsciousmind,thesenseofsurrenderisactuallytheactof
theconsciousmindallowingthesubconscioustosurface.Inotherwords,
thereisagainnoreasontoassumeadivinesourceforthesenseofinfusing
powerthatcomeswiththeactofsurrender.
Asfortheresultsofthereligiousexperience,Jamesnotes—andhere
againhefollowstheRomantics—thatallreligiousinterpretationsof
religiousexperiencesshouldbetolerated,exceptforthosethatare
intolerantofothers.Healsoarguesthatthepluralityofreligious
explanationsforreligiousexperiencesisaGoodThing,fortworeasons.The
firstisthatpeoplehavedifferenttemperaments—whichheattributes
largelytoheredity—sometendingtoseetheworldalwaysinapositive
light;others,inadarkerlight.Areligiousexplanationsatisfyingaperson
withoneofthesetemperamentswouldnotsatisfyapersonwiththeother.
Thusthehumanraceneedsmanyinterpretationsfromwhichpeopleof
differenttemperamentsmaychoose.
Thesecondreasonisthatsocietiesandcultureschangeovertime,andan
explanationofdivinepowerthatwouldmakesense,say,inaperiodof
absolutemonarchies,wouldseemcrudeinamoredemocraticculture.So,
tokeepupwithchangesinculture,religioustraditionsneedtochange.
Hereagain,JamesisenshriningaRomanticassumptionasasociological
truth,althoughheissubtleenoughtoquestionwhetherthechangesthat
religionsnecessarilyundergoarealwaysobjectiveimprovements.
James’maininterestintheexpressionofreligiousexperiences,however,
lieslessinreligiousinterpretationsthaninpsychologicalinterpretationsof
theeffectsthatsuchexperienceshaveovertime.Inparticular,hefocuseson
whatisrequiredtointegratetheexperienceintotheconductofone’slife,
makingitthe“centerofone’spersonalenergy”—inotherwords,howto
developthefeelingofunitysothatitactuallyyieldsaunityofthewillin
action.
Todescribethislatterphaseofongoingintegration,Jamesborrows
anotherMethodistterm—sanctification—whilegivingithisownmeaning.
ThisisanareawhereJamesbreaksnewground,forhistreatmentof
sanctificationexploresanissuethatneithertheRomanticsnorEmersonhad
considered:Whatchangesdoesthereligiousexperiencemakeinthe
personality?Reviewingawiderangeofaccounts,Jamesnoticesfour
207
charactertraitsthatmarkapersonforwhomspiritualemotionsarethe
habitualcenterofthepersonalenergy.Ifsanctificationisgenuine,hesays,
thesetraitsshouldbecomeconsistentfeaturesofthepersonality:
1)afeelingofbeinginawiderlifethanthatoftheworld’sselfish
interests,alongwithasensibleconvictionoftheexistenceofanidealpower;
2)asenseofthefriendlycontinuityoftheidealpowerwithone’sown
life,andawillingself-surrendertoitscontrol;
3)animmenseelationandfreedom,astheoutlinesoftheconfining
selfhoodmeltdown;and
4)ashiftingoftheemotionalcentertowardlovingandharmonious
affections.
Thesecharactertraits,inturn,havefourpracticalconsequencesinhow
theyareexpressedthroughtheactionsofone’sdailylife:as(a)asceticism,
(b)strengthofsoul,(c)purity,and(d)charity.Thisisoneofthefirst
attemptstolistthepersonalityfeaturesofaspirituallymaturepersonand—
aswewillsee—theseliststendedtogrowastheybecameafeaturebothof
thepsychologyofreligionandofBuddhistRomanticism.
Intreatingthefourmoraltraitsinhislist,Jamesobservesthattheycan
beexpressedineitherhealthyorpathologicalways.Forinstance,asceticism
canbehealthyasanexpressionofhardihood,temperance,andahappy
sacrificeforhigheraims.ThissideofasceticismappealedtoJames’senseof
lifeasaheroicstruggle,andhisowndismayoverwhathesawasthe
weakenedmoralfiberengenderedbythecomfortsof19thcentury
bourgeoislife.Asforthepathologicalsideofasceticism,Jamesattributedit
eithertoachildishsenseofexpiatingpunishmentsforimaginedsins,an
irrationalobsessionwithpurity,orwithaperversionofbodilysensibilityin
whichpainactuallyregistersaspleasure.
It’sinhisdiscussionofhealthyandpathologicalresultsofthereligious
experiencethatJamesbetrayshisphilosophicalassumptions—and,infact,
hisownpersonalviewsaboutwhatreligionshouldandshouldnotbe.
Life,inhiseyes,findsmeaninginactionforthesakeoftheworld.Ashe
statedinhisbook,Pragmatism(1907),thegenuinepragmatistmustsee
actionasthetrueendofthought,andmustbelievethathumanactionswill
makeadifferenceastowhethertheworldwillreachsalvationornot.Here
hediffersradicallyfromHölderlin’sRomanticviewthataction,inthelarge
picture,doesnotmatter.Forhim,lifehasmeaningonlywhenactionhas
208
meaning;andactionhasmeaningonlywhenitleadstoafullerandmore
accomplishedlife.
OneofJames’biographersquotesthispassagefromJames’writingsas
theepigraphtothebiographyandasasummationofJames’attitudetolife:
“Ifthislifebenotarealfight,inwhichsomethingiseternally
gainedfortheuniversebysuccess,itisnobetterthanagameof
privatetheatricalsfromwhichonemaywithdrawatwill.Butitfeels
likearealfight—asifthereweresomethingreallywildinthe
universewhichwe,withallouridealitiesandfaithfulnesses,are
neededtoredeem.” 7
TowardtheendoftheVarieties,Jamessupplementshisoriginalformal
definitionofreligionwithafunctionaldefinitionformulatedbyoneofhis
followersinthenascentfieldofthepsychologyofreligion,JamesH.Leuba:
“Thetruthofthemattercanbeputinthisway:Godisnotknown,he
isnotunderstood,heisused—sometimesasameat-purveyor,
sometimesasmoralsupport,sometimesasfriend,sometimesasan
objectoflove.Ifheproveshimselfuseful,thereligiousconsciousness
asksfornomorethanthat.DoesGodreallyexist?Howdoesheexist?
Whatishe?aresomanyirrelevantquestions.NotGod,butlife,more
life,alarger,higher,moresatisfyinglife,is,inthelastanalysis,the
endofreligion.Theloveoflife,atanyandeverylevelof
development,isthereligiousimpulse.” 8
Leubahereismakinganempiricalobservationabouthowpeoplechoose
theirreligion:Howusefulisitinleadingtoasatisfyinglife—asthey
themselvesdefinesatisfaction?ForJames,however,thereferencetoamore
satisfyinglifesuggestsmorethananempiricalfact.Itbecomesamoral
imperative.Religionshouldserveone’simpulsestoconductone’slifeina
higher,moreunifiedway.Thisiswhy,whendiscussingBuddhisminthe
Varieties,heexpresseshisapprovalofthedoctrineofkarma;butwhen
touchingonBuddhisminPragmatism,hedenouncesnirvāṇaasa
pathologicalgoalthatcomesfromabandoningone’sresponsibilitiestolife
withanattitudethatis“simplyafraid,afraidofmoreexperience,afraidof
life.” 9 James’viewsonkarmadidnottransmitintoBuddhistRomanticism,
buthisattitudetowardnirvāṇadid.
209
James,likeKantandFichte,believedfiercelyinthemorallife,and
agreedwiththemthatforsuchalifetomakesenseonehadtoassumea
creatorwhotookaninterestinhumanaction.LikeSchiller,hebelievedthat
thedivisionsinthepsychecamefromconflictingdrives,bothforand
againstthemorallaw,andthatahealthy,integratedpersonalitywasa
meanstolivingasatisfyinglifeinlinewiththatlaw.Onthesetwopoints,
JamesdifferedsharplyfromEmersonandSchlegel,whorecognizednoset
morallawatall.Thus,forhim,thedoctrineoflifeforlife’ssake—and
religionforlife’ssake—wasnotahedonisticone.
However,whenJameswaswritingnotasamoralphilosopherbutasa
psychologist,hedroppedthemoraldimensionofhisbeliefs.Forinstance,
eventhoughasaphilosopherhefeltthatthebestintegrationofthe
personalitywasaroundthemorallaw,asapsychologistherecognizedthat
thepersonalintegrationofthewilldidnothavetotakethatlawinto
account.Anyclearsenseofhierarchyamongaperson’sdesiresandaims
couldcountasasuccessfulintegrationoftheself.Thusitwaseasyforhis
readerstotakehispsychologicalobservationsoutofthecontextofhis
moralbeliefs,givingthemamorehedonisticinterpretation—whichis
preciselywhatmanyofthemdid.
Similarly,eventhoughJamesleftopenthepossibilitythattheremightbe
adivinesourceforreligiousexperiences,heexplainedsuchexperiencesin
suchawaythattheymadesensetotallyintermsofthepowersandneedsof
alivinghumanorganism.Infact,heevendescribedreligionasabiological
function:
“Takingcreedsandfaithstatestogether,asforming‘religions,’and
treatingtheseaspurelysubjectivephenomena,withoutregardtothe
questionoftheir‘truth,’weareobliged,onaccountoftheir
extraordinaryinfluenceuponactionandendurance,toclassthem
amongstthemostimportantbiologicalfunctionsofmankind.” 10
Likewise,eventhoughJamespersonallyassumedthattheremightbea
transcendentdimensionthattookaninterestinhumanactions,throughout
theVarietieshejudgedthoseactionsentirelyinthis-worldlyterms.The
upshotwasthatthetranscendentdimension,bothasasourceandasa
resultofreligiousexperience,couldbecompletelyignoredasunknowable
andextraneous.
This,despitehisintentions,waswhathebequeathedtothefieldofthe
210
psychologyofreligion:religionasathis-worldlyphenomenonservingthisworldlyneedsandvalues.TheRomantics,ofcourse,wouldhave
recognizedtheirownviewinthispartofJames’legacy,eventhoughhe
himselfhadnotintendedtoleavethisparticularlegacybehind.
Thus,whengaugingJamesasatransmitterofRomanticreligion,we
havetolookatthewaysinwhichhevoluntarilyandinvoluntarilyactedin
thatrole.
Wehavealreadynotedsomeofthevoluntaryassumptionsthathe
sharedwiththeRomantics:
•themindisnotonlypassive,butalsoactiveinshapingitsawareness
ofitsenvironment,
•thereisasinglereligiousexperience,markedbyastrongfeelingof
innerandouterunity,
•thisfeelingofunitycomesafteramentalstateofsurrenderoropen
receptivity,
•thisfeelingofunityhelpstohealthebasicspiritualillness,whichisa
senseofdivisionwithinthepsyche,
•thisexperienceisimmanentbecausethehumanorganismcanknow
onlyconditionedrealities,
•thefactthatthisexperienceisimmanentfurthermeansthatitdoesnot
healthepsycheonceandforall,sothatreligiouslifeisoneofpursuingbut
neverfullyachievingfullpsychologicalhealth,
•nosinglereligiousinterpretationofthisexperienceisauthoritative,
•allreligionsshouldthusbetoleratedtotheextentthattheyfostera
healthyreligiousexperience,andaretolerantofotherreligions,
•allreligionsshouldchangetokeepupwithotherchangesinculture
andsociety,and
•thereismuchtolearnfromstudyingreligionsfromthepointofview
oftheexperiencefromwhichtheygrew.
Bydivorcingthesevaluesfromtheiroriginalworldviewand
transmittingthemaspartofthefieldofpsychology,Jamesdidagreatdeal
tokeepRomanticreligionaliveandrespectableintothe20thand21st
centuries.
James’involuntarycontributiontothesurvivalofRomanticreligion
relatedtotheissueofmorality.Ontheonehand,herejectedtheRomantic
211
worldviewofamonisticuniverseinwhichhumanaction,ultimately,
carriednoconsequences.Ontheotherhand,bydiscussingreligionasa
purelythis-worldly,biologicalphenomenon—anorganicactivitytobe
judgedbyitsabilitytofosterthehealthoftheorganism—Jamesmadeit
possibleforlatergenerationstoignorehispersonalbeliefsaboutthelarger
moralconsequencesofone’sactions,andtofocusattention—asHölderlin
andotherRomanticshad—totallyonone’sinnersenseofunityandhealth.
Inthisway,JamestransmittedasignalfeatureoftheorganicRomantic
religiousworldviewtolatergenerationsinspiteofhimself.
Jung
CarlGustavJung(1875–1961)wasoneofthe
pioneersintheuseofdreamanalysisasa
methodofpsychotherapy.Earlyinhiscareer
hetookashismentorSigmundFreud,the
fatherofdreamanalysis,butlatersplitwith
Freudbecausehefeltthelatter’s
understandingofthemindandofmental
healthwastoonarrow.Thismuchisvery
wellknown.Whatislesswellknownisthat
JungcreditedWilliamJames,andin
particular,James’TheVarietiesofReligious
Experience,withprovidinghimguidanceon
howtogobeyondFreudandtounderstand
“thenatureofpsychicdisturbanceswithinthesettingofthehumanpsyche
asawhole.” 11
FromJung’slaterwork,it’seasytoseethathederivedseveralimportant
assumptionsfromtheVarieties:thatpsychicreality—thelivedfactof
consciousness—comespriortoone’sconsciousnessofphysicalreality,and
soneednotberegardedasaproductofphysicalprocesses;that“psychic
disturbances”couldberegardedasspiritualillnesses,andnotjust
problemsofsexualrepression;thattheprimaryspiritualillnesswasasense
ofaselfdividedwithinitselfandfromtherestofhumanity;thatthe
unconscious,insteadofbeingsimplyastorehouseofrepressedneuroses,
alsocontainedpotentialsandtendenciesthat,ifallowedtodevelop
properly,couldworktohealthesenseofthedividedself;andthatsomeof
212
thesepotentialsmightbedivineinorigin.
James’influenceonJungwasaugmentedbyabookthatappearedin
1917:RudolphOtto’sDasHeilige(translatedintoEnglishasTheIdeaofthe
Holy).Otto(1869–1937),eventhoughhemeanttocorrectsomedefectshe
sawinSchleiermacher,endeduptransmittingfourimportantfeaturesof
RomanticreligioninTheIdeaoftheHoly,featuresthatJungpickedupfrom
readingthebook.
TheIdeaoftheHolywasfocusedonwhatOttosawastheprimaldirect
experienceunderlyingallthereligionsoftheworld:thatofasupra-rational,
numinouspower,whollyother,thatwasmysterious,overwhelming,and
utterlyworthyofone’sfullattentionandworship.Ottomeanthis
descriptionofthereligiousexperiencetobeacorrectivebothto
SchleiermacherandtoJames.Schleiermacher,hefelt,hadfailedto
distinguishproperlybetweentheactualexperienceofinfinitepowerand
theindividual’sreactionofsubmissionanddesireforunionwiththat
power.Inactuality,Ottofelt,asenseofunionisonlyoneofthemany
possiblewaysofreactingtotheexperience.AsforJames,Ottofeltthathe
hadunderestimatedtheobjectivityoftheexperience.James,becauseofthe
constraintsofhispsychology,waslimitedtodescribingthesubjectiveside
oftheexperience.InOtto’seyes,anintegralpartoftheexperiencewasthat
thenuminouswasmoreobjectivelytruethananythingelse.
Butinofferingacorrectivetotheworkofthesetwothinkers,Ottowas
actuallyadoptingandtransmittingfouroftheirunderlyingassumptions.
Frombothheadoptedtheassumptionsthat(1)thereligiousexperienceis
essentiallythesameforeveryone,(2)thisexperience,variouslyinterpreted,
accountsforallthereligionsthathaveeverexisted,and(3)religionsevolve
toexpresstheimplicationsofthisexperienceinevermoreadvancedand
adequateways.FromSchleiermacher,healsoadoptedtheassumptionthat
(4)thisexperienceisnotinitselfmoral:Moralinterpretations,iftheycome,
comelater.Thesefourassumptionsplayedanimportantroleinshaping
Jung’sthought.
OneofJung’smostcreativeadditionstothehistoryofRomanticreligion
wasthatheappliedtheseassumptionstodreamanalysis,treatingdreams
thatcarriedanuminouspowerforthedreamerasiftheywere—inJames’
terminology,whichJunghimselfoccasionallyused—conversionexperiences.
InplaceofJames’categoryofsanctification—atermthatJungneverused—
Jungproposedthatdreamanalysisbeappliedtotheseextraordinary
213
dreamssoastohelpthepatientintegratetheconsciousandunconscious
factorsofhisorherpsycheinawaythatfosteredtheongoingpursuitof
innerunificationandfindingmeaninginlife:whatJungtermedthe
“becomingoftheselforthe“becomingofthesoul.”
Junginsistedthathehadadoptedthisstrategyindreamanalysis
becauseitworked.Thiswasallthathisprofessionaldutiesrequired.
However,healsoconfessedtoindulginginwhathecalledhis“scientific
hobby”:“mydesiretoknowwhyitisthatthedreamworks.” 12 Inother
words,hewantedtodevelophypothesesaboutthenatureofthemindand
ofmentalhealingthatwouldexplainbothwhyhismethodsofanalysis
workedandwhydreamsseemedtohaveapurposeandefficacyincuring
theillnessesofthemind.
Indoingso,henotonlyborrowedideasfromJamesandOttobutalso
adoptedmanyotherRomanticideas—andinparticular,Romanticideas
aboutreligion—thatbothofthemhadputaside.Inthisway,Jungcameto
playanevenlargerrolethaneitherJamesorOttointransmittingRomantic
religiontothe20thand21stcenturies.
Jung’sembraceofRomanticassumptionsledhisdetractorstoaccuse
himofbeingmysticalandunscientific,but,liketheRomanticsthemselves,
heinsistedthatthescientificmethodhadforcedhimtoadoptthese
assumptionsashypotheses.HistwomainreasonsforsplittingwithFreud,
hesaid,wereempirical:(1)Inthecourseofanalyzinghispatients’dreams,
heencounteredmanydreamimagesthatFreud’stheoriescouldnotaccount
for.Inparticular,hewasstruckbyimagesthatwereobviouslyreligiousin
import,containingsymbolsthatcouldnotbeexplainedbytheindividual’s
neurosesorbyanythingatallintheindividual’spersonalhistory.Thefact
thattheseimageshadanimport—thattheyseemedtobedeliveringa
message,andthatthemessagewasconcernedwithfarmorethanhealing
theindividual’sneuroses—ledtoJung’ssecondreasonforsplittingwith
Freud.(2)Hesawthat,althoughFreud’smethodswerehelpfulintreating
specificneuroses,theydidnotprovideacompletecureforthepatient’s
deeperspiritualmalaise,andiftheywereappliedtothedreamsthatJung
andhispatientsfoundmostmeaningful,theywouldactuallydomoreharm
thangood.
InJung’sownterms,themostfundamentaldifferencebetweenhis
approachandFreud’swasthatFreudcontentedhimselfwithasking“why”
aparticulardreamoccurred—i.e.,whatpre-existingfactorinthepatient’s
214
psychehadgivenrisetothedream—whereasJungalsoaskedofthedream
themoreteleologicalquestion,“whatfor”:i.e.,whatpurposethedream
mighthaveinbringingthepatienttopsychologicalhealth.Byaskingthis
question,Jungwasgoingbeyondthemainstreamscienceofhisday,which
sawallcausalityintheuniverseasmechanical,deterministic,and
purposeless.Tocarveoutroomforteleologyinsuchauniverse,Jung
followedJamesinarguingthatpsychicreality,insteadofbeingexperienced
asaproductofphysicalreality,actuallycomespriortoit.Ashestatedin
PsychologyandReligion,
“Wemightwellsay,onthecontrary,thatphysicalexistenceis
merelyaninference,sinceweknowofmatteronlyinsofaraswe
perceivepsychicimagestransmittedbythesenses.…Psycheis
existent,itisevenexistenceitself.” 13
Becausepsychicprocessescanonlybeunderstoodintermsofwhatthey
mean,Jungreasoned,wehavetoassumethattheyhaveapurpose.Thusthe
question,“Whatfor?”isthequestionmostdeservingofananswer.
However,simplyaddingthissecondquestiontothepsychologicalinquiry
requiredthatJunggivehisowndistinctiveanswertoFreud’sfirstquestion
of“why.”Freudhadsatisfiedhimselfthatthe“why”couldbeferretedout
bytrackingdownarepressedmemoryinthepatient’sunconscious.Jung
decidedthattherewasmoretotheunconsciousthanjustthat.
Hiseventualhypothesiswasthattherewerethreelevelstothepsyche.
Thefirstwastheconsciouslevel,whichhealsotermedtheego.Thiswas
composedofalltheemotionsandmemoriesthatfitwithone’spersona:the
facethatonewantedtopresenttooneselfandtotheworld.Anyemotions
andmemoriesatoddswiththepersonawererepressedandburiedas
neurosesinthesecondlevelofthepsyche,thepersonalunconscious.This
partJungcalledthe“shadow,”thedarksideoftheperson’sunconscious
thathadtobefacedbeforethepatientcouldaccessthethirdanddeepest
levelofthepsyche,thecollectiveunconscious.Thisthirdlevelcontained
notneurosesbutarchetypes:innatementalstructuresorpatternsthatwere
notpersonalinorigin,butthatactedasfactorsindependentofthepatient’s
consciouswill,oftenontheprincipleofcompensation:communicating
throughsymbolsthemessagethatthepatient’segowasoutofbalanceand
suggestingwaysinwhichbalancecouldberecovered.
Inanalyzinghispatients’dreams,Jungfoundthattherewerecountless
215
varietiesofarchetypes,butthatthreetypeswereparticularlyimportantfor
re-establishingmentalhealth.Thefirstwerethearchetypesoflife,which
Jungalsocalledtheanimainhismalepatients,theanimusinhisfemale
patients.Theserepresentedtheprincipleoftheoppositegendercontained
ineachpersonand,inJung’swords,cravedlife,bothgoodandbad.In
describingthemessageofthistypeofarchetype,Jungstatedthat“Bodily
lifeaswellaspsychiclifehavetheimpudencetogetalongmuchbetter
withoutconventionalmorality,andtheyoftenremainthehealthierforit.” 14
However,onecannotsimplysurrendertotheamoraldemandsofthissort
ofarchetype.Balancedhealthrequiresgoingdeeper,toarchetypesof
meaning—wisewaysofnegotiatingthedemandsoftheegoand
anima/animus—andultimatelytoarchetypesoftransformation:indications
thatcommunicationamongthevariouslevelsofthepsychehadbeen
established,andthattheongoingprocessofintegrationhadbeenengaged.
Jungpresentedavarietyofhypothesesastothenatureofthecollective
unconsciousandtheoriginofthearchetypesandthesymbolsthrough
whichtheycommunicated.Insomeofhiswritings,hesuggestedthatthe
collectiveunconsciouswasabiologicalinheritancefromthepast;inothers,
thatthecollectiveunconscioushadporousboundariesconnectingitwith
thecollectiveunconsciousofallotherpsychesexistingatthesamemoment
intime.Asforthecompensatoryactionofthearchetypes,insomecaseshe
suggestedthatthiswassimplyaninheritedbiologicalself-regulating
faculty;inothers,thatithaditsrootsinthetotalityofallcontemporaneous
consciousness;inothers,thatitsoriginwasdivine.IntrueRomantic
fashion,hedidnotseethesevariouspossibilitiesasmutuallyexclusive.
Whendiscussingthepossibilityofadivineoriginforthearchetypesand
theirmessages,Jungstressedtheneedforsymbolstomediatethe
communicationfromthedivinetothehuman.Thedivine,hesaid,
borrowingOtto’scharacterizationoftheholy,wasanoverwhelmingand
sometimesfrighteningpower,something“totallyother”—althoughinhis
view,the“other”wasnotsomethingoutsideofone’sself;itwas,instead,a
psychicfactorfromtheunconsciousthattheconsciousminddidn’t
recognizeascomingfromwithinthepsyche.Withoutthemediationof
symbolsthroughthearchetypes,theegowouldbeovercomebythepower
ofthisfactorandpotentiallyharmed.
Becausethesesymbolswereoftenambiguous,Jungmaintainedthatthey
requiredcarefulinterpretationsothattheycouldgivewiseguidanceinthe
216
patient’sindividuation:theon-goingprocessbywhichoneintegratesone’s
consciousandunconsciousneeds,providingbothaninnersenseofunity
andanoutersenseofpurposeandmeaninginlifethatispurelyone’sown.
Inotherwords,althoughoneshouldlearnhowtolistentotheunconscious,
oneshouldnotidentifywiththeimpersonalforcesitcontains,forthat
wouldresultinthepsychicillnessJungtermedinflation:theassumption
thatonewasactuallyidenticalwiththedivineforceswellingupfromthe
unconscious.Instead,oneshouldsynthesizeoractualizethewholenessof
one’sidentityasanindividualleadingapurposefullifeonthehuman
plane.Psychologicalhealthshouldaim,notatatranscendentdimension,
butatasenseofmeaningthatiswhollyimmanent:i.e.,concernedwith
findinghappinessinthisworldandnotworryingabouttranscendent
dimensions.
Jungsawtheroleofpsychotherapyinthisprocessaspickingupand
movingforwardwiththeworkthatreligionshaddoneinthepast.All
religions,hesaid,wereessentially“systemsofhealingforpsychicillness.”
LikeJamesandOttobeforehim,Jungsawthathumanreligionshadto
evolveovertimeinordertobetterservethisfunctionashumanityevolved.
UnlikeJamesandOtto,however—andherehewasharkingbacktothe
earlyRomantics—hedidnotseeProtestantChristianityastheultimate
endpointofhowfarthisevolutioncouldgo.
Thereweretwomainreasonsforthis.Thefirsthadtodospecifically
withProtestantism.Insheddingtherichbodyofsymbolismthathad
developedwithintheCatholicChurch,theProtestantmovementhad
depriveditsfollowersofaclearsymbolicvocabularyforunderstandingthe
messagesoftheunconscious.Thislackofsymbolicvocabularyhadboth
benefitsanddrawbacks.Ontheonehand,itallowedProtestantstohave
moredirectconfrontationswithimmediatereligiousexperience.Onthe
other,itleftthemdefenselessandcluelessastohowtoreadandintegrate
themessagescontainedwithinthoseconfrontations.
Tounderstandthespontaneousimagesandsymbolsthatsuchpeople
experiencedintheirdreamsandfantasies,Jungrecommendedthat
psychotherapistsbecomeknowledgeableinthevocabularyofsymbols
developedinthereligionsofthepast.InJung’sowncase,thismeant
studyingnotonlyCatholicsymbolism,butalsothesymbolismofawide
rangeofheterodoxandnon-Westerntraditions,includingalchemy,
astrology,Egyptianreligion,Gnosticism,theI-Ching,andTibetantantrism.
217
Jung’ssecondreasonforseeingpsychotherapyasanadvanceover
ProtestantChristianityhadtodowiththetotalityofChristianityitself.In
hiswords,everyreligionisaspontaneousexpressionofacertain
predominantpsychologicalconditionatacertainplaceandtime.
Christianityspoketoapsychicconditionthatrequiredadynamicof
repentance,sacrifice,andredemption.Butnow,Jungasserted,that
conditionnolongerprevails.AshewroteinModernManinSearchofaSoul
(1933),
“Modernmanhasheardenoughaboutguiltandsin.Hewants
rathertolearnhowheistoreconcilehimselfwithhisownnature—
howheistolovetheenemyinhisownheartandcallthewolfhis
brother.Themodernman,moreover,isnoteagertoknowinwhat
wayhecanimitateChrist,butinwhatwayhecanlivehisown
individuallife.” 15
Jungderivedthisobservationfromtworecurrentpatternsinthe
archetypesoftransformationthatmanyofhispatientsexperienced
spontaneouslyintheirdreams.Thefirstpatternwasthepredominanceofa
fourfoldsymbolism—sometimesintheshapeofmaṇḍalas,withtheirboxed
circlesandsquares;sometimesinotherforms.Junginterpretedthenumber
fourasmoreinclusivethantheChristiansymbolismoftheTrinity.Four
indicatedtheelementmissingintheTrinity—anelementthatJung
variouslyinterpretedasthebody,physicalcreation,thefeminine:inother
words,everythingintheuniversethathadbeenexcludedfromthe
Christianideaoftheholy.ForJung,thesesymbolsexpressedunionand
reconciliationbetweencreatorandcreated,theearthlyandthedivinesides
ofexperience.Thisisoneofthereasonswhyhesawpsychologicalhealthas
animmanentratherthanatranscendentaffair:Hispatients,tobehealthy,
neededtoseethedivineassomethinginnowayseparatefromtheir
individuallivesonEarth.
ThesecondpatternofdreamsymbolismtowhichJunggavegreat
importancewasthefactthat,inhispatientswhohaddreamsofmaṇḍalas,
thecenterofthemaṇḍalas—inwhichadeitywastraditionallyfound—
containednodeitiesatall.Instead,thereweresymbols—suchasglobesor
stars—thatthepatientsimmediatelyidentifiedasstandingforacenter
withinthemselves.InPsychologyandReligion(1938)hereports:
218
“Ifyousumupwhatpeopletellyouabouttheirexperience,you
canformulateitaboutinthisway:Theycametothemselves,they
couldacceptthemselves,theywereabletobecomereconciledto
themselvesandbythistheywerealsoreconciledtoadverse
circumstancesandevents.…Theplaceofthedeityseemstobetaken
bythewholenessofman.” 16
Thismeansthatthepsychologicalconditionofmodernlifehasshifted
awayfromasenseofsinthatlooksforhelpfromatranscendentdimension
outside,andtowardasenseofseparation—fromone’sselfandone’s
surroundings—thatlooksinwardforahealingsenseofacceptanceand
innerreconciliation.
Totreatthismoremodernsenseofthepsychicillness,Jungdidnot
totallyrejectthereligionsofthepast.Afterall,aswehaveseen,herelied
heavilyonthemfortheirsymbolism,althoughinmanycasesheconverted
thatsymbolismfromitsoriginalcontexttoservewhathesawasachange
inthehumancondition.Healsostatedthattraditionalandprimitive
religionscontainedmuchofpositive,psychologicaltherapeuticvaluein
theirceremonies,rituals,initiationrites,andasceticpractices.
Strikingly,hedidnotincludetheworldviewsoftraditionalreligionsin
hislistofapprovedreligioustherapies,andheincludedmoralteachings
onlywithaproviso:thattheyaretherapeuticsolelywheninaccordwitha
patient’sowninsightandinspirationinthesearchfortherightwaytodeal
withforcesofinnerlife.Inotherwords,notionsofrightandwrong
communicatedthroughdreamshadtotrumpanytraditionalstandardsof
morality.OneobviousreasonforJung’sprovisohereisthathehadseen
manyofhispatientsdevelopneurosesbytryingtoliveuptothemoral
standardsofEuropeansociety.Anotheristhathehimselfhadchafedunder
society’sstandardsofmonogamy.Hisownmentalhealth,hefelthehad
beentaughtbyhisdreams,requiredthathebepolygamous.
Asmightbeexpected,Jungmetwithcriticismfromhisreligiouspeers
justashehadfromhisscientificones.Amongthecriticismsfromthe
religioussidewere(1)thathehadtrivializedOtto’sconceptoftheholy,and
(2)thathewasencouraginghispatientstodevelopidiosyncratictheologies
thatleftthemdefenselessagainsttheirvery-much-less-than-divine
impulses.Withnosolidstandardsofrightandwrongagainstwhichto
measureone’sdreams,one’semotionscouldusethedreamstoinventtheir
219
ownmoralityatwill.
Inresponsetothefirstcriticism,Jungstatedthathispatients’dreams
hadgreatmeaningforthem:“Toanempiricistallreligiousexperienceboils
downtoapeculiarconditionofthemind.…Andifitmeansanything,it
meanseverythingtothosewhohaveit.…Onecouldevendefinereligious
experienceasthatkindofexperiencewhichischaracterizedbythehighest
appreciation,nomatterwhatitscontentsare.” 16
Inresponsetothesecondcriticism,heasked,“Whatisthedifference
betweenarealillusionandahealingreligiousexperience?…Nobodycan
knowwhattheultimatethingsare.Wemust,therefore,takethemaswe
experiencethem.Andifsuchexperiencehelpstomakeyourlifehealthier,
morebeautiful,morecompleteandmoresatisfactorytoyourselfandto
thoseyoulove,youmaysafelysay:‘ThiswasthegraceofGod.’” 18
Inotherwords,JungadoptedtheRomanticpositionthat,becausethe
ultimateendsoftheuniverseareunknowable,peoplemustfocuson
findingmeaningandwholenessintheimmediateworkoftheirlives:the
ongoing“becomingoftheself.”That,forhim,wasthehighesttruthand
happinessthatahumanbeingcanexpect.
AsatransmitterofRomanticreligion,Jungreceivedinfluencesnotonly
throughJamesandOtto,butalsodirectlyfromtheRomanticsthemselves.
Forinstance,livingatatimewhenHölderlin’spoetryhadfinallybecome
widelyavailable,helikedtoquotetheselinesfromHölderlin’s“Patmos”in
connectionwiththepracticeofusingneuroticdreamstocureneuroses:
“Dangeritself/Fosterstherescuingpower.” 19
EventhoughJunggavehisowntwisttothevariouselementsof
Romanticreligionhereceivedfromhissources,heneverthelessmanagedto
transmitmanyRomanticideasaboutreligiontothe20thcenturyand
beyond.Infact,Jung’smodificationscontinuedJames’workinkeeping
theseideasaliveandrespectableinasocietywherescienceviewedthe
universeinmechanisticterms.
WecansummarizeJung’srelationshiptothebasicfeaturesofRomantic
religionasfollows:
Ontheuniverse:AlthoughJungneverstatedthattheuniverseisinfinite,
hedidstatethatallexistenceispsychic,andthatthetotalrangeofpsychic
realityisanorganicwhole,aimedatanunknowablegoal,andregulating
220
itselftowardthatgoalthroughthearchetypesofthecollectiveunconscious.
ThefactthatthegoalisunknowablemakesJung’suniversefunctionally
equivalenttotheinfinitudeoftheRomanticuniverse,inwhichthegoalof
theinfiniteuniversalorganismisunknowableaswell.Jungalsoagreed
withtheRomanticprincipleofthemicrocosm:thatthelivingorganism
containswithinittheorganichistoryofallconsciousness:
“Thetruehistoryofthemindisnotpreservedinlearnedvolumes
butinthelivingmentalorganismofeveryone.” 20
Onthespiritualproblem:JungagreedwiththeRomanticsonallthemajor
featuresofthebasicreligiousillnessandthewayinwhichareligious
experiencecouldworktowardalleviatingit:
•Humanbeingssufferwhentheirsenseofinnerandouterunityislost
—whentheyfeeldividedwithinthemselvesandseparatedfromthe
universe.
•Despiteitsmanyexpressions,thereligiousexperienceisthesamefor
all:anintuitionofthewholenessofrealitythatcreatesafeelingofunity
withtheuniverseandafeelingofunitywithin.
•AlthoughJungdidnotgiveErosaroleinprovokingareligious
experience,he,liketheRomantics,feltthatitsneedshadtobe
accommodatedinanytruepsychicunity:
“Ifwecanreconcileourselveswiththemysterioustruththatspirit
isthelivingbodyseenfromwithin,andthebodytheouter
manifestationofthelivingspirit—thetwobeingreallyone—thenwe
canunderstandwhyitisthattheattempttotranscendthepresent
levelofconsciousnessmustgiveitsduetothebody.Weshallalsosee
thatbeliefinthebodycannottolerateanoutlookthatdeniesthebody
inthenameofthespirit.” 21
•Thissenseofinternalandexternalwholenessishealingbuttotally
immanent.Inotherwords,(a)itistemporaryand(b)itdoesnotgivedirect
experienceofanytranscendent,unconditioneddimensionoutsideofspace
andtime.
•Thereforethefreedomofferedbythereligiousexperience—thehighest
freedompossibleinanorganicuniverse—doesnottranscendthelawsof
221
organiccausation.JungsharedwiththeRomanticstheinabilitytoconceive
ofhumannatureinawaythatcouldtranscendthelimitationsofbecoming.
Infact,forhim,thehealthybecomingofthesoulwaswhatreligionwasall
about.
•Becausethereligiousexperiencecangiveonlyatemporaryfeelingof
unity,thereligiouslifeisoneofpursuingrepeatedreligiousexperiences—
inJung’scase,thismeantstayingintouchwiththemessagesfromthe
collectiveunconscious—inhopesofgaininganimprovedfeelingforthat
unity,butneverfullyachievingit.
•UnliketheRomantics,Jungdidnotinsistthatanuminousdream
wouldcarrywithitanabilitytoseethecommonplaceeventsofthe
immanentworldassublimeandmiraculous.Still,hedidregardthedream
assomethingtobegiventhehighestrespect,andthatthemeaningitgave
tolifeshouldberespectedinthesamelight.
Onthecultivationofreligiousexperiencesthroughnuminousdreams:Jung
agreedwiththeRomanticsthatanattitudeofopenacceptancewas
necessaryforthissortoftransformativeexperience.HerehecitedSchiller:
“AsSchillersays,maniscompletelyhumanonlywhenheis
playing.Myaimistobringaboutapsychicstateinwhichmypatient
beginstoexperimentwithhisownnature—astateoffluidity,change
andgrowth,inwhichthereisnolongeranythingeternallyfixedand
hopelesslypetrified.” 22
Jungbelievedthatdreamsandconsciouslyinducedfantasieswerethe
primarymodesinwhichsuchastateofreceptivity,freefromthe
constraintsoftheego,couldbeaccessed.Infact,TheRedBook,adiaryofhis
consciouslyinducedfantasies,showstheextremeextenttowhichJungtried
toaccessthecontentsofhisownunconsciousinthisway.
HealsoagreedwiththeRomanticsthatreligioustextsofallsortsshould
berespectedaspossiblesourcesofinspiration,butthatnoneofthem
shouldbegrantedfullauthority,forthatwouldpreventthepatientfrom
havinganimmediateexperienceofthepsychicforcestryingtodotheir
compensatoryworkfromwithin.
Ontheresultsofreligiousexperiences:LiketheRomantics,Jungbelieved
thatthecreativenatureofthemindwantstoexpresstheseexperiences—he
222
oftenencouragedhispatientstopainttheirresponsestotheirdreams—and
toderivemeaningfromthem.Healsoagreedthattheseexpressionswere
authoritativeonlyforthepersonwhomadethem.Thispointappliedin
particulartoanydesiretoexpressone’sexperienceintermsofrulesof
behavior.Noonehadtheauthoritytoforcehisorhermoralityonanyone
else.Inthissense,Jung’ssenseofthemoralexpressionoftheundividedself
cameclosertoHölderlin’sthantoJames’.Inotherwords,thepurposeof
religiousexperienceswasnottoleadtoconformitywithanymorallaw.
Instead,itwastoprovideanongoingintegrationofallthecontentsofthe
psyche,withnoneedforconsistencyovertime.
Onreligiouschange:AgainagreeingwiththeRomantics,Jungfeltthat
althoughallreligionswerevalid,someweremoreevolvedthanothersand
hadtobeevaluatedundertheframeworkofhistoricismtoseewherethat
particularreligionfellintheorganicdevelopmentofthehumanpsyche.In
thisway,onecouldgaugehowappropriateitslessonswereforcuring
spiritualillnessasthatillnesstakesnewformsinmoderntimes.And
becausethehumanpsycheisconstantlyevolving,religiouschangeisnot
onlyafact,itisalsoaduty.This,forJung,meantthatthedevelopmentof
dream-analysisinpsychotherapyasareplacementfortraditionalreligion
wasnotonlyafactofmodernlife,butalsoanecessaryandhealthy
developmentinhumanevolution.
Tojustifythisview,heclosedModernManinSearchofaSoulwiththese
words,Romanticbothintheirmessageandintheirorganicsymbolism:
“Thelivingspiritgrowsandevenoutgrowsitsearlierformsof
expression;itfreelychoosesthemeninwhomitlivesandwho
proclaimit.Thislivingspiritiseternallyrenewedandpursuesits
goalinmanifoldandinconceivablewaysthroughoutthehistoryof
mankind.Measuredagainstit,thenamesandformswhichmenhave
givenitmeanlittleenough;theyareonlythechangingleavesand
blossomsonthestemoftheeternaltree.” 23
Jungobviouslybelievedthatthelivingspirithadchosenhimtoproclaim
hismessageasacompensatoryactionagainsttherampantmaterialismof
themodernworld.Forhim,thefactthatdreamanalysis—thesearchforthe
meaningofdreams—curedthepsychicillnessesofhispatientswasproof
thatpsychicrealitycouldnotbereducedtomateriallaws.Afterall,
223
“meaning”hasnomeaninginastrictlymaterialisticsystem.“Meaning”
makessenseonlyinasystemthatallowsfortheteleologyofpurposesand
aims.Thusthefocusonsymbolismwas,forhim,thecentralmeansforreenchantingtheworldsothatlifeitselfcouldregainmeaningand
authenticity.
InproclaimingthismodernizedversionoftheRomanticviewof
spiritualillnessandthespiritualcure,Jungsawhimselfasadvancing
beyondbothChristianityandBuddhism.Buddhism,inhiseyes,ranked
withChristianityasoneofthetwogreatesttraditional“systemsofhealing
forpsychicillness.”Andheexpressedhighregardforthesymbolicworld
oftheBuddhists,especiallyintheTibetantradition,andforBuddhist
systemsofmentaltrainingaspossiblemeansforinducingmindstates
receptivetotheunconscious.Inthiswayheaccordedmuchmorerespectto
BuddhismthanhadFreud,whoregardedallquestsforreligiousexperience
asreversionstoaninfantilestate.Thus,whereverJung’sinfluencespread—
bothamongtrainedJungiananalystsandamongtherapistsofamore
eclectichumanisticbent—heopenedthedoorforBuddhismtoenterinto
theworldofWesternpsychotherapy.
Nevertheless,thedoorwasopenonlyoncertainconditions.Jung
criticizedWesternerswhowantedtoadoptBuddhismastheirreligion,
comparingthemtoWesternpauperstryingtodressupinOrientalrobes.In
hiseyes,Buddhistsymbolismandpracticesweretobeadoptedstrictlyin
linewithhisviewofhowtobestfosterthebecomingofthesoul.Theresult
wasthathisRomanticorganicviewoftheuniversepreventedhimfrom
imaginingthepossibilitythattheDhammamightberightinseeingeven
thehealthiestformofbecomingasadisease,andthatitmightoffera
spiritualcure—suitableforalltimesandplaces—thattranscended
becomingentirely.
Maslow
AbrahamMaslow(1908–1970)wasoneofthepioneersofhumanistic
psychologyinAmerica.WritingatatimewhenFreudandthebehaviorists
dominatedthepsychotherapeuticfield,Maslowchampionedwhathecalled
aThirdForceinpsychotherapy,devotedtotheprinciplethatatherapist
shouldnotbecontentsimplywithcuringhisorherpatients’blatant
neurosesandpsychoses,butshouldalsoworktowardtheirfull
224
psychologicalhealth.Amonghisfellowsin
thismovementhecountedJung,Horney,
Rogers,andahostofothers.
OneofMaslow’sprimarycontributionsto
thisapproachtopsychotherapywasthe
conceptofself-actualization:theprinciplethat
humanbeingsarebornwithcertain
potentialsthattheyneedtoactualizetothe
fullinordertoachievegenuinehappiness.
ForMaslow,thisobservationcarriedan
imperative:“Whatmancanbe,hemustbe.”
Inotherwords,thefactthatbiologyhas
endowedpeoplewithcertainpotentials
carriedavalue:Societyshouldbeorderedso
thatthosepotentialscanbeactualized.
Inthecourseofarticulatingwhatthosepotentialsareandhowtheycan
bestbeactualized,MaslowdrewheavilyfromJames,Jung,andOtto.In
doingso,headoptedmanyoftheRomanticassumptionsaboutreligionthat
theirwritingscontain.HealsoadoptedanumberofRomanticassumptions
fromHuxley’sThePerennialPhilosophy,abookwewilldiscussinthelast
sectionofthischapter.Inaddition,hewasfamiliarwiththewritingsofthe
NewEnglandTranscendentalists.Andaswenotedabove,hewaslivingat
atimewherehefeltthatseriousscientistshadcometoregardtheuniverse
asanorganic,unifiedwhole,evolvingwithmeaningandpurpose.Inother
words,hefeltthatsciencehadreturned,inprincipleatleast,totheuniverse
inhabitedbytheRomantics.
Asaresult,justasJunghadincorporatedmoreRomanticismintohis
writingsthanhehadacquiredfromeitherJamesorOtto,Maslow
incorporatedmoreRomanticismthanhehadacquiredfromanyofthe
three.ThefactthatMaslow’sThirdForcehasnowcometodominate
AmericanpsychotherapyhasmeantthattheseRomanticassumptions
continuetothriveinAmericanculture,wheretheyhaveplayedadirectrole
inshapingBuddhistRomanticism.
Maslow’smostaccessiblebookonthetopicofreligionisReligion,Values,
andPeakExperiences,whichhepublishedin1964andthenrevisedin1970,
shortlybeforehisdeath.Thebookcentersontheissueofhowtoderivean
objectivesetofspiritualvaluesthatcanunderlieaneducationalsystemina
225
moderndemocratic,pluralisticsociety.Hedidnotdefinethetermspiritual
value,buthedidprovidealistofquestionsthatspiritualvaluesshould
answer:“Whatisthegoodlife?Whatisthegoodman?Thegoodwoman?
Whatisthegoodsocietyandwhatismyrelationtoit?Whataremy
obligationstosociety?Whatisbestformychildren?Whatisjustice?Truth?
Virtue?Whatismyrelationtonature,todeath,toaging,topain,toillness?
HowcanIliveazestful,enjoyable,meaningfullife?Whatismy
responsibilitytomybrothers?Whoaremybrothers?WhatshallIbeloyal
to?WhatmustIbereadytodiefor?” 24
Maslownotedthatmodernsocietyhadreachedanimpasseonthese
questions,animpassehetracedtothefactthatreligionandscience,
narrowlydefined,hadcarvedoutmutuallyexclusiveareasofconcern.
Science,inaquestforobjectivity,haddeclareditselfvalue-free,andinfact
haddismissedquestionsofvalueasnotworthanswering.Religionhad
retreatedfromscienceandsoofferednointellectuallyrespectable,objective
sourceforitsanswerstothesequestions.Allitcouldofferwereunverifiable
supernaturalclaims.
Maslow’sproposedsolutiontothisproblemwastoofferanexpanded
visionofsciencebasedonhisassumption—takenfromhisorganicviewof
theuniverse—thathumanpotentialscarryaninherent,objectiveimperative
tobeactualized.Butjustassciencewouldhavetobereconfiguredtoadopt
thisassumption,sowouldreligion.FollowingJung,Maslowfeltthatthe
progressofsocietyrequiredreligiontorelinquishitsauthorityinthefield
ofvaluesandhanditovertopsychotherapy,justasinearliercenturiesit
hadrelinquisheditsauthorityincosmologytothephysicalsciences.
“Justaseachsciencewasonceapartofthebodyoforganized
religionbutthenbrokeawaytobecomeindependent,soalsoitcanbe
saidthatthesamethingmaynowbehappeningtotheproblemsof
values,ethics,spirituality,morals.Theyarebeingtakenawayfrom
theexclusivejurisdictionoftheinstitutionalizedchurchesandare
becomingthe“property,”sotospeak,ofanewtypeofhumanistic
scientist…Thisrelationbetweenreligionandsciencecouldbestated
insuchadichotomous,competitiveway,butIthinkIcanshowthatit
neednotbe,andthatthepersonwhoisdeeplyreligious—ina
particularsensethatIshalldiscuss—mustratherfeelstrengthened
andencouragedbytheprospectthathisvaluequestionsmaybemore
firmlyansweredthaneverbefore.” 25
226
Toconvincethereligionsoftheworldtorelinquishtheirauthorityinthe
areaofvalues,Maslowfollowedatwo-prongedapproach.First,hestated
asascientificallyprovenfactthebasicpremiseofhistoricism:thatalltruths
weresubjecttotimeandplace,andthatthesocialscienceshaddisproven
allreligiousclaimstoeternaltruth.
“Onerecurringproblemforallorganized,revealedreligions
duringthelastcenturyhasbeentheflatcontradictionbetweentheir
claimtofinal,total,unchangeable,eternalandabsolutetruthandthe
cultural,historical,andeconomicfluxandrelativismaffirmedbythe
developingsocialsciencesandbythephilosophersofscience.Any
philosophyorreligioussystemwhichhasnoplaceforfluxandfor
relativismisuntenable(becauseitisuntruetothefacts).”(parentheses
intheoriginal) 26
ThesecondprongofMaslow’sapproachwastoarguethat
psychotherapyhadamoreobjectiveunderstandingofthecommonessence
ofallreligions,alongwiththeircommonvalues,andsowasbetterqualified
thantheytotakechargeintheareaofdeterminingandteachingvalues.
FollowingJames,Maslowstatedasafactthebaldassumptionthatall
religionsarederivedfromasinglereligiousexperience,commontoall
greatreligiousfigures,whichwasthenintegratedintothelifeofthe
individualwhohadundergonetheexperience.TodivorceJames’categories
ofconversionandsanctificationfromanyparticulartradition,Maslow
renamedthemaftertheshapetheywouldassumeifgraphedovertime:
peak-experiencesandplateau-experiences.Peak-experiencesareshort-lived
feelingsofoneness,rapture,ecstasy,andintegration.Plateau-experiences
exhibitamorestablesenseofintegration,knowledge,andheightened
being,andlastmuchlonger.Peak-experiencescouldnotbelivedin,but
plateau-experiencescould.
WehavealreadynotedtheparadoxicalroleofthisessentiallyRomantic
claimthatallreligionscomefromthesameexperience,variouslydescribed:
Ontheonehand,itcanbeusedaslicenseforeachpersontointerpretthe
religiousexperienceinanywayheorshesawfit;ontheother,itcanbe
imposedasameansforjudginginvalidanyreligiousviewthatdoesn’t
agreewiththeRomanticexplanationofwherethatviewcamefrom.
Maslow,atleastforthepurposeofderivinganobjectivesetofvalues,
adoptedthesecondtack.
227
“Totheextentthatallmysticalorpeak-experiencesarethesamein
theiressenceandhavealwaysbeenthesame,allreligionsarethe
sameintheiressenceandalwayshavebeenthesame.Theyshould,
therefore,cometoagreeinprincipleonteachingthatwhichis
commontoallofthem,i.e.,whateveritisthatpeak-experiencesteach
incommon(whateverisdifferentabouttheseilluminationscanfairly
betakentobelocalismsbothintimeandspace,andare,therefore,
peripheral,expendable,notessential).”(parenthesesintheoriginal) 27
Maslowthenarguedthatpeak-experiencesshouldberegardednotas
supernaturalinanysense,butastotallynaturalandbiologicalinorigin.
Previousgenerationsofmysticshadmissedthisfactbecauseofthe
limitationsoftheirculture:
“Smallwonderitisthenthatthemystic,tryingtodescribehis
experience,candoitonlyinalocal,culture-bound,ignorance-bound,
language-boundway,confusinghisdescriptionoftheexperience
withwhateverexplanationofitandphrasingofitismostreadily
availabletohiminhistimeandinhisplace.” 28
Incontrast,Maslowarguedthatthenaturalistic,biologicalexplanation
oftheseexperiencesavailableinhistimeandplacewasnotlimitedinthis
way.Asproof,hecitedinterviewsinwhich—definingpeak-experiencesas
anyfeelingofheightenedrapture,ecstasy,orillumination—hehadaskeda
varietyofeducatedpeoplewhethertheyhadeverhadsuchexperiences.At
firstheseemedtofindtwosortsofpeople—peakersandnon-peakers—but
thenherealizedthatthenon-peakersactuallyhadhadsuchexperiences
but,forvariouspsychological,philosophical,orotherundetermined
reasons,haddismissedthemasunimportant.Thusheconcludedthatnonpeakerswerereallyweakpeakers:Everyonehashadsuchexperiences,andin
manycasesthoseexperiencescarriednosupernaturalmeaningforthose
whohadthem.Thussupernaturalinterpretationsofsuchexperienceswere
expendable.
Furthermore,hemaintainedthatbecausepeak-experiencescarrieda
heightenedsenseofbeingandconsciousness,theycouldfunctionasa
sourceofobjectivevaluesofferingguidanceinhowtofosterheightened
self-actualizationthroughoutsociety.Basedonhisinterviewsandonhis
readingsaboutpeak-experiencesinthepast—mainlyinJames,Otto,and
228
Huxley—hecametothefollowingconclusionsaboutthecorevaluesthat
couldbederivedfromsuchexperiences.
Tobeginwith,peoplecanbetaughthowtohavethem.Likethe
Romantics,Maslownotedthatthismeant,basically,developinganattitude
ofopenreceptivitytowardthem,whichcouldbetriggeredinanumberof
ways:throughhearingorreadingaboutexamplesofpeak-experiences,
throughthecontrolleduseofpsychedelicdrugs,orthroughhealthysexual
love.Maslowfocusedspecialattentiononthislasttrigger,devotingan
entireappendixofhisbooktowaysinwhichoneshouldviewone’ssexual
partner—bothasanactualhumanbeingandasanidealizedarchetypeof
ManorWoman—sothatthesexualactcouldbeaunionofthesacredand
profane.Inthisway,herevivedanelementofRomanticreligionthatJames
andJunghadignored:theroleofErosinbringingaboutheightened
consciousness.ThiselementwouldplayalargeroleinBuddhist
Romanticism.
Asforthelessonslearnedduringapeak-experience,Maslowdrewupa
longlistofperceptionshiftsthattheexperienceinduces,whichincluded
theseRomanticperceptionsabouthumanbeingsandtheirplaceinthe
universe:Theuniverseisanintegrated,organic,unifiedwhole.
Dichotomies,polarities,andconflictsareresolved,bothwithinandwithout.
One’slifehasmeaningandpurposeasanintegralpartofthewhole.Infact,
everyobjectisseeninitsownBeingassacred.Theuniverseisgoodinits
purpose,andonebecomesreconciledeventotheplaceofevilinthelarger
scopeofthings.One’semotionalresponseisoneofwonder,acceptance,
andhumility,andyetonealsofeelsprideinhavingacreativeroletoplay
incontributingtothewhole.Consciousnessbecomesunitive—atermthat
MaslowapparentlypickedupfromHuxley.InMaslow’sdefinition,the
specialmarkofunitiveconsciousnessiswhatNovaliswouldhavetermed
authenticity:Itglimpsesasenseofthesacredinandthroughtheprofane
particularsoftheworld.
Maslow,likeJames,notedthattheseperceptualshiftswereextremely
convincingforthepersonexperiencingthem,butthattheexperience
offerednoobjectiveproofoftheirtruth.Nevertheless,Maslowdidventure
tosaythattheseexperiencesprovedthattheviewoftheuniverseasan
organic,unifiedwholeisconduciveforself-actualization,andsoshouldbe
regardedasa“species-relativeabsolute,”i.e.,atruthwithpragmaticvalue
thathastobeassumedforthehealthyfunctioningofeverymemberofthe
229
humanspecies.
Asforthepersonalvaluesandtraitsresultingfrompeak-experiences—
andthat,througheffortandtraining,canbedevelopedintoplateauexperiences—Maslowformulatedalistthatomittedafewitems,suchas
asceticism,fromJames’similarlist,butotherwiseconsiderablyexpanded
onit:truth,goodness,anappreciationofthebeauty,perfection,and
richnessoftheworld;wholeness,dichotomy-transcendence,aliveness,
uniqueness,asenseofthenecessityofthewaythingsare,justice,order,
simplicity,effortlessness,playfulness,andself-sufficiency.
Maslowarguedthattheobjectivityofthesevaluesisprovenbythefact
thattheyareconducivetosurvival—inagoodsociety.Inabadsociety,
someofthemcanleadtoaprematuredeath.Thus,heargued,social
sciencesshouldstudyfurtherwhatagoodsocietyisandhowitcanbe
broughtaboutsothathumanbeingscanbefreetodevelopthesevaluesand
traitstotheirfullpotentialwithoutinfringingonthefulldevelopmentof
thosesametraitsinothers.Inthisway,Maslow’sreligiousprogram,like
thereligiousBildungrecommendedbytheRomantics,hadapolitical/social
dimension,aimedatfreedomastheRomanticsdefinedit:thefreedomto
expressone’sinherentnature.ThiswasanotheraspectofRomanticreligion
thatherevivedandaddedtowhathehadlearnedfromJamesandJung.
It’seasytounderstandwhythereligionsoftheworlddidnotallaccept
Maslow’sargumentthatpsychologyhadnowsupersededthemasan
authorityonhumanvalues.Threereasonsinparticularstandout:
•One,notallreligionswouldhaveagreedtolimitquestionsofvaluesto
theonesonhislist.
•Two,theywouldhaverecognizedthathisequationbetweenfluxand
relativismisafalseone:Thefactthatculturesandsocietiesundergoflux
doesnotmeanthatalltruthsareculturallyrelative.Thefactthatchange
happensdoesnotmeanthatitalwayshappensinahealthy,appropriate
way.
•Three,itishardtoseethatthereligionsoftheworldwouldhave
agreedthatallpeak-experiencesareessentiallythesame,andinparticular
thattheecstasyofgoodsexwasnodifferentfromthereligiousexperiences
thathadinspiredtheirfounders.FromtheBuddhistpointofview,thislast
assumptionisafatalweaknessinMaslow’stheory.
Thentherearethetwomajormethodologicalweaknessesinhisanalysis
ofthecorepeak-experience.
230
•First,it’seasytoseethatMaslow’smethodforconductinginterviews
aboutpeakexperiencesskewedtheresultsofthoseinterviewsinthe
directionhewantedthemtogo.Bydefiningsuchexperiencesasanysense
ofrapture,ecstasy,orillumination,heensuredthattheinterviewswould
leadtotheconclusionthatnotallpeakexperiencesweresupernaturalin
meaning,andthatsupernaturalinterpretationswereforthatreason
irrelevant.Becausethisconclusionwasimplicitinthewayheframedhis
questions,theanswershegotwerenoproofthathisconclusionwastrue.
•Second,eventhoughMaslowusedJamesasasource,hechoseto
ignoremanyoftheaccountsinTheVarietiesofReligiousExperiencethatdid
notfitintohisparadigmofthecorepeak-experience.Forexample,there
wastheaccountofThéodoreJouffroy(1796–1842),theFrenchphilosopher
whoseconversionexperiencehadtoldhimthattheworld,farfrombeing
sacred,wasmeaningless,andthathewasthusfreetocreatehisown
meaningforhislife.TherewerealsothemanyCatholicsaints—suchas
MargaretMaryAlacoque,SaintTheresa,andSaintLouisofGonzaga—
whosepeak-experiences,accordingtoJames,hadturnedthemintolowerfunctioningratherthanhigher-functioningindividuals.Maslowdismissed
theseexperiencesaspathological,whichindicatesthathewasnotactually
derivinghissystemofvaluesfromtheuniversalphenomenonofpeakexperiences.Instead,hewasjudgingpeak-experiencesfromanothersetof
valuesabouthealthandpathology,whichseemtobe
Romantic/Transcendentalistinorigin,andthencherry-pickingthe
evidencetogivethosevaluestheappearanceofobjectivity.
ThistendencyismostblatantinMaslow’streatmentofoneofthe
perception-shiftsthatheattributedtothecorepeak-experience—an
acceptanceofthenecessaryroleplayedbyevilintheworld—andthe
correspondingvalue,dichotomy-transcendence,thathederivedfromit.It’s
hardtoseehoweitherofthesefeaturescouldprovideamotivationfor
doinggood—afterall,ifevilisnecessary,howisitbad?—oranyanswerto
thequestionsofwhatagoodlifeoragoodpersonshouldbe.
Andofcourse,fromtheperspectiveoftheDhamma,it’sobviousthat
Maslow’simperativesofself-actualizationareatbestnothingmorethan
imperativesforimprovedlevelsofbecoming:howtobecomeamorefully
developedhumanbeingwithintheworld,butleavingnopossibilityfor
goingbeyondahumanidentityinahumanworld.Bydismissingany
religiousexperiencesthatdeviatefromwhathedefinesasacorepeak231
experience,heclosedoffthepossibilitythatanawakeninglikethe
Buddha’scouldhaveanythingofuniqueandhighervaluetoofferthe
world.
Nevertheless,inspiteoftheseweaknessesinhistheory,Maslow’s
attitudesaboutreligions,values,andpeak-experienceswerenotonly
adoptedbymanytherapistsinthefieldofhumanisticpsychology,butalso
—throughthosetherapists—madetheirwayintothethoughtofmodern
Dhammateachers,providingtheunderlyingstructureforalargeportionof
BuddhistRomanticism.
HISTORYOFRELIGIONS
AswenotedinChapterFour,theearlyRomanticswereamongthefirst
Europeanthinkerstocallforanewwayofstudyingreligioninthe
university:whatSchellingcalleda“supra-confessional”approach.Instead
ofsimplyteachingChristiantheology,theyargued,professorsshould
approachthestudyoftheworld’sreligionswithaneyetothewayinwhich
allreligionsplayedaroleintheunfoldingdramaoftheevolutionofthe
cosmos.
ThethreeearlyRomanticswhowrotemostextensivelyaboutthis
proposedlineofstudy—Schelling,Schleiermacher,andSchlegel—agreed
thatreligionhadtoevolveinlinewiththeprogressiveevolutionofthe
cosmos,buttheyapproachedthisideafromdifferentangles.Eachofthese
anglesendedupinfluencingthewaysthestudyofthehistoryofreligions
developedinEuropeandAmericainthesucceedingdecades.
Schellingwasconvincedthatreligiousideas,overtime,hadtoevolvein
objectivelybetterwaysaspartofthegeneralevolutionofdivine
consciousness—fromunity,throughdiversity,tounitycontaining
diversity.Forhim,thisconvictionwasanobjectivetruth.Hewasalso
convincedthathumanbeings,inhelpingreligiontoevolve,hadnochoice
inthematter.Theyweresimplyactinginlinewiththelawsoforganic
changethatdrovetheentirecosmos.Thusanyefforttounderstandthe
evolutionofreligionhadtofinditsplaceinalargerphilosophyofhistory—
likeSchelling’s—thattriedtoexplainthelawsoftheevolutionofthe
universeasawhole.
Incontrast,Schlegel—inlinewithhishighregardforasenseofirony—
thoughtthattheideaofprogressivechangeinreligionwassimplyauseful
232
mythtofostertheprogressoffreedominsociety.Hisconcernwaslesswith
thegeneralshapeofreligiouschangeandmorewiththeaestheticsof
religionasahumanartform,expressedinindividualmythsthatpointedto
therealityofinfinitybutcouldnotdescribeitobjectively.Healsobelieved
thatthecreativityexpressedinthesemythswasanexpressionofdivine
freedominaction.LikeHerder,hisinterestlaymoreindevelopingan
“infinitesphereoftaste”thaninjudgingparticularmythsastotheir
“objective”value.And,likeHerder,hecalledforagreaterinterestin
philology—thestudyoflanguagesandothercriticaltoolstodeterminethe
meaningandauthenticityofancienttexts—sothatthesemythsandtheir
evolutioncouldbebetterunderstood.Inparticular,hecalledforagreater
interestinSanskrit,sothatthemythsofIndia—inhiseyes,thesourceofall
religiousmythology—couldbeappreciatedinawaythatwouldadvance
theevolutionofEuropeancivilizationacrosstheboard.
AsforSchleiermacher,hisinterestcenteredintheprimaryexperienceof
theinfinitewithineachindividual,andsohebelievedthatreligioustexts
shouldbestudiedwithregardtohowtheytriedtoexpressthatexperience,
giventhetalentsoftheauthorandhisorhersituationintimeandplace.
LikeSchlegel,Schleiermacherpromotedthestudyoftextssoasto
understandtheauthor’soriginalmeaning—butlessforthesakeofaesthetic
appreciationthanasawaytointuittheexperiencethatinspiredthetext.In
fact,aswehavenoted,Schleiermacher’swritingsonthistopicare
consideredthefoundingdocumentsofmodernhermeneutics,orthescience
ofinterpretation.AndaswesawinthediscussionofJung,Schleiermacher’s
ideaseventuallyinfluencedRudolphOttoand,throughOtto,shapedthe
disciplinecalledthephenomenologyofreligion:theattempttounderstand
thereligiousexperiencefromtheinside.
ThustheearlyRomanticsbequeathedthreeapproachestotheacademic
studyofwhatcametobecalledhistoryofreligions,comparativereligion,
andcomparativemythology:grandhistory,philology,and
phenomenology.
It’seasytoseewhytheseapproacheseventuallysplitapart,forthey
assignmeaningtoreligiousbeliefsindifferentways.Ingrandhistory,
religioustextsandexperienceshavemeaningonlywithaneyetowherethe
cosmosasawholeisgoing;inphilology,meaningiscenteredinthetexts
themselves;whereasinphenomenology,meaningiscenteredinwhatthe
readerintuitsabouttheexperiencethatmusthaveinspiredthetext.Forthe
233
Romantics,though,thesevariousapproachesweretiedtogetherbytheir
commonassumptionthatthecosmoswasanimatedbyasingledivineforce,
sothatwhereveronelookedformeaning—intheoriginalexperienceof
infinity,itsexpressionasmyth,oritsroleinthelargerevolutionof
consciousnessintheuniverse—thatmeaningmustalwaysbethesame.
Forawhile,theseapproachescontinuedtoworktogether,ascanbeseen
inoneofthefirststudiesofcomparativemythologyinspiredbytheearly
Romantics.In1810–1812,FriedrichCreuzerpublishedSymbolicand
MythologyofAncientPeoples,citingSchellingashisprimeintellectual
influence.Inthiswork,Creuzeradvancedadualthesis:thattheEleusinian
mysteriescontainedthetruereligiousdoctrineoftheancientGreeks,and
thattheoriginsofthis“symbolic”—i.e.,boththebodyofsymbolsandthe
beliefsorganizedaroundthem—layinIndia.“Whendealingwithalmost
allmajormyths,”hewrote,“…wemust,sotospeak,firstorientourselves
towardtheOrient.” 29 AlthoughCreuzerexplicitlyexpressedhisintellectual
debttoSchellinginwritingthisbook,Schlegel’sinfluencecanalsobeseen
inCreuzer’schoiceofsubjectmatter,hisphilologicalemphasis,andhis
understandingoftheroleofIndiainthehistoryofworldreligions.
However,thepeacefulco-existenceofgrandhistory,philology,and
religiousphenomenologyquicklycametoanend,evenbeforethebeliefin
anever-presentandever-activedivineforceintheuniversewasrejected.
Ironically,thefirstbattlewasfoughtinthe1820’sinGermanuniversity
circlesamongscholarswhohadplayedaroleintheearlyRomantic
movement.AtthecenterofthebattlewasthephilosopherGeorgWilhelm
FriedrichHegel,whohadbeenabit-playerintheearlyRomantic
movementbutthenwentontobecomethemostinfluentialGerman
philosopherofthe19thcentury.
Hegel
Hegel(1770–1831)hadroomedwithHölderlinandSchellingwhileat
seminary,andhaddancedwiththemaroundtheir“treeofliberty”onfirst
hearingthenewsthattheGermaneffortstostifletheFrenchRevolution
hadfailed.LaterhegainedminorjobswithHölderlin’sandSchelling’s
help.HerepaidhisdebttoSchellingin1801bypublishingabookonthe
differencesbetweenSchelling’sphilosophyandFichte’s,arguingthat
Schelling’swasbyfarthebetterofthetwo.
234
In1807,however—aftertheearly
Romanticshadgonetheirseparateways—he
publishedhisfirstmajorindependentwork
onphilosophy,ThePhenomenologyofMind,in
whichhetriedtodistancehimselffrom
SchellingandtheotherearlyRomantics.The
generaloutlineofhisphilosophy—the
universeasaninfinite,organicunity,
developingbydialecticalmeansfromunity,
throughdiversity,andontoanultimate
unitythatcontainsdiversity—camefrom
Schelling.SodidHegel’sunderstandingof
philosophyinthecontextofthatworldview:
thatphilosophycouldnotdealonlyinstatic,abstractprinciples,buthadto
showhowthecosmos—bothinmaterialrealityandtheevolutionofhuman
consciousness—hadactuallydevelopedbydialecticmeans.Schellingwas
nothappytoseehisideasappropriatedbyhisformerroommate,because
Hegel,inhisprefacetothePhenomenology,hadgrosslymisrepresented
Schelling’spositions,perhapstodisguisehisdebttoSchelling.
Nevertheless,Hegelmademanyadditionstowhathehadtakenfrom
Schelling,enoughtomakehisphilosophyhisown.
Hegel’smostbasiccontributionstoSchelling’soutlinelayinhis
treatmentofthedialecticmeansbywhichconsciousnessandthecosmos
evolve.InSchelling’sdialectic,theassertionofathesiscontainsanimplicit
contradiction,whichisitsantithesis.Inotherwords,theantithesisdoesnot
ariseinoppositiontothethesis.Itactuallyarisesfromwithinthethesisitself.
Theconflictbetweenthetwoisthenresolvedonlybyreachingahigher
synthesis,whichembracesboth.Thissynthesis,however,thenbecomesa
newthesis,whichcontainsanewantithesis,andsoon.Forourpurposes,
wecanhighlighttwomajoradditionsthatHegelmadetoSchelling’s
explanationofthisprocess.
•Thefirstwashisexplanationofwhatwasactuallyhappeninginthe
movefromthesistoantithesistosynthesis:Inresolvingtheconflictbetween
thesisandantithesis,Hegelsaid,theactofarrivingatasynthesishadto
discoverandarticulatealargertruththatwasimplicitinthesocialprocess
ofaskingforandprovidingreasonsforthethesis—anunderlyingtruththat
thethesishadignored.Thisexplanationcarriedthreemainimplications.
235
One:Allknowledge,tocountasknowledge,hadtobearticulate.Thus
whatwehavebeencalling“phenomenology”throughoutthisbook—one’s
senseofone’sconsciousnessassomethingsingular,composedofsensedata
thataredirectlyexperiencedfromwithin,priortobeingputintowords—
doesn’treallycountasknowledge.
Two:Justasthesynthesismovesknowledgeforwardbyexpandingthe
rangeofarticulateunderstandingoftheactivitiesofthemind,italsomoves
backwardinthesensethatitrevealswhatwasalreadyimplicitlythereprior
totheassertionofthethesis.(Aswewillseeinthenextsection,thisaspect
ofHegel’sdialecticcametoinformthegrowthofperennialphilosophyina
waythatHegelwouldneitherhaveanticipatednorwelcomed.)Thisishow
thediversityofarticulateknowledgemovesbacktounitybutwithoutthe
ignoranceofprimalunity.Thisiswhat“unityindiversity”means.
Three:Becausehumanphilosophizingliesattheforefrontofall
consciousactivity,itisnotanidlepastime.Nordoesitsimplyattemptto
graspwhatisgoingonintheworld.Instead,itactuallydirectsthe
evolutionoftheworldthroughitseffortstoarticulateafullandcoherent
synthesisembracingalloftheassumptionsunderlyingtheactivityofMind:
thelarger,universalconsciousnessofwhichallindividualconsciousnesses
areapart.Evolutionthenreachescompletionasthissynthesisbecomes
manifestinphysicalreality.Thisiswhy,forHegel,everystatementofa
philosophicalpositionhadtoshowhowthatpositionhadactuallyplayeda
roleinworldhistory.Thisinturniswhyhisphilosophicalworksdevoteso
muchspacetoGrandHistory:showinghowthephilosophical,political,
andsocialhistoryoftheworldcouldbeexplainedintermsofthedialectic
ofhumanthought.InBuddhistterms,thisHistorywasacelebrationof
Becomingwritlarge.
•Hegel’ssecondmainadditiontoSchelling’sdialecticlayinhis
understandingofwherethedialecticwasheaded.AswenotedinChapter
Four,Schellinghadarguedthatalleventsandorganismsintheuniverse
hadtobeunderstoodintermsofwheretheyfitwithinthedynamic
evolutionoftheuniversetowardagoal,butthenhedeniedthatafinalgoal
wouldeverbereached.Thismeantthathisphilosophy,judgedonitsown
terms,couldn’texplainanything:Ifthingscanbeunderstoodonlyin
relationtothegoaltowhichtheylead,butthatgoalitselfcan’tbe
understood,thennothingcanbeunderstood.
Hegelproposedtoremedythisdefectbydefiningthegoalofthe
236
universe.Hegaveittwodifferentdefinitionsintwodifferentworks,but
thedefinitionsareconnected.InthePhenomenology,hedefinedthegoalof
theuniverseas“absoluteknowledge,”i.e.,therealizationonthepartof
Mind—bothinitspersonalsenseasindividualhumanmindsanditscosmic
senseasGod—thatalloftheuniverseisnothingbutitsownconstructs,and
thatbeyonditselfanditsconstructsthereisnothingtoknow.This
knowledgeisabsoluteinthatitisnotanobjectofaknowingsubject.
Instead—withinthisknowledge—thesubject,theobject,andtheknowing
areallOne.Thisunitywouldcontainnoinnerconflict,andsotherewas
nowherefurtherforthecosmostodevelop.Thispointwastoresurfacein
perennialphilosophyaswell.
InThePhilosophyofRight,however,Hegeldefinedthegoalofhistoryas
“fullconsciousnessoftheideaoffreedom.”Hereheattemptedtocombine
KantandSpinozabydefiningfreedombothasadherencetotheuniversal
lawsofreason,andasthefreedomtofollowone’sownnature.Tomake
thiscombinationwork,though,HegelhadtodeviatefromKantinarguing
thatwhenamindseesitselfasseparatefromothermindsandfrom
universalMind,itsfeelingsareboundtoconflictwithuniversallawsof
reason,whichmeansthatitbecomesdividedwithinitself,feeling
constrainedbythoselaws.Butwhenitrealizesthatitisinnowayseparate
fromMind,itsfeelingsandreasoncanharmonize.Itcanactmorallywith
noinnerconflictorsenseofalienation.
Thisiswhyabsoluteknowingandfullconsciousnessoftheideaof
freedomaresimplytwodifferentwaysofstatingasinglegoal:thefully
articulatedOnenessofeverything.InthiswayHegelsuppliedfurther
argumentsfortheRomanticideas—whichwouldeventuallybecome
BuddhistRomanticideas—thattheuniversewasOne,andthatmorality
couldbeachievedeffortlesslybylearningtoseeoneselfaspartofthat
universalOneness.
NotonlydidHegeldefinethegoaloftheuniverse,healsoannounced
thatithadalreadybeenreached.Ontheonehand,Mindarrivedatabsolute
knowledgewhenHegelfinishedThePhenomenologyofMind—whichmeans
thatheviewedhisbookbothasadescriptionofthepurposeoftheuniverse
andasaperformancepiece:anexampleofhowMinddrivesevolutiontoa
purpose,andtheactualmeansbywhichthatpurposewasfinallyattained.
Ontheotherhand,HegelarguedinThePhilosophyofRightthattheideaof
freedomhadbeenfullyrealizedinthemodernPrussianstate.Onthislatter
237
count,though,hisstudentslaterfellintotwomajorcampsoverthe
questionofwhetherhewasspeakingofthepoliticalrealitiesofthe1820’s
orofhisideaofwherePrussiawouldhavetodevelopgiventhathehad
realizedthetrueideaoffreedom.
Asmightbeexpected,theseprinciplesinHegel’sdiscussionofthe
dialecticthrustofhistoryshapedhisunderstandingoftheroleofreligionin
history.Buteventsinhisacademiccareershapeditaswell.Afterthe
completionofhissecondmajoropus,theScienceofLogic(1812–1816),Hegel
in1818wasofferedapositiononthephilosophyfacultyoftherecently
foundedUniversityofBerlin.Schleiermacherwasalreadyonthefaculty
there—aswenotedinChapterOne,hehadbeeninvolvedwiththe
universitysinceitsfoundingin1810—andalthoughhewasamemberof
thetheologyfaculty,helecturedonphilosophyaswell.
Because,inHegel’sview,theevolutionofthecosmosdependedonthe
abilitytoarticulatetherelationshipofMindanditscreations,hefeltthat
Schleiermacher’sviewofreligionasaninarticulatefeelingfortheinfinite
wasagiantstepbackward.Thusin1821,hebegantolectureonthehistory
ofreligionwiththeexpresspurposeofrefutingSchleiermacher’sviews,
andhecontinuedtolectureonthetopicthreemoretimes,in1824,1827,and
1831.NotonlydidheofferrationalargumentsagainstSchleiermacher’s
ideasonreligion,heheapedridiculeonthemaswell.Forinstance,he
remarkedthatSchleiermacher’sdescriptionoffaithasafeelingof
dependenceonandsubmissiontotheinfinitecouldnottellthedifference
betweenfaithandadog’shappinessatgettingabonefromitsmaster. 30
Theoveralleffectofthisattackwastoemphasizethevastdifference
betweentheirapproaches,andtopushSchleiermacherandhistheoriesout
oftherealmofphilosophicaldiscourseformanydecadesafterward.Only
inacademictheologywasSchleiermacherconsideredanauthority;and
onlyinthelastdecadesofthe19thcentury,whenprofessorssuchas
WilliamJamesbegantoquestionHegel’stheories,didSchleiermacher’s
theoriesonthenatureofreligiousexperiencereceiveseriousattentionin
thedisciplinesofphilosophyandpsychology.
However,inadditiontoexposingthedividebetweenphenomenology
andGrandHistory,Hegel’slecturesalsoexposedasimilardividebetween
GrandHistoryandphilologyasapproachesinthestudyofworldreligion.
Exposingthefirstdividewasintentionalonhispart;exposingthesecond
dividewasmoreinadvertent.
238
Hehadalreadyestablishedthemajoroutlinesofhistheoryofthe
evolutionofreligioninworldhistoryinthePhenomenology;inhislectures
onthehistoryofreligion,hesimplyworkedoutthedetailsofthisoutline.
Hepresentedtheevolutionofreligionasastoryofgrowingunderstanding
oftherelationshipbetweenthefiniteandtheinfinite.Thismuchofthe
theoryisRomanticinorigin,aswasHegel’sassertionthatthis
understandingwasevolvingnotonlyinhumanmindsbut,atthesame
time,inthemindofGod:Thehistoryofreligionshowednotonlythe
evolutionofhumanunderstandingintheareaofreligion;italsoshowed
theevolutionofGod’s.
InlinewithHegel’stheoriesaboutthegoaloftheuniverse,this
understandinggrewdialecticallytowardafullandarticulateconsciousness
offreedomtogetherwiththeOnenessofallreality.Theinitialthesisinthe
dialecticfromwhichthisconsciousnessgrewwasrepresentedbywhat
Hegelcalled“naturereligion.”Innaturereligionthereisavaguesenseofa
universalforcebehindthefiniteeventsofnature,butwithnological
understandingoftherelationshipbetweenthetwo,andthusnopossibility
offreedomfortheindividual.Inthiscategory,Hegelgatheredprimitive
religionstogetherwithChinese,Indian,andPersianreligions,culminating
inEgyptianreligion.Asanaside,healsothrewKant’sreligiousbeliefsinto
thiscategoryasawayofdismissingthem.
Theantithesisgrowingoutofnaturereligionwas“theelevationofspirit
overnature,”whichcoveredGreek,Jewish,andRomanreligion.Greek
religionelevatedspiritovernatureinanaestheticway,showinghumanity—
throughstoriesofthegods—howtoimaginewhatitmustbeliketobefree.
Jewishreligionshowedthisinasublimeway,bydepictingGodasasingle,
transcendentpower.InRomanreligion,however,theconflictbetween
externalcompulsionandthesubjectivedesireforfreedomcreatedan
“unhappyconsciousness,”which,havingpositedaGodapartfromitself,
feltalienatedbothfromGodandwithinitself.Thisconflictwasresolved
withChristianity,inwhich,accordingtoHegel,Godbecomesahuman
beingandthendiesinordertoshowallhumanbeingsthattheynolonger
havetolookfordivinityoutsidethemselves,butshouldlearntoseeit
withinthemselves.Atthesametime,Hegelfelt,Christ’smessagewasthat
allhumanbeingsshouldrealizethat,beinganintegralpartofthedivine,
theyarefreetoactinlinewiththatdivinity,andthattheywereunderno
compulsiontoobeyanyoutsideauthority.
239
This,ofcourse,wasaveryimaginativeinterpretationofworldreligions,
andofChristianityinparticular.Hegelhimselfrealizedthathis
interpretationofChrist’smessagewasnovel,buthedefendeditongrounds
thatalsotookSchleiermacherastheirtarget:Philosophy,insteadofbeinga
degenerate,second-handresultofthereligiousexperience,hesaid,actually
tookthecontentofreligiousrevelationandgaveitlogicalform,makingit
bothunderstandableandrealbyshowingitsdialecticalnecessityand
reconcilingtheconflictsthatthefirstthoughtofreligionengendered—thus
completingtheworkthatreligionleftunfinished.InHegel’swords:
“Insofarasthinkingbeginstopositanantithesistotheconcrete
andplacesitselfinoppositiontotheconcrete,theprocessofthinking
consistsincarryingthroughthisoppositionuntilitarrivesat
reconciliation.
“Thisreconciliationisphilosophy.Philosophyistothisextent
theology.ItpresentsthereconciliationofGodwithhimselfandwith
nature,showingthatnature,otherness,isimplicitlydivine,andthat
theraisingofitselftoreconciliationisontheonehandwhatfinite
spiritimplicitlyis,whileontheotherhanditarrivesatthis
reconciliation,orbringsitforth,inworldhistory.Thisreconciliation
isthepeaceofGod,whichdoesnot“surpassallreason,”butisrather
thepeacethatthroughreasonisfirstknownandthoughtandis
recognizedaswhatistrue.” 31
Hereagain,Hegelfeltthathisownphilosophyofreligionwasnotonly
descriptive.Itwasalsoperformative,amomentouseventinworldhistory
inthatitmadetheOnenessofallrealityexplicitintherealworld.
Atthesametime,bypresentingthehistoryofreligionasahistoryofthe
evolvingrelationshipofthedivinewithitscreation,Hegelwasthefirstto
realizeSchelling’sRomanticdreamofauniversalhistoryshowingthe
dramaofwhatSchellinghadcalledtheWorldSoulatworkintheworld:
GrandHistoryinthegrandestsense.OnecanonlywonderwhatSchelling
thought,though,onseeingHegelassumeastarringroleinthedream.But
fromourperspective,evenifwedon’ttakesidesinthefeudbetween
SchellingandHegel,wecaneasilyseethatHegel’shistorytoldmoreabout
Hegelthanitdidaboutthereligionsoftheworld.
Thisisevidentfrommanyidiosyncraticfeaturesinhisversionof
history,buttwoinparticularstandout.First,Islamisallowednorolein
240
worldhistory,andHegelmentionsitbrieflyonlyinpassing.Givenhis
generaltheorythatreligionsevolveovertimethroughdialecticnecessity,
thefactthatIslamdevelopedafterChristianitywouldleadonetoassume
thatitwouldhavetobeanadvanceonChristianity,butHegeldismissedit
aspureirrationality.HisunwillingnesstodiscussIslamindetailcan
perhapsbeexplainedbyapassagetowardtheendoftheScienceofLogic.
Therehestatedthatalthoughthedynamicofthedialecticwasnecessary,it
exertednocompulsiononnature.Inotherwords,theprogressoftheworld
hadtofollowthedialecticpattern,butindividualswerefreetomovethe
worldforwardinlinewiththatpatternornot.Iftheychosenotto,they
couldeitherstagnateorregress.ThiswouldexplainnotonlyIslam,but
also,inHegel’sopinion,suchretrogradetheoriesaboutreligionas
Schleiermacher’sandKant’s.
However,giventhattheultimateoutcomeofreligiousprogressisfull
consciousnessthatGodandtheuniversehavebeenOneallalong,itwould
bestrangeforGod’sleftbrainnottoknowwhathisrightbrainhadbeen
doing.HowcouldpartofGodregresswhenanotherparthadalreadymade
progress?
AsecondidiosyncraticfeatureofHegel’shistoryistheroleitgivesto
Indianreligion.Evenhissympatheticcommentatorshavenotedthathis
treatmentofBuddhismandHinduismisblatantlyone-sidedandnegative,
aseveredistortionofwhatthesereligionsactuallypracticedandtaught.
ThesecommentatorshaveexcusedthisaspectofHegel’shistoryby
claimingthatHegelhadnogoodsourcestoworkwith,butthatwasnot
actuallythecase.
ItistruethatHegel’sinitialviewsaboutIndianreligionwerebasedon
limitedsources.Forinstance,Herder,in1792,hadrenderedintoGerman
somepassagesintheUpaniṣadsandBhagavadGītafromearlierEnglish
translations.Intheserenderings,hehademphasized,withconsiderable
poeticlicense,themonisticandvitalisticelementsthatheintuitedinthe
textsandthatcorrespondedwithhisownviewsaboutthecosmos.Buteven
Herderhadobjectedtosomeofthedoctrineshefoundinthosetexts—in
particular,theteachingsonkarmaandrebirth—seeingthemas
underminingmorality.InthePhenomenology,HegelhadfollowedHerderin
dismissingIndianreligionas“arealmofpantheism,passivity,selflessness,
andamorality.”
SimilarlywithBuddhism:18thcenturyscholarshaddepictedBuddhism
241
asaformofnihilism,andsoHegelinhisreligionlecturessummarizedits
teachingas,“Itisfromnothingthatallcomes,andtonothingthatall
returns.”Further,“Manmustmakehimselfintonothingness”;and
“holinessconsistsonlytotheextenttowhichmaninthisannihilation,in
thissilence,uniteswithGod,withnothingness,withtheabsolute.” 32 This
interpretationfitneatlywithHegel’sassertionintheScienceofLogicthatthe
initialconceptionofBeingisundifferentiated,andthusisactuallyaconcept
ofnothingness.InterpretingBuddhismasnihilismallowedhimtociteitas
anexampleofthisprimitivestageinhisstoryofthedialecticofhuman
thought.
AsmoreBuddhistandHindutextsweretranslatedintoGermaninthe
succeedingyears,HegelmoderatedsomeofhisviewsonIndianreligions,
buthecontinuedtoassertthateventhoughIndianreligionshadformeda
conceptoftheinfiniteandproposedanidentityofthefinitewiththe
infinite,theyhadnoclear,concreteconceptionofhowtheinfinitecouldbe
fullyrealizedonthelevelofthefinite.AsforBuddhism,hecontinuedto
presentitasaformofnihilismeventhoughnewerresearchshowedclearly
thatitwasn’t.
WemightexcuseHegel’sintransigenceonthesepointsbyassumingthat
hesimplywasn’tkeepingupwiththescholarlyliteratureintheseareas,but
inatleastonecaseweknowthatthiswasn’tso.ThecaseinvolvesAugust
Schlegel,Friedrich’sbrother,oneofHegel’sacquaintancesfromhisearlier
daysatJena.
AugusthadbeenappointedprofessorofliteratureattheUniversityof
Bonnin1818.In1823,hepublished—togetherwithWilhelmvon
Humboldt,oneofthefoundersoftheUniversityofBerlin—afull,
annotatedtranslationoftheBhagavadGīta.Init,henotedthatwhenthe
Gītawasreadinfull,itdidnotsupportHerder’sfacileinterpretationsof
Indianreligionandinsteadpresentedamorecomplexviewoftherelation
betweenGod—Viṣṇu—andthecosmos.
In1827,Hegelhimselfwroteareviewofthebook.Then,fouryearslater,
heneglectedtomentioninhis1831lecturesthefactthatthistext,predating
theChristianBible,mentionsadivinebeingwhohadbecomefullyhuman
inthepersonofKrishna,whotaughtthathisincarnationhadauniversal
planwithimplicationsforallofhumanity.Instead,Hegelcontinuedto
insistthatIndianreligionhadcreatednonecessaryconnectionbetween
beingsandtheirunderlyingBeing.ThusIndianreligionwasnothingbut
242
the“ReligionofAbstractUnity,”apantheisminwhich“substance[is]not
graspedaswisdombutsolelyaspower.Itissomethingdevoidofconcept;
thedeterminateelement,purpose,isnotcontainedinit.…Itismerelythe
reeling,inwardlypurposeless,emptypower.” 33 Hegelshouldhaveknown
thatthiswasagrossmischaracterizationofwhattheGītataught,buthe
heldtoitinordertocontinuemaintainingthatonlyChristianityprovideda
meaningfulincarnationofthedivine.Inotherwords,hefudgedthefactsto
fithistheories.
FromhisreviewofSchlegel’sbook,it’sclearthatHegelwouldhave
justifiedhistreatmentofIndianreligionbyclaimingthathisunderstanding
ofthedialectichadenabledhimtogetbelowthesurfaceofthetexttoseeits
underlyingmessage.Thus,inhiseyes,justbecausethefactsdidnotfitwith
histheory,thatdidnotprovehistheorywrong.Itsimplyshowedthatthe
factswereinsignificantorprovidedafalsecoverforadeeperreality.
ThiswashowHegel’stheorieswereabletosurviveandexertinfluence
onlatergenerations.ButthisincidentdidshowthattwooftheRomantic
bequeststothestudyofworldreligions—philologyandGrandHistory—
werebeginningtoworkatcross-purposes.Philologytriedtogetatwhata
textwassayingonitsowntermsinitsimmediatehistoricalenvironment;
GrandHistorytriedtoassignmeaningtothetextsintermsthattheauthor
ofthetextwouldnothaverecognized.AddtothisHegel’streatmentof
Schleiermacher’sphenomenologicalapproach,andwecanseethatevenby
the1820’s,thethreefoldRomanticbequesttoreligiousstudieswasalready
beginningtofallapart.Asphilologistscontinuedtheirworkinthe19thand
20thcenturies,thesplitamongthesethreeapproachescontinuedtowiden.
RomanticisminModernScholarship
Fast-forwardtothepresent.Thetwoworldwarshaveputanendtoany
seriousacademicefforttopresentthehistoryofworldreligionsasagrand
narrativeofprogress.Theriseofthesocialscienceshasbroughtthe
techniquesofanthropologyandsociologytobearonthehistoryofreligious
change.Andtheassumptionthatadivinewillisatworkinpersonal
religiousexperiences,inthecomposingofreligioustexts,orinthedirection
ofreligiouschangehas,atleastintheacademy,fallenbythewayside.
Nevertheless,themodernacademicstudyofreligionhascreatedaclimate
thathasfosteredandjustifiedthegrowthofBuddhistRomanticism.
243
Tobeginwith,allthreeaspectsoftheRomanticapproachtothestudyof
religionarestillbeingpracticed:Philologistsstillstudytexts.
PhenomenologistsstillfollowSchleiermacherintryingtogetatthe
structureofreligiousconsciousness.AsforGrandTheorists,Hegel’s
descendentsinthefieldnolongerlookforgrandnarratives,buttheydo
lookforunderlyingpowerdynamicsinreligioustexts(countingallkindsof
behavioras“texts”),dynamicsthatsubvertthesurfacemeaningofthetexts
andthattheauthorstheyarestudyingwoulddenyarethere.Andalthough
eachoftheseapproacheshasprovidedinterestinginsights,whentheyare
appliedtothestudyofBuddhism,noneofthemarecapableofanswering
themostimportantquestionthattheDhammaprovokes:Doesthepractice
oftheDhammareallyleadtotheendofsufferingandstress?
Forthisreason,historiansofreligionhavedirectedtheirfocusaway
fromtheDhammaandturnedittowardBuddhismasasocialmovementin
history.Inotherwords,theyfocusonissuesthatskirtthebasicquestion.
Theyanalyzewhattextssayabouttheendingofsufferingorrelatedissues.
Theyobservewhatpeoplewhoclaimtobeinspiredbythesetextshave
doneoraredoing.Theytracethechangesintextsandbehavioroverthe
centuries.
Furthermore—giventhemessagefromthepsychologyofreligion,that
noreligiousexperiencecarriesanytruth-valueforthosewhohaven’thad
theexperience—textsarestudiednotfortheirtruth-valuebutasmyths.In
thecaseofBuddhism,thismeansstoriesormythsabouttheendof
sufferingoranythingthatcanclaimrelationtothattopic.Behavioris
judged,notbyitssuccessinputtinganendtosuffering,butbyhowit
relatestodevelopmentsinsocietyandculture.Thequestionofwhethera
developmentinthetraditionwasmadebysomeonewhoactuallyputan
endtosufferingorbysomeonewhohadn’t,isneverallowedintothe
discussion.Withthediscussionlimitedtowhatmakessenseinlightof
historicalcircumstances,theconclusionisthatthissenseandthese
circumstancesexplaineverythingworthyofinterest.
Inevitably,thefielditselfbecomesamajortopicofdiscussion,as
historiansargueoverwhat“Buddhism”meansandhowfartheterm
extends.Todefinethefield,historiansofreligionhavetoaskandanswer
questionslikethese:(1)Whatkindoftextorbehaviordeservestofallunder
theterm,“Buddhism,”andatwhatpointistherelationshipsotenuousto
otherBuddhisttextsandbehaviorthatitfallsoutofrange?(2)Withinthat
244
range,whatkindsoftextorbehaviordeservetobestudied?
Becausethehistoricalmethodcannotjudgewhethertherereallyisa
pathtotheendofsuffering,historianscannotusethatasananchorpoint
againstwhichtojudgethesethings.Infact,somescholarshavemadetheir
reputationbysayingthattheBuddhadidn’tteachthefournobletruthsat
all.Thusthedefaultanswertoquestion(1)becomes:Anythingdoneby
anyoneclaimingtobeBuddhist—orinspired,positivelyornegatively,by
Buddhistteachings—countsasBuddhism,regardlessofwhetherithas
anythingtodowiththeendofsuffering.Giventhatchangesaremore
interestingtodiscussthaneffortstomaintainteachingsandpractices
unchanged,thedefaultanswertoquestion(2)is:Anytrendsorchangesin
thoseteachingsthatareadoptedbyenoughpeopleorsurvivelongenough
deservetobestudied.TheemphasisonchangereinforcestheRomantic
assumptionthatchangesareactuallythelifeofreligion.Thequestionthen
becomes,howmanypeopleandhowlongasurvivalcountas“enough”to
deservestudy?Inthisway,BuddhismisnolongerabouttheDhamma,or
theendofsuffering.It’saboutpatternsofreligiouschange:thewayin
whichpeopleadaptthetradition—successfullyorunsuccessfully—tomeet
theirperceivedneedsattheirparticularpointinspaceandtime,with
emphasisplacedonthemostpopularadaptations.
Tociteatypicalexample:RichardSeager,inBuddhisminAmerica,writes,
“Writingasahistorianratherthanapartisanincurrentdebates,I
ammostinterestedinthelong-termchallengesinvolvedinbuilding
viableformsofBuddhism,whetheramongconvertsorimmigrants.
ObservingthecurrentvitalityoftheAmericanBuddhistlandscape,I
oftenwonderhowitwillchange,evenwithinthenextthirtyyearsor
so,assomeformscontinuetothriveandothersfallbythewayside.…
ThedefinitionofAmericanBuddhismwillbedeterminedbythose
formsthatsurvivethewinnowingprocessthatcanbeexpected
duringtheearlydecadesofthetwenty-firstcentury.” 34
“Itispossibletotalkaboutmanydevelopmentsincontemporary
AmericanBuddhism,butimpossibletoassesswhichofthese‘has
legs’andwillpassthetestsoftimerequiredtobecomealiving
BuddhisttraditionintheUnitedStates.” 35
NoticethatthediscussionhereisnotabouttheDhammaassomethingto
245
bediscovered,astheBuddhaclaimed.It’saboutBuddhismassomethingto
bebuilt.Andthequestionisnotoneofwhetherthesedevelopmentsin
Buddhismwillkeepalivethepathtotheendofsuffering.It’ssimply
whethertheyareviable—“viable”meaning,notkeepingtheDhamma
alive,butsimplybeingabletosurviveasformsofbehavior,withthe
implicitassumptionthatwhateversurvivesmustbebetterthanwhat
doesn’t.
TheresultisthatpeoplelearningaboutBuddhismfromtheacademy—
andthat’swheremanyWesternersarefirstexposedtoBuddhism—learnit
fromadistinctlyRomanticpointofview.JustastheRomanticsstudied
religioustextsasmyths,tobeappreciatedasresponsestotheparticularsof
theirhistoricalcontextbutwithnonecessarytruthoutsideofthatcontext,
thatishowstudentsareexposedtoBuddhisttexts.JustasRomanticssuch
asSchlegelandSchleiermacherarguedthatnoonewasinapositiontopass
judgmentonthereligiousexperienceorbeliefsofanotherperson,thatisthe
perspectivefromwhichstudentsareexposedtothebehaviorofBuddhists
overthecenturies.
Soitshouldcomeasnosurprisethatstudentswholearnabout
Buddhisminthiswayandthenbecomeattractedtopracticingitbringa
Romanticviewofthetraditionintotheirpractice.Andit’snosurprisethat
theywoulduseRomanticprinciplesfordoingso.Thisistruenotonlyof
Buddhistteachers,butalsoofBuddhistscholarsstudyingtheseteachers.
Herearetwoexamplesfromtherecentliterature:
DavidMcMahan,writinginTheMakingofModernBuddhism,legitimates
thecreationofmodernBuddhisminaveryRomanticway.Firstheframes
theissueintermsofBuddhism,ratherthanDhamma,dismissingtheearly
textsteachingtheendofsufferingas“myths.”Thenhepaintsapictureof
theBuddhisttraditionasasearchforviability:theabilitytosurvive.There
isnoquestionofthemotivesanimatingthepeoplewhochangethe
tradition,orthestandardsbywhichaviablechangeistobejudged.The
peopleineachgenerationaretobetrustedtoknowwhattheirneedsare
andhowtheycanusethetraditiontomeetthoseneeds.Thefactthatthey
usethetraditiontoanswerquestionsthatthetraditionexplicitlyrefrained
fromaskingis,again,assumedtobeagoodthing:
“ThehybridityofBuddhistmodernism,itsproteannature,its
discardingofmuchthatistraditional,anditsoftenradicalreworking
ofdoctrineandpracticenaturallyinvitequestionsofauthenticity,
246
legitimacy,anddefinition.WhatisaBuddhist?Whatistheboundary
betweenBuddhismandnon-Buddhism?AtwhatpointisBuddhism
sothoroughlymodernized,westernized,detraditionalized,and
adaptedthatitsimplynolongercanbeconsideredBuddhism?
“Wecansurelydispensewiththemythofthepureoriginalto
whicheveryadaptationmustconform.If‘trueBuddhism’isonlyone
thatisunalloyedbynovelculturalelements,noformsofBuddhism
existingtodayqualify.…EveryextantformofBuddhismhasbeen
shapedandreconfiguredbythegreatdiversityofculturaland
historicalcircumstancesithasinhabitedinitslongandvaried
existence.Buddhisttraditions—indeedalltraditions—have
constantlyre-createdthemselvesinresponsetouniquehistoricaland
culturalconditions,amalgamatingelementsofnewcultures,
jettisoningthosenolongerviableinanewcontext,andasking
questionsthatpreviousincarnationsofBuddhismcouldnotpossibly
haveasked.” 36
AnnGleig,inanarticledescribingthecelebrationofErosinAmerican
Buddhism—“FromTheravādatoTantra:TheMakingofanAmerican
TantricBuddhism?”—echoesmanyofMcMahan’sassertionsand
concludes:
“IntheabsenceofapureBuddhismwithwhichtocompareand
measurecontemporarydevelopmentsagainst,howarewetorespond
tothesequestionsofauthenticityandlegitimation?…[T]oaskifany
ofthevariousformsofBuddhistmodernismarelegitimateistoask
whethertherearecommunitiesofpracticethathavebeenconvinced
oftheirlegitimacy.” 37
Asthesequotationsindicate,theBuddha’scommentthattheTrue
DhammadisappearswhencounterfeitDhammaiscreatedhasbeenborne
outinthemodernacademy.ThereisnoTrueDhammaintheacademyat
all.ThereisjustBuddhism,andasfarastheacademyisconcerned,
Buddhismisatraditionwhosestoryisallaboutbeingadaptableovertime
andfindingenoughfollowerstoaccepttheadaptations.Smallwonder,as
wewillseeinthenextchapter,thatexponentsofBuddhistRomanticism
usetheseRomanticargumentsfromtheacademytolendacademic
authoritytothechangestheyaremakingintheDhamma.
247
PERENNIALPHILOSOPHY
Whilethinkersinthefieldsofthepsychology
ofreligionandthehistoryofreligionhave—
atleastprofessionally—abandonedtheidea
thatreligionsteachmetaphysicaltruths,that
ideahassurvivedinthefieldnamedaftera
bookthatAldousHuxley(1894–1963)
publishedin1944–45:ThePerennial
Philosophy.Thebasicpremiseoftheperennial
philosophyisthatthereisacoreoftruths
recognizedbythegreatestspiritualmasters
inallthegreatworldreligions.AsHuxley
expressedit,thatcorehasthreedimensions,
allbasedontheprincipleofmonism:
Metaphysically,thereisadivineGroundthat
formsthesinglesubstanceunderlyingand
identicalwithphenomena;psychologically,one’sindividualsoulisnot
reallyindividual,inthatitisidenticalwiththatdivineGround;and
ethically,thepurposeoflifeistoarriveataunitiveexperienceofthis
already-existingunity,inwhichtheknowerandtheknownareone.
Thetruthclaimofthispremiseisbasedontheprincipleof
corroboration:thatbecauseallgreatspiritualteachersagreeonthis
premise,itmustbetrue.Wewillexaminethevalidityofthistruthclaim
below,butfirstweneedtoexamineitshistory,toseehowRomantic
religioncametoshapeHuxley’sthinking,bothontheissueofwhat
constitutesagreatreligion,andontheissueofwhatallgreatreligions
teach.TotheextentthatHuxley’swritinginfluencedWesternBuddhist
teachers—andtheinfluenceisextensive—thishistorywillhelpusseehow
theRomanticismimplicitintheperennialphilosophyhasplayedarolein
shapingBuddhistRomanticismtoday.
Asitturnsout,twocurrentsofRomanticthoughtconvergedinHuxley’s
religiousphilosophy.AsaWesterner,hepickedupsomeRomantic
influencesdirectlyfromhiseducationandculture.AsapupilofIndian
religiousteachers,hereceivedcorroboratinginfluencesindirectlyviathe
WesterneducationreceivedinIndiabytheteachersinhislineage.Because
thesecondcurrentisunusualandsomewhatunexpected—muchlikethe
introductionofAmericanpizzatoItaly—wewillfocusourprimary
248
attentiononit.Aswedoso,wewillseehowAsianreligionsingeneral
werechangedbyWesternideasbeforetheywereexportedtotheWest,and
howsomeofthechangeswentdeeperthanmererepackaging.Theyalso
alteredthecontent.
OneofthemaininfluencesintheWesternizationofAsianreligionsin
AsiacamefromHegel.Aswesawinthelastsection,hetaughtthatevery
cultureandracehascontributeditsownpeculiarstrengthstothereligious
progressoftheworld.Andinhiseyes,ofcourse,thepinnacleofprogress
hadbeenachievedinProtestantChristianity.Whenthistheorywasbrought
byEuropeancolonialpowerstothecountriesinAsiawherethey
establishedschools,someoftheirstudentsadoptedHegel’sbasicscriptof
themarchofreligiousprogressbutrewrotetheparts,sothattheirown
religions,ratherthanChristianity,playedthestarringrole.ReformedZenin
Japanwasoneexample;Neo-HinduisminIndiawasanother.
Neo-Hinduismisthenamecurrentlygiventoareligiousmovementin
19thcenturyIndia—centeredinCalcuttaand,withthepassageoftime,
conductedprimarilybyIndianstrainedinBritishschools—toreformthe
Indianreligioustraditionfromoneofmultipleseparatereligionsintoa
singlereligionthatwouldbeinabetterpositiontowardofftheinfluxof
foreignreligionsonIndiansoil.
Thebasicpremiseofthemovementwasthatthevarietiesofreligious
experiencesandpracticesinIndiahidanunderlyingunity:Allgodsand
goddesseswereexpressionsofasingleGod,Brahmā,whowasalsotheone
substancepermeatingtheindividualsoulandallofcreation;theUpaniṣads
andBhagavadGītaweretheprimarytextsunderlyingallIndianreligious
beliefs;andthedifferencesamongthevarioussectsweresimply
adaptationsoftheonetruemessage,adaptationsdesignedtoappealtothe
needsofpeopleatdifferentstagesofdevelopmentonthecommonpath
leadingtounionwithBrahmā.
ThiswasaradicalrecastingoftheIndianreligioustradition.Tobegin
with,theUpaniṣadshadlongbeentreatedassecrettexts,revealedonlyto
brahmaninitiates.ThustheycouldnotbethecommonsourceofallIndian
religiousbeliefs.Similarly,unionwithBrahmāwasagoaltraditionally
reservedonlyforbrahmansanddeniedtoothercastes,soitcouldnotbe
theuniversalIndianreligiousgoal.Nevertheless,bydintofeducationand
propaganda,theleadersoftheNeo-Hindumovementwereabletoconvince
boththeirBritishcolonizersandmanyoftheirfellowIndiansthatthiswas
249
theactualreligioustraditionthatIndiahadinheritedfromitspast.
Thefiguremostcommonlyrecognizedasthefounderofthemovement
wasRammohanRoy(1772–1833),whofoundedtheBrahmoSamaj,a
societydevotedtothedisseminationofUpaniṣadicandVedanticteachings,
in1828.Asfarascanbeascertained,hewasthepersonwhohadearlier
coinedtheterm,“Hinduism,”in1814.Inotherwords,“Hinduism”wasa
Neo-Hinduconstruct.Somescholars,however,debatewhetherNeoHinduismhadrootsgoingbackfurtherthanthearrivaloftheEnglishin
India,andthereisgoodevidencethatNeo-Hinduismhaditsrootsatleast
inthe18thcentury,asareactionnottotheEuropeans,buttothechallenge
presentedbyIslam.
Tobeginwith,thereisthefactthatsomeoftheearliestEuropeansto
learnSanskritfrombrahmanicalteachersinCalcutta—CharlesWilkinsand
HenryThomasColebrooke—wereled,priortoRoy’swork,straighttothe
UpaniṣadsandBhagavadGītaasmostrepresentativeofIndianreligious
beliefs.Traditionally,asforeignersoutsidethecastesystem,theywould
havebeendeniedaccesstotheUpaniṣads.However,thewillingnessof
theirteacherstoshowthemthesetextswouldnotbeunusualifweassume
thatSanskritpundits,intheirearlierconfrontationwithIslam,hadfocused
onthesametexts.IndealingwithamonotheismoftheBook,suchasIslam,
itwouldbestrategictoclaimthatIndianreligions,too,hadaBook,andthe
BhagavadGītawouldbealikelycandidateforthatBook,inasmuchasit
taughtmonotheism,too.
AsfortheUpaniṣads—especiallyasinterpretedbyAdvaitaVedanta,
whichfocusedontheirmonism—theywouldhavebeenusefulinopening
dialoguewiththemonisticbranchofIslam,Sufism.Infact,thefirst
translationoftheUpaniṣadsintoanon-Indianlanguage—Persian—was
completedin1657attherequestofacrownprinceintheMoghuldynasty
whohadSufileanings.ThesefactshelptoexplainwhyRoy’sfirstbookon
theUpaniṣads,GifttotheMonotheists(1803–04),waswritteninPersianand
aimedataSufiaudience.
SowhentheSanskritpunditsencounteredChristianity—another
monotheismwithaBook—theyadoptedthesamestrategy.Wilkinswas
introducedtothemonotheismintheBhagavadGīta,andColebrooketothe
monismoftheAitareyaUpaniṣad.ThismeansthatwhenRoycompleteda
translationoftheKenaUpaniṣadintoEnglishin1816,hewassimply
followinganearlierprecedent.
250
However,asthe19thcenturyprogressedandtheBritishtookcontrolof
India,IndianstudentstrainedinBritishschoolsrealizedthattherewas
moretoEuropeanspiritualitythanjustChristianity.TherewasEuropean
philosophyaswell.AlthoughmanyofthephilosopherstaughtinBritish
schools—suchasJohnStuartMillandHerbertSpencer—wereagnostic,
others,suchasSpinoza,Emerson,andHegel,werenotonlymonotheists,
butmoniststoboot.Thesimplefactthattheirviewswereinharmonywith
AdvaitaVedantaheldoutthepossibilityofameaningfuldialoguebetween
cultures.AndthevitalismtaughtbyEmersonandHegelofferedanew
twistonmonismthatwaseventuallyabsorbedintoNeo-Hinduism.
TheexampleofSwamiVivekananda
(NarendranathDatta,1863–1902)offersa
caseinpoint.TrainedinBritishschools,he
wasexposedatanearlyagetoawiderange
ofEuropeanphilosophers,amongthem
Spencer,Spinoza,Kant,Fichte,andHegel.
Hewasespeciallydrawntothosewhose
philosophiesfocusedonprogressand
change,apparentlybecausetheyexplained
theprogressoftheBritishandhowIndia
mightstartmakingprogressofitsown.
SpencerandHegelwerethetwo
philosopherswiththemostlastinginfluence
inshapingVivekananda’svitalism,although
theytaughthimdifferentlessonsonhowthe
principleofvitalismcouldbeusedtomove
Indiaforward.
FromSpencer—thefamousproponentof
theideologynowknownassocialDarwinism(eventhoughheformulated
itbeforeDarwinpublishedhisfindingsonevolution)—theyoung
Narendranathlearnedthesocialprincipleofthesurvivalofthefittest:
Socialorganizationsarelikeorganismsthatmustcompetewithother
organizationsinordertosurvive,withthevictorygoingtothosewhose
strengthsenablethembesttothriveinthecompetitiveenvironment.Later
inhiscareer—underhisordainedname,Vivekananda—heusedthistheory
toexplainwhyBuddhismhadfailedtosurviveinIndiaand,inits
downfall,aftersappingthestrengthoftheIndianracebygettingtoomany
251
peopletojoinitscelibateorder,hadbroughtIndiatoruinaswell.Atthe
sametime,healsousedSpencerianprinciplestoadvanceaprogramforthe
strengtheningoftheIndianracesothatitcouldthrowoffitsEuropean
oppressors.
FromHegel,Narendranathhadlearnedthatsocialprogressisledbythe
evolutionofMind,andthatthisevolutionfollowsthedialecticalpatternof
movingforwardbydiggingbackintothemostancientassumptions
underlyingearlierthought.ThusthewaytoleadIndiaforward—sothatit
woulddevelop,inhiswords,“musclesofsteelandnervesofiron”—wasto
returntothedeepestprinciplesunderlyingIndianreligion,whichhecame
tobelievelayinAdvaitaVedanta.NarendranathalsolearnedfromHegel
theideathatthehistoryofthereligionsoftheworldisavastdramain
whichallculturesandreligionsplayadistinctivepart,culminatingina
unitiveknowledgeoftheOneMindorOneSoulatworkbothwithinand
without.GiventhattheUpaniṣadswereolderthanChristianity,andthat
Vedantataughtmonisminmuchmoredefinitiveterms,itiseasytosee
how,asVivekananda,hecouldputHegel’sprinciplestogetherinsucha
waythatVedanta,ratherthanChristianity,wastobethereligionofthe
future.Thisexplainswhyhewentonlecturetoursnotonlythroughout
India,butalsotwiceintotheWestbeforehisearlydeathatage39.
IntheWest,heencounteredresistancefromconservativeChristiansbut
healsofoundaselect,receptiveaudiencewhoseattitudeshadbeenshaped
bytheRomantics.ByextollingIndiaasthesourceofspiritualinspiration,
byclaimingthatvitalisticmonismwasthemostadvancedspiritual
teaching,andbyportrayingthereligionsoftheworldaspartofacommon
questtorealizethemonisticvision,theRomanticsandtheirtransmitters
hadpavedthewayforVivekananda’steachingstotakerootintheWest.
InteachingVedantabothinIndiaandtheWest,Vivekananda
formulatedtheprinciplethatwastoprovidetheunderpinningforHuxley’s
perennialphilosophy:thatwhencomparingdifferentreligioustraditions,
thedifferencesareofnoaccount;onlythesimilaritiesmatter.Thushewas
abletobrushoverthemanydifferencesnotonlyamongIndianreligions,
butalsothereligionsoftheworld.Inthis,hefollowedtheRomantic
programthatattributeddifferencesamongreligionstotheaccidentsof
personalityandculture,whereasthecorereligiousexperienceforallwas
thesame:unionwiththeinfinite.Themainpointofdifferencewasthat,for
theRomantics,theinfinitewastotallyimmanent;whereasforVivekananda,
252
itwasbothimmanentandtranscendent.Thispointwastoresurfacein
Huxley’sperennialphilosophy,too.
OneofVivekananda’sdisciples,SwamiPrabhavananda,wasplacedin
chargeoftheVedantaSocietyofLosAngeles.He,inturn,wasHuxley’s
teacher.WhenHuxleylatercametocomposeThePerennialPhilosophy,he
adoptedfromhisteacherstheprinciplethattheoneforcepermeatingand
underlyingthecosmoswasbothimmanentandtranscendent.Onthis
point,hewasmoreVedanticthanRomantic.Andhedifferedbothfrom
VivekanandaandRomanticslikeSchellinginabandoningtheideaofthe
inevitablespiritualprogressofthehumanrace—afterall,hewaswriting
duringWorldWarII,whichseverelychallengedtheideathathumanity
wasmovingeverupward.Otherwise,though,ThePerennialPhilosophy
expressesawiderrangeofRomanticprinciplesthanHuxleyhadlearned
fromhisVedanticteachers.
Tobeginwith,thereistheunderlyingassumptionaboutwhatreligionis
andthequestionsitismeanttoaddress.LikeboththeVedanticsandthe
Romantics,Huxleypresentsreligionasaquestionofrelationshipbetween
theindividualandthedivine,inwhichthemainquestionsaddressedare,
“WhatismyTrueSelf?Whatisitsrelationshiptothecosmos?Andwhatis
itsrelationshiptothedivineGroundunderlyingboth?”Thesequestions,
accordingtoHuxley,belongtothefieldof“autology,”orthe“scienceofthe
eternalSelf.”Andtheanswer—“themostemphaticallyinsisteduponbyall
exponentsofthePerennialPhilosophy”—isthatthisSelfis“inthedepthof
particular,individualizedselves,andidenticalwith,oratleastakinto,the
divineGround.” 38
“Baseduponthedirectexperienceofthosewhohavefulfilledthe
necessaryconditionsofsuchknowledge,thisteachingisexpressed
mostsuccinctlyintheSanskritformula,tattvamasi(‘Thatartthou’);
theAtman,orimmanenteternalSelf,isonewithBrahman,the
AbsolutePrincipleofallexistence;andthelastendofeveryhuman
beingistodiscoverthefactforhimself,tofindoutWhohereallyis.…
“Onlythetranscendent,thecompletelyother,canbeimmanent
withoutbeingmodifiedbythebecomingofthatinwhichitdwells.
ThePerennialPhilosophyteachesthatitisdesirableandindeed
necessarytoknowthespiritualGroundofthings,notonlywithinthe
soul,butalsooutsideintheworldand,beyondworldandsoul,inits
transcendentotherness.” 39
253
HuxleythenquotesapprovinglyapassagefromWilliamLaw,an18th
centurymystic,totheeffectthatthisGround,bothwithinandwithout,is
infinite.
“Thisdepthistheunity,theeternity—Ihadalmostsaidthe
infinity—ofthesoul;foritissoinfinitethatnothingcansatisfyitor
giveitrestbuttheinfinityofGod.” 40
AlthoughHuxleypresentsthisGround—Godinhisvariousnames—as
bothtranscendentandimmanent,hegivessomethingofaRomantictwist
totheideaofGod’simmanence.Inapeculiarpassage,explainingthe
existenceofevilinauniversethatistheexpressionofasingledivine
power,Huxleyfallsbackonanorganicmodeltoexplaintherelationshipof
allcreationtoGod:Weareallindividualorganswithinamuchlarger
organismpermeatedwithGod.Fromthisanalogy,Huxleyarguesa
positionsimilartoHölderlin’s:thattheuniverse,beinginfinite,ultimately
liesbeyondgoodandevil,andthatpeacecanbefoundonlybyadopting
thisuniversalview.Afterpointingoutthatmanyindividuals—i.e.,other
organsintheuniversalorganism—behaveselfishly,Huxleystates:
“Insuchcircumstancesitwouldbeextraordinaryiftheinnocent
andrighteousdidnotsuffer—justasitwouldbeextraordinaryifthe
innocentkidneysandtherighteousheartwerenottosufferforthe
sinsofalicorouspalateandoverloadedstomach,sins,wemayadd,
imposeduponthoseorgansbythewillofthegluttonousindividual
towhomtheybelong.…Therighteousmancanescapesufferingonly
byacceptingitandpassingbeyondit;andhecanaccomplishthis
onlybybeingconvertedfromrighteousnesstototalselflessnessand
God-centredness.” 41
Inmakingthispoint,however,Huxleydoesn’tseemtorealizethathe
hasportrayedGodasagluttonandalush.Thusthepassagehasthedouble
effectofaddingconfusiontotheproblemitattemptstosolve,atthesame
timeunderminingmuchoftherestofhisbook.
Thisunfortunatepassageaside,thereareotherfeaturesofRomantic
religionthatHuxleytransmitsinafairlyunalteredmanner.
Forexample,hisdefinitionofthebasicspiritualproblemisthatpeople
sufferfromtheirsenseofhavingaseparateself.Thissenseofseparation
254
causessufferingbothbecauseitproducesfeelingsofisolationandalso
becauseitleadstothenotionofaseparatefreewill.LikeSchellingand
Hegel,Huxleyregardstheideaofindividualwillanditsfreedomtochoose
asthe“rootofallsin,”forsuchawillcanhaveonlyonepurpose:“toget
andholdforoneself.”And,likethem,hederivesthislowevaluationof
individualfreedomfromhisvisionofamonistic,organicuniverse.Insuch
auniverse,theideathatonepartoftheorganismwouldhaveawillofits
ownwouldbedetrimentaltothesurvivalofthewholeorganism,andthen,
ofcourse,tothesurvivaloftheindividualpart.
Thesolutiontotheproblemofthe“separativeself”isadirect,unitive
consciousnessofthedivinesubstance,inwhichtheknower,theknowledge,
andtheknownareone.Thisexperienceisthesameforallwhohaveit,
meaningthatdifferencesamongreligiousteachingsaremerelyamatterof
personalityandculture.Thusthedifferingnamesbywhichitisknown—
God,Suchness,Allah,theTao,theWorldSoul—aretobetakenas
synonymsfortheoneGround.AndheassumesthatthisGroundhasawill,
justastheRomanticWorldSouloperateswithapurpose.Itfunctionsnot
onlyasthatwhichisknowninthereligiousexperiencebutalsoasthe
inspirationwithintheknowertoopenuptoitspreexistingunitywiththe
Ground.
Huxleynotesthatmanypeoplecanhavethisunitiveexperience
spontaneously—hecitesWordsworthandByronasexamples—buthe
makesadistinctionbetweenwhatJameswouldhavecalledexperiencesof
conversionandsanctification.Iftheconversiondoesnotleadto
sanctification,orfurthercultivationofthisconsciousness,itislittlemore
thananinvitationdeclined—and,asinthecasesofWordsworthandByron,
haslittlelastingeffect.
“Atthebestsuchsuddenaccessionsof‘cosmicconsciousness’…
aremerelyunusualinvitationstofurtherpersonaleffortinthe
directionoftheinnerheightaswellastheexternalfullnessof
knowledge.Inagreatmanycasestheinvitationisnotaccepted;the
giftisprizedfortheecstaticpleasureitbrings;itscomingis
rememberednostalgicallyand,iftherecipienthappenstobeapoet,
writtenaboutwitheloquence.” 42
Tobetrulyfruitful,theunitiveexperiencehastobecultivatedbya
processthatHuxleycallsmortification.Bythishemeansnotsomuch
255
mortificationofthefleshasmortificationoftheindividualwill:adoptingan
attitudethathevariouslydescribesasdocility,obedience,submission,
receptivity,andacceptance.Theonlypositiveexerciseofindividual
freedomistowillinglyabandonit:
“Deliverance…isachievedbyobedienceanddocilitytotheeternal
NatureofThings.Wehavebeengivenfreewill,inorderthatwemay
willourself-willoutofexistenceandsocometolivecontinuouslyin
a‘stateofgrace.’Allouractionsmustbedirected,inthelastanalysis,
tomakingourselvespassiveinrelationtotheactivityandthebeing
ofdivineReality.Weare,asitwere,Aeolianharps,endowedwiththe
powereithertoexposethemselvestothewindofthespiritortoshut
themselvesawayfromit.” 43
LiketheRomantics,Huxleycomparesthecultivationofthisreceptive
attitudetothestateofmindthatatrueartistmustcultivatebeforecreating
artofgenuinevalue,althoughherecognizesthatspiritualcultivationisa
muchmorerigorousprocess.Healsowarnsthatheroiceffortstopurify
oneselfinthecourseofthiscultivationarecounter-productive.Only
throughthenegationofself-willandtheegocanoneopentothegrace
offeredbytheGround:
“Butstoicalausterityismerelytheexaltationofthemore
creditablesideoftheegoattheexpenseofthelesscreditable.
Holiness,onthecontrary,isthetotaldenialoftheseparativeself,in
itscreditablenolessthanitsdiscreditableaspects,andthe
abandonmentofthewilltoGod.” 44
AlsoRomanticisHuxley’scommentthatoneoftheresultsoftheunitive
experienceisthatnatureisseenassacred.Strangely,giventhathewasa
novelist,hedevotesnospaceinThePerennialPhilosophytotheideathat
unitiveexperienceautomaticallyissuesinadesiretoexpressit
aesthetically.Inthis,hedepartsfromtheRomanticsandismoreinline
withtheVedantictradition.ButheisthoroughlyRomanticinhisinsistence
that,becausetheGroundliesbeyondcommonnotionsofgoodandevil,the
experienceoftheGroundfinditsmoralexpressionnotthroughrules,but
throughanattitudeoflovethatmakesrulesunnecessary.Tobolsterthis
point,hemisquotesAugustine(whohadcounselednotsimplytolove,but
toloveGod):
256
“Fromallthisitfollowsthatcharityistherootandsubstanceof
morality…AllthishasbeensummedupinAugustine’sformula:
‘Love,anddowhatyoulike.’” 45
Huxleydoesadd,however,thatthissenseofloveisnotincompatible
withtheideaofdivinecommandments.Infact—inapassagethatmayhave
beenMaslow’sinspirationforReligion,Values,andPeakExperiences—Huxley
statesthatunitiveconsciousnessisthesourceofallmoralvalues.
“Weseethenthat,forthePerennialPhilosophy,goodisthe
separateself’sconformityto,andfinallyannihilationin,thedivine
Groundwhichgivesitbeing;evil,theintensificationofseparateness,
therefusaltoknowthattheGroundexists.Thisdoctrineis,ofcourse,
perfectlycompatiblewiththeformulationofethicalprinciplesasa
seriesofnegativeandpositivedivinecommandments,orevenin
termsofsocialutility.Thecrimeswhichareeverywhereforbidden
proceedfromstatesofmindwhichareeverywherecondemnedas
wrong;andthesewrongstatesofmindare,asamatterofempirical
fact,absolutelyincompatiblewiththatunitiveknowledgeofthe
divineGround,which,accordingtothePerennialPhilosophy,isthe
supremegood.” 46
Huxleydoesnotdirectlyaddressthequestionofwhethermortification
isaprocessthatarrivesatitsgoal,orisonethatmustbeconstantlypursued
throughoutlife,buthedoesseemtoendorsethelatterpositionbyquoting
Augustine,thistimemoreaccurately:
“Ifthoushouldstsay,‘Itisenough,Ihavereachedperfection,’all
islost.Foritisthefunctionofperfectiontomakeoneknowone’s
imperfection.” 47
UnliketheRomantics,Huxleydoesnotrecommenderoticloveasa
meansofmortification,andhedoesnotassumethatreligionshave
progressedoraredestinedtoprogressovertime.Asforone’sdutytomake
one’sreligionevolve,Huxleyhaslittletosayonthetopicexceptthatworld
peacewillbeimpossibleunlessallreligionsevolvetothepointwherethey
accepttheperennialphilosophyastheircommoncore.
Aswenotedabove,thetruthclaimoftheperennialphilosophyisbased
ontheprincipleofcorroboration:theclaimthattheseteachingsare
257
commontoalltheworld’sgreatspiritualtraditions,stretchingbackto
prehistorictimes.Therearetwogoodreasons,though,forrejectingthis
claim.
Thefirstisthat,evenifitweretruethatallreligioustraditions,intheir
highestexpression,holdtotheseteachings,itwouldnotbeasoundbasis
foratruthclaim.Thetraditions,forallweknow,couldallbewrong.
Humanbeings,throughouthistory,haveagreedonmanythingsthathave
sincebeenprovenfalse.
ThesecondreasonforquestioningHuxley’sclaimisthesheerfactthat
theseteachingsarenotcommontoallreligions.Theravāda—what
VivekanandacalledtheSouthernSchoolofBuddhism,andHuxleycalled
Hīnayāna—isamajorcaseinpoint.Whereastheperennialphilosophy
teachesreligionasananswertoquestionsabouttherelationshipbetween
selfandcosmos,Theravādaputsthosequestionsaside.Theperennial
philosophersteachatrueSelf;Theravāda,not-self.Theperennial
philosophyteachesunionwithGodasthehighestgoal;Theravādacalls
unionwithBrahmāagoalinferiortounbinding(MN83;MN97).And
whereastheperennialphilosophyteachesthattheGroundofBeinghasa
will,andthatitsgraceisnecessarytoattainthehighestgoal,Theravāda
teachesthatunbindingistotallywithoutawill—beingunfabricated,itdoes
notfabricateanyintentionsatall—andthatitisreached,notthroughgrace,
butthroughone’sownefforts.
ThesedifferencespresentedproblemsbothforVivekanandaandfor
Huxley,andtheytriedtoovercomethembyusingavarietyoftactics.
VivekanandavisitedSriLankatogainthesupportoftheBuddhist
monksthereincreatingaunifiedHinduismthatwouldcontainBuddhism
initsfold,buthewasunderstandablyrebuffed.Fortheremainderofhis
life,hehadverylittlegoodtosayabouttheBuddhistSaṅgha.
WhenitcametothetopicoftheBuddha,though,Vivekanandaadopted
threestrategiesinhisaddressestoAmericanaudiencestodispensewiththe
areaswhereBuddhistteachingscontradictedthoseofAdvaitaVedanta:
1)In“Buddha’sMessagetotheWorld”(1900),heportrayedtheBuddha
asawell-meaningreformerwhohadtaughtnot-selfandno-Godasaway
ofundoingtheselfishexploitationthatcharacterizedthecastesystemofhis
time.However,inspiteoftheBuddha’sgoodintentions,histeachingswere
sooutofstepwiththerealityofGodandSoulthattheydisappearedin
India—anddeservedlyso.InthispresentationoftheBuddha,Vivekananda
258
tookpainstoexpressadmirationfortheBuddhaasaman,butnotasa
philosopher.
2)In“Buddhism,theFulfillmentofHinduism”(1893),Vivekananda
insistedthattheBuddhawasmisunderstoodbyhisfollowers,andthathis
teachingswerereallymeanttobeinlinewiththeVedanta—which
Vivekananda,likemanyIndiansofhistime,believedtohavepredatedthe
Buddha.Forexample,whentheBuddhataughtnot-self,Vivekananda
claimed,hewasdenyingtheexistencenotoftheTrueSelf,butofthefalse
separateself.Theimplicationofthisclaim,ofcourse,istheBuddha’s
discoursesarenottobetakenatfacevaluewhentheysaythattheideaofa
universalselfiscompletelyfoolish(§21 ).LikeHegel,Vivekanandawas
convincedthathisbeliefsgavehiminsightintointentionsthatlaybelow
thesurfaceandsubvertedthemeaningofthesurface.
3)In“TheVedantaPhilosophy”(1896),Vivekanandaclaimedthatthe
trueessenceoftheBuddha’steachingswastobefoundintheMahāyāna—
whathecalledtheNorthernSchool—andthattheSouthernSchoolcould
simplybedismissed.
Huxley,indealingwiththeproblemoftheBuddha,fleshedoutallthree
strategiesandusedthemtosupportoneanother.Thisisclearestinhis
treatmentoftheteachingonnot-self.
Inoneinstance,Huxleyadoptsthefirststrategy,treatingthenot-self
teaching—initsinterpretationasano-selfteaching—assimplyinadequate
toanswerthequestionsthatwouldanimateametaphysician,inparticular,
thosearoundthequestionofanintelligentdesigntothecosmos:
“HumeandtheBuddhistsgiveasufficientlyrealisticdescription
ofselfnessinactionbuttheyfailtoexplainhoworwhythebundles
everbecamebundles.Didtheirconstituentatomsofexperiencecome
togetheroftheirownaccord?And,ifso,why,orbywhatmeans,and
withinwhatkindofanon-spatialuniverse?Togiveaplausible
answertothesequestionsintermsofanattaissodifficultthatweare
forcedtoabandonthedoctrineinfavourofthenotionthat,behind
thefluxandwithinthebundles,thereexistssomekindofpermanent
soulbywhichexperienceisorganizedandwhichinturnmakesuse
ofthatorganizedexperiencetobecomeaparticularandunique
personality.” 48
HereHuxleyisadoptingtheRomanticviewofcausality,inwhich
259
complexinteractingsystemscanbeexplainedonlyintermsofanorganic,
purposefulwill.
Inanotherpassage,Huxleystartswithstrategynumber2,following
Vivekananda’sexample:Thenot-selfteachingwasintendedtodeny,not
theuniversalSelf,butonlythepersonalself.Thereforeitisactuallyinline
withtheperennialphilosophy.
“Letitsufficetopointoutthat,whenheinsistedthathuman
beingsarebynature‘non-Atman,’theBuddhawasevidently
speakingaboutthepersonalselfandnottheuniversalSelf.…What…
Gautamadeniesisthesubstantialnatureandeternalpersistenceof
theindividualpsyche.…AbouttheexistenceoftheAtmanthatis
Brahman,asaboutmostothermetaphysicalmatters,theBuddha
declinestospeak,onthegroundsthatsuchdiscussionsdonottendto
edificationorspiritualprogressamongthemembersofamonastic
order,suchashehadfounded.” 49
Aswehavenoted,thismisrepresentstheBuddha.Notonlydidhesay
thattheideaofauniversalSelfisafoolishdoctrine(§21 );healsoexplicitly
appliedtheteachingonnot-selftoallpossibleideasofself,includingaself
thatisinfinite(§18 ).
Huxleythengoesontocombinestrategynumber3withstrategy
number1,asserting—withoutsupportinghisassertion—thatthesortof
metaphysicalquestionstheBuddhadeliberatelyputasideactuallyneedto
beaskedandanswered,andthattheMahāyāna,inansweringthose
questions,madeBuddhismtrulygreat.Inotherwords,Huxleyisdefining
“greatreligion”asanyreligionthatarticulatestheperennialphilosophy—
whichturnsthetruthclaimofperennialphilosophyintoatautology:I.e.,
theperennialphilosophyistruebecauseallgreatreligionsteachit,buta
religioncanbecalledgreatonlywhenitteachestheperennialphilosophy.
Atthesametime,Huxley—likeMāluṅkyaputta(§5 )—iscriticizingthe
BuddhafornotansweringthesortquestionsthatMāluṅkyaputtawanted
answered,butthattheBuddhasawasobstaclesinthepathtotheendof
suffering.
“Butthoughithasitsdangers,thoughitmaybecomethemost
absorbing,becausethemostseriousandnoblest,ofdistractions,
metaphysicalthinkingisunavoidableandfinallynecessary.Eventhe
260
Hinayanistsfoundthis,andthelaterMahayanistsweretodevelop,in
connectionwiththepracticeoftheirreligion,asplendidand
imposingsystemofcosmological,ethicalandpsychologicalthought.
Thissystemwasbaseduponthepostulatesofastrictidealismand
professedtodispensewiththeideaofGod.Butmoralandspiritual
experiencewastoostrongforphilosophicaltheory,andunderthe
inspirationofdirectexperience,thewritersoftheMahayanasutras
foundthemselvesusingalltheiringenuitytoexplainwhythe
TathagataandtheBodhisattasdisplayaninfinitecharitytowards
beingsthatdonotreallyexist.Atthesametimetheystretchedthe
frameworkofsubjectiveidealismsoastomakeroomforUniversal
Mind;qualifiedtheideaofsoullessnesswiththedoctrinethat,if
purified,theindividualmindcanidentifyitselfwiththeUniversal
MindorBuddha-womb;and,whilemaintaininggodlessness,
assertedthatthisrealizableUniversalMindistheinnerconsciousness
oftheeternalBuddhaandthattheBuddha-mindisassociatedwith‘a
greatcompassionateheart’whichdesirestheliberationofevery
sentientbeingandbestowsdivinegraceonallwhomakeaserious
efforttoachieveman’sfinalend.Inaword,despitetheirinauspicious
vocabulary,thebestoftheMahayanasutrascontainanauthentic
formulationofthePerennialPhilosophy—aformulationwhichin
somerespects…ismorecompletethananyother.” 50
Huxleyalsousesstrategiesnumber2and3toexplainthattheBuddha
reallybelievedinGodastheultimateGround,butthathisrhetoricalstyle
obscuredthispointuntiltheMahayanistsrealizedthatthisassumptionwas
anecessarypartofhisteaching:
“TheBuddhadeclinedtomakeanystatementinregardtothe
ultimatedivineReality.AllhewouldtalkaboutwasNirvana,which
isthenameoftheexperiencethatcomestothetotallyselflessand
one-pointed.Tothissameexperienceothershavegiventhenameof
unionwithBrahman,withAlHaqq,withtheimmanentand
transcendentGodhead.Maintaining,inthismatter,theattitudeofa
strictoperationalist,theBuddhawouldspeakonlyofthespiritual
experience,notofthemetaphysicalentitypresumedbythe
theologiansofotherreligions,asalsooflaterBuddhism,tobethe
objectand(sinceincontemplationtheknower,theknownandthe
261
knowledgeareallone)atthesametimethesubjectandsubstanceof
thatexperience.” 51
This,ofcourse,ignorestheBuddha’srepeatedemphasisthatunbinding
wasnotidenticalwiththebrahmanicalgoalofunionwithBrahmā,thatthe
lattergoalwasinferiorbecauseitwasstillstuckinbecoming,andsodid
notleadtotheendofsuffering.AlthoughHuxleytreatsunionwithBrahmā
asaneternalstatelyingbeyondthefluxofbecoming,theBuddhasawthat
anysenseofidentity—evenwithaninfinitebeing—actuallylieswithinthe
fluxofbecomingbecauseitisbasedonsubtlecraving.
ThefactthatHuxleyisrewritingtheDhammainawaythatoffersno
releasefrombecomingisreflectedinhisuseofstrategynumber2torewrite
thenobleeightfoldpath.Inhisaccount,thefirstsevenfactorsaremeantto
imposearegimenofmortification—which,byhisdefinition,isnotamatter
ofself-cleansingorself-masterythroughthematurecultivationofone’s
freedomofchoice.Instead,itisamatterofopeningoneselfuptodivine
grace.AsforwhytheBuddhaneglectedtomentiontheneedforgrace,he
wrote:
“OfthemeanswhichareemployedbythedivineGroundfor
helpinghumanbeingstoreachtheirgoal,theBuddhaofthePali
scriptures(ateacherwhosedislikeof‘footlessquestions’isnoless
intensethanthatoftheseverestexperimentalphysicistofthe
twentiethcentury)declinestospeak.” 52
Inotherwords,inHuxley’seyes,theBuddhagaveanincompletepicture
ofthepathbecausehisrhetoricalstylegotintheway.
Tomakethenobleeightfoldpathleadnottotheendofbecoming,butto
arefinedlevelofbecominginwhichoneattainedunionwiththeGroundof
theuniverse,Huxleyredefinedthefactorsofthepath.Alookathisversion
oftwoofthefactorswillshowhowhemanagedthis.First,rightview—or
inhisterms,rightbelief:
“Completedeliveranceisconditionalonthefollowing:first,Right
Beliefinthealltooobvioustruththatthecauseofpainandevilis
cravingforseparative,ego-centredexistence,withitscorollarythat
therecanbenodeliverancefromevil,whetherpersonalorcollective,
exceptbygettingridofsuchcravingandtheobsessionof‘I,’‘me,’
262
‘mine.’” 53
IntermsoftheDhamma,Huxleyhasredefined“completedeliverance”
tomeanreleaseonlyfromaseparativeself-identity,andnotfromallforms
ofself-identity,separativeorunitive.Inpracticalterms,thisisshownbyhis
definitionofthelastfactorofthepath:
“…eighth,RightContemplation,theunitiveknowledgeofthe
Ground.” 54
HereHuxleypresents,asthegoalofthepractice,arevivedversionofa
stepthattheBuddhaincludedaspartofthepathtothegoal.Fromthe
pointofviewoftheDhamma,onlywhenonedropsanyperceptionof
“Ground”andanyidentificationwithunitiveknowledge—which,by
nature,isfabricated—canoneattainfinalrelease.
FromthisdiscussionofHuxley’streatmentofBuddhism,twopointsare
clear:
1)TomakeBuddhismfitinwiththeperennialphilosophy,hehadto
extensivelyrewriteit,atthesametimecriticizingtheBuddha:TheBuddha
wasunwisenottoaddressmetaphysicalquestionsaboutthenatureofthe
worldandtheself;hisdoctrinesonnot-selfandnirvāṇawereincomplete,
leadingtoaconfusionthatwascleareduponlyintheMahāyāna.Whether
Huxleywascorrectinmakingthesecriticisms,thefactthathehadtorevise
theBuddha’steachingsoradicallytomakeitfitintotheperennial
philosophyshowsthatthetruthclaimofthatphilosophy—thatitistrue
becauseallgreattraditionsagreewithit—isbogus.
2)FromthepointofviewoftheDhamma,Huxley’srevisedBuddhismis
inferiortotheoriginalDhammainthatitcanleadnottothetotalcessation
ofbecoming,butonlytoarefinedlevelofbecoming.Thusitcannotleadto
totalfreedomfromsufferingandstress.Andbyassertingthatdifferences
amongreligioustraditionsdon’treallymatter,Huxleyhasobscuredan
importantprinciple:thatdifferencesinbeliefdomatterwhentheyleadto
differencesinbehavior.FromthisprinciplefollowstheBuddha’steaching
onhowtruthclaimsmadebydifferentteachingscanbetested:notby
agreementamongviews,butbytheresultsthatcomewhenteachingsare
putintopractice.Inthisway,too,Huxleyhaspromotedaninferiorversion
oftheDhamma,denyinganypossiblewayforreligioustruthclaimstobe
263
testedthroughaction.
DespiteHuxley’sroughtreatmentofBuddhism,ThePerennialPhilosophy
hashadanenormousinfluenceonthedevelopmentofBuddhist
Romanticism:bothdirectly,onthosewhoreadthebook,andindirectly,
throughthebook’sinfluenceonMaslow.
Partofthisinfluencecanbeexplainedbythefactthatthebookopened
themindsofmanyWesternerstotheideathatreligionsoftheEast,suchas
Buddhism,havesomethingvaluabletooffer,andthatthepreferenceofone
religionoveranothercouldbesimplyamatterofpersonaltaste—aslongas
thatreligionwasinterpretedinamonisticway.Peoplealreadyfavorably
disposedtomonism—throughEmersonandothertransmittersofRomantic
religion—foundthisconditioneasytoaccept.Thosewithapositive
relationshiptotheJudeo-Christiantraditionfeltthattheycouldadopt
Buddhistteachingsandpracticeswithoutconflict;thosewithanegative
relationshiptothattraditionfeltthattheycouldfindspiritualnurturein
Buddhism,freefromthefaithdemandsofthesynagogueorthechurch.In
thisway,theideaofaperennialphilosophyeasedthewayofmany
WesternersintoBuddhistthoughtandpractice.
ButeventhoughThePerennialPhilosophyhelpedopenthewayfor
BuddhismtobeacceptedintheWest,itdidsoataprice.Becauseit
misrepresentedtheBuddha’steachings,itbroughtmanypeopleto
Buddhismonfalsepretenses.TotheextentthatHuxley’srewritingofthe
DhammacontainedmanyelementsofRomanticreligion,itledthemto
believethattheDhammaandRomanticreligionwerethesamething.This
isoneofthereasonswhythedevelopmentofBuddhistRomanticismhas
beensoinvisible,eventothoseresponsibleforit.
Atthesame,becauseThePerennialPhilosophyclaimedthatthechoiceofa
traditionwasmerelyamatteroftasteandpersonalattraction,it
downplayedtheextenttowhichthechoiceofapracticereallydoesmakea
differenceinaction.Inthisway,ithasledmanyWesternerstobelievethat
theactofmixingandmatchingtheDhammawithotherteachingscarriesno
practicalconsequences,andisinsteadsimplyamatterofaestheticsand
taste.ThisinturnhasledmanyWesternBuddhistteacherstobelievethat
theirprimarydutyasteachersisnottoremainfaithfultothetradition,but
tomakethemselvesandtheirteachingsattractivethroughanappealto
ecumenism.Thisiswhyteacherbiographiesoftenlistnon-Buddhist
teachingsfromwhichtheteacherstakeinspiration,andwhyRumi,for
264
example,issooftenquotedinBuddhistwritingsandtalks.
Finally,thetruthclaimsoftheperennialphilosophy—eventhoughthey
don’tstanduptoscrutiny—havejustifiedmanyWesternBuddhistteachers
intheirbeliefthatifatenetoftheperennialphilosophydoesn’texistinthe
Dhamma,theyaredoingtheDhammaafavorbyaddingittothemix.
BecausemanysuchtenetsareactuallyderivedfromRomanticreligion,this
isonemorewayinwhichThePerennialPhilosophyhaspromotedthe
obscurationoftheDhammaandtheriseofBuddhistRomanticisminits
place.
THECUMULATIVETRANSMISSION
Aswenotedatthebeginningofthischapter,veryfewpeoplestillread
theearlyRomantics.However,thetransmittersofRomanticreligion
surveyedinthischapter—especiallyEmerson,James,Jung,Maslow,and
Huxley—arestillwidelyreadforinspiration.Atthesametime,theyhave
exertedaninfluenceonthefieldsofliterature,thepsychologyofreligion,
thehistoryofreligion,andthediscourseofperennialphilosophy—fields
thattoagreaterorlesserextentareaccordedrespectinourculture.Thisis
whytheideasofRomanticreligionhavenotonlysurvivedintothepresent
day,buthavedonesowithameasureofauthority.
AndwhenwelookatthepremisesofRomanticreligionthatthese
authoritieshavetransmitted,wefindthatalmostallthedefiningfeaturesof
Romanticreligionhavesurvivedintact,beginningwiththeRomanticview
ontheprimequestionraisedbyreligion—therelationshipbetweenthe
individualandthecosmos—andtheanswertothatquestion:thatthe
individualisanorganicpartofthelargerorganismofthecosmos.Also
intactaretheRomanticideasabouttherebeingonereligiousexperience,
alongwiththenatureofthatexperience;thepsychologicalillnessthatthat
experienceheals;thewaythatexperienceistobecultivated;theresultsof
thatexperience;thestatusofreligioustextsasexpressionsoffeelings;and
thedutyofindividualstohelptheirreligionsevolve.
ThevariousRomanticpositionsontherelationshipamonginner
oneness,freedom,anddutyinanorganicuniversehavealsobeen
transmittedintact.EmersonfollowedSchlegelinassertingthedutytobe
freetoexpressone’sintuitionswithoutbeingconfinedbysociety’srules,
andtofollowthoseintuitionsastheychangeovertime;Jung,like
265
Hölderlin,assertedthedutytoallowone’saestheticintuitionstogovern
one’ssearchforthepeaceofinnerintegration;HegelandHuxleyfollowed
Schellinginassertingone’sdutytoabandonone’sindividualwillinfavor
oftheuniversalwill.
TransmittersofRomanticreligionhavealsotransmittedtheparadoxat
theheartofRomanticreligion:Ontheonehand,itassertstheindividual’s
completefreedomtocreatehisorherownreligion,areligionthatnoone
elseisinapositiontojudge.Emersonistheprimeexponentofthissideof
theparadox.Ontheotherhand,Romanticreligionproposesanobjective
standardforjudgingreligiousviews,statingthatindividualsarefreeto
createtheirownreligionsonlybecausetheyareanorganicpartofa
monistic,vitalisticcosmos.Thisviewofthecosmos,intheireyes,isthe
mostadvanced—andthusobjectivelythebest—worldviewthatareligion
canteach.MaslowandHuxleyaretheprimeexponentsofthissecondside
oftheparadox.
Infact,amongthe20thcenturythinkerswehaveconsidered,onlyone
principleofRomanticreligioncannotbeexplicitlyfound:theideathatthe
immanentorganicunityoftheuniverseisinfinite.Huxleycomesclose,but
hisinfinityisultimatelytranscendent,inthatpartofitliesbeyondtimeand
space.ThisgapinthetransmissionofRomanticreligion,however,isnota
majorone.Theinfinitudeoftheuniverse,fortheRomantics,meant
ultimatelythatitspurposecouldnotbefathomed,anideathatremains
commoninourcultureforotherreasons.Soforallpracticalpurposes,the
traditionofRomanticreligionisstillintact.AndalthoughBuddhist
Romanticismfollowsthe20thcenturytransmittersofRomanticreligionin
dropping“infinite”fromitsdescriptionofuniversalorganicunity,it
followstheRomanticsinseeingtheultimatepurposeofthatunityaslying
beyondthepowersofthehumanmindtofathom.
SomeofthetransmittersofRomanticreligionhaveintroducedafew
innovationsinthetradition.EmersonandJames,forinstance,have
redefinedauthenticityinmoral,ratherthanaestheticterms,although
Emerson’sapproachtomoralitymeantthatthisconceptretaineditssense
ofbeingauthentictooneself—inallone’sinconsistencies—andnottoany
consistentprinciplesofreason.
Also,differenttransmittershaveaddedtheirownvariationstothe
alreadyvariedRomanticideasofwhatinnerintegrationmeans.Aswe
notedinChapterFour,theearlyRomanticsregardedinnerintegrationasa
266
matterofreestablishingunitytohealtwoinnersplits:betweenthebody
andmindontheonehand,andbetweenreasonandfeelingontheother.As
thetransmittersofRomanticreligionbroughttheseideasintothepresent,
someofthem—suchasJungandMaslow—weremoreexplicitthanothers
indiscussingtheunityofbodyandmind.All,however,offeredtheirown
ideasofwhatunitywithinthemindmightbeandhowitmightbefound.
ForEmerson,itmeantstayingtruetoone’sintuitions,wherevertheymight
lead;forJames,itmeantdevelopingacoherentwill,givingordertoone’s
overallaimsinlife.ForJung,innerunitymeantopeningadialogueamong
theego,thepersonalunconscious,andthecollectiveunconscious.For
Maslow,innerunitywasanaffairofunitiveconsciousness,whichhe
definedintermsreminiscentofNovalis:theabilitytoseetheordinary
affairsoftheworldassacred.Huxleyalsodefinedinnerunityasunitive
consciousness,butforhimthisconceptmeantamodeofknowinginwhich
knowerandknownareone.Inotherwords,innerunitymeantseeingone’s
unitywiththeworldoutside.
WhatthismeansisthattheRomanticideaofinneronenesshascometo
carryawidevarietyofmeanings—sowidethatit’spossibletosayinner
onenessto,say,tenpeopleandforthemtoheartendifferentpositivethings.
ThisfuzzinessintheconcepthaslivedoninBuddhistRomanticism.
Yettheprocessoftransmissionhasbroughtaboutstillanotherchangein
RomanticreligionthathashadanevenmoreimportanteffectonBuddhist
Romanticism.ThatisthechangeeffectedbyJamesandJung.Bothofthese
thinkersshowedthateventhoughRomanticthoughtoriginallydepended
onaparticularviewofthephysicaluniverse,manyRomanticprinciples
aboutthepsychologicalvalueofreligioncouldsurviveevenwhenthe
dominantparadigminthephysicalscienceschanged.Toallowforthis
survival,bothmenhadtoreinterpretthem,notasprinciplesbuiltintothe
fabricofthecosmos,butasprinciplesusefulfromaphenomenological
pointofview:solvingtheproblemsofconsciousnessasfeltfromwithin.
However,neitherJamesnorJung,despitetheirbroadmindedness,tested
alternativeprinciplesforachievingpsychologicalhealth,suchasthose
offeredbytheDhamma,mostlikelybecausetheywerenotawarethatthese
alternativesmightexist.Theysimplypickeduptheprinciplesthat—both
fromthelimitedperspectiveoftheirpersonalreligiousexperienceandin
thelimitedrangeoftheWesternphilosophicalandreligioustradition—
seemedmostusefulfortheirpurposes.Thelimitsoftheirpersonal
267
experiencecanbeseeninthat,althoughtheyextolledasenseofOnenessas
areligiousgoal,neitherofthemattainedthatOnenesstothepointwhere
theycouldassessitsworthinessasagoal.Thelimitsofthematerialthey
wereworkingwithcanbeseenmostclearlyintheirunderstandingofwhat
religiousexperiencesmightbepossible,andwhatkindoffreedomorhealth
couldbederivedfromthoseexperiences.Theideaofanabsolutefreedom,
attainedonceandforall,laybeyondtheirconceptionofwhatahuman
mindcoulddo.Theydidn’trealizethatthevarietiesofactualreligious
experiencewereactuallymorevariousthantheVarietieswouldsuggest.
TheoveralleffectoftheirworkwasthatRomanticpsychological
principlestookonalifeoftheirown.Cutloosefromtheiroriginal
metaphysicalmoorings,theybecameembeddedasaxiomsinthefieldof
psychology,butwithouthavingtheirassumptionscarefullyscrutinizedor
adequatelytestedagainstthewiderrangeofreligiousexperiencesinnonWesterncultures.Thishasallowedmanypeopletoadopttheprinciplesof
Romanticreligionwithoutbeingawareoftheirdeeperimplications,ofthe
assumptionsthatunderliethem,oroftheirhistoryintheRomantic
movement.AndbecauseRomanticreligionregardsreligionnotasabody
oftruthsandskillstobetested,butasanevolvingexpressiveart,theextent
towhichpeopleareawarethattheyarechangingtheDhammaastheyfitit
intoaWesternmold,theyjustifywhattheyaredoingasGood.
ThesearesomeofthereasonswhyBuddhistRomanticismhasbeen
developedbypeoplewhoarelargelyignorantoftheRomanticsandofthe
assumptionsonwhichRomanticviewsarebased.TofreetheDhamma
fromRomanticdistortions,thisignorancehastobeaddressed.Thefirst,
threefoldstep—identifyingtheprinciplesofRomanticreligion,their
sourcesinourculturalhistory,andtheirtransmissiontothepresent—has
nowbeencompleted.Theremainingstep,whichwewilltakeinthenext
chapter,isalsothreefold:
1)toidentifythewaysinwhichRomanticreligionhasfoundexpression
inBuddhistRomanticism;
2)tounderstandsomeofthefactorsinmodernculturethatincline
peopletofindthoseexpressionsattractive;and
3)tocomparethoseexpressionswiththeactualDhammasoastoassess
thepracticalconsequencesofchoosingBuddhistRomanticismoverthe
Dhamma.
268
Onlywhenthesethreetopicshavebeencoveredwillpeopleinsearchof
apathtotheendofsufferingbeabletomakeaninformedchoice,clearon
thefactthatthechoicedoesmatter,andthatmuchcanbelostbychoosing
thelesseffectivealternative.
269
CHAPTERSEVEN
BuddhistRomanticism
BuddhistRomanticismisaresultofaverynaturalhumantendency:
Whenpresentedwithsomethingforeignandnew,peopletendtoseeitin
termswithwhichtheyalreadyarefamiliar.Oftentheyaretotallyunaware
thattheyaredoingthis.Ifemotionallyattachedtotheirfamiliarwayof
viewingthings,theywillpersistinholdingtoitevenwhenshownthatthey
areseeingonlytheirownmythsandprojections,ratherthanwhatis
actuallythere.
Inmostareasoflife,thistendencyisrightlyregardedasaformof
blindness,somethingtobeovercome.However,inthetransmissionofthe
DhammatotheWest,evenwhenpeopleareawarethattheyarereshaping
theDhammaastheystudyandteachit,theRomanticprinciplethatreligion
isanartform—creatingmythsinanever-changingdialoguewitheverchanginghumanneeds—inclinesthemtoregardthistendencyasnotonly
naturalbutalsogood.Inextremecases,theybelievethattherereallyis
nothing“actuallythere.”Intheireyes,theDhammaitselfisabodyof
myths,andtheyaredoingitafavorbyprovidingitwithnewmythsinstep
withthetimes.Thereisverylittlerecognitionthatsomethingcrucialand
trueisbeinglost.
Granted,therearesomepointsonwhichRomanticreligionandthe
Dhammaagree.Bothseereligionasameansforcuringaspiritualdisease;
bothregardthemindashavinganactive,interactiveroleintheworld,
shapingtheworldasitisbeingshapedbytheworld;bothfocusonthe
phenomenologyofexperience—consciousnessasitisdirectlysensed,from
within,asaprimarysourceofknowledge;andbothrejectadeterministicor
mechanicalviewofcausalityinfavorofamoreinteractiveone.Butthese
pointsofsimilaritydisguisedeeperdifferencesthatcanberecognizedonly
whenthelargerstructuraldifferencesseparatingtheDhammafrom
Romanticreligionaremadeclear.
Thosedifferences,inturn,willbeacknowledgedonlywhenpeoplecan
seethattheRomanticviewpointisactuallygettinginthewayoftheirwell270
being,preventingthemfromgainingthemostfromtheirencounterwith
theDhamma.
Thusthepurposeofthischapteristhreefold.Thefirstpurposeisto
demonstratethatwhatisoftentaughtandacceptedasBuddhisminthe
WestisactuallyRomanticreligiondressedupinBuddhistgarb.Inother
words,thebasicstructureofmodernBuddhismisactuallyRomantic,with
Buddhistelementsreshapedsoastofitintotheconfinesofthatstructure.
Thisiswhy,aswenotedintheIntroduction,thistendencyisbestreferred
toasBuddhistRomanticism,ratherthanRomanticBuddhism.
ThesecondpurposeistogainsomedistancefromtheseRomantic
assumptionsbyunderstandingwhytheyholdattractions—andseeingthat
theirattractionsaredangerous,fosteringanattitudeofheedlessnessthat
theDhammacitesastheprimaryreasonformakingharmfulandunskillful
choicesinlife.
Thethirdpurposeistoexpandonthislastpoint,showingthepractical
implicationsofforcingtheDhammaintoaRomanticmold.Amaintenetof
BuddhistRomanticismisonethatcanbetracedbacktoHölderlin:thatyour
choiceofareligiouspathispurelyamatteroftaste,andthatwhatever
makesyoufeelgood,peaceful,orwholeatanygivenmomentisperfectly
valid.Ultimately,itdoesn’treallymatterwhatyoubelieve,asallbeliefsare
equallyinadequateexpressionsofafeelingofOneness.Allthatmattersis
learninghowtousethosebeliefstoachievetheircommongoal,a
temporarybutpersonallyveryrealimpressionoftheOnenessofallBeing.
FromtheperspectiveoftheDhamma,though,beliefsarenotjust
feelings.Theyareaformofaction.Actionshaveconsequencesbothwithin
andwithout,andit’simportanttobeclearthatyourchoicesdomakea
difference,particularlywhenyourealizethattheDhammadoesnotaimat
afeelingofOneness,andregardsOnenessasonlyasteptoahighergoal:
totalfreedom.Togenuinelybenefitfromyourpowersofchoiceandfrom
thepossibilityofthishighergoal,youoweittoyourselftounderstandthe
practicalimplicationsofholdingtodifferentsystemsofbelief.
Becauseitspurposeisthreefold,themainbodyofthischapterisdivided
intothreemainsections.Thefirstsectiondocumentstheexistenceof
Romanticviewsinthetalksandwritingsofmodernteachers.Atthesame
time,itshowshowtheseviewsderivefromthequestionandanswerthat
providethebasicstructureforRomanticspirituality—andthusthe
structureforBuddhistRomanticism.Thesecondsectiondiscussessomeof
271
thepossiblereasonswhyBuddhistRomanticismholdsanappealforthe
modernworld,andwhythatappealissomethingtoregardwithdistrust.
ThethirdsectionthencontraststheprinciplesofBuddhistRomanticism
withtheDhamma,pointingoutsomeofthewaysinwhichthechoiceof
oneovertheotherleadstoradicallydifferentresults.
Thebodyofthechapteristhenfollowedbyaclosingsectionthat
attemptstodrawsomeconclusionsfromtheprecedingthree.
VOICESOFBUDDHISTROMANTICISM
BuddhistRomanticismissopervasiveinthemodernunderstandingof
theDhammathatitisbestapproached,notastheworkofspecific
individuals,butasaculturalsyndrome:ageneralpatternofbehaviorin
whichmodernDhammateachersandtheiraudiencesbothshare
responsibilityforinfluencingoneanother—theteachers,byhowtheytryto
explainandpersuade;theaudiences,bywhatthey’reinclinedtoacceptor
reject.
Thus,thissectionquotespassagesfrommodernDhammabooks,
articles,interviews,andtalkstoillustratethevariousfeaturesofRomantic
religioncontainedinmodernDhamma,butwithoutidentifyingtheauthors
ofthepassagesbyname.Idothisasawayoffollowingtheexamplesetby
theBuddha:Whendiscussingtheteachingsofhiscontemporariestononmonasticaudiences,hewouldquotetheirteachingsbutwithoutnaming
theteachers(DN1;MN60;MN102),thepurposebeingtofocusattention
notonthepersonbutontheteaching.Inthatwayhecoulddiscussthe
reasoningbehindtheteaching,andtheconsequencesoffollowingthe
teaching,allthewhilefocusedonshowinghowthesepointsweretrue
regardlessofwhoespousedtheteaching.
Inthesameway,Iwanttofocusattention,notonindividualswhomay
advocateBuddhistRomanticideas,butontheculturalsyndromethey
express,alongwiththepracticalconsequencesoffollowingthatsyndrome.
It’smoreimportanttoknowwhatBuddhistRomanticismisthantoknow
whohasbeenespousingitortoenterintofruitlessdebatesabouthow
RomanticaparticularBuddhistteacherhastobeinordertodeservethe
label,“BuddhistRomantic.”Byfocusingdirectlyonthesyndrome,youcan
thenlearntorecognizeitwhereveritappearsinthefuture.
Someoftheteachersquotedherearelay;others,monastic.Somemake
272
anefforttoshapetheirRomanticideasintoacoherentworldview;others
don’t.Some—and,ironically,theseareamongthemostconsistently
Romanticintheirownthought—misunderstandRomanticismtobenothing
butanti-scientificemotionalismoregotism,andsohaveexplicitly
denouncedit.ButthetendencytoRomanticizetheDhammaispresent,at
leasttosomeextent,inthemall.
WewillfollowthetwentypointsdefiningRomanticreligionlistedatthe
endofChapterFour.However,becausemanyofthepassagesquotedhere
coverseveralpointsatonce,thosepointswillbediscussedtogether.Some
ofthepointshavebeenrephrasedtoreflectthefact,notedinthepreceding
chapter,thatBuddhistRomanticismhasfollowedsuchthinkersasJames,
Jung,andMaslowindroppingtheideaofinfinityfromitsviewofthe
universe.Otherwise,onlyPoint18intheoriginallistisnotexplicitly
presentintheTheravādaversionofBuddhistRomanticism,althoughitis
stronglyexplicitintheMahāyānaone.Still—aswewillsee—itissometimes
implicitinTheravādaRomanticismtoo.
ThesearetheprinciplesbywhichBuddhistRomanticismcanbe
recognized:
Thefirstthreeprinciplesgotogether,astheydescribeboththebasic
questionthattheDhammaissaidtoanswer,andtheansweritissaidto
provide.
1)Theobjectofreligionisnottheendofsuffering,buttherelationshipof
humanitywiththeuniverse.
2)Theuniverseisavastorganicunity.
3)Eachhumanbeingisbothanindividualorganismandapartofthevast
organicunityoftheuniverse.
“[W]iththespiritualpath,whatweareaimingatistopenetrate
thequestionofwhatweare.”
“Accordingtotheworld’sgreatspiritualtraditionsandperennial
philosophy,bothEastandWest,thecriticalquestionthateachofus
mustaskourselvesis‘WhoamI?’Ourresponseisofvitalimportance
toourhappinessandwell-being.Howateasewefeelinourbody,
mind,andintheworld,aswellashowwebehavetowardothersand
theenvironmentallrevolvearoundhowwecometoviewourselves
273
inthelargerschemeofthings.…
“Insteadofasking‘WhoamI?’thequestioncouldbecome‘Who
arewe?’Ourinquirythenbecomesacommunitykoan,ajoint
millennialproject,andweallimmediatelybecomegreatsaints—
calledBodhisattvasinBuddhism—helpingeachotherevolve.”
“Thegoal[ofDhammapractice]isintegration,throughloveand
acceptance,opennessandreceptivity,leadingtoaunifiedwholeness
ofexperiencewithouttheartificialboundariesofseparateselfhood.”
Thisvisionofourplaceintheuniverseispresentednotonlyasa
religiousidealbutalsoasascientificfact.
“Ironically,thedividingintellect—initsincarnationasmodern
science—isshowingusouronenesswithallthings.Thephysicists
havefoundevidencethatwearesubatomicallyjoinedatthehipto
absolutelyeverythingelseincreation…Theevolutionaryscientists
tellusastoryofouremergencefromalonglineageofbeingsinwhat
seemslikeamiraculousprocessofbubbling,twitching,struggling
life,recreatingitselfasitinteractivelyadjuststotheever-changing
conditionsofearthecology…[I]fwecouldsomehowintegrateour
knowledgeofinterconnectionandletitinfuseourlives—thatwould
markarevolutioninbothconsciousnessandbehavior.Ifwecould
experienceourexistenceaspartofthewondrousprocessesof
biologicalandcosmicevolution,ourliveswouldgainnewmeaning
andjoy.”
“Whathappensforustheniswhateverymajorreligionhassought
tooffer—ashiftinidentification,ashiftfromtheisolated‘I’toanew,
vastersenseofwhatweare.Thisisunderstandablenotonlyasa
spiritualexperience,butalso,inscientificterms,asanevolutionary
development.Aslivingformsevolveonthisplanet,wemovenot
onlyinthedirectionofdiversification,buttowardintegrationaswell.
Indeed,thesetwomovementscomplementandenhanceeachother.
…Ifweareallbodhisattvas,itisbecausethatthrusttoconnect,that
capacitytointegratewithandthrougheachother,isourtruenature.”
Ingivingprimeimportancetoquestionsoftherelationshipbetweenself
andworld,BuddhistRomanticismtakesbasicBuddhistteachings—even
those,suchasdependentco-arising,thataremeanttocutthrough
274
questionsofself-identityandbecoming—andinterpretsthemasifthey
wereananswertothequestion,“Whatismyself?Whatismyidentityin
relationshiptotheworld?”Andtheanswerbecomes:Ouridentityisfluid
andtotallyimbeddedwiththerestoftheworld;itfindsitsmeaningaspart
oftheevolutionofalllife.
Lifeasawhole,inthiscase,takesontheroleofSchelling’sWorldSoul
andEmerson’sOver-Soul.Itsevolutionisseenaspurposeful.Individuals,
asexpressionsoflife,canfindmeaninginhelpingthatpurposebeachieved
harmoniously.
“TheDharmavisionofaco-arisingworld,alivewith
consciousness,isapowerfulinspirationforthehealingoftheEarth.
…Itshowsusourprofoundimbeddednessintheweboflife.…I
havebeendeeplyinspiredbytheBuddha’steachingofdependentcoarising.Itfillsmewithastrongsenseofconnectionandmutual
responsibilitywithallbeings.”
“Theaimofallgreatspiritualtraditionsistoofferusrelieffrom
thedramasofselfandhistory,toremindusthatwearepartofmuch
granderprojectsthanthese.Inthatsense,Isuggestthatexperiencing
ourselvesaspartofbiologicalevolutioncanbeunderstoodasa
completespiritualpath.Thefantasticstoryofevolvinglifeand
consciousnesscontainsasmanymiraclesasanybibleandasmuch
majestyasanypantheonofdivinities.Thedramaofearthlife’s
creativeexpressionandthepuzzleofwhereitmightbeleadingcan
filluswithenoughsuspenseandwondertolastatleastalifetime.
Andtheideathatwearepartofitsunfoldingcanofferusmeaning
andpurpose.”
SometeachersechoEmerson’simageoftheuniversaloceanoflifeasa
symboloftheanswertolife’sprimespiritualquestion.
“Itisthegoalofspirituallifetoopentotherealitythatexists
beyondoursmallsenseofself.Throughthegateofonenesswe
awakentotheoceanwithinus,wecometoknowinyetanotherway
thattheseasweswiminarenotseparatefromallthatlives.When
ouridentityexpandstoincludeeverything,wefindapeacewiththe
danceoftheworld.Itisallours,andourheartisfullandempty,
largeenoughtoembraceitall.”
275
* * *
Thenexttwoprinciplestreatthenatureofthebasicspiritualillnessthat
BuddhistRomanticismproposestotreatinlightofitsanswertothe
spiritualquestion,andthemeditativeexperiencethathelpstocurethat
illness.
4)Humanbeingssufferwhentheirsenseofinnerandouterunityislost—when
theyfeeldividedwithinthemselvesandseparatedfromtheuniverse.
5)Despiteitsmanyexpressions,thereligiousexperienceisthesameforall:an
intuitionofOnenessthatcreatesafeelingofunitywiththeuniverseandafeeling
ofunitywithin.
BuddhistRomanticsoftenfollowtheearlyRomanticsbycitingadeep
connectionbetweenfindinginnerunityandouterunity:Innerunitycanbe
achievedbyreconnectingwiththeoutsideworld;outerunity,by
reconnectinginside.
“Becausemysenseofselfisanimpermanentpsychosocial
construct,withnorealityofitsown,itisalwaysinsecure,hauntedby
dukkha[suffering]aslongasIfeelseparatefromtheworldIinhabit.”
“Wecreateprisons,projections,self-limitations.Meditation
teachesustoletthemgoandrecognizeourtruenature:
completeness,integration,andconnectedness.Intouchwithour
wholeness,thereisnosuchthingasastranger,notinourselvesorin
others.”
Giventhattheuniverse,intheRomanticview,isalreadyaOneness,
BuddhistRomanticsneedtoexplainhowwelostthatsenseofOnenessto
beginwith.Thus,intheirview,theignorancecausingsufferingisnot—as
intheBuddha’sdefinition—anignoranceofthefournobletruths.Instead,
itisanignoranceoforiginalOneness.
“Throughthepowerofignoranceinthemind,werestrictand
narrowoursenseofwhoweareaswegofromanondualawareness
ofthewholenessoftheuniversethroughtheprogressivelevelsof
separation.Firstweseparatethemind/bodyfromtheenvironment
andlimitourselvesthroughidentifyingwiththeorganism.Thereis
thenafurthernarrowinginwhichweidentifywiththeego-mind.…
276
Finallytheminditselfbecomesfragmentedintothoseaspectswe
identifywithbecausetheyareacceptableinlightofourself-image,
andthosewerepressbecausetheyarenot.…Thepathofdharmaisto
healthesedivisions.”
“Wefeelalienation,separation,lackofwholeness;wefeel
incompletebecauseifthereis‘I,’thenthereis‘you’andweareapart,
thereisdistinctionandthereisseparation.Ifweseethroughthisand
wedissolvethebeliefinanabsoluteindividualexistence,thenthe
senseofseparationnaturallydissolvesbecauseithasnobasis.There
isarecognitionofwholeness.”
BuddhistRomanticwritingsontheissueofOnenessareoftenunspecific
enoughtolendthemselvestoanyoftheinterpretationsofthisconceptthat
theWesthasinheritedfromRomanticreligion—orfromothersources.
However,thefirstpassageaboveisanexampleofacommontendency
whenthesewritingsgetspecific:todefineOnenessintermsderivedfrom
Jung,asunityofbodyandmind,andunitybetweentheegoandits
shadow.
Inothercases,innerOnenessisdescribedintermsmorereminiscentof
Huxley:anon-dualconsciousnessinwhichthedistinctionbetweensubject
andobjectdissolves.
“Thisinsightleadsustoacontemplationofapparentsubjectand
object—howthetensionbetweenthetwogeneratestheworldof
thingsanditsexperiencer,andmoreimportantlyhow,whenthat
dualityisseenthrough,theheart’sliberationistheresult.…This
abandonmentofsubject/objectdualitiesislargelycontingentupon
thecorrectapprehensionoftheperceptualprocess,andthusthe
breakingdownoftheapparentinside/outsidedichotomyofthe
observerandtheobserved.”
BuddhistRomanticismholdsthatdiscoveryofapre-existingOneness
revealsourtrueidentity—sometimesequatedwiththeMahāyānaconcept
ofBuddhanature—andthatthisdiscoveryisanexperienceand
understandingatwhichallreligioustraditionsaim.
“Beneathourstrugglesandbeyondanydesiretodevelopself,we
candiscoverourBuddhanature,aninherentfearlessnessand
277
connectedness,integrity,andbelonging.Likegroundwaterthese
essentialqualitiesareourtruenature,manifestingwheneverweare
abletoletgoofourlimitedsenseofourselves,ourunworthiness,our
deficiency,andourlonging.Theexperienceofourtrueselfis
luminous,sacred,andtransforming.Thepeaceandperfectionofour
truenatureisoneofthegreatmysticalreflectionsofconsciousness
describedbeautifullyinahundredtraditions,byZenandTaoism,by
NativeAmericansandWesternmystics,andbymanyothers.”
* * *
6)Thisfeelingofunityishealingbuttotallyimmanent.Inotherwords,(a)itis
temporaryand(b)itdoesnotgivedirectexperienceofanytranscendent,
unconditioneddimensionoutsideofspaceandtime.
7)Anyfreedomofferedbythereligiousexperience—thehighestfreedompossible
inanorganicuniverse—thusdoesnottranscendthelawsoforganiccausation.Itis
conditionedandlimitedbyforceswithinandwithouttheindividual.
8)Becausethereligiousexperiencecangiveonlyatemporaryfeelingofunity,
religiouslifeisoneofpursuingrepeatedreligiousexperiencesinhopesofgaining
animprovedfeelingforthatunity,butneverfullyachievingit.
“Inthematurityofspirituallife,wemovefromthewisdomof
transcendencetothewisdomofimmanence.”
“Enlightenmentdoesexist.Itispossibletoawaken.Unbounded
freedomandjoy,onenesswiththeDivine,awakeningintoastateof
timelessgrace—theseexperiencesaremorecommonthanyouknow,
andnotfaraway.Thereisonefurthertruth,however:Theydon’t
last.”
“Therawmaterialofdharmapracticeisourselfandourworld,
whicharetobeunderstoodandtransformedaccordingtothevision
andvaluesofthedharmaitself.Thisisnotaprocessofself-orworldtranscendence,butoneofself-andworld-creation.”
“Awakeningiscalledthehighestpleasure(paramamsukham),but
thewordishardlyadequatetoexpressthisparamountconditionof
ultimatewell-being.Itisnotfreedomfromtheconditionsinwhichwe
findourselves(noeternalblissinthistradition)butitisfreedom
278
withinthem.Eventhoughthereisphysicalpain,wearecapableof
joy;eventhoughthereismentalsorrow,weareabletobewell;and
eventhoughwearepartofanimpermanent,self-lessflowof
phenomena,weareneverthelessabletofeelwhole,complete,and
deeplyhealthy.”
“TheBuddha’sThirdNobleTruth,andhismostsignificant
biologicalinsight,isthat…ashumansweareabletoseeintoour
primalreactivityandintheprocesslearnhowtoovercomesomeofit.
…
Mostofuswillnevergetthere,neverarriveatasteadystateof
‘happinesseverafter’or‘perfectwisdom.’Nature’soddsareagainst
it.Humansseemtobenovicesatself-realization.Andwhile
mindfulnessmeditationmaybeanevolutionarysport,likeevolution
itselfthegameisneverfinished.Onereasonisthatifweareindeed
evolving,thenwewillalwaysneedremedialtraininginselfawareness.”
InmaintainingtheimmanenceoftheBuddhistgoal,someauthorsnote
thatthePāliCanoncontainspassages—suchas §§46–50 —clearlyindicating
thatthegoalistranscendent,andthatthesepassagescontradictwhatthey
aresaying.Onecommonwayofdealingwiththisproblemistodismiss
suchpassagesas“rogue,”“lateradditions”totheCanoncomposedby
“neuroticmonks.”Anotheristotranslatethepassagesinsuchawayasto
mitigatetheirtranscendentimplications.
Theimmanenceofthegoal,accordingtoBuddhistRomanticism,is
nothingtoberegretted.Infact,itistobecelebratedasanexpressionofthe
infinitecreativityoflife.ThisisoneofthereasonsthatBuddhistRomantic
writings,asinoneoftheexamplesunderPoint3above,oftencomparethe
spirituallifetoadance.JustasthenovelprovidedtheearlyRomanticswith
anexampleofafree-formgenre,moderndancehasprovidedasimilar
exampleforBuddhistRomanticism.
“Wecanfindpeaceandfreedominthefaceofthemysteryoflife.
Inawakeningtothisharmony,wediscoveratreasurehiddenineach
difficulty.Hiddenintheinevitableimpermanenceandlossoflife,its
veryinstability,istheenormouspowerofcreativity.Intheprocessof
change,therearisesanabundanceofnewforms,newbirths,new
279
possibilities,newexpressionsofart,music,andlife-formsbythe
millions.Itisonlybecauseeverythingischangingthatsuchbountiful
andboundlesscreativityexists.”
“Ourmissionisnottoescapefromtheworld…buttofallinlove
withourworld.Wearemadeforthat,becauseweco-arisewithher—
inadancewherewediscoverourselvesandloseourselvesoverand
over.”
Theideathatnohumanbeingcanawakentoatranscendentdimension
issometimesinferredfromthefactthattheBuddhahimself,evenafterhis
awakening,keptencounteringMāra,theembodimentoftemptation.Inline
withsomemodernpsychologicaltheories,Māraisunderstoodherenotas
anactualnon-humanbeingbutasasymbolofthedefilementsstilllurking
intheBuddha’sheart.
“Unlesswearepreparedtoregardthedevilasaghostly
apparitionwhositsdownandhasconversationswithBuddha,we
cannotbutunderstandhimasametaphoricwayofdescribing
Buddha’sowninnerlife.AlthoughBuddhaissaidtohave
‘conqueredtheforcesofMara’onachievingawakening,thatdidnot
preventMarafromharassinghimuntilshortlybeforehisdeathforty
yearslater.Mara’stirelesseffortstoundermineBuddhabyaccusing
himofinsincerity,self-deception,idleness,arroganceandaloofness
arewaysofdescribingthedoubtswithinBuddha’sownmind.”
“Nomatterwhatversion[oftheBuddha’sawakening]weread,
Maradoesnotgoaway.Thereisnostateofenlightenedretirement,
noexperienceofawakeningthatplacesusoutsidethetruthof
change.…Allspirituallifeexistsinanalternationofgainandloss,
pleasureandpain.”
Inothercases,theimmanentviewofawakeningissimplyassertedas
superiortothetranscendent,which—theargumentgoes—isdualisticand
tendstofosterindifferencetotheworldatatimewhentheworldisin
urgentneedofourloveandattention.
“Buddhismalsodualizesinsofarasthisworldofsamsarais
distinguishedfromnirvana.…thecontrastbetweenthetwoworlds
280
inevitablyinvolvessomedevaluationofthelowerone:sowearetold
thatthisrealmofsamsaraisaplaceofsuffering,craving,and
delusion…theultimategoalisindividualsalvation,whichinvolves
transcendingthislowerworldbydoingwhatisnecessarytoqualify
forthehigherone…
“Buddhistsdon’taimatheaven:wewanttoawaken.Butforus,
too,salvationisindividual:yes,Ihopeyouwillbecomeenlightened
also,butultimatelymyhighestwell-being—myenlightenment—is
distinctfromyours.Orsowehavebeentaught.…
“Needlesstosay,thatisnotanadequateresponse[totheecocrisis].”
“Notionshavearisen,andevenbeenascribedtotheBuddha…that
sufferingisaspiritualmistake…Theseerrorshaveperpetuatedthe
popularstereotypeofBuddhismasaworld-denyingreligion,offering
escapefromthisrealmofsufferingintosomeabstract,disembodied
heaven.…
“ThegateoftheDharmadoesnotclosebehindustosecureusina
cloisteredexistencealooffromtheturbulenceandsufferingof
samsara,somuchasitleadsusoutintoalifeofriskforthesakeofall
beings.”
* * *
9)Althoughthereligiousexperienceisnottranscendent,itdoescarrywithitan
abilitytoseethecommonplaceeventsoftheimmanentworldassublimeand
miraculous.Infact,thisabilityisasignoftheauthenticityofone’ssenseofunity
withthelargerwhole.
“Toknowourselvesasemergingfromearthlifedoesn’tinanyway
denyourdivinity:itonlyseemstodenyourexclusivedivinity.The
sacredisalivenotjustinus,buteverywhere.”
“Inrelinquishingtheobsessionofbeinganisolatedself,Buddha
openshimselffearlesslyandcalmlytothetumultofthesublime.”
“Fearofbeingunspiritualputsupwalls,isolatesourheartfrom
living,dividestheworldsothatpartofitisseenasnotholy.These
interiorboundariesmustbedissolved.Thereisanunderlyingunity
281
toallthings.Allarepartofasacredwholeinwhichweexistandin
thedeepestwaytheyarecompletelytrustworthy.”
* * *
10)(a)Peoplehaveaninnatedesireandaptitudeforthereligiousexperience,
andcaninduceitbycultivatinganattitudeofopenreceptivitytotheuniverse.
“Opennessleadstointimacywithallthings.”
“Whenthemindisallowedtorestinthatsenseofcompleteclarity
andchoicelessness,wefindthatitisbeyonddualism—nolonger
makingpreferencesorbeingbiasedtowardsthisoverthat.Itis
restingatthepointofequipoise,wherethisandthatandblackand
whiteandwhereyouandIallmeet;thespacewherealldualities
arisefromandwheretheydissolve.”
“Thisunity,thisintegration,comesfromdeeplyaccepting
darknessandlight,andthereforebeingabletobeinboth
simultaneously.Wemustmakeashiftfromoneworldviewto
another,movingfromtryingtocontroltheuncontrollableandinstead
learnhowtoconnect,toopen,tolovenomatterwhatishappening.”
“Justasawaiterattendstotheneedsofthoseatthetableheserves,
soonewaitswithunknowingastonishmentatthequixoticplayof
life.Insubordinatinghisownwantstothoseofthecustomer,awaiter
abandonsanyexpectationofwhathemaybenextcalledtodo.
Constantlyalertandreadytorespond,theoddestrequestdoesnot
fazehim.Heneitherignoresthoseheservesnorappearsatthewrong
time.Heisinvisiblebutalwaystherewhenneeded.Likewise,in
asking‘Whatisthisthing?’onedoesnotstrainaheadofoneselfin
anticipationofaresult.Onewaitsateaseforaresponseonecannot
foreseeandthatmightnevercome.Themostonecan‘do’isremain
optimallyreceptiveandalert.”
“Asweopentowhatisactuallyhappeninginanygivenmoment,
whateveritisormightbe,ratherthanrunningawayfromit,we
becomeincreasinglyawareofourlivesasonesmallpartofavast
fabricmadeofanevanescent,fleeting,shimmeringpatternof
turnings.Lettinggoofthefutilebattletocontrol,wecanfind
282
ourselvesrewovenintothepatternofwholeness,intotheimmensity
oflife,alwayshappening,alwayshere,whetherwe’reawareofitor
not.”
Thisattitudeofacceptanceissaidtobedevelopedthroughmindfulness
practice,which—contrarytotheBuddha’sdefinitionofmindfulnessasa
functionofactivememory—isheredefinedasbareattention:anopen,
receptive,pre-verbalawarenessofallthingsastheyimpingeonthesenses.
“Mindfulnessisbestdescribedas‘anoninterfering,non-reactive
awareness.’Itispureknowing,withoutanyoftheprojectionsofour
egoorpersonalityaddedtotheknowing.”
“Mindfulnessispresenceofmind,attentivenessorawareness.Yet
thekindofawarenessinvolvedinmindfulnessdiffersprofoundly
fromthekindofawarenessatworkinourusualmodeof
consciousness.…Themindisdeliberatelykeptatthelevelofbare
attention,adetachedobservationofwhatishappeningwithinusand
aroundusinthepresentmoment.Inthepracticeofrightmindfulness
themindistrainedtoremaininthepresent,open,quiet,andalert,
contemplatingthepresentevent.Alljudgementsandinterpretations
havetobesuspended,oriftheyoccur,justregisteredanddropped.
Thetaskissimplytonotewhatevercomesupjustasitisoccurring,
ridingthechangesofeventsinthewayasurferridesthewaveson
thesea.”
* * *
10)(b)Becausereligionisamatteroftaste,thereisnoonepathfordeveloping
thisattitudeofreceptivity.Themostthatanyteachercanofferarehisorherown
opinionsonthematter,intheeventthattheywillresonatewithotherpeople.In
fact,therefusaltofollowanyprescribedpathisasignofauthenticityinEmerson’s
senseoftheword.
“Noonecandefineforusexactlywhatourpathshouldbe.”
“Tooptforacomforting,evenadiscomforting,explanationof
whatbroughtushereorwhatawaitsusafterdeathseverelylimits
thatveryraresenseofmysterywithwhichreligionisessentially
concerned.…[I]fmyactionsintheworldaretostemfroman
283
authenticencounterwithwhatismostvitalandmysteriousinlife,
thentheysurelyneedtobeuncloudedbyeitherdogmaor
prevarication.…
“Asfarasanyoneknows,wearealoneinaninconceivablyvast
cosmosthathasnointerestatallinourfate.Evenifotherworldslike
thisexistelsewhereinthecosmos,theywouldnotbemererepetitions
oftheawesomelycomplexconfigurationofbiological,culturaland
psychologicalconditionsthataregeneratingthisworldnow.The
paththathasledyouhereandbeckonsyouintoanunknownfuture
haslikewiseneverappearedinexactlythiswaybeforeandwillnot
dosoagain.Youarefreetogostraightahead,turnrightorturnleft.
Nothingisstoppingyou.”
* * *
11)Oneofthemanywaystocultivateareceptivitytoallthingsisthrough
eroticlove.
“Theseparationofthespiritualfromthesensual,ofthesacred
fromtherelationalandoftheenlightenedfromtheeroticnolonger
seemsdesirable.Certainlyseeinghowimpossiblethedivisionhas
provenforthecountlessspiritualteachersofeverytraditionwho
havestumbledovertheirownlongingshasbeeninstructive.In
addition,havingafamilyandarelationshiphasmadeitabundantly
cleartomethattheyrequirethesamededication,passionandvision
thataspirituallifedemands.Nowthatspirituallifeisinthehandsof
householdersratherthanmonastics,thedemandsofdesirearefront
andcenter,nothiddenfromview.”
“Buddhisttextsarefilledwithstoriesabouttheimpuritiesofthe
body,justlikethoseyouwouldfindintheCatholicChurch.Andso
thereisalotofconfusion,becausethebodyisn’tseenasavehiclefor
sacredness,butmoreassomethingtotranscend.Inthelay
community,wearenottaughthowtomakeitadeliberatepartofour
practice,guidedintomakingsexualactivityawisepartofourlife.
Butthebodycouldbe,andit’stimeforit.Sexualitycanopenus
beyondourselves,tograce,ecstasy,communion,oneness,and
naturalsamadhi.Letusteachsexualityasadomainofpracticeand
healthinsteadofarealmofpathologyoranti-spirituality.”
284
* * *
12)Anotherwaytocultivateareceptivitytoallthingsistodevelopatolerance
ofallreligiousexpressions,viewingthemaesthetically,asfiniteexpressionsofa
feelingforthelargerwhole,withoutgivingauthoritytoanyofthem.Inother
words,oneshouldreadthemasSchlegelrecommendedreadinganovel:
empathetically,butatthesametimemaintainingasenseofdistancesoasnottobe
confinedbytheirpointofview.
“Theexperienceofwholenesswillexpressitselfinmanyways.
Thespiritualjourneydoesnotpresentuswithapatformulaforeach
ofustofollow.WecannotbeMotherTheresaorGandhiorthe
Buddha.Wehavetobeourselves.Wehavetodiscoverandconnect
withourownuniqueexpressionofthetruth.Todothat,wemust
learntolistentoandtrustourselves,tofindourpathofheart.”
“Religionandphilosophyhavetheirvalue,butintheendallwe
candoisopentomystery.”
* * *
13)Infact,thegreatestreligioustexts,ifgrantedtoomuchauthority,are
actuallyharmfultogenuinespiritualprogress.
“Theimageswehavebeentaughtaboutperfectioncanbe
destructivetous.Insteadofclingingtoaninflated,superhumanview
ofperfection,welearntoallowourselvesthespaceofkindness.”
* * *
14)Becausethemindisanorganicpartofthecreativelyexpressivewhole,it,
too,iscreativelyexpressive,soitsnaturalresponsetoafeelingofthelargerwhole
istowanttoexpressit.
15)However,becausethemindisfinite,anyattempttodescribetheexperience
ofthelargerwholeislimitedbyone’sfinitemodeofthought,andalsobyone’s
temperamentandculture.Thus,religiousstatementsandtextsarenotdescriptive
ofreality,butsimplyanexpressionoftheeffectofthatrealityonaparticular
person’sindividualnature.Asexpressionsoffeelings,religiousstatementsdonot
needtobeclearorconsistent.Theyshouldbereadaspoetryandmythspointingto
theinexpressiblewholeandspeakingprimarilytothefeelings.
285
16)Becausereligiousteachingsareexpressiveonlyofoneindividual’sfeelings,
theyhavenoauthorityoveranyotherperson’sexpressionofhisorherfeelings.
“[A]lltheteachingsofbooks,maps,andbeliefshavelittletodo
withwisdomorcompassion.Atbesttheyareasignpost,afinger
pointingatthemoon,ortheleftoverdialoguefromatimewhen
someonereceivedsometruespiritualnourishment.…Wemust
discoverwithinourselvesourownwaytobecomeconscious,tolivea
lifeofthespirit.”
“Eventhemostcreative,world-transformingindividualscannot
standontheirownshoulders.Theytooremaindependentupontheir
culturalcontext,whetherintellectualorspiritual—whichisprecisely
whatBuddhism’semphasisonimpermanenceandcausal
interdependenceimplies.TheBuddhaalsoexpressedhisnew,
liberatinginsightintheonlywayhecould,usingthereligious
categoriesthathisculturecouldunderstand.Inevitably,then,hisway
ofexpressingthedharmawasablendofthetrulynew…andthe
conventionalreligiousthoughtofhistime.Althoughthenew
transcendstheconventional…thenewcannotimmediatelyand
completelyescapetheconventionalwisdomitsurpasses.”
“It’sneveramatteroftryingtofigureitallout,ratherwepickup
thesephrasesandchewthemover,tastethem,digestthemandlet
themenergizeusbyvirtueoftheirownnature.”
“Eventheseostensiblyliteralmapsmaybebetterreadasifthey
wereakindofpoem,richinpossiblemeanings.”
* * *
17)Althoughareligiousfeelingmayinspireadesiretoformulaterulesof
behavior,thoserulescarrynoauthority,andareactuallyunnecessary.Whenone
seesallofhumanityasholyandone—andoneselfasanorganicpartofthatholy
Oneness—thereisnoneedforrulestogovernone’sinteractionswiththerestof
society.One’sbehaviortowardallnaturallybecomeslovingandcompassionate.
BuddhistRomanticexplanationsofmoralitycanfolloweitherofthe
patternssetbytheRomantics:thatmoralityderivesfromone’ssenseof
beingpartofalargerwhole,orfromtheinspirationswellingupfrom
286
withinone’sownawareness.
“Withouttherigidityofconcepts,theworldbecomestransparent
andilluminated,asthoughlitfromwithin.Withthisunderstanding,
theinterconnectednessofallthatlivesbecomesveryclear.Wesee
thatnothingisstagnantandnothingisfullyseparate,thatwhowe
are,whatweare,isintimatelywovenintothenatureoflifeitself.Out
ofthissenseofconnection,loveandcompassionarise.”
“Notethatvirtueisnotrequiredforthegreeningoftheselforthe
emergenceoftheecologicalself.Theshiftinidentificationatthis
pointinourhistoryisrequiredpreciselybecausemoralexhortation
doesn’twork,andbecausesermonsseldomhinderusfromfollowing
ourself-interestasweconceiveit.
“Theobviouschoice,then,istoextendournotionsofself-interest.
Forexample,itwouldnotoccurtometopleadwithyou,‘Oh,don’t
sawoffyourleg.Thatwouldbeanactofviolence.’Itwouldn’toccur
tomebecauseyourlegispartofyourbody.Well,soarethetreesin
theAmazonrainbasin.Theyareourexternallungs.Andweare
beginningtorealizethattheworldisourbody.”
“TheBuddhasaidthatifwearedeeplyestablishedinawareness,
thepreceptsarenotnecessary.”
* * *
18)Whenonehasagenuineappreciationfortheorganicunityoftheuniverse,
oneseeshowthatunitytranscendsallideasofrightandwrong.
Asnotedabove,thisistheoneprincipleofRomanticreligionthatis
neverexplicitlyprofessedintheTheravādaversionofBuddhist
Romanticism,althoughitisexplicitintheMahāyānaversion.Still,it
occasionallyappearsimplicitlyinTheravādaRomanticism,inassertionsof
theneedtoembraceallaspectsoflife.Thisisapointtowhichwewill
returninthelastsectionofthischapter.
* * *
19)Althoughallreligiousexpressionsarevalid,somearemoreevolvedthan
others.Theymustbeviewedundertheframeworkofhistoricism,tounderstand
whereaparticularreligiousteachingfallsintheorganicdevelopmentofhumanity
287
andtheuniverseasawhole.
20)Religiouschangeisthusnotonlyafact.Itisalsoaduty.
WhentheselasttwopointsaretakentogetherwithPoint16,wecansee
thatBuddhistRomanticismcarrieswithinitthefundamentalparadoxatthe
heartofRomanticreligion:Noonecanjudgeanotherperson’sexpressionof
theDhamma,butsomeexpressionsarebetterthanothers.Thebest
expressionsarethosethatagreewiththeRomanticunderstandingofwhat
religionis,howitcomesabout,andhowitfunctionsintheuniverse.
SometimesmodernchangesinBuddhismarejustifiedbythefactthat
peoplehavealreadybeenchangingBuddhismoverthegenerations.Both
sortsofchanges,ancientandmodern,arejustifiedinvitalisticterms:
sometimesexplicitly—oneteacherhasdescribedtheDhammaasan
“inexpressiblelivingforce”—andothertimesimplicitly,whenBuddhismis
describedastheagentadaptingitself,likeanamoeba,tonew
environments.
“ThegreatstrengthofBuddhismthroughoutitshistoryisthatit
hassucceededmanytimesinreinventingitselfaccordingtotheneeds
ofitsnewhostculture.WhatishappeningtodayintheWestisno
different.”
GiventhisorganicviewoftheBuddhisttradition,it’snotsurprisingthat
theneedtofashionanewBuddhism—orforBuddhismtorefashionitself—
issometimesexpressedasaDarwiniannecessity.
“LookingatBuddhismaspartofthespiritualheritageof
humanity,Iseeitassubjecttosimilarevolutionarypressuresasother
typesofcontemplativespiritualityhavefelt.…AsInowlookatour
situation,Idistinguishthreemajordomainsinwhichhumanlife
participates.OneIcallthetranscendentdomain,whichisthesphere
ofaspirationforclassicalcontemplativespirituality.Thesecondisthe
socialdomain,whichincludesourinterpersonalrelationsaswellas
ourpolitical,social,andeconomicinstitutions.Andthethirdisthe
naturaldomain,whichincludesourphysicalbodies,othersentient
beings,andthenaturalenvironment.Frommypresentperspective,a
spiritualitythatprivilegesthetranscendentanddevaluesthesocial
andnaturaldomains,orseesthematbestassteppingstonesto
288
realization,isinadequatetoourcurrentneeds.Suchanorientation
hasledtoasharpdivisionofdutiesthatputsourfutureatrisk.…
Thisdivisionalsoopensthedoorsofinfluenceoverourcommunal
institutionstoreligiousdogmatistsandfundamentalists.
“AsIseeit,ourcollectivefuturerequiresthatwefashionan
integraltypeofspiritualitythatcanbridgethethreedomainsof
humanlife.”
Inothercases,theDarwinianneedforBuddhismtochangeisbolstered
byanappealtotheBuddha’sownteachingsonchange:
“SinceallschoolsofBuddhismalsoarisefromconditions,they
sharetheverynatureoftheconditionedthingstheytirelessly
describeastransient,imperfect,andempty.Thisistrueevenofthe
originalIndianformofthedharmaatthetimeofGautamahimself.
TosaythatBuddhismisemptyistorecognizehowitisnothingbut
anemergentpropertyofuniqueandunrepeatablesituations.Suchan
insightintothenatureofthingsisentirelyinkeepingwiththecentral
Buddhistunderstandingoftheinescapablecontingencyofexistence
(pratitya-samutpada[paṭiccasamuppāda]).…Thiscoreinsightinto
contingencyemphasizedhoweverythingemergesfroma
shimmeringmatrixofchangingconditionsandisdestinedtochange
intosomethingelse.…Inthiswaythenon-essentialvisionofthe
dharmaconvergesseamlesslywithahistoricalandDarwinian
evolutionaryunderstandingoflife.”
“Thisstronglyheldview[thatBuddhismshouldnotchange]
seemsabitoddinareligionthatalsoteachesthatresistancetoallpervasivechangeisarootcauseofmisery.”
SomeofthestrongeststatementsoftheneedtochangeBuddhismcome
fromteacherswho,followingtheexampleofthemorepoliticallyinvolved
Transcendentalists,givehighprioritytosocialactionintheirunderstanding
ofthespirituallife.
“Ineachhistoricalperiod,theDharmafindsnewmeanstounfold
itspotentialinwayspreciselylinkedtothatera’sdistinctive
conditions.Ourowneraprovidestheappropriatestageforthe
transcendenttruthoftheDharmatobendbackupontheworldand
289
engagehumansufferingatmultiplelevels,notinmerecontemplation
butineffective,relief-grantingaction.”
“Wemustbeopentoavarietyofresponsestowardsocialchange
thatcomefromnoparticular‘authority’butaregroundedinthe
radicalcreativitythatcomeswhenconceptsfallaway.”
RomanticchangestotheDhammacantakemanyforms.Insomecases,
theyinvolveborrowingfromotherBuddhistreligions,onthegroundsthat
laterformsofBuddhismweremoredevelopedthantheearlierforms:hence
theMahāyānateachingsonBuddhanatureandthebodhisattvapath
presentedinotherwiseTheravādacontexts.Inothercases,thesechanges
involvedrawingonnon-Buddhistreligioustraditions,aswhenRumi’s
ruminationsonGodarecitedfortheirinsightintotheDhamma.Andinstill
othercases,thechangesaredrawnfromnon-religioustraditionsofallsorts.
WhateverthechangesbeingproposedforBuddhisminthemodern
world,BuddhistRomanticspresentthemasnothingtofearbecausethey
arerootedinforcesinthehumanheartthattheydescribe,echoing
Emerson,astrustworthytotheend.
“Thereisanunderlyingunitytoallthings,andawiseheartknows
thisasitknowsthein-and-outofthebreath.Theyareallpartofa
sacredwholeinwhichweexist,andinthedeepestwaytheyare
completelytrustworthy.Weneednotfeartheenergiesofthisworld
oranyother.”
* * *
Thepassagesquotedherehavebeendrawnfromthetalksandwritings
ofthirteenmodernDhammateachers,buttheycouldbemultipliedmany
timesoverfromthewritingsbothoftheseteachersandofmanyothers.As
anyonewhohasreadmodernDhammabooksorlistenedtomodern
Dhammatalkscouldattest,theprinciplesexpressedinthesepassagesare
bynomeansatypical.TheyarethecommoncoinofmodernBuddhist
discourse—socommonthatmostWesternersacceptthemasDhammaasa
matteroffaith,andaresurprisedtohearthattheydifferfromtheBuddha’s
Dhammainalmosteveryrespect.
Infact,somepeopleareevenoffendedtohearthis—notbecausethey
feelbetrayedbythosewhoteachBuddhistRomanticism,butbecausethey
290
wouldrathercontinuetoholdtoBuddhistRomanticideals.Togetpastthat
senseofbeingoffended,it’simportanttounderstandthefalseattractions
thatthoseidealscontinuetohold.
THEAPPEALOFBUDDHISTROMANTICISM
AsmanyWesternconvertstotheDhammawillreadilyadmit,it’s
becauseofidealssuchaswholenesswithin,Onenesswithout,andthe
universalityofthereligiousexperiencethattheylefttheirearlierreligious
upbringingandstartedpracticingBuddhismtobeginwith.Andit’seasyto
seewhythoseidealsmadesuchaconversionpossible:Tobelievethatall
religionscomefromthesameexperience,andthatdifferencesinthe
expressionofthatexperienceareimmaterial,makesitpossibletoignorethe
exclusionaryfaithdemandsmadebythemonotheisticreligionsthat
dominatetheWest.Onlywhenyoufeelsafetoignorethosedemandswill
youfeelfreetolookelsewhereforalternativereligiousteachingsthat
providemorenourishmentfor—andfeellessoppressiveto—theheart.
However,it’sonethingtoholdtoviewstofreeyourselffroman
oppressivesystemofbeliefs.It’sanothertocontinueholdingtothemafter
havingbrokenfree.ThecommondesiretocontinueholdingtoBuddhist
RomanticideasevenafterlearningthattheyarenotBuddhistsuggeststhat
thereareotherreasonswhysuchideashaveanappealinthemodern
world.
Aswehaveseen,oneoftheprimereasonsisthatastrongcurrentin
Westernthoughtoverthepasttwocenturieshascometoviewallreligious
activityintheseterms.WhenWesternerscometoBuddhism,theyusually
approachitthroughthedoorsofpsychology,historyofreligions,or
perennialphilosophy,allofwhicharedominatedbyRomanticwaysof
thinking.
However,ideasdonotsurvivesimplybecausetheyhavealongpast.
Therealsohavetobefactorsincontemporarycultureandsocietytohelp
keepthemalive.
Awiderangeoffactors—philosophical,emotional,economic,and
political—mayberelevanthere,butfouraspectsofmodernculturein
particularseemtohavecontributedtothecreationandcontinuedsurvival
ofBuddhistRomanticism.
291
Thefirstisthatmodernsocietyismoredestructiveofasenseofinner
wholenessandouterconnectednessthananythingeventheRomantics
knew.Economicallyandpolitically,wearemoreandmoredependenton
widerandwidercirclesofotherpeople,yetmostofthosedependenciesare
kepthiddenfromview.Ourfoodandclothingcomefromthestore,but
howtheygotthere,orwhoisresponsibleforensuringacontinualsupply,
wedon’tknow.Wheninvestigativereporterstrackdownthewebof
connectionsfromfieldtofinalproductinourhands,thebarefactsreadlike
anexposé.Fashionablesweatshirts,forexample,comefromUzbekistani
cottonwoveninIran,sewninSouthKorea,andstoredinKentucky:an
unstablewebofinterdependenciesthatinvolvenotalittlesuffering,both
fortheexploitedproducersandforthosepushedoutoftheproductionweb
bycheaperlabor.Ourmonetarysupply,whichkeepsthese
interdependenciesflowing,hasbeenconvertedintoelectronicsignals
manipulatedbyinternationalfinanciersofunknownallegiancesand
constantlyopentocyberattack.
Whetherornotweknowthesedetails,weintuitivelysensethe
fragmentationanduncertaintyinherentinsuchanunstablesystem.The
resultisthatmanyofusfeelaneedforasenseofwholeness.Forthosewho
benefitfromthehiddendependenciesofmodernlife,acorollaryneedisa
senseofreassurancethatinterconnectednessisreliableandbenign—or,if
notyetbenign,thatfeasiblereformscanmakeitthatway.Suchpeople
wanttohearthattheycansafelyplacetheirtrustintheprincipleof
interconnectednesswithoutfearthatitwillturnonthemorletthemdown.
WhenBuddhistRomanticismaffirmstheOnenessoftheuniverseandthe
benevolenceofinterconnectedness,ittellsthesepeoplewhattheywantto
hear.
Asecondaspectofmoderncultureconducivetothepopularityof
BuddhistRomanticismistheoverloadofinformationpouredintooureyes
andearseveryday.Neverbeforehavepeoplebeensubjectedtosucha
relentlessbarrageofdatafromstrangers.Thesheeramountofdata
challengesthemind’sabilitytoabsorbit;thefactthatitiscomingfrom
strangersleaves,atleastonasub-consciouslevel,alingeringdoubtasto
wheretoplaceourtrust.Especiallywhenwelearnthatmuchofthenews
twentyorthirtyyearsagowaslittlemorethanpropaganda,we
instinctivelysuspectthatthenewsoftodaywillultimatelyberevealedtobe
afabricofliesaswell.
292
Giventhatourideasareshapedbythedataweabsorb,webeginto
distrusteventhethoughtsgoingthroughourownminds.Sowefindit
reassuringtobetoldthatatleastwecantrustourfeelings,thatwecan
safelyleavelogicalinconsistenciesasmysteries,andthatwhateverreligious
beliefsspeaktoourfeelingsmustbesafeandtrue.
AthirdaspectofmoderncultureconducivetothesurvivalofBuddhist
Romanticismisthatwearesubjectnotonlytoafloodofdata,butalsotoa
floodofcompetingvaluesystems:somepromotedbyreligiousandcultural
traditions,somebyacademia,somebythecommercialmedia.Exposedto
alltheseconflictingvaluessimultaneously,wefinditimpossiblenottosee
ourselvesjudgedaslackingintermsofonesystemofvaluesoranother.No
matterwherewelookatourselves,weseesomethingthatsomeonecan
condemnassubstandardorwrong.Sowefeelcomfortedwhentoldthatthe
highestvaluesystemisembodiedinanon-judgingmind,openand
receptivetoallthings,andthatthejudgmentsofothersshowonlyhow
narrow-mindedtheyare.
AfourthaspectofmoderncultureconducivetothesurvivalofBuddhist
Romanticismisthatpeople’sworklives,sociallives,andsearchfor
entertainment,especiallywhenconductedovertheInternet,havecometo
consumesomuchoftheirmentalenergyandtheirtime.Spiritualneedsget
squeezedintothefewcracksofthedayleftvacantbyotherdemands.
Withinthosecracks,fewpeoplehavethetimetotestdifferingreligious
teachingsfortheirtruthandeffectiveness.Thusit’sreassuringtobetold
thatthedifferencesamongreligionsdon’tmatter,thatallpathsleadtothe
samedestination.Thismeansthatpeoplecanchoosewhicheverpathor
mixtureofpathstheylike—inthelanguageoftheRomantics,thiswouldbe
termedanaestheticchoice—withnoneedtofearthattheirchoicescould
possiblybeamistakeorleadtoharm.
BuddhistRomanticism,inspeakingtotheseaspectsofmodernculture,
providessolacetopeoplesufferingfromthedemandsanduncertaintiesof
modernlife.Butitssolutioninallfourareasistoteachanattitudeof
heedlessness,regardlessofwhetheritspeaksinsoothingtermsof
acceptanceorinmorerousingwaysofthechallengesofauthenticityand
theneedforsocialengagement.
•Tobeginwith,onthedeepestlevel,BuddhistRomanticismteaches
peopletodefinetheirspiritualneedsinwaysthatactuallyblockthepathto
atranscendenthappiness.Byfosteringanimmanentratherthan
293
transcendentsolutiontosuffering,BuddhistRomanticismencourages
peopletostaywithinthewebofinterdependenciesthatarecausingthemto
suffer:toacceptthevagariesofaninterdependent,interconnectedworld
andtodefinetheirdesireforwell-beingtotallywithinthosevagaries.It’sas
ifBuddhistRomanticismfindspeoplefeelinganxiousandunsafebecause
theyaretryingtosleepinthemiddleoftheroad,andsosellsthempillows
andblankets,atthesametimederidinganydesiretogetoutoftheroadas
selfish,deluded,orsick.
Onamoreimmediatelevel,BuddhistRomanticism,bycelebratingour
interconnectedworld,suggeststhattheDhammaasawholeisblindtothe
sufferingandinstabilitiesinherentinthatworld.Indoingso,italienates
thoseforwhomthecurrentsystemisobviouslynotbenign,convincing
themthattheDhammaisoutoftouchwithreality.Asaresult,Buddhist
RomanticismturnsthemawayfromtheDhamma,denyingthemthe
benefitsthattheDhammacouldotherwiseoffer.
•Atthesametime,byencouragingtrustinone’sfeelings,Buddhist
Romanticismleavespeopleopentosubliminalinfluencesfromthosewho
wouldliketomanipulatethosefeelings.AstheBuddhapointedout,
feelingsarejustasfabricatedasthoughts,andanyknowledgeofthetactics
ofadvertisingshouldbeenoughtoconfirmhisobservationthatour
feelingsarenotreallyours.Theycanoftenactagainstourbetterinterests.
•Asforanon-judgingmind,theBuddhataughtthatthepathtotrue
happinessbeginswiththeabilitytojudgeone’sownactionsfairly(MN61),
whichalsomeanslearninghowtojudgetheactionsofothersastowhether
theyarewiseexamplestofollow(MN95).Thesolutiontotheproblemof
conflictingvaluesystemslies,notinabandoningone’spowersofjudgment,
butinlearninghowtousethemadeptlythroughself-examination.When
therearenostandardsforwhatshouldandshouldn’tbedone,peopleare
leftunprotected(§8 )—fromtheirownunskillfulmindstates,andfromthe
unskillfulinfluencesofothers.
•Finally,byportrayingthechoiceofareligiouspathasnothingmore
thanapersonalpreference,BuddhistRomanticismblindspeopletothefact
thatiftheychooseitovertheDhamma,theirchoicewillcarry
consequences.
Soasaservicetothoseofussleepingintheroad,weneedtolookmore
carefullyatwhattheconsequencesofthatchoicecanbe.
294
BUDDHISTROMANTICISMVS.THEDHAMMA
TheconsequencesofchoosingBuddhistRomanticismovertheDhamma
canbestbeappreciatedbyexaminingthepracticalimplicationsofeachof
theprinciplesofBuddhistRomanticism,pointbypoint,andcomparing
themwiththepracticalconsequencesofadoptingtheDhammainstead.
BecauseallthedefiningpointsofBuddhistRomanticismgrowfromPoints
1through3,wewillseethatthepracticalimplicationsofthesefirstthree
pointswillkeepechoingthroughouttheremainingones.
* * *
•First,Points1through3:thebasicreligiousissue.
Todefinethebasicissueofthespirituallifeintermsofarelationship
requiresthatyoufirstdefinewhothemembersoftherelationshipare.Once
youdefineapersoninrelationshiptoaworld—inBuddhistterms,thisisa
stateofbecoming—youareplacinglimitationsonwhatthatpersoncan
knowordo(§20 ).Thisisespeciallytrueifyoudefinepeopleasorganic
partsofalarger,organicwhole.Asorganismssubjecttoorganiclaws,they
wouldnotbeabletoknowanythingtotallyseparatefromthoselaws.As
integralpartsofalargerwhole,theywouldhavetosubsumetheirfelt
needstothelargerpurposesofthewhole,andcouldnotescapethewhole
withoutbeingannihilated.
Allthreeofthesepointswouldforcethemtoviewasunrealistic,and
evenevil,theirdesiretofindanendtosuffering.Theywouldbeblocked
fromreachingunbinding,whichisadimensionoutsideoftherangeof
organiclaws.Instead,theywouldhavetoaccepttheirsufferingsas
necessarypartsofthelargerpurposeoftheorganicwhole,forotherwise
theywouldriskgoingoutofexistence.
Sotoadvancethenotionthatallbeingsarepartsofauniversalorganic
unityrunstotallycountertotheaimsoftheDhamma.
OneofthelargestironiesofBuddhistRomanticismisthattheteaching
ofdependentco-arisingisoftencitedasproofthattheBuddhasharedthe
Romanticviewthatallthingsarepartofthesingleinterconnectedwhole
thatistheuniverse.Thisisironicfortworeasons.
Thefirstisthatdependentco-arisingdoesnotdescribethestatusofthe
selfwithintheuniverse;instead,itstandsoutsideboth“self”and
“universe”—andthusoutsideofbecoming—explainingbecominginterms
295
ofaframeworkthatdoesn’tderivefrombecomingatall.Itsperspectiveis
phenomenological,meaningthatitdescribesprocessesastheyare
immediatelyexperienced.Fromthatperspective,itshowshowignorance
givesrisetoconceptsof“self”and“universe,”howthoseconceptsleadto
suffering,andhowsufferingendswhenignoranceofthoseprocessesis
broughttoanend.Toreframethisteaching,limitingittoadescriptionof
whatoccursintheuniverseorintheself,preventsitfromleadingbeyond
theuniverseandbeyondtheself.
Thesecondreasonwhyit’sironicforBuddhistRomanticismtopresent
dependentco-arisingasadescriptionoftheOnenessofallthingsisthatthe
Buddhaexplicitlyciteddependentco-arisingasateachingthatavoidedthe
questionofwhetherthingsareOneornot(§25 ).Inotherwords,his
rejectionoftheteachingoftheOnenessoftheuniversewassoradicalthat
herefusedtogetinvolvedintheissueatall.
TherearetwopossiblereasonswhytheBuddhadidnotwanttodescribe
theuniverseasOne.Thefirstisthatalthoughheaffirmedthat
concentrationpracticecanleadtostatesofnon-dualconsciousnessinwhich
allexperienceisviewedasOne,henotedthatsuchstatesarefabricated
(§24 )andthusfallshortofthegoal.Onlywhenameditatorlearnstoview
allobjectsofawarenessassomethingseparate(§23 )canheorsheregard
themwiththedetachmentneededtoovercomeanyclingingtothem—an
issuethatwewilldiscussinmoredetailbelow,underPoint5.Toregardthe
universeasOneclosesthedoortothissenseofseparatenessneededto
reachtofreedom.
Thesecondpossiblereasonfornotwantingtodescribetheuniverseas
Onecaneasilybesurmisedfromwhatwehaverepeatedlyseenofthe
Romanticproblemsconcerningtheissueoffreedom.Thereisnoconvincing
waytoexplainhowapartofalargerOnenesscanexercisefreedomof
choice.Atmost,suchapartcanbeallowedbyotherpartstofollowitsinner
drives,butitcannotchoosewhatthosedrivesare.Otherwise,itwouldbe
likeastomachsuddenlydecidingthatitwantedtoswitchjobswiththe
liverortostrikeoutonitsown:Theorganismwoulddie.
Atthesametime,giventhatallpartsofanorganicsystemactinconstant
reciprocity,there’snowaythatanypartofalargerwholecanlay
independentclaimtoitsdrivesastrulyitsown.Whenastomachstarts
secretingdigestivejuices,thesignalcomesfromsomewhereelse.Soif
freedommeansonlytheabilitytofollowone’sinnernatureordrives,the
296
factthatone’sdrivesarenotreallyone’sowndeniesanyindependent
freedomofchoice.
ForthepurposeofDhammapractice,thisdifficultyisfatal.Tobeableto
chooseskillfuloverunskillfulactions,youfirsthavetobefreetochoose
youractions.Otherwise,thewholenotionofapathofpracticeis
meaningless.
SothebasicquestionposedbyBuddhistRomanticismandtheanswerit
providestothatquestionimpose,allinall,atleastfourseverelimitations
onthepossibilityofapathtotheendofsuffering.
Thefirstlimitationisthat,byidentifyingaconditionedexperienceof
Onenessasthegoalofspiritualpractice,BuddhistRomanticismencourages
peopletosatisfythemselveswithexperiencesfallingfarshortofan
unconditionedendtosufferingandstress.
Thesecondlimitationisthat,bydefiningindividualsasorganicpartsof
anorganicwhole,BuddhistRomanticism—implicitlyorexplicitly—defines
theirpurposeinlife:Theyareheretoservethepurposesofthewhole.
Whenthisisthecase,thatlargerpurposeoverrideseveryperson’sdesireto
putanendtohisorherownsuffering.Peopleareheretofurtherthegoalof
theearthlife,andshouldbeartheirsufferingswithequanimityandjoy,
happyintheknowledgethattheyareadvancingthegoalofearthlife,
whateveritis.ThustheBuddhistRomanticanswertothevaluequestion
implicitinthefournobletruths—Istheendofsufferingaworthwhilegoal?
—isclearlyaNo.
Thethirdlimitationisthatbydefiningtheprimaryspiritualissuein
termsofbecoming—aselfinrelationshiptoaworld—Buddhist
Romanticismclosesthedoortoanynotionofadimensionbeyond
becoming.Andbecauseeverystateofbecominginvolvessuffering,this
closesoffthepossibilitythatsufferingcanbetotallybroughttoanend.
ThustheBuddhistRomanticanswertothequestionthatsettheBuddha-tobeonhisquest—Isitpossibletofindahappinessfreefromaging,illness,
anddeath?—isanotherclearNo.
Thefourthlimitationisanevenmorebasicrestrictiononthepossibility
offreedom,onethatappliesevenifyoudon’taimatultimatereleaseinthis
lifetime.Inaworldwhereyouareanintegralpartofalargerwhole,
freedomofchoiceeveninsimplemattersisimpossible.Notonlyistheidea
ofapathofpracticemeaningless;soistheactofteachinganypath—or
anything—atall.Ifpeoplehavenochoiceinwhattheydo,whybotherto
297
teachthem?Andwhyshouldtheybothertolistentowhatotherpeople
say?ThustheBuddhistRomanticanswertooneoftheBuddha’sevenmore
basicquestions—Doestheideaofapathofpracticemakesense?—
contradictsitself.Ontheonehand,BuddhistRomanticsteachmeditationas
apathofpractice;ontheother,theirunderlyingassumptionthatthe
universeisOnedeniesthefreedomofchoiceneededfortheretobethe
possibilityoffollowingapath.
TheearlyRomantics,eventhoughtheycouldn’tprovideasatisfactory
answertothequestionofhowfreedomcanbereconciledwithauniversal,
interdependentOneness,didatleastgrapplewiththeissue.Buddhist
Romantics,however,nevergiveitseriousattention.Atmost,someofthem
assertthepossibilityoffreedomanddescribehowmalleablethecausal
connectionsindependentco-arisingcanbe—portrayingthem,forinstance,
asajewelednetorshimmeringmatrix—butrarelypursuetheissuefurther
thanthat.Iftheseimagesareexaminedcarefully,though,theyprove
wantingintwoways.
Thefirstissimplyamatterofconsistency:Ifallfactorsinthewebare
easilymanipulated,thenyouyourselfareeasilymanipulated.Ifyouare
nothingbutacipherinashimmeringmatrix,whatmeansdoyouhaveto
exertafreelychosenforceonanyotherpartoftheshimmer?
* * *
•Thesecondwayinwhichtheseimagesarewantingislessamatterof
internalconsistencyandmoreamatteroftruth,directlyrelatedtoPoint4,
thebasiccauseofsufferinganditssolution.
TheRomanticideathatwesufferbecausewefeelseparatefromthe
world,andthatsufferingstopsduringmomentswhenwehaveovercome
thatsenseofseparationis,fromthepointofviewoftheDhamma,onlya
partial—andverypoor—understandingofsufferinganditsend.Evenifwe
couldconstantlymaintainasenseofOnenesswiththecausalconnections
thatconstitutetheworld,wouldthatreallyendsuffering?Istheworld
reallyashimmeringnetofjewels,contentsimplytoreflectoneanotherand
needingnothingelsefortheirsustenance?
AstheBuddhapointedout,weliveinaworldwherethebasic
interactionisoneoffeedingoffoneanother,emotionallyandphysically.
Inter-beingisinter-eating.Ifwe’rejewels,we’rejewelswithteeth—and
thoseteetharediamond-tipped,strongenoughtoshredotherjewelsto
298
pieces.Thisiswhatitmeanstobeabeing,someonewhohastakenon
becominginaworldwhereotherbeingshavealsobecomeandhavetheir
sightsonthesamesourcesoffood.
TheBuddhistRomanticequationofsufferingwithasenseofadiscrete,
separateselfissometimesjustifiedbytheideathatsuchasenseof
separatenessisbyitsnatureunstable.This,however,assumesthata
connectedsenseofself—orasenseofoneselfasaprocess-being,ratherthan
adiscretebeing—wouldbeanymorestable.AstheDhammarepeatedly
states,everysenseofselfisafabrication,andallfabricationsareunstable
(§19 , §22 ).Theyalwaysneedtofeed.Evenprocess-beingsneedtofeedto
keeptheprocessgoing.Andthereisnosinglemouthintheinterconnected
universethat,whenfed,wouldsendthenourishmenttoallpartsofthe
universalorganism.Eachprocessfeelsitsownhungerandneedstofeed
itselffromalimitedrangeoffood.Sotheswitchfromadiscrete,separate
senseofselftoanall-embracingprocess-selfwouldnotsolvetheproblem
ofsuffering.
TheimageoftheworldthatdrovetheBuddhatopracticewasoneoffish
competingforthewaterinadiminishingpool(§27 ).Andashefamously
said,evenifitrainedgoldcoins,thatwouldn’tbeenoughtosatisfyour
sensualdesires(§29 ).Onlyifwetrainthemindtoadimensionwherethere
isnofelthungerandnoneedtofeedwillweeverreachagenuine
happiness.Theneedtofeedcannotbeendedsimplybyseeingourselvesas
jewelsreflectingashimmeringlight.Wehavetouprootthesourceofour
hungerbyovercomingtheneedtobeabeing.Ifwechoosetostay
immersedinawebofconditionsdrivenbyhunger,wecloseourselvesto
anypossibilitythatsufferingcanbebroughttoanend.
* * *
•Point5,thenatureofthereligiousexperience:AsnotedinChapterFive,
Schleiermacher’sbeliefthattherewasasinglereligiousexperience,
identicalforallhumanbeings,grewfromhisownmonotheistic,Pietist
background,inwhichonlyonereligiousexperience—afeelingofGod’s
presence—waspossible.WhentranslatedintoRomanticterms,inwhichthe
ultimatetruthaboutrealitywastheinfiniteunityofthecosmos,thismeant
thattheonlypossiblereligiousexperiencewasafeelingofthatunity.And
aswesawinChapterSix,evenastheWestgainedmoreknowledgeabout
non-monotheisticreligioustraditions,thetransmittersofRomanticreligion
299
neverseriouslychallengedthispartofSchleiermacher’sthesis.Insome
casestheyquestionedwhethersuchanexperienceprovedone’sunitywith
thecosmos,butinnocasedidtheyquestionwhetherthisfeelingofunity
wastheonlypossibleexperiencethatqualifiedasreligious.AndBuddhist
Romanticismtendsnottoquestionthis,either.
TheBuddha’smapofspiritualexperiences,however,differsfrom
Schleiermacher’sintwoimportantrespects:one,inmappingoutawide
varietyofexperiencesthatcouldbemistakenfortheultimatespiritualgoal;
andtwo,inassertingthattheultimategoalisnotafeeling—notevena
feelingofOneness—butadirectexperienceofadimensionbeyondfeelings
andbeyondthesenses(§§46–47 ; §54 ).Atthesametime,theBuddhaoffers
manypracticalteststoascertainwhetheranexperienceinmeditation
qualifiesastheultimategoalornot.
TheBuddhadoesacknowledgethattheOnenessofawarenessachieved
inrightconcentrationisacentralpartofthepathtothedeathless,butitis
notthegoal(§23 ; §58 ).Becauseitisfabricated,it—likealltheotherfactors
ofthepath—hastobedroppedwhenithasdoneitswork.Otherwise,the
openingtothedeathlesswillneverappear.
Atthesametime,theBuddhaneverencouragesustobelievethatthe
feelingorperceptionofOnenessfeltinconcentrationshouldbetakenasa
signthatexperienceisreallyOne.Quitethecontrary:Ameditatorwho
wantstoendignoranceandgiverisetoclearknowinghastoviewall
objectsofthemindassomethingseparate(§24 ).Thispointappliestoallthe
objectsthatBuddhistRomanticismadvocatesseeingaspartsofapreexistingunity:selfandcosmos,mindandbody,feelingsandthoughts.To
viewthesethingsaspartsofaOnenessofwhichyouarealsoapartmakes
itimpossibletogainanydistancefromthem.Withoutthatsenseof
distance,youcan’tclearlyseeandovercomeyourattachmentforthem.
Forinstance,toseethebodyasOnewiththemindmakesitimpossible
toseehowattachmenttothebodyisamajorsourceofsuffering.Tosee
yourfeelingsasOnewithyourreasonmakesitimpossibletoseetheir
drawbacksortocatchthemindintheactofclingingtothem.Toseetheself
asOnewiththeworld—aninterpretationthatcaneasilybeappliedtothe
experienceofconcentrationonveryrefined,infinitelevels—is,inthe
Buddha’sestimation,oneofthemostfoolishself-doctrinesofall.
Therearetworeasonsforthis.Ontheonehand,because“self”carries
theimplicationof“thingsbelongingtoself,”itclaimsidentitywiththings
300
thatcouldnotpossiblybelongtotheself.IfyouthinkyouareOnewith
yourneighbor’stree,trycuttingitdownandseeifit’sreallyyours(§21 ).
Ontheotherhand,iftheconceptofselfisstretchedtoincludethecosmos,
youwon’tlookfortheway“self”asamentalactionformsarounddesires
onamoment-to-momentbasis.Ifyoudon’texamineyoursenseofselfon
thislevel,youwon’tbeabletoworkfreeofit(§22 ).
SothereareimportantpracticalconsequencesforadoptingtheBuddhist
RomanticpositiononthesepointsovertheBuddha’s.Ifyoubelievethat
thereisonlyonereligiousexperience,thenwhenyouhaveanimpressive
unifyingexperience,youwillnotapplytheBuddha’steststoit.Ifyouare
satisfiedwithafeelingofOneness,youwillnotlookfurthertoseewhether
thatfeeling—likeallotherfeelings—isfabricatedornot.Inthisway,you
risksettlingformuchlessthansecondbest.
* * *
•Points6and7,theimmanenceofthereligiousgoalandthelimitedfreedomit
canbring:Theideathatthereligiousexperienceleadsonlytoanimmanent
dimension,andnottoatranscendentone,isdrawnfromtheRomantic
definition,underPoints2and3,ofwhatahumanbeingis:anintegral,
organicpartofacosmoswithnotranscendentdimension.Aspartofsucha
cosmos,thereisnowaythatyoucouldexperienceanythingtranscending
thecosmos.Eveninamechanisticmodelofthecosmos,thesame
limitationsprevail.WhenBuddhistRomanticismacceptseitherofthese
worldviews,itisforcedtoacceptthoselimitationsaswell.
ThisapproachisthereverseoftheBuddha’s.Insteadofstartingwitha
definitionofwhatahumanbeingis,andthendeducingfromthatwhata
humanbeingcanknow,heworkedtheotherwayaround:exploringfirst
whatahumanbeingcanknowthroughexperience,andthen—inlightof
howthebestpossibleexperiencewasattained—drawingconclusionsabout
howtoanswerthequestionofwhatahumanbeingis.Hisconclusionwas
thatholdingtoanydefinitionofwhatahumanbeingiswouldultimately
standinthewayofthatexperience,whichiswhyhedevelopedhis
teachingsonnot-self,whileatthesametimerefusingtoanswerwhetheror
nottheselfexists(§§15–16 ).
Inthissense,theBuddha’sapproachissomewhatliketheapproachthat
JamesandJungfollowedatatimewhenthemechanisticmodelofthe
universewasascendant:Insteadofstartingwiththelawsofthecosmos
301
“outthere”asaprimaryrealityandtryingtofitoneself,asasecondary
reality,intothecontextofthoselaws,theyproposedstartingwith
consciousnessasitisexperiencedfromwithinasprimaryreality,and
regardingthecosmosoutthereassecondary.Onlythen,theystated,could
theproblemsandillnessesofconsciousnessbehealed.
ThedifferenceintheBuddha’scaseisthathewentconsiderablyfurther
thaneitherJamesorJungindiscoveringwhattruehealthforthepsyche
couldbe:adimensiontotallyfreefromtheconstraintsofspaceandtime.
Fromthatdiscovery,hewasabletoevaluatetheoriesofcausalityandthe
universe,andtorejectanythatwouldnotallowfortheexperiencehehad
attained.
This,aswehavenoted,iscalledthephenomenologicalapproach.And
theBuddhaaimedhisattentiondirectlyatthemostpressing
phenomenologicalproblem:theproblemofsufferingandhowtoendit.My
sufferingissomethingthatonlyIcanfeel.Yoursissomethingthatonlyyou
canfeel.Icausemysufferingthroughmyownunskillfulness,andcanput
anendtoitbydevelopingskillfulnessinallmyactions.Thesameprinciple
appliestoyou.Inotherwords,theproblemisfeltfromwithin,causedfrom
within,andcanbecuredonlyfromwithin.Andaslongasweclaimour
identityaspartofanunstablewebofconnections,wewillneverbeableto
effectacure.
Thismeansthatifweinsistonchoosingtoholdtoaworldviewinwhich
thereisnoescapefromawebofinterconnections,weleaveourselves
subjecttocontinuedsufferingwithoutend.
AsfortheBuddhistRomanticargumentsthatanimmanentviewof
awakeningissuperiortoatranscendentview,theseboildowntotwo
assertions.Thefirstisthatanimmanentgoalisnondualistic,whereasa
transcendentgoalisdualistic.Thisargumentcarriesforceonlyif“dual”is
inherentlyinferiorto“nondual.”Buttheproblemofsufferingisinherently
dual,bothinthedistinctionbetweensufferinganditsend,andinthe
teachingthattherearecausesandeffects.Eitheryousufferoryoudon’t.
Youcreatethecausesthatleadtosuffering,oryoufollowapathofaction
thatleadstosuffering’send.Ifyoudecidethatsufferingisnotaproblem,
youarefreetocontinuecreatingthecausesofsufferingasyoulike.Butif
youwanttostopsuffering,thenyouarecommittedtotakingonthesetwo
dualitiesandseeingthathere,atleast,dualismopensupopportunitiesthat
nondualismclosesoff.
302
Thesecondassertionisthatatranscendentgoalautomaticallyentails
indifferencetotheworldbeingtranscended,andthatthiscontributestothe
ecologicalcrisisfacingtheEarth.Theideathatthereisatranscendent
dimension,wearetold,makespeopletreatthisworldlydimensionas
worthless.Thereforeweneedavisionofawakeninginwhichweall
awakentogetherwiththepurposeofstayinghere.
Thisargumentgainssomeofitsforcefromthereducedversionofthe
paththathascometostandforBuddhistpracticeintheWest:goingto
retreatcentersandclosingyourselfofffromtheoutsideworld.Butwhen
welookattheentirepathofpracticeasoutlinedbytheBuddha,it’shardto
seewherethepathtounbindingencouragesindifferencetotheEarthor
contributestothepollutionandabuseoftheenvironment.Nooneever
gainedawakeningbybeingstingyandmaterialistic.Nooneeverfracked
foroilorrapedtheenvironmentfromadesireforunbinding.Asthe
Buddhasaid,aslongasonehasnotachievedfullawakening,oneincursa
debtwitheverymealonetakes—ateachingthathardlyencourages
carelessness.
MostBuddhistsknowthattheywillnotgainfullawakeninginthis
lifetime,whichmeansthattheyfacetheprospectofreturningtotheEarth
thattheyhaveshapedduringthislifetimethroughtheiractions.Thisbelief
inkarmaandrebirth,infact,isoneofBuddhism’smostpotentarguments
forthestewardshipoftheplanet.AndyetBuddhistRomanticism—like
HerderandtheearlyRomanticsbeforethem—haverejectedbeliefinkarma
andrebirth,andhaveofferedonlyavaguegeneralityon
interconnectednessandevolutioninitsplace.Butthesevaguenotionsof
responsibilitytowardotherswhomwewillneverseedon’thavehalfthe
emotionalimpactofaworldviewinwhichwewillbeforcedtoreturnto
cleanupanymessesweourselveshavemade.
Andthepathactuallyfostershabitsdesignednottoleavemesses.To
beginwith,itteachescontentmentwithfewmaterialthings,aqualitythat
helpstoslowtheexploitationoftheEarth’sresources.Whenpeopleare
contentwithonlywhattheyreallyneed,theyleaveasmallfootprint
behind.
Similarly,thepathentailscelibacy,whichiscertainlynotresponsiblefor
theover-populationoftheearth.And,unlikebodhisattvas,whoare
committedtoreturningtothefeedingchainoftheEarthagainandagain,
arahantsremovethemselvesfromthechainentirely,atthesametime
303
inspiringotherstodolikewise,sothatthatmanymouthsandthatmany
fishwillberemovedfromthedwindlingpool.
Soit’shardtoseethatholdingtounbindingasatranscendentgoal
encouragestrashingtheEarth.It’sactuallyanactofkindness—toward
oneself,towardthosewhofollowone’sexample,andallformsoflifewho
choosetoremainbehind.Tochooseanimmanentgoaloverunbinding—
andtourgeotherstokeepreturningtothepool—isactuallyan
irresponsibleandheartlessact.
* * *
•Point8,thatthegoalisneverreachedonceandforall:AstheBuddhamade
clear,itisnotthecasethatonceawakeninghappensallproblemsinlifewill
end.Thefullyawakenedpersonstillexperiencespleasureandpain,and
muststilldealwiththedifficultiespresentedbyotherpeople.TheBuddha
himselfhadtodealfor45yearswiththemisbehaviorofthemonksand
nunsintheSaṅghasheestablished.
Nevertheless,healsorepeatedlyemphasizedthatnoneofthese
difficultiescouldmakeinroadsonhismind,andthatthesameheldtruefor
allthosewhoarefullyawakened(MN137).And,unlikepeoplewhohave
yettoabandonbecoming,oncethefullyawakenedpersonpassesaway,
therewillbenomoreexperienceofthepleasuresandpainsofthesix
senses.Inthemeantime,theirexperienceofunbindingconsistsofthetotal
eradicationofpassion,aversion,anddelusion(§52 ).
SomeBuddhistRomantics,however,challengetheBuddhaonthispoint,
notingthatevenafterhisawakening,hekeptencounteringMāra.Because
themodernmechanisticworldviewhasroomneitherfornon-humanspirits
norforthethoughtsinoneperson’smindtoappearinthemindofanother,
theargumentinterpretsMāra,notasanactualnon-humanbeing,butasa
symbolofthedefilementsstillintheBuddha’ssubconsciousthathedidnot
recognizeassuch.Therepeatedencounters,inthisview,weresimplysigns
thattheBuddhastillhadworktodoindealingwithhisowndelusionsall
lifelong.
Buttherearetwoinconsistencieshere.Thefirstisthatinmakingthis
assertiontheseBuddhistRomanticsarerepudiatingtheirownRomantic
interpretationofBuddhistcausality.Elsewhere,theythemselveshave
describedtheworldasamystery,ashimmeringmatrixinwhichthereexist
nodiscreteboundariesbetweenindividuals.Insuchaworld,therecould
304
easilybeabeinglikeMārawhosethoughtsmightpermeateintothe
Buddha’sconsciousness.Whytheseteachershavechosentodefendthe
limitedRomanticviewofthereligiousgoalbyrepudiatingtheRomantic
worldviewofamysteriousinterconnectedOnenessishardtosay,butthe
inconsistencyunderminestheircase.
Thesecondinconsistencycomesfromthemechanisticworldviewsuch
teachersadopttomaketheircase.Insuchaworldview,thereisnoroomfor
consciousnessasanythingbutaby-productofphysicalprocesses,which
meansthatsuffering,too,wouldbesimplytheresultofphysicalprocesses.
Ifitcouldpossiblybeendedinsuchaworld,itwouldhavetobebymeans
ofphysicalprocesses.Meditation,asaphenomenological,non-physical
process,couldn’tpossiblyhaveaneffect.Soitwouldbeinconsistentfora
personholdingsuchaworldviewtoengageinmeditationpractice,and
evenmoreinconsistenttoteachDhammaormeditationlessonstoothers.
Soagain,theinconsistenciesinvolvedinmakingthisargument
underminethepositionofthepersonmakingit.
Howeverthisargumentismade,thepracticalconsequencesofinsisting
thatthegoalcanneverbefullyreachedaresimilartothoseunderPoint5:If
youacceptthatawakeningstillleavesgreed,aversion,anddelusioninthe
mind,youwilltendtooverestimateameditativeexperiencethatseems
impressivebutstillleavesseedsofthesedefilementsinitswake.Thiswill
standinthewayofmakinganyfurtherprogressonthepath.
* * *
•Point9,onseeingthesacredinthemundane:Theabilitytoseeallthings
asluminousisrecognizedintheCanonasastateofmentalmastery—butit
isstillfabricated(§23 ).Thismeansthatit’snotasignofatranscendent
attainment.
Asforthesensethatallthingsaresacred—whatwehavetermedthe
microcosmicsublime—thiscanleadeasilytoattachment.TheBuddha
himselfpointedoutthatseeingallthingsasgoodcancreatesuffering
similartothesortthatcomesfromseeingallthingsasbad(MN74).Andif
skillfulandunskillfulintentionsareregardedasequallysacred,what
motivationistheretoabandontheunskillfulones?Sothesensethatall
thingsaresacredleavespeopledefenselessagainsttheirownunskillful
intentionsandisactuallyanobstacleonthepath.
Asforthemacrocosmicsublime:Oneofthepassagesquotedunder
305
Point10abovemakestheassertionthatreligionismainlyconcernedwith
mystery,andexpressesthepreferencethatlifeanditspurposebeleft
mysterious,andthatlife’sgreatquestionsremainunanswered.
ThisdifferssharplyfromtheBuddha’ssenseofoverwhelmingdismay
priortohisawakening.Thewordwithwhichhedescribedit,saṁvega,
actuallymeans“terror,”andfitswellwithKant’suseofthewordsublime.
FortheBuddha,thisterrorcamefromaspecificviewoftheworld—thefish
inthepool—anddemandedananswer:theendofsuffering.Toleavethat
answerasamysteryistoclosethepathtoanescape.
Sohereagain,thepracticalconsequencesofchoosingoneviewofthe
sublimeoveranotheraresharpintheirdifference.BuddhistRomanticism
wantsthelargequestionstoremainunanswered;theDhamma,thattheybe
resolved.
* * *
•Point10(a),onattainingthespiritualgoalthroughanattitudeof
mindfulness,definedasanopenreceptivityandacceptance:TheBuddhanotes
thatthecausesofsufferingcomeintwoforms:thosethatendwhenyou
simplywatchthemwithequanimity,andthosethatendonlywhenyou
exertyourselfactivelytogetridofthem(§38 ).Toadoptanattitudeof
acceptanceforeverythingyouexperienceallowsyoutoendonlycausesof
thefirstsort.Causesofthesecondsortwillcontinuetofester,preventing
truefreedom.
Atthesametime,ifallexperienceissimplytobeaccepted,andall
experienceisOne,whatdoesthatsayabouttheproblemofevil?Aswe
notedinourdiscussionsofEmerson,Maslow,andHuxley,ifevilis
supposedtobeacceptedasanecessarypartoftheOnenessofallthings,
andtheuniverseasawholeisindifferenttogoodandevil,thereisno
incentivetomaketheefforttoavoidevilanddogood.Toteachsuchan
attitudewould,intheBuddha’seyes,leavepeoplebewilderedand
unprotectedfromtheirownunskillfulurges(§8 ).Therewouldbenobasis
forwhatheidentifiedasacategoricaltruth:thatunskillfulbehavioristobe
avoided,andskillfulbehaviordeveloped(AN2:18).Thismeansthatan
attitudeoftotalacceptanceisdiametricallyopposedtoDhammapractice.
Asformindfulness,theBuddhaneverdefinesitasanopen,receptive,
pre-verbalstate.Infact,hisstandarddefinitionforthefacultyof
mindfulnessistheabilitytorememberandkeepthingsinmindforalong
306
time(§35 ).Thus,inthepracticeofrightmindfulness,oneiskeepingoneof
fourframesofreferenceinmind—body,feelings,mind,andmental
qualities—rememberingtostaywiththesethingsinandofthemselves,
alerttothepresentmomentintermsoftheseframesofreference,atthe
sametimerememberingtheinstructionsconnectedwitheachframeinhow
tobeardentinabandoningunskillfulfactorsthatariseandtodevelop
skillfulfactorsintheirplace.
SomeoftheCanon’smorevividanalogiesforthepracticeof
mindfulnessemphasizethiselementofardency,suggestinganythingbut
anopen,receptive,non-judgingstate:apersonwithhisheadonfire;aman
walkingbetweenabeautyqueenandacrowd,carryingonhisheadabowl
filledtothebrimwithoil,andamanfollowingbehindhimwitharaised
sword,readytocutoffhisheadifevenadropofoilgetsspilled(§§36–37 ).
There’satendency,evenamongseriousscholars,tominetheCanonfor
passagespresentingamorespacious,receptivepictureofmindfulness.But
thistendency,inadditiontoignoringthebasicdefinitionofmindfulness,
deniestheessentialunityamongthefactorsofthepath.Insomecases,this
denialisexplicit:Tomaketheircase,somescholarsactuallydefineright
mindfulnessontheonehand,andrighteffortandrightconcentrationon
theother,astwomutuallyexclusiveformsofpractice.Thissuggeststhat
thetendencytodefinemindfulnessasanopen,receptive,non-judgingstate
comesfromasourceotherthantheCanon.It’spossibletofindAsianroots
forthistendency,intheschoolsofmeditationthatdefinemindfulnessas
bareawarenessormerenoting.ButthewaytheWesthasmorphedthese
definitionsinthedirectionofacceptanceandaffirmationhaslesstodowith
Asiantraditions,andmoretodowiththeRomantictendencytoexaltan
openreceptivityasthesourceforspiritualinspiration.
Andthepracticalconsequencesareclear:Tolimitoneselftoapracticeof
openacceptanceleavesonedefenselessagainstthecausesofsufferingthat
willgoawayonlythroughconcertedeffort.
* * *
•Point10(b),ontheirbeingmanydifferentpathstothegoal:Thisidea,aswe
notedabove,camefromthePietistassumption,lateradoptedbythe
Romantics,thatthereisonlyonepossiblegoal.Basedonthisassumption,
boththePietistsandtheRomanticsbelievedthattheonlykindlywayto
regardpathsotherthanone’sownwastoendorsethemasequallyvalid
307
alternativeroutestooneandthesameplace.
However,if—astheDhammamaintains—therearemanypossiblegoals,
thenthedifferencesamongthepathsactuallycanmakeadifferenceinwhat
isattained.Sothekindlyapproachisnotsimplytoendorseallpaths.It’sto
figureoutwhichpathleadstowhichgoal.
TheBuddhastatesclearlythatthereisonlyonepathtounbinding(§60 ).
Tryingtofindawakeninginwaysapartfromthenobleeightfoldpathis
liketryingtosqueezeoilfromgravel,ortogetmilkfromacowbytwisting
itshorn(§59 ).TheCanoncomparestheBuddha’sknowledgeofthewayto
awakeningtothatofanexpertgatekeeperwhoknows,afterencirclingthe
wallsofacity,thatthere’sonlyonewayintothecity:thegateheguards
(§57 ).
Evenforapersonontheonepathtounbinding,theBuddhacitesmany
possibleexperiences,suchasthelevelsofconcentration,thatmightbe—
andhavebeen—mistakenforunbinding(DN1).Thusheprovidesaseries
oftestsforjudgingwhetherameditativeexperiencecountsastheendpoint,
asastationalongtheway,orasasidepathleadinginthewrongdirection.
Oneofthetestsfordeterminingwhetheronehasreachedthefirstlevel
ofawakeningisif,onreflection,onerealizesthatnooneoutsidethe
Buddha’steachingteachesthetrue,accurate,waytothegoal(§56 ).
Althoughindividualpeoplemayhavetofocusonissuesparticulartotheir
temperament(SN35:204),thebasicoutlineofthepathisthesameforall.
Fromthispointofview,theBuddhistRomanticpositionthateach
personcanchoosehisorherownpath—secureintheknowledgethat
whatevertheirchoice,theywillgettothesamegoal—deprivespeopleof
theincentivetostickwiththetruepathwhenitinevitablygetsdifficult.
This,forthepurposesoffreedom,isasevereobstacle.
* * *
•ThisobstacleisespeciallyblatantwithregardtoPoint11,theassertion
thateroticlovecanformapathtoawakening.TheBuddhabeganhisteaching
careerwiththeobservationthatthepathhetaughtavoidedtwoextremes:
indulgenceinsensualpleasuresundertheswayofsensuality—inother
words,thepassionforone’ssensualresolves—andindulgenceinselftorment.Bothextremes,hesaid,areignoble.Bothcreateagreatdealof
suffering—ifyoudon’tbelievethatsexcancausesuffering,spendsome
timeindivorcecourt—andneitherleadstothegoal.
308
Andhedidn’tdeprecatesensualityoutofanarbitrarypersonaldislike
forit.Herecognizedthatthemindcouldattainstrongconcentrationwhen
focusedonsensualdesire,butherealizedthat,forthepurposeofthepath,
thatwouldbewrongconcentration.Rightconcentrationwouldrequirethat
hedropthatdesire(§58 ; §14 ).Afterall,awakeningrequires
comprehendingbecoming,andapersoncancomprehendsensualbecoming
onlywhenheorshehasbeenabletostepoutofthedesirearoundwhichit
forms(MN14).AstheBuddhalateradmitted,whenhefirstrealizedthat
rightconcentrationrequiredpullingawayfromsensuality,hisminddidn’t
leapupattheprospect.Buthewashonestenoughwithhimselftoadmit
thatitwastrue.So,byfocusingonthedrawbacksofsensuality,hewasable
togetthemindintorightconcentrationandfromthereattainawakening
(AN9:41).
Anunwillingnesstoseethedrawbacksofsensualityisaformof
dishonestythatpreventsonefromexaminingsomeofthecrudestformsof
becomingthatthemindcreates.Atthesametime,itpreventsonefrom
imaginingthedesirability—oreventhepossibility—ofamindfreefromthe
sufferingthattheseformsofbecomingentail(MN125).Thislackof
imaginationplacesseverelimitationsonone’ssensitivitytostress,and
one’sabilitytogainahappinesstotallyfreefromstress.
* * *
•Point12:ontoleratingallreligioustraditionsasequallyvalidexpressionsofa
senseofuniversalOneness.TheRomanticattitudetowardtoleranceisdirectly
relatedtothebasicparadoxthatwehavefrequentlynotedinRomantic
religion:thepositionthat,ontheonehand,noonecanpassjudgmenton
anotherperson’sexpressionofOneness;but,ontheotherhand,thatthose
expressionsarevalidonlywhenrecognizingtheRomanticviewthatthey
areimperfectexpressionsofOneness,alongwiththecorollaryviewthat
someexpressionsexpressthisprinciplebetterthanothers.Translatedinto
theissueoftolerance,thismeansthatyourbeliefswillallbetoleratedonly
aslongastheyrecognizetheRomanticprinciplesofwhatreligionisand
theworldinwhichitfunctions.
Thisstraitjacketissomewhatlooserthanthenarrowrangeoftolerance
offeredbymanyotherreligioustraditions,butit’sastraitjacketnonetheless.
ThisisespeciallyclearfromthepointofviewoftheDhamma,fortwo
reasons.One,theDhammaisnotanattempttoexpressuniversalOneness
309
anddoesn’tseeareturntothatOnenessasitsgoal.Itaimsinsteadat
somethingbeyondtheuniverse:totalunbinding.Two,itrecognizesthat
therearerightandpathstounbinding.Toclaimthatawrongpathcan
actuallygetthesameresultisadisservicetoothers—andtooneself—justas
it’sperversetoteachotherpeopletogetmilkfromacowbytwistingits
horn(§59 ).
Thesetworeasonsaredirectlyrelatedtothethirdandfourthnoble
truths:thatthereisanunfabricateddimensionconstitutingtheendof
suffering,andthattherearerightandwrongpathsforgettingtothat
dimension.ToforcetheDhammatoabandonthesetwotruthsinorderto
earnRomantictoleranceisextractingtoohighaprice.Itimpoverishesall
thosewho,iftheDhammadidbowtotheseconditions,wouldbedeprived
ofthebenefitsoflearningthesetruths.
Somepeoplefearthatnotionsofrightandwrongpracticeslead
inevitablytostrife—lookatallthefutilewarsfoughtoverreligiousbeliefs
—soit’skindertoletpeopletakewhateverpaththeywant.Thisisthe
attitudethatledtoPietisminthefirstplace,andaswehaveseen,this
PietistattitudehassurvivedinRomanticreligion.Butsomedifferencesof
opiniononreligiousmattersaremorelikelytoleadtostrifethanothers.If,
forinstance,youbelievethatthereisonlyonegod,andviewallothergods
asevilandfalse,youarelikelytofeelthreatenedbytheexistenceofother
peoplewhobelieveingodsotherthanyourown.Thisattitudecaneasily
lead—asithasled—torecurrentviolence.
If,however,youbelieveinapathofactionthatleadstotruehappiness
—that,say,youcangetmilkfromacowbypullingonitsudder—youwill
pityotherpeoplewhotrytomilkthecowbytwistingitshorn.Youmay
feelinspiredtopointouttheirerror,butiftheyinsistontwistingthehorn,
youleavethemalone.Nevertheless,youcanstilldoyourbesttoconvince
othersasidefromthemthatacowismoreeffectivelymilkedbypullingon
itsudder.Andyou’rerighttodoso.Wherethere’snoclearsenseofright
andwrong,alotofpeoplewillneedlesslygowithoutmilk.
* * *
•Points13through16:TheseprinciplesintheBuddhistRomantic
programboildowntotwo:(a)thatallreligioustextsareexpressiveofthe
author’sfeelingforuniversalOnenessand(b)thatnotextcarriesspecialauthority
becausenofinitebeing—trappedinhisorherpointintimeandculture—canfully
310
comprehendorexpressthatOneness.Thus,alltextsshouldberead
aesthetically,forpoeticinspiration,butwithoutgrantingthemany
authority.Infact,becauseofthelimitationsoflanguageinexpressing
universalOneness,oneharmsone’sownexperienceofitbygiving
authoritytoanyoneelse’sexpressionofit.
However,fromtheperspectiveoftheDhamma,thepremiseonwhich
theseideasarebasedisfalse.TheBuddha’steachingsarenotexpressionsof
hisfeelingsforuniversalOneness.Theyarepreciseinstructionsonwhatto
dotoattainultimatehappiness.Thisiswhyhisbasicimageforhisteaching
wasapath:somethingtobefollowedtoreachagoal.
a)Granted,theCanoncontainsafewpassageswheretheBuddhaand
hisawakeneddisciplesspeakpoeticallyandexpressivelyoftheir
attainments,butthosepassagesarerare.Farmorecommonarethe
descriptiveandproscriptivepassages:mapstothepath,inwhichtheBuddha
tellsexplicitlyhowtogettoawakening;andencouragementtofollowthe
maps,inwhichhetriestogetpeopletoseewhyawakeningisworth
pursuing.Ashesaidinafamoussimile,theknowledgegainedinhis
awakeningwasliketheleavesintheforest;theknowledgehetaught,like
theleavesinhishand(SN56:31).Andhechosethoseparticularleaves
becausetheyservedapurpose,helpingothersdeveloptheskillsneededfor
release.
Thispointissupportedbytheimageryandanalogiesemployed
throughouttheCanon.Althoughsomeofthemorepoeticpassagesdraw
imagesfromnature,theyaregreatlyoutnumberedbyanalogiesdrawn
frommanualskills—cooking,farming,archery,carpentry—makingthe
pointthatDhammapracticeisaskillthatcanbeunderstoodandmastered
inwayssimilartomoreordinaryskills.
ThepoeticapproachtotheCanonoverlooksthecarewithwhichthe
Buddhatriedtomakehisinstructionsspecificandclear.Asheonce
commented(§66 ),therearetwotypesofassemblies:thosetrainedin
bombast,andthosetrainedincross-questioning.Intheformer,thestudents
aretaught“literaryworks—theworksofpoets,artfulinsound,artfulin
expression,theworkofoutsiders”andarenotencouragedtopindown
whatthemeaningofthosebeautifulwordsmightbe.Inthelatter—and
heretheBuddhawasdescribinghisownmethodofteaching—thestudents
aretaughttheDhammaand“whentheyhavemasteredthatDhamma,they
cross-questiononeanotheraboutitanddissectit:‘Howisthis?Whatisthe
311
meaningofthis?’Theymakeopenwhatisn’topen,makeplainwhatisn’t
plain,dispeldoubtonitsvariousdoubtfulpoints.”
Hetaughtpeopleinthiswaysothattheycouldclearlyunderstandwhat
theyweresupposedtodo.Totreatsuchteachingsaspoetryencouragesa
haziernotionoftheDhamma,anddeprivesthe“supposedtodo”ofmuch
ofitsforce.Passagesthatchallengethereader’shabitsandviewscanmore
easilybedismissed—andimportantlessonsarelost.
Atthesametime,treatingtheBuddha’swordsaspoetryencouragesa
certainloosenessinquotingandtranslatingthem.ManyBuddhist
Romanticwritersexhibitthislooseness—asintheabovequotecitingthe
Buddhatotheeffectthatpreceptsarenotnecessaryforapersonestablished
inawareness,somethingheneversaid.IntreatingtheBuddha’swords
loosely,thesewritersharmboththeBuddha,byslanderinghim,andthe
reader,bydenyinghimorherthechancetobenefitfromtheBuddha’s
preciseexperienceinthepathandskillinpointingouthowtopracticeit.
b)BecausetheBuddhawasteachingaparticularpathofaction,the
Romanticreasonsforrefusingtogranthimauthoritydonotapply.It’strue
thatnoonepersoncanhavethelastwordonuniversalOneness,butitis
possibleforonepersontohavedevelopedfullexpertiseinaskill—andin
somecases,todevelopanexpertiseonwhichnooneelsecanimprove.
SeeingtheBuddha’steachingsinthislightenablesustounderstandthe
natureofhisauthorityaspresentedinthePālisuttas.Hespeaks,notwith
theauthorityofacreator,butwiththeauthorityofanexpert.Onlyinthe
disciplinaryrulesintheVinayadoesheassumetheaddedauthorityofa
lawgiver.Inthesuttas,hecallshimselfadoctor;atrainer;anadmirable,
experiencedfriendwhohasmasteredaspecificskill:puttinganendto
suffering.Heprovidesexplicitrecommendationsonhowtoact,speak,and
thinktobringaboutthatresult;instructionsonhowtodevelopqualitiesof
mindthatallowyoutoassessyouractionsaccurately;andquestionstoask
yourselfinmeasuringyourprogressalongtheway.
AsforthepossibleharmthatmightcomefromgivingtheBuddha
authorityintheseareas,BuddhistRomanticswhodescribethedangersof
followingaparticularBuddhistteachingusuallydealincaricatures.For
instance,oneteacherwarnsofthedangersofwantingtofollowapaththat
leadstoatranscendent,once-and-for-allgoalasfollows:
“Thelinearpathholdsupanidealisticvisionoftheperfected
312
human,aBuddhaorsaintorsage.Inthisvision,allgreed,anger,fear,
judgment,delusion,personalego,anddesireareuprootedforever,
completelyeliminated.Whatisleftisanabsolutelyunwavering,
radiant,purehumanbeingwhoneverexperiencesanydifficulties,an
illuminatedsagewhofollowsonlytheTaoorGod’swillandnever
hisorherown.”
Althoughthismaybeapossiblevisionofthelinearpath,it’snotthe
pathtaughtintheCanon.TheBuddhacertainlypassedjudgmentonpeople
andtaughtclearcriteriaforwhatareandarenotvalidgroundsfor
judgment(AN7:64;AN4:192;MN110).Heexperienceddifficultiesin
settingupthemonasticSaṅgha.Butthatdoesnotinvalidatethefactthathis
greed,aversion,anddelusionweregone.
AsMN22states,therearedangersingraspingtheDhammawrongly.In
thecontextofthatsutta,theBuddhaisreferringtopeoplewhograspthe
Dhammaforthesakeofargument;atpresentwemightpointoutthe
dangersingraspingtheteachingsneurotically.Butthereareevengreater
dangersinmisrepresentingtheteachings,draggingthemdowntoourown
levelratherthanusingthemtoliftourselvesup.AstheBuddhasaid,
peoplewhoclaimthathesaidwhathedidn’tsay,ordidn’tsaywhathe
did,areslanderinghim(§68 ).Indoingso,theyblindthemselves—and
others—totheDhamma.
* * *
•Point17,onthesourcesofmoralbehavior.TheRomanticrejectionof
moralprecepts,likeitsrejectionofreligiousauthorityingeneral,isbased
onafalsepremise:thatideasofrightandwrongexpressonlythefeelingsof
thepersonwhosetsthemforth.
TheBuddhaestablishedamoralcodeoffivepreceptsbecausehehad
discovered,fromexperience,thatitgavenecessaryguidanceinleadinga
harmlesslife:harmlessbothtooneselfandtoothers(AN4:99).Andthe
rangeofthisguidancedoesn’tendwithawakening.Eventhoughawakened
peoplenolongerdefinethemselvesintermsoftheprecepts,theirbehavior
stillfallsinlinewiththem(MN79).And,conversely,ifapersonclaimsto
beawakenedbuthisorherbehaviordoesn’tfallinlinewiththeprecepts,
theclaimcanberejectedasfalse(AN3:87).
ViewedfromtheperspectiveoftheBuddha’sstandards,theBuddhist
313
Romanticassertionthatfeelingsofloveandcompassionontheonehand,
andOnenessontheother,cangiveapersonadequateguidancetoskillful
behaviordoesn’tholduptoexperience.
Anattitudeofloveandcompassion—onitsown,anduninformedabout
howactionsworkoutovertime—isnotenoughtopreventactionswith
harmfulconsequences.Goodintentionsarenotalwaysskillfulintentions.
Sothepreceptsactasremindersofwhatskillfulkammaactuallyis,and
theyexpresstheirmessageinaconciseform,easytorememberwhenmost
needed,i.e.,wheneventsareurgentandconfusing,andgiveriseto
conflictingemotionsorconflictingideasaboutwhataskillfulactionmight
be.
Similarly,anattitudeofOneness—thatotherpeopleareOnewithyou—
ishardtomaintainwhenthoseotherpeoplearetryingtokillyouandyour
lovedones,orstealwhatyouneedtosurvive.Andyetit’spreciselyin
situationslikethosethatyouneedsomethingcleartoholdontosothatyou
knowwhat,inthelongrun,isskillfultodo,andyouhavethestrengthof
charactertodoit.
Butthepreceptsdomorethansimplycounselagainstunskillful
behavior.Theyarealsoaidsindevelopingconcentrationanddiscernment.
Ifyoufollowthemcarefully,youavoidactionsthatwillleadtoregret—or,
fromregret,todenial.Amindwoundedbyregretwillhaveahardtime
settlingintoconcentration.Ifithascoveredthatregretwiththescartissue
ofdenial,itwillhaveahardtimelookingcarefullyatitsinneractions.
Discernmentwon’thaveachancetoarise.
Moreover,ifyouholdcarefullytotheprecepts,youwillfindthatthey
conflictwithmanyofyourcherishedhabitsandnotions.Thisgivesyouthe
opportunitytocomefacetofacewithattachmentslyingbehindthosehabits
andnotions,whichyoumightotherwisehidefromyourself.Ifyoutendto
dismissthepreceptsassimplythefeelingsofonepersonatoneparticular
pointintime—theBuddhainancientIndia—whichneedtobemodifiedfor
today,youwilleasilymakeexceptionsforyournotionsandhabits.That
willdepriveyouofthe“mirrorofDhamma”thatthepreceptscanideally
provide.
* * *
•Thisprincipleholdstrue,notonlyforyourpersonalnotionsand
habits,butalsoforthoseyouhavepickedupfromyourculture.Ifyoucan’t
314
seetheDhammaastranscendingculture,youwon’tbewillingtolistento
theDhammawhenitchallengesthehorizonswithinwhichyourculturehas
taughtyoutothinkandfeel.Giventhatthesehorizonscanbeinvisibleto
thepeopletheysurround,andyetcaneffectivelyblockoutanypremises
thatdon’tfallinlinewiththem,youmaynotevenhearthechallengesthe
Dhammapresents.
ThisisthepracticaldrawbackofPoint19,onseeingtheBuddha’sDhamma
simplyasaproductofhishistoricalcircumstances.
ThewholepurposeoftheDhammaisadirectchallengetothisprinciple.
Thereleaseprovidedbyunbinding—whattheBuddhacalledtheessenceor
heartwood(sāra)oftheDhamma(§39 )—standsoutsideofspaceandtime
(§§45–49 ).TheBuddha’sdiscoveryofthistimelessperspectivewaswhat
enabledhimtojudgewhichaspectsofhisculturewereconducivetothe
pathleadingtotheessence,andwhichoneswerenot.Thesimplefactthat
heclaimedanexperienceofthetranscendentdoesn’tprovethatit’strue,
buttheRomanticcounterclaim—thatthereisnotranscendentdimension—
hasneverbeenproven,either.Butaswehavepreviouslynoted,the
Buddha’sclaimoffersthepossibilityoffreedom—bothfreedomofchoice
onamoment-to-momentlevel,andtheultimatefreedomofunbinding—
whereastheRomanticclaimoffersnopossibilityofgenuinefreedom,
period.SotochoosetheRomanticclaimovertheDhamma’sclosesoffthe
possibilityofanypathofpracticeatall.
It’sobviousthattheBuddha’slanguageandmetaphorswereculturally
conditioned,butit’shardtoidentifyanyofhisbasicteachingsaslimitedin
thatway.Tosaynothingofhisteachingonunbinding;evenhis
explanationsofsufferingandthepathtoitsenddealinuniversalterms.As
fortherangeofhisknowledge,heclaimedanawarenessofthepastthatfar
outstripsours(DN29;DN1),andhe’doftencitedirectknowledgeofavast
expanseofpast,present,andfuturewhendescribing,forinstance,how
physical,verbal,andmentalactionsaretobepurified(MN61)andhowthe
highestemptinesscanbeattained(MN121).ThisiswhyeventheDhamma
ofthepathissaidtobetimeless,andwhythefirstlevelofawakening
verifiesthatthisisso.
Atthesametime,whenpeoplespeakofessentialBuddhistteachings
thatarelimitedbytheculturalconventionsoftheBuddha’stime,they’re
usuallymisinformedastowhatthoseconventionswere.
Forinstance,withthedoctrineofkamma:EventhoughtheBuddhaused
315
thewordkammalikehiscontemporaries,hisconceptionofwhatkamma
wasandhowitworkeddifferedradicallyfromtheirs(§8 ;MN60;MN101).
Thesameholdswiththeteachingonrebirth:Questionsofwhether
rebirthactuallyhappened,andtheextenttowhichitwasrelatedtokamma,
werehotlydebatedinhistime(DN2;DN23).Soit’shardtosaythat,in
teachingtheeffectofkammaonrebirth,hewassimplyfollowing
unthinkinglythenarrowbeliefsofhisculture.Infact,histeachingsonthis
issuetackledtheissueofrebirthinanovelandpracticalway:focusingnot
onwhatisorisn’treborn,butonhowrebirthhappensbasedonhabitsofthe
mind,andhowthosehabitscanberetrainedtogivefreedomfrom
continuedsuffering.
Histeachingsonkammaandrebirthgiveuniversalanswerstoa
universalquestion:“WhatfactorsshouldItakeintoaccounttodecideifa
particularactionisworththeeffort?”Wecan’tbeagnosticonthisissue,
treatingitasaquestionnotworthanswering,becauseweansweritwillynillywitheveryactionwetake,aswedecidewhichpotentialresultsofthe
actionshouldenterintothecalculationofwhetherit’sworthdoing,and
whichpotentialresultstoignore.
What’sstrikingabouttheWesternattitudetowardkammaandrebirthis
thatsomanyWesternershaveresistedtheseteachingsfromthestart.
Herderfoundthemrepellent,asdidHegel,althoughneitherofthem
understoodthewiderangeofIndianpositionsonthesetopics,orthefact
thattheBuddha’spositiondifferedradicallyfromanythingelseinthe
Indiantradition.Yeteventhoughmuchnewevidenceonthesetopicshas
surfacedovertheyears,showinghowtheBuddha’spositionwasuniquely
suitedtothepurposeofputtinganendtosuffering,BuddhistRomanticism
remainsstuckintheoldWesternattitude:Ittreatshisteachingsonkamma
andrebirthsimplyasculturalholdoversthatwouldbebetterdroppedfrom
thetraditionbecausetheideaofindividualkammaclasheswiththe
principleoftheOnenessofallbeing,andtheteachingonrebirthwiththe
principleoftotalreceptivitytothepresentmoment.Asaresult,the
Buddha’sactualteachingsonthesetopicsarenotallowedtoholdupa
mirrortoWestern/Romanticsuppositions.Noraretheygivenachanceto
showthewayaroundtheobstaclesthatthosesuppositionsplaceonthe
path.
* * *
316
•Instead,BuddhistRomanticismteachesthatmodernBuddhistsare
actuallydoingtheDhammaafavorbychangingittosuittheneedsand
suppositionsofmodernculture,inlinewithPoint20:thedutytoalterone’s
religioustraditioninlinewiththetimes.
Hereit’simportanttoremembertheRomanticassumptionunderlying
thisprinciple:thattheuniverseisanorganismwithapurpose,andthatits
purposeisbecomingmorefullyrealizedwiththepassageoftime.Thus
evolutionsinsocietyaregood,andreligionsshouldevolveinordertokeep
upwiththem.Thisassumptionreceivesstrongreinforcementinaculture
suchasourswheretechnologicalprogressleadspeopletobelievethatthe
cultureasawholeisevolvingfarbeyondanythingtheworldhasever
known.
Butthereisverylittletosupportthisassumption.Infact,thePālisuttas
presenttheoppositepicture:thathumanlifeisgettingworseasaspherefor
Dhammapractice,andwillcontinuetodeteriorateuntiltheDhamma
disappearsentirely.Andit’seasytocitefeaturesofmodernlifethat
confirmthispicture.Tobeginwith,Dhammapracticeisaskill,requiring
theattitudesandmentalabilitiesdevelopedbymanualskills—suchas
patience,respect,humility,andresilience—andyetweareasocietywhose
manualskillsarefasterodingaway.Thusthementalvirtuesnurturedby
manualskillshaveatrophied.Atthesametime,thesocialhierarchy
requiredbyskills—inwhichstudentsapprenticethemselvestoamaster—
hasmostlydisappeared,sowe’veunlearnedtheattitudesneededtolivein
hierarchyinahealthyandproductivemanner.
Weliketothinkthatwe’reshapingtheDhammawithourhighest
culturalideals,butsomeofourlowerwaysareactuallydominatingthe
shapeofWesternDhamma:Thesenseofneuroticentitlementproducedby
thecultureofconsumerismisacaseinpoint,asarethehypeofthemass
mediaandthedemandsofthemass-marketforaDhammathatsells.
SojustbecauseBuddhismhasbeenchangedinthepastdoesn’tmean
thatthosechangesweregood,orthattheyshouldbetakenasanexample
orjustificationfornewchangesnow.Here,again,theorganicnotionof
changehascreatedconfusion.AlltoooftenBuddhismispresentedasan
organismthatwiselyadaptsitselftoitsnewenvironments.ButBuddhism
isnotaplantorananimal.Itdoesn’thaveawill,anditdoesn’tadapt;
peopleadaptBuddhismtotheirvariousends.Insomecases,thoseendsare
admirable.Somenovelelements—intermsoflanguageandimagery—have
317
helpedbringpeopleinnewtimesandplacesintocontactwiththeessence
oftheDhamma.Andinmanycases,oftenoverlookedinhistoriesthatfocus
oninnovation,manyattemptsatadaptationhaveaimed,notatcreating
somethingnew,butatrecoveringsomethingthathadbeenlost.
Yetbecausetheadaptersofthepastwerenotalwayswise,there’sno
guaranteethatalladaptationsareskillful.Justbecauseotherpeoplehave
madechangesintheDhammadoesn’tautomaticallyjustifythechangeswe
wanttomake.Think,forinstance,ofhowsomeMahāyānatraditions
droppedtheVinaya’sproceduresfordealingwithteacher-studentsexual
abuse:WasthistheDhammawiselyadaptingitselftotheirneeds?
TheBuddhaforesawthatpeoplewouldintroducewhathecalled“a
counterfeitofthetrueDhamma”—andwhenthathappened,hesaid,the
trueDhammawoulddisappear(§69 ).Inaseparatepassage,hecompared
theprocesstowhathappenswhenawoodendrumdevelopsacrack,into
whichapegisinserted,andthenanothercrack,intowhichanotherpegis
inserted,andsoonuntilnothingisleftoftheoriginaldrum-body.Allthat
remainsisamassofpegs,whichcannotcomeneartoproducingthesound
oftheoriginaldrum(§71 ).
Asnotedabove,somescholarshavefoundthePāliCanon’swarnings
aboutthedecayoftheDhammaironic,citingwhattheyclaimtobea
Buddhistprinciple:thatresistancetochangeisarootcauseofsuffering.But
theBuddhadidn’tembracechange,didn’tencouragechangeforthesakeof
change,andcertainlydidn’tdefineresistancetochangeasthecauseof
suffering.Sufferingiscausedbyidentifyingwithchangeorwiththingsthat
change.Manyarethesuttasdescribingtheperilsof“goingalongwiththe
flow”intermsofariverthatcancarryanunsuspectingpersonto
whirlpools,monsters,anddemons(Iti109).Andapervasivethemeinthe
Canonisthattruehappinessisfoundonlywhenonecrossesovertheriver
tothechangelessnessoftheotherside(Sn5).
Asfortrustingtheimpulsesofthemindtoproducewisechanges,this
tooisanotionbasedontheorganicRomanticviewoftheuniverse:thatour
innerdrivesareallexpressionsofareliablygoodsourceleadingtoagood
end.Buttryathoughtexperimentandtaketheabovepassage—that“we
mustbeopentoavarietyofresponsestowardsocialchangethatcomefrom
noparticular‘authority’butaregroundedintheradicalcreativitythat
comeswhenconceptsfallaway”—andimaginehowitwouldsoundin
differentcontexts.ComingfromasociallyconcernedBuddhistactivist,it
318
mightnotseemdisconcerting.Butfromarebelleaderteachingchildsoldiersinacivil-wartorncountry,oragreedyfinanciercontemplating
newfinancialinstruments,itwouldbeacauseforalarm.
TheBuddha’steachingsonthemind’sactiveinteractionwiththeworld
areinagreementwiththeRomanticprinciplethatthemindhasan
interactive,reciprocalrelationshipwiththeuniverse.Buthewouldhave
differedwiththeRomanticestimationthatthisactivity—whetherfrom
withinthemindorfromtheuniverseoutside—isdivinelyrootedand
inspired.Totrustthisactivityunquestioninglywouldbe,inhiseyes,anact
ofheedlessness.Inhisanalysisofdependentco-arising,mentalfabrication
—themind’sactiveapproachtoexperience—comesfromignorance(§25 ;
SN12:2).Thisignorancehasnooverallpurpose,andinparticulardoesnot
workinstinctivelyforthegoodofall.AswenotedinChapterFour,the
simplefactthatthemindisinaninteractiverelationshipwithits
environmentisnoproofthatbotharepartsofalarger,benevolent,
teleologicalwhole.
Infact,fromthepointofviewoftheDhamma,theinteractive,reciprocal
natureoffabricationisthereasonwhycausalrelationsareunstable,and
whyanyhappinessbuiltonfabricationisunreliableandentailsinherent
suffering.Theonlywaytoendsufferingisnottocelebratefabrication,but
tomasteritstrategicallysoastoendit;andthisrequiresanattitude,notof
trust,butofheedfulvigilance(DN16).Heedfulnessmustextendbothto
one’sattitudetowardone’sintuitionsandtothewayswithwhichone
interpretstheDhamma.
ThechoicebetweentheDhammaandBuddhistRomanticismultimately
comesdowntowhichkindoffreedomyouwant.TheDhammaoffers
freedomfromsufferingthroughfreedomfrombecoming;Buddhist
Romanticism—inlinewiththeRomanticviewofreligionasanartwork—
offersyouthefreedomtoredesigntheDhammainlinewithyour
preferencestoproducemoreinclusivestatesofbecoming.Giventhatthe
Romanticuniverseallowsfornothingbeyondbecoming,itclosesthedoor
tofreedomintheultimatesense.Andaswehavenoted,thefactthat,ina
Romanticuniverse,youhavenocontroloveryourpreferences,itcan’teven
offerfreedominthemoreeverydaysenseoffreedomofchoice.Although
theRomanticworldviewpromotestheideathatexpressionsofpreferences
ultimatelyhavenoconsequences,theDhammastartswiththeprinciplethat
actionshaveconsequencesnowandintothefuture(MN61).Thedifference
319
inperspectivecouldn’tbemorestark.
IfweareseriousaboutourengagementwiththeDhamma,wehaveto
thinknotonlyofthebenefitswecangainfromtheDhamma,butalsoof
whatsortofDhammaweleaveforfuturegenerations.TheBuddhanever
demandedthatpeoplebelievehisteachings,buthedidaskthatpeople
representthemfairlyandgivethemafairtest.Butifweinsistonmaking
changestotheDhamma,thepeoplewhocomeafteruswon’tknowwhatto
test,orwhatafairtestmightbe.TowhateverextentthetrueDhammahas
comedowntous,hasallbeenthroughtheeffortsofthemenandwomenof
manygenerationswhopracticedinlinewithit,benefitedfromit,andwent
outoftheirwaytopreserveit.
ThosepeopleweremotivatedtopreservetheDhammabecausetheyhad
followed,notthedutytochangeit,butthedutieswithregardtothefour
nobletruths.Theycomprehendedsuffering,abandoneditscause,realized
itscessation,allbydevelopingthepath.Inotherwords,insteadof
imposingdutiesontheDhamma,theyacceptedthedutiestheDhamma
taughtthem.Havingtastedthereleasethatcomesfromfollowingthese
duties,theyfullyappreciatedthevalueoftheDhammaandwantedtokeep
italiveandintactforthosewhowouldcomeafter.Todisrupttheirefforts
inthatdirection,outofadesiretobecreativeorexpressive,isanactof
ingratitudetowardthosewhowentbeforeus,andofcallousnesstoward
thosewhowillcomeafter.
WhentheBuddhadescribedhowcounterfeitDhammawouldmakethe
trueDhammadisappear,hecomparedtheprocesstowhathappensto
genuinemoneywhencounterfeitmoneygetscirculated:Aslongasthereis
onlygenuinemoney,peopledon’tdoubtitsauthenticity.Theycansimply
putittouse.Butwhenthereisbothgenuineandcounterfeitmoney,doubts
willariseastowhatisgenuine,andsoallmoneybecomesdubious.People
havetobewaryofwhatthey’reusing,andhavetodevisemoreandmore
sophisticatedteststodeterminewhat’sgenuine.
WealreadyliveinanerawherecounterfeitDhammahasbecome
common.Asaresult,it’sveryeasytodoubtthatthereis,oreverwas,such
athingasgenuineDhamma.ThismeansthattheBuddha’sforecasthas
alreadycometrue.TrueDhamma—assomethingundeniablyTrueor
Dhamma—hasalreadydisappeared.Thisplacesaburdenofresponsibility
oneveryonewhowantstofindanendtosuffering:Wehavetobevery
carefulaboutourreasonsforchoosingoneversionofDhammaover
320
another,andtotestourownhonestyagainandagain.Otherwise,ifwe
simplytrusttheimpulsesofourheartsandofthosewhoofferusan
appealingDhamma,webecomesuckersforcounterfeit.Andifwebecome
counterfeitersourselves,we’remakingthingsthatmuchharderfor
succeedinggenerations.
THEIRONIESOFBUDDHISTROMANTICISM
TheradicaldifferencesbetweenBuddhistRomanticismandthe
DhammacanbestbesummarizedbyrestatingBuddhistRomantic
principlesintheframeworkofthefournobletruths:whatmightbecalled
thefourRomantictruths.
1)Sufferingisafeelingofseparation:withinoneself,betweenoneself
andotherpeople,andbetweenoneselfandtheuniverseatlarge.
2)Thisfeelingofseparationiscausedbythemistakennotionthatoneis
aseparateentitywithaseparateidentity.
3)Sufferingnevertotallyends,butrelieffromsufferingcanbe
occasionallyglimpsedinafeelingofOnenessthattemporarilyovercomes
thatsenseofseparateidentity.
4)ThereisnoonerightpathforglimpsingasenseofOneness,butall
effectivepathsconsistofcultivatinganattitudeofenlargingone’s
perspectivetoembracealloflife,totranscendideasofrightandwrong,and
tomaintainanattitudeofopenreceptivitytoallexperience.
ComparethesefourRomantictruthswiththefournobletruths:
1)Sufferingisclingingto—feedingon—theaggregatesofform,feeling,
perception,fabrication,andconsciousness.
2)Thisclingingiscausedbythecravingthatleadstobecoming:craving
forsensualpassions,cravingforbecoming,andcravingforthedestruction
ofbecoming.
3)Thiscravingcanbeendedonceandforallthroughdispassionforit.
4)Thisdispassioncanbeinducedonlybyfollowingthepathofright
view,rightresolve,rightspeech,rightaction,rightlivelihood,righteffort,
rightmindfulness,andrightconcentration.
321
Thefournobletruthsentailfourduties—comprehendingstress,
abandoningitscause,realizingitscessation,anddevelopingthepath—
whereasthefourRomantictruthsentailonlyone:fosteringanopen
receptivitytouniversalOneness,acceptingjoysandsorrowsasallpartof
thesacrednessoflife.
AswesawwithSchlegelandEmerson,thisuniversalpointofview
carrieswithitanattitudeofirony.Infact,aviewpointthatembraces
oppositesdemandsanattitudeofirony,becauseeverytimeitexpressesa
truthithastoacknowledgethelimitationsofthoseexpressions.This
attitudethusembodiesastanceonthepartoftheauthor—abovethetruths
heorsheisexpressing—andalsoastyle,indicatingthatthetruth,while
heartfelt,shouldnotbetakenasfullyserious.ThusagenuineRomantic
wouldprefertoputquotationmarksaroundthewordtruthintheRomantic
truths—ortocallthemmyths—tosuggesttheuniversalpointofviewthat
couldembracetheiroppositesaswell.
WeoftenassociateRomanticismwithaflowery,emotionalstyle—and
tracesofthatstylecertainlycanbefoundamongRomanticwriters,whether
earlyorBuddhist—butamongthevariousstylesadoptedbyRomantics,
ironyismostfaithfultothecontentoftheRomanticworldview.Infact,
ironyiswhereRomanticcontentandstylemerge.Thisisparticularlytrue
foranartistwhoaspirestoembodyfreedomintheprocessofcreatinga
workofart,becauseanattitudeofironyliberatestheartistfromtwokinds
oftyranny:thetyrannyoftraditionalrulesaboutwhataworkofartshould
be,andthetyrannyofbeingdefinedbyone’sownpreviousartistic
creations.
Inadditiontoexpressingauniversalperspective,theironicstyleand
stancealsoexpressestheRomanticsenseoftheuniverseasorganism,
constantlyevolving.Itallowstheartisttobefaithfultohisorherfeelingof
theorganicforcesatplaywithinandwithoutataparticularpointintime,
butwithoutbeingcommittedtoconsistencyovertime.Thisisoneofthe
reasonsthat,althoughOnenessandfreedomwerethetwomainprinciples
thattheRomanticsembraced,theynevermanagedtoresolvethe
inconsistencybetweenthem—ortoacknowledgethattheyhadfailedin
trying.
LiketheearlyRomantics,BuddhistRomanticsexpresstheirappreciation
ofironybothinthestyleandcontentoftheirteachings.Ironyinstyleis
hardtodemonstrateinshortquotations;butironyasaconsciousstanceis
322
oftenexplicitlyextolled:
“Asonematuresinspirituallife,onebecomesmorecomfortable
withparadox,moreappreciativeoflife’sambiguities,itsmanylevels
andinherentconflicts.Onedevelopsasenseoflife’sirony,metaphor,
andhumorandacapacitytoembracethewhole,withitsbeautyand
outrageousness,inthegraciousnessoftheheart.…Whenweembrace
life’sopposites,weholdourownbirthanddeath,ourownjoyand
suffering,asinseparable.Wehonorthesacredinbothemptinessand
form.”
AppliedtotheBuddhisttradition,ironywouldmeanmaintainingthat
therearemanypathstothegoal,andthatfreedomistobefound,notby
followinganyparticularBuddhistpath,butbystandingabovetheconfines
ofanypathandexercisingone’sfreedominbeingabletomovelightlyand
easilyamongmany.
Insomecases,thisattitudeofironyisjustifiedfromwithintheBuddhist
traditionitselfbypointingtoinstanceswheretheBuddhawarnedabout
attachmenttoviews.
“[F]lexibilityunderstandsthatthereisnotjustonewayofpractice
oronefinespiritualtradition,buttherearemanyways.It
understandsthatspirituallifeisnotaboutadoptinganyone
particularphilosophyorsetofbeliefsorteachings,thatitisnota
causefortakingastandinoppositiontosomeoneelseorsomething
else.Itisaneasinessofheartthatunderstandsthatallofthespiritual
vehiclesareraftstocrossthestreamtofreedom.Inhisearliest
dialogue,theBuddhacautionedagainstconfusingtheraftwiththe
shoreandagainstadoptinganyrigidopinionorview.Hewenton,
‘Howcouldanythinginthisworldbringconflicttoawiseperson
whohasnotadoptedanyview?’…Theflexibilityofheartbringsa
humortospiritualpractice.Itallowsustoseethattherearea
hundredthousandskillfulmeansofawakening,thattherearetimes
forformalandsystematicwaysandtimesforspur-of-the-moment
andunusualandoutrageousones.”
However,inmakingthisargument,thispassage—likemanyotherswith
asimilarpoint—misrepresentswhattheBuddhaactuallysaid.Hedrewa
clearlinebetweentheroleofviewswhenoneisstillonthepathandtheir
323
roleafteronehasreachedthegoal.Ashestatedinanearlypoem,thegoal
cannotbedefinedintermsofviews—oroflearningorprecepts—butit
cannotbeattainedexceptthroughviews,learning,andprecepts(Sn4:9).
Theremaybesomeleewayinhowapersonpracticesinlinewiththisfact—
theWingstoAwakening,forinstance,containsevendifferentdescriptions
ofhowthefactorsofthepathinteract—butpathsofpracticeareclearly
dividedintorightandwrong,becausewrongpaths,likeanattempttoget
edibleoilbygrindinggravel,simplydon’twork.
Whileyou’reonthepath,youhavetoholdtoit.Thisispartofthe
messageofthesimileoftheraft.It’snotaboutconfusingthepathwiththe
goal.Thesimile’smainmessageisaboutnotneedingtoholdtothepath
afteryouhaveachievedthegoal.Butitalsoimpliesthataslongasyouare
stillatthestageofcrossingtheriver,youneedtoholdfirmlytotheraft.
Otherwise,theriverwillsweepyouaway(MN22).
Thispointisunderlinedbythesimilethataccompaniesthesimileofthe
raftinMN22:thesimileofthesnake.Supposethatyouwantsomething
fromasnake,suchasvenomtomakeanantidote.Ifyougraspthesnake
wrongly,bycatchingitstail,it’llbiteyou.Ifyougraspitrightly,bypinning
itsneckdownwithaforkedstick,thesnakewon’tbeabletobiteyouno
matterhowmuchitwrithesandcoilsaroundyourarm.You’llbeableto
getthevenomneededfortheantidote.However,ifyoutrytoplayitsafeby
notgraspingthesnakeatall,youwon’tgettheantidoteyouneed.
Similarly,ifyouholdtotheDhammasimplytoarguewithothers,you’ll
harmyourself.Ifyouholdontoittopracticeitsincerely,you’llgainthe
resultsyouwant.Ifyoudon’tholdontoitatall,theresultssimplywon’t
come.
AswenotedaboveinourdiscussionofPoint18,it’srareforTheravāda
BuddhistRomanticsexplicitlytopromotetheideathattheuniverseis
beyonddualitiesofrightandwronginmoralmatters.However,whenthey
adoptanironicattitudetowardviews,theyignorethefactthattoassertno
rightorwrongintermsofviewsistoassertimplicitlynorightorwrongin
termsofactionsandmorality.Afterall,viewsareatypeofaction,theylead
tofurtheractions,andthoseactionshaveconsequences.Aslongas
sufferingisaproblemresultingfromunskillfulactions,andtheendof
sufferingisapossiblegoalresultingfromskillfulactions,therehavetobe
rightandwrongwaysofviewingtheproblemandunderstandingwhich
actionsareskillfulandwhichonesarenot.
324
TheBuddhawasnotanargumentativeperson,butevenhewouldgo
outofhiswaytoconfrontthosewhotaughtviewsthatwereabsolutely
detrimentaltoDhammapractice—inparticular,thosewhotaughtthat
actionborenoresults.Hewouldalsoseekoutandarguewiththosewho
heldtoopinionsthatinadvertentlydeniedthepowerofactioninthe
present,suchasphilosopherswhoattributedeverythingtoacreatorGod,
whotaughtthatallthingswerewithoutcause,orwhotaughtthatall
experiencewaspredeterminedbywhatwasdoneinthepast(§8 ;MN101).
Becausetheseviewsundercutanynotionofaneffectivepathofpractice,
theBuddhahadtoshowclearlythattheywerewrong.
SotheDhammadoesnotembraceopposites.Ifitembracesanything,it
embracestheobservationthatsomepracticesarerightforthesakeof
leadingtotheendofsuffering,andotherpracticesarewrong.Aslongas
you’reonthepath,youembracethepath.Whenthegoalisreached,youlet
goofeverything.Butifyou’restillaliveandteachingothers,youshow
themcompassionbymakingsurethattheyunderstandwhatisrightand
wrongsothattheycanattainthefreedomofthetranscendentaswell.
ThispointhighlightsagreaterironyinthedifferencebetweenBuddhist
RomanticismandtheDhamma.Byadoptinganuniversalpointofview—
thatofanexpressiveartist,tryingtotranscendfinitedualities—Buddhist
Romanticsseemtobecomingfromahigherperspectivefromwhichthey
canusethehistoricalmethodtocriticizetheDhammaforbeingnarrow:
time-bound,culture-bound,andout-of-date.Andyet,inthefinalanalysis,
theycanpromiseonlyaverycompromisednotionoffreedom:glimpsesof
Onenessthatcannevergobeyondtheconfinesofbecoming.
AsfortheDhamma,eventhoughitseemstobetakinganarrowerpoint
ofview—thatofacraftsmantryingtomasterwhatisrightandwrongina
craft,andpassingthatcraftalongtoothers—itultimatelyleadstoahigher
goal:transcendentfreedombeyondthedimensionsofspaceandtime.
Thecontrastbetweenthesetwoapproachescanbeappreciatedmost
graphicallybyconsideringthestorywithwhichtheauthoroftheabove
passageonflexibilityillustrateshismessage.Hetellsofahighschool
basketballcoachhiredtocoachagroupofspeciallyhandicappedchildren.
Realizingafterhisfirstsessionthatthechildrenwouldneverbeabletoplay
basketballwithanyrecognizablerules—theyhadtroubleevenliningup
andfacinginthesamedirection—hewentwiththeflowandthrewouthis
coachingplansinfavorofamorefree-formapproach.Insteadoffocusing
325
onwinning,hefosteredanatmospherethatallowedthechildrentoexpress
theircreativityandhaveagoodtime.Thescorekeeperpushedthescore
buttonwheneverhefeltlikeit—inonegame,theyrackedupmorethana
millionpoints—thegamecouldbeinterruptedbymusicanddanceatany
point,andattheendofeachgameeveryonewasrewardedwithhotdogs.
Thestoryishumorousinagentle,heartwarmingway,butthehumor
distractsattentionfromthequestionofwhetherthiswasthemosthelpful
approachthecoachcouldhavetakenintrainingthechildren.Andthe
warmthdistractsattentionfromthechillingmessagethestoryisbeing
forcedtoconvey:thatspirituallifeisnotaboutplayingwellormasteringa
skill,andthatinthefinalaccount,winningorlosingatthepathdoesn’t
matter.Allthatmattersisexpressingyourselfandenjoyingyourselfinthe
process.
Ifsufferingweren’tarealproblem,thisattitudewouldbeperfectly
helpful,asitplacesnounnecessarydemandsonanyone.Butsufferingitself
placesdemandsontheheart,andthedemandshaveasqueeze.Ifyou’re
sensitivetothatsqueeze,youwant,notanartistwhoteachesyouhowto
expressyourselfwhileembracingthesqueeze,butacraftsmanwhocan
trainyouintheskillsneededtoputanendtothatsqueezeonceandforall.
Inthiscontext,compassiondoesn’tmeanthrowingouttherulesand
awardingprizestoeveryone.Itmeansgivingclearinstructionsastowhat
worksandwhatdoesn’t—treatingpeople,notaschildrenwanting
entertainment,butasadults.
TheBuddhadidn’tspeakasacreativeartistexpressinghimselfby
inventingtheDhamma.Hespokeasanexpertcraftsmanwhohad
discoveredapathtoafreedomtotallyuncreatedandwhopassedthatpath
ontomanyotherswho,inturn,havecontinuedpassingitonformillennia.
Thecraftofthepathisbasedontheassumptionthatwearefreetomake
choices,andthatourchoicescanmakeadifference.AstheBuddhasaw
whenhefirstcontemplatedhislife,thereisnoproofthattheseassumptions
aretrue—orthatouractionscanleadtothedeathless—untilyou’veput
themtothetest.Therearenoguaranteespriortoatleastsomelevelof
commitment.Butashealsosaw,thepossibilitythatactionsmightmakea
differencemeantthattheonlyhonorablewaytolivewastotaketheriskof
takingonthecommitment,andtodevotehislifetofindingouthowfar
humanactioncango.
Thereisnohonorinassumingthatactionsdon’tcountandthata
326
transcendenthappinessisimpossible.Aslongaswe’rechoosingapathto
follow,whynotmakethehonorablechoice?
327
APPENDIX
UnromanticDhamma
THEDISCOVERYOFTHEDHAMMA
§1.“It’sjustasifaman,travelingalongawildernesstrack,weretosee
anancientpath,anancientroad,traveledbypeopleofformertimes.He
wouldfollowit.Followingit,hewouldseeanancientcity,anancient
capitalinhabitedbypeopleofformertimes,completewithparks,groves,&
ponds,walled,delightful.Hewouldgotoaddressthekingortheking’s
minister,saying,‘Sire,youshouldknowthatwhiletravelingalonga
wildernesstrackIsawanancientpath.…Ifollowedit.…Isawanancient
city,anancientcapital…completewithparks,groves,&ponds,walled,
delightful.Sire,rebuildthatcity!’Thekingorking’sministerwouldrebuild
thecity,sothatatalaterdatethecitywouldbecomepowerful,rich,&wellpopulated,fullygrown&prosperous.
“InthesamewayIsawanancientpath,anancientroad,traveledbythe
RightlySelf-awakenedOnesofformertimes.Andwhatisthatancientpath,
thatancientroad,traveledbytheRightlySelf-awakenedOnesofformer
times?Justthisnobleeightfoldpath:rightview,rightresolve,rightspeech,
rightaction,rightlivelihood,righteffort,rightmindfulness,right
concentration.Thatistheancientpath,theancientroad,traveledbythe
RightlySelf-awakenedOnesofformertimes.Ifollowedthatpath.
Followingit,Icametodirectknowledgeofaging-&-death,direct
knowledgeoftheoriginationofaging-&-death,directknowledgeofthe
cessationofaging-&-death,directknowledgeofthepathleadingtothe
cessationofaging-&-death.Ifollowedthatpath.Followingit,Icameto
directknowledgeofbirth…becoming…clinging…craving…feeling…
contact…thesixsensemedia…name-&-form…consciousness,direct
knowledgeoftheoriginationofconsciousness,directknowledgeofthe
cessationofconsciousness,directknowledgeofthepathleadingtothe
cessationofconsciousness.Ifollowedthatpath.
“Followingit,Icametodirectknowledgeoffabrications,direct
328
knowledgeoftheoriginationoffabrications,directknowledgeofthe
cessationoffabrications,directknowledgeofthepathleadingtothe
cessationoffabrications.Knowingthatdirectly,Ihaverevealedittomonks,
nuns,malelayfollowers&femalelayfollowers,sothatthisholylifehas
becomepowerful,rich,detailed,well-populated,wide-spread,proclaimed
amongdevas&humanbeings.”—SN12:65
THEPROBLEMOFDUKKHA
§2.“Bothformerly&now,itisonlystressthatIdescribe,andthe
cessationofstress.”—SN22:86
§3.“Nowthis,monks,isthenobletruthofstress:Birthisstressful,
agingisstressful,deathisstressful;sorrow,lamentation,pain,distress,&
despairarestressful;associationwiththeunbelovedisstressful,separation
fromthelovedisstressful,notgettingwhatiswantedisstressful.Inshort,
thefiveclinging-aggregatesarestressful.
“Andthis,monks,isthenobletruthoftheoriginationofstress:the
cravingthatmakesforfurtherbecoming—accompaniedbypassion&
delight,relishingnowhere&nowthere—i.e.,cravingforsensuality,
cravingforbecoming,cravingfornon-becoming.
“Andthis,monks,isthenobletruthofthecessationofstress:the
remainderlessfading&cessation,renunciation,relinquishment,release,&
lettinggoofthatverycraving.
“Andthis,monks,isthenobletruthofthewayofpracticeleadingtothe
cessationofstress:preciselythisnobleeightfoldpath—rightview,right
resolve,rightspeech,rightaction,rightlivelihood,righteffort,right
mindfulness,rightconcentration.…
“‘Thisnobletruthofstressistobecomprehended’…‘Thisnobletruth
oftheoriginationofstressistobeabandoned’…‘Thisnobletruthofthe
cessationofstressistoberealized’…‘Thisnobletruthofthewayof
practiceleadingtothecessationofstressistobedeveloped.’”—SN56:11
SKILLINQUESTIONS
§4.“Therearethesefourwaysofansweringquestions.Whichfour?
329
Therearequestionsthatshouldbeansweredcategorically
[straightforwardlyyes,no,this,that].Therearequestionsthatshouldbe
answeredwithananalyticalanswer[definingorredefiningtheterms].
Therearequestionsthatshouldbeansweredwithacounter-question.There
arequestionsthatshouldbeputaside.Thesearethefourwaysof
answeringquestions.”—AN4:42
§5.“So,Māluṅkyaputta,rememberwhatisundisclosedbymeas
undisclosed,andwhatisdisclosedbymeasdisclosed.Andwhatis
undisclosedbyme?‘Thecosmosiseternal,’isundisclosedbyme.‘The
cosmosisnoteternal,’isundisclosedbyme.‘Thecosmosisfinite’…‘The
cosmosisinfinite’…‘Thesoul&thebodyarethesame’…‘Thesoulisone
thingandthebodyanother’…‘AfterdeathaTathāgataexists’…‘After
deathaTathāgatadoesnotexist’…‘AfterdeathaTathāgatabothexists&
doesnotexist’…‘AfterdeathaTathāgataneitherexistsnordoesnotexist,’
isundisclosedbyme.
“Andwhyaretheyundisclosedbyme?Becausetheyarenotconnected
withthegoal,arenotfundamentaltotheholylife.Theydonotleadto
disenchantment,dispassion,cessation,calming,directknowledge,selfawakening,unbinding.That’swhytheyareundisclosedbyme.
“Andwhatisdisclosedbyme?‘Thisisstress,’isdisclosedbyme.‘This
istheoriginationofstress,’isdisclosedbyme.‘Thisisthecessationof
stress,’isdisclosedbyme.‘Thisisthepathofpracticeleadingtothe
cessationofstress,’isdisclosedbyme.Andwhyaretheydisclosedbyme?
Becausetheyareconnectedwiththegoal,arefundamentaltotheholylife.
Theyleadtodisenchantment,dispassion,cessation,calming,direct
knowledge,self-awakening,unbinding.That’swhytheyaredisclosedby
me.”—MN63
§6.“AndwhathaveItaughtanddeclaredtobecategoricalteachings?
(Thestatementthat)‘Thisisstress’Ihavetaughtanddeclaredtobea
categoricalteaching.‘Thisistheoriginationofstress’…‘Thisisthe
cessationofstress’…‘Thisisthepathofpracticeleadingtothecessationof
stress’Ihavetaughtanddeclaredtobeacategoricalteaching.Andwhy
haveItaughtanddeclaredtheseteachingstobecategorical?Becausethey
areconnectedwiththegoal,connectedwiththeDhamma,andfundamental
totheholylife.Theyleadtodisenchantment,dispassion,cessation,
calming,directknowledge,self-awakening,unbinding.That’swhyIhave
330
taughtanddeclaredthemtobecategorical.”—DN9
§7.Anāthapiṇḍikathehouseholdersaidtothewanderers,“Asforthe
venerableonewhosays,‘Thecosmosiseternal.Onlythisistrue;anything
otherwiseisworthless.ThisisthesortofviewIhave,’hisviewarisesfrom
hisowninappropriateattentionorindependenceonthewordsofanother.
Nowthisviewhasbeenbroughtintobeing,isfabricated,willed,
dependentlyco-arisen.Whateverhasbeenbroughtintobeing,isfabricated,
willed,dependentlyco-arisen,thatisinconstant.Whateverisinconstantis
stress.Thisvenerableonethusadherestothatverystress,submitshimself
tothatverystress.”[Similarlyfortheotherpositionsmentionedin§5.]
Whenthishadbeensaid,thewandererssaidtoAnāthapiṇḍikathe
householder,“Wehaveeach&everyoneexpoundedtoyouinlinewith
ourownpositions.Nowtelluswhatviewsyouhave.”
“Whateverhasbeenbroughtintobeing,isfabricated,willed,
dependentlyco-arisen,thatisinconstant.Whateverisinconstantisstress.
Whateverisstressisnotme,isnotwhatIam,isnotmyself.Thisisthesort
ofviewIhave.”
“So,householder,whateverhasbeenbroughtintobeing,isfabricated,
willed,dependentlyco-arisen,thatisinconstant.Whateverisinconstantis
stress.Youthusadheretothatverystress,submityourselftothatvery
stress.”
“Venerablesirs,whateverhasbeenbroughtintobeing,isfabricated,
willed,dependentlyco-arisen,thatisinconstant.Whateverisinconstantis
stress.Whateverisstressisnotme,isnotwhatIam,isnotmyself.Having
seenthiswellwithrightdiscernmentasithascometobe,Ialsodiscernthe
higherescapefromitasithascometobe.”
Whenthiswassaid,thewanderersfellsilent,abashed,sittingwiththeir
shouldersdrooping,theirheadsdown,brooding,atalossforwords.
Anāthapiṇḍikathehouseholder,perceivingthatthewanderersweresilent,
abashed…atalossforwords,gotup&wenttotheBlessedOne.Onarrival,
havingboweddowntotheBlessedOne,hesattooneside.Ashewas
sittingthere,hetoldtheBlessedOnetheentiretyofhisconversationwith
thewanderers.
[TheBlessedOnesaid:]“Welldone,householder.Welldone.Thatis
howyoushouldperiodically&righteouslyrefutethosefoolishmen.”Then
heinstructed,urged,roused,andencouragedAnāthapiṇḍikathe
331
householderwithatalkonDhamma.WhenAnāthapiṇḍikathe
householderhadbeeninstructed,urged,rousedandencouragedbythe
BlessedOnewithatalkonDhamma,hegotupfromhisseatand,having
boweddowntotheBlessedOne,left,keepingtheBlessedOneonhisright
side.Notlongafterward,theBlessedOneaddressedthemonks:“Monks,
evenamonkwhohaslongpenetratedtheDhammainthisDhamma&
Vinayawoulddowell,periodically&righteously,torefutethewanderers
ofotherpersuasionsinjustthewayAnāthapiṇḍikathehouseholderhas
done.”—AN10:93
KAMMA&FURTHERBECOMING
§8.“Monks,therearethesethreesectarianguildsthat—whencrossexamined,pressedforreasons,&rebukedbywisepeople—eventhough
theymayexplainotherwise,remainstuckin(adoctrineof)inaction.Which
three?
“Therearecontemplatives&brahmanswhoholdthisteaching,holdthis
view:‘Whateverapersonexperiences—pleasant,painful,orneither
pleasantnorpainful—isallcausedbywhatwasdoneinthepast.’Thereare
contemplatives&brahmanswhoholdthisteaching,holdthisview:
‘Whateverapersonexperiences—pleasant,painful,orneitherpleasantnor
painful—isallcausedbyasupremebeing’sactofcreation.’Thereare
contemplatives&brahmanswhoholdthisteaching,holdthisview:
‘Whateverapersonexperiences—pleasant,painful,orneitherpleasantnor
painful—isallwithoutcause&withoutcondition.’
“Havingapproachedthecontemplatives&brahmanswhoholdthat…
‘Whateverapersonexperiences…isallcausedbywhatwasdoneinthe
past,’Isaidtothem:‘Isittruethatyouholdthat…whateveraperson
experiences…isallcausedbywhatwasdoneinthepast?’Thusaskedby
me,theyadmitted,‘Yes.’ThenIsaidtothem,‘Theninthatcase,apersonis
akilleroflivingbeingsbecauseofwhatwasdoneinthepast.Apersonisa
thief…unchaste…aliar…adivisivespeaker…aharshspeaker…anidle
chatterer…greedy…malicious…aholderofwrongviewsbecauseofwhat
wasdoneinthepast.’Whenonefallsbackonwhatwasdoneinthepastas
beingessential,monks,thereisnodesire,noeffort(atthethought),‘This
shouldbedone.Thisshouldn’tbedone.’Whenonecan’tpindownasa
truthorrealitywhatshould&shouldn’tbedone,onedwellsbewildered&
332
unprotected.Onecannotrighteouslyrefertooneselfasacontemplative.
Thiswasmyfirstrighteousrefutationofthosecontemplatives&brahmans
whoholdtosuchteachings,suchviews.
[TheBuddhathenusesthesameargumentstorefutethosewhohold
thatwhateverapersonexperiencesisallcausedbyasupremebeing’sactof
creationandthosewhoholdthatwhateverapersonexperiencesisall
withoutcause,withoutcondition.]
“Thesearethethreesectarianguildsthat—whencross-examined,
pressedforreasons,&rebukedbywisepeople—eventhoughtheymay
explainotherwise,remainstuckininaction.”—AN3:62
§9.ThenVen.ĀnandawenttotheBlessedOneand,onarrival,bowed
downtohimandsattooneside.Ashewassittingtherehesaidtothe
BlessedOne,“Lord,thisword,‘becoming,becoming’—towhatextentis
therebecoming?”
“Ānanda,iftherewerenokammaripeninginthesensuality-property,
wouldsensuality-becomingbediscerned?”
“No,lord.”
“Thuskammaisthefield,consciousnesstheseed,andcravingthe
moisture.Theconsciousnessoflivingbeingshinderedbyignorance&
fetteredbycravingisestablishedin/tunedtoalowerproperty.Thusthere
istheproductionofrenewedbecominginthefuture.
“Iftherewerenokammaripeningintheform-property,wouldformbecomingbediscerned?”
“No,lord.”
“Thuskammaisthefield,consciousnesstheseed,andcravingthe
moisture.Theconsciousnessoflivingbeingshinderedbyignorance&
fetteredbycravingisestablishedin/tunedtoamiddlingproperty.Thus
thereistheproductionofrenewedbecominginthefuture.
“Iftherewerenokammaripeningintheformless-property,would
formless-becomingbediscerned?”
“No,lord.”
“Thuskammaisthefield,consciousnesstheseed,andcravingthe
moisture.Theconsciousnessoflivingbeingshinderedbyignorance&
fetteredbycravingisestablishedin/tunedtoarefinedproperty.Thusthere
istheproductionofrenewedbecominginthefuture.Thisishowthereis
333
becoming.”—AN3:77
§10.“Idesignatetherebirthofonewhohassustenance[or:clinging
(upādāna)],Vaccha,andnotofonewithoutsustenance.Justasafireburns
withsustenanceandnotwithoutsustenance,evensoIdesignatetherebirth
ofonewhohassustenanceandnotofonewithoutsustenance.”
“But,MasterGotama,atthemomentaflameisbeingsweptonbythe
windandgoesafardistance,whatdoyoudesignateasitssustenance
then?”
“Vaccha,whenaflameisbeingsweptonbythewindandgoesafar
distance,Idesignateitaswind-sustained,forthewindisitssustenanceat
thattime.”
“Andatthemomentwhenabeingsetsthisbodyasideandisnotyet
reborninanotherbody,whatdoyoudesignateasitssustenancethen?”
“Vaccha,whenabeingsetsthisbodyasideandisnotyetrebornin
anotherbody,Idesignateitascraving-sustained,forcravingisits
sustenanceatthattime.”—SN44:9
DESIRE
§11.“‘Allphenomenaarerootedindesire.…
“‘Allphenomenahavereleaseastheirheartwood.
“‘Allphenomenagainfootinginthedeathless.
“‘Allphenomenahaveunbindingastheirfinalend.’”—AN10:58
§12.IhaveheardthatononeoccasionVen.Ānandawasstayingin
Kosambī,atGhosita’sPark.ThenUṇṇābhathebrahmanwenttoVen.
Ānandaandonarrivalexchangedcourteousgreetingswithhim.Afteran
exchangeoffriendlygreetings&courtesies,hesattooneside.Ashewas
sittingthere,hesaidtoVen.Ānanda:“MasterĀnanda,whatistheaimof
thisholylifelivedunderGotamathecontemplative?”
“Brahman,theholylifeislivedundertheBlessedOnewiththeaimof
abandoningdesire.”
“Isthereapath,isthereapractice,fortheabandoningofthatdesire?”
“Yes,thereis.…”
“Whatisthepath,thepractice,fortheabandoningofthatdesire?”
334
“Brahman,thereisthecasewhereamonkdevelopsthebaseofpower
endowedwithconcentrationfoundedondesire&thefabricationsof
exertion.Hedevelopsthebaseofpowerendowedwithconcentration
foundedonpersistence…concentrationfoundedonintent…concentration
foundedondiscrimination&thefabricationsofexertion.This,brahman,is
thepath,thisisthepracticefortheabandoningofthatdesire.”
“Ifthat’sso,MasterĀnanda,thenit’sanendlesspath,andnotonewith
anend,forit’simpossiblethatonecouldabandondesirebymeansof
desire.”
“Inthatcase,brahman,letmequestionyouonthismatter.Answeras
youseefit.Whatdoyouthink?Didn’tyoufirsthavedesire,thinking,‘I’ll
gotothepark,’andthenwhenyoureachedthepark,wasn’tthatparticular
desireallayed?”
“Yes,sir.”
[Similarlywithpersistence,intent,&discrimination.]
“Soitiswithanarahantwhoseeffluentsareended,whohasreached
fulfillment,donethetask,laiddowntheburden,attainedthetruegoal,
totallydestroyedthefetterofbecoming,andwhoisreleasedthroughright
gnosis.Whateverdesirehefirsthadfortheattainmentofarahantship,on
attainingarahantshipthatparticulardesireisallayed.Whateverpersistence
hefirsthadfortheattainmentofarahantship,onattainingarahantshipthat
particularpersistenceisallayed.Whateverintenthefirsthadforthe
attainmentofarahantship,onattainingarahantshipthatparticularintentis
allayed.Whateverdiscriminationhefirsthadfortheattainmentof
arahantship,onattainingarahantshipthatparticulardiscriminationis
allayed.Sowhatdoyouthink,brahman?Isthisanendlesspath,orone
withanend?”
“You’reright,MasterĀnanda.Thisisapathwithanend,andnotan
endlessone.”—SN51:15
§13.ThenVen.Ānandawenttothenunand,onarrival,satdownona
seatmadeready.Ashewassittingthere,hesaidtothenun:“Thisbody,
sister,comesintobeingthroughfood.Andyetitisbyrelyingonfoodthat
foodistobeabandoned.
“Thisbodycomesintobeingthroughcraving.Andyetitisbyrelyingon
cravingthatcravingistobeabandoned.
“Thisbodycomesintobeingthroughconceit.Andyetitisbyrelyingon
335
conceitthatconceitistobeabandoned.
“Thisbodycomesintobeingthroughsexualintercourse.Sexual
intercourseistobeabandoned.Withregardtosexualintercourse,the
Buddhadeclaresthecuttingoffofthebridge.”—AN4:159
§14.Ven.Ānanda:“Itwasn’tthecase,brahman,thattheBlessedOne
praisedmentalabsorption[jhāna]ofeverysort,nordidhecriticizemental
absorptionofeverysort.Andwhatsortofmentalabsorptiondidhenot
praise?Thereisthecasewhereacertainpersondwellswithhisawareness
overcomebysensualpassion,seizedwithsensualpassion.Hedoesnot
discerntheescape,asithascometobe,fromsensualpassiononceithas
arisen.Makingthatsensualpassionthefocalpoint,heabsorbshimselfwith
it,besorbs,resorbs,&supersorbshimselfwithit.
“Hedwellswithhisawarenessovercomebyillwill…sloth&
drowsiness…
restlessness&anxiety…
“Hedwellswithhisawarenessovercomebyuncertainty,seizedwith
uncertainty.Hedoesnotdiscerntheescape,asithascometobe,from
uncertaintyonceithasarisen.Makingthatuncertaintythefocalpoint,he
absorbshimselfwithit,besorbs,resorbs,&supersorbshimselfwithit.This
isthesortofmentalabsorptionthattheBlessedOnedidnotpraise.
“Andwhatsortofmentalabsorptiondidhepraise?Thereisthecase
whereamonk—quitesecludedfromsensuality,secludedfromunskillful
qualities—enters&remainsinthefirstjhāna…thesecondjhāna…thethird
jhāna…thefourthjhāna:purityofequanimity&mindfulness,neither
pleasurenorpain.ThisisthesortofmentalabsorptionthattheBlessedOne
praised.”—MN108
QUESTIONSOFSELF&NOT-SELF
§15.ThenVacchagottathewandererwenttotheBlessedOneand,on
arrival,exchangedcourteousgreetingswithhim.Afteranexchangeof
friendlygreetings&courtesies,hesattooneside.Ashewassittingthere,
heaskedtheBlessedOne:“Nowthen,MasterGotama,isthereaself?”
Whenthiswassaid,theBlessedOnewassilent.
“Thenistherenoself?”
336
Asecondtime,theBlessedOnewassilent.
ThenVacchagottathewanderergotupfromhisseatandleft.
Then,notlongafterVacchagottathewandererhadleft,Ven.Ānanda
saidtotheBlessedOne,“Why,lord,didtheBlessedOnenotanswerwhen
askedaquestionbyVacchagottathewanderer?”
“Ānanda,ifI—beingaskedbyVacchagottathewandererifthereisaself
—weretoanswerthatthereisaself,thatwouldbeconformingwiththose
contemplatives&brahmanswhoareexponentsofeternalism[theviewthat
thereisaneternal,unchangingsoul].IfI—beingaskedbyVacchagottathe
wandererifthereisnoself—weretoanswerthatthereisnoself,thatwould
beconformingwiththosecontemplatives&brahmanswhoareexponents
ofannihilationism[theviewthatdeathistheannihilationofconsciousness].
IfI—beingaskedbyVacchagottathewandererifthereisaself—wereto
answerthatthereisaself,wouldthatbeinkeepingwiththearisingof
knowledgethatallphenomenaarenot-self?”
“No,lord.”
“AndifI—beingaskedbyVacchagottathewandererifthereisnoself—
weretoanswerthatthereisnoself,thebewilderedVacchagottawould
becomeevenmorebewildered:‘DoestheselfIusedtohavenownot
exist?’”—SN44:10
§16.“Andwhataretheeffluents[āsava]tobeabandonedbyseeing?
Thereisthecasewhereanuninstructedrun-of-the-millperson—whohas
noregardfornobleones,isnotwell-versedordisciplinedintheirDhamma;
whohasnoregardforpeopleofintegrity,isnotwell-versedordisciplined
intheirDhamma—doesn’tdiscernwhatideasarefitforattentionorwhat
ideasareunfitforattention.Thisbeingso,hedoesn’tattendtoideasfitfor
attentionandattends(instead)toideasunfitforattention.…
“Thisishowheattendsinappropriately:‘WasIinthepast?WasInotin
thepast?WhatwasIinthepast?HowwasIinthepast?Havingbeenwhat,
whatwasIinthepast?ShallIbeinthefuture?ShallInotbeinthefuture?
WhatshallIbeinthefuture?HowshallIbeinthefuture?Havingbeen
what,whatshallIbeinthefuture?’Orelseheisinwardlyperplexedabout
theimmediatepresent:‘AmI?AmInot?WhatamI?HowamI?Wherehas
thisbeingcomefrom?Whereisitbound?’
“Asheattendsinappropriatelyinthisway,oneofsixkindsofview
arisesinhim:Theview‘Ihaveaself’arisesinhimastrue&established,or
337
theview’Ihavenoself’…ortheview‘ItispreciselybymeansofselfthatI
perceiveself’…ortheview‘ItispreciselybymeansofselfthatIperceivenot-self’
…ortheview‘Itispreciselybymeansofnot-selfthatIperceiveself’arisesin
himastrue&established,orelsehehasaviewlikethis:‘Thisveryselfof
mine—theknowerthatissensitivehere&theretotheripeningofgood&bad
actions—istheselfofminethatisconstant,everlasting,eternal,notsubjectto
change,andwillendureaslongaseternity.’Thisiscalledathicketofviews,a
wildernessofviews,acontortionofviews,awrithingofviews,afetterof
views.Boundbyafetterofviews,theuninstructedrun-of-the-millpersonis
notfreedfrombirth,aging,&death,fromsorrow,lamentation,pain,
distress,&despair.Heisnotfreed,Itellyou,fromsuffering&stress.
“Thewell-instructeddiscipleofthenobleones—whohasregardfor
nobleones,iswell-versed&disciplinedintheirDhamma;whohasregard
formenofintegrity,iswell-versed&disciplinedintheirDhamma—
discernswhatideasarefitforattentionandwhatideasareunfitfor
attention.Thisbeingso,hedoesn’tattendtoideasunfitforattentionand
attends(instead)toideasfitforattention.…
“Heattendsappropriately,‘Thisisstress’…‘Thisistheoriginationof
stress’…‘Thisisthecessationofstress’…‘Thisisthewayleadingtothecessation
ofstress.’Asheattendsappropriatelyinthisway,threefettersare
abandonedinhim:self-identificationview,doubt,andgraspingathabits&
practices.Thesearecalledtheeffluentstobeabandonedbyseeing.”—MN
2
§17.TheBlessedOnesaid:“Andwhichcravingistheensnarerthathas
flowedalong,spreadout,andcaughthold,withwhichthisworldis
smothered&envelopedlikeatangledskein,aknottedballofstring,like
mattedrushes&reeds,anddoesnotgobeyondtransmigration,beyondthe
planesofdeprivation,woe,&baddestinations?These18cravingverbalizationsdependentonwhatisinternaland18craving-verbalizations
dependentonwhatisexternal.
“Andwhicharethe18craving-verbalizationsdependentonwhatis
internal?Therebeing‘Iam,’therecomestobe‘Iamhere,’therecomestobe
‘Iamlikethis’…‘Iamotherwise’…‘Iambad’…‘Iamgood’…‘Imight
be’…‘Imightbehere’…‘Imightbelikethis’…‘Imightbeotherwise’…
‘MayIbe’…‘MayIbehere’…‘MayIbelikethis’…‘MayIbeotherwise’
…‘Iwillbe’…‘Iwillbehere’…‘Iwillbelikethis’…‘Iwillbeotherwise.’
Thesearethe18craving-verbalizationsdependentonwhatisinternal.
338
“Andwhicharethe18craving-verbalizationsdependentonwhatis
external?Therebeing‘Iambecauseofthis[or:bymeansofthis],’there
comestobe‘Iamherebecauseofthis,’therecomestobe‘Iamlikethis
becauseofthis’…‘Iamotherwisebecauseofthis’…‘Iambadbecauseof
this’…‘Iamgoodbecauseofthis’…‘Imightbebecauseofthis’…‘Imight
beherebecauseofthis’…‘Imightbelikethisbecauseofthis’…‘Imightbe
otherwisebecauseofthis’…‘MayIbebecauseofthis’…‘MayIbehere
becauseofthis’…‘MayIbelikethisbecauseofthis’…‘MayIbeotherwise
becauseofthis’…‘Iwillbebecauseofthis’…‘Iwillbeherebecauseof
this’…‘Iwillbelikethisbecauseofthis’…‘Iwillbeotherwisebecauseof
this.’Thesearethe18craving-verbalizationsdependentonwhatisexternal.
“Thusthereare18craving-verbalizationsdependentonwhatisinternal
and18craving-verbalizationsdependentonwhatisexternal.Theseare
calledthe36craving-verbalizations.Thus,with36craving-verbalizationsof
thissortinthepast,36inthefuture,and36inthepresent,thereare108
craving-verbalizations.
“This,monks,iscravingtheensnarerthathasflowedalong,spreadout,
andcaughthold,withwhichthisworldissmothered&envelopedlikea
tangledskein,aknottedballofstring,likemattedrushes&reeds,anddoes
notgobeyondtransmigration,beyondtheplanesofdeprivation,woe,&
baddestinations.”—AN4:199
§18.“Towhatextent,Ānanda,doesonedelineatewhendelineatinga
self?Eitherdelineatingaselfpossessedofform&finite,onedelineatesthat
‘Myselfispossessedofform&finite.’Or,delineatingaselfpossessedof
form&infinite,onedelineatesthat‘Myselfispossessedofform&infinite.’
Or,delineatingaselfformless&finite,onedelineatesthat‘Myselfis
formless&finite.’Or,delineatingaselfformless&infinite,onedelineates
that‘Myselfisformless&infinite.’
“Now,theonewho,whendelineatingaself,delineatesitaspossessedof
form&finite,eitherdelineatesitaspossessedofform&finiteinthe
present,orofsuchanaturethatitwill(naturally)becomepossessedofform
&finite[i.e.,inthefuture/afterdeath/whenfallingasleep],orthethought
occurstohimthat‘Althoughitisnotyetthatway,Iwillconvertitinto
beingthatway.’Thisbeingthecase,itispropertosaythatafixedviewofa
selfpossessedofform&finiteobsesseshim.
“Theonewho,whendelineatingaself,delineatesitaspossessedofform
339
&infinite,eitherdelineatesitaspossessedofform&infiniteinthepresent,
orofsuchanaturethatitwill(naturally)becomepossessedofform&
infinite[inthefuture/afterdeath/whenfallingasleep],orthethought
occurstohimthat‘Althoughitisnotyetthatway,Iwillconvertitinto
beingthatway.’Thisbeingthecase,itispropertosaythatafixedviewofa
selfpossessedofform&infiniteobsesseshim.
“Theonewho,whendelineatingaself,delineatesitasformless&finite,
eitherdelineatesitasformless&finiteinthepresent,orofsuchanature
thatitwill(naturally)becomeformless&finite[inthefuture/after
death/whenfallingasleep],orthethoughtoccurstohimthat‘Althoughit
isnotyetthatway,Iwillconvertitintobeingthatway.’Thisbeingthecase,
itispropertosaythatafixedviewofaselfformless&finiteobsesseshim.
“Theonewho,whendelineatingaself,delineatesitasformless&
infinite,eitherdelineatesitasformless&infiniteinthepresent,orofsucha
naturethatitwill(naturally)becomeformless&infinite[inthefuture/after
death/whenfallingasleep],orthethoughtoccurstohimthat‘Althoughit
isnotyetthatway,Iwillconvertitintobeingthatway.’Thisbeingthecase,
itispropertosaythatafixedviewofaselfformless&infiniteobsesses
him.”—DN15
§19.Ven.Sāriputtasaid,“Now,householder,howisoneafflictedin
body&afflictedinmind?
“Thereisthecasewhereanuninstructedrun-of-the-millperson—who
hasnoregardfornobleones,isnotwell-versedordisciplinedintheir
Dhamma;whohasnoregardformenofintegrity,isnotwell-versedor
disciplinedintheirDhamma—assumesformtobetheself,ortheselfas
possessingform,orformasintheself,ortheselfasinform.Heisseized
withtheideathat‘Iamform’or‘Formismine.’Asheisseizedwiththese
ideas,hisformchanges&alters,andhefallsintosorrow,lamentation,pain,
distress,&despairoveritschange&alteration.
“Heassumesfeelingtobetheself,ortheselfaspossessingfeeling,or
feelingasintheself,ortheselfasinfeeling.…
“Heassumesperceptiontobetheself,ortheselfaspossessing
perception,orperceptionasintheself,ortheselfasinperception.…
“Heassumesfabricationstobetheself,ortheselfaspossessing
fabrications,orfabricationsasintheself,ortheselfasinfabrications.…
“Heassumesconsciousnesstobetheself,ortheselfaspossessing
340
consciousness,orconsciousnessasintheself,ortheselfasin
consciousness.Heisseizedwiththeideathat‘Iamconsciousness’or
‘Consciousnessismine.’Asheisseizedwiththeseideas,hisconsciousness
changes&alters,andhefallsintosorrow,lamentation,pain,distress,&
despairoveritschange&alteration.
“This,householder,ishowoneisafflictedinbodyandafflictedinmind.
“Andhowisoneafflictedinbodybutunafflictedinmind?Thereisthe
casewhereawell-instructeddiscipleofthenobleones—whohasregardfor
nobleones,iswell-versed&disciplinedintheirDhamma;whohasregard
formenofintegrity,iswell-versed&disciplinedintheirDhamma—does
notassumeformtobetheself,ortheselfaspossessingform,orformasin
theself,ortheselfasinform.Heisnotseizedwiththeideathat‘Iamform’
or‘Formismine.’Asheisnotseizedwiththeseideas,hisformchanges&
alters,buthedoesnotfallintosorrow,lamentation,pain,distress,or
despairoveritschange&alteration.
“Hedoesnotassumefeelingtobetheself….
“Hedoesnotassumeperceptiontobetheself….
“Hedoesnotassumefabricationstobetheself….
“Hedoesnotassumeconsciousnesstobetheself,ortheselfas
possessingconsciousness,orconsciousnessasintheself,ortheselfasin
consciousness.Heisnotseizedwiththeideathat‘Iamconsciousness’or
‘Consciousnessismine.’Asheisnotseizedwiththeseideas,his
consciousnesschanges&alters,buthedoesnotfallintosorrow,
lamentation,pain,distress,ordespairoveritschange&alteration.
“This,householder,ishowoneisafflictedinbodybutunafflictedin
mind.”—SN22:1
§20.“Ifonestaysobsessedwithform,monk,that’swhatoneis
measured[or:limited]by.Whateveroneismeasuredby,that’showoneis
classified.
“Ifonestaysobsessedwithfeeling.…
“Ifonestaysobsessedwithperception.…
“Ifonestaysobsessedwithfabrications.…
“Ifonestaysobsessedwithconsciousness,that’swhatoneismeasured
by.Whateveroneismeasuredby,that’showoneisclassified.
“Butifonedoesn’tstayobsessedwithform,monk,that’snotwhatoneis
341
measuredby.Whateveroneisn’tmeasuredby,that’snothowoneis
classified.
“Ifonedoesn’tstayobsessedwithfeeling.…
“Ifonedoesn’tstayobsessedwithperception.…
“Ifonedoesn’tstayobsessedwithfabrications.…
“Ifonedoesn’tstayobsessedwithconsciousness,that’snotwhatoneis
measuredby.Whateveroneisn’tmeasuredby,that’snothowoneis
classified.”—SN22:36
SEPARATENESS&ONENESS
§21.“Monks,wherethereisaself,wouldtherebe(thethought,)
‘belongingtomyself’?”
“Yes,lord.”
“Or,monks,wherethereiswhatbelongstoself,wouldtherebe(the
thought,)‘myself’?”
“Yes,lord.”
“Monks,whereaselforwhatbelongstoselfarenotpinneddownasa
truthorreality,thentheview-position—‘Thisselfisthesameasthe
cosmos.ThisIwillbeafterdeath,constant,permanent,eternal,notsubject
tochange.Iwillstayjustlikethatforaneternity’—Isn’titutterly&
completelyafool’steaching?”
“Whatelsecoulditbe,lord?It’sutterly&completelyafool’steaching.”
—MN22
§22.“Onemayhaveaviewsuchasthis:‘Thisselfisthesameasthe
cosmos.ThisIwillbeafterdeath,constant,lasting,eternal,notsubjectto
change.’Thiseternalistviewisafabrication.Whatisthecause,whatisthe
origination,whatisthebirth,whatisthecoming-into-existenceofthat
fabrication?Toanuninstructedrun-of-the-millperson,touchedbythe
feelingbornofcontactwithignorance,cravingarises.Thatfabricationis
bornofthat.Andthatfabricationisinconstant,fabricated,dependentlycoarisen.Thatcraving…Thatfeeling…Thatcontact…Thatignoranceis
inconstant,fabricated,dependentlyco-arisen.Itisbyknowing&seeingin
thiswaythatonewithoutdelayputsanendtoeffluents.”—SN22:81
342
§23.“Therearethesetentotality-dimensions.Whichten?Oneperceives
theearth-totalityabove,below,all-around:non-dual[advayaṁ],
immeasurable.Oneperceivesthewater-totality…thefire-totality…the
wind-totality…theblue-totality…theyellow-totality…thered-totality…
thewhite-totality…thespace-totality…theconsciousness-totalityabove,
below,all-around:non-dual,immeasurable.Thesearethetentotalitydimensions.Now,ofthesetentotality-dimensions,thisissupreme:when
oneperceivestheconsciousness-totalityabove,below,all-around:nondual,immeasurable.Andtherearebeingswhoarepercipientinthisway.
Yeteveninthebeingswhoarepercipientinthiswaythereisstill
aberration,thereischange.Seeingthis,theinstructeddiscipleofthenoble
onesgrowsdisenchantedwiththat.Beingdisenchantedwiththat,he
becomesdispassionatetowardwhatissupreme,andevenmoresotoward
whatisinferior.”—AN10:29
§24.[Acertainmonk:]“Buthowdoesamonkknow,howdoesamonk
see,sothatignoranceisabandonedandclearknowingarises?”
[TheBuddha:]“Thereisthecase,monk,whereamonkhasheard,‘All
dhammasareunworthyofattachment.’Havingheardthatalldhammasare
unworthyofattachment,hedirectlyknowseverydhamma.Directly
knowingeverydhamma,hecomprehendseverydhamma.Comprehending
everydhamma,heseesallthemes[allobjects]assomethingseparate.
“Heseestheeyeassomethingseparate.Heseesformsassomething
separate.Heseeseye-consciousnessassomethingseparate.Heseeseyecontactassomethingseparate.Andwhateverarisesindependenceoneyecontact—experiencedeitheraspleasure,aspain,orasneither-pleasure-norpain—thattooheseesassomethingseparate.
[Similarlywiththeear,thenose,thetongue,thebody,&theintellect.]
“Thisishowamonkknows,thisishowamonksees,sothatignorance
isabandonedandclearknowingarises.”—SN35:80
§25.ThenabrahmancosmologistwenttotheBlessedOneand,on
arrival,exchangedcourteousgreetingswithhim.Afteranexchangeof
friendlygreetings&courtesies,hesattooneside.Ashewassittingthere,
hesaidtotheBlessedOne,“Now,then,MasterGotama,doeseverything
exist?”
“‘Everythingexists’istheseniorformofcosmology,brahman.”
343
“Then,MasterGotama,doeseverythingnotexist?”
“‘Everythingdoesnotexist’isthesecondformofcosmology,brahman.”
“TheniseverythingaOneness?”
“‘EverythingisaOneness’isthethirdformofcosmology,brahman.”
“Theniseverythingamultiplicity?”
“‘Everythingisamultiplicity’isthefourthformofcosmology,brahman.
Avoidingthesetwoextremes,theTathāgatateachestheDhammaviathe
middle:
Fromignoranceasarequisiteconditioncomefabrications.
Fromfabricationsasarequisiteconditioncomesconsciousness.
Fromconsciousnessasarequisiteconditioncomesname-&-form.
Fromname-&-formasarequisiteconditioncomethesixsensemedia.
Fromthesixsensemediaasarequisiteconditioncomescontact.
Fromcontactasarequisiteconditioncomesfeeling.
Fromfeelingasarequisiteconditioncomescraving.
Fromcravingasarequisiteconditioncomesclinging/sustenance.
Fromclinging/sustenanceasarequisiteconditioncomesbecoming.
Frombecomingasarequisiteconditioncomesbirth.
Frombirthasarequisitecondition,thenaging-&-death,sorrow,
lamentation,pain,distress,&despaircomeintoplay.Suchisthe
originationofthisentiremassofstress&suffering.
“Nowfromtheremainderlessfading&cessationofthatveryignorance
comesthecessationoffabrications.Fromthecessationoffabricationscomes
thecessationofconsciousness.Fromthecessationofconsciousnesscomes
thecessationofname-&-form.Fromthecessationofname-&-formcomes
thecessationofthesixsensemedia.Fromthecessationofthesixsense
mediacomesthecessationofcontact.Fromthecessationofcontactcomes
thecessationoffeeling.Fromthecessationoffeelingcomesthecessationof
craving.Fromthecessationofcravingcomesthecessationof
clinging/sustenance.Fromthecessationofclinging/sustenancecomesthe
cessationofbecoming.Fromthecessationofbecomingcomesthecessation
ofbirth.Fromthecessationofbirth,thenaging-&-death,sorrow,
lamentation,pain,distress,&despairallcease.Suchisthecessationofthis
entiremassofstress&suffering.”—SN12:48
344
FEEDING
§26.“Whatisone?Allbeingssubsistonnutriment.”—Khp4
§27.Seeingpeoplefloundering
likefishinsmallpuddles,
competingwithoneanother—
asIsawthis,
fearcameintome.
Theworldwasentirely
withoutsubstance.
Allthedirections
wereknockedoutofline.
Wantingahavenformyself,
Isawnothingthatwasn’tlaidclaimto.
Seeingnothingintheend
butcompetition,
Ifeltdiscontent.
AndthenIsaw
anarrowhere,
soveryhardtosee,
embeddedintheheart.
Overcomebythisarrow
youruninalldirections.
Butsimplyonpullingitout
youdon’trun,
youdon’tsink.—Sn4:15
§28.Iseethem,
intheworld,flounderingaround,
peopleimmersedincraving
forstatesofbecoming.
Basepeoplemoaninthemouthofdeath,
theircraving,forstatesofbecoming&not-,
unallayed.
Seethem,
flounderingintheirsenseofmine,
likefishinthepuddles
345
ofadried-upstream—
and,seeingthis,
livewithnomine,
notformingattachment
forstatesofbecoming.—Sn4:2
§29.Notevenifitrainedgoldcoins
wouldwehaveourfill
ofsensualpleasures.
‘Stressful,
theygivelittleenjoyment’—
knowingthis,thewiseone
findsnodelight
eveninheavenlysensualpleasures.
Heis
onewhodelights
intheendingofcraving,
adiscipleoftheRightly
Self-AwakenedOne.—Dhp186–187
§30.Ven.Sāriputta[speakingtotheBuddha]:“Oneseeswithright
discernment,lord,that‘thishascomeintobeing.’Seeingwithright
discernmentthat‘thishascomeintobeing,’onepracticesfor
disenchantmentwith,fordispassiontoward,forthecessationofwhathas
comeintobeing.Oneseeswithrightdiscernmentthat‘ithascomeinto
beingfromthisnutriment.’Seeingwithrightdiscernmentthat‘ithascome
intobeingfromthisnutriment,’onepracticesfordisenchantmentwith,for
dispassiontoward,forthecessationofthenutrimentbywhichithascome
intobeing.Oneseeswithrightdiscernmentthat‘fromthecessationofthis
nutriment,whathascomeintobeingissubjecttocessation.’Seeingwith
rightdiscernmentthat‘fromthecessationofthisnutriment,whathascome
intobeingissubjecttocessation,’onepracticesfordisenchantmentwith,for
dispassiontoward,forthecessationofwhatissubjecttocessation.Thisis
howoneisalearner.
“Andhow,lord,isoneapersonwhohasfathomedtheDhamma?
“Oneseeswithrightdiscernment,lord,that‘thishascomeintobeing.’
Seeingwithrightdiscernmentthat‘thishascomeintobeing,’oneis—
throughdisenchantment,dispassion,cessation,throughlackof
346
clinging/sustenance—releasedfromwhathascomeintobeing.Onesees
withrightdiscernmentthat‘ithascomeintobeingfromthisnutriment.’
Seeingwithrightdiscernmentthat‘ithascomeintobeingfromthis
nutriment,’oneis—throughdisenchantment,dispassion,cessation,through
lackofclinging/sustenance—releasedfromthenutrimentbywhichithas
comeintobeing.Oneseeswithrightdiscernmentthat‘fromthecessationof
thisnutriment,whathascomeintobeingissubjecttocessation.’Seeing
withrightdiscernmentthat‘fromthecessationofthisnutriment,whathas
comeintobeingissubjecttocessation,’oneis—throughdisenchantment,
dispassion,cessation,throughlackofclinging/sustenance—releasedfrom
whatissubjecttocessation.Thisishowoneisapersonwhohasfathomed
theDhamma.”—SN12:31
HEEDFULNESSVS.INNATEGOODNESS
§31.“Idon’tenvisionasinglethingthatisasquicktoreverseitselfas
themind—somuchsothatthereisnosatisfactorysimileforhowquickto
reverseitselfitis.”—AN1:49
§32.“Monks,haveyoueverseenamoving-pictureshow[anancient
showsimilartoashadow-puppetshow]?”
“Yes,lord.”
“Thatmoving-pictureshowwascreatedbythemind.Andthismindis
evenmorevariegatedthanamoving-pictureshow.Thusoneshouldreflect
onone’smindwitheverymoment:‘Foralongtimehasthismindbeen
defiledbypassion,aversion,&delusion.’Fromthedefilementofthemind
arebeingsdefiled.Fromthepurificationofthemindarebeingspurified.
“Monks,Icanimaginenoonegroupofbeingsmorevariegatedthanthat
ofcommonanimals.Commonanimalsarecreatedbymind[i.e.,each
animal’sbodyistheresultofthatanimal’skamma].Andthemindiseven
morevariegatedthancommonanimals.Thusoneshouldreflectonone’s
mindwitheverymoment:‘Foralongtimehasthismindbeendefiledby
passion,aversion,&delusion.’Fromthedefilementofthemindarebeings
defiled.Fromthepurificationofthemindarebeingspurified.”—SN
22:100
§33.“Justasthefootprintsofallleggedanimalsareencompassedbythe
347
footprintoftheelephant,andtheelephant’sfootprintisreckonedthe
foremostamongthemintermsofsize;inthesameway,allskillfulqualities
arerootedinheedfulness,convergeinheedfulness,andheedfulnessis
reckonedtheforemostamongthem.”—AN10:15
§34.ThenPañcakaṅgathecarpenterwenttoUggāhamānathewanderer
and,onarrival,exchangedcourteousgreetingswithhim.Afteranexchange
offriendlygreetings&courtesies,hesattooneside.Ashewassittingthere,
Uggāhamānasaidtohim,“Idescribeanindividualendowedwithfour
qualitiesasbeingconsummateinwhatisskillful,foremostinwhatis
skillful,aninvinciblecontemplativeattainedtothehighestattainments.
Whichfour?Thereisthecasewherehedoesnoevilactionwithhisbody,
speaksnoevilspeech,resolvesonnoevilresolve,andmaintainshimself
withnoevilmeansoflivelihood.Anindividualendowedwiththesefour
qualitiesIdescribeasbeingconsummateinwhatisskillful,foremostin
whatisskillful,aninvinciblecontemplativeattainedtothehighest
attainments.”
ThenPañcakaṅganeitherdelightedinUggāhamāna’swordsnordidhe
scornthem.Expressingneitherdelightnorscorn,hegotupfromhisseat
andleft,thinking,“IwilllearnthemeaningofthisstatementintheBlessed
One’spresence.”
ThenhewenttotheBlessedOneand,onarrival,afterbowingdownto
him,sattooneside.Ashewassittingthere,hetoldtheBlessedOnethe
entireconversationhehadhadwithUggāhamānathewanderer.
Whenthiswassaid,theBlessedOnesaidtoPañcakaṅga:“Inthatcase,
carpenter,thenaccordingtoUggāhamāna’swordsastupidbabyboy,lying
onitsback,isconsummateinwhatisskillful,foremostinwhatisskillful,
aninvinciblecontemplativeattainedtothehighestattainments.Foreven
thethought‘body’doesn’toccurtoastupidbabyboylyingonitsback,so
fromwherewoulditdoanyevilactionwithitsbody,asidefromalittle
kicking?Eventhethought‘speech’doesn’toccurtoit,sofromwherewould
itspeakanyevilspeech,asidefromalittlecrying?Eventhethought
‘resolve’doesn’toccurtoit,sofromwherewoulditresolveonanyevil
resolve,asidefromalittlebadtemper?Eventhethought‘livelihood’
doesn’toccurtoit,sofromwherewoulditmaintainitselfwithanyevil
meansoflivelihood,asidefromitsmother’smilk?So,accordingto
Uggāhamāna’swords,astupidbabyboy,lyingonitsbackisconsummate
inwhatisskillful,foremostinwhatisskillful,aninvinciblecontemplative
348
attainedtothehighestattainments.”—MN78
MINDFULNESS&ARDENCY
§35.“Andwhatisthefacultyofmindfulness?Thereisthecasewherea
monk,adiscipleofthenobleones,ismindful,isendowedwithexcellent
proficiencyinmindfulness,remembering&abletocalltomindeventhings
thatweredone&saidlongago.Heremainsfocusedonthebodyin&of
itself—ardent,alert,&mindful—subduinggreed&distresswithreference
totheworld.Heremainsfocusedonfeelingsin&ofthemselves…themind
in&ofitself…mentalqualitiesin&ofthemselves—ardent,alert,&
mindful—subduinggreed&distresswithreferencetotheworld.Thisis
calledthefacultyofmindfulness.”—SN48:10
§36.“Justaswhenapersonwhoseturbanorheadwasonfirewould
putforthextradesire,effort,diligence,endeavor,earnestness,mindfulness,
&alertnesstoputoutthefireonhisturbanorhead;inthesameway,the
monkshouldputforthextradesire…mindfulness,&alertnessforthe
abandoningofthoseevil,unskillfulmentalqualities.”—AN10:51
§37.“Suppose,monks,thatalargecrowdofpeoplecomesthronging
together,saying,‘Thebeautyqueen!Thebeautyqueen!’Andsupposethat
thebeautyqueenishighlyaccomplishedatsinging&dancing,sothatan
evengreatercrowdcomesthronging,saying,‘Thebeautyqueenissinging!
Thebeautyqueenisdancing!’Thenamancomesalong,desiringlifeand
shrinkingfromdeath,desiringpleasureandabhorringpain.Theysayto
him,‘Nowlookhere,mister.Youmusttakethisbowlfilledtothebrimwith
oilandcarryitonyourheadinbetweenthegreatcrowdandthebeauty
queen.Amanwitharaisedswordwillfollowrightbehindyou,and
whereveryouspillevenadropofoil,righttherewillhecutoffyourhead.’
Nowwhatdoyouthink,monks?Willthatman,notpayingattentiontothe
bowlofoil,lethimselfgetdistractedoutside?”
“No,lord.”
“Ihavegivenyouthisparabletoconveyameaning.Themeaningisthis:
Thebowlfilledtothebrimwithoilstandsformindfulnessimmersedinthe
body.”—SN47:20
§38.“Andhowisstrivingfruitful,howisexertionfruitful?Thereisthe
349
casewhereamonk,whennotloadeddown,doesnotloadhimselfdown
withpain,nordoesherejectpleasurethataccordswiththeDhamma,
althoughheisnotfixatedonthatpleasure.Hediscernsthat‘WhenIexerta
[physical,verbal,ormental]fabricationagainstthiscauseofstress,then
fromthefabricationofexertionthereisdispassion.WhenIlookonwith
equanimityatthatcauseofstress,thenfromthedevelopmentof
equanimitythereisdispassion.’Soheexertsafabricationagainstthecause
ofstressforwhichdispassioncomesfromthefabricationofexertion,and
developsequanimitywithregardtothecauseofstressforwhichdispassion
comesfromthedevelopmentofequanimity.Thusthestresscomingfrom
thecauseofstresswherethereisdispassionfromthefabricationofexertion
isexhausted,andthestresscomingfromthecauseofstresswherethereis
dispassionfromthedevelopmentofequanimityisexhausted.”—MN101
THEESSENCEOFTHEDHAMMA
§39.“Monks,thisholylifedoesn’thaveasitsrewardgain,offerings,&
fame,doesn’thaveasitsrewardconsummationofvirtue,doesn’thaveas
itsrewardconsummationofconcentration,doesn’thaveasitsreward
knowledge&vision,buttheunprovokedawareness-release:Thatisthe
purposeofthisholylife,thatisitsheartwood[or:essence(sāra)],thatits
finalend.”—MN29
§40.Thosewhoregard
non-essenceasessence
andseeessenceasnon-,
don’tgettotheessence,
rangingaboutinwrongresolves.
Butthosewhoknow
essenceasessence,
andnon-essenceasnon-,
gettotheessence,
rangingaboutinrightresolves.—Dhp11–12
§41.“Justastheoceanhasasingletaste—thatofsalt—inthesameway,
thisDhamma&Vinayahasasingletaste:thatofrelease.”—Ud5:5
§42.Gonetothebeyondofbecoming,
350
youletgoofinfront,
letgoofbehind,
letgoofbetween.
Withahearteverywherereleased,
youdon’tcomeagaintobirth
&aging.—Dhp348
§43.SisterSubhā:
I—unimpassioned,unblemished,
withamindeverywherereleased…
Knowingtheunattractiveness
offabricatedthings,
myheartadheresnowhereatall.—Thig14
§44.Ven.Revata’slastwords:
Attainconsummation
throughheedfulness:
Thatismymessage.
Sothen,I’maboutto
unbind.
I’mreleased
everywhere.—Thag14:1
§45.Ven.Sāriputta:“Thestatement,‘Withtheremainderlessfading&
cessationofthesixcontact-media[thesixsensesandtheirobjects],isitthe
casethatthereisanythingelse?’objectifiesthenon-objectified.The
statement,‘…isitthecasethatthereisnotanythingelse…isitthecasethat
therebothis&isnotanythingelse…isitthecasethatthereneitherisnoris
notanythingelse?’objectifiesthenon-objectified.Howeverfarthesix
contact-mediago,thatishowfarobjectificationgoes.Howeverfar
objectificationgoes,thatishowfarthesixcontactmediago.Withthe
remainderlessfading&cessationofthesixcontact-media,therecomestobe
thecessationofobjectification,thestillingofobjectification.”—AN4:173
§46.[TheBuddhatoBakaBrahmā:]“‘Havingdirectlyknownearthas
earth,andhavingdirectlyknowntheextentofwhathasnotbeen
experiencedthroughtheearthnessofearth,Iwasn’tearth,Iwasn’tinearth,
Iwasn’tcomingfromearth,Iwasn’t“Earthismine.”Ididn’taffirmearth.
351
ThusIamnotyourmereequalintermsofdirectknowing,sohowcouldI
beinferior?Iamactuallysuperiortoyou.
“‘Havingdirectlyknownliquidasliquid…fireasfire…windaswind…
beingsasbeings…devasasdevas…PajāpatiasPajāpati…Brahmāas
Brahmā…theradiantasradiant…thebeautifulblackasthebeautiful
black…thesky-fruitasthesky-fruit…theconquerorastheconqueror
[thesearehighlevelsofBrahmās]…
“‘Havingdirectlyknowntheall[thesixsenses,theirobjects,and
whateverarisesindependenceontheircontact—seeSN35:23]astheall,
andhavingdirectlyknowntheextentofwhathasnotbeenexperienced
throughtheallnessoftheall,Iwasn’ttheall,Iwasn’tintheall,Iwasn’t
comingforthfromtheall,Iwasn’t“Theallismine.”Ididn’taffirmtheall.
ThusIamnotyourmereequalintermsofdirectknowing,sohowcouldI
beinferior?Iamactuallysuperiortoyou.’
“‘If,goodsir,youhavedirectlyknowntheextentofwhathasnotbeen
experiencedthroughtheallnessoftheall,mayitnotturnouttobeactually
vain&voidforyou.’
“‘Consciousnesswithoutsurface,
endless,radiantallaround,
hasnotbeenexperiencedthroughtheearthnessofearth…theliquidity
ofliquid…thefierinessoffire…thewindinessofwind…theallnessofthe
all.’”—MN49
§47.“Therefore,monks,thatdimensionshouldbeexperiencedwhere
theeye[vision]ceasesandtheperceptionofformfades.Thatdimension
shouldbeexperiencedwheretheearceasesandtheperceptionofsound
fades.Thatdimensionshouldbeexperiencedwherethenoseceasesandthe
perceptionofaromafades.Thatdimensionshouldbeexperiencedwhere
thetongueceasesandtheperceptionofflavorfades.Thatdimension
shouldbeexperiencedwherethebodyceasesandtheperceptionoftactile
sensationfades.Thatdimensionshouldbeexperiencedwheretheintellect
ceasesandtheperceptionofideafades.Thatdimensionshouldbe
experienced.”—SN35:117
§48.“Thereisthatdimension,monks,wherethereisneitherearth,nor
water,norfire,norwind;neitherdimensionoftheinfinitudeofspace,nor
352
dimensionoftheinfinitudeofconsciousness,nordimensionof
nothingness,nordimensionofneitherperceptionnornon-perception;
neitherthisworld,northenextworld,norsun,normoon.Andthere,Isay,
thereisneithercoming,norgoing,norstaying;neitherpassingawaynor
arising:unestablished,unevolving,withoutsupport[mentalobject].This,
justthis,istheendofstress.”—Ud8:1
§49.“Thereis,monks,anunborn—unbecome—unmade—unfabricated.
Iftherewerenotthatunborn—unbecome—unmade—unfabricated,there
wouldnotbethecasethatescapefromtheborn—become—made—
fabricatedwouldbediscerned.Butpreciselybecausethereisanunborn—
unbecome—unmade—unfabricated,escapefromtheborn—become—
made—fabricatedisdiscerned.”—Ud8:3
§50.“Amongwhateverdhammastheremaybe,fabricatedor
unfabricated,dispassion—thesubduingofintoxication,theeliminationof
thirst,theuprootingofattachment,thebreakingoftheround,the
destructionofcraving,dispassion,cessation,therealizationofunbinding—
isconsideredsupreme.Thosewhohaveconfidenceinthedhammaof
dispassionhaveconfidenceinwhatissupreme;andforthosewith
confidenceinthesupreme,supremeistheresult.
“Amongwhateverfabricatedqualitiestheremaybe,thenobleeightfold
path—rightview,rightresolve,rightspeech,rightaction,rightlivelihood,
righteffort,rightmindfulness,rightconcentration—isconsideredsupreme.
Thosewhohaveconfidenceinthedhammaofthenoblepathhave
confidenceinwhatissupreme;andforthosewithconfidenceinthe
supreme,supremeistheresult.”—Iti90
§51.“Nowthesethreeareunfabricatedcharacteristicsofwhatis
unfabricated.Whichthree?Noarisingisdiscernible,nopassingawayis
discernible,noalterationwhilestayingisdiscernible.”—AN3:48
§52.“Monks,therearethesetwoformsoftheunbindingproperty.
Whichtwo?Theunbindingpropertywithfuelremaining,&theunbinding
propertywithnofuelremaining.
“Andwhatistheunbindingpropertywithfuelremaining?Thereisthe
casewhereamonkisanarahantwhoseeffluentshaveended,whohas
reachedfulfillment,finishedthetask,laiddowntheburden,attainedthe
353
truegoal,destroyedthefetterofbecoming,andisreleasedthroughright
gnosis.Hisfivesensefacultiesstillremainand,owingtotheirbeingintact,
heexperiencesthepleasing&thedispleasing,andissensitivetopleasure&
pain.Hisendingofpassion,aversion,&delusionistermedtheunbinding
propertywithfuelremaining.
“Andwhatistheunbindingpropertywithnofuelremaining?Thereis
thecasewhereamonkisanarahantwhoseeffluentshaveended,whohas
reachedfulfillment,finishedthetask,laiddowntheburden,attainedthe
truegoal,destroyedthefetterofbecoming,andisreleasedthroughright
gnosis.Forhim,allthatissensed,beingunrelished,willgrowcoldright
here.Thisistermedtheunbindingpropertywithnofuelremaining.”
Thesetwo
proclaimed
bytheonewithvision,
unbindingproperties
theoneindependent,
theonewhoisSuch:
oneproperty,hereinthislife,
withfuelremaining
fromthedestructionof[craving],
theguidetobecoming,
andthatwithnofuelremaining,
afterthislife,
inwhichallbecoming
totallyceases.—Iti44
§53.“Ifthethoughtshouldoccurtoyouthat,whendefilingmental
qualitiesareabandonedandbrightmentalqualitieshavegrown,andone
enters&remainsintheculmination&abundanceofdiscernment,having
known&realizeditforoneselfinthehere&now,one’sabidingis
stressful/painful,youshouldnotseeitinthatway.Whendefilingmental
qualitiesareabandonedandbrightmentalqualitieshavegrown,andone
enters&remainsintheculmination&abundanceofdiscernment,having
known&realizeditforoneselfinthehere&now,thereisjoy,rapture,
calm,mindfulness,alertness,&apleasantabiding.”—DN9
§54.“Nowit’spossible,Ānanda,thatsomewanderersofother
354
persuasionsmightsay,‘Gotamathecontemplativespeaksofthecessation
ofperception&feelingandyetdescribesitaspleasure.Whatisthis?How
canthisbe?’Whentheysaythat,theyaretobetold,‘It’snotthecase,
friends,thattheBlessedOnedescribesonlypleasantfeelingasincluded
underpleasure.Whereverpleasureisfound,inwhateverterms,theBlessed
Onedescribesitaspleasure.’”—MN59
THEONLYPATH
§55.“Andfurther,thediscipleofthenobleonesconsidersthus:‘Is
there,outsideofthis(Dhamma&Vinaya),anyothercontemplativeor
brahmanendowedwiththesortofviewwithwhichIamendowed?’
“Hediscernsthat,‘Thereisnoothercontemplativeorbrahmanoutside
(theDhamma&Vinaya)endowedwiththesortofviewwithwhichIam
endowed.’Thisisthethirdknowledgeattainedbyhimthatisnoble,
transcendent,notheldincommonwithrun-of-the-millpeople.”—MN48
§56.“Andfurther,themonkwhoisalearner[onewhohasreachedat
leaststream-entrybutisnotyetanarahant]reflects,‘Isthereoutsideofthis
(Dhamma&Vinaya)anycontemplativeorbrahmanwhoteachesthetrue,
genuine,&accurateDhammaliketheBlessedOne?’Andhediscerns,‘No,
thereisnocontemplativeorbrahmanoutsideofthiswhoteachesthetrue,
genuine,&accurateDhammaliketheBlessedOne.’Thistooisamannerof
reckoningwherebyamonkwhoisalearner,standingatthelevelofa
learner,candiscernthat‘Iamalearner.’”—SN48:53
§57.Ven.Ānanda:“Supposethattherewerearoyalfrontiercitywith
strongramparts,strongwalls&arches,andasinglegate.Initwouldbea
wise,competent,&intelligentgatekeepertokeepoutthosehedidn’tknow
andtoletinthosehedid.Walkingalongthepathencirclingthecity,he
wouldn’tseeacrackoranopeninginthewallsbigenoughforevenacatto
slipthrough.Althoughhewouldn’tknowthat‘So-and-somanycreatures
enterorleavethecity,’hewouldknowthis:‘Whateverlargecreaturesenter
orleavethecityallenterorleaveitthroughthisgate.’
“Inthesameway,theTathāgatadoesn’tendeavortohaveallthecosmos
orhalfofitorathirdofitled(torelease)bymeansof(hisDhamma).Buthe
doesknowthis:‘Allthosewhohavebeenled,arebeingled,orwillbeled
355
(torelease)fromthecosmoshavedoneso,aredoingso,orwilldosoafter
havingabandonedthefivehindrances—thosedefilementsofawareness
thatweakendiscernment—havingwell-establishedtheirmindsinthefour
establishingsofmindfulness,andhavingdeveloped,astheyhavecometo
be,thesevenfactorsforawakening.”—AN10:95
§58.“Nowwhat,monks,isthenobleeightfoldpath?Rightview,right
resolve,rightspeech,rightaction,rightlivelihood,righteffort,right
mindfulness,rightconcentration.
“Andwhat,monks,isrightview?Knowledgewithregardto[or:in
termsof]stress,knowledgewithregardtotheoriginationofstress,
knowledgewithregardtothecessationofstress,knowledgewithregardto
thewayofpracticeleadingtothecessationofstress:This,monks,iscalled
rightview.
“Andwhat,monks,isrightresolve?Resolveforrenunciation,resolvefor
non-illwill,resolveforharmlessness:This,monks,iscalledrightresolve.
“Andwhat,monks,isrightspeech?Abstainingfromlying,abstaining
fromdivisivespeech,abstainingfromharshspeech,abstainingfromidle
chatter:This,monks,iscalledrightspeech.
“Andwhat,monks,isrightaction?Abstainingfromtakinglife,
abstainingfromstealing,abstainingfromillicitsex:This,monks,iscalled
rightaction.
“Andwhat,monks,isrightlivelihood?Thereisthecasewhereadisciple
ofthenobleones,havingabandoneddishonestlivelihood,keepshislife
goingwithrightlivelihood.This,monks,iscalledrightlivelihood.
“Andwhat,monks,isrighteffort?Thereisthecasewhereamonk
generatesdesire,endeavors,activatespersistence,upholds&exertshis
intentforthesakeofthenon-arisingofevil,unskillfulqualitiesthathave
notyetarisen…forthesakeoftheabandoningofevil,unskillfulqualities
thathavearisen…forthesakeofthearisingofskillfulqualitiesthathave
notyetarisen…forthemaintenance,non-confusion,increase,plenitude,
development,&culminationofskillfulqualitiesthathavearisen.This,
monks,iscalledrighteffort.
“Andwhat,monks,isrightmindfulness?Thereisthecasewherea
monkremainsfocusedonthebodyin&ofitself—ardent,alert,&mindful
—subduinggreed&distresswithreferencetotheworld.Heremains
focusedonfeelingsin&ofthemselves…themindin&ofitself…mental
356
qualitiesin&ofthemselves—ardent,alert,&mindful—subduinggreed&
distresswithreferencetotheworld.This,monks,iscalledright
mindfulness.
“Andwhat,monks,isrightconcentration?Thereisthecasewherea
monk—quitesecludedfromsensuality,secludedfromunskillfulqualities—
enters&remainsinthefirstjhāna:rapture&pleasurebornofseclusion,
accompaniedbydirectedthought&evaluation.Withthestillingofdirected
thoughts&evaluations,heenters&remainsinthesecondjhāna:rapture&
pleasurebornofconcentration,unificationofawarenessfreefromdirected
thought&evaluation—internalassurance.Withthefadingofrapture,he
remainsequanimous,mindful,&alert,andsensespleasurewiththebody.
Heenters&remainsinthethirdjhāna,ofwhichthenobleonesdeclare,
‘Equanimous&mindful,hehasapleasantabiding.’Withtheabandoning
ofpleasure&pain—aswiththeearlierdisappearanceofelation&distress
—heenters&remainsinthefourthjhāna:purityofequanimity&
mindfulness,neitherpleasurenorpain.This,monks,iscalledright
concentration.”—DN22
§59.“Supposeamaninneedofmilk,lookingformilk,wanderingin
searchofmilk,wouldtwistthehornofanewly-calvedcow.Ifhewereto
twistthehornofanewly-calvedcowevenwhenhavingmadeawish(for
results)…havingmadenowish…bothhavingmadeawishandhaving
madenowish…neitherhavingmadeawishnorhavingmadenowish,he
wouldbeincapableofobtainingresults.Whyisthat?Becauseitisan
inappropriatewayofobtainingresults.
“Inthesameway,anycontemplativesorbrahmansendowedwith
wrongview,wrongresolve,wrongspeech,wrongaction,wronglivelihood,
wrongeffort,wrongmindfulness,&wrongconcentration:Iftheyfollowthe
holylifeevenwhenhavingmadeawish(forresults)…havingmadeno
wish…bothhavingmadeawishandhavingmadenowish…neither
havingmadeawishnorhavingmadenowish,theyareincapableof
obtainingresults.Whyisthat?Becauseitisaninappropriatewayof
obtainingresults.…
“Supposeamaninneedofmilk,lookingformilk,wanderinginsearch
ofmilk,wouldpulltheteatofanewly-calvedcow.Ifheweretopullthe
teatofanewly-calvedcowevenwhenhavingmadeawish(forresults)…
havingmadenowish…bothhavingmadeawishandhavingmadeno
wish…neitherhavingmadeawishnorhavingmadenowish,hewouldbe
357
capableofobtainingresults.Whyisthat?Becauseitisanappropriateway
ofobtainingresults.
“Inthesameway,anycontemplativesorbrahmansendowedwithright
view,rightresolve,rightspeech,rightaction,rightlivelihood,righteffort,
rightmindfulness,&rightconcentration:Iftheyfollowtheholylifeeven
whenhavingmadeawish(forresults)…havingmadenowish…both
havingmadeawishandhavingmadenowish…neitherhavingmadea
wishnorhavingmadenowish,theyarecapableofobtainingresults.Why
isthat?Becauseitisanappropriatewayofobtainingresults.”—MN126
§60.ThenSubhaddathewandererwenttotheBlessedOneand,on
arrival,exchangedcourteousgreetingswithhim.Afteranexchangeof
friendlygreetings&courtesies,hesattooneside.Ashewassittingthere,
hesaidtotheBlessedOne,“MasterGotama,thesecontemplatives&
brahmans,eachwithhisgroup,eachwithhiscommunity,eachtheteacher
ofhisgroup,anhonoredleader,well-regardedbypeopleatlarge—i.e.,
PūraṇaKassapa,MakkhaliGosāla,AjitaKesakambalin,Pakudha
Kaccāyana,SañjayaVelaṭṭhaputta,&theNigaṇṭhaNāṭaputta:Dotheyall
havedirectknowledgeastheythemselvesclaim,ordotheyallnothave
directknowledge,ordosomeofthemhavedirectknowledgeandsomeof
themnot?”
“Enough,Subhadda.Putthisquestionaside:‘Dotheyallhavedirect
knowledgeastheythemselvesclaim,ordotheyallnothavedirect
knowledge,ordosomeofthemhavedirectknowledgeandsomeofthem
not?’IwillteachyoutheDhamma,Subhadda.Listen,andpayclose
attention.Iwillspeak.”
“Asyousay,lord,”SubhaddarespondedtotheBlessedOne.
TheBlessedOnesaid,“InanyDhamma&Vinayawherethenoble
eightfoldpathisnotascertained,nocontemplativeofthefirst…second…
third…fourthorder[stream-winner,once-returner,non-returner,or
arahant]isascertained.Butinanydoctrine&disciplinewherethenoble
eightfoldpathisascertained,contemplativesofthefirst…second…third…
fourthorderareascertained.Thenobleeightfoldpathisascertainedinthis
Dhamma&Vinaya,andrightheretherearecontemplativesofthefirst…
second…third…fourthorder.Otherteachingsareemptyofknowledgeable
contemplatives.Andifthemonksdwellrightly,thisworldwillnotbe
emptyofarahants.
358
Atagetwenty-nineIwentforth,Subhadda,
seekingwhatmightbeskillful,
andsincemygoingforth,Subhadda,
morethanfiftyyearshavepassed.
Outsideoftherealm
ofmethodicalDhamma,
thereisnocontemplative.
“Thereisnocontemplativeofthesecondorder;thereisno
contemplativeofthethirdorder;thereisnocontemplativeofthefourth
order.Otherteachingsareemptyofknowledgeablecontemplatives.Andif
themonksdwellrightly,thisworldwillnotbeemptyofarahants.”—DN
16
RIGHTVIEW
§61.Astheyweresittingthere,theKālāmasofKesaputtasaidtothe
BlessedOne,“Lord,therearesomecontemplatives&brahmanswhocome
toKesaputta.Theyexpound&glorifytheirowndoctrines,butasforthe
doctrinesofothers,theydeprecatethem,disparagethem,showcontempt
forthem,&pullthemtopieces.Andthenothercontemplatives&
brahmanscometoKesaputta.Theyexpound&glorifytheirowndoctrines,
butasforthedoctrinesofothers,theydeprecatethem,disparagethem,
showcontemptforthem,&pullthemtopieces.Theyleaveusabsolutely
uncertain&indoubt:Whichofthesevenerablecontemplatives&brahmans
arespeakingthetruth,andwhichonesarelying?”
“Ofcourseyou’reuncertain,Kālāmas.Ofcourseyou’reindoubt.When
therearereasonsfordoubt,uncertaintyisborn.Sointhiscase,Kālāmas,
don’tgobyreports,bylegends,bytraditions,byscripture,bylogical
conjecture,byinference,byanalogies,byagreementthroughpondering
views,byprobability,orbythethought,‘Thiscontemplativeisourteacher.’
Whenyouknowforyourselvesthat,‘Thesequalitiesareunskillful;these
qualitiesareblameworthy;thesequalitiesarecriticizedbytheobservant;
thesequalities,whenadopted&carriedout,leadtoharm&tosuffering’—
thenyoushouldabandonthem.
“Whatdoyouthink,Kālāmas?Whengreedarisesinaperson,doesit
ariseforwelfareorforharm?”
359
“Forharm,lord.”
“Andthisgreedyperson,overcomebygreed,hismindpossessedby
greed,killslivingbeings,takeswhatisnotgiven,goesafteranother
person’swife,tellslies,andinducesotherstodolikewise,allofwhichisfor
long-termharm&suffering.”
“Yes,lord.”
[Similarlywithaversion&delusion.]
“Sowhatdoyouthink,Kālāmas:Arethesequalitiesskillfulor
unskillful?”
“Unskillful,lord.”
“Blameworthyorblameless?”
“Blameworthy,lord.”
“Criticizedbytheobservantorpraisedbytheobservant?”
“Criticizedbytheobservant,lord.”
“Whenadopted&carriedout,dotheyleadtoharm&tosuffering,or
not?”
“Whenadopted&carriedout,theyleadtoharm&tosuffering.Thatis
howitappearstous.”
“…Whenyouknowforyourselvesthat,‘Thesequalitiesareskillful;
thesequalitiesareblameless;thesequalitiesarepraisedbytheobservant;
thesequalities,whenadopted&carriedout,leadtowelfare&to
happiness’—thenyoushouldenter&remaininthem.
“Whatdoyouthink,Kālāmas?Whenlackofgreedarisesinaperson,
doesitariseforwelfareorforharm?”
“Forwelfare,lord.”
“Andthisungreedyperson,notovercomebygreed,hismindnot
possessedbygreed,doesn’tkilllivingbeings,takewhatisnotgiven,go
afteranotherperson’swife,telllies,orinduceotherstodolikewise,allof
whichisforlong-termwelfare&happiness.”
“Yes,lord.”
[Similarlywithlackofaversion&lackofdelusion.]
“Sowhatdoyouthink,Kālāmas:Arethesequalitiesskillfulor
unskillful?”
“Skillful,lord.”
360
“Blameworthyorblameless?”
“Blameless,lord.”
“Criticizedbytheobservantorpraisedbytheobservant?”
“Praisedbytheobservant,lord.”
“Whenadopted&carriedout,dotheyleadtowelfare&tohappiness,or
not?”
“Whenadopted&carriedout,theyleadtowelfare&tohappiness.That
ishowitappearstous.”—AN3:66
§62.“Thereiswhatisgiven,whatisoffered,whatissacrificed.There
arefruits&resultsofgood&badactions.Thereisthisworld&thenext
world.Thereismother&father.Therearespontaneouslyrebornbeings.
Therearecontemplatives&brahmanswho,faringrightly&practicing
rightly,proclaimthisworld&thenextafterhavingdirectlyknown&
realizeditforthemselves.”—MN117
§63.ThenVen.KaccānaGottaapproachedtheBlessedOneand,on
arrival,havingboweddown,sattooneside.Ashewassittingtherehesaid
totheBlessedOne:“Lord,‘Rightview,rightview,’itissaid.Towhatextent
isthererightview?”
“By&large,Kaccāna,thisworldissupportedby[takesasitsobject]a
polarity,thatofexistence&non-existence.Butwhenoneseesthe
originationoftheworldasithascometobewithrightdiscernment,‘nonexistence’withreferencetotheworlddoesnotoccurtoone.Whenonesees
thecessationoftheworldasithascometobewithrightdiscernment,
‘existence’withreferencetotheworlddoesnotoccurtoone.
“By&large,Kaccāna,thisworldisinbondagetoattachments,
clingings/sustenances,&biases.Butonesuchasthisdoesnotgetinvolved
withorclingtotheseattachments,clingings,fixationsofawareness,biases,
orobsessions;norisheresolvedon‘myself.’Hehasnouncertaintyor
doubtthatmerestress,whenarising,isarising;stress,whenpassingaway,
ispassingaway.Inthis,hisknowledgeisindependentofothers.It’stothis
extent,Kaccāna,thatthereisrightview.”—SN12:15
THESURVIVALOFTHETRUEDHAMMA
§64.“Havingadmirablepeopleasfriends,companions,&colleaguesis
361
actuallythewholeoftheholylife.Whenamonkhasadmirablepeopleas
friends,companions,&colleagues,hecanbeexpectedtodevelop&pursue
thenobleeightfoldpath.
“Andhowdoesamonkwhohasadmirablepeopleasfriends,
companions,&colleagues,develop&pursuethenobleeightfoldpath?
Thereisthecasewhereamonkdevelopsrightviewdependenton
seclusion,dependentondispassion,dependentoncessation,resultingin
relinquishment.Hedevelopsrightresolve…rightspeech…rightaction…
rightlivelihood…righteffort…rightmindfulness…rightconcentration
dependentonseclusion,dependentondispassion,dependentoncessation,
resultinginrelinquishment.Thisishowamonkwhohasadmirablepeople
asfriends,companions,&colleagues,develops&pursuesthenoble
eightfoldpath.
“Andthroughthislineofreasoningonemayknowhowhaving
admirablepeopleasfriends,companions,&colleaguesisactuallythe
wholeoftheholylife:Itisindependenceonmeasanadmirablefriendthat
beingssubjecttobirthhavegainedreleasefrombirth,thatbeingssubjectto
aginghavegainedreleasefromaging,thatbeingssubjecttodeathhave
gainedreleasefromdeath,thatbeingssubjecttosorrow,lamentation,pain,
distress,&despairhavegainedreleasefromsorrow,lamentation,pain,
distress,&despair.Itisthroughthislineofreasoningthatonemayknow
howhavingadmirablepeopleasfriends,companions,&colleaguesis
actuallythewholeoftheholylife.”—SN45:2
§65.“Monks,whenamonkhasadmirablepeopleasfriends,
companions,&colleagues,itistobeexpectedthathewillbevirtuous,will
dwellrestrainedinaccordancewiththePāṭimokkha,consummateinhis
behavior&sphereofactivity,andwilltrainhimself,havingundertakenthe
trainingrules,seeingdangerintheslightestfaults.
“Whenamonkhasadmirablepeopleasfriends,companions,&
colleagues,itistobeexpectedthathewillgettohearatwill,easily&
withoutdifficulty,talkthatistrulysoberingandconducivetotheopening
ofawareness,i.e.,talkonmodesty,contentment,seclusion,nonentanglement,arousingpersistence,virtue,concentration,discernment,
release,andtheknowledge&visionofrelease.
“Whenamonkhasadmirablepeopleasfriends,companions,&
colleagues,itistobeexpectedthathewillkeephispersistencearousedfor
362
abandoningunskillfulqualitiesandfortakingonskillfulqualities—
steadfast,solidinhiseffort,notshirkinghisdutieswithregardtoskillful
qualities.
“Whenamonkhasadmirablepeopleasfriends,companions,&
colleagues,itistobeexpectedthathewillbediscerning,endowedwith
discernmentofarising&passingaway—noble,penetrating,leadingtothe
rightendingofstress.”—AN9:1
§66.“Monks,therearethesetwoassemblies.Whichtwo?Theassembly
trainedinbombastandnotincross-questioning,andtheassemblytrained
incross-questioningandnotinbombast.
“Andwhichistheassemblytrainedinbombastandnotincrossquestioning?
“Thereisthecasewhereinanyassemblywhenthediscoursesofthe
Tathāgata—deep,deepintheirmeaning,transcendent,connectedwith
emptiness—arerecited,themonksdon’tlisten,don’tlendear,don’tset
theirheartsonknowingthem,don’tregardthemasworthgraspingor
mastering.Butwhendiscoursesthatareliteraryworks—theworksofpoets,
elegantinsound,elegantinrhetoric,theworkofoutsiders,wordsof
disciples—arerecited,theylisten,theylendear,theysettheirheartson
knowingthem,theyregardthemasworthgrasping&mastering.Yetwhen
theyhavemasteredthatDhamma,theydon’tcross-questiononeanother
aboutit,don’tdissect:‘Howisthis?Whatisthemeaningofthis?’They
don’tmakeopenwhatisn’topen,don’tmakeplainwhatisn’tplain,don’t
dispeldoubtonitsvariousdoubtfulpoints.Thisiscalledanassembly
trainedinbombast,notincross-questioning.
“Andwhichistheassemblytrainedincross-questioningandnotin
bombast?
“Thereisthecasewhereinanyassemblywhendiscoursesthatare
literaryworks—theworksofpoets,elegantinsound,elegantinrhetoric,
theworkofoutsiders,wordsofdisciples—arerecited,themonksdon’t
listen,don’tlendear,don’tsettheirheartsonknowingthem;don’tregard
themasworthgraspingormastering.Butwhenthediscoursesofthe
Tathāgata—deep,deepintheirmeaning,transcendent,connectedwith
emptiness—arerecited,theylisten,theylendear,theysettheirheartson
knowingthem,theyregardthemasworthgrasping&mastering.And
whentheyhavemasteredthatDhamma,theycross-questiononeanother
363
aboutitanddissectit:‘Howisthis?Whatisthemeaningofthis?’They
makeopenwhatisn’topen,makeplainwhatisn’tplain,dispeldoubtonits
variousdoubtfulpoints.Thisiscalledanassemblytrainedincrossquestioningandnotinbombast.”—AN2:46
§67.TheretheBlessedOneaddressedthemonks,“Monks,Iwillteach
youfourgreatstandards.Listenandpaycarefulattention.”
“Asyousay,lord,”themonksrespondedtohim.
TheBlessedOnesaid,“Thereisthecasewhereamonksaysthis:‘Faceto-facewiththeBlessedOnehaveIheardthis,face-to-facehaveIreceived
this:ThisistheDhamma,thisistheVinaya,thisistheTeacher’s
instruction.’Hisstatementisneithertobeapprovednorscorned.Without
approvalorscorn,takecarefulnoteofhiswordsandmakethemstand
againstthesuttasandtallythemagainsttheVinaya.If,onmakingthem
standagainstthesuttasandtallyingthemagainsttheVinaya,youfindthat
theydon’tstandwiththesuttasortallywiththeVinaya,youmayconclude:
‘ThisisnotthewordoftheBlessedOne;thismonkhasmisunderstoodit’—
andyoushouldrejectit.Butif,onmakingthemstandagainstthesuttas
andtallyingthemagainsttheVinaya,youfindthattheystandwiththe
suttasandtallywiththeVinaya,youmayconclude:‘Thisisthewordofthe
BlessedOne;thismonkhasunderstooditrightly.’”
[SimilarlywithamonkwhoclaimstohavelearnedDhamma&Vinaya
fromwell-knownleadingelders,fromlearnedelderswhoknowthetexts,
orfromasingleelderwhohaslearnedthetexts.]
“Monks,rememberthesefourgreatstandards.”—DN16
§68.“Monks,thesetwoslandertheTathāgata.Whichtwo?Hewho
explainswhatwasnotsaidorspokenbytheTathāgataassaidorspokenby
theTathāgata.Andhewhoexplainswhatwassaidorspokenbythe
TathāgataasnotsaidorspokenbytheTathāgata.Thesearethetwowho
slandertheTathāgata.”—AN2:23
§69.“ThereisnodisappearanceofthetrueDhammaaslongasa
counterfeitofthetrueDhammahasnotarisenintheworld,butthereisthe
disappearanceofthetrueDhammawhenacounterfeitofthetrueDhamma
hasarisenintheworld.Justasthereisnodisappearanceofgoldaslongas
acounterfeitofgoldhasnotarisenintheworld,butthereisthe
disappearanceofgoldwhenacounterfeitofgoldhasarisenintheworld,in
364
thesamewaythereisnodisappearanceofthetrueDhammaaslongasa
counterfeitofthetrueDhammahasnotarisenintheworld,butthereisthe
disappearanceofthetrueDhammawhenacounterfeitofthetrueDhamma
hasarisenintheworld.
“It’snottheearthpropertythatmakesthetrueDhammadisappear.It’s
notthewaterproperty…thefireproperty…thewindpropertythatmakes
thetrueDhammadisappear.It’sworthlesspeoplewhoariserighthere
[withintheSaṅgha]whomakethetrueDhammadisappear.Thetrue
Dhammadoesn’tdisappearthewayashipsinksallatonce.
“Thesefivedownward-leadingqualitiestendtotheconfusionand
disappearanceofthetrueDhamma.Whichfive?Thereisthecasewherethe
monks,nuns,malelayfollowers,&femalelayfollowerslivewithout
respect,withoutdeference,fortheTeacher.Theylivewithoutrespect,
withoutdeference,fortheDhamma…fortheSaṅgha…forthetraining…
forconcentration.Thesearethefivedownward-leadingqualitiesthattend
totheconfusionanddisappearanceofthetrueDhamma.
“Butthesefivequalitiestendtothestability,thenon-confusion,thenondisappearanceofthetrueDhamma.Whichfive?Thereisthecasewherethe
monks,nuns,malelayfollowers,&femalelayfollowerslivewithrespect,
withdeference,fortheTeacher.Theylivewithrespect,withdeference,for
theDhamma…fortheSaṅgha…forthetraining…forconcentration.These
arethefivequalitiesthattendtothestability,thenon-confusion,thenondisappearanceofthetrueDhamma.”—SN16:13
§70.“Andaslongasthemonks—withreferencetotheviewthatis
noble,leadingoutward,thatleadthosewhoactinaccordancewiththemto
therightendingofsuffering&stress—dwellwiththeirviewintunewith
thoseoftheircompanionsintheholylife,totheirfaces&behindtheir
backs,themonks’growthcanbeexpected,nottheirdecline.”—DN16
§71.“Monks,thereoncewasatimewhentheDasārahashadalarge
drumcalled‘Summoner.’WheneverSummonerwassplit,theDasārahas
insertedanotherpeginit,untilthetimecamewhenSummoner’soriginal
woodenbodyhaddisappearedandonlyaconglomerationofpegs
remained.[TheCommentarynotesthatthedrumoriginallycouldbeheard
fortwelveleagues,butinitsfinalconditioncouldn’tbeheardevenfrom
behindacurtain.]
“Inthesameway,inthecourseofthefuturetherewillbemonkswho
365
won’tlistenwhendiscoursesthatarewordsoftheTathāgata—deep,deep
intheirmeaning,transcendent,connectedwithemptiness—arebeing
recited.Theywon’tlendear,won’tsettheirheartsonknowingthem,won’t
regardtheseteachingsasworthgraspingormastering.Buttheywilllisten
whendiscoursesthatareliteraryworks—theworksofpoets,elegantin
sound,elegantinrhetoric,theworkofoutsiders,wordsofdisciples—are
recited.Theywilllendearandsettheirheartsonknowingthem.Theywill
regardtheseteachingsasworthgrasping&mastering.
“Inthiswaythedisappearanceofthediscoursesthatarewordsofthe
Tathāgata—deep,deepintheirmeaning,transcendent,connectedwith
emptiness—willcomeabout.
“Thusyoushouldtrainyourselves:‘Wewilllistenwhendiscoursesthat
arewordsoftheTathāgata—deep,deepintheirmeaning,transcendent,
connectedwithemptiness—arebeingrecited.Wewilllendear,willsetour
heartsonknowingthem,willregardtheseteachingsasworthgrasping&
mastering.’That’showyoushouldtrainyourselves.”—SN20:7
§72.“Andfurther,therewillbeinthecourseofthefuturemonks
undevelopedinbody[accordingtoMN36,thismeansthatpleasant
feelingscaninvadethemindandgiverisetopassion],undevelopedin
virtue,undevelopedinmind[i.e.,painfulfeelingscaninvadethemindand
giverisetosorrow],andundevelopedindiscernment.They—being
undevelopedinbody…virtue.…mind…discernment—willnotlisten
whendiscoursesthatarewordsoftheTathāgata—deep,deepintheir
meaning,transcendent,connectedwithemptiness—arebeingrecited.They
won’tlendear,won’tsettheirheartsonknowingthem,won’tregardthese
teachingsasworthgraspingormastering.Buttheywilllistenwhen
discoursesthatareliteraryworks—theworksofpoets,artfulinsound,
artfulinrhetoric,theworkofoutsiders,wordsofdisciples—arerecited.
Theywilllendearandsettheirheartsonknowingthem.Theywillregard
theseteachingsasworthgrasping&mastering.Thusfromcorrupt
DhammacomescorruptVinaya;fromcorruptVinaya,corruptDhamma.
“This,monks,isthefourthfuturedanger,unarisenatpresent,thatwill
ariseinthefuture.Bealerttoitand,beingalert,worktogetridofit.”—
AN5:79
§73.ThentheBlessedOnesaidtoVen.Ānanda,“Ānanda,thetwinsal
treesareinfullbloom,eventhoughit’snotthefloweringseason.They
366
shower,strew,&sprinkleontheTathāgata’sbodyinhomagetohim.
Heavenlycoral-treeblossomsarefallingfromthesky.…Heavenly
sandalwoodpowderisfallingfromthesky.…Heavenlymusicisplayingin
thesky.…Heavenlysongsaresunginthesky,inhomagetotheTathāgata.
ButitisnottothisextentthataTathāgataisworshipped,honored,
respected,venerated,orpaidhomageto.Rather,themonk,nun,malelay
follower,orfemalelayfollowerwhokeepspracticingtheDhammain
accordancewiththeDhamma,whokeepspracticingmasterfully,wholives
inaccordancewiththeDhamma:Thatisthepersonwhoworships,honors,
respects,venerates,&payshomagetotheTathāgatawiththehighest
homage.Soyoushouldtrainyourselves:‘Wewillkeeppracticingthe
DhammainaccordancewiththeDhamma,wewillkeeppracticing
masterfully,wewillliveinaccordancewiththeDhamma.’That’showyou
shouldtrainyourselves.”—DN16
§74.“ForamonkpracticingtheDhammainaccordancewiththe
Dhamma,whataccordswiththeDhammaisthis:thathekeepcultivating
disenchantmentwithregardtoform,thathekeepcultivating
disenchantmentwithregardtofeeling,thathekeepcultivating
disenchantmentwithregardtoperception,thathekeepcultivating
disenchantmentwithregardtofabrications,thathekeepcultivating
disenchantmentwithregardtoconsciousness.
“Ashekeepscultivatingdisenchantmentwithregardtoform…
feeling…perception…fabrications…consciousness,hecomprehends
form…feeling…perception…fabrications…consciousness.Ashe
comprehendsform…feeling…perception…fabrications…consciousness,
heistotallyreleasedfromform…feeling…perception…fabrications…
consciousness.Heistotallyreleasedfromsorrows,lamentations,pains,
distresses,&despairs.Heistotallyreleased,Itellyou,fromsuffering&
stress.””—SN22:39
367
Glossary
Arahant:A“worthyone”or“pureone;”apersonwhosemindisfreeof
defilementandthusisnotdestinedforfurtherrebirth.Atitleforthe
Buddhaandthehighestlevelofhisnobledisciples.
Āsava:Effluent;fermentation.Fourqualities—sensuality,views,
becoming,andignorance—that“flowout”ofthemindandcreatethe
flood(ogha)oftheroundofdeath&rebirth.
Bhava:Becoming.Asenseofidentitywithinaparticularworldof
experience.Thethreelevelsofbecomingareonthelevelof
sensuality,form,andformlessness.
Bodhisatta:“Abeing(striving)forAwakening;”thetermusedtodescribe
theBuddhabeforeheactuallybecameBuddha,fromhisfirst
aspirationtoBuddhahooduntilthetimeofhisfullAwakening.
Sanskritform:Bodhisattva.
Brahman:Incommonusage,abrahmanisamemberofthepriestlycaste,
whichclaimedtobethehighestcasteinIndia,basedonbirth.Ina
specificallyBuddhistusage,“brahman”canalsomeananarahant,
conveyingthepointthatexcellenceisbased,notonbirthorrace,but
onthequalitiesattainedinthemind.
Brahmā:Aninhabitantoftheheavenlyrealmsofformorformlessness.
Deva(devatā):Literally,“shiningone.”Aninhabitantoftheterrestrialor
heavenlyrealmshigherthanthehuman.
Dhamma:(1)Event;action;(2)aphenomenoninandofitself;(3)mental
quality;(4)doctrine,teaching;(5)nibbāna(althoughthereare
passagesdescribingnibbānaastheabandoningofalldhammas).
Sanskritform:Dharma.
Dukkha:Stress;suffering.
368
Gotama:TheBuddha’sclanname.
Jhāna:Mentalabsorption.Astateofstrongconcentrationfocusedona
singlesensationormentalnotion.Thistermisderivedfromtheverb
jhāyati,whichmeanstoburnwithasteady,stillflame.
Kamma:Intentionalact.Sanskritform:Karma.
Khandha:Aggregate;physicalandmentalphenomenaastheyare
directlyexperienced;therawmaterialforasenseofself:rūpa—
physicalform;vedanā—feelingsofpleasure,pain,orneitherpleasure
norpain;saññā—perception,mentallabel;saṅkhāra—fabrication,
thoughtconstruct;andviññāṇa—sensoryconsciousness,theactof
takingnoteofsensedataandideasastheyoccur.Sanskritform:
Skandha.
Māra:Thepersonificationoftemptationandallforces,withinand
without,thatcreateobstaclestoreleasefromsaṁsāra.
Nibbāna:Literally,the“unbinding”ofthemindfrompassion,aversion,
anddelusion,andfromtheentireroundofdeathandrebirth.Asthis
termalsodenotestheextinguishingofafire,itcarriesconnotationsof
stilling,cooling,andpeace.“Totalnibbāna”insomecontextsdenotes
theexperienceofawakening;inothers,thefinalpassingawayofan
arahant.Sanskritform:Nirvāṇa.
Papañca:Objectification—thinkingthatderivesfromtheperception,“I
amthethinker,”andleadtoconflict.
Paṭicca-samuppāda:Dependentco-arising;dependentorigination.Amap
showingthewayignoranceandcravinginteractwiththeaggregates
(khandha)andsensemedia(āyatana)tobringaboutstressand
suffering.Astheinteractionsarecomplex,thereareseveraldifferent
versionsofpaṭiccasamuppādagiveninthesuttas.Inthemost
commonone,themapstartswithignorance.Inanothercommonone,
themapstartswiththemutualdependencebetweenname(mental
activities—nāma)andform(physicaldata(rūpa)ontheonehand,and
sensoryconsciousnessontheother.
Pāli:ThelanguageoftheoldestextantCanonoftheBuddha’steachings.
Pāṭimokkha:Basiccodeofmonasticdiscipline,composedof227rulesfor
369
monksand311fornuns.
Samādhi:Concentration.
Saṁsāra:Transmigration;theprocessofwanderingthroughrepeated
statesofbecoming,withtheirattendantdeathandrebirth.
Saṁvega:Asenseofdismayoverthemeaninglessnessandfutilityoflife
asitisordinarilylived,combinedwithastrongsenseofurgencyin
lookingforawayout.
Saṅgha:Ontheconventional(sammati)level,thistermdenotesthe
communitiesofBuddhistmonksandnuns.Ontheideal(ariya)level,
itdenotesthosefollowersoftheBuddha,layorordained,whohave
attainedatleaststream-entry.
Saṅkhāra:Fabrication(literally,“puttingtogether”).Theforcesthat
fabricateexperiencesandtheexperiencesthatresult.Sanskritform:
Saṁskāra.
Sutta:Discourse.Sanskritform:Sūtra.
Tādin:“Such,”anadjectivetodescribeonewhohasattainedthegoal.It
indicatesthattheperson’sstateisindefinablebutnotsubjectto
changeorinfluencesofanysort.
Tathāgata:Literally,“onewhohasbecomeauthentic(tatha-āgata)oris
trulygone(tathā-gata)”:anepithetusedinancientIndiaforaperson
whohasattainedthehighestreligiousgoal.InBuddhism,itusually
denotestheBuddha,althoughoccasionallyitalsodenotesanyofhis
arahantdisciples.
Upādāna:Theactofclingingtosomethingtotakesustenancefromit.The
activitiesthat,whenclungto,constitutesufferingarethefive
khandhas.Theclingingitselftakesfourforms:tosensuality,tohabits
&practices,toviews,andtotheoriesabouttheself.
Vinaya:Themonasticdiscipline,whoserulesandtraditionscomprisesix
volumesinprintedtext.
370
Abbreviations
AN
AṅguttaraNikāya
Dhp
Dhammapada
DN
DīghaNikāya
Iti
Itivuttaka
Khp
Khuddakapāṭha
MN
MajjhimaNikāya
SN
SaṁyuttaNikāya
Sn
SuttaNipāta
Thag
Theragāthā
Thig
Therīgāthā
Ud
Udāna
ReferencestoDN,Iti,andMNaretodiscourse(sutta).Those
toDhparetoverse.Referencestoothertextsaretosection
(saṁyutta,nipāta,orvagga)anddiscourse.NumberingforAN
andSNfollowstheThaiEditionofthePāliCanon.
Alltranslationsfromthesetextsarebytheauthor,andare
basedontheRoyalThaiEditionofthePāliCanon(Bangkok:
MahāmakutRājavidyālaya,1982).
371
Endnotes
CHAPTERONE
1.Beiser,FrederickC.GermanIdealism,p.419​–420.
2.Frank,Manfred.ThePhilosophicalFoundationsofEarlyGerman
Romanticism,p.161.
3.Novalis.PhilosophicalWritings,p.4.
4.Frank,Manfred.ThePhilosophicalFoundationsofEarlyGerman
Romanticism,p.163.
5.Pinkard,Terry.GermanPhilosophy1760–1860,p.159.
6.Droit,Roger-Pol.Lecultedunéant,p.171.
7.Frank,Manfred.ThePhilosophicalFoundationsofEarlyGerman
Romanticism,p.207.
8.Hölderlin,Friedrich.SelectedPoemsandFragments,p.xxiii.
9.Novalis.TheNovicesofSais,p.103–105.
CHAPTERTHREE
1.Holmes,Richard.TheAgeofWonder,p.191.
2.Schiller,Friedrich.LettersontheAestheticEducationofMan,p.107;p.9.
3.Zammito,JohnH.Kant,Herder,andtheBirthofAnthropology,pp.341–
342.
4.Herder,JohannGottfried.AgainstPureReason,pp.130–131.
5.Plato.Symposium,p.60.
372
6.Beiser,Frederick.Diotima’sChildren,p.236.
7.Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments,p.158.
8.Novalis,PhilosophicalWritings,p.66.
9.Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments,pp.156–157.
10.Ibid.,p.152.
11.Bernstein,J.M.,ed.ClassicandRomanticGermanAesthetics,p.276.
12.Ibid.,p.274.
13.Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments,p.145.
CHAPTERFOUR
1.Novalis.PhilosophicalWritings,p.28.
2.Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments,p.106.
3.Ibid.,p.113.
4.Ibid.,p.107.
5.Beiser,FrederickC.GermanIdealism,p.434.
6.Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments,p.66.
7.Ibid.,p.175.
8.Blanning,Tim.TheRomanticRevolution:AHistory,p.25.
9.Beiser,Frederick.GermanIdealism,p.461.
10.Schleiermacher,Friedrich.OnReligion:SpeechestoitsCultured
Despisers.TranslatedandeditedbyRichardCrouter,p.25.
11.Novalis,PhilosophicalWritings,p.25.
12.Beiser,Frederick.GermanIdealism,p.453.
13.Novalis,PhilosophicalWritings,pp.131,135.
14.Pinkard,Terry.GermanPhilosophy1760–1860,pp.147–148.
15.Novalis.PhilosophicalWritings,p.24.
373
16.Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments,p.156.
17.Ibid.,p.149.
18.Ibid.,p.148.
19.Ibid.,p.176.
20.Ibid.,p.146.
21.Ibid.,p.247.
22.Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments,p.183.
23.Hölderlin,Friedrich.Hyperion.TranslatedbyRossBenjamin,p.70.
24.Ibid.,p.215.
25.Williamson,GeorgeS.TheLongingforMythinGermany,p.124–125.
26.Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments,pp.48–49.
27.Ibid.,p.103.
28.Ibid.,p.106.
29.Zammito,JohnH.Kant,Herder,andtheBirthofAnthropology,p.340.
30.Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments,p.177.
31.Ibid.,p.5.
CHAPTERFIVE
1.Schleiermacher,Friedrich.OnReligion:SpeechestoitsCultured
Despisers.TranslatedandeditedbyRichardCrouter,p.49.
2.Ibid.,p.23.
3.Ibid.,p.118.
4.Ibid.,p.54.
5.Ibid.,p.97.
6.Ibid.,p.31–32.
7.Ibid.,p.68.
374
8.Ibid.,p.68.
9.Ibid.,p.41.
10.Ibid.,p.49.
11.Ibid.,p.27.
12.Ibid.,p.50.
13.Ibid.,p.20.
14.Ibid.,p.46.
15.Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments,p.248.
16.Ibid.,p.242.
17.Ibid.,p.244.
18.Beiser,FrederickC.GermanIdealism,p.397.
19.Herling,BradleyL.TheGermanGita,p.124.
20.Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments,p.241.
21.Ibid.,p.243.
22.Herling,BradleyL.TheGermanGita,p.124.
23.Ibid.,p.126.
24.Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments,pp.61–62.
25.Ibid.,p.113.
26.SchleiermacherFriedrich.SchleiermachersvertrauteBriefeüberdie
Lucinde,p.40.
CHAPTERSIX
1.Maslow,AbrahamH.Religions,Values,andPeak-Experiences,p.56.
2.Cotkin,George.WilliamJames:PublicPhilosopher,p.64.
3.Ibid.,p.64.
4.James,William.TheVarietiesofReligiousExperience,p.498.
375
5.Ibid.,p.31.
6.Ibid.,p.3.
7.Richardson,RobertD.WilliamJames:IntheMaelstromofAmerican
Modernism,p.vii.
8.James,William.TheVarietiesofReligiousExperience,pp.506–507.
9.James,William.Pragmatism,p.128.
10.James,William.TheVarietiesofReligiousExperience,p.506.
11.Jung,CarlGustav.TheArchetypesandtheCollectiveUnconscious,p.55.
12.Jung,CarlGustav.ModernManinSearchofaSoul,p.64.
13.Jung,CarlGustav.PsychologyandReligion,pp.11–12.
14.Jung,CarlGustav.TheArchetypesandtheCollectiveUnconscious,p.27.
15.Jung,CarlGustav.ModernManinSearchofaSoul,p.242.
16.Jung,CarlGustav.PsychologyandReligion,p.99.
17.Ibid.,p.75.
18.Ibid.,p.114.
19.Jung,CarlGustav.ModernManinSearchofaSoul,p.224.
20.Jung,CarlGustav.PsychologyandReligion,p.41.
21.Ibid.,p.220.
22.Jung,CarlGustav.ModernManinSearchofaSoul,p.67.
23.Ibid.,p,250.
24.Maslow,AbrahamH.Religions,Values,andPeak-Experiences,p.52.
25.Ibid.,pp.12–13.
26.Ibid.,pp.94–95.
27.Ibid.,p.20.
28.Ibid.,p.72.
29.Williamson,GeorgeS.TheLongingforMythinGermany,p.129.
376
30.Pinkard,Terry.GermanPhilosophy1760–1860,pp.150–151,n.30.
31.Hegel,G.W.F.LecturesonthePhilosophyofReligion:TheLecturesof
1827,pp.488–489.
32.Droit,Roger-Pol.Lecultedunéant,p.94.
33.Herling,BradleyL.TheGermanGita,pp.250–251.
34.Seager,Richard.BuddhisminAmerica,p.236.
35.Ibid.,p.xvii.
36.McMahan,DavidL.TheMakingofBuddhistModernism,p.254.
37.Gleig,Ann.“FromTheravādatoTantra:TheMakingofanAmerican
Buddhism?”,p.229.
38.Huxley,Aldous.ThePerennialPhilosophy,p.1.
39.Ibid.,pp.1–2.
40.Ibid.,p.2.
41.Ibid.,pp.233–234.
42.Ibid.,p.68.
43.Ibid.,p.165.
44.Ibid.,p.98.
45.Ibid.,p.92.
46.Ibid.,p.184.
47.Ibid.,p.292.
48.Ibid.,p.38.
49.Ibid.,p.9.
50.Ibid.,p.9–10.
51.Ibid.,pp.45–46.
52.Ibid.,p.203.
53.Ibid.,p.202.
377
54.Ibid.,p.203.
378
Bibliography
Albanese,CatherineL.NatureReligioninAmerica.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress,1990.
Beiser,FrederickC.Diotima’sChildren:GermanAestheticRationalismfrom
LeibniztoLessing.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009.
————.TheFateofReason:GermanPhilosophyfromKanttoFichte.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1987.
————.GermanIdealism:TheStruggleagainstSubjectivism,1781–1801.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2002.
————.TheRomanticImperative:TheConceptofEarlyGerman
Romanticism.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2003.
————.SchillerasPhilosopher:ARe-Examination.Oxford:Clarendon
Press,2005.
Berlin,Isaiah.TheRootsofRomanticism.EditedbyHenryHardy.
Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1999.
Bernstein,J.M.,ed.ClassicandRomanticGermanAesthetics.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,2003.
Blanning,Tim.TheRomanticRevolution:AHistory.NewYork:The
ModernLibrary,2011.
Brekke,Torkel.MakersofModernIndianReligionintheLateNineteenth
Century.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002.
Buell,Lawrence.Emerson.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2003.
————,ed.TheAmericanTranscendentalists:EssentialWritings.New
379
York:TheModernLibrary,2006.
Cotkin,George.WilliamJames:PublicPhilosopher.Urbana:Universityof
IllinoisPress,1989.
Cunningham,AndrewandNicholasJardine,eds.Romanticismandthe
Sciences.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990.
Droit,Roger-Pol.Lecultedunéant:LesphilosophesetleBouddha.Édition
augmentéed’unepréface.Paris:ÉditionsduSeuil,2004.
Emerson,RalphWaldo.EssaysandLectures.NewYork:TheLibraryof
America,1983.
————.TheSelectedWritingsofRalphWaldoEmerson.NewYork:The
ModernLibrary,1940.
Frank,Manfred.ThePhilosophicalFoundationsofEarlyGerman
Romanticism.TranslatedbyElizabethMillàn-Zaibert.Albany:State
UniversityofNewYorkPress,2004.
Gambhirananda,Swami,ed.“AShortBiographyofSwami
Vivekananda.”www.vivekananda.net
Garrett,Don,ed.TheCambridgeCompaniontoSpinoza.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,1996.
Gleig,Ann.“FromTheravādatoTantra:TheMakingofanAmerican
Buddhism?”ContemporaryBuddhism:AnInterdisciplinaryJournal,14:2
(2013):221–238.
Goethe,JohannWolfgangvon.WilhelmMeister’sApprenticeship.
TranslatedbyThomasCarlyle.NewYork:CollierandSons,1917.
Gontard,SusetteBorkenstein.TheRecalcitrantArt:Diotima’sLettersto
HölderlinandRelatedMissives.EditedandtranslatedbyDouglasF.
KenneyandSabineMenner-BettscheidwithaforewordbyDavid
FarrellKrell.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2000.
Gura,PhilipF.AmericanTranscendentalism:AHistory.NewYork:Hill
andWang,2007.
380
Hegel,G.W.F.LecturesonthePhilosophyofReligion:TheLecturesof1827.
EditedbyPeterC.Hodgson.TranslatedbyR.F.Brown,P.C.
Hodgson,andJ.M.Stewart.Oxford:ClarendonPress,2006.
Herder,JohannGottfried.AgainstPureReason:WritingsonReligion,
Language,andHistory.EditedandtranslatedbyMarciaBunge.
Minneapolis:FortressPress,1993.
Herling,BradleyL.,TheGermanGita:HermeneuticsandDisciplineinthe
GermanReceptionofIndianThought,1778–1831.NewYork&London:
Routledge,2006.
Hölderlin,Friedrich.Hyperion.TranslatedbyRossBenjamin.NewYork:
ArchipelagoBooks,2008.
————.SelectedPoemsandFragments.Translatedandwithan
IntroductionbyMichaelHamburger.EditedbyJeremyAdler.
London:PenguinBooks,1994.
Holmes,Richard.TheAgeofWonder:HowtheRomanticGeneration
DiscoveredtheBeautyandTerrorofScience.NewYork:VintageBooks,
2008.
Huxley,Aldous.ThePerennialPhilosophy.NewYork:HarperandRow,
1970(1944–1945).
James,William.PragmatismandOtherWritings.NewYork:Penguin
Books,2000.
————.TheVarietiesofReligiousExperience.NewYork:Penguin
Classics,1985(1902).
Janowitz,Anne.“TheSublimePluralityofWorlds:Lucretiusinthe
EighteenthCentury”(2010).www.tate.org.uk/researchpublications/thesublime.
Jung,CarlGustav.TheArchetypesandtheCollectiveUnconscious.
TranslatedbyR.F.C.Hull.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,
1969.
————.ModernManinSearchofaSoul.TranslatedbyW.S.Delland
381
CaryF.Baynes.Abingdon:RoutledgeClassics,2001(1933).
————.PsychologyandReligion.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,
1938.
Kant,Immanuel.ReligionwithintheBoundariesofMereReasonandOther
Writings.TranslatedandeditedbyAllenWoodandGeorge
DiGiovanni.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998.
King,Richard.OrientalismandReligion:PostcolonialTheory,Indiaand‘The
MysticEast.’London:Routledge,1999.
Koistinen,Olli,ed.TheCambridgeCompaniontoSpinoza’sEthics.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009.
Maslow,AbrahamH.Religions,Values,andPeak-Experiences.NewYork:
PenguinArana,1964.
————.TowardaPsychologyofBeing.NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons,
1968.
Masuzawa,Tomoko.TheInventionofWorldReligions.Chicago:
UniversityofChicagoPress,2005.
McMahan,DavidL.TheMakingofBuddhistModernism.Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress,2008.
Millàn-Zaibert,Elizabeth.FriedrichSchlegelandtheEmergenceofRomantic
Philosophy.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2007.
Nikhilananda,Swami.SwamiVivekananda:ABiography.
www.vivekananda.net
Novalis.HenryvonOfterdingen.TranslatedbyPalmerHilty.Prospect
Heights,IL:WavelandPress,1990.
————.HymnstotheNight.TranslatedbyDickHiggins.Revised
Edition.NewPaltz,NY:McPherson&Co.,1984.
————.TheNovicesofSais.TranslatedbyRalphManheim.NewYork:
ArchipelagoBooks,2005.
382
————.PhilosophicalWritings.TranslatedandeditedbyMargaret
MahonyStoljar.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1997.
Olender,Maurice.TheLanguagesofParadise:Race,Religion,andPhilology
intheNineteenthCentury.TranslatedbyArthurGoldhammer.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2008.
Ospovat,AlexanderM.“RomanticismandGermanGeology:Five
StudentsofAbrahamGottlobWerner.”EighteenthCenturyLife,7
(1982):105–117.
Otto,Rudolph.TheIdeaoftheHoly.TranslatedbyJohnW.Harvey.New
York:OxfordUniversityPress,1950.
Pinkard,Terry.GermanPhilosophy1760–1860:TheLegacyofIdealism.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002.
Plato.Phaedrus.TranslatedbyAlexanderNehamasandPaulWoodruff.
Indianapolis:HackettPublishingCompany,1995.
————.Symposium.TranslatedbyAlexanderNehamasandPaul
Woodruff.Indianapolis:HackettPublishingCompany,1989.
Prabhavananda,Swami.TheSpiritualHeritageofIndia.Hollywood:
VedantaPress,1979.
Raphael,Melissa.RudolphOttoandtheConceptoftheHoly.Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1997.
Richardson,RobertD.WilliamJames:IntheMaelstromofAmerican
Modernism.ABiography.Boston:HoughtonMifflinCompany,2006.
Robinson,Richard,WillardJohnson,andThanissaroBhikkhu.Buddhist
Religions:AHistoricalIntroduction.FifthEdition.Belmont,CA:
Wadsworth,2005.
Schiller,Friedrich.LettersontheAestheticEducationofMan.Translatedby
ElizabethWilkinsonandL.A.Willoughby.Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress,1967.
Schlegel,Friedrich.LucindeandtheFragments.Translatedwithan
383
introductionbyPeterFirchow.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota
Press,1971.
Schleiermacher,Friedrich.OnReligion:SpeechestoitsCulturedDespisers.
TranslatedandeditedbyRichardCrouter.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress,1988.
————.SchleiermachersvertrauteBriefeüberdieLucinde–miteiner
VorredevonKarlGutzkow.Hamburg:HoffmannundCampe,1835.
————.OnReligion:SpeechestoitsCulturedDespisers.Translatedby
JohnOmanwithanintroductionbyRudolfOtto.NewYork:Harper
andRow,1958.
Seager,Richard.BuddhisminAmerica.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity
Press,1999.
Singer,Peter.Hegel:AVeryShortIntroduction.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press,1983.
Sontheimer,GünterD.andHermannKulke,eds.HinduismReconsidered.
NewDelhi:ManoharPublications,1991.
Vivekananda,Swami.“Buddha’sMessagetotheWorld”(1900).Edited
byFrankParlato,Jr.www.vivekananda.net
————.“Buddhism,theFulfillmentofHinduism”(1893).Editedby
FrankParlato,Jr.www.vivekananda.net
————.“BuddhisticIndia”(1900).EditedbyFrankParlato,Jr.
www.vivekananda.net
————.“IsVedantatheFutureReligion?”(1900).EditedbyFrank
Parlato,Jr.www.vivekananda.net
————.“PaperonHinduism”(1893).EditedbyFrankParlato,Jr.
www.vivekananda.net
————.“TheVedantaPhilosophy”(1896).EditedbyFrankParlato,Jr.
www.vivekananda.net
384
————.TheYogasandOtherWorks.ChosenandwithaBiographyby
SwamiNikhilananda.NewYork:Ramakrishna-VivekanandaCenter,
1953.
Wheeler,KathleenM.,ed.GermanAestheticandLiteraryCriticism:The
RomanticIronistsandGoethe.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,
1984.
Williamson,GeorgeS.TheLongingforMythinGermany:Religionand
AestheticCulturefromRomanticismtoNietzsche.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress,2004.
Zammito,JohnH.TheGenesisofKant’sCritiqueofJudgment.Chicago:
UniversityofChicagoPress,1992.
————.Kant,Herder,andtheBirthofAnthropology.Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress,2002.
385
TableofContents
Titlepage
Copyright
Acknowledgements
QuestioningBuddhistRomanticism
HowtoReadthisBook
2
3
5
7
20
DramatisPersonae
21
TheBuddha
FiveEarlyRomantics
Novalis(1772–1801)
FriedrichSchlegel(1772–1829)
FriedrichSchleiermacher(1768–1834)
FriedrichHölderlin(1770–1843)
FriedrichSchelling(1775–1854)
ShapingtheRomanticExperience
AnAncientPath
23
30
32
35
40
44
50
54
64
Suffering,ItsCause,ItsCessation
ThePath
HowtheBuddhaTaught
KeepingthePathOpen
65
68
73
76
AnAgeofTendencies
79
Science
Politics
Philosophy
Kant
Fichte
Schiller
Herder
Plato
Literature
81
85
91
91
96
98
104
111
113
386
TheRomanticUniverse
122
Symphilosophy
Unity
Organic
Infinite
TheAttractionsofFreedom
TheRomanticProgram
123
124
128
134
144
150
RomanticReligion
159
TheReligiousExperience
ReligiousBildung
Schleiermacher’sReception
RecognizingRomanticReligion
160
164
170
174
TheTransmissionofRomanticReligion
Emerson
PsychologyofReligion
James
Jung
Maslow
HistoryofReligions
Hegel
RomanticisminModernScholarship
PerennialPhilosophy
TheCumulativeTransmission
BuddhistRomanticism
185
188
198
200
212
224
232
234
243
248
265
270
VoicesofBuddhistRomanticism
TheAppealofBuddhistRomanticism
BuddhistRomanticismvs.theDhamma
TheIroniesofBuddhistRomanticism
UnromanticDhamma
272
291
295
321
328
TheDiscoveryoftheDhamma
TheProblemofDukkha
SkillinQuestions
328
329
329
387
Kamma&FurtherBecoming
Desire
QuestionsofSelf&Not-self
Separateness&Oneness
Feeding
Heedfulnessvs.InnateGoodness
Mindfulness&Ardency
TheEssenceoftheDhamma
TheOnlyPath
RightView
TheSurvivaloftheTrueDhamma
332
334
336
342
345
347
349
350
355
359
361
Glossary
Abbreviations
Endnotes
368
371
372
ChapterOne
ChapterThree
ChapterFour
ChapterFive
ChapterSix
372
372
373
374
375
Bibliography
379
388