Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

Buddhism and Asatru

12:04 / 26.04.05

Good morning,

In the thread about Loki the discussion veered into the topic of Buddhism in regards to the Norse religion. As someone who went from Asatru to Buddhism (with that damned Discordian influence, true) and spent a few years on both sides of the fence, I would like to discuss this further and in more detail.

A lot of what I will be saying is collected both from teachers, readings, and a very good essay comparing the two religions that I was unable to find (I'll be going into details from memory). Any useful wisdom and insight is theirs, any mistakes are my own and I do apologize for them. Also, if I come across as offensive, sorry about that.

Robert Frost, in his poem "The Road Less Taken" started as follows.

TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood

Asatru and Buddhism like many religions started out this way. They both had to deal with a very basic fact and that is this. Life isn't that great. We get old, we die, we get sick, we loose things we want, and we get things we don't want, so forth and so on.

In Buddhism, it is stated in the first noble truth. Life is "dukkah", which is not as much suffering as it is unsatisfactory. This is a point in which both Buddhists and Asatru (and a whole lot of other people) agree. Another point of agreement is impermanence. Things break down, things pass away.

Where they disagree is how they react to this. Buddhists attempt to resolve the suffering in their own minds by whatever means. Release yourself from excessive and inappropriate attachment and you release yourself from suffering.

Asatru, OTOH, are almost (but not quite) the exact opposite. They attempt to increase their attachment in this world though ties to the Ancestors, to Troth, to the swearing of Oaths. They fight impermanence through valor and the like.

This is my take on it, what's yours?

Pappa Cass
P.S. - This was written rather briefly, I'll be happy to elaborate on any point.

15:53 / 26.04.05

Actually, I'm really curious about the role of deities/bodhisattvas in (specifically) Tibetan Buddhism as compared to any of the European pantheons.

It's that Buddhist polytheism that kinda gets me wonderin'.

16:17 / 26.04.05

Can also discuss similarities between Asatru and Buddhism, and not just differences? I think that is what you intend with this thread, Pappa Cass, but I am just assuming that.

I too, have also studied and practiced Tantric Buddhism, and some limited Norse, specifically Seidr. There is so very little information on Seidr I combined my knowledge of Tantra with it. It didn't fit together perfectly, but it helped to fill in some gaps after much sorting. Much sorting which is not completed, but I think the connection between Buddhism (especially Tantric Buddhism) and Asatru might help to sort out some of the missing pieces of Norse tradition by benefitting from Buddhism's unbroken lineage. It is not unreasonable to think that with the Vikings' travels that the two traditions might have influenced one another, or at least the religions and practices that predate Buddhism. Perhaps, creating some connection between the two.

Is that an unreasonable theory? Does anyone know what the timelines like? I'm rather crap at figuring out that sort of thing.

trouser the trouserian

19:43 / 26.04.05

Well, I think dates are going to be a problem, as I suppose it all depends if you follow the scholastic dates or not. For example, one of the earliest examples of Germanic language (the script on the helm of Negau) has been dated to around 300 bce. The oldest runic inscription (at least according to Edred Thorsson) is the Meldorf brooch which has been dated to around 50ce. Again, according to Thorsson, the "Viking Age" starts around 800ce and ends around 1100ce (Crossley-Holland more-or-less agrees, locating the Viking era between 780-1070ce).

As for Buddhism & Tibet, there is a distinct lack of consensus over dates for the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet - anything between the 2nd to 7th century ce onwards. Potentially useful article: The Dissenting Tradition of Indian Tantra and its Partial Hegemonisation in Tibet Although the major Buddhist sects in Tibet probably didn't emerge until around the 10th century (again, depends on who you read).

And when you start looking at Tantra, it's even hazier, although there does seem to be some emerging scholarly consensus that Tantra (depending on how one defines it of course) started to emerge in India no earlier than the 4th century ce.

Two other links you might find useful:
Jenny Blain on Seidr practice and
Catherine Robinson's look at 19th-century attempts to relate Druids and Brahmins

Unconditional Love

20:15 / 26.04.05

issues relating to the word aesir very contentious indo european ideas.

Unconditional Love

20:25 / 26.04.05

proto indo european religions highly speculative but intresting none the less.

trouser the trouserian

04:06 / 27.04.05

Seeing as wolfangel has brought up the proto indo-european theory, it would be remiss of me not to mention the 1938 German expedition to Tibet by a group of SS 'scientists' who were looking for evidence to prop up popular German beliefs of the period that the origins of so-called "Aryan man" - the supposed ur-race who had founded modern civilisation (according to Friedrich Schlegel & co. anyway) was in Tibet. The Aryans were supposedly the ancestors of the Greeks, Persians, Indians, Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons & Germans. This notion proved to be very popular amongst adherents of the German "volkish" movement but was also intertwined with the rise of nationalism and anti-semitism, as can be discerned in some of the theories of Guido von List (author of Das Geheimnis der Runen). List was also fascinated with what he called "Runic Yoga".

09:01 / 27.04.05

grant said:
Actually, I'm really curious about the role of deities/bodhisattvas in (specifically) Tibetan Buddhism as compared to any of the European pantheons.

It's that Buddhist polytheism that kinda gets me wonderin'.

Pappa Cass says:

Sure thing, I'll be happy to explain as best as I can.

First and most important, understand that in Tibetian Buddhism there are two types of truth. Ultimate truth and conventional truth. Take a flower, for example.

Conventionally if I pointed to a flower I would say, "That is a flower" or, more precisely, "That is a rose". This is conventional truth. This is X, this is Y.

However, when this is examined, we find that there is no inherent flower or rose, that we merely label this thing as a rose or a flower. This becomes much more involved but a very basic understanding is important here.

On a conventional level Tibetian Buddhists think of the Buddhist pantheon just like the Norse, or old Irish or any other Pagan culture. You have these great figures you pray to and things happen. Bokar Rinpoche wrote a book on Tara(if you search his name and Tara it will come up on google) that shows many examples of this. On an ultimate level they are seen as projections of the mind,they don't exist ultimately(because nothing exists ultimately). Also, it should be noted that though these two levels of truth are acknowledged, that does not make the conventional level something to be totally thrown out. It is said that Buddha Shakamundi(the historical Buddha) thought on both the ultimate and conventional level and could and did express himself on both levels as was appropriate. The difficulties with communicating in the ultimate level exclusively has already been discussed in a past thread(the Peter Carroll e-prime thread).

Also, even on a conventional level the deities are seen as guiding the practitioner towards enlightenment through an increase in the virtues that are said to make practice easier.

If this is confusing, please let me know and I will endeavor to rephrase or refer you to my teacher who is much more experienced than myself.

PC

09:14 / 27.04.05

One of the things to keep in mind that is very significant is that Tibetian Buddhism, though it uses the term Tantra and Yoga, means something quite different than what is meant in India.

In Tibet, it is said that there are three types of Buddhism(well, two to be precise, but one is a very significant offshoot that is vital to our discussion).

Hinayana, or the smaller vehicle, known also as Theravada. The idea behind it is enlightenment/liberation for the individual.

Mahayana, or the larger vehicle. This is the idea that one attempts to achieve enlightenment to benefit others. It is in this type of Buddhism that the bodhisattva emerges. A bodhisattva is one who seeks enlightenment to serve others, though it has come to mean one who has great attainments who has this goal.

Vajrayana, or the thunderbolt vehicle is a branch of Mahayana Buddhism and is what is usually referred to as Tibetian Tantric Buddhism(though there is deity practice in Mahayana Buddhism in China and other nations, however). In Vajrayana Buddhism the goal is to use special skills and/or techniques(such as visualizing yourself as a deity) in order to attain enlightenment in a single lifetime so that you can help sentient beings even faster.

Vajrayana Buddhism is similar to Asatru in that it has a practice similar to Sedhr which it swallowed whole in it's early inception(it was the pre Buddhist shamanic religion called Bon), but it is distinctly different between not only Asatru, but also other sects of Tantric Buddhism. I'll review the other articles and get back to everyone on them as soon as I can.

PC

Unconditional Love

13:28 / 27.04.05

something that keeps poping up lately as i look at various cultural theories of this an that, is this, alot of them indo european ideas for example, seem to be characteristic of social pressures of the times they are created in. so do many of the prevalent theories today, often characterised by political correctness and identity politics which have growin in importance since the early 80's.

i think its actually very hard to find an unbiased academic opinion from any age, that doesnt reflect in someway the social conditions of the time it was written in.

perhaps a better point of reference is the experential knowledge of the practitioners of both traditions? rather than attempts at objectivity. maybe.

Unconditional Love

13:34 / 27.04.05

perhaps what i am saying is this, its very easy to give power to institutions that claim objective validity of there knowledge. while the subjective knowledge of those that practice goes dismissed as being unacademic and that can be very disempowering for the practitioner who becomes ultimately nothing more than a point of study, something to be studied.

14:22 / 27.04.05

Also, it should be noted that though these two levels of truth are acknowledged, that does not make the conventional level something to be totally thrown out. It is said that Buddha Shakamundi(the historical Buddha) thought on both the ultimate and conventional level and could and did express himself on both levels as was appropriate.

That, I kinda knew already (although you stated it very well). What I'm curious about is whether there's some kind of record of "ultimate level" interpretations within Asatru. I mean, in other forms of European paganism, there's the whole "God & Goddess as male and female principle of the universe" idea, and as soon as they become principles, then it seems like you're talking about this "ultimate level."

To me, it seems like a natural outgrowth of any religious cosmology -- but I'm pretty damn mired in postmodernity and tend to see *everything* as a metaphor. I'm wondering if there's some sort of historical, textual evidence of an understanding of these deities as principles, metaphors or even as "teaching figures" -- a Norse dreamtime, maybe?
And is there any application of this idea in modern Asatru, or is it really a materially based idea-system?

trouser the trouserian

15:06 / 27.04.05

Wolfangel

its very easy to give power to institutions that claim objective validity of there knowledge. while the subjective knowledge of those that practice goes dismissed as being unacademic

It's a faIr enough comment, although I cannot think of any modern academics (at least within the fields of Tibetan or Hindu Tantric studies) who do what you suggest - unless they are merely being "politically correct" (whatever than means in this context)? Given the increasing trend towards "experiential anthropology" (of which Dr. Susan Greenwood was an early trailblazer in the UK) you'll find that quite a few contemporary academics are also 'practitioners' themselves. I know for a fact that Geoffrey Samuels for example (link to one of his articles above) does not "dismiss the subjective knowledge of those that practice". I've had several in-depth conversations with him (he does a mean curry) and haven't once felt "disempowered". Quite the reverse.

Unconditional Love

15:44 / 27.04.05

barbelith just ate my post, not enough discharge, or perhaps shes building tension?

puts things in a very different light trousers much more tolerant than i had be led to believe or imagined. when i went to university i was taught to present information in a certain way, a way i always had issue with, i had issue with the fact that it had to be printed and removed the expression i could convey with written characters, and then they piled all these rules to thinking and expression on me, my background for expression had been poetry and music. i think its where the issue comes from, i dont think art should be a science, nor do i think magic should be treated as one, sorry thelemites, one day you might convince me otherwise but i doubt it. its that that mainly attacks me with relation to academia, a beautiful art reduced to working components.

i think the loss of wonder that is sometimes conveyed by past studying and research of magic/spirtuality/religion has alot to answer for for making the world into disectable chunks rather than a beautiful work of art.

i value science and logic but i dont like there attempt to become an uber system of thought and influence. ie atheism to replace christianity in western communities, atheism can be as intolerant as any other belief system in my opinion.

15:50 / 27.04.05

Asatru, OTOH, are almost (but not quite) the exact opposite. They attempt to increase their attachment in this world though ties to the Ancestors, to Troth, to the swearing of Oaths. They fight impermanence through valor and the like.

Im not all that sure it is a complete opposite. its seems kind of similar to japanese Zen way of doing things, oaths etc and the dedication to arbitrary ideals at the expense of the "physical/ or wordly desires" illustrating the practitioners enlightenment.

Actually, I'm really curious about the role of deities/bodhisattvas in (specifically) Tibetan Buddhism as compared to any of the European pantheons.

It's that Buddhist polytheism that kinda gets me wonderin'

theoretically any theological system can be adapted into buddhism, thats why its so darn popular! there are different levels of existance the human, the animal, the vegtable, even arguably machines, and above them there's the... spirit level, god level, semi enlightened level, super enlightened level and proper enlightened level etc. infinite levels of exitance really, which infinately blend into one another and intereact. So any god even monotheistic types can operate within buddhism...or something.

16:50 / 27.04.05

[slightly ot]

Just a sidenote: I am amazed at how much more information there is regarding Seidr on the internet. Just 2 years ago there was barely a full page on the subject and I had started a thread here on Barbelith to look for more information. I think there might be some useful, relative information there.

Anyway, I am quite happy about the manifesting of this information making it more accessible.

[/ot]

15:30 / 29.04.05

Along the lines of previous posts about the comparison between Buddhism and Asatru. I would say that a closer comparison can be drawn between Asatru and Vedic Hinduism. Georges Dumezil does quite a bit of this in his various works on comparative Indo-European mythology. Buddhism is a reformers philosophy; a reformation if you will of some native Hindu philosophies. If there is a corollary in Asatru, or in the Germanic tradition, I would say it comes in the Saga literature, in the Volsunga Saga for example, or perhaps with accounts in some Sagas of "godless men" who grant the deities ontology however did not seem it appropriate to pay them respect. That is, these folks trusted their own might and main above that of the gods.

Contemporary Odianism (not Odinist) philosophy, articulated initially, though hardly followed up, in Edred Thorsson's _Runelore_ may be closer to Buddhism as a reformulation of an elder theology than Asatru.