|
|
 |
|
Please join in the discussion at the Message Board!
(Total activity, all pages, all sites, in page reloads, since 9/21/2000)
Click here to visit my search engine!
(9-26-2000)
"Buddha Calling the Earth to Witness"
Buddha's Earth Touching Gesture
Buddha, tempted by the Buddhist devil, mara, touches the earth to summon it as a witness to his realization of buddhahood. It is a gesture of safety.
(an art historian repliest to my inquiry concerning the "Earth-touching" gesture or mudra)
Sitaram:
There's probably going to be a plethora of explanations for that mudra (hand jesture) of Buddha pointing towards the ground. Yes, "mudra" is the correct term for such a gesture, and more specifically, it's called the bhumi-sparsha-mudra, which literally means "Earth-touching-gesture", or more commonly "Calling the Earth to Witness."
The best explanation, based on actual Buddhist texts is that Mara (the Evil One) challenged the Buddha [in a variety of arguments, depending on the texts], but the upshot was that the Buddha called on goddess Earth to testify to his worthiness to achieve enlightenment, and to thus escape the mortal realm of Mara--into Nirvana.
In wonderful paintings of Thai monasteries, the Earth is shown appearing as a goddess who rings out her hair and the flood [which represents the accumulated merit/punya of the bodhisattva's many previous lifetimes] washes away the daemonic assault.
See the bertolucci film, "The Little Buddha" for a wonderful reenactment. The waters derive from the ancient indian practice of a renunciate pouring out water from a jug as witness to a donor's gift, as if Sadhu is "washing his hands" of any ownership. This can be seen on the vessantara jataka panels of sanchi, for example....and they're posted in an article at: see photos and text
(My reply):
Wow, great! This is exactly what I wanted to know!
Yes, I saw "The Little Buddha" movie in Manhattan some years ago, and I came to a most interesting realization.
During film, the reenactments of Buddha's life touched me and brought me to tears (precisely because I had studied/practiced Korean Zen - chogye , for over a year). But those in audience who had no spiritual background and were simply looking for a 2 hour diversion were bored. After movie, in lobby, I randomly approached 10 people, and asked their reactions. I found that those with a Buddhist/Eastern spiritual background were moved emotionally, whereas the uninitiated materialist/pleasure seekers were bored and disappointed, scoffing and ridiculing the film. I do think that rupert sheldrake's ideas on Morphic Resonance have quite a bit of merit, and those who DO participate/practice with regularity tap into the centuries of energy from such teachings, mudras, symbols. The uninitiated, however, are not "plugged in" to this resonance, so for them the scenes from the life of the Buddha seem empty and meaningless.
I did have a special reason for inquiring into the precise facts concerning the "Ground-touching" gesture of Buddha.
I had heard a different version of this story concerning that "earth touching" gesture as follows:
The Buddha was seated with begging-bowl in hand, outside the home of a wealthy man. The wealthy man came out and scolded Buddha, calling him a "good-for-nothing" who did no work to earn his food and therefore served no purpose in society. The Buddha's response was simply to point to the ground, to indicate that a teacher of moral virtue has earned at least the right to dwell in the few square feet of ground space that they occupy.
plutarch's Life of alexander the Great recounts an interesting anecdote about a simple man who sought to impress the great conqueror. This peasant had spent years acquiring the unusual ability to toss lentils (beans) into the opening of a small bottle with the greatest accuracy from any distance. The peasant sought an audience with Alexander to demonstrate his skills, hoping for some handsome reward. Alexander the Great witnessed the bean-tossing performance, summoned an aid, whispered in his ear, and shortly presented the peasant with a large heavy bag. The peasant excitedly opened the bag, expecting gold and silver, but to his dismay found that the bag was filled with lentils! Alexander the Great said, "This is your reward for devoting your life to perfecting such a useless skill", and walked away, leaving the disappointed peasant holding his bag of lentils.
This story brings to my mind the many wealthy successful entertainers and athletes whom we so greatly admire and often seek to emulate as role models.
We gather to watch the olympic competitions with great enthusiasm. We admire these dedicated athletes who have spent entire lifetimes from earliest childhood perfecting their ability to perform amazing feats. They can jump higher than anyone else, run faster, swim faster, throw a discus or javelin further, etc.
We do not stop to reflect at all that the actual skills they spend a lifetime perfecting have no practical value or application. We certainly do not "create value" in the economist's sense, by jumping higher than anyone else. At one point in human history, the ability to throw a spear or javelin accurately meant defeat of your enemy, or food on the table, but nowadays we have handguns and missiles which are far more effective.
In 1978, someone mentioned the name "michael Jackson" to me, and they were shocked when I said that I had no idea who that was. At that time, I did not watch media or entertainment, or read the news, so of course, I had never encountered the name. They explained to me that Michael Jackson was a famous successful recording artist. I made an effort to see something of him on television, and came away with the understanding that he is a singer who dances wearing only one white glove. At that time, wearing one white glove was his "thing", his "fad". Here was someone, Michael Jackson, who had amassed considerable wealth by performing actions which could arguably be called "silly and useless". Except that, in our society, that which has strong marketing appeal and audience, and "catches on", can sell well, regardless of its innate merit as a human endeavor.
If someone can learn to dribble and shoot a basketball skillfully, or drive a golf ball with amazing accuracy, they have some hope of becoming a Magic Johnson or Arnold Palmer and enjoying wealth and fame. Yet there is no intrinsic value or worth in the act of throwing balls about. The value, of course, lies in the spectator audience of such activities, who is willing to spend considerable sums of money for tickets, tee-shirts, etc.
If such athletes and entertainers were to make any kind of gesture analogous to Buddha's "Earth-touching" gesture, they would point, not to the ground, but to their bank accounts, investment portfolios, their mansions and sports cars, and all their material possession which society has granted to them through patronage as spectators of their performances.
One avenue of "saving grace" for such media stars is to do charitable works with a portion of their wealth, and of course, such charity is commendable and does much good in the world. But the fact remains that if society itself valued charity above meaningless and trivial entertainment, then society itself would have directed its discretionary income towards such charitable causes. For all the generosity of those well-meaning entertainers, they continue to live at a level of luxury, donating only a certain percentage of their wealth to charity, but not donating to a degree which would diminish their own life-style. Society itself does not receive the "merit" from such charity, because the intention of the audience was to perform charity, but the enjoy entertainment and diversion.
Society may well look at the "holy man", the monk, the nun, the ascetic, or even the poet or philosopher and say "such people are failures, who make no contribution to society".
If the public thirsted and hungered after what Mother Theresa has to offer, or the Dalai Lama, or Gandhi, then such people would become stars and idols equal to basketball or baseball heros.
Of course, there DOES exist an audience for such "spiritual performance". The material success of Television Ministers is testimony to that audience. Some Television Ministries, such as Charles stanley's "In Touch" Ministries seem quite wholesome and sincere. Other media ministries have confessed to hoax healings, such as Oral robert's in the 1950's, or have been exposed in other scandals.
My main point is that it is hypocritical for a society to criticize the ascetic, renunciate, the monk, the nun, the guru or spiritual guide because their endeavors lack practical utility when such a society idolizes people who dance with one glove, jump or throw balls, and elevates them to positions of wealth and influence. In an indirect way, Society is really criticizing itself and its values. What we are really criticizing is that the activities of the renunciate are not marketable. Were there a market and an audience for watching Sadhus and purchasing Sadhu tee-shirts and coffee mugs, then we would admire them for their material success and never question the practical utility of their skills or endeavors.
Forward to Page 311
Back to Page 309
..... or all the way back to Page 1
Index of Pages
Email Feedback
