6.1 Confirmation of SDM and its TrV
We have traced the problem of a definition of myth in three phases: the first one, in general theories of myth, outside the boundaries of Buddhism; the second one, in the general use of the concept in the discipline of Buddhist studies; the third one in a particular work, itself dealing directly with the problem of myth in a Buddhist scripture. In all these phases, we have identified a negative valuation of myth in terms of truth (TrV), coming from the unrecognized previous acceptance of a standard definition of myth (SDM).
We believe we have demonstrated that, in all three phases the panorama is the same: definitions of the concept are problematic. But our point is not that definitions designed are faulty. The problem with them is that they start from a SDM, carrying a default form of TrV. Furthermore, they are not constructed based on observations of narratives, but on their own interpretations based on a SDM. Thus the problem is how they were constructed backwards, not from observed phenomena, or objects, but from the requirements of interpretation.
The question remains open as to how much their results are affected by such problems. But we contend that as theories they fail in their universal applicability.
135
They cannot, finally, explain ‘what is myth’ because they cannot distinguish
myth-narratives from non-myth narratives. They all simply assume that myth is clearly distinguishable from other narratives.
We hope we have successfully shown how:
1. A definition of myth cannot be based on truth valuation.
2. Myth cannot be identified in opposition to history in the text.
3. The possible interpretations of myth should have no relevance for the construction of a definition of myth.
4. The first purpose of a definition of myth should be the easy and clear identification of myth itself.
5. A definition of myth should start from the fact that myth materializes in narrative, but is not the same as narrative.
6.2 Without a precise definition myth remains a useless concept
‘Myth’ is undoubtedly a rich word. As Righter puts it, myth:
(…) has become a kind of intellectual shorthand which has
gained acceptance as standing for an elusive, almost
136
unanalyzable amalgam of beliefs, attitudes and feelings. The very unapproachability of the content of myth has created the utility of the term and guaranteed its widespread
usefulness. With no theoretical implications the term is taken as given.” (Righter 9)
The problem is whether this richness does not translate to confusion for a discipline with aversion to theory, like Philology. The normal utility or usefulness of the concept seems to be, up to now, inversely proportional to its concrete theoretical applicability. The lack of a precise definition transforms myth into a wild animal when applied in analysis. We have struggled in this work to show this.
6.3 Philology should not use myth as a concept unless it has properly defined it
We are conscious of the limitations of our work: we would probably require a much bigger number of examples to prove with absolute certainty what we have proposed in these pages. Yet, as we affirmed at the beginning, our intention was merely propaedeutic. We believe we have presented a first critical guide or a mode of how to identify the problem of truth valuation in a clear an easy way.
That perhaps would be enough for now, for those who might find themselves
137
interested in further testing our hypothesis. The question will remain open as to how it fares against more examples. Yet we are confident that we have painted successfully in the very least an approximate landscape.
One of the main questions that we have tried to raise in this work is whether it is possible for a discipline like Buddhist studies to lack a stable definition of myth. How can Philology use myth as a category of stratification or classification and analysis if it does not identify clear boundaries in narratives?
The answer appears simple. Until there is no proper definition of myth, it is
better to remain away from the concept. The problem is then, that we cannot say anything about all that narrative phenomena that we ‘believe’ correspond to myth. At
the same time the lack of a proper method of identification of myth seems to affect adversely the stratification process of the suttas.
6.4 There may be nothing to call myth
If we, at the end of these pages, have left in the reader the impression that there may not be anything to call myth after all, we would still have done our job well. We believe that a fair amount of doubt must be faced and resolved before any further discussion of what myth is. If myth is nothing, or if it is so diffuse an object that any hope to effectively single it out should be abandoned, so be it.
138
7. Abbreviations
AoC Anatomy of Criticism ASu Aggañña sutta
DN Dhīganikāya
MNBP Mythical Narrative of The Buddhist Path MPar Mahaparinibbāna Sutta
MSud Mahāsudassana Sutta PCan Pāli Canon
SDM Standard Definition of Myth TrV Truth Valuation
139
8. Bibliography
Almond, Philip C. The British Discovery of Buddhism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Anālayo. The Genesis of the Bodhisattva Ideal. Germany: Hamburg University Press, 2010.
Black, Brian and Jonathan Green. “The Character of ‘Character’ in Early South Asian Religious Narratives: An Introductory Essay.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 79.1 Mar (2001): 6-32.
Carus, Paul. “The Mythology of Buddhism.” The Monist. 7.3 Apr (1897): 415-445.
Dundes, Alan. ed. Sacred Narratives: Readings in the Theory of Myth. California:
University of California Press, 1984.
Dowden, Ken. The Uses of Greek Mythology. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Eliade, Mircea. Myth, Dreams, and Mysteries. Trans. Philip Mairet. New York: Harper
& Row, 1960.
---. Myth and Reality. Trans. Willard R. Trask. Illinois: Waveland Press Inc., 1998.
140
Ellwood, Robert. The Politics of Myth: A Study of C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell. New York: State University of New York Press. 1999.
Franklin, J. Jeffrey. The Lotus and The Lion: Buddhism and The British Empire. New York: Cornell University Press, 2008.
Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1957.
---. The Secular Scripture: A Study of the Structure of Romance. USA: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Geiger, Wilhelm. Pāli Literature and Language. Trans. Batakrishna Ghosh. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1978.
Geertz, Clifford. “Religion as a Cultural System.” Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion. Ed. Michael Banton. London: Tavistock Publications Limited, 1969.
1-46.
---. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
Gethin, Rupert. “Cosmology and Meditation: From the Aggañña-Sutta to the Mahāyāna.” History of Religions 36.3 (1997): 183-217.
---. “Mythology as Meditation: From The Mahāsudassana Sutta to the
141
Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra” Journal of The Pali Text Society 28 (2006): 63-112.
---. The Foundations of Buddhism. Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Gombrich, Richard. “Recovering the Buddha’s Message.” Earliest Buddhism and Madhyamaka (Panels of The VIIth World Sanskrit Conference VOL. II). Eds. David Seyfort Ruegg and Lambert Schmithausen. The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1990. 5-23.
---. How Buddhism Began: The conditioned genesis of the early teachings. 2nd ed.
USA: Routledge, 2005.
---. “The Buddha.’s Book of Genesis?” Indo-Iranian Journal 35 (1992):159.–78.
---. “The Significance of Former Buddhas in the Theravādin Tradition”, in Buddhist Studies in Honour of Walpola Rahula, S. Balasooriya et al. (ed.). London: Fraser, 1980. 62‒72.
---. What the Buddha Taught. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009.
Gomez, Luis O. “On Reading Literature Literally: Concrete Imagery before Doctrine.” Published in Special International Symposium on Pure Land Buddhism.
BARC, Otani University. 4 Aug (2011): 5-30.
Honko, Lauri. “The Problem of Defining Myth.” Sacred Narratives: Readings in the Theory of Myth. California: University of California Press, 1984.
142
Kalupahana, David J. A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 1992.
---. Buddhist Philosophy: A historical Analysis. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 1976.
Kirk, G. S. Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures. London:
Cambridge University Press, 1975.
King, Winston L. “Myth in Buddhism: Essential or Peripheral?” Journal of Bible and Religion. Vol. 29.3 Jul (1961): 211-218.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. “The Effectiveness of Symbol.” Structural Anthropology.
United States of America: Basic Books, 1963.
---. “The Structural Study of Myth.” Myth: A Symposium. Spec. issue of The Journal of American Folklore. Vol. 68 (1955): 428-444.
Lincoln, Bruce. Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1999.
Matsumura, H. The Mahāsudarśanāvadāna and the Mahāsudarśanasūtra.
Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, Indian Books Centre, 1988.
143
McClintock, Sara L. “Compassionate Trickster: The Buddha as a Literary Character in the Narratives of Early Indian Buddhism.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion. Vol. 79.1 (2011): 90-112.
Nagy, Gregory. “Early Greek views of poets and poetry.” The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism Vol. I: Classical Criticism. Ed. George A Kennedy. Great Britain:
Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Norman, K. R. A Philological Approach to Buddhism. School of Oriental and African Studies. London, 1997.
Pollock, Sheldon. “Future Philology? The Fate of a Soft Science in a Hard World.”
Critical Inquiry 35 (2009): 931-961.
Rahula, Walpola. What the Buddha Taught. USA: Gordon Fraser, 1959.
Reat, N. Ross. Buddhism: A History. USA: Asian Humanities Press, 1994.
Rhys Davids, T.W. and C.A.F, Rhys Davids. Dialogues of the Buddha, Part II. 4th edition. London: Pali Text Society, 1954.
Ricoeur, Paul. The Symbolism of Evil. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970.
Righter, William. Myth and Literature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1975.
144
Segal, Robert A. Myth: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Scarborough, Milton. Myth and Modernity: Postcritical Reflections. New York: State University of New York Press, 1994.
Schopen, Gregory. Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected papers on the Archeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India. United States of America: University of Hawai’i Press, 1997.
Slochower, Harry. Mythopoesis: Mythic Patterns in the Literary Classics. Detroit:
Wayne State University Press, 1970.
Southwold, Martin. “Buddhism and the Definition of Religion.” Man, New Series, Vol.
13.3 Sep (1978): 362-379.
Spiro, Melford E. “Religion: Problems of Definition and Explanation.”
Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion. Ed. Michael Banton. London:
Tavistock Publications Limited, 1969. 85-126.
Strong, John S. Relics of The Buddha. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Todorov, Tzvetan. The Fantastic A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre. Trans.
Richard Howard. New York: Cornell university Press, 1975.
145
Trainor, Kevin. Relics, ritual, and representation in Buddhism: Rematerializing the Sri Lankan Theravada tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
v. Glasenapp, Helmuth. Buddhism –A Non-Theistic Religion. Trans. Irmgard Schloegl.
London: Geoge Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1970.
v. Hinüber, Oskar. A Handbook of Pāli Literature. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1997.
Veyne, Paul. Did The Greeks Believe in Their Myths?: An Essay on The Constitutive Imagination. Trans Paula Wissing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1988.
Waldschmidt, E. Die Überlieferung vom Lebensende des Buddha: eine vergleichende Analyse des Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra und seiner Textentsprechungen. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1944–48.
Warder, A. K. Indian Buddhism. India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2000.
Wheelwright, Philip. The Burning Fountain: A Study in the Language of Symbolism.
USA: Indiana University Press, 1972.