A Buddhist Reading of Tolkien
punnadhammo1
was a religious man, a Roman Catholic of the thoughtful kind. His work
is informed by his deep religiosity, and yet it avoids completely being
a narrowly "Christian" allegory. In large measure, this is because of
Tolkien's great love for the pagan mythology of Northern Europe. On the
surface, these "pagan" elements are a much more obvious influence.
It may seem presumptuous, therefore, to essay a Buddhist reading of
this great classic. We can be certain the great man had no Buddhist
influences (at least in the lifetime in question.) Nevertheless,
Tolkien himself was the first to recognize that a great work of
literature is greater than the intentions of the author. And in any
case, the book has certainly had its quota of Buddhist readers.
Certainly the world created by Tolkien (one is almost tempted to say
"discovered") is in some respects a familiar one to Buddhists. Buddhist
cosmology and mythology has always been full of many marvelous
creatures; devas of various classes, nagas, yakkhas and an entire
menagerie. Tolkien's world too, has as its salient feature a great
many magical and intelligent races of beings; elves, dwarves, orcs,
ents and of course, hobbits.
In fact there are some very salient points of similarity. Elves are
close to bhumma-devas (earthbound gods.) Both love forests and trees.
Both come in several grades, from the puckish and mischievous to the
grand and magnificent. Likewise nagas and dragons, yakkhas and trolls
offer similar parallels. In large measure, this is simply a reflection
of the world-wide similarity between all these mythologies. (Does this
perhaps reflect some underlying reality? Even if this underlying source
is archetypal, of what are the archetypes reflections? )
The immortality of the elves may cause some objection from Buddhist
quarters. And yet there is plenty of evidence in Tolkien's work that
this immortality is more apparent than real, and is better described as
a very long life with a gradual "fading away" of the entire race. There
are descriptions in the Buddhist literature of long lived beings who
mistakenly imagine themselves as immortal. In some of Tolkien's lesser
works, there are hints that he contemplated reincarnation, at least for
the elves.
More intriguing though, is the plot of the Lord of the Rings. A
marvelous and powerful Ring is found by the very earthy hobbits. With
the guidance of wise beings such as Gandalf and Elrond, Frodo and his
loyal companion Samwise, undertake to cast this Ring into the great
abyss of the Crack of Doom.
How are we to read this? On one level, it is just a rip-roaring good
yarn. But it wouldn't have attained the status of a cult classic if
this was all there was to it. It is a tale that speaks to powerful
spiritual archetypes. It is a very excellent example of the Quest type
of spiritual adventure.
Before we go on to look at this a little more closely, a caveat is in
order. Tolkien himself hated allegory in literature and categorically
rejected that his book could be read as one. It is certainly not a
simplistic allegory in the mold of a Pilgrim's Progress with a naive
one-on-one correspondence at every step. No, the Lord of the Rings is
not an allegory. It is so much more, it is profoundly symbolic, as is
all great myth. Tolkien, a master of mythology, lived and worked in a
world of powerful symbols and archetypes. The way a Buddhist might read
these symbols is of course not necessarily be the way Tolkien read
them. The fact that they can yield multiple interpretations is a
tribute to the mythic strength of the work.
So how can a Buddhist read these symbols? The overarching theme of the
Quest is a staple in spiritual literature, and can be read as a symbol
of the spiritual journey. In this case, the goal and purpose of the
Quest is a powerful one that appeals very much to the Buddhist
sensibility. In most Quests, the goal is to discover something, the
Holy Grail for example. In the Lord of Rings, Frodo's goal is to let
something go!
And what does he let go? How do we interpret the Ring, which is so
central to the tale? The symbolism of a Ring is twofold (at least.) In
one aspect, it is a closed circle, an object without beginning or end.
In another aspect, it is a symbol of binding, as in a wedding ring.
Both the aspects of circularity and of binding are quintessential
characteristics of sangsara! The wheel (a circle) of birth and death is
after all absolutely central to the Buddhist vision of the world. It is
the quintessential description of our existential dilemma, being bound
by the endless repetitions of rebirth. It is the First Noble Truth.
And the Second Noble Truth is Craving. Is this not the very thing that
binds the characters of Tolkien's tale to the Ring? Gollum is ruined by
his craving, and Bilbo very nearly so. Even Gandalf the Grey fears
being drawn into its spell. Only Tom Bombadil, who may be taken as a
type of enlightened being, is immune to it. It is Frodo's greatest
challenge to overcome this deep addiction to the Ring (to sangsara, or
becoming.) His entire journey, with all its fantastic adventures is for
this purpose alone.
And he must journey into the very depths of the source to accomplish
this. The whole hard trek through Middle Earth into Mordor can be seen
as a symbol of the inner journey undertaken in, for example, a career
of Vipassana meditation. One is tempted at this point to attempt to
find correspondence to the stages of insight. (The episode at Bree as
the Corruptions, the Council of Elrond as the Discernment of Body and
Mind, the Brown Lands as the Knowledge of Misery, the final ascent on
Samwise's back - a powerful and poignant image - as Equanimity of
Formations.) Enough, to follow this line of thought too far is violate
Tolkien's proscription against allegory. Suffice it to see the physical
journey of Frodo as a profound symbol of the inner journey of the
mystic.
Another angle is to see the three characters who make the final
journey, Frodo, Sam and the tragic Gollum, as aspects of one
personality. If for example, Gollum is seen as a personification of the
defilements, hopelessly addicted to sangsaric becoming ("my precious!")
then the climatic scene at the Crack of Doom takes on a profound
significance.
It is also important that the book does not end with this scene. Frodo,
having accomplished the Goal, now returns to the World and serves
sentient beings in the Scouring of the Shire, a very important episode
reminiscent of the final image in the classic series of Zen Bull-Taming
pictures, where the triumphant yogi rides the bull back into the town.
Other more general points can be raised. The importance of compassion
is seen at many points in the book, in particular the kindness shown to
the wretched Gollum by Aragorn and others. The sparing of Gollum's life
in the end has a critical effect on the outcome, unforeseen by the
characters. This can also be seen as an expression of the Law of Karma.
Many of the wise good characters, especially Gandalf, often express
thoughts that would be approved by any Buddhist. Just think of "He who
destroys a thing to learn its nature has departed from the path of
wisdom."
Lest I leave the unwary reader with the impression that Tolkien was a
closet Buddhist, let's close by looking at a couple of points that
separate the tale from a Buddhist sensibility. Tolkien was, as I have
said, a Christian. As such, the theme of a duality of Good and Evil is
important to him. In Tolkien's world, the only good orc is a dead orc.
In Buddhism, by contrast, there is no eternal damnation. Had a Buddhist
written the story, one expects there would have been at least one orc
who had a profound conversion experience, gave up his nasty habits and
perhaps showed up at the Council of Elrond full of repentance.
A less troublesome, but equally unBuddhist, detail is the underlying
creationism of Tolkien's mythos. This is in any case, not apparent in
the Lord of the Rings at all, but is clearly explained in the
Simirillion. The theistic universe is one that has a eschatological
meaning, moving in a purposeful way from beginning to end. The Buddhist
universe is one of endlessly repeating cycles. Without a beginning, it
has no need for a creator, nor for a creator's plan or purpose.
The fact that a Christian with pagan sensibilities could write a book
of such profound spiritual meaning for non-Christians is a real tribute
to Tolkien's spiritual depth. His religious vision was not a narrow
one. He seems to have tapped into some of the deep layers of truth that
underlie all the great religious traditions. And, not least, he did
write one rip-roaring great yarn! If the movie is even half as good as
the book, it will be one fantastic trip.
Frodo
> Before we go on to look at this a little more closely, a caveat is in
> order. Tolkien himself hated allegory in literature and categorically
> rejected that his book could be read as one. It is certainly not a
> simplistic allegory in the mold of a Pilgrim's Progress with a naive
> one-on-one correspondence at every step. No, the Lord of the Rings is
> not an allegory. It is so much more, it is profoundly symbolic, as is
> all great myth. Tolkien, a master of mythology, lived and worked in a
> world of powerful symbols and archetypes.
Myth. Allegory. Why, sir, I find your words condescending. That this radical
re-interpretation is being passed off as "original Tolkien" is incredible. A
traditionalist like me would just tell the story straight up. I feel no need to
explain such elements away using the paradigms of modernism. On the contrary, I
find this story rich and inspiring just as it is.
Your most devoted Hobbit,
Frodo Baggins of the Shire
Middle-Earth
p.s. The movie captures the truth with clarity. You might even get in free if you
wear your robes and sandals.
Don
>The fact that a Christian with pagan sensibilities could write a book
>of such profound spiritual meaning for non-Christians is a real tribute
>to Tolkien's spiritual depth. His religious vision was not a narrow
>one. He seems to have tapped into some of the deep layers of truth that
>underlie all the great religious traditions. And, not least, he did
>write one rip-roaring great yarn! If the movie is even half as good as
>the book, it will be one fantastic trip.
The movie is both entertaining and profound. (And I had never read the
book.)
Maybe you should excuse yourself from the Vinaya and go see it (on the
basis that it is spiritual entertainment). When "Little Buddha" was
released, several abbots allowed their charges to go watch it in the
cinemas.