Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Son of Númenor
I disagree. I think The Lord of the Rings is quintessentially Buddhist. Tolkien understood the Divine Conceit: Time and Godhead cannot both exist. This is the central tenet of Buddhism. Melkor represesents the human personality, which cannot conceive of the fact that it is a transient illusion. Melkor cannot exist separate from Eru: Melkor is Eru.
There is no coming or going in Tolkien's world. Every character accomplishes the task that we all know he will accomplish. The only exception to this is the relationship between Frodo and Smeagol. We do not think Smeagol will destroy the Ring; we do not think Frodo will end up lonely and unfulfilled. The fact is that their fates are the same: both will cease to exist, unless Eru and Melkor exist as separate entities after the Final Battle.
Eucatastrophe is a Rational Orgasm. It cannot exist unless it exists right now.
The teachings of Tolkien are not the teachings of Tolkien. 
As an addendum, I should say I have no idea what I'm talking about. |
Can not agree less (there, you lured me out....)
Or, to put it otherwise, I would agree with three statements, but with some provisos:
1. Melkor
cannot exist separate from Eru
I daresay. But does it logically follow that they are one and the same? No and no. I can not exist without eating or breathing – does it mean that I and the air I breathe, I and the food I eat, are one and the same? The Melkor/Eru relationship may be imagined to be similar to that – all things that make existence of Melkor possible are good and come from Eru. His mind, his might, his
fëa, his very existence come from Eru, and is a gift of Eru, and in that sense, Melkor, to find a better word than separate, can not
be without Eru.
2. Every character accomplishes the task that we all know he will accomplish
Maybe. But if I recollect correctly, I did not
know per se, I could just make educated guesses, given the data I already had and given the fact I was
outside the story and could see more patterns than any given character knew of.
But does it mean my knowing somehow affected their doing? I think not.
Suppose I have some data about you – like, that you have eaten hot burrito an hour ago, and haven’t had a chance to water it down with any kind of drink, and I see you standing near the pub. I’m almost sure you are going to go over there and buy yourself a drink. Did my knowledge affect your action? I think not
Besides, do the characters know it? They don’t.
3. Eucatastrophe is a Rational Orgasm. It cannot exist unless it exists right now
Rational from the point of view of God, but again, 1) If I, being outside the story and seeing the patterns, can predict Eucatastrophe, thus making it in some way Rational (rational for me, that is, as it was rational all way through for God who planned it), does it make it less joyful or less needed or less welcome? 2) Character inside the story can’t perceive the patterns the way I do, for them Eucatastrophe may seem unperceived, unexpected, something that happened all of a sudden
Hence follows the reasoning:
Time and Godhead cannot both exist – why, they can. To say it simpler – knowing or seeing how somebody does something, does not mean
forcing them to do it
It cannot exist unless it exists right now May I be so bold as to extend it and say that
nothing can exist unless it exists right now – verily, the past is frozen, the future did not happen yet? Being is either in present, or in eternity, the present being the very spot
time shares with
eternity. So to say, it is always
now for us, but it maybe so that it’s always
now for God too, making coexistence of Time and Godhead, Providence and Free Will possible.
[I believe] He did not listen to my prayer yesterday to think about it today and than change something in the universe tomorrow to grant it – he sees me praying/acting/not acting
now and sees the effect I have/will have on the whole creation
now (= eternally). And again – refer to the above – seeing someone doing something is not making them do it.
PS I imagine, if you set out to deliberately find Buddhism in there, you may give me loud yes to all my questions (such as me and my food being the same), but there is such a thing as Occam’s Razor to shave reasoning with in this case here – with more plausibility and less strain Christian philosophy may be used to explain this, so why seek beyond and try to fit round screws into square holes?
)