[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Rikae

On topic, I'm actually a bit torn about Radagast. I was put off by his costume and lack of dignity at first, but then it started to seem appropriate: he has become immersed in the natural world, and is thus not disgusted by its messiness. Like someone else mentioned, a shepherd becoming like his sheep, or an ent becoming treeish. It looks like an altered state of consciousness, psychedelic mushrooms aside; there is something zen about him.

"certainly the sparrow has Buddha nature. Indeed it is very intelligent; it knows that Buddha is very compassionate, that is why it left its droppings on the head of the Buddha instead of leaving it on the head of a hawk! "

"Also, Buddhist monks used the droppings to polish and clean their bald scalps."

I'd like to go back to this idea which Rikae has suggested, not that I want to argue with her, but because I have been thinking about the characterisation of someone who cares for animals.

Western culture has not been particularly kind to animals, based as it was/is on a hierarchy which sees humans as superior to animals and which does not grant souls to sentient life other than humans, thus making the slaughter of animals acceptable. Yet there have been many philosophers, teachers, and writers who have reminded us that a measure of our humanity is how we treat animals.

Schopenhauer claimed, in The Basis of Morality the following:

Originally Posted by Schopenhauer

“Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.”

Much research in contemporary psychology is proving that psychopaths and sociopaths begin their path of hatred by indulging in cruelty to animals.

So I have long wondered why Tolkien makes one of his failed Maia fail possibly because he became too involved with animal needs--or simply be characterised by a great love of animals. Is this an irrelevant quality or something related to Tolkien's vision of Middle-earth? Certainly I would expect that Tolkien would be well versed in Saint Francis' creed.

Yet Tolkien has animals play evil parts; to his everlasting shame he denigrates cats! And crows are supposed to be the vile spies of Sauron. I need not go into wargs or spiders. Perhaps this comes from traditions in fairy tales. But he has allowed himself to present animals as negative creatures and he has suggested that Radagast misses his mission because he becomes too concerned for animal welfare.

It's not exactly a ringing Buddhist endorsement for the sanctity of all life, but then I wouldn't expect Tolkien to be a Buddhist.

Then we have Radagast as portrayed in the movie. Some see him as totally engrossed and involved in animal life as to be at home with bird droppings on him. Others find this gross and an indignity to his position as one of the Maiar. (I'm not thinking of any posts specificially but generalising.)

Since I haven't seen the movie, I cannot say what I think of the depiction, but it seems to me that we can ask a couple of questions about what this depiction means.

Why is, in Lalwende's words, being bonkers portrayed as being totally overtaken by animals? Can we take the movie to suggest the old western tradition that animals are beneath humans and therefore any one concerned with animal well being and living close to nature like an animal is somehow less human, less close to divinity (or high elven values), less able to fight off evil?

Is it too much to ask if the depiction of Radagast raises questions about the place of animals in the moral framework of Middle-earth?