A Manly Monk Essay
“A Manly Monk” is an intriguing look at the historical Buddha, with appropriate context for the time in which he lived, and with all the nuances of social norms exhibited and expected of men at the time he was alive. I really liked that it also gave note that some of the characteristics imposed upon the historical Buddha might not necessarily be accurate, or characteristics that he might not have exhibited when he was alive. As Powers notes, some of “this narrative is the creation of authors who lived long after his decease” (p. 66), which leaves open the potential that these authors imposed upon the historical Buddha their own version of events, and inevitably allowed them leeway when writing about the type of person he had been. Of course, this doesn’t mean they fabricated the historical Buddha’s life, but nevertheless I think there is some element of disjunction there, as with all historical takes on religion, that deserves some scrutiny; Powers leaves the door open to scrutinize these writings, but also appropriately emphasizes the complexities of historical norms and expected behaviors that the Buddha cannot resist simply because he was (and is) expected to be a supreme human. If anything, Buddha’s indulgences in excess, marital
…show more content…
flaws, and other unsavory traits depict a being who accurately portrays the expected image of a man – still relatable, normal, flawed – even while being inherently unflawed. Perhaps his character flaws like these were also an attempt to connect with other humans, just like his reported body pains (p. 53) were?
This is another interesting point in Powers makes in “A Manly Monk”: that the Buddha had lived so many lives of “excessive indulgence in austerities” (p.53) that he had collected bad karma.
The flawed aspects of beings who are supposed be unflawed are often underplayed, but this hypothesis poses a concept of karma that hasn’t been discussed yet: that karma still must balance itself out, even if one is a buddha. While Buddha had collected good karma from the “practice of past virtue” (p. 54) that is superior to that of even the gods, he was still subject to forces that were even larger than him. Is karma even more powerful than the Buddha, and can he be subjected to bad karma if he is supposed to be the most pure and awesome
being?
flaws, and other unsavory traits depict a being who accurately portrays the expected image of a man – still relatable, normal, flawed – even while being inherently unflawed. Perhaps his character flaws like these were also an attempt to connect with other humans, just like his reported body pains (p. 53) were?
This is another interesting point in Powers makes in “A Manly Monk”: that the Buddha had lived so many lives of “excessive indulgence in austerities” (p.53) that he had collected bad karma.
The flawed aspects of beings who are supposed be unflawed are often underplayed, but this hypothesis poses a concept of karma that hasn’t been discussed yet: that karma still must balance itself out, even if one is a buddha. While Buddha had collected good karma from the “practice of past virtue” (p. 54) that is superior to that of even the gods, he was still subject to forces that were even larger than him. Is karma even more powerful than the Buddha, and can he be subjected to bad karma if he is supposed to be the most pure and awesome
being?