Q1
What do you consider to be the five most important Hindu and Buddhist ideas present in the book? Explain shortly what they mean, and clarify what role each of them plays in the book with references to specific scenes and/or philosophical passages
One major idea presented in the book is that of suffering and its connection to feelings of desire or discontentment. In the first chapter, the Brahmin’s Son, we find out that Siddhartha is not happy, that he had restless thoughts and a restlessness of the soul. “Siddhartha had begun to feel the seeds of discontent within him. He had begun to feel that the love of his father and mother, and also the love of his friend Govinda, would not always make him happy, give him peace, satisfy and suffice him. (page 3)”. This feeling of longing, or dissatisfaction, is the state that causes people to seek for salvation or liberation. This thirst can cause people to engage perpetually with worldly pleasures, getting them stuck in cyclical modes of living, and for others this thirst motivates their search for enlightenment, which brings an end to craving.
After living a worldly life for years, this suffering arose within Siddhartha greatly. He felt nauseated at his life of habitual living and engagement with worldly pleasures. His suffered an absence of true happiness, a fear of death, and a feeling of having wasted a great deal of his life in a worthless and senseless manner. This suffering culminated to a great intensity which propelled him out of this life he was living, back into a life oriented towards the search for enlightenment.
Another important point explored in the book was the idea of enlightenment or liberation. It was to achieve this goal that Siddhartha left his family, joined the Samanas, left the Samanas, found and left the Buddha, and ultimately why he left his worldly life. To seek the end of seeking. To find something that would bring an end to the urge to search. To reach a state of mind where one no longer suffers, because on is liberated. This search for enlightenment is the driving motivator of his friend Govinda who stays with the Buddha. It is also the goal of Siddhartha’s father presumably. When Siddhartha meets the Buddha, he realises the Buddha is truly enlightened, but he also realises that in order to become enlightened, you must discover the truth for yourself, it cannot be gained through teachings alone, he would have to take the curriculum of life. Looked at this way, Siddhartha’s loss of awareness and conformity with worldly people was also part of his search for enlightenment. Enlightenment involves the absence of craving, and it involves the realisation of the nature of Self, but the understanding of these things alone was not sufficient to bring about the liberation. Once must realise it on a deep level. It is beyond scripture and concepts, which brings us onto another key idea presented in the book.
This idea is that inner experience is superior to dogma. Siddhartha had a gentle voice within him which reminded or complained, it guided him. It was this intuition which made him realise he would find not enlightenment staying with his father, or the Samanas, or even the Buddha. Listening to the sound of a river brought about the right state of mind for insights to arise, not perpetually thinking or reading. It was something within, that could only be found within. The external world could provide an environment conducive to these inner realisations, these epiphanies that arose from a clear mind. However, the external world could also ensnare one within habits and pleasures, and ultimately lead to a lifestyle which causes too much mind activity, so one can no longer hear that inner voice. The sound of the river wasn’t magic, it was just conducive to entering into a state of presence and stillness in which mind activity and egoic tendencies dissolve. This idea that inner experience is superior to dogma is expressed in the character Vasudeva, who is not well educated, and teaches Siddhartha primarily through silence.
Another idea prevalent in eastern philosophies that is present in the book is the idea that life is fundamentally interconnected. In Buddhism clarity about dependent origination is key to enlightenment, the ability to observe how everything arises in a chain of events, how everything that occurs is dependent upon everything else, and how life is a series or chain of occurrences and sensations that arose from the previous and give rise to the next. This realisation is very difficult to articulate through language, but Siddhartha attempts to explain it to his friend Govinda at the end of the book. It was when Siddhartha realised the unity underlying everything that his mentor and friend Vasudeva felt it was time for him to leave into the forest, he felt that Siddhartha had discovered the truth. Siddhartha, listening to the river, enters a trance and sees the fundamental oneness of all things, all events, all of existence. He attempts to articulate this realisation to Govinda, explaining that samsara is nirvana and nirvana is samsara. Govinda struggles to understand, but then he kisses Siddhartha’s forehead, and has a direct experience of the truth that time doesn’t exist, and that everything is intrinsically interconnected.
Finally, the idea of detachment from the world or asceticism as a path to enlightenment is expressed throughout the book. When Siddhartha and Govinda join the Samanas’ they live a life of strict asceticism. They believed that indulgence in pleasures leads to bad karma, a restless mind, lowered awareness, and bondage to the material world. They denied themselves food and any of life’s comforts, living off the bare minimum. Somehow along the way Siddhartha realises this path won’t take him to enlightenment. Not necessarily because detachment isn’t the path, but because the ascetic lifestyle can come with attachments. If you weren’t filled with attachments, you wouldn’t be starving yourself. You are intensely pursuing a goal in this state, which isn’t conducive to achieving enlightenment. Siddhartha acquires many attachments and bad habits, then gives them up again to prioritise finding ultimate truth, and then finds the middle way, living a humble and quiet life, but not engaging with intense ascetic practices.
Q2 (a)
Summarize Siddhartha’s final philosophical position (i.e. the position he arrives at after he leaves Kamaswami and becomes a ferryman, and which he explains to Govinda at the end) in three main points.
Everything is deeply interconnected but also transitory. Direct experience with material reality is the way to enlightenment, preoccupation with teachings, thoughts, and words are impediments to peace. Love everything you experience around you, don’t classify as divine or not divine, for it is all one thing.
Q2 (b)
Which tradition is this position closest to: Buddhism, Hinduism, a combination of the two, or something else entirely? Explain why you feel that way.
I think it could be closest to Buddhism because it doesn’t emphasise any difference between the true reality and the illusory one. His realisation is one of non-duality, which is present in Hinduism, but is generally more emphasised by followers of Buddhism or Taoism. There is no speak or Prakrti or Purusha, there is no viewing the material world and nirvana as separate, the distinction dissolved. The rock and the river are perfectly sacred to Siddhartha and worthy of love. If they aren’t real, then he too is an illusion. “If they are illusion, then I also am illusion, and so they are always of the same nature as myself” (118). Everything is one thing, and accepting everything by loving everything is the key. Engaging with the world as it is, seeing it as it is, and accepting it as it is, until eventually the fabricated separations and boundaries go away, and you are enlightened. This idea is in all eastern religions but I believe is emphasised more in Buddhism.
Q3
“Siddharta’s final philosophical position is identical to the ethical views of Thich Nhat Hanh, as expressed in his poem ‘Call me by my true names’ (interpreted by Fasching on pp. 185-188 of our textbook). Argue either for, or against, this statement.
I think it is the exact same position. Thich Nhat Hanh said that he is both the rapist pirate and the twelve year old girl. When Govinda is having visions after kissing Siddharta’s forehead, he see’s someone stab another person, and then he see’s the executioner killing the murderer. “He saw the face of a murderer, saw him plunge a knife into the body of a man; at the same moment he saw this criminal kneeling down, bound, and his head cut off by an executioner.” (121). All of it is happening simultaneously, in one moment, which illustrates the oneness of everything occurring, the lack of any true distinctions. Both Hanh and Hesse are pointing at the same truth.
The philosophical positions are one and the same, and this philosophical positions foundation is the belief in the unity which underlies all things. The mind experiences separation, and it experiences time, but both are illusions. Time is always now, and separation isn’t real. Individuality isn’t real. When Thich Nhat Hanh says call me by my true name, he is stating that he has every name, and no name, for all of life is just one organism. Similarly, Siddhartha says that he loves all things he see’s, and if the objects of the material world are illusions, so is he. Siddhartha seen the oneness of everything. All of the ugliness and the beauty collapsed into one. Nirvana is samsara and samsara is nirvana, enlightenment is no longer seeking, because one no longer suffers the illusion of separation which gives rise to desire and aversion. Everything is included, because everything is one. Although it is technically a philosophical position, I think both Hanh and Siddhartha would state that it is a direct experience of reality as opposed to a philosophical or conceptual theory, and ultimately it will never be understood by the mind, but can only be experienced.
Q4
“The story of Siddhartha revolves around the tension between the sacred and the holy”. Write a reflection on this statement, in which you indicate why someone would look at the book in this way (i.e. in which way can the story indeed be seen as being about the interplay between sacred and holy). Use the terms as Fasching defines them in chapter 1. Make sure you include references to specific scenes, characters, and philosophical passages found in the book to back up your claims.
The tension between Siddhartha and his father can be seen as symbolic of the tension between the sacred and the holy. Siddhartha’s father greatly valued the sacred order, the traditions, the scriptures, the rituals. He engaged with and upheld the sacred order, and hoped his son would continue as he has, and as his father likely did before him. Siddhartha felt called by his inner voice to explore and discover the truth for himself, he wanted a truth that the sacred couldn’t offer. A truth that is raw, new, real. He wanted to encounter the holy. He wanted direct experience of truth, a felt truth.
If habits are karma, the social order is a collective set of habits which are believed to be good habits. They are maintained in order to maintain the cohesion of the society and to function as a framework of society for people to abide by in order to live good lives. This leads to unquestioning obedience to the group of collective habits, by which people then tend to derive a sense of identity. Any karma is an impediment to enlightenment though, and the social order can degenerate across time, degrading from a helpful structure to a constraining structure. People get tangled up in habits, karma, and identity. Social orders can become an object of attachment for people.
Siddhartha leaves his father and then spends time with the Samanas’, but then ultimately decides that they too are stuck within a sacred order. The leader of the Samanas’ demonstrated a failure of holiness by becoming angry at Siddhartha’s announcement of his and his friends departure. Perhaps he became angry because he felt their leaving challenged his sacred order. He had ironically developed attachments to his ascetic way of life, coming to see it less like a technique to achieve liberation, and more like a religion, a cherished collection of thoughts, beliefs, behaviours, habits. A social order.
The Buddha experienced the holy, alone under a tree. He had a direct experience with truth which liberated him from suffering, desire, and ignorance. He then attempted to teach others, to provide a philosophy or guide to try direct people towards the liberation he had found. This powerful experience of the holy generated a social order around him, an order which continued long after his passing. This sacred order can function as a helpful karmic system which makes people more likely to discover the truth, but people can also get tangled up in it. Govinda failed to reach enlightenment and was still seeking despite spending his life within that social order. This highlights the necessity for an experience of the holy in order to attain enlightenment. I think the function of the social order is to shape culture or society in a way that makes it an environment that is conducive for spiritual growth, for everyone, and to be a place filled with the necessary tools and signposts for those destined to reach enlightenment in their current incarnations. The social order should ideally also have techniques and methods which lead to experiences of the holy, because experiences of the holy is what replenishes and maintains the social order.
Siddhartha somehow recognised the distinction between the experience of the holy and the social order when he decided to leave the Buddha. He believed the Buddha was enlightened, but also believed that he could not teach enlightenment. He seemed to feel his friend Govinda would be well within that social order, Siddhartha felt that the Buddhas teachings were the best he had ever heard, yet his intuition led him down a life path which led him on his individual path, outside of the boundaries and traditions of sacred orders and into a life which he had to directly face reality, suffering, desire, identity, and truth. At the end of the book, Siddhartha reflects on this to Govinda “Everything that is thought and expressed in words is one sided, only half the truth; it all lacks totality, completeness, unity. When the Illustrious Buddha taught about the world, he had to divide it into Samsara and Nirvana, into illusion and truth, into suffering and salvation. One cannot do other wise, there is no other method for those who teach. But the world itself, being in and around us, is never one-sided.” (115)
At the river Siddhartha had direct encounters with the holy. His mentor taught him primarily through silence. Direction experience was his path, not scriptures or rituals. Clear and silent observation of that which is occurring before you right now, such as the sound a river, leads to revelations and epiphanies. It leads to insights into the nature of reality. These are experiences of the holy.
The final tension in the book revolves around Siddhartha and Govinda. Govinda is attached to the sacred order that formed around the Buddha, but he still suffers and desires. Siddhartha doesn’t value words, thoughts, or philosophies much, his understanding of reality and truth are derived from his direct experiences, and as a result he is free from suffering and seeking. With help from his friend, Govinda has a powerful experience of the holy at the end, where as experiences the truth, the interconnectedness of all things. After this experiences he looks upon his friend Siddhartha and realises he is just as ‘there’ as the Buddha was.
Here we see Siddhartha articulating his realisation that he needs to pursue the holy, not the sacred order; “I will no longer try to escape from Siddhartha…. I will no longer study Yoga-Veda, Atharva-Veda, or asceticism, or any other teachings. I will learn from myself, be my own pupil; I will learn from myself the secret of Siddhartha”. (32)