Of course, I'm asking the topic question backwards, and know the answer already

I'm starting this new topic to discuss Buddhist themes and Dharma/Dhamma teachings that we can find in DH and rest of the Harry Potter series. It would probably be easiest to start off with a couple of specific points and perhaps branch out from there, so perhaps we can begin with some things that have been brought up in a couple of other topics, specifically the koans that appear in the Deathly Hallows book. We certainly won't limit the discussion to this, or we can go other places at any time.

Ground rules for this discussion: please be respectful. This topic is intended to foster understanding and inclusiveness.



OK -- I find it fascinating that the passwords used to gain entry into the Ravenclaw dorms -- Rowena Ravenclaw holding Knowledge as the Highest Things -- are Wizarding world versions of Zen koans:

"Which came first, the phoenix or the flame?" "A circle has no beginning"

and

"Where do Vanished objects go?" "Into nonbeing, which is to say, everything".


Also, the vision of Dumbledore expresses a Buddhist sentiment when Harry asks him if what he experiences after Voldemort uses the Avada Kedavra curse on him is real, or if it has been happening inside [his] head, answering Harry's question like a koan:

"Of course it is happening in your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"



I'd like to see how interested parties interpret these koans, and how we relate the koans and their points to the story. Anyone want to take a gander at it, or bring up any other Buddhist/Dharma themes they have seen in Dh or the series?

Philosophy is definately something used in the storyline, and I really like the questions that the door asked to get into the Ravenclaw common room. I think that JKR focused on putting philosophy in the books, and as (from what I know) Buddhist themes are placed strongly in philosophy, the connection makes sense, whether she ment it to be Buddhist or not.

Thank you, ExP, for your perspective. Koans are not philosophy, however, they are aimed at breaking one away from discursive thinking habits. One might even go so far as to say they are somewhat of an anti-philosophy, in a sense, as philosophy seems rooted in, and bound to, discursive thinking.

Buddhism teaches that death is a part of life and not to be feared, and that the body is merely a temporary vessel. This has seemed to be a significant part of Dumbledore's message since Book 1.

Attachment to concepts (Voldemort's obsession with the prophecy) and material items (Dumbledore's with the resurrection stone to the point where he forgot that it might be cursed, Voldemort's with the Elder Wand) always lead to unhappiness, according to Buddhist precepts.

And, of course, the Ravenclaw koans were very Zen.

Dumbledore tells Riddle face-to-face on one occasion, I think, that there are things in life far worse than death. I think the number one thing that is worse is fear of death. Many Buddhists, when talking about suffering and what that means, quote the standard definition: Suffering is birth, ageing, death, yadayadayada, and forget that the yadayadayada is all the stuff that Siddhartha said is the kind of suffering that we can do something about: sorrow, lamentation, not getting what one wants, getting what one doesn't want, etc. Death, old age, and illness are the "three great teachers", but these are things that are inevitable. All of the other stuff is optional, and can be diminished or eliminated through the practice and mental discipline. As you pointed out in the Religion thread, these are things we inflict on ourselves, head-trip ourselves into through ignorance, attachment and aversion. Voldemort, ignorant and blind to the naturalness of death, and fearful, hateful and prideful, sets out to avoid the inevitable and causes havoc for everyone he comes into contact with, including himself, eventually bringing on his own self-destruction.

Another concept LV is attached to is that of immortality. He chases that idea like the wind, forsaking everything for it.

Riddle/Voldemort is also very attached to self-concept, to self-image, and there is much back-and-forth from beginning to end among several of the characters -- from Harry to Dumbledore, to Remus (ex. his crisis with Tonks) to Neville, and on and on, with respect to the temporal, unsatisfactory, and illusory nature of self-concept. I'd be interested to know how much of buddhist thought JKR is familiar with. Whether these developments were deliberately written in, or we simply "see the dhamma" as it naturally unfolds in the development of these characters as a natural consequence of JKR's good writing and understanding of human nature, I find it fascinating to watch.


Did you pick up when Dumbledore says, in the "King's Cross" chapter, "Think back. Remember what he [Voldemort] did, in his ignorance, in his greed and his cruelty."? The answer being that he took Harry's blood, unknowingly (through his ignorance) sabotaging his own effort to destroy Harry (cruelty or hatred) and pursue immortality (greed). It's Siddhartha's Three Poisons, word for word, in the greater context of their role in creating suffering.

You mentioned Dumbledore's attachment to the Hallows -- good call! None of our heroes are perfect in HP, and we get to see how attachments and the "three poisons" work in the lives of each, and how, to greater and lesser extents, each overcomes some of these.

Dumbledore also points out in CoS that it is our choices rather than our abilities that make us who we are, harking to Siddhartha's statment that "kamma is intention", which Nanamoli defines as "choice" -- "Kamma is choice". Our intentions, our choices, which spring from our views, inform our thought, speech, and actions and the consequences that follow, including the reciprocal development of who we are and what we are about.


Also, Harry eventually learns and develops the mental disciplinenecessary to shake the influence of Voldemort, and, allegorically, the influence of the poisons that Voldemort's presence in Harry represents.

There's a lot to explore, and a lot to see. Like I say, I'd be very interested to hear JKR talk about the extent of Buddhist thought she is familiar with.

BTW, I would be surprised if I were to hear that she knew little or nothing of Buddhist teachings, but I would also be quite intrigued, too. If this were the case, it would seem to point to the universality of Siddhartha's teachings -- though I frankly do not feel in need of any such outside proof -- and to her brilliant intuition into human nature as well, though that is rather self-evident as well.

Too much talk about souls to be Dharma-inspired. I think you're right about the importance of Karma though.

Part of the beauty of these books is while Cristian beliefs are present there are relics of other religions.

There is, shikantaza, but what Buddhism has become in many areas tends to assume the existence of some kind of soul or something similar that passes from life to life, whether any particular adherent admits to it or not. In any case, Siddhartha pointed out the the Dhamma is universal, valid whether one believes in an afterlife or not, or whether there is "the result of action", Kamma, or not:

The Four Solaces

17. "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.

"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.

"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.

"The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."

Rather than Buddhist Dharma, I think the philosophy of Theosophy would be more of what influenced JKR on this topics.

To read more about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

I agree that there is far too much talk of souls to be Buddhist, and far too much of the means justifying the ends - in Buddhism, we learn that just the opposite is true, that the means ARE the ends. There is no justification, for Harry to use the torture curse, yet JKR says that he was frustrated, so it was understandable. But Harry feels no remorse nor does he learn from this conflict in feelings (he couldn't learn from it, since he felt no conflict). No one looks deeply at any of the characters that they think are "bad", they just chalk them up to being bad and never consider that we all have both good and bad within us - that we all have the potential to become Voldemort under the right conditions. Harry is never tempted by the dark side, nor does the wizarding world learn that they continue to have the potential to be tempted by the dark side in the future.

In Buddhism, we learn to be at peace in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in, in the books, the trio certainly doesn't learn this. Harry lives happily ever after when the cause of his suffering is removed (the Dursley's and Voldemort). Not at all realistic, but that's JKR's vision.

So no, I don't find any Buddhism in these books.

wow this is a good thread. I dig it. And 8th horcrux is right - shikantaza must be a Zen Buddhist, but there are other types of Buddhism that put more emphasis on the rebirth part, and while that's not necessarily the Western idea of the soul, it is still the idea of a soul, or the essence of a person, existing in a body.

I don't see it as totally Buddhist - I think JKR is a Christian, and the books show as much Christian thought as Buddhist. But I think she is an open minded person who loves studying different things, and I think it's highly likely that's where the Ravenclaw koan-like passowords come from. There are too many coinkydinks to say she's NEVER learned anything about Buddhism. But even though I think Buddhism is the best tool for dealing with attachment and death, the universality of suffering and death is stuff that EVERYONE deals with. Her own life struggles and losses could've been enough to inform what she wrote. So let's just say whether Buddhism informed the way she talked about those subjects or not, it's still really cool to look at the books from a Buddhist perspective.

What do you think about Luna - she sometimes seems to be very perceptive, in the moment, observant and direct - I think she would make a good Buddhist

And what about the idea of the boddhisatva? Achieved enlightenment but being reborn for the sake of helping others? They could've written Harry's scene where he decided to come back to life to more emphasize the lack of pain he had being dead, but how he chose to come back to help others. I don't think it was written very Buddhist-y but it could very easily be with a change of emphasis.

And finally, what about my Harry Potter books hero, Dobby the elf? I think people are afraid of change in their life, they stick with their routine for fear of what happens if they change it, even if their routine is making them unhappy. Not all the elves want to be free like Dobby does. And on top of that Dobby wants to be free not only for him own gain but also to be able to use his powers to help others. And Dobby seems unseduced by power that he sees as evil, as well. I think there are many aspect of Dobby's inner strength that shows a clear mind that leads to good priorities - and for some reason I just think there has to be some kind of Buddhist lesson to learn from Dobby. Maybe someone else can elaborate more on if they think Dobby has a Buddhist lesson to teach us or not - 'cause maybe I'm wrong about the Buddhist thing but I know that I love the character

This is a common misconception that any school of Buddhism teaches that there is a soul. The concept of a soul is so ingrained in Western culture, that it's hard for Westerners to imagine a person not having one. However, what is taught in Buddhism is that we have "no-self". Westerners want to say that "no-self" is really "no ego", but that is a modern, Western concept, not a Buddhist one.

One of the famous quotes to answer the question "what is reborn if we have no soul?" is "our habits!"

The Five Remembrances are recited by many Buddhists daily:




Who we are is not defined by our thoughts or a "soul", but what we do - our thoughts are ever changing, but what we do has the power of creating circumstances that will shape the future. I have no part of me that is eternal, but I'm not extinquished when I die, either, because my actions have created a chain of causality that helps shape the future. When I choose peace, peace will be added to the world.

When I choose to act in violence, violence will be part of the future, no matter what my motivation is.

However, I did enjoy the Ravenclaw portrait questions - so funny to me that she chose to have the "clever" Ravenclaw password to be koan like in nature. Especially when koans are to break us out of our intellect!

Hello, all,

Of course, the premise of this thread is not that DH or HP is somehow "Buddhist", or to somehow "claim" DH or HP as Buddhist or in the name of Buddhism, rather the premise is that we can find Buddhist lessons in DH specifically, and HP in general. How can we "see dhamma" in the story?

On the matter of "souls":

There are many Buddhists who believe in something that travels from one life to another and receives the consequences of actions, some form of consciousness usually, which tends to be outside the six forms of consciousness Siddhartha defined. Although many of this group seem adamant that this "something" is not a "soul", their practical descriptions of what it is and what happens to it seem to match very closely with the Western notion of a "soul".

It matters not, though; this really falls into what Siddhartha defined as "Imponderables": "Are life and the Body one thing, or separate?"

Of the atman, the self, and which some translate as the "soul", Siddhartha said that one "cannot be found" anywhere within what can be discerned of the person. This is somewhat different from a complete denial. As you say, ProfSprout, it is "not defined"; the Dhamma is independent of beliefs concerning such things.

Fro my own part, I find the translation of "Atta" or "Atman" as "soul" to be somewhat restrictive and limiting, especially with respect to the phenomenological, "here-and-now" teachings which stress the vagarities inherent to the conceptual nature of self-view.

It is this setting aside of matters that we can only speculate about, rather than turning our pet speculations into assumed truths or beliefs -- very much an "agnostic" position rather than an "atheist" one -- that makes the dhamma universal and available to all, which was something Siddhartha claimed of his teachings.

I suggest that the example of the Third Brother in the all-important Story-within-the-Story, the Tale of the Three Brothers, points to such an agnostic paradigm with respect to our understanding of the world and the questions of mortality and fear, and characterizes it as the wise and humble alternative to the combative "eye for an eye" example of the first brother and the "hope for the imagined future based upon the edited past" example of the arrogant second brother, each of which could be seen as allegorical to other, belief-based approaches to these questions.

Thoughts?

Harry is never tempted by the dark side, nor does the wizarding world learn that they continue to have the potential to be tempted by the dark side in the future.


This is not true.

Did you not read GoF?

Harry was tempted by greed when he and Cedric where both running for the triwizard cup, Cedric fell, taken down by roots, and Harry hesitated in saving him, deciding whether to give in to temptation of greed and go ahead and snag the cup, or do the right thing and help Cedric.

That's only one example. I'd post more but I'm off to bed.

The whole HP series is thickly laced with buddhist concepts and symbolism. Starting from the very lightning bolt scar, which in buddhism represents "indestructable".........LV couldn't kill Harry..........to Harry's "death" and rebirth, and just about all things in between. Harry didn't literally die. Only the darkness that dwelled within him for 16 years did. That's what's meant by death and rebirth.

Harry was also tempted -- or rather, offered a temptation -- from the start when Malfoy offered to help steer him from the "wrong sort" on the train to Hogwarts the first time.

There was also, offhand, the RiddleMort-induced rage that kept coming up in him in, what , OotP...?, whenever he was around Dumbledore.

He falls several times to the temptation to use dark magic, for example, using the Cruciatas Unforgiveable on more than one occasion, and using Sectumsempra on Malfoy in HBP.

No character in HP who is developed in any substantial way is spared from human frailties or failures, not one.

Yes, all of the characters struggled against the "hinderances" and the "poisons," and to deal with the consequences (kamma) of their own actions and choices. Some were more successfull in their struggles than others. (The notable exception was LV, who embraced the "poisons" instead of resisting). These struggles were what made the stories so interesting, IMO.


Actually, I thought that scene was "written very Buddhist-y". I wasn't expecting to find any Buddhism in HP, but that scene really struck me. A boddhisatva decides that "as long as there is suffering, I will return." And that's pretty much how that scene looked to me. Dumbledore says, "By returning, you may ensure that fewer souls are maimed, fewer families are torn apart. If that seems a worthy goal, then we say goodbye for the present." And Harry nodded, and chose to return.

I think those themes you mention are not exclusive to Buddhism alone. Certain values are not bound by religion or mere words. I am not sure how much does JKR knows about Eastern philosophies. I know George Lucas tooks a lot from Eastern philosophies and features strongly in the Star Wars movies. People have Buddha nature and not HP nature. I can see Buddhist qualities in a number of leading characters.

It is not a very Buddhist way to tear HP apart and analyse everything. We should examine HP, but to dwell too much on the subject is not good for you and is attachment. Perhaps the Mirror of Erised is an example of this.

What is very Buddhist is the way Harry helps people and is kind to people, without any thought of it afterwards. Ron is generally supportive as a friend and how a friend should be, no matter what. They are teenagers and yes they have faults, but their Gryffindor qualities shine through. Harry does not intend to be a hero or a somebody in the same way Draco does. Ron yearns to be somebody, but does what he can for Harry. Hermione is very intelligent and is superior in wisdom, but her bent on rights of house-elves shows her flaws. She is compassionate and means well, but it took somebody (one of the Weasley twins, I think) to tell her that perhaps that serving others is what house-elves want and that we should respect that (that is actually a Taoist point of view). So we are not house-elves, so how would we know what house-eleves really want. Dobby is very saintly in the Buddhist sense. He risks his life for others and though he is free. Dobby can be annoying, but we should see his good side. Neville, has courage and his development is gradual. Luna to me is very Zen-like. Luna does as she pleases, without a care of what people think and never one to hold a grudge or a bad thought. Luna's wisdom is different from Hermione's, because she can see things most people can't. Her wisdom and compassion works differently. Though she has few true friends, she values them. Snape shows us that there are many shades of goodness and they don't have to be easily understood. What is important, is that we accept them for who they are. So I think we can learn a lot from the various HP characters.

On the less cuddly note, the idea of karma and retribution does feature in HP. LV died at his own hands and for all the gifts he had as a wizard, he was deluded. He thought he can win through darkness and force, but it turned out it didn't go the way he wanted. After all the nasty things he did, it all came back to haunt him and destroy him. Arthur Weasly, who for years was an underdog at the Ministry, unable to support his family properly, was finally rewarded with a better position and probably more money too. Perhaps nice people do get rewarded in the end.

I wanted to say to LC that my thoughts are with her and her family today as well.

The book that I currently am reading decided to go "missing" last night, and looking for something to read, I picked up the latest edition (September 2007) of Shambhala Sun Magazine. In this volume are several articles written about and by Thich Nhat Hanh (link), a Vietnamese Buddhist who is influential in the Western Buddhist "movement". I know this is a thread on Christian symbolism, but while reading this article, several things jumped out at me as being very appropriate to the discussion on the thread.

The article begins with a Buddhist gatha:



The article is written about interpretation of this gatha, which reminded me very much of the quote on the Potters' headstone. One paragraph struck me as very applicable:



This might be something worth discussing...if the notions of birth and death are eliminated, what does that leave us?

I wanted to post something in the "Atheist" thread but it was locked. The slight of being a late-comer, I suppose.

So I'll include it here. Being an atheist/buddhist, the ending of DH did not bother me in the slight least, for several reasons.

1) It's fiction.

2) It doesn't matter if Rowling intended it to have christian undertones, because you'll find very little of christian ideology that isn't a copy-cat product of a religion that predated it.

3) I didn't see Harry's death as a literal death in the story, and even though some comment that it was, I still don't see it. How many have a choice whether to come back to life or not, after having died? I saw it as a rebirth. Enlightenment. While some buddhists may believe that the teachings in buddhism refer to a literal death and a literal rebirth in a next life, not all do. Remember that buddhist teachings are laced with deities that are not meant as literal demons or gods, but symbols that personify specific emotions. There's no reason to believe that the teaching of death and rebirth are anything other than the same.

4) Again, it doesn't matter what religion or non-religion one adheres to when reading any kind of literature. Here's why. Strip away the dogma, the idealogies, the mythology, the symbolism and humans are still all the same. We all experience fear, love, loathing, make bad choices, we feel sadness, we have trials and tribulations of common accords. Stories are not so much about any form of religious experience. They're about the human experience. That's why any group of people from any particular belief, can read these stories and relate to them at some level or another.

Oh, and keeping to the topic of the thread....

The whole series has the concepts of buddhism laced heavily throughout it.

It actually jumped out at me more than any christian ideology. I was a christian for more years than not, and even still, the buddhism seemed to be more dominant and more consistant.

I know this is pretty late to the cause, but why was my last post edited? Specifics, please. Thanks!