This is a question that will always arise in our minds when we are faced with making a decision. And as usual we are left with not much time to make it. So was my own experience.
Here I would like to share with you how I set about doing what I had to do, which was to rely on the core teachings of Buddhism.
A lot has been said on the subject cremation but so little on the case for cremation itself. And, when it involves family, of my generation who faithfully follow the practices of the generation or two before, we usually end up doing so many things, rituals, out of customs and practices.
I find difficult to subscribe to meaningless customs and practices. I would welcome any practice that helps the departed consciousness. It can come in any form of ritual, so long as it is able to fulfill its function, and, these do not run contrary to the core teachings. And of course I will respect the sensitivities of the others, even if they want to perform some ritual or action out of custom, as at a time of loss we must do what is best to console each one and resolve each one’s grief.
As far as I know the Buddha did not mention how the ashes were to be disposed. Neither did he mandate cremation as the method for disposal, adducing several reasons, he said that cremation is the best way. He said it is up to the family, dispose of them, as they think fit. So here in one sentence he did away with rituals and with practices that some might find difficult to follow. So where there was little foliage it was the usual practice to feed the corpse to the vultures, and without compunction.
Many feel that cremation was the method of disposal of choice of the Buddha as cremation is the most hygienic way to dispose of a dead body. The latter is certainly true and the former would certainly have been considered by the Buddha. At the time of the Buddha and in his place in India cremation was the choice of disposal and widely practiced with many rituals and practices.
The rationale behind cremation is that it would help induce a sense of detachment to both the departed consciousness and to the members of the family. Keeping ashes in an urn, or mixing it with clay and making images that are later blessed in the belief that it helps the departed at the time of rebirth would thus run contrary to inducing this sense of detachment.
However, it is said in Tibetan Buddhist teachings that these clay images that are blessed would benefit the departed at time of rebirth at the in-between stage of becoming (the bardo of becoming). If it so practiced it should be for that purpose alone. And, that purpose being, that the departed person, who may have been unable to avoid the cycle of rebirth, is reborn in a place that is conducive to carrying out practices towards attaining liberation from rebirth in the next round. What is usually practiced, as we see, is something quite different, where the intent is that the departed may amass riches and comforts in the next round.
As regards concerns about ashes scattered in the garden polluting the environment, I do not think they will end up as particulate matter of 2.5ppm and give people lung cancer. A dead body is organic in substance, save the plastic dentures and polyester clothing, and in the crematorium it is subject to normal combustion. If it were subject to combustion under compression of several thousand pounds perhaps we would see 2.5ppm particles and that too only from inorganic matter I would think. So those who have such concerns, and voiced to me by the environmentally conscious generation next and to good end, I think you can put such worries to rest.
It is said his ashes were divided in to 8 portions and entombed in stupas. Since he was from a warrior class the warriors entombed one part in their own warrior cast tomb. Those around him, the laity, paid homage by singing and dancing, for seven days – breaking most of the 10 precepts.
This could be well so and the difficulty I would have in understanding the reason's for Ananda's actions would have to be allayed by my own supposition that he would have been powerless in the tide of the multitude, the laity and perhaps some of the monks, who opted for the practice of prevailing customs. Or was it just out of respect, a lapse in judgement, or in mindfulness, or, the opposing views among the monks, the more worldly holding sway, one would never know.
What we know from the suttas is that Ananda was not the an arahant but only a stream-enterer at the time of the Buddha's passing. It is said he was able to attain arahantship just before the convening of the first council after the Buddha's passing when he was to be excluded from it as he was not yet an arahant. The Buddha had acknowledged and named him the best among his disciples in memory, conduct and in service to others.
The disintegration of the order (sasana) that ensued soon after the Buddha’s demise, to many schisms and sects with opposing views, including the influences of those miscreant monks who the Buddha had banished, goes to show the differences that existed between the various monks at the time.
We also know for a fact that the first statues of the Buddha only appeared about 500 years after his death, 100-200 CE in Gandhara, which today would be around northern Pakistan and
So in these situations and in all cases of doubt it is best to go back to the teachings.
The Buddha with much foresight urged us to rely, which I use as my yardstick, on
* The teachings and not the author or teacher.
* The meaning and not the letter
* The truth or explicit or definite meaning and not the convention or that which requires further interpretation
* The knowledge, the direct knowledge (jñana) and not the information or discursive sensory consciousness (vinñana).
No comments:
Post a Comment