Captain America is Buddhist. But Who's The Most Buddhist Superhero?

Well, firstly, as those who have chosen to take refuge in Buddhism, we know that all is not all, that that which is known is not known, that that which is unknown is not unknown, that that which is perceived is not real, that real is not necessarily unreal or surreal, we recognize impermanence, and that even the Buddha himself encouraged questioning, doubt, reevaluation, and acceptance based on one's own conclusions based on one's own interpretation, practice, and reason.

We also know that the self which is analyzing, experiencing, sensing, interpreting, practicing, and reasoning, is not really a self at all. We know the self is an illusion, a dream-of-sorts, and fleeting thought by the fleeting aggregates whose conceptual idea exists even only for the sake of the discussion of the dream. In fact if the self does not truly exist, and is a part of a greater unconscious "energy", if you will, a great cosmic ocean, then the Buddha himself did not even exist, nor any Bodhisattva. Nor any body. "He" is but a set of illusionary aggregates that materialized to leave a message, to open a door, to crack a window, in the ideas of existence, time, life, death, suffering, peace, and the unending concepts our aggregates can conjure.

"We", and/or the great cosmic ocean, dreamed him into "existence" to allow "ourselves" the opportunity to receive what we wanted to hear, feel, know; to draw us a path to the great ocean that our aggregates might consider "home." Enlightenment. Nirvana. Acceptance of the nothing, and that the nothing somehow means something---while in the dream at least; while on the earth, while not in the great ocean. Buddhism somehow allows those who take refuge in it, that their aggregates experience walking with one foot on land and one foot in the great ocean. As "we" walk, one foot in the temporal (which is but an illusion) and one foot in the eternal (which is also an illusion).

"Knowing" all of this, one must not get to caught up, and have black or white, exact interpretations or definitions of any concepts including paramittas, koans, or any of the dharma. And with all of that said, I'm not defending Batman as a bodhisattva or condemning him as an immoral villain. I'm just interested in parsing some concepts.

So, of your 4:

1. renunciation: he lives in a mansion with a butler.

"Bruce Wayne" does this in order to maintain the "illusion" that he is an immoral, selfish, materialistic party boy for the sake of protecting the existence of what could be considered his "reincarnation" , Batman. Protecting that avatar protects others, not really himself. It actually puts his own life in danger. The story is quite clear about his "renunciation" of the actual material wealth. And by the way, the "butler" is arguably the most important member of his cohort. He is his partner in the plight to save Gotham City from "evil." He could be seen as the "reincarnation" of his father, even. Alfred the butler is actually his moral compass, not his actual butler.

2. truth: lying to the press, sarcasm.

Again, these are actually used as devices to help the good of the people by helping to protect his unselfish incarnation, Batman, who helps people he does not even know. And these lies consequently also protect those he loves from being harmed by the villains he sets out to stop. Your number "2" is really an extension of your "1".

3. metta and violence.

This one is tricky to our aggregates. Let us contemplate: is it actually intention or action that is what is truly "right" or "moral"?

Scenario One: A materialistic person breaks in to a home in the middle of the night with the intention of burglarizing it. A man asleep in the bedroom, awakens as the burglar is going through his chest of drawers, seeking material wealth. The man calls out to the burglar. The selfish burglar, not wanting to jeopardize his plan attacks the man, puts a pillow over his head and kills him. The burglar then returns to his task, now more patient and diligent, less cautious and quiet now that he has more time and less risk in being immediately discovered. Murder. We consider this act of violence murder, and our society punishes it with justice and condemns the burglar to death for his immorality (ironically sometimes society acts out of vengeance masked as justice; is this too, immoral? That question is for another day).

Scenario 2: A man is in extreme pain, unwilling to accept it. Incapable, actually, of accepting it. What he can accept is that his pain is so unbearable he has accepted that his life must end at this time. He asks a loved one to take his life. His loved one refuses. The man insists, forgives, and implores that his loved one show compassion and help him in his acceptance, his readiness, his willingness to die, because of his extreme pain. His loved one, regretful, but compassionate and understanding, follows the command, deep down knowing that it is the sad, inevitable fact that either way, the Man will die, but it is only a matter of time, and recognizes and honors the Man's decision that that time must be now. In tears, with love, sadness, and honor in the heart, the loved one takes a pillow and smothers the Man until he breathes no more. Society, in general, considers the act of the loved one compassionate. Society's law never knows quite how to handle these issues. Even if the law determines a punishment for the loved one, it is always with a compassionate leniency. Why? The action in Scenario 1 is the same as the action in Scenario 2. Someone takes another's life by smothering him with a pillow. But the intentions, the intentions are completely different.

Batman uses violence, no question. But do we judge his actions or his intentions? We tend to temper his actions with leniency, just as we do the loved one who smothered the suffering Man. Why? It is true that Batman always intends to use the least amount of infliction of pain and always, always tries his hardest to avoid taking life in his effort to save someone.

Even if we are vegetarian, we are taking life in order for us to continue living. We can choose vegetarianism because it is a more compassionate way of eating, as the sentient endure more pain than the plant (we believe, anyway). Our action is the same, vegetarian or not, we end another entities life. But the intentions are different. Of course, then there exists the fruitarian, who eats without taking life at all, but that however is assuming that a fruit, a nut, or a seed is not alive or sentient. That's all for our aggregates to experience, contemplate, research, and decide.

4. Equanimity: a soft spot for his parents.

This one is easy. Batman, is not a supernatural deity. He is a human being. In the process of dukkha, trying his best to overcome it. Clearly, his story, which is our own story really, is truly about that: How to overcome our "soft" spots, our sensitivies, our anger, our impatience. We who take refuge in what we believe is our best path, as Batman has taken refuge in what he believes is his, can only try our best, and sometimes we fail. That is why the karmic  reincarnation principle, Samsara exists. Because we fail. Only the great cosmic ocean's conjuring of aggregates called Siddhartha Gautama was able to overcome Samsara and become the awakened one. The awakened ONE. Because "he" will ever be the only one, for "he" is the example, the paradigm, the archetype, the manifestation of the concept of Buddhism. Or will he be, or has he been the only one? Impermanence, right? After all, in Buddhist eschatology, their exists Maitreya, the "incarnation" of the Buddha that will return when the world forgets, or has forsaken, the Dharma. In some ways, does this suggest that even the Buddha has actually not completely overcome Samsara. Does his karma force him to return and remind us of the Dharma? Did his first incarnation not accomplish the task? Does this mean that when he entered Nirvana, the rest of us got a peek inside, but that he did not leave the door open for us long enough to learn how to enter? Is the concept of Maitreya another koan? Isn't everything? Ah, the depth of the mysteries and yet the comforting simplicities of Buddhism. Its non-dual duality makes me smile. Its surreal realism delights me. Its confusing clarity is inspiring.

--Elfilo de Sofía

And let us always remember that Buddhism is not the only path for enlightenment, inner peace, and Nirvana, It is just the path for those who choose, who "feel", that Buddhism is their path.