You know, when I first read this story years ago, I thought it was great and quite clever. I must confess that rereading it now, it strikes me as really dumb. Not only does Clarke spend the interminable first part of the story in crude exposition—'Surely you mean two!' 'I mean three. But that's not important right now.'—but the very premise of the story—there's these Tibetan monks, who have invented a special alphabet and are writing all the permutations of the name of God in order to bring an end to the universe—is completely at odds with any fact about Buddhism you care to mention. Which is particularly depressing considering that three years after the writing of this story, he would move to, and spend the rest of his life in, one of the most Buddhist countries on Earth.
It might seem like I'm nitpicking, but when you have a little story like this whose basically only propositional content is, 'What if a computer made the universe disappear after it completed a mathematically intensive religious task,' the specifics that you overlay become awfully important.
Talking about "Buddhism" as a homogenous entity is a bit misguided. Sri Lanka is primarily Theravada, while Tibetans practice a religion that is essentially their native shamanism overlaid with some Buddhist ideas. Conflating the two is like looking at a story in which Catholics pray to Mary and saying, "Nonsense! Christians only pray to Jesus. And he should know that, having lived in the largely Christian state of Utah for many years." Catholics are not Mormons, and neither is really representative of Christianity in general.
Obviously the story is fiction, but Tibetan Buddhism is steeped in a lot of weird old rituals (not that they're sinister — just ancient and exotic). To me, it seems plausible enough for fiction that there could be some weird offshoot cult in Tibet that believed such a thing.
I too read this many years ago. I find its impact no less that when I first read it.
It is an excellent example of a science fiction short story pithy, well written with a fantastic premise and a great ending. The details of which religion it is don't matter, the impact would be the same if it was the Catholic Church or a some Hindus.
The facts may not quite fit but they don't change the story's point.
Also the reason Clark put the the discussion of religious doctrine in there is to shift the reader's view point IMO. Make the Lama and his monastery seem a bit silly, especially in the light of the modern world. This makes the impact of the end of the story all that more poignant.
I read this for the first time today. I have to say I'm not blown away. Don't get me wrong, I'm a ACC fan. I'm not sure what makes other commentators think something like this is within the realm of scientific possibility. It is fantastic, generally underwhelming and the quality of writing isn't topnotch either.
Asimov's 'Last Question' bakes in notions of (super)computing, infinity, Gaia, big bang, the laws of energy and singularity with an astoundingly little amount of ink. At the other end of the spectrum, Borges' 'Library of Babel' is a spectacular and in my mind the definitive work on sci-fi magic realism, even inspiring the likes of Umberto Eco. Goosebumps galore.
This one is decent, but comparing to the aforementioned pieces of work is, IMHO, poor form.
Friend, the point of the story is that no matter how rational or scientific your views may be, they are still based on assumptions that are beyond any human verification. That fact should open our imaginations to some very remarkable possibilities.
It might seem like I'm nitpicking, but when you have a little story like this whose basically only propositional content is, 'What if a computer made the universe disappear after it completed a mathematically intensive religious task,' the specifics that you overlay become awfully important.