First off, does anyone want a cat? His name is Crum and he is the best cat in the world. He belongs to my neighbor, Kim. But she can’t keep him. He’s been staying at my apartment for the last couple days. But at some point I’m gonna need to leave for an extended period, and then do that over and over and over again. So this isn’t gonna last for long.
This cat is so sweet it’s unreal. This is a photo of him keeping me company this morning while I wrote what you’re reading now.
Oh. And someone find me a teaching gig in Southern California. Thanks.
Oh! And doesn’t anyone out there want me to come speak anywhere? It’s weird. I was getting so many offers I couldn’t handle them last year and now here in 2012 — nothing! Did I do something that offended everyone?
Now onto the main topic.
The nice folks over at Counterpoint Books sent me a review copy of Red Pine’s The Lankavatara Sutra: Translation and Commentary. Thank you, Counterpoint Books!
I gotta say that I was kind of intimidated at first. I don’t do sutras very well. I managed to dig through Dogen’s Shobogenzo and even write a book about it. But that doesn’t mean I’m one of those guys who sits around reading ancient Buddhist texts for fun. Generally speaking ancient Buddhist writings baffle me about as much as they baffle everybody else.
Take the Lotus Sutra — please! I mean, I know I’m supposed to love the thing. I know that Dogen loved it. People I know have read it and said it’s the greatest thing since sliced cheese. But I have never been able to get through the confounded thing. I can’t get past the part where the author is telling you the names of all the Bodhisattvas and their uncles and how many Buddha realms they’ve conquered and where they shop for shoes and why you should definitely copy the sutra a thousand times and how many dragon kings were sitting around while Buddha impressed everyone by shooting rays out of his forehead… and so on and on and on and on.
You think I’m making this up? Have a look for yourself.
So when I saw this book in my mailbox, I thought, “Good gosh, now I gotta read the thing!”
It turns out that the Lankavatara Sutra is much easier going than the Lotus Sutra. At least for me. It doesn’t take nearly as long to get to the point. And its philosophical doctrines aren’t expressed in extended metaphors or stories. In many ways it’s a much more modern sounding piece. The author of the sutra frames it as a long Q&A; session between a guy named Mahamati and Buddha. Of course, Buddha was long since dead by the time this sutra was composed. But the literary device works to express a lot of the then-developing theories in Buddhism that would later become the basis for much of what is taught in Zen Buddhist temples even today.
What really makes this book work for me is Red Pine’s (aka Bill Porter) introduction. It’s a very honest essay. The author even says that it was his need for the advance money from his publishers that really tipped the scales and finally got him working on the translation in earnest. Apparently he’d had it on the back burner for years. But when he ran out of other sutras to translate, he reluctantly went back to the Lankavatara.
I’m happy he did because it’s a very good book. It’s not an easy book to read. Nor would I recommend it to someone just starting out with Buddhist philosophy. Stick to Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind or even Hardcore Zen if you want that. Or you can try one of the books on my Zen Books That Don’t Suck page.
But if you’ve already got a foundation of basic Buddhist philosophy and you want to know where some of the peculiarly Zen stuff comes from, this is a pretty interesting and valuable book. It’s a fine resource for some of the earliest manifestations of what coalesced into the Zen approach to Buddhist teaching and practice.
For example, you know how I’m always ranting against people who try to sell the idea of instant enlightenment? Remember how I compared thinking you could get enlightened right away to thinking you could learn to play Eruption by Eddie Van Halen after a single guitar lesson? Some of you assumed I just pulled that out of my ass. Well, in fact, I did. But in the Lankavatara Sutra, Mahamati asks, “How is the stream of perceptions of beings’ minds purified?” Buddha answers, “By degrees and not all at once… like when people become proficient in such arts as music or writing or painting.” So there!
On the matter of God, Mahamati asks, “In the sutras the Bhagavan (aka Buddha) says that the tathagatha-garbgha (womb of the Buddhas) is intrinsically pure, endowed with thirty-two attributes and present in the bodies of all beings, and that, like a precious jewel wrapped in soiled clothing, the ever-present unchanging tathagatha-garbha is likewise wrapped in the soiled clothing of the skandhas, dhatus and ayantas and stained with the stains of erroneous projections of greed, anger and delusion. How is it that what the Bhagavan says about the tathagatha-garbha is the same as what followers of other paths say about a self? Bhagavan, followers of other paths also speak of an immortal creator without attributes, omnipresent and indestructible. And they say this is the self.”
Buddha says, among other things that, “The tathagatha-garbha is taught to attract those members of other paths who are attached to a self so that they will give up their projection of an unreal self and will enter the threefold gate of liberation.” This doesn’t mean there is no tathagatha-garbha. Just that Buddha considers it a better way to describe reality than to describe it as self.
Like I said, I’m working on a whole book to explain why I think it makes sense to use the word “God” in the context of contemporary Buddhism. And it’s not just to play nice with religious folks. But I’m not gonna try and get into that here. It’s just nice to see that this question goes back a very long way.
I highly recommend this book for people who want to deepen their understanding of Zen Buddhist philosophy.
Anon,
Not really seeing the contradiction between Advaita and Buddhism you (and some others) think is essential. You must take into account, for example, that Advaita didn't really develop fully (through Guadapada) until Buddhism had been around for over a thousand years. And that like post-Buddha Buddhism, there's no advaitic catechism that all must follow, but many schools, teachers, realizers, and teachings, many of which disagree with one another on basic matters. It's also important to realize that Advaita essentially developed out of the Vedanta-Buddhist debates and reformulations of their own teachings taking into account the best arguments for and against one another. You can't really understand Mahayana Buddhism without taking this the Vedantic debating influence into account, and you can't really understand Advaita without taking the Buddhist influence into account.
Take a look at Nagarjuna, for example:
THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE MIDDLE WAY
(Mulamadhyamaka-Karika)
http://www.bergen.edu/phr/121/NagarjunaGC.pdf
1. Nothing whatever arises. Not from itself, not from another, not from both itself and another, and not without a cause.
7. If there are no existents, nor non-existents, nor existent non-existents, how can there be any causes? If there were a
cause, what would it cause?
9. If things do not begin to exist, then they cannot cease to exist. If things do not begin to exist, how can they have precipitating conditions? If something has ceased to exist, how can it be a condition or cause of anything else?
10. If things have no substantial essences, then they have no real xistence; and, in that case, the statement, "This is the cause or condition of that," is meaningless.
If you're familiar with the founding document of Advaita, Guadapada's Karika on the Mundakya Upanishad, you'd see that there's little difference between Nagarjuna and the Ajata Vada, which conceives of "Brahman" as the causeless and content-less "ground" of all Being, which neither causes nor partakes of any existent arising. It's doctrine is summarized as "nothing ever happened".
Now, these two doctrines are in many respects meant to oppose one another, but they end up being very much the same as one another. You are going to have to spell out the contradictions between these much more clearly than you have thus far to make a meaningful distinction.
For example, here's Gaudapada's defintion of Atman:
http://swamij.com/upanishad-mandukya-karika.htm
VII: Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.
34 The diversity in the universe does not exist as an entity identical With Atman, nor does it exist by itself. Neither is it separate from Brahman nor is it non—separate. This is the statement of the wise.
35 The wise, who are free from attachment, fear and anger and are well versed in the Vedas, have realized Atman as devoid of all phantasms and free from the illusion of the manifold and as non—dual.
36 Therefore, knowing Atman as such, fix your attention on Non—duality. Having realized Non—duality, behave in the world like an inert object.
37 The illumined sannyasin does not praise any deity, does not salute any superior and does not perform rites to propitiate departed ancestors. Regarding both body and Atman as his abode, he remains satisfied with what comes by chance.
38 Having known the truth regarding what exists internally as also the truth regarding what exists externally, he becomes one with Reality, he exults in Reality and never deviates from Reality.
2 Therefore I shall now describe Brahman, which is unborn, the same throughout and free from narrowness. From this one can understand that Brahman does not in reality pass into birth even in the slightest degree, though It appears to be manifest everywhere.
10 All aggregates are produced by Atman's maya, as in a dream. No rational argument can be given to establish their reality, whether they are of equal status or whether some are superior to others.
13 The identity of the jiva and Atman is praised by pointing out their non—duality; multiplicity is condemned. Therefore non— dualism alone is free from error.
25 Further, by the negation of the creation, coming into birth is negated. The causality of Brahman is denied by such a statement as "Who can cause It to come into birth?"
26 On account of the incomprehensible nature of Atman, the scriptural passage "Not this, not this" negates all dualistic ideas attributed to Atman. Therefore the birthless Atman alone exists.
27 What is ever existent appears to pass into birth through maya, yet from the standpoint of Reality it does not do so. But he who thinks this passing into birth is real asserts, as a matter of fact, that what is born passes into birth again.
30 There is no doubt that the mind, which is in reality non—dual, appears to be dual in dreams; likewise, there is no doubt that what is non—dual, i.e. Atman, appears to be dual in the waking state.
32 When the mind, after realizing the knowledge that Atman alone is real, becomes free from imaginations and therefore does not cognize anything, for want of objects to he cognized, it ceases to be the mind.
36 Brahman is birthless, sleepless, dreamless, nameless and formless. It is ever effulgent and omniscient. No duty, in any sense, can ever be associated with It.
37 Atman is beyond all expression by words and beyond all acts of the mind. It is great peace, eternal effulgence and samadhi; It is unmoving and fearless.
38 Brahman is free from mental activity and hence from all ideas of acceptance or relinquishment. When knowledge is established in Atman it attains birthlessness and sameness.
TLDNR
Anonymous anonymous anonymous said…
"mysterion said in 2007: "As a point of fact, where believing starts, thinking stops. Beliefs are 'crystallized structures' in your brain which are resilient to change…
What is this thing you hold so closely to if not a long held confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof?"
Back in 1991 and 1992 I was against motorcycle and bicycle helmets. Why?
Because brain injuries used to tell the folks neuroscience bits and pieces regarding how the brain functioned – based on lost brain function in the injured.
(You never know what you got 'til it's gone)
My thinking about belief handicaps has not – to date – changed much.
Furthermore, in the 1990s, a husband-wife team of neurosurgeons were making peer-reviewed news by isolating certain "Belief Nodes" in the human brain. With chemical or electrical treatment, some slow learners with strong beliefs could become average learners with far fewer beliefs. Unfortunately, the authorization that they held for working with human subjects in this research was lifted (by the 'George W.' Feds) and the research ceased.
Belief addicts will not give up their opium easily!
Nonetheless, one of the reasons "Johnny has difficulty learning" remains that self-inflicted injury we call a strong belief system. I suspect that I could dig up about 70 rears of supporting studies over the course of a couple of months. I've read half a dozen studies – one from the Progressive Education Association in the 1930s.
I dealt with learning disorders for a number of years – as a charity. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
well, "There are none so stupid as those who will not learn."
Just this a.m. I received that old Urban Legend about Einstein…
"Stories about atheist professors being bested by true believers who
_did_ have answers at the ready are both ventings of this frustration and expressions of delight in finally seeming to have been armed with deft responses to fling back. These are tales of affirmation, modern-day parables of trials overcome and fierce adversaries bested by those who held fast to what they believed in, even in the face of ridicule rained down by authority figures."
Do whatever you want to do…
If you Believe that there is a New, Improved Pure Land® waiting for you, I'll sell you a lot you can develop!
Otherwise, it's just not my rice bowl.
46 When the mind does not lapse into inactivity and is not distracted by desires, that is to say, when it remains unshakable and does not give rise to appearances, it verily becomes Brahman.
47 This Supreme Bliss abides in the Self. It is peace; it is Liberation; it is birthless and cannot be described in words. It is called the omniscient Brahman, being one with the birthless Self, which is the true object of knowledge.
48 No jiva ever comes into existence. There exists no cause that can produce it. The supreme truth is that nothing ever is born.
3 Some disputants postulate that only an existing entity can again come into existence, while other disputants, proud of their intellect, postulate that only a non—existing entity can come into existence. Thus they quarrel among themselves.
4 An existing entity cannot again come into existence (birth); nor can a non—existing entity come into existence. Thus disputing among themselves, they really establish the non—dualistic view of ajati (non—creation).
5 We approve the ajati (non—creation) thus established by them. We have no quarrel with them. Now hear from us about Ultimate Reality, which is free from all disputations.
6—8 The disputants assert that the unborn entity (Atman) becomes born. How can one expect that an entity that is birthless and immortal should become mortal? The immortal cannot become mortal, nor can the mortal become immortal. For it is never possible for a thing to change its nature. How can one who believes that an entity by nature immortal becomes mortal, maintain that the immortal, after passing through change, retains its changeless nature?
18 If the cause is produced from the effect and if the effect is, again, produced from the cause, which of the two is born first upon which depends the birth of the other?
19 The inability to reply to the question raised above, the ignorance about the matter and the impossibility of establishing the order of succession if the causal relation is admitted clearly lead the wise to uphold, under all conditions, the doctrine of ajati, or non—creation.
55 As long as a person clings to the belief in causality, he will find cause producing effect. But when this attachment to causality wears away, cause and effect become non—existent.
56 As long as a person clings to the belief in causality, samsara will continue to expand for him. But when this attachment to causality wears away, samsara becomes non—existent.
57 The entire universe is created by false knowledge; therefore nothing in it is eternal. Everything, again, as one with Ultimate Reality, is unborn; therefore there is no such thing as destruction.
58 Birth is ascribed to the jivas; but such birth is not possible from the standpoint of Reality. Their birth is like that of an illusory object. That illusion, again, does not exist.
61—62 As in dreams the mind acts through maya, presenting the appearance of duality, so also in the waking state the mind acts through maya, presenting the appearance of duality. There is no doubt that the mind, which is in reality non—dual, appears to be dual in dreams; likewise, there is no doubt that what is non—dual i.e. Atman, appears to be dual in the waking state.
6—8 The disputants assert that the unborn entity (Atman) becomes born. How can one expect that an entity that is birthless and immortal should become mortal? The immortal cannot become mortal, nor can the mortal become immortal. For it is never possible for a thing to change its nature. How can one who believes that an entity by nature immortal becomes mortal, maintain that the immortal, after passing through change, retains its changeless nature?
74 Atman is called birthless (aja) from the standpoint of false knowledge based upon imagination; in reality It is not even birthless. The unborn Atman is said to be born from the standpoint of the false knowledge cherished by other schools of thought.
"Advaita didn't really develop fully (through Guadapada) until Buddhism had been around for over a thousand years"
yes, Advaita copied Buddhism
the rest of your comments illustrate beautifully the differences and problems with "Adaviata"
I need say no more
Man, and I thought the Indian Advaitsts were smug.
Gucci outlet, gucci bags, cheap gucci shoes 2012 sale. It's very fashion in 2012, I also concern on gucci outlet, especially, I love gucci bags most. Do best, no regret, also gucci shoes is highly recommended. I also love GUCCI in
http://www.discount-sell.com
"Man, and I thought the Indian Advaitsts were smug."
I apologize if I came across as "smug" or snarky, not my intention.
I could go back and copy and paste,
yes there are significant similarities between Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and Jainism
(as well as the Ajivika, Carvaka, Lokayata, Mimamsa, Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika)
But there are also even more significant differences between Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and Jainism.
I'd recommend:
Stephen Prothero, "God is Not One," interviewed by Sally Quinn
http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11556/After+Words+Stephen+Prothero+God+is+Not+One+interviewed+by+Sally+Quinn.aspx
I really like this article, is really great, and the christian Louboutin to continue to pay attention to it.
Great stuff Brad! I love style of making zen accessible to the modern minds.
Hey Anon 108 (and any other possibly interested parties):
Here's an online internship opportunity for translators via Dalkey Archive Press and the Center for Translation Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign:
http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/aboutus/?fa=Educational
http://uk.reuters.com/video/2012/02/09/monk-tackles-fukushima-nuke-hotspots?feedName=TopNews&feedType;=VideoRSS&videoChannel;=1&videoId;=229936010
Yes, there are significant differences in Buddhism, Advaita, Jainism, etc. Most of these are merely on the level of concept and discursive mind, however.
For example, my quotes were meant to show that the Advaitic concept of "Atman" is free of the very things that the Buddhist concept of "Shunyata" criticizes, and amounts to a selfless "Self" with no reified substance or content to it. Formless form.
It's like saying that a landscape painted in oils is fundamentally different from the same landscape painted in watercolors. Differences do exist based on style and medium, but they are not fundamental differences.
broken yogi your words are beautiful paintings :0)
I just want to hear some more about Crum.
Deleuze expresses two main problems with the traditional style and institutional location of the history of philosophy. The first concerns a politics of the tradition:
The history of philosophy has always been the agent of power in philosophy, and even in thought. It has played the repressors role: how can you think without having read Plato, Descartes, Kant and Heidegger, and so-and-so’s book about them? A formidable school of intimidation which manufactures specialists in thought – but which also makes those who stay outside conform all the more to this specialism which they despise. An image of thought called philosophy has been formed historically and it effectively stops people from thinking. (D 13)
The second criticism directed at the traditional style of history of philosophy, the construction of specialists and expertise, leads directly to the foremost positive aspect of Deleuze’s particular method: “What we should in fact do, is stop allowing philosophers to reflect ‘on’ things. The philosopher creates, he doesn’t reflect.” (N122) And this creation, with regard to other writers, takes the form of a portrait:
The history of philosophy isn’t a particularly reflective discipline. It’s rather like portraiture in painting. Producing mental, conceptual portraits. As in painting, you have to create a likeness, but in a different material: the likeness is something you have to produce, rather than a way of reproducing anything (which comes down to just repeating what a philosopher says). (N 136)
Gilles Deleuze (1925–1995)
Producing mental, conceptual portraits.
Do you mean like…
Crystallized Structures in the Brain !?!?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I recall 20 years ago breaking open my head with Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's ANTI-OEDIPUS (1972).
These Deleuze quotes make me think of historian William Fredrick Kohler referring to his mentor Magus Tabor{"Mad Meg"}, how "historical truth is not made by those who do things, but by those who tell the stories about what has been done. Thus, for example, "when a man writes the history of your country in another language, he is bent on conquest, [by replacing] your past, all of your methods of communication, your habits of thinking, feeling, and perceiving, your very way of being, with his own." (H. L. Hix / Wm H. Gass)
Is the philosopher Deleuze here simply articulating his own revisionist method? Is Anonymous
"just repeating what a philosopher says"?
Am I, in fact, quoting a couple of fictional characters as historical authorities?
What is "real?"
Peace dawgs.
John E:
That's Finklestein's take on the OT. Josiah took what I describe as "a constrained collection of regional folklore" and weaved it into what Finklestein calls "a brilliant work of political propaganda."
By creating the myth of the United Monarchy (e.g. David & Solomon) he justified his attacking the fertile valley to the north of Judah. He briefly controlled both the farmers and shepherds. But that's not the point.
Josiah apparently created a myth to justify his military conquest.
Like George W. and his WMD, he was just another in a long string of dishonest politicians.
So, to summarize, John E. (in his comment immediately above) stated an almost universal truth: History isn't a lie, it's just a convenient re-framing of the truth with fanciful substitutions inserted as needed.
"Is the philosopher Deleuze here simply articulating his own revisionist method?"
Deleuze? Of course you mean Louboutin.
a hell of a review: HERE
Interview of Gass in (pun) The Believer.
There are other fictional characters that people believe in – John Galt comes to mind.
mysterion@10:30
Who do you think you're foolin?
Interestingly enough, Pirsig, in Lila, makes a difference between philosophy as it is taught in schools, and which, he says, is really philosophology, and real philosophy which is something that is enacted in everyday life.
He compares it to a case where, in schools of music, you wouldn't learn to play music, but only musicology. And when you'd have completed your diploma, you would have the right to call yourself a musician, yet without knowing how to play any music.
@ proulx michel said…
good point between a kind of academic study of philosophy rather than doing/practicing philosophy
*************************
some Anonymous said…
"broken yogi your words are beautiful paintings :0)"
the Deleuze comment
"The history of philosophy isn’t a particularly reflective discipline. It’s rather like portraiture in painting. Producing mental, conceptual portraits. As in painting, you have to create a likeness, but in a different material: the likeness is something you have to produce, rather than a way of reproducing anything"
was agreeing that we can make all kinds of mental conceptual portraits with words and concepts and we often mistake our beautiful conceptual portraits for being real things.
"God" "soul" "Brahma" etc. etc. etc….
"The talk of these brahmins turns out to be laughable, mere words, empty and vain.’"
Buddha
gassho
Thanks for the link to the Dalkey Archive Press internship, john e. I'm not sure of they're interested in translation of old languages like Sanskrit (might be), but the fee of $5K is well out of my reach, and it's not clear to me how the loan/award scheme works. But if I do get around to translating something substantial one day, I may check it out properly 🙂
Apologies! I thought they awarded the 5k on acceptance of a translation upon completion of the 6 mo internship!
Plus, you'd have to move to Dublin. Not that that is a bad thing, but it is still a move.
I love their publications.
…and I see I am wrong about that as well! No need to move anywhere…
Apologies! I thought they awarded the 5k on acceptance of a translation upon completion of the 6 mo internship!
Now THAT would have been sweet – and well worth considering!
"What is God?" Since it is not possible to positively and coherently define what believers call 'god', theism is really just a form of agnosticism
check out youtube videos:
Believers are agnostics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFISW7M8uv0
Part 2 — Believers are agnostics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWA3eUEzUWo&feature;=related
"The talk of these brahmins turns out to be laughable, mere words, empty and vain.’"
Buddha
The Brahmins, then and over the centuries, made exactly the same criticism of Buddha and Buddhism.
If all is shunyata, then what is being described by the concept of shunyata? And what is realized in Nirvana, if Nirvana is the merely the cessation of desiring?
To answer those questions, Buddhists have been forced to use concepts like "suchness" or "Tathagatagarba" or "the unborn". But once That is given a name, how is it different from a God, a State, or a Form of the same variety spoken of by Brahmins? And so the Buddhists end up with their own Gods, and yet claim theirs are "different" and "superior".
One has to learn to laugh at oneself if one is to be a Buddhist.
"what is realized in Nirvana"
Nagarjuna's take on Nirvana, from his Original Verses on the Middle Way – the Mulamadhyamakakarika:
There is absolutely no difference between everyday life and nirvana.
There is absolutely no difference between nirvana and everyday life.
Nirvana extends just as far as everyday life.
There is not the slightest difference between them.
Views on what is beyond cessation, what is the end of existence, eternity and so on,
Are based on ideas of life starting somewhere and stopping at nirvana.
If things are empty, finite and infinite have no meaning.
How can something be both? How can something be neither?
This? That? Infinite? Finite?
Both? Neither?
The Buddha never taught about things;
He taught us how to stop wanting, how to get rid of what hinders us, how to be happy.
(Verses 19-24 of Chapter 25, "Examination of Nirvana")
The Unconditioned
“At Savatthi. ‘Monks, I will teach you the unconditioned and the path leading
to the unconditioned. Listen to that…
“And what, monks, is the unconditioned? The ending of desire, the ending of
hatred, the ending of delusion: this is called the unconditioned.
“And what, monks, is the path leading to the unconditioned? Mindfulness
directed to the body: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned…”
[S. 43:1, p. 1372; cf. S. III, 22:23, 27, p. 872, where “full knowing” is defined
with the same words as the unconditioned.]
“When, brahmin, a person is impassioned by greed, depraved by hatred,
bewildered through delusion, overwhelmed and infatuated by delusion, then
he plans for his own harm, for the harm of others, for the harm of both; and
he experiences in his mind suffering and grief. But when greed, hatred and
delusion have been abandoned, he neither plans for his own harm, nor for the
harm of others, nor for the harm of both; and he does not experience in his
mind suffering and grief. In this way, brahmin, nibbana is directly visible,
immediate, inviting one to come and see, worthy of application, to be
personally experienced by the wise.” [A. III, 55, p. 57.]
“There is absolutely no difference between everyday life and nirvana.”
Nagarjuna makes it clear that the (only) reason there is no difference between everyday life and nirvana, is that both are empty (shunyata). The experiential difference is that only in nirvana are we aware of shunyata. Only by knowing nirvana can we see that ordinary life is also shunyata.
This summarizes Nagarjuna's view on “ordinary happenings”:
“2:25. Therefore, neither an existent nor a non-existent happener's happening happens in any of "the three ways." The happening, the happener, and the happened are all non-existent
“The Buddha never taught about things;
He taught us how to stop wanting, how to get rid of what hinders us, how to be happy.”
Ah, but he taught about “the Unconditioned”, as you quote next. And what is that, but another way of refering to “Brahman”, the unconditional Reality beyond all objects, desires, conditions, forms, names, etc?
This is where the Hindus pretty much trap the Buddhists into admitting that they are just approaching the same unconditional realization of Brahman by differing semantic and logical approaches. Except the Buddhists will never admit to it. Because then they couldn't really claim to have the one and only truth.
Nagarjuna makes it clear that the (only) reason there is no difference between everyday life and nirvana, is that both are empty (shunyata)
"Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.
Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist
Therefore a non-empty thing
Does not exit."
Nagarjuna
"The emptiness of the conquerors was taught in order to do away with all philosophical views. Therefore it is said that whoever makes a philosophical view out of “emptiness” is indeed lost."
Nagarjuna
"Buddhas say emptiness
Is relinquishing opinions.
Believers in emptiness
Are incurable."
Nagarjuna
"Shariputra, form is no other than emptiness; emptiness no other than form. Form is exactly emptiness; emptiness exactly form. Sensation, conception, discrimination, and consciousness are also like this."
"The emptiness of the conquerors was taught in order to do away with all philosophical views."
Nagarjuna
"Buddhas say emptiness
Is relinquishing opinions."
Nagarjuna
"Emptiness is proclaimed by the victorious one as the refutation of all viewpoints;
But those who hold "emptiness" as a viewpoint—the true perceivers have called those "incurable" (asadhya)"
(Frederick J. Streng translation)
_______________________
8. The Conquerors taught emptiness as the forsaking of all views. Those who view emptiness are taught to be without realisation [incurable/incorrigible].
(Stephen Batchelor translation)
_______________________
Tsongkhapa quotes a large chunk of the Kasyapaparivarta, which concludes with this passage:
“The Bhagavan said: ‘Likewise, Kasyapa, if emptiness is the emerging from (forsaking of) all views, then Kasyapa, he who views emptiness alone cannot possibly be cured.”
__________________________
confer
Sandokai
"To encounter the absolute is not yet enlightenment."
or
"according with sameness is still not enlightenment."
"Ah, but he taught about “the Unconditioned”, as you quote next."
being unconditioned by greed hate and delusion
the Buddha took a lot of Vedic/Upanishadic terms but gave them very different meanings.
In Buddhism there is NO "unconditioned" that stands out side of causality, that would be dualism/eternalism
_______________________
"Buddhists into admitting that they are just approaching the same unconditional realization of Brahman by differing semantic and logical approaches"
not at all
"Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.
Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist
Therefore a non-empty thing
Does not exit."
Nagarjuna
there is NO "Brahma" and there is NO "unconditioned" something that is not dependently arising does NOT exist
now we see the fundamental difference between Advaita which is dualistic and Buddhism which is not
Sabba Sutta – The All
“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the all. Listen to this.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and
sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile
sensations, the mind and dhammas. This is called the all.
“If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I
shall make known another all’ – that would be a mere empty boast on his part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that all
would not be within his domain.” [S. 35.23, p. 1140, also cf. 35:92]
Sabba Sutta: The All
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
which again illustrates the fundamental difference between the Vedic traditions (which are dualistic) and Buddhism (which is not dualistic)
Don't confuse the "nonduality" of the Advaita Vedantins, which is of the identity of Brahman and the Atman where the identity is "objectless consciousness, as awareness nondualistically self-aware"
Advaita Ved?nta is a scripturally derived philosophy centred on the proposition, first found in early Upani?ads (800-300 BC), that Brahman – the Absolute, the supreme reality – and the self (?tman) are identical. The identity is understood as an objectless consciousness, as awareness nondualistically self-aware. Arguments in support of the view that nondual awareness is the sole reality are developed by classical and modern Advaitins, from Gau?ap?da (c.600 AD) and ?a?kara (c.700 AD), in hundreds of texts. Some of these are suggested in Upani?ads.
But that is NOT the Buddhist Middle Way
Overcoming Dualism
http://www.ecoeating.com/project02/css%20based%20website%20zen/pages/dualism.html
Anonymous said…
"…Overcoming Dualism."
Thank you for the link.
Chas
Hjatta zen krolo bjat. Noorkaha hanto njelemas, ento klosseram ulko.
Hatt froshat tattahana gjaal ento tuttaremaka men neemo fjal. Kless vjatta prataha drul.
The thing I hope Brad addresses is WHY a Buddhist needs to use the word "God." It doesn't come under the heading of Things Useful for Becoming Enlightened. Whether there's a creator or not, it's just a distraction.