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.
1 !!!!!
ROTFLHMCXV
đ
Hey Brad,
It ain't 'Mahatmi'. It's Mahaa-mati (or *Mahamati* if you like) – which means 'great-minded,' ie clever.
I don't believe there is such a word in Sanskrit as Mahatmi. It sounds a bit like Mahaa-atma (*Mahatma*) – which as you might know means something like 'great-soul'; having a great or noble nature – but that ain't this guy.
…Just so you don't embarrass yourself in front of any proper Buddhists you might meet đ
Oh sorry! Mahamati! I'll go fix it! Thanks.
Oddly enough, I found the Lotus Sutra easier – much easier.
The Lankavatara needs a handy dandy glossary with it -which, maybe Mr. Pine supplies, because (was it Suzuki's?) text doesn't.
I can see why you think so about the two sutras: the Lankavatar's far more "linear" in its exposition whereas the Lotus Sutra is different.
To re-purpose the metaphor from Douglas Hofstadter on koans, the difficulty of the Lotus Sutra lies in the relationship between the metalanguage of the Lotus Sutra (i.e., what it "means") and the object language (the "plaintext" language of the Lotus Sutra itself). What makes that particularly profound for me is that the Lotus Sutra is self-referential, and quite obviously does not do so in the plaintext "meaning."
It's kind of like that Magritte painting of a pipe with the caption "This is not a pipe."
AND when you get PAST all the literary theory hoo-hah I've just written above – the "point" of the Lotus Sutra is indeed profound.
And I have to study it more.
Great topic though. I wonder if any Nichiren folks read your blog.
You're welcome.
Must buy! Strange how little is known and recogniced in the west about what happened filosofically from the days of buddha to those enigmatic statements of chinese zenmasters. I've read Zen was called the Lanka -sect early in china. This is like the indian sutra -background of those classic koans.
To refine my comment above: that's not to say there isn't hairy dialectical reasoning in the Lankavatara – there is. That's the source of its own difficulties (but, as Brad said, well worth the read!)
But the Lankavatara "means what the text means" far more so than the Lotus, and isn't IIRC, as riddled with self-reference as the Lotus.
Hi Brad
For example, you know how I'm always ranting against people who try to sell the idea of instant enlightenment?
I don't know if you're talking about the new "zen cults" or about Linchi's branch of Zen. If it's about the latter they rant against the progressive one, taking as a proof "that day" in Bodhgaya, and their own experience.
But here i'm maybe just rooting for my first team, you know it's like your first love, it gets a special place, or rather a special attachement.
Now about the tathagatha-garbgha thing.
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."
Resuming we should get:
the tathagatha-garbha is the same as what followers of other paths say about a self … followers of other paths also speak of an immortal creator…. And they say this is the self.
So it seems to me that this sutra states that followers of other paths speak of an immortal creator and call it the self.
Hence it not the Buddha that says there is a god (immortal creator), but rather other people, using the same word (tathagatha-garbgha), say that the self is "god" (immortal creator).
Now it could be just a knee jerk reaction on my part, and saying the truth i don't give a damn about all encompassing divinity.
Devas/kami etc seem to me more possible, work "enough" your siddhis, at least Milarepa's way, and you could become one and reside in some higher realm. Why not?
And looking hard at "things", i really don't know what we are looking at, considering the state of the matter, just have a look at a Feynman's diagram.
But again who gives a damn
Heady stuff.
If you come back to Lawrence, KS bring the cat! Looks like a fine beast.
Good! Curiously, I saw Red Pine's translation available on Amazondot just today as I was shopping for other things. Sometimes I like his translations, sometimes I don't. But on your recommendation, I'll definitely look into it. The Trip to Lanka, huh? Would that be the Sri Lanka we used to know as Ceylon?
Very cool. I love Red Pine aka Bill Porter.
I quoted something from his Road To Heaven: Encounters With Chinese Hermits in an old article on the Circulatum Minus I did for the Philosopher's Of Nature quarterly The Stone (essay available in its entirety online here: http://www.triad-publishing.com/stone27a.html)
My introduction to the Lankavatara sutra came v. early in my practice via Dwight Goddard's A BUDDHIST BIBLE, trans. by Goddard and Suzuki, & props to Kerouac, who mentioned it somewhere making me aware of it and seeking it out.
My favorite Red Pine stuff is his little book on the Heart sutra, and his much bigger one on the Diamond sutra. Will look for this new trans., thanks for the heads-up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edit: @12.08pm, while correcting a small error in Brad's initial posting, I wrote "mahaa-atma". That's wrong. I should have written mahaa-aatma – long As all the way down. Thank you.
Crum, you'd best be leavin' them mouse at the door, now. Don't be scufflin' them feet on the keys and calling it blog post 4Feb!
I watched the lecture by Lawrence Krauss on cosmology, and was fascinated to learn that because the universe is flat, something can come out of nothing, and nothing can come out of something. Hope I'm getting that right. If the universe had followed the rules of the other two geometries, that would not be possible, according to current mathematics/physics.
In the Pali cannon, there's a sermon where the Gautamid gives a short history of the origin of God. Basically, a being fell from a higher energy state to a lower one, and into existence. Subsequently, other beings also fell and came into existence. The being who arrived first looked around, and realizing he was the first, declared himself god the creator.
Likewise, the famous sermon concerning the individual who sought to know where suffering ends, and pursued the question up the chain of wise men into the heavens and finally to God. None could answer him; God said, "I'm the might god, creator of all!" several times in response to the question, then finally leaned over and whispered that the seeker would have to return to Earth and speak to the Gautamid for the answer.
To my mind, that says it all. Maybe there are beings on higher energy planes, maybe the object is to depart this plane to some other plane (and never return), maybe there are a thousand angels on the head of a pin. It's suffering, stupid, is what I tell myself. And not "life is suffering"- not what the guy taught, he taught the escape, and the happiness of the meditative states. Happiness of the meditative states does not equate with suffering, life is not equated with suffering in the teaching of the Gautamid as near as I can find.
I'm not big on sutras composed after the four initial Nikayas. The fifth Nikaya is where you will find the famous lines about the "unborn". Suspect to me. Maybe I'll read the lankavatara sutra someday, but why not read the original, the Pali Suttas?
I don't view the Gautamid as all-knowing, I do regard him as an authority on the meditative states and their relationship to the experience of suffering. Where suffering exists, the four truths apply. That's the universe in which form is emptiness, and emptiness is form, as near as I can figure. Language that attempts to describe everything contains many contradictions, and my experience with the later sutras is that they are an attempt to do just that.
what is the deal with the capchas, like "quitio", fer instance?
Becoming aware of fragility, of temporality, of the fact that we will surely all be lost to one another, sooner or later, mandates a clear imperative to be totally kind and loving to each other always.
Mr. Warner, even if you had made it past the first chapter of the Lotus Sutra you might have stopped once you got to the passages in the second and third that state that those who fail to understand or choose to reject the Lotus Sutra, will be destined for rebirth in a lower realm and possibly even the Avici Hell.
âIn any case, the foregoing quotes ought to give you an idea what to expect from a book like this. If you don't know what a skandha or a dhatu is you're going to have a tough time.â
Exactly who will ever read this? Some Buddhist will do⌠and a few scholars among those will understand the philosophy of it⌠but no one will ever realizeanything through it.
I feel lucky and grateful to have found a true Buddha/ Realizer of my own time, who speaks my language , who was born in a western culture and understands it and therefore can guide me through and point me the Way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
corrected link for
D. T. Suzuki
"Manual of Zen Buddhism"
a PDF File
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/manual_zen.pdf
Lovely pusscat! Can you ship him to Bedfordshire Brad?? Will pay for nibbles.
kristien wrote:
I feel lucky and grateful to have found a true Buddha/ Realizer of my own time, who speaks my language , who was born in a western culture and understands it and therefore can guide me through and point me the Way.
Please, please, please! Do not be such an egoist and give us the opportunity to share in the glory and wisdom of such a being! Give us his name!
pm, why it's our Brad of course!
Anyway, one of the most interesting aspects of the Lanka, is the more developed form of the famous verses attributed to Bodhidharma, in chapter 6, where (Suzuki's version) it says "The ignorant and simple-minded declare that meaning is not otherwise than words, that as words are, so is meaning. They
think that as meaning has no body of its own that it cannot be different from words and, therefore, declare meaning to be
indentical to words. In this they are ignorant of the nature of words, which are subject to birth and death, whereas meaning
is not; words are dependent upon letters and meaning is not; meaning is apart from existence and non-existence, it has no
substratum, it is un-born. The Tathagatas do not teach a Dharma that is dependent upon letters. Anyone who teaches a
doctrine that is dependent upon letters and words is a mere prattler, because Truth is beyond letters and words and books.
This does not mean that letters and books never declare what is in conformity with meaning and truth, but it means that
words and books are dependent upon discriminations, while meaning and truth are not; moreover, words and books are
subject to the interpretation of individual minds, while meaning and truth are not. But if Truth is not expressed in words
and books, the scriptures which contains the meaning of Truth would disappear, and when the scriptures there will be no
more disciples and masters and Bodhisattvas and Buddhas, and there will ne nothing to teach. But no one must become
attached to the words of the scriptures because even the canonical texts sometimes deviate from their straightfoward
course owing to the imperfect fuctioning of sentient minds."
__________
Ah! In response to those who have asked the reason for mentioning the captcha: it is generally because the one that the author of the comment has encountered was felt as being either funny or relevant or anything.
Mine now is "fadifart".
Hi Michel
I think that what you just described is called nominalism, as in nomina sunt rerum.
About the sutras. I believe they were all written long after Gautama's death, so while keeping with the original dharma core it could be that they got some influence of the cultural environment, of which Gautama himself was not exempt.
Tell me if i'm wrong.
Boubi, I'm afraid you're dead wrong! This is precisely the opposite of nominalism, because it says that words are not the meanings, and that those who stick to words are not disciples of the buddha. It's just, adds the author, that if it weren't for words, we could not transmit the meanings.
Kristien is a devotee of "he whose name shall not be spoken".
wink wink nod nod
say no more
"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."
2007-10-25 #6 God & Buddhanature
A study of the Buddha's understanding of God (Brahma) as found in texts of the Pali Canon. The Buddha was an ironic atheist, who did not take a fanatic position against God. This is followed by a reflection on the idea of BUDDHANATURE, starting with its origins in the Pali Canon and seeing how it evolves in later Buddhist thought in ways that both complement and contradict the early tradition.
http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/169/talk/2303/
I found all the 'special effects' in the Lotus pretty hard to take… at the same time it does succeed in setting the proceedings in a very broad context in terms of time and space with its vast time spans and vast numbers of worlds and beings.
Michel wrote:'…words and books are
subject to the interpretation of individual minds, while meaning and truth are not…words are dependent upon letters and meaning is not; meaning is apart from existence and non-existence, it has no
substratum, it is un-born.'
I believe that is one viewpoint that may be looked at in terms of the 'dimensional difference' that Nishijima Roshi indicates as existing between what we think and Action.
It indicates the truth that real meaning, existence-meaning if you like, exists instantaneously from moment-to-moment and so words mean nothing outside their current, concrete context (which, of course, always changes).
This need not, and should not, be seen as some sort of negation of the conventional use of words and their attendant (if provisional) meanings though. That would be to slide towards an extreme view I think (a common extreme in Zen and Buddhism in general it seems).
It's a very interesting passage. Dogen would have had words to say about it (critical ones!) as he didn't discriminate in this way between true words and the very stuff/body of buddha.
Regards,
Harry.
Oh my God, more books! As a Buddhist, I couldn't care less. I don't like sutras. I think they're stupid. But as a comparative religion student I love Buddhist texts and sutras! My main subject is Buddhism as a student, but as a Buddhist… no, thanks.
Boom boom!
Nice review, Brad! I hope your cat finds a new home and you find some gigs!
As a BUDDHIST, I am a BUDDHIST. I study BUDDHISM, I am a BUDDHIST.
I.
I study and practice BUDDHISM. I. As a BUDDHIST, I think that, I.
Hi Michel
Sorry i was not citing the reference in my previous post, i'm talking of this part.
"The ignorant and simple-minded declare that meaning is not otherwise than words, that as words are, so is meaning. They
think that as meaning has no body of its own that it cannot be different from words and, therefore, declare meaning to be
indentical to words.
It's just remains of notions of another time
thanks
Thanks very possible, please visit my humble blog
?????4????
"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."
First you have to pretend the word "God" means something that it does NOT mean.
"God" is meant to be a dualist/eternal/thing-in-itself, just the "soul" is.
It you mean a kind of Spinoza-like pantheism, then o.k., but that is NOT what Christian/Jews/Muslims/etc. mean/believe in.
But then you are just playing semantic games which seem perhaps at times useful, but very misleading/dishonest.
"why I think it makes sense to use the word "God" in the context of contemporary Buddhism"
Believers are agnostics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFISW7M8uv0
Part 2 — Believers are agnostics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWA3eUEzUWo
"In this they are ignorant of the nature of words, which are subject to birth and death, whereas meaning
is not; words are dependent upon letters and meaning is not; meaning is apart from existence and non-existence, it has no
substratum, it is un-born. "
(lankavatara sutra, presumably)
Interesting and well-spoken, thanks for relating that, Proulx Michel.
I am driving at this, that anytime we look to use a symbol or a name to represent the transfinite, we have introduced paradox and contradiction to our symbol-set or language. That's why "the unborn" doesn't appear in the first four Nikayas, to my mind: the Gautamid was careful at several points to say to his questioners that their question went beyond what he taught, and then he would reiterate what he had taught.
As I've said before, Godel's incompleteness theorem is the most amazing philosophical statement in the history of humanity, in my opinion. If your initial assumptions can generate all of mathematics, those assumptions also generate contradictions. If your initial assumptions don't generate any contradictions, then your assumptions cannot describe all of what is known in mathematics.
The moral of the story is, there will be relationships that cannot be described in the language of the dharma laid out by the Gautamid, and the Gautamid showed an amazing awareness of the problem and made the only response possible when he rejected the question from the framework of his teaching.
That the Gautamid's teaching cannot be viewed from the outside nor extended to include ineffables is its strength and wisdom, and I reject as inferior the subsequent writers who speak of the truth in Platonic eternalistic terms.
I am also deeply suspicious of Cantor's proof than the infinity of the transfinite numbers is larger than the infinity of the counting numbers. What can I say!
I am also deeply suspicious of Cantor's proof than the infinity of the transfinite numbers is larger than the infinity of the counting numbers. What can I say!
Umm…it just falls out of the math, so to speak.
If it's any consolation to you, if you have a countably infinite set of objects which each have cardinality c, then their union also has cardinality c.
Uku wrote:
As a BUDDHIST, I am a BUDDHIST. I study BUDDHISM, I am a BUDDHIST.
I.
I study and practice BUDDHISM. I. As a BUDDHIST, I think that, I.
Exactly! There is no reality without I.
It seems to use the word "God" would be counter productive for so many reasons. True it may be a useful upaya at times.
In the Buddha's day he was trying free his listeners from an atman, a separate eternal self. He taught anatman.
In our day, here in the U.S. for example eternalism/dualism is enshrined by the word "God". You have to really pretend the word means something it does not mean to get away from that fact.
It's clear through the many comments here in the comment sections just how persistent dualism is, and how even Buddhists will find any way to sneak it back in even if they have to play semantic games to do so.
2007-10-25 #6 God & Buddhanature
A study of the Buddha's understanding of God (Brahma) as found in texts of the Pali Canon. The Buddha was an ironic atheist, who did not take a fanatic position against God. This is followed by a reflection on the idea of BUDDHANATURE, starting with its origins in the Pali Canon and seeing how it evolves in later Buddhist thought in ways that both complement and contradict the early tradition.
http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/169/talk/2303/
Where does suffering end. Suffering is just a concept. It
doesn't begin or end. Life and
death aren't problems. They are what they are without positive or
negative connotation.
Red Pine said something like that
Buddha was treating people with
spiritual disease. He made up stuff
like the word suffering to keep
them busy while they healed.
spiritually.
I should have clarified that previous comment,
the problem in ancient Inida was Brahma and atman,
today in the U.S. it's God and soul,
which are dualistic
Hi
A silly question: "what is time?"
How comes there is this timelessness?
Is there any sutra about it?
That's a very excellent talk by Stephen Batchelor that you linked, anon @ 12.53pm. Thanks.
Zennist:
"There is not a single case in the LS in which mind is a subject of an activity such as thinking or perceiving. Mind is really absolute substance (tathata)ânot subjectâwhen mind is set free (Red Pine and Suzuki, XLIII). As such, the everyday world is illusory and dreamlikeâonly Mind is real."
The Aramaic word for god in the Bible is 'Alaha'. It's not a name for a dude with a long white beard, but rather means 'essence', 'substance of all being', 'breath' and 'life-force'. Plus it sounds nice when you say it.
The Aramaic word for god in the Bible is 'Alaha'. It's not a name for a dude with a long white beard, but rather means 'essence', 'substance of all being', 'breath' and 'life-force'. Plus it sounds nice when you say it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
apologies for double post, not sure what happened there..
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mumon,
Mumon,
"The most widely accepted formal basis for arithmetic is called Peano's Axioms (PA). Giuseppe Peano based his system on a specific natural number, 1, and a successor function such that to each natural number x there corresponds a successor x' (also denoted as x+1). He then formulated the properties of the set of natural numbers in five axioms:
(1) 1 is a natural number.
(2) If x is a natural number then x' is a natural number.
(3) If x is a natural number then x' is not 1.
(4) If x' = y' then x = y.
(5) If S is a set of natural numbers including 1, and if for every x in S the successor x' is also in S, then every natural number is in S.
These axioms (together with numerous tacit rules of reasoning and implication, etc) constitute a formal basis for the subject of arithmetic, and all formal âproofsâ ultimately are derived from them. The first four, at least, appear to be âclear and distinctâ notions, and even the fifth would be regarded by most people as fairly unobjectionable. Nevertheless, the question sometimes arises (especially in relation to very complicated and lengthy proofs) whether theorems based on these axioms (and tacit rules of implication) are perfectly indubitable. According to Goedelâs theorem, it is impossible to formally prove the consistency of arithmetic, which is to say, we have no rigorous proof that the basic axioms of arithmetic do not lead to a contradiction at some point."
(Kevin Brown, Math Pages, Set Theory and Foundations, Is Arithmetic Consistent?