dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) (06/29/91)
Dear Mr. Wheeler (and others),
Well..., what can I say? Since there is a metaphysical reality,
whether I like it or not, John, I guess I can't argue w/ you. Never mind
Nagarjuna's "Stanzas on the Middle way", Vasubaddhu's "Establishment of
Consciousness Only", etc., etc.. If anything, do keep in mind the Mahayana
teaching of upaya. I'll assume you know this doctrine.
BTW, did you ever hear of Master Upa-Bove? He's supposed to have
reached the highest state of conscousness there is--then one step further!
And he dosen't even charge a cent. Just look upward and ....!
J.C.
PS. The pronounciation of the Master's name is "up above", just as its
spelled. Also I should mention that one of my zen teachers told me
(facetiously) that given my "presence" I should dust off my old sanskrit
texts, and Tibetan prints, go to California, and start a religious
organization (i.e., cult). He said I would rake in the $$$'s. No offence
to Cal's--I love the place (SF). Maybe Florida would be better; I'll start
up my Meta-yogic Nirvana Theme Park, and put the other one's out of
business. Didn't someone say 'economics' is central? On second thought,
naw... bad karma.
--
*******************************************************************************
-- John Cha
"The present is always more interesting than the future or the past"
*******************************************************************************johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) (06/30/91)
WARNING: This post is exceedingly long and consists of almost all
quoted material. If you find this offensive to your
taste (and I can't see any reason why you wouldn't)
press the delete key now. On the other hand if you
are a die-hard subscriber to soc.religion.eastern,
determined to read on against all odds,...
Some readers of the net (most notably Mr. Cha) have expressed a feeling
of incredulousness (?) whenever I have ventured to bring up the subject
of an Absolute Reality in the context of Buddhist philosophy. Just to
satisfy my own curiosity and interest in the matter, I did a little
investigative work and looked through some of the existing literature
to find some textual support for my position.
For anyone interested, I have summarized the results below. I believe they
substantiate the statements I made earlier. What follows are excerpts from
a book entitled "Buddhist Philosophy: A Historical Analysis," by David
J. Kalupahana, professor and chairman of the Department of Philosophy
at the University of Hawaii.
Let me say that I am not implying Mr. Kalupahana shares the same view as me;
in fact, he ultimately rejects the whole of Mahayana Buddhism as being
inconsistent with original Buddhist philosophy. (But that is another can
of worms entirely!) However, his scholarship and acquaintance with
historical Buddhism seems reliable enough use as a source.
Chapter 10: Development of the Mahayana
"In [the] initial stages of the development of the Mahayana, two doctrines
were evolving. The first was the doctrine of the plurality of Buddhas leading
to the conception of transcendental monism as represented by terms like tathata and dharmakaya. The second is the doctrine of a `being aspiring to
enlightenment' (bodhisattva)." (p. 118)
"According to the [Lotus Sutra], the aim of the Buddha's appearance in this
world was to reveal the Buddha-knowledge. It is the nondual (advaya) knowledge,
free from discrimination (nirvikalpa). He who realizes it becomes one with the
realization. Buddha is the embodiment of that knowledge. It is the Buddha's
dharma-body (dharmakaya), the real body as opposed to the nirmanakaya, which
is his apparitional or mind-made body. It is identical with the Ultimate
Reality (paramartha-satya), the `suchness' (tathata). It is inexpressable
and beyond logical analysis.
"This doctrine of dharma-kaya represents the apex of the movement toward
the development of absolutism which began immediately after the Buddha's
passing away. The whole of the [Diamond Sutra] is devoted to an analysis
of the phenomenal world in terms of this noumenal reality." (p. 122)
"The basic theme of the Prajnaparamita literature is to be found here.
On the one hand, there is the indescribable Ultimate Reality, on the
other, empty phenomenality.
"In the Mula-madhyamaka-karika, Nargarjuna made an attempt to provide a
philosophical basis for the doctrines in the Prajnaparamitas. While in the
Prajnaparamitas we find an attempt to demonstrate the unreality of the
phenomenal from the standpoint of the noumenal, in the Mula-madhyamaka-
karika the dialectic is employed to prove the unreality of the phenomenal
without making any reference to the noumenal. In the latter there is no
discussion of the noumenal except once when Nagarjuna was compelled to refer
to it in order to defend himself against the objections raised by the
opponents of the theory of emptiness (sunyata). It is only in the Maha-prajna-
paramita-sastra that Nagarajuna discusses the conception of dharma-kaya."
(p. 124)
Chapter 11: Madhymika Transcendentalism
"According to our analysis of Buddhist thought, the theory of an Absolute
reached its culimation in the Prajnaparamita literature. The origin of
dialectical consciousness which finally culminated in the full-fledged
Madhyamika dialectic,...was the conflict between noumenal reality and
phenomenality that is very vividly depicted in the Prajnaparamitas. The
two Buddhist schools Sarvastivada and Sautrantika,...contributed to the
emergence of the Madhyamika school when they presented metaphysical theories
in their attempts to explain the nature of the phenomenal world. The
Mulamakhyamakakarika of Nagarjuna is devoted mostly to a refutation of the
metaphysical theories of these two schools." (p. 129)
"[Nagarjuna's method] was the prasangika or reductio ad absurdum method.
As Murti [a contemporary scholar] has pointed out, `Prasanga is not to be
understood as an apagogic proof in which to prove an assertion indirectly
by disproving the opposite. Prasanga is disproof simply, without the least
intention to prove any thesis.'
"This is true as far as Nagarjuna's analysis of phenomenality is concerned.
But rejection of all theses pertaining to phenomenality was believed to
lead to the conception of the Absolute or Ultimate Reality (paramartha),
which the early Mahayanists considered indefinable (anirvacaniya)." (p. 131)
"The close relationship between Madhyamika thought and the teachings of the
Prajnaparamitas is undeniable." (p. 130)
"In a sense, the absolutism of the Prajnaparamitas became the Madhyamika
thesis. Nagarjuna is credited with having written the Mahaprajnapara-
mita-sastra before compiling the Mulamadhyamakakarika, the Madhyamika
treatise par excellence, thus showing his indebtedness to the Prajnaparamita
absolutism.
"Murti's views regarding the teachings of the Buddha and Nagarjuna may
be summarized thus: The Buddha as well as Nagarjuna accepted a
supersensous Ultimate Reality, an Absolute (paramartha) which is
inexpressable in terms of concepts." (p. 133)
"For Nagarjuna...a `concept' was something that conceals or covers the
real nature of the object. Ultimate Reality (paramartha) comes to be concealed
by the `concept' (samvrti). It is revealed to the individual only on the
development of the highest intuition. Thus, reality cannot be resolved into
concepts; it is indescribable or indefinable. The noumenal or the `thing-
in-itself' (tattva) cannot be grasped by concepts. It transcends conceptual
description (nirvikalpa), is transcendent or self-existent (apara-pratyaya).
This is seen to justify Nagarjuna's view that there is no difference
whatsoever between the phenomenal (samsara) and the transcendental (nirvana),
for the reality of samsara or the world is identical with the Absolute."
(p. 135)
"Nagarjuna, in the Mulamadhyakakarika, refers to the two levels of truth
and maintains that the Ultimate Reality (paramartha) cannot be communicated
without resorting to the conventional (samvrti), and that without understanding
the Ultimate Reality one cannot realize Nirvana." (p. 137)
"Madhyamikas considered all wordly reality (lokasamvrti) to be `conceptual'
(savikalpika), not empirical, and hance adopted the most effective method
of refuting all concepts, namely, the dialectical approach.
"By adopting the dialectical approach, the Madhyamikas were able to uphold
the sole reality of the Absolute, which they termed variously tathata,
dharmakaya, tathagata, tattva, and satya. Hence the realization of this
Ultimate Reality was presented as the goal of the religious life. The...
way to attain realization is by becoming a Buddha, a fully enlightened
one (samyak-sambuddha). It is the only path (marga). To become a Buddha,
one...adopts the life of a bodhisattva. By providing a philosophical basis
for the Mahayana ideal in this manner, Nagarjuna attained preeminence as
a Mahayana thinker." (p. 138)
Chapter 12: Yogacara Idealism
"The Madhyamikas contributed in great measure to the development of Yogacara
Idealism. Their ruthless analysis of concepts leading to the view that
these do not designate any reality or that they are empty of content or that
they do not reveal the nature of phenomena was welcomed by the Yogacarins.
Denying that the external object has any reality, the Yogacarins...
maintained...that the mind or consciousness is real. Since the Absolute
was looked upon as being nondual (advaya) and nonconceptual (nirvikalpa)
and as transcending wordly experience, the Yogacarins maintained that it
is realized...where there is undiscriminated consciousness without
subject-object dichotomy." (p. 143)
"The recognition of the transcendence of yogic intuition contributed
greatly to this view. From the standpoint of the highest yogic rapture,
wherein is to be found a form of undiscrimnated pure consciousness,
sense experience characterized by subject-object discrimination
appears illusory, in the some way that dream experience is found to
be illusory from the standpoint of waking consciousness. Hence
consciousness is the only reality." (p. 145)
"Enlightenment comes with the realization that everything is...consciousness
(cittamatram). Thus [Vasubandhu, in] the Trimsika, says:
When consciousness is without an objective support, then
consciouness is established in vijnaptimatra, since in the
absence of anything to grasp, there in no grasping.
When [he] is without thought, without objective support,
his knowledge is supramundane. There is `turning away'
from the object, through the abandonment of the two kinds
weakness [i.e., the belief in a `self' and the belief in `real
elements'].
That is the realm without defiling tendencies (asrava),
inconceivable, good, permanent, happy with released body;
this is what is called the dharma of the great Sage.
"It is significant that vijnaptimatra or the ultimate undifferentiated
reality is equated with the dharma of the Buddha. The attainment of
this state...is Buddhahood. Thus, with the attainment of enlightenment,
a bodhisattva becomes `not merely *a* Buddha, but Buddha.' He becomes
one with Ultimate Reality." (p. 149)
Appendix 2: Reflections on the Relation between Early Buddhism and Zen
"Zen (Chinese, Ch'an) is generally described as a Chinese adaptaion of
Madhymika-Yogacara syncretism." (p. 163)
"Bodhidharma is credited with having founded the school of Zen [Ch'an]
Buddhism. Zen means dhyana, or meditation, and the famous stanza,...
attributed to Bodhidharma..., is taken as a statement of the essential
doctrines of Zen. It runs thus:
A special tradition outside the Scriptures;
No dependence upon words and letters;
Direct pointing at the soul [Mind] of man;
Seeing into one's nature and [attaining] Buddhahood.
"The special tradition referred to here is based on both Madhyamika and
Yogacara ideas. The Zen tradition seems to have gone beyond the Madhyamikas
in rejecting completely the scriptural tradition, for the Madhyamikas,
while considering the concepts to be inadequate to represent reality, upheld
the value of the `conventional' for an understanding of the `ultimate'.
`Direct pointing at the [Mind] of man,' and `seeing into one's own nature,'
echo the Yogacara method." (p. 168)
"It is evident that the conception of an underlying reality, an Absolute,
indescribable and indefinable, is at the back of all Zen practice." (p. 172)
"Zen developed in the absolutist background of the Prajnaparamita literature."
(p. 176.)
"Although Mahayana emphasized the theory that Ultimate Reality is inexpress-
able in terms of empirical terminology, yet it embodied much scholasticism.
While remaining faithful to the Mahayana absolutism, the Zen masters
reacted against scholasticism and the recognized forms of conduct." (p. 176)
=============================================================================
Disciple: "When I travel, how can I carry your teaching with me?"
Master: "In your open hand."
=============================================================================
P.S. This is my first and last "typing marathon." What I want to know
is: how does Mr. Yee do it? Does he run the Da Free John books through
an optical scanner? :-)dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) (07/01/91)
Mr. Wheeler,
Concerning your last response to me; I've met Prof. Kalupahana in
a seminar on Buddhist studies at NU. He is indeed a respectable Buddhist
Scholar, and I enjoy and learn from his works to a great extent. But you
have to realize that he is well versed in western philosophy (not a problem
in itself) and tries to use the same categories applied in the tradition.
Now, despite my admiration for PR. Kalupahana, I disagree w/ his
interpretations of Madhyamika and Yogacara. Many of his interpretations
follow to a great extent that of Murti and the great Russian Buddhologist
Th. Scherbatsky. Current studies in Buddhist philosophy have (to a greater
or lesser extent) effectively criticized this methodology, i.e., the almost
indescriminate use of western categories--notice "transcendental monism",
Absolute monism", "Idealism", etc.--in the interpretation of Buddhist
thought. I won't gp into details because this would involve text citation
, word analysis from the original sanskrit and Tibetan texts, etc.
When you cite an authority on Buddhist scholarship keep in mind that
you're also including his/her prejudices in interpretation. Its not that
he is wrong but I just have a different set of prejudices in my work. If
you want to discuss scholarship then please e-mail me or post something.
Otherwise I would hesitate to go on because this might not be the
appropriate place to do so. Also keep in mind that there is usually a
difference in the whole approach to "spiritual" matters between scholars
and practitioners. That's why for this board it would be wiser to quote
from the gurus, or masters, rather than academics; the issues pertaining to
each are quite different. If you must quote from sources other than
spiritual teachers, then try to get a grasp on the original texts. Belive
it or not my work began w/ the goal of clarifying the "Metaphysics" of Mahayana
thought; but after reading from the original Sanskrit and Tibetan sources
my stance on the issue took a 180 degree turn toward the non-metaphysical
nature of Mahayana philosophy. If you do have a good reading knowledge of
at least one of the Buddhist cannonical languages then you and I have a
base on which to disagree in an academic context; otherwise we should
disagree on the basis of more "personal" or "spiritual" insights (or rather
prejudices).
I will readily admit that my interpretations (both personal and
academic) of Buddhism, etc., may be completely off the mark, but up until
now I have no reason to suspect they are COMPLETELY incorrect--but they are
to some extent, given my limited insight. What is of concern to me,
however, is this whole business of "Economic" spirituality; i.e., the
organizational set up whereby one is somehow "initiated" and therefore
given the "honor" of paying a guru thousands of dollars per year. This is
sheer non-sense to me. OK, I can see the need for some kind of payment for
the upkeep/maintenance of a spiritual setting, but set dues over $100 per
mo. is just.... (re: above). Shams are a serious problem in this country,
and it is painful for me to observe naive westerners romanticising and
finally getting caught in a spiritual (i.e. $$$) scam. THIS was the reason
for my previous posting. Several days ago I read that some group was about
to open up an "Enlightenment-Theme Park" in Orlando. I almost puked. What
the ... does a theme park have to do w/ the so called spiritual matters?
What is the difference between this and those money-grubbing Xtian
evangelicals you see on Sunday afternoons? But alas I have the horrible
feeling that I'm spitting in the wind.
I do think there are genuine teachers out there, who really do have
the compassion and wisdom to help us realize our true "self"; but I also
think there are many more charlatans who are all to eager to reveal the
Really Real REALITY--for a heavy price. BTW, don't you think Upa-Bove is
catchier name than Nome? I shouldn't have mentioned this on the net! :)
John
--
*******************************************************************************
-- John Cha
"The present is always more interesting than the future or the past"
*******************************************************************************