simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (05/29/91)
> John Cha (dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu) > Just a trivia comment; your description of the 'stream of >consciousness', i.e., that apart from the ripples of the stream there is no >stream, is a basic notion in early vijnapti-matra doctrine... >... When we realize that >there is the 'flow-only' this is liberation, not from the world but inherent >in it. Are you familiar with the vijnapti-matrata school? I had never heard of it until I read your recent post about it, which I enjoyed very much. My ideas about this come mostly from my study and practice of Zen. Although Zen Buddhists frequently make references to "self-nature", "mind- essence", "Buddha-Mind", etc., I think it is a mistake to think that those words refer to some kind of universal subjective substance, like Brahman or Atman. You can get some hint about it from assertions about the "emptiness" of "self-nature", but even that conjures up images of some kind of "negative substance". The words can be very misleading, if you get too hung up on them. In Zen, it is the experience that counts. Hui-Neng talked quite a bit about "self nature" and "mind only"; but he also said "From the first, not a thing is." Quite a bit of insight into Zen can be gotten from reading the prajna-paramita sutras upon which it is based. D.T. Suzuki's translations, and his essays and commentaries on those sutras are also quite good. In the Lankavatara Sutra, a standard favorite among Zen Buddhists, Buddha expounds a doctrine of "Appearance-Only", which he also refers to as "Mind-Only", and he warns that all concepts of an ego-substance are false. >From the Lankavatara Sutra, I get a strong feeling that Buddha would regard the idea of an ultimate ego-substance as the ultimate falsehood. He exhorts his followers to abandon all such ideas. In fact, he declares that it is attachment to concepts that is the cause of all ignorance. He makes it clear that the concept of a subjective substance is no exception. In the Vajracchedikka Sutra, another Zen favorite, Buddha says that he does not cling to any idea of "an ego, a person, a being, and a soul", and he advises the Bodhisattvas against clinging to such ideas. At one point, he makes a statement that goes something like this: "We say there is a Reality, but in truth, there is no such Reality, therefore we call it the true Reality." Elsewhere, he makes other similar statements. This is a good clue that words like "Reality" and "Self-Nature" in Buddhism should not be taken at face value, since they do not signify any kind of substance or thing. In the Hridaya Sutra, also standard Zen fare, the declaration is made that "Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. There is no form except emptiness and no emptiness except form." (I'm quoting from memory, so I might not have the wording exactly right - but that's the gist of it). This is probably the clearest expression of the Zen doctrine that Nirvana and Samsara are one and the same, with no underlying substances or entities (hence "emptiness"). As far as I can tell, this is the same as what you describe as the vijnapti-matra doctrine. I practice a type of Zen meditation which has its origins in the Surangama Sutra. There are four stages, in which belief in subject/object duality is abandoned at progressively subtler levels. In the fourth stage, one enters a state known as the "relative voidness", in which there is still a trace of dualistic thinking. There is a sense that there is some "mind" or "mind substance" that is the medium for the state of voidness. Though subtle, the attachment to subject/object duality is present. This is the proverbial "top of the 1000-foot pole", from which one must make the final leap. There is no more possibility of gradual progress. Clinging to dualistic ideas must be abandoned completely. In the Surangama Sutra, Avalokitesvara describes this last leap: "When the state and the idea of a state were both realized as non-existent, the voidness was all-pervading. After the elimination of subject and object relative to voidness, creation and annihilation were non-existent, and the state of Nirvana was manifest." The elimination of subject and object requires the abandonment of both the idea of a subjective substance and the idea of a "state". One interesting thing about this doctrine is that, although it denies the existence of any kind of entity or substance, it does not fall into a nihilistic belief. When the belief in entities and substance is gone, when the subject/object duality is abandoned, there is still the continual flow of "empty" appearance. This is where Nirvana and Samsara are experienced as one and the same. Ordinary, everyday experience is truly seen as Reality; but it is an "empty" Reality, with no substantiality. If you get attached to an idea that it is some kind of an existent substance, you fall back into false conceptualization. The only way to find it is to forget about it - to leap from the top of the pole. It all sounds quite paradoxical when it is expressed in dualistic language. I think it's important to remember that the words and theories are all intended as "skillful means", to guide us to the flowing experience, where the words and theories are ALL left behind. I wonder if there is some historical link between the vijnapti-matra school and Zen. Perhaps they based their doctrines on the same set of sutras. Do you know of any such link? -- (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))tom simmonds)))))))))))))))))))) (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))) "True beauty consists in purity of heart." - Mahatma Gandhi ))))))))
dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) (05/31/91)
Tod,
I (obviously) agree with your explanation of mahayana buddhist
doctrine. The Prajna-paramita Sutras marked the beginning of mahayana as a
distinct 'branch' of buddhism, and the madhyamika school of nagarjuna was
the foundation of all philosophical developments in mahayana.
Vijnapti-matra was a further development from the madhyamika, the
difference being that it analyzed the structure of consciousness as the
ground for either awakening or illusion. Of course, consciousness is not
some absolute, in fact its inherent nature is emptiness characterized as
the sheer absence of subject and object.
Definitely the foundations of zen (and all other mahayana schools) are
to be traced to both the madhyamika and vijnapti-matra. The history of
chinese buddhist thought is a complex affair, but the major developments in
doctrine followed the implantation of madhyamika (by kumarajiva 4th A.D?)
and vijnapti-matra (by paramartha 499-590 AD, and Hsuan Tsang 600-664 AD).
You can definitly see these influences in zen literature--any type of
negation, ie, "from the first not a thing is" is madhyamikan in nature, and
references to One-mind, Buddha-mind, etc, is from vijnapti-matra.
I was wondering if the school of zen you practice is related to the
chinese Tsao-tung; I recall the four stages you discussed mentioned in some
literature of the above named school. Also, who is your roshi? (I'm
assuming you have a teacher. If I'm wrong, sorry)
J.C.
--
*******************************************************************************
-- John Cha
"The present is always more interesting than the future or the past"
*******************************************************************************