japlady@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rebecca Radnor) (05/07/91)
Regarding Madhyamika and Vedanta (re J, Wheeler); I do agree that there
are parallels between the two traditions, especially their respective
emphasis on uprooting erroneous conceptualizations. Although many
of the differences are merely semantic I think there are some major
"disagreements". As I understand advaita vedanta, one of the basic
doctrines is that of sat-cit-ananda, or Being, Consciousness, and Bliss;
these designations describe Brahman (of course we cannot really talk about
characteristcs of Brahman since Brahman is w/out a second) and imply an
underlying unchanging Reality covered by the illusory perception of change
and multiplicity. This assumption is one that the Madhyamika denies
totally; in fact there is no Reality in the vedantic sense for the
Madhyamika. The only Truth is the identity between emptiness and dependent
co-arising, which simply means that any phenomenon in and of itself. Many
Indian scholars and westerners trained in Indian philosophy in general have
given quasi-vedantic interpretations of Madhyamika. There is also this odd
notion of the perennial philosophy of the "East" which results in a
"Hinduistic" interpretation of all asian religions if not all religions.
Others of Xtian persuasion try (at leasst used to) to interpret emptiness
in terms of the Wholly/Holy Other which has ethnocentric/racist
implications. If one is really interested in comparing madhyamika with
other 'systems' you should ask the following question; is this system's
concept of the Absolute necessary for its coherence? E.g., can you toss
out your beleifs in Brahman/Atman or God, etc? Is one willing to even
consider that nivana IS samsara?
As far as the statement "the buddha is your own mind": this is
equivalent to "your everyday life is enlightenment" which brings us back to
Nagarjuna's statement 'nirvana is no other than samsara, samsara no other
than nirvana'. If we can talk about a 'Truth' in buddhism, particularly
zen, it is that the moment to moment presencing of all things is the truth;
i.e., lets not waste time searching for some underlying reality.
Regarding my own experience in actual practice, I've been sitting
(zazen) for 10 years. This of course neither lends credence to nor takes
away from the above comments.
(J. Cha c/o Japlady) johnw@ready.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May6.224737.17589@nas.nasa.gov> japlady@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rebecca Radnor) writes: > > Regarding Madhyamika and Vedanta (re J, Wheeler); I do agree that there >are parallels between the two traditions, especially their respective >emphasis on uprooting erroneous conceptualizations. Although many >of the differences are merely semantic I think there are some major >"disagreements". As I understand advaita vedanta, one of the basic >doctrines is that of sat-cit-ananda, or Being, Consciousness, and Bliss; >these designations describe Brahman (of course we cannot really talk about >characteristcs of Brahman since Brahman is w/out a second) and imply an >underlying unchanging Reality covered by the illusory perception of change >and multiplicity. This assumption is one that the Madhyamika denies >totally; in fact there is no Reality in the vedantic sense for the >Madhyamika.... The position that Buddhism denies an ulitmate reality is not really supported in the texts I am familiar with. For example, the Ch'an master Huang Po says: "This Pure Mind the source of everything shines forever and on all with the brilliance of its of its own perfection." Hui Neng, the sixth patriarch of Ch'an Buddhism, according to the sutra which bears his name, uttered these words upon attaining enlightment: "Who would have known that my mind is intrinsically pure? Who would have that my mind is forever free from change? Who would have known it gives rise to this manifested world? Who would have known I would find that the Buddha is the light in my own mind?" Bankei: "That which is unborn, is the Buddha-mind. The Buddha-mind is unborn and marvelously illuminating. See this Buddha-mind right within yourself and from today you'll abide in the Buddha-mind and be a living Buddha forever." Padma Sambhava: "All hail to the One Mind that embraces the whole Samsara and Nirvana. That eternally is as it is, yet is unknown. That, although ever clear and ever existing, is not visible. That, although radiant and unobscured, is not recognised... The realization of the One Mind constitutes elightenment." Are not these Buddhists talking about an ulitmate reality? You will notice some interesting parellels here with Vedanta. First, this reality is within us. Second, it is of the nature of consciousness. Thirdly, it is eternal. Comments? As a final point, I think the assumption that when Hui Neng said, "Your own mind is the Buddha," he meant that everyday life is enlightment seems questionable to me. Zen philosphers may interpret it this way, but if you refer to the source texts (Chinese) it seems pretty clear that he probably meant it just like he said it: You are the Buddha. As for zazen, and such techniques I am sure he would have thoroughly disapproved of them. He is quite emphatic that Buddhism has nothing to do with sitting, thought control, breathing or any such practices. Since he never did these things himself it is not suprising. It is an interesting question to ask what relation modern Zen has to its illustrious predecessor Ch'an. Most people assume they are the same teaching, but it is fairly clear that they are not. (At least I think so.) In the sixteenth century (?) when Bankei sought a competent master to guide him in his quest for the truth, he says he could find no one in Japan who could give him the necessary guidance, i.e. there were no real enlightened masters in the country. Through his own efforts (and after making a lot of wrong turns) he says he finally awakened to the "unborn" Buddha-mind. There were of course a lot of monasteries and roshi's etc., but the flame of the living Dharma had long since died. Even Zen practioners who later came to him admitted that they had only the dead words and rituals whereas Bankei was the Buddha himself! Has the situation improved in modern times? Bankei said that the easiest way to become a Buddha was to listen to the Dharma in his presence. (An interesting parallel with the Indian tradition of Satsang. Ramana Maharshi is recorded as saying: If the company of an enlightened sage is obtained, of what use are the various forms of discipline? Of what use is a fan when the cool southern breeze is blowing?) I always feel a twinge when I hear how long some people have been going at the practice of zazen. Since neither the Buddha (as far as I can tell), Hui Neng, Huang Po, Bankei, Raman Maharshi, nor any enlightened sage I am aware of practiced zazen, I always wonder what it is practitioners are trying to attain by it? johnw