Use emptiness to observe emptiness,
And see there is no emptiness.
When even emptiness is no more,
There is no more non-being either.
what caught my attention was the similarity with Nagarjuna's comments on 'the emptiness of emptiness' in Chapter XXIV of the Mulamadhyamakakarika (Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way), primarily to combat the adoption of sunyata as view (the whole purport of Nagarjuna's opus is diametrically opposed to such, being as it is concerned with the extinguishing of views), and thus somehow inherent essence of phenomena.
i'm certainly not brave or clever enough to launch into a discussion on either text, instead what interested me was the idea of exchange and cross-pollination between various spiritual traditions and Buddhism that this similarity presents.
in the history of most monotheistic religions "might is right" always seems to have paved the way for their development outside their country of origin. indeed, early histories can often be read as blood-bespattered accounts of the usurping of old and heathen, idolotrous ways. Buddhism on the other hand, seems to have displayed the curious tendency to absorb the existent beliefs and customs of other traditions into its own lore and canon wherever it has taken root.
some Buddhists argue that this process is a bad thing, that it muddies and distorts the true intention of the Buddha's teaching and introduces concepts which are often flat out contradictory and incompatible with the doctrines of anatman, co-dependent arising etc. i think there may well be in some cases some truth in this pov (eg. ancestor worship as syncretic practice in early Chinese Buddhism's history and still prevelent to some extent today) but by and large such an attitude has us chasing after a false chimera of 'Pure Buddhism' which taken to the worst conclusion can erupt in sectarian dispute.
ultimately such blending and adaptability, be it the absorption of the Shinto kami into the Bodhisattva canon, the adoption of Bon Gods and Demons as Vajra Dharma Protectors or the transformation prevelent in Goddess Tara's course from the Hindu to the Buddhist tradition are all things to be admired and appreciated. it certainly beats the hell out of running after their worshippers weilding a flaming sword, yelling "repent or be damned!" and i like to take it as as upaya, a skillfull means less obnoxious than heavy-fisted evangelising and more welcoming than raving threats of hellfire.
while the above examples i give are concerned only with pantheon i guess the more difficult issue is the one of adopting/adapting and exchanging practice (we've been here before). for example whilst the Qinjing jing quote may well appear to fit neatly alongside Nagarjuna's expounding of 'the emptiness of emptiness', and i'm presuming the word was adopted by the Taoists from the Buddhist tradition, i can't say i know there's no varience in meaning of the terminology between the two (i might be able to return to that matter with more confidence at a later date, then again i might not). and if a varience does indeed exist then wouldn't it by rights effect the very value and purport of a given practice once uprooted and transplanted?
i guess in terms of the Dharma, for each step we put forward we should pause to remind ourselves of the following -
If it counteracts negative emotions it is Dharma. If it doesn't, it is non-Dharma.
If it doesn't fit with wordly ways it is Dharma. If it does, it is non-Dharma.
If it fits with the scriptures and your instructions it is Dharma. If it doesn't
fit, it is non-Dharma.
If it leaves a positive imprint it is Dharma. If it leaves a negative imprint it
is non-Dharma
- Patrul Rinpoche, Words of My Perfect Teacher
- perhaps then we can proceed with some level of confidence.
namu amida butsu
I agree. There is much cross-pollination. The Buddha's tacit acceptance of the prevalent Vedic cosmology, is one example. I think Patrul Rinpoche's words sum up my view about this topic.
ReplyDeleteIf only, but with the exception of the first of Patrul Rinpoche's guidelines the others are all pretty relative. Definitions of worldliness, acceptance of certain scriptures, and what is positive or negative are all subject of vigorous debate within and between Buddhist traditions!
ReplyDeleteOn the spread of Buddhism and violence thing though check this out: http://www.currentintelligence.net/reviews/2010/8/2/buddhist-warfare.html
ReplyDeleteesp:
"[in early Buddhism] While the autonomous communities of full-time Buddhist practitioners (sangha) were supposed to eschew violence, the mundane world was seen as inherently chaotic and thus in need of “those who administer torture and maiming” (Vinaya)--that is, kings. Never tired of admonishing kings to rule in a benevolent way which would render royal violence unnecessary, Buddha tacitly accepted, however, the reality of dog-eat-dog interstate competition--the quid pro quo being what Jerryson justly defines as “monks’ immunity to state rules”. These patterns of Buddhist collaboration with state powers were eventually cemented with the incipience of modern nationalism, as whole nations (Śrī Lanka, Thailand, etc.) were seen now as “Buddhist,” their warfare being inescapably legitimized in religious terms."
and:
"the historical Buddha and his disciples ... tacitly acknowledg[ed] state violence and accept[ed] sponsorship from ruling-class personages directly or indirectly implicated in all sorts of violence "
There's a disturbing Dhammapada Commentary (http://bit.ly/cgv7Ob) where it is said that "after Moggallāna was killed by thieves, spies were sent out by the king to discover the murderers. When arrested, the murderers confessed that they had been incited by the Niganthas. The king thereupon buried five hundred Niganthas waist-deep in pits dug in the palace court and had their heads ploughed off."
"Definitions of worldliness, acceptance of certain scriptures, and what is positive or negative are all subject of vigorous debate within and between Buddhist traditions!"
ReplyDeletevery true, nonetheless i'd like to think some common points are agreed on. perhaps the thing to do is take it in the context of one's own tradition?
as regards the matter of violence in Buddhism's early history, i guess i'm as guilty as anyone of seeing it through false rose-tinted specs. Power-play and politics does seem to be the trend in most religions early history sadly doesn't it? And i guess it's important to acknowledge that goes for Buddhism as much as any other. (from your first link) -
"What remains to be desired[...]is a broader and stronger contextualization of Buddhist violence as part and parcel of a more general tendency of practically all religions to be violent. Religions are symbolic systems that organize the universe in such a way as to make themselves central and powerful--and closing the distance between “power” and “violence” is only a question of time, however “compassionate” the axiology of a given religion might originally have been. The present collection shows us very clearly the dangers inherent in privileging one religion--even a most “compassionate”-looking one--in relation to others."
important points, thankyou for highlighting them!
Thanks for responding Jon. As usual I'm not trying to be provocative but simply looking at the angles so please forgive me for taking up the first point again.
ReplyDelete"i'd like to think some common points are agreed on. perhaps the thing to do is take it in the context of one's own tradition?"
This is what I was wondering about on 'Echoes of the Name' a while ago ... maybe we all agree on certain things in the abstract but real life isn't black and white, as the Kiyozawa quote I posted the other day alludes to, and the choices that confront us rarely correspond to clear cut "positive or negative" analysis. The question of abortion in certain circumstances may be a good example of this. My reading on the subject, though relatively superficial, has suggested to me that globally the grouping of attitudes towards this subject amongst Buddhists tends to correlate more closely to geographical and social factors (e.g. urban versus rural, non-educated versus educated, affluent versus deprived, etc) than the orthodox ethical position of the Buddhist religious tradition to which they adhere. In other words Buddhists don't live in a vacuum and whether we admit it or not we each operate a personal hierarchy of values (which may be more or less stable) in which Buddhist teachings do not hold absolute sway - no matter how devout the individual.
as i've said before, please - no-one worry about how appropriate their response is on a blog called blathering nonsense ok? :)
ReplyDeletei actually appreciate you making me look at things deeper than the surface level, which is where i usually hang out.
as you know, we had a good chat about this last night - i agree things are rarely black and white, and we don't live in a vacuum. we do have to presume though that for anyone who's experienced a truth on their given spiritual path, a fundamental shift will occur. perhaps confronted unexpectedly with a given obstacle then the way that shift manifests is more instinctive but i'd like to think the intent shared by those individuals - no matter how different their individual reactions might be - is always one of benefiting others, which prior to may not have occured.
yup, very tricky topic and one that definitely merits further thinking and discussion!