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
