hearts and diamonds
Sep. 5th, 2012 01:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stormsewerYou know, I enjoy Buddhism. While I have been known to tease, and even get annoyed with the practical implementations, it is arguably my favorite spiritual tradition. I like that the holy texts often encourage you to make your own decisions, and don't necessarily insist that you believe in metaphysical theories for which there is no evidence. Your mileage may vary when it comes to actual Buddhist institutions, of course, because, unlike spiritual speeches and writings, institutions need to find ways to induce cohesion (conformity) in order to last very long.
Anyway, I've been (re)reading some sutras lately. I really enjoy the Heart Sutra, though sometimes it comes off like a clever joke. It has that classic "emptiness is form, form is emptiness" line, and the way I understand much of the rest of it (as a result of reading Red Pine's book on the subject) makes me think that whoever wrote it found all the interminable lists that some forms of Buddhism so enjoy to be as annoying and pointless as I do.
So the author goes on with all this high-flying post-conceptual language, pointing out the silliness of so much of Buddhist doctrine, then going on to tell you what the real deal is. And the real deal is...
A mantra.
A mantra? Really? I don't know what I was expecting, but after having this prajnaparamita business built up so much, being given a string of meaningless syllables is a bit disappointing, don't you think? The Dalai Lama apparently says the mantra means something like go, go, go beyond, go thoroughly beyond, and establish yourself in enlightenment. Which is nice, I suppose, but the interpretation I wish to be true in my heart of hearts is that whoever wrote that sutra was a troll playing the greatest practical joke in all of Buddhism. It makes me smile to think of it that way.
I also read the Diamond Sutra for the first time lately. I first encountered this in Kerouac's Dharma Bums, where he quotes it as saying "Practice charity without holding in mind any conceptions about charity, for charity is after all just a word." I always liked that, as I like Buddhism's not uncommon emphasis on not mistaking symbols for the things themselves, and on examining your motivations for doing good.
Following are a couple of the passages from the Diamond Sutra that have stuck in my mind so far:
“Subhuti, what do you think? Does an arhat have the thought, ‘I have attained the realization of the arhat’?” Subhuti said, “No, World Honored One. Why not? There is, in reality, no such a thing called ‘arhat.’ World Honored One, if an arhat should give rise to the thought, ‘I have attained the realization of the arhat’, this means that he is attached to the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life span.
The idea that the truly enlightened person does not know or care that they are enlightened really appeals to me. It allows me to fantasize that enlightenment is actually possible, while validating the distrust I feel for most (all?) of those who claim to actually be enlightened. It reminds me of one my favorite Tao Te Ching lines: "Those who know don't say, those who say, don't know."
“Subhuti, what do you think? If there were as many Ganges Rivers as the grains of sand in the Ganges, wouldn’t the amount of sand contained in all those Ganges Rivers be great?” Subhuti said, “Extremely great, World Honored One. If even the number of the Ganges Rivers is innumerable, how much more so their grains of sand?” “Subhuti, now I tell you truthfully: If a good man or good woman filled as many trichiliocosms as the grains of sand in all those Ganges Rivers with the seven jewels, and gave them away in charity, wouldn’t this merit be great?” “Extremely great, World Honored One.” The Buddha said to Subhuti: “If a good man or good woman is able to comprehend and follow a four-line verse of this sutra and teach it to others, their merit will be far greater.”
So on the one hand we've got something I really enjoy about Buddhist scriptures: the elegant evocation of ridiculously large numbers. I love the combination in Buddhism of all these grand cosmic visions simultaneously with the idea that everything you need to understand can be found in a single flower.
On the other hand, this idea that who you are, what you think, and what you say is more important than what you actually do is something that annoys me. Some version of this sentiment shows up in a lot of religions. As Bertrand Russell explained it in "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?":
"The natural impulse of the vigorous person of decent character is to attempt to do good, but if he is deprived of all political power and of all opportunity to influence events, he will be deflected from his natural course and will decide that the important thing is to be good. This is what happened to the early Christians; it led to a conception of personal holiness as something quite independent of beneficient action, since holiness had to be something that could be achieved by people who were impotent in action. Social virtue came therefore to be excluded from Christian ethics. To this day conventional Christians think an adulterer more wicked than a politician who takes bribes, although the latter probably does a thousand times as much harm. ... The church would never regard a man as a saint because he reformed the finances, or the criminal law, or the judiciary. Such mere contributions to human welfare would be regarded as of no importance."
How much this idea of powerlessness leading to different ideals of morality applies to the early Buddhists, I'm not sure, but there is definitely a strong trend in Buddhism to think that sitting and staring at a wall all day every day is more to be esteemed than getting your hands dirty in the actual work of trying to make the world a nicer place to live. Of course there are all kinds of rationalizations for this, many of which almost make sense if you believe in reincarnation and are assuming we'll all continue to exist indefinitely, and certainly there are plenty of Buddhists out there working to make the world a better place. But a simple admission that what you do, and not what you think or feel or believe, is essentially who you are as far as objective reality is concerned would be nice. But maybe that's just the perspective of a dirty humanist/materialist. I know you can also interpret it as meaning something along the lines of "doing something good is not as important as being the kind of person who habitually does good and induces others to do good, too," but I'm unconvinced that's quite what it's saying.
Some version of this "doing ridiculous amounts of good is not nearly as awesome as learning a part of this sutra and teaching it to others" refrain is repeated over and over in the Diamond Sutra. It actually makes the whole thing feel rather like a chain letter. "Email this sutra to five people, and you will get two septillion karma points, and your crush will ask you out. SRSLY, this is not a hoax its 4 REAL." Another practical joke become revered holy writ?
(Actually, seen as memes that have proven particularly adept at replicating themselves, most of the major religions bear some resemblance to chain letters.)
I suppose this may sound disrespectful to some people. But I've long since abandoned the all-or-nothing approach to reading religious texts, the idea that you must find a way to contort your reasoning faculties and twist all of it into some kind of sense if you are to accept it at all. I want to read widely and critically; I want to take in what I like while enjoying the rest. Religious partisans tend to look down their noses at this sort of "salad bar spirituality," but reading Joseph Campbell pretty well eradicated any remaining shame I might have had about that.
“Furthermore, Subhuti, all dharmas are equal, none is superior or inferior. This is called unsurpassed complete enlightenment. When one cultivates all good without the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a lifespan, one attains unsurpassed complete enlightenment. Subhuti, the Tathagata teaches that good is not good, therefore it is good.”
("X is not X, therefore it is (called) X" is another motif repeated over and over in the Diamond Sutra. My interpretation of that is "the word for X is not X itself, it is merely a label," but I can't say for sure that's what is really meant. Buddhism is fond of spouting paradoxes, which is another thing I enjoy about it.)
Uncritically accepting everything in a religious text or tradition is a childish approach to spirituality. We need to learn to make our own value judgments, and not just let others make them for us.
Of course, as mentioned earlier, you won't find too many religious institutions that do much more than give lip service to this idea, since your organization won't last too long if everyone in it is allowed to come up with their own ideas about what the organization should stand for and what it should be pursuing. That's just the practical reality of such things, but you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical of such organizations (cf. the Rhinoceros Sutra).
those who see me in form,
or seek me through sound,
are on a mistaken path;
they do not see the Tathagata.
Am I a Buddhist? I'm not sure. Depends on what you think that means, I guess. Personally, I'm not particularly enthused about signing up for labels anymore.
all conditioned phenomena
are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow,
like dew or a flash of lightning;
thus we shall perceive them
Anyway, the Heart and Diamond sutras I've discussed here are both Mahayana works that date to several hundreds of years after the historical Buddha actually lived. I've recently downloaded a bunch of stuff from the Pali Canon, much of which is (arguably) about as close to the original source as you can get. So that will be fun. Maybe I'll report here on what I think.
Anyway, I've been (re)reading some sutras lately. I really enjoy the Heart Sutra, though sometimes it comes off like a clever joke. It has that classic "emptiness is form, form is emptiness" line, and the way I understand much of the rest of it (as a result of reading Red Pine's book on the subject) makes me think that whoever wrote it found all the interminable lists that some forms of Buddhism so enjoy to be as annoying and pointless as I do.
So the author goes on with all this high-flying post-conceptual language, pointing out the silliness of so much of Buddhist doctrine, then going on to tell you what the real deal is. And the real deal is...
A mantra.
A mantra? Really? I don't know what I was expecting, but after having this prajnaparamita business built up so much, being given a string of meaningless syllables is a bit disappointing, don't you think? The Dalai Lama apparently says the mantra means something like go, go, go beyond, go thoroughly beyond, and establish yourself in enlightenment. Which is nice, I suppose, but the interpretation I wish to be true in my heart of hearts is that whoever wrote that sutra was a troll playing the greatest practical joke in all of Buddhism. It makes me smile to think of it that way.
I also read the Diamond Sutra for the first time lately. I first encountered this in Kerouac's Dharma Bums, where he quotes it as saying "Practice charity without holding in mind any conceptions about charity, for charity is after all just a word." I always liked that, as I like Buddhism's not uncommon emphasis on not mistaking symbols for the things themselves, and on examining your motivations for doing good.
Following are a couple of the passages from the Diamond Sutra that have stuck in my mind so far:
“Subhuti, what do you think? Does an arhat have the thought, ‘I have attained the realization of the arhat’?” Subhuti said, “No, World Honored One. Why not? There is, in reality, no such a thing called ‘arhat.’ World Honored One, if an arhat should give rise to the thought, ‘I have attained the realization of the arhat’, this means that he is attached to the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life span.
The idea that the truly enlightened person does not know or care that they are enlightened really appeals to me. It allows me to fantasize that enlightenment is actually possible, while validating the distrust I feel for most (all?) of those who claim to actually be enlightened. It reminds me of one my favorite Tao Te Ching lines: "Those who know don't say, those who say, don't know."
“Subhuti, what do you think? If there were as many Ganges Rivers as the grains of sand in the Ganges, wouldn’t the amount of sand contained in all those Ganges Rivers be great?” Subhuti said, “Extremely great, World Honored One. If even the number of the Ganges Rivers is innumerable, how much more so their grains of sand?” “Subhuti, now I tell you truthfully: If a good man or good woman filled as many trichiliocosms as the grains of sand in all those Ganges Rivers with the seven jewels, and gave them away in charity, wouldn’t this merit be great?” “Extremely great, World Honored One.” The Buddha said to Subhuti: “If a good man or good woman is able to comprehend and follow a four-line verse of this sutra and teach it to others, their merit will be far greater.”
So on the one hand we've got something I really enjoy about Buddhist scriptures: the elegant evocation of ridiculously large numbers. I love the combination in Buddhism of all these grand cosmic visions simultaneously with the idea that everything you need to understand can be found in a single flower.
On the other hand, this idea that who you are, what you think, and what you say is more important than what you actually do is something that annoys me. Some version of this sentiment shows up in a lot of religions. As Bertrand Russell explained it in "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?":
"The natural impulse of the vigorous person of decent character is to attempt to do good, but if he is deprived of all political power and of all opportunity to influence events, he will be deflected from his natural course and will decide that the important thing is to be good. This is what happened to the early Christians; it led to a conception of personal holiness as something quite independent of beneficient action, since holiness had to be something that could be achieved by people who were impotent in action. Social virtue came therefore to be excluded from Christian ethics. To this day conventional Christians think an adulterer more wicked than a politician who takes bribes, although the latter probably does a thousand times as much harm. ... The church would never regard a man as a saint because he reformed the finances, or the criminal law, or the judiciary. Such mere contributions to human welfare would be regarded as of no importance."
How much this idea of powerlessness leading to different ideals of morality applies to the early Buddhists, I'm not sure, but there is definitely a strong trend in Buddhism to think that sitting and staring at a wall all day every day is more to be esteemed than getting your hands dirty in the actual work of trying to make the world a nicer place to live. Of course there are all kinds of rationalizations for this, many of which almost make sense if you believe in reincarnation and are assuming we'll all continue to exist indefinitely, and certainly there are plenty of Buddhists out there working to make the world a better place. But a simple admission that what you do, and not what you think or feel or believe, is essentially who you are as far as objective reality is concerned would be nice. But maybe that's just the perspective of a dirty humanist/materialist. I know you can also interpret it as meaning something along the lines of "doing something good is not as important as being the kind of person who habitually does good and induces others to do good, too," but I'm unconvinced that's quite what it's saying.
Some version of this "doing ridiculous amounts of good is not nearly as awesome as learning a part of this sutra and teaching it to others" refrain is repeated over and over in the Diamond Sutra. It actually makes the whole thing feel rather like a chain letter. "Email this sutra to five people, and you will get two septillion karma points, and your crush will ask you out. SRSLY, this is not a hoax its 4 REAL." Another practical joke become revered holy writ?
(Actually, seen as memes that have proven particularly adept at replicating themselves, most of the major religions bear some resemblance to chain letters.)
I suppose this may sound disrespectful to some people. But I've long since abandoned the all-or-nothing approach to reading religious texts, the idea that you must find a way to contort your reasoning faculties and twist all of it into some kind of sense if you are to accept it at all. I want to read widely and critically; I want to take in what I like while enjoying the rest. Religious partisans tend to look down their noses at this sort of "salad bar spirituality," but reading Joseph Campbell pretty well eradicated any remaining shame I might have had about that.
“Furthermore, Subhuti, all dharmas are equal, none is superior or inferior. This is called unsurpassed complete enlightenment. When one cultivates all good without the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a lifespan, one attains unsurpassed complete enlightenment. Subhuti, the Tathagata teaches that good is not good, therefore it is good.”
("X is not X, therefore it is (called) X" is another motif repeated over and over in the Diamond Sutra. My interpretation of that is "the word for X is not X itself, it is merely a label," but I can't say for sure that's what is really meant. Buddhism is fond of spouting paradoxes, which is another thing I enjoy about it.)
Uncritically accepting everything in a religious text or tradition is a childish approach to spirituality. We need to learn to make our own value judgments, and not just let others make them for us.
Of course, as mentioned earlier, you won't find too many religious institutions that do much more than give lip service to this idea, since your organization won't last too long if everyone in it is allowed to come up with their own ideas about what the organization should stand for and what it should be pursuing. That's just the practical reality of such things, but you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical of such organizations (cf. the Rhinoceros Sutra).
those who see me in form,
or seek me through sound,
are on a mistaken path;
they do not see the Tathagata.
Am I a Buddhist? I'm not sure. Depends on what you think that means, I guess. Personally, I'm not particularly enthused about signing up for labels anymore.
all conditioned phenomena
are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow,
like dew or a flash of lightning;
thus we shall perceive them
Anyway, the Heart and Diamond sutras I've discussed here are both Mahayana works that date to several hundreds of years after the historical Buddha actually lived. I've recently downloaded a bunch of stuff from the Pali Canon, much of which is (arguably) about as close to the original source as you can get. So that will be fun. Maybe I'll report here on what I think.
