The Tree of Enlightenment
An Introduction to the Major Traditions of Buddhism
by Peter Della Santina
---o0o---
Part Two
The Mahayana
---o0o---
Chapter Twenty
The Development of Mahayana Philosophy
In this chapter I would like to consider the further
development of
Mahayana
philosophy in India, the relationship between the Middle Way philosophy
and the Mind
Only philosophy, and how these two influence the religious and
practical traditions of
Buddhism. We have discussed the Middle Way and Mind Only philosophies
in Chapters
18 and 19, but have merely sketched the outlines of Mahayana
philosophy. The
philosophy of the Middle Way, as presented by Nagarjuna, and that of
Mind Only, as
presented by Asanga and Vasubandhu, are the twofold basis of the
Mahayana
tradition,
forming its general foundation as it evolved during the first four
centuries of the common
era.
This period was followed by another eight hundred years of
philosophical development
of the Mahayana tradition in India, not to mention its continuing
development in the other
countries of Asia to which Buddhism traveled--China, Korea, Japan,
Tibet, and
Mongolia. To gain a comprehensive picture of this development in India,
I would like to
trace the interaction between the Middle Way and Mind Only schools from
the fourth
century C.E. to the end of the first millennium.
Let us look first at what took place in the Middle Way school. The
principles set forth by
Nagarjuna were elaborated by his disciples and successors, beginning
with Aryadeva.
Whereas Nagarjuna's primary concern had been to establish the
authenticity of the
philosophy of emptiness in opposition to the earlier schools of
Buddhist philosophy,
Aryadeva's was to demonstrate that the philosophy of emptiness was
equally valid in the
case of the non-Buddhist Brahmanical and Vedantic schools.
The works of Nagarjuna and Aryadeva fall within the
formative and
fundamental period
of the philosophy of the Middle Way. The period after Nagarjuna saw the
emergence of
two Middle Way sub-schools, the Prasangika and the Svatantrika. The
division between
these two schools is based on how they present the philosophy of
emptiness.
When we discussed the philosophy of emptiness in Chapter 18, we spoke
about a
characteristic method of argument, the reductio ad absurdum, that
Middle Way
philosophers used to reject the positions advanced by their opponents.
In Sanskrit this
form of argument is called prasanga, and it was from this term that the
Prasangika school
took its name. Arguments ad absurdum are designed to expose
contradictions and
absurdities in opponents' positions. For example, the theory of
self-production (i.e., that
entities originate from existent things) was advocated by a rival of
the Prasangikas, the
Sankhya philosophical school. Self-production can be refuted by the
argument that if
entities originated from themselves, then they would go on originating
indefinitely and
we would have an endless series of reproductions of the same existing
entities. In other
words, there would be nothing new under the sun. The prasanga argument
is that entities
do not originate from themselves because they already exist, and the
origination of
something that already exists is plainly absurd. Besides, if existent
entities do originate,
then they will go on reproducing themselves ad infinitum.
Alternatively, one might reject the Sankhya theory of self-production
by means of a
syllogism. This form of argument is called an independent (svatantra)
argument, and it is
from this term that the Svatantrika school got its name. One might
illustrate this method
of argument by saying, 'Entities do not originate from themselves.'
This would be the
proposition, the first so-called member of an independent argument.
Then one might say,
'This is because they exist,' which would be the second member, the
reason of the
syllogism. Next, one might say, 'They exist like a jar does,' which
would be the
example, and the third and final member. By means of these three
members of a
syllogism, one might demonstrate the impossibility of origination from
self--the same
objective demonstrated by an argument ad absurdum.
We have, therefore, two forms of argument, a reduction and a syllogism
conforming to
the rules of formal logic. Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti are famous for
their expositions
championing the reductio ad absurdum, while Bhavaviveka is famous for
championing
syllogistic, independent argument. Both the Prasangika and the
Svatantrika school
enjoyed considerable popularity in India. The strength of the
Svatantrika school reflected
an increasing concern with conforming to accepted standards of logic.
It was common for
rival Indian philosophical schools to engage in public debates, which
tended to require
arguments that met accepted standards of validity. This led gradually
to more formal
requirements of discussion and influenced the philosophical arguments
of the Middle
Way school, contributing to the popularity of the Svatantrika
sub-school, which favored
the use of independent argument. This trend even led the Prasangika
sub-school to
gradually refine and formalize its argument ad absurdum, so that within
the course of a
few hundred years, a much more formal presentation of the philosophy of
emptiness
emerged.
Just as this was taking place within the Middle Way school,
developments were also
occurring within the Mind Only school. The next significant Mind Only
philosophers in
India were the fifth century Buddhist logicians Dinnaga and
Dharmakirti, who also
played a significant role in the development of the Mind Only
philosophy. They rejected
the existence of the objects of consciousness--of forms, sounds, and so
forth--present in
experience, and are therefore known as the philosophers who reject the
representations of
consciousness. Whereas both Asanga and Vasubandhu affirmed the
existence of the
objects of consciousness, insofar as these participate in the reality
of mind, Dinnaga and
Dharmakirti maintained that, although the reality of consciousness is
indubitable, the
reality of the forms, or objects, of consciousness is not.
In about the eighth century C.E., there arose in India a figure of
note, a scholar who
made a very important contribution to the integration of these
different tendencies within
Mahayana philosophy. His name was Shantarakshita. In addition to the
fame he won as a
result of his philosophical and literary production, Shantarakshita was
the first to
introduce systematic Buddhist thought to Tibet. He formulated what we
now call the
syncretic or synthetic philosophy that unites in a systematic way the
philosophy of
emptiness and the philosophy of Mind Only.
We have discussed the importance of mind in the thought of the Middle
Way school, and
also the parallelism between conventional truth and ultimate truth on
the one hand and
the illusory and perfected natures on the other. We indicated the
parallel status of mind,
interdependence, and the dependent nature in the Middle Way and Mind
Only schools
(see Chapter 19). What we have in the thought of Shantarakshita is a
systematic
integration of the major tenets of the Middle Way and the Mind Only
schools, so
that
emptiness is acknowledged to be consistent with ultimate truth and the
perfected nature,
while the creative nature of consciousness is acknowledged to be
consistent with the
conventional truth and the illusory nature.
In addition to the reconciliation and stratification of the principle
tenets of these two
schools, Shantarakshita's philosophy integrates the elements of logical
argument and
treats systematically the role of mind in the origination and cessation
of suffering. In his
syncretic philosophy we have what we might term the apex of the
development of
Mahayana philosophy in India, in that Shantarakshita correlated and
synthesized, in one
coherent philosophical system, the principal insights of outstanding
Mahayana masters
like Nagarjuna, Asanga, and Vasubandhu.
The synthesis of the tenets of emptiness and Mind Only had a direct and
determining
impact on the two major traditions that grew out of Mahayana
philosophy: (1) the
Vajrayana, which held sway in Tibet and Mongolia, and (2) the Ch'an Zen
tradition,
which was predominant in China and Japan. Although these two traditions
of practice
differ markedly in the forms of their religious expression, both rely
very heavily on the
tenets of emptiness and Mind Only for their function and effectiveness.
In the Vajrayana, it is the philosophy of emptiness which supplies the
openness and
fluidity that allows for the transformation of phenomena from an impure
condition to a
pure condition. If entities had an independent and unchanging nature
and were therefore
not empty, it would be impossible to transform impure experience
saturated by suffering
into pure experience suffused by great bliss. While emptiness supplies
the ground upon
which this transformation can take place, mind supplies the effective
means of achieving
that transformation, because it is the mind that shapes and determines
the nature of our
experience. By controlling, disciplining, and manipulating the mind, we
can change our
experience from an impure experience to a pure experience. In the
theory and practice of
the Vajrayana tradition, emptiness and mind are indispensable--both
because, without
emptiness, transformation of things would be impossible, and because it
is mind that is
the key to and means of achieving that transformation.
In the Ch'an and Zen tradition, it is emptiness that is descriptive of
the real state of
things. It is the realization of emptiness that brings about the
transcendence of duality and
the attainment of enlightenment. And how is this emptiness realized in
this tradition? By
looking at the mind--by meditating on the nature of mind itself. Here,
as in the
Vajrayana, emptiness and mind perform similar functions and are
indispensable.
Emptiness is the ground of transformation, while mind accomplishes that
transformation.
Thus it is not coincidental that both the Vajrayana and the Ch'an and
Zen traditions look
to these fundamental ideas of the Indian Mahayana for their
inspiration. Nagarjuna and
Asanga are traditionally regarded as the founders of the Vajrayana
tradition; Nagarjuna is
also one of the early patriarchs of the Ch'an and Zen tradition.
Bodhidharma, who
introduced Ch'an to China, is said to have favored the Lankavatara
Sutra above all other
texts. In this way, the Middle Way and Mind Only schools played an
important role in the
development of the principal traditions of Mahayana practice throughout
Asia.Let us spend some time looking at the method of investigation that was
developed
in
India in line with the insights of the Middle Way and Mind Only
schools. The
fundamental division of experience into subject (nama) and object
(rupa), found in the
scheme of the five aggregates and in many of the analytical schemes of
the Abhidharma,
is also present in the Mahayana context. We can see the investigation
of reality unfolding
in this binary way with respect first to the object and then to the
subject.
In investigating the object and the subject, two methods are used that
we have
encountered in other Buddhist traditions also--namely, the analytical
method and the
relational method (see Chapter 16). Beginning with the object, we find
first an analytical
investigation of the object applied. This means, in the Mahayana
context, a consideration
of the infinite divisibility of the object. We have discussed the
importance of the infinite
divisibility of matter in the formulation of Mind Only philosophy (see
Chapter 19). Here,
too, we begin with the investigation and revelation of matter's
infinite divisibility.
This analytical investigation of the object is followed by a relational
investigation of the
object, which reveals that the object depends on the subject--that is,
on consciousness. In
this way, we arrive at the rejection of the notion of an independent
object both
analytically and relationally.
We then proceed to analytical and relational investigation of the
subject, the mind itself.
When we investigate mind analytically, we do so in terms of its
characteristics. The
paradigm for this is in the Perfection of Wisdom literature, which
says, 'Examine the
mind: Is it long or short? Is it round or square? Is it white, blue, or
otherwise?' Such an
analytical investigation reveals that the mind is inherently
unidentifiable.
This analytical investigation of the subject is followed by a
relational investigation, which
reveals that the subject (mind) is relationally dependent on the
object. Shantideva, one of
the renowned masters of the Middle Way school said that, without an
object,
consciousness is unintelligible, incomprehensible. Consciousness must
have an object in
order to function, in order to exist. Consciousness independent of an
object is impossible.
Explanations of the truth of this statement date back a long way. For
example, in the
Abhidharma literature, it is said that consciousness arises dependent
on an object.
The analytical and relational investigations of object and subject lead
to an understanding
of reality as ineffable--as beyond existence and nonexistence, as empty
and luminous. In
the Mahayana tradition, this is the ultimate realization: Reality
cannot be described in
terms of existence and nonexistence. It is empty, luminous, and pure.
Reality is beyond
existence because all existence is relative and dependent. It is beyond
nonexistence
because, despite its emptiness and transience, reality does appear and
is experienced.
Therefore, reality is not altogether nonexistent.
You may recall our use of the word 'pure' as a synonym of empty. Here
we have another
word used, 'luminous.' You need not be confused by this. It is simply a
restatement of
that equivalence set forth in the Heart Sutra's assertion that
'Emptiness is form, and form
is emptiness.' Reality is not only empty: it is also form; it is also
luminous, bright with
the potential for appearance. This luminosity--this potential inherent
in the real state of
things--manifests itself to the impure, afflicted consciousness as
samsara, but it
manifests itself to the purified consciousness as the pure universe of
the exalted Buddhas
and Bodhisattvas. It is within the context of this luminosity, this
potential appearance of
reality, that we have the manifestation of the celestial Buddhas and
Bodhisattvas like
Amitabha, Akshobhya, Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, and the rest. They are
luminous,
pure, and the bright manifestation of reality--that reality which is
simultaneously
emptiness and luminosity, emptiness and purity. Emptiness and
luminosity are the
characteristics of reality that emerge from the Mahayanic investigation
of the subject and
object of experience.
Let me conclude by describing a practical mode of contemplation which
reflects this
progressive insight that eventually reveals the ineffable character of
the real. This
contemplative technique of meditation unfolds through four stages.
The first stage involves contemplation of the mind-dependent nature of
all experience. On
this stage we are asked to regard all experience as similar to a dream.
This is reinforced
by recourse to examples that illustrate the mind-dependent nature of
experience: not only
the experience of dreaming, which is perhaps the most telling but also
that of illness,
when one perceives a white conch as yellow because of jaundice, and the
experience of
altered perception as a result of the ingestion of hallucinogenic
substances.On the second stage we contemplate all experience being like a magical
show. Like
dreaming, this example has an old and venerable history in Buddhist
literature, both in
the Perfection of Wisdom discourses and in the writings of the Middle
Way and Mind
Only traditions. Here the example of a magical illusion is used as a
paradigm for
experience: When the apparatus needed to produce a magical illusion is
present, the
magical illusion appears, but when the apparatus is absent, the magical
illusion does not.
In the same way, entities appear only when the right causes and
conditions are present,
and fail to appear when the right causes and conditions are absent.
We might feel that this example of magical illusion is no longer
relevant today, but this is
not the case if we understand magical illusion in a broader sense. Some
of you may be
familiar with holography--the projection of a laser beam so as to
produce a three-
dimensional image of an object. The image does not really exist; if we
reach out for that
object--an apple, let us say--it is not there. When the holographic
apparatus is present,
the illusion of the three-dimensional object appears, but when it is
absent, the illusion
does not. Like a magical illusion and a holographic image, all
experiences appear relative
to the presence of certain causes and conditions, and do not appear
when the right causes
and conditions are not present.
On the third stage, we are encouraged to contemplate all experience as
relative, as
interdependent. This follows very closely from the consideration of all
experience as
similar to a magical illusion. All experience appears relative to
causes and conditions.The sprout exists relative to the seed, earth, water, sunlight, and
air. The flame in an oil
lamp exists relative to the wick and the oil. In this way all phenomena
appear relative to
causes and conditions, and all experience is interdependent.
The fourth stage in the process of progressive realization of the
ultimate nature of things
is contemplation of the inexpressibility of experience. The
interdependence of experience
means that experience is inexpressible in terms of existence and
nonexistence, identity
and difference, and so forth. Entities and their causes can be said to
be neither identical
nor different. For example, whether the sprout and the seed are
identical or different is
inexpressible: they cannot be described in terms of either identity or
difference.
Experience in general is intrinsically indescribable, like the
sensation of being tickled or
the feeling that ensues as a consequence of sexual intercourse.
Similarly, all entities that
exist dependent on causes and conditions are inexpressible in terms of
absolute existence
and nonexistence. Hence this last stage involves the contemplation of
all things as
inexpressible and ineffable.
By means of this four-stage process of contemplating all experience as
mind-dependent--
like a dream, like a magical illusion, interdependent, and, finally,
inexpressible--we can
arrive at some understanding of the Mahayana view of reality. For the
Mahayana
tradition, reality is empty, luminous, and beyond existence and
nonexistence, identity and
difference, and all the other dichotomies of discriminating thought.
---o0o---
Contents
|
01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11
| 12 | 13
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41
---o0o---
Layout: Nhi Tuong
Update : 11-05-2002
