This is another great post! I read it a few days ago but didn't have time to respond then.
In Jodo Shinshu, Shinran's largest work was the Kyogyoshinsho, and in that book, he quotes from a large number of Mahayana sutras to prove his point. Some are familiar, like the Flower Garland Sutra or Pure Land Sutras, but other ones are sutras I've never heard of before. Monks of his time were well-versed in the Chinese Mahayana canon, but from reading that, it's clear that a lot of important sutras remain forgotten.
I've actually read the abridged version of the Lankavatara (by Rev. Loori, the Zen priest), and I actually thought it was a powerful sutra and explained a lot about why Zen Buddhists act the way they do. It also elucidated the Dharmakaya and reality rather nicely. Time well-spent reading, even in the abridged version.
But, like you pointed out, it's generally ignored. I am a Pure Land Buddhist, but I've yet to meet a Zen Buddhist whose actually read the sutra, despite its influence there. I think its message is pretty dense and hard to read, and people just want easy answers sometimes. The Heart Sutra's cool, but you need to read a lot more than that to appreciate the depth of Buddhism.
However, like Shinran, monks in the Olden Days would ponder a certain sutra over and over again. The Chinese Ch'an master spent a whole year poring over Shurangama Sutra and said it was more fruitful than time spent in meditation for him.
Thanks. Glad you found time to comment as looking back I found an error!
Yes I think it's clear from other sources too how impoverished our ideas about the Mahāyāna are: for instance in Śantideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya he quotes from many sutras - Nattier draws attention to the Ugra, but it is one of many that most of us have never heard of.
"Olden Day" monks would also memorise several of these lengthy texts!
Part of the problem with the Laṅkāvatāra is that it's quite chaotic - almost like a series of notes and cribs strung together, but out of order. If ever there was a sūtra unlikely to have been spoken by the Buddha this was it. There is no organising principle, although several themes do stand out. I'm going to talk about some of them on Friday this week as it happens. The Laṅkāvatāra is also slightly odd in espousing a very strong version of "mind only" - objects perceived are said to be absolutely unreal. This is I think a doctrinal error and one that weakens the overall message. To be so categorical is not supported by other doctrines nor by experience.
Kūkai makes the point in his teachings that it is equally invalid to say that things are absolutely unreal, as to say that they are unreal. My own understanding of this dilemma revolves around asking the question: "what are these 'things' that we keep talking about?" Usually we mean "dharmas", i.e. mental phenomena, and this I translate as "experience". Reality and unreality do not apply here. Everything falls into place, and no extreme stances need be taken.
Most of my readings of the Lankavatara have been centered around the first two chapters which I think are the meat of the sutra. That's where you see some profound statements about the "endless concatenation" of existence, the Dharmakaya that leads all beings, and so on. The rest is kind of an editorial mess.
The Original Buddhism (Sanskrit) and Japanese filters used to decide important Western Buddhist Mahayana texts was fascinating. More interesting was Nattier's comment about how the simple distilled themes of the chosen Sutras (anti-intellectualism, lay-centered, egalitarian) also played an almost accidental cultural filtering role in the choice of favored text.
I see these theme taken up by some Buddhists and wonder if they know that they are more theme-grabbers than simply "Buddhists" and thus share qualities with believers in many faiths.
Another comparative religion point: When you said, "Buddhists can be fundamentalist about texts, but on the whole it is contrary to the spirit of the religion to be so. The Dharma is anything which helps us realise the truth. " You are putting on your prescriptivist Buddhist hat and telling Buddhism/Buddhists what they should be. Which is all fine and good -- many professional religionists can't avoid this. Investment in a faith means caring about what it looks like and does. But it reminded me of many liberal Christians saying that fighting over original texts is not central to Christianity, instead it is knowing Christ and letting that change your life. As you know, I think the comparative religion stuff can help point out our common humanity and common habits of mind.
Great post, thank you. It has helped yet again help me understand the variety of Buddhism better.
You are putting on your prescriptivist Buddhist hat
No. I'm not. I'm making an observation about the spirit of Buddhism. The Dhamma is a raft - remember? Plus I'm only critiquing not prescribing. If you see this as prescriptive then it is because you have a predisposition to see it that way. This is another critical observation and not at all prescriptive - you can see it that way if you want. I don't think it's very helpful however and I feel honour bound to say so.
As you know I'm not that interested in comparative religion.
You are certainly interested in comparative religion when it comes to exploring the variety of expressions and wrestling of the varieties of Buddhism. You blog is full of that. But perhaps you are saying you are not interested in comparing Buddhism to other Religions -- though I have read a few cuts at certain Christian thinking. I think such things are inevitable as we explore what we value. But I will not distract from this post any further. The final quote by Nattier was fascinating. I wish I could figure out a way to get to on-line academic journal articles on Buddhism. I'd have to be university student or employee to do that.
Go to your local public library and ask about "inter-library loan". Give them the full citation, and probably a small fee, and they will get the article for you - that's how I got it! Libraries all over the world offer this service and it always surprised me that more people don't know this.
Bad News -- just got off the phone with local library folks: The Governor of our state cut the budget and our public libraries no longer have access to university level databases, yet along any articles.
The only way to that information is if you are University staff or student. I have another plan and will work on it. Thought you'd like to know.
so they are no longer members of the inter-library loan scheme? Bizarre.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
[Image]It is frequently observed that the proportion of Mahāyāna texts which have been translated into English even once is only small compared to the number in the Chinese Canon. Certain texts have received much greater attention than others, even amongst those available in translation, and are now taken as being normative - that is that our Western understanding of what the Mahāyāna as a whole was saying is based on a subset of those texts available to us in English.
In the introduction to her translation of the Ugraparipṛcchā Jan Nattier makes some observations about this which I would like to highlight. Her comments are in the context of noting that at one time the Ugraparipṛcchā was an important text. It has multiple translations into Chinese, and is cited extensively in anthologies such as Śantideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya. Some explanation of why such a central text has received so little attention in the West seemed to be required.
Nattier notes that texts are more likely to have been translated into English if they have two features: firstly if there is a extant Sanskrit text; and secondly if they have been influential in Japanese Buddhism. Here's a list which will be familiar to students of Mahāyāna. SaddharmapuṇḍarikaSuvarṇabaṣottamaSukhāvatīvyūha (both long and short)AvataṃsakaVimalakīrtiPrajñāpāramitā Sūtras - especially Hṛdaya, Vajracchedika, Aṣṭāsahaśrika, and PañcavimsatisahaśrikaLaṅkāvatāraOnly a handful of Mahāyāna texts survive in Sanskrit including all (I think) of the above. Part of the reason for the interest in Sanskrit texts is the focus of Western scholars on "original Buddhism". Westerners, partly influenced by higher criticism of the Bible, are aware of layers in the Buddhist canon, and are motivated to find the "original" text. The idea is that anything from a later period is not authentic, but this is making many assumptions which are not sustainable, nor would they necessarily be accepted by Buddhists. We know that the Heart Sūtra, for instance, was most likely composed in China, but this does not make it any less profound, nor undermine its widespread influence across many Buddhist sects. Buddhists can be fundamentalist about texts, but on the whole it is contrary to the spirit of the religion to be so. The Dharma is anything which helps us realise the truth.
However we need to balance this against Nattier's own comments just a few pages later with reference to Chinese translations from Sanskrit: In short, when reading any given line of a Chinese Buddhist sūtra - excepting perhaps those produced by someone like Hsuan-tsang, who is justifiably famous for his accuracy - we have a roughly equal chance of encountering an accurate reflection of the underlying Indian original or a catastrophic misunderstanding. (Nattier : 71) We are a little better off with Tibetan texts because they started later and had better reference works but - even here, however, we frequently encounter visual, grammatical, or (less commonly) aural misunderstandings (Nattier : 71 n.36) The solution is to compare extant versions of a text, and a key task for the scholar is to construct an edited (i.e. corrected) text which is pressumed to accurately represent the "original". Unfortunately the extant Sanskrit manuscripts which are seldom much older than a few centuries, are prone to the same problems. Viz Conze's comments on the Nepalese manuscripts of the Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra which he describes as "execrable". Leaving aside scribal and translator errors we also know that Buddhist texts frequently changed over time, chapters and sometimes whole independent sūtras, were added or subtracted, chapters were rearranged, and interpolations of all kinds were made by well meaning editors. The fact is that whatever the language of the text it will be far removed in time from its author. So it is that we welcome the work of Jan Nattier and others like her who are translating a wider range of text and drawing attention to the issues of the history of our texts, and the problems of translating them.
The second factor in whether or not a text is popular in the West is whether it is influential in Japanese Buddhism. This is a result of collaborations between the West and Japan which commenced in 1868 (with the Meiji Restoration). Influential Western Scholars such as Max Muller, and Hendrik Kern began to take Japanese students: the former was responsible for many first translations of Mahāyāna Sūtras, while the latter produced the only translation of the Saddharmapuṇḍarika from Sanskrit.
However there is a third factor because it is obvious that amongst these few texts, some have greater prestige than others. Nattier cites the Laṅkāvatāra for instance, translated and promoted by no less an authority than D. T. Suzuki as one text which has not had the kind of influence that might have been expected - we still only have Suzuki's rather flawed translation in English for instance. Compare this with the influence of the Saddharmapuṇḍarika which has many English translations, as does the Vimalakīrti, and the Heart Sūtra. Nattier suggests that these texts, and perhaps the Sukhāvatīvyūha texts, have a greater prominence because they: "portray the Buddhist messages in terms congruent with certain core western values such as egalitarianism (e.g. the universal potential for Buddhahood according to the Lotus), lay-centred religion (e.g., the ability of the lay Buddhist hero of the Vimalakīrti to confound highly educated clerics in debate), the simplicity and individuality of religious practice (e.g., the centrality of personal faith in Amitābha in the Sukhāvatīvyūha), and even anti-intellectualism (e.g., the apparent rejection of the usefulness of rational thought in the Heart Sūtra, the Diamond Sūtra, and other Perfection of Wisdom texts). (Nattier : 6) To which list we might add the factor of an "other power" centred soteriology perhaps! In the case of what is in the West an influential sūtra, the Saddharmapuṇḍarika, it is in fact far from being representative or typical of the Mahāyāna - in fact the opposite it true. And yet it has had a huge role in defining the Mahāyāna as it is understood in the West.
Nattier sees her study and translation as an antidote to the prevailing parochialism of the West, and as an attempt to restore a once important sūtra back to its rightful place in the Buddhist canon. Reading it we have to acknowledge that our ideas about the development of the Mahāyāna have been based on too narrow a field of sources and the Ugra challenges our preconceptions.
Bibliography
Nattier, Jan. 2003. A few good men : The Bodhisattva path according to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). University of Hawai'i Press.A selection of Mahāyāna sūtras translated in to English, including some lesser known texts is available at www4.bayarea.net/~mtlee/. Image from that page.
9 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formThis is another great post! I read it a few days ago but didn't have time to respond then.
In Jodo Shinshu, Shinran's largest work was the Kyogyoshinsho, and in that book, he quotes from a large number of Mahayana sutras to prove his point. Some are familiar, like the Flower Garland Sutra or Pure Land Sutras, but other ones are sutras I've never heard of before. Monks of his time were well-versed in the Chinese Mahayana canon, but from reading that, it's clear that a lot of important sutras remain forgotten.
I've actually read the abridged version of the Lankavatara (by Rev. Loori, the Zen priest), and I actually thought it was a powerful sutra and explained a lot about why Zen Buddhists act the way they do. It also elucidated the Dharmakaya and reality rather nicely. Time well-spent reading, even in the abridged version.
But, like you pointed out, it's generally ignored. I am a Pure Land Buddhist, but I've yet to meet a Zen Buddhist whose actually read the sutra, despite its influence there. I think its message is pretty dense and hard to read, and people just want easy answers sometimes. The Heart Sutra's cool, but you need to read a lot more than that to appreciate the depth of Buddhism.
However, like Shinran, monks in the Olden Days would ponder a certain sutra over and over again. The Chinese Ch'an master spent a whole year poring over Shurangama Sutra and said it was more fruitful than time spent in meditation for him.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Thanks. Glad you found time to comment as looking back I found an error!
Yes I think it's clear from other sources too how impoverished our ideas about the Mahāyāna are: for instance in Śantideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya he quotes from many sutras - Nattier draws attention to the Ugra, but it is one of many that most of us have never heard of.
"Olden Day" monks would also memorise several of these lengthy texts!
Part of the problem with the Laṅkāvatāra is that it's quite chaotic - almost like a series of notes and cribs strung together, but out of order. If ever there was a sūtra unlikely to have been spoken by the Buddha this was it. There is no organising principle, although several themes do stand out. I'm going to talk about some of them on Friday this week as it happens. The Laṅkāvatāra is also slightly odd in espousing a very strong version of "mind only" - objects perceived are said to be absolutely unreal. This is I think a doctrinal error and one that weakens the overall message. To be so categorical is not supported by other doctrines nor by experience.
Kūkai makes the point in his teachings that it is equally invalid to say that things are absolutely unreal, as to say that they are unreal. My own understanding of this dilemma revolves around asking the question: "what are these 'things' that we keep talking about?" Usually we mean "dharmas", i.e. mental phenomena, and this I translate as "experience". Reality and unreality do not apply here. Everything falls into place, and no extreme stances need be taken.
Jayarava
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Most of my readings of the Lankavatara have been centered around the first two chapters which I think are the meat of the sutra. That's where you see some profound statements about the "endless concatenation" of existence, the Dharmakaya that leads all beings, and so on. The rest is kind of an editorial mess.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Original Buddhism (Sanskrit) and Japanese filters used to decide important Western Buddhist Mahayana texts was fascinating. More interesting was Nattier's comment about how the simple distilled themes of the chosen Sutras (anti-intellectualism, lay-centered, egalitarian) also played an almost accidental cultural filtering role in the choice of favored text.
I see these theme taken up by some Buddhists and wonder if they know that they are more theme-grabbers than simply "Buddhists" and thus share qualities with believers in many faiths.
The "Original Text" issue plagues Christian scholars too. I did a diagram of the problem here.
Another comparative religion point:
When you said, "Buddhists can be fundamentalist about texts, but on the whole it is contrary to the spirit of the religion to be so. The Dharma is anything which helps us realise the truth.
"
You are putting on your prescriptivist Buddhist hat and telling Buddhism/Buddhists what they should be. Which is all fine and good -- many professional religionists can't avoid this. Investment in a faith means caring about what it looks like and does. But it reminded me of many liberal Christians saying that fighting over original texts is not central to Christianity, instead it is knowing Christ and letting that change your life. As you know, I think the comparative religion stuff can help point out our common humanity and common habits of mind.
Great post, thank you. It has helped yet again help me understand the variety of Buddhism better.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
You are putting on your prescriptivist Buddhist hat
No. I'm not. I'm making an observation about the spirit of Buddhism. The Dhamma is a raft - remember? Plus I'm only critiquing not prescribing. If you see this as prescriptive then it is because you have a predisposition to see it that way. This is another critical observation and not at all prescriptive - you can see it that way if you want. I don't think it's very helpful however and I feel honour bound to say so.
As you know I'm not that interested in comparative religion.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
You are certainly interested in comparative religion when it comes to exploring the variety of expressions and wrestling of the varieties of Buddhism. You blog is full of that. But perhaps you are saying you are not interested in comparing Buddhism to other Religions -- though I have read a few cuts at certain Christian thinking. I think such things are inevitable as we explore what we value. But I will not distract from this post any further. The final quote by Nattier was fascinating. I wish I could figure out a way to get to on-line academic journal articles on Buddhism. I'd have to be university student or employee to do that.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Go to your local public library and ask about "inter-library loan". Give them the full citation, and probably a small fee, and they will get the article for you - that's how I got it! Libraries all over the world offer this service and it always surprised me that more people don't know this.
Ciao
Jayarava
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Bad News -- just got off the phone with local library folks: The Governor of our state cut the budget and our public libraries no longer have access to university level databases, yet along any articles.
The only way to that information is if you are University staff or student. I have another plan and will work on it. Thought you'd like to know.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
so they are no longer members of the inter-library loan scheme? Bizarre.
Saturday, October 23, 2010