Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Two

"Thereupon, through the Buddha's inspiration, the venerable Shariputra spoke to the noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, and said, 'How should any noble son or noble daughter who wishes to engage in the practice of the profound perfection of wisdomw train?'

When this had been said, the holy Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, spoke to the venerable Shariputra and said, 'Shariputra, any noble son or noble daughter who so wishes to engage in the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom should clearly see this way: they should see perfectly that even the five aggregates are empty of intrinisic existence.' "



The five aggregates or skandhas are ways of viewing the self. They are form, sensation, perception, volition and cognition, although some translators say form, perception, conception, impulse, and consciousness. So Avalokiteshvara is saying that one who wishes to practice prajnaparamita should see the components of self-existence as empty, which is not the same as non-existent.

I think it's interesting that this sutra is mostly comprised of the words of Avalokiteshvara and not Shakyamuni Buddha. Buddha gives his approval at the end, of course. Still it points to the fact, that Buddha himself is not special. Others are capable of understanding and transmitting his ideas. Indeed, we all have the same inherent Buddha-nature, which, on the one hand could mean, that we have the same underlying nature as the historical Buddha Shakyamuni, which is true, but unnecessarily singles out one person. The term "buddha" can also mean awakened, or enlightened. And so the fact that we all have Buddha-nature also means that we all have that same aware kernel which we can choose to cultivate.

It's also interesting that the initial summary of the teaching, as given here, is simply to recognize that we are a coming together of different phenomena and circumstance, but do not have an existence separate from the rest of the world.

4 comments:

beckett said...

Your commentary regarding lack of boundaries in the last post, and comment about not having a separate existence from the rest of the world in the last post give me a lens through which to view the matter of obligation to others.

On the other hand, I have a more fundamental question now, which is why follow the path of enlightenment at all? Why not just drink and smoke, debauch and generally behave without respect or care fro yourself or others. I guess this might be the path nihilism would lead you down. But why not the understanding of emptiness?

vacuous said...

I think the logic such as it is, is as follows. By awakening our concern for the benefit of others, we come to a content state of mind. The road of drinking and debauchery does not lead to a content and happy life. You might ask, why does our concern for others make us happier? the answer to this, I think, lies in human nature, as shaped by evolution. And we know it works, as generations of Buddhist practitioners can attest. I know it has helped me out a lot.

Why follow the path of enlightenment? I follow it because it seems to work, and is also consistent with my own personal philosophy to a large degree.

In the Diamond Cutter Sutra, Buddha basically says, "Those who wish to be Bodhisattvas should do the following things, as described in this teaching." But he never says that everyone should want to be a Bodhisattva.

To me Buddhism is an approach to spirituality which strikes me as true and right. Spirituality, I think is an important aspect of human psychology, and is a need, at least in myself, that needs to be fulfilled. Buddhism, especially of the Zen variety, has been doing the trick for me. It encourages us to look at everything deeply, and it does not have a lot of extra baggage such as the existence of an anthropomorphic God, or an afterlife, or an idea of the supernatural. I think a lot of people cannot conceive of spirituality without a sense of the supernatural, and perhaps this is why Zen is so widely misunderstood. A fundamental realization for me was that this is indeed possible, and is one of the beautiful core truths of Buddhism.

Your last point is on nihilism versus emptiness. Emptiness is one aspect, but the Buddha also says that compassion is essential. Emptiness is not the end of the story. Also, nihilism emphasizes selfishness, whereas Buddhism emphasizes selflessness. Nihilism will lead to pain, resentment, confusion and anger, and will not lead to happiness, because we would be shutting ourselves off from others. With this basic human need to love and be loved unfulfilled, we would be miserable.

Okay, I've rambled enough. I hope that helps, or at the very least, doesn't hurt. :)

beckett said...

very well put

vacuous said...

Thanks, B., and thanks, E.