One

The Blessed Mother, the heart of the Perfection of Widsom
In Sanskrit Bhagavati Prajna Paramita Hridaya

This Sutra is referred to as a "mother" because it gives birth to wisdom, to bodhisattvas and to buddhas. It is called the Heart Sutra because it is the heart of the Perfection of Wisdom or prajnaparamita teachings.

"Thus have I once heard: The Blesed One was staying in Rajgriha at Vulture Peak along with a great community of monks and a great community of bodhisattvas, and at that time, the Blessed One entered the meditative absorption on the varieties of phenomena called the appearance of the profound. At that time as well, the noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, clearly beheld the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom itself and saw that even the five aggregates are empty of intrinisic existence."

The sutra describes the physical place and conditions where the action is about to take place, and also the spiritual place. The physical place, Vulture Peak, is a famous place among Buddhists. It in a peak in India where Shakyamuni Buddha is reputed to have meditated often. I've seen a picture and it is a beautiful spot. It had desert-like characteristics. Buddha was present with a practicing community or sangha and so this was a great oppurtunity for the many present to learn something new.
The spiritual location of this sutra is the meditative state, and more specifically meditation on emptiness. According to the Dalai Lama "The 'profound' here refers to emptiness, which is also often described as 'suchness' or as 'things just as they are.'"

I'd also like to pass along the meaning of "Bhagavan" as the Dalai Lama explains it. Here it is translated as "Blessed One," and the Sanskrit term it translates "connotes someone who has conquered all forces of negativity, that is, the four obstructive forces, or maras: the maras of afflictions, of aggregates, of death, and attachment to sensory gratification."

This is the Heart Sutra

My previous post is the complete text of the Heart Sutra. It is even denser and more packed with meaning than the Diamond Cutter Sutra. I have a book of the Dalai Lama's commentary on this sutra. Over the next few days, I plan on going through his commentary and posting my thoughts bit-by-bit online.

Today, the following sentence stuck out:

"Likewise, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness are all empty."

Emtpiness is a central concept in Buddhism. To say that X is empty is to say that is is not ultimately real. It has no well-defined beginning and no well-defined ending. At the boundaries it is fuzzy. A leaf does not ever begin, it is comprised of soil and sunlight that came before it. It does not end. It returns to the soil. It is not well-defined at the boundaries. For example, where does the leaf begin and the tree end? If an insect eats part of the leaf, do we count the digesting pulp in the insect's gullet as part of the leaf? Do we count the chemical reactions that take place inside the leaf as part of the leaf? It wouldn't be a leaf without them. In a similar vein [sic], feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness are all empty.

Bhagavati Prajna Paramita Hridaya

Thus have I once heard:

The Blessed One was staying in Rajgriha at Vulture peak along with a great community of monks and a great community of bodhisattvas, and at that time, the Blessed One entered the meditative absorption on the varieties of phenomena called the appearance of phenomena called the appearance of the profound. At that time as well, the noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, clearly beheld the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom itself and saw that even the five aggregates are empty of intrinisic existence.

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 wisdom 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 intrinsic existence. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; emptiness is not other than form, form too is not other than emptiness. Likewise, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness are all empty. Therefore, Shariputra, all phenomena are emptiness; they are without defining characteristices; they are not born, they do not cease; they are not defiled, they are not undefiled; they are not deficient, and there not complete.

"Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness there is no form, no fellings, no perceptions, no mental formations, and no consciousness. There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, and no mind. There is no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no texture, and no mental objects. There is no eye-element and so on up to no mind-element including up to no element of mental consciousness. There is no ignorance, there is no extinction of ignorance, and so on up to no aging and death and no extinction of aging and death. Likewise, there is no suffering, origin, cessation, or path; there is no wisdom, no attainment, and even no non-attainment.

"Therefore, Shariputra, since bodhisattvas have no attainments, they rely on this perfection of wisdom and abide in it. Having no obscuration in their minds, they have no fear, and by going utterly beyond error, they will reach the end of nirvana. All the buddha too who abide in the three times attained the full awakening of unexcelled, perfect enlightenment by relying on this profound perfection of wisdom.

"Therefore, one should know that the mantra of the perfection of wisdom--the mantra of great knowledge, the unexcelled mantra, the mantra equal to the unequalled, the mantra that quells all suffering--is true because it is not deceptive. The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is proclaimed:

tadyatha gaté gaté paragaté parasamgaté bodhi svaha!

Shariputra, the bodhisattvas, the great beings, should train in the perfection of wisdom in this way."

Thereupon, the Blessed One arose from that meditative absorption and commended the holy Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, saying this is excellent. "Excellent! Excellent! O noble child, it is just so; it should be just so. One must practice the profound perfection of wisdom just as you have revealed. For then even the tathagatas will rejoice."

As the Blessed One uttered these words, the venerable Shariputra, the holy Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, along with the entire assembly, including the worlds of gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas, all rejoiced and hailed what the Blessed One had said. [Translated by Geshe Thupten Jinpa]

Comments on these gospel verses

I am not a Christian, but I do believe that Jesus had quite a few good things to say. Of course it's not clear how much of what has been attributed to him was actually said by him, but if one can recognize truth in the words or teachings of any being, then their particular origin should not be an obstruction.

Two of the quoted passages underscore the idea for me that Jesus, at least sometimes, when he referred to the Kingdom of God (or heaven) was not referring to a glorious future, or a sublime afterlife, but was in fact referring to a spiritual state of mind right now. The Kingdom of God is within you, and can be received as a little child. This mental state, here compared to that of a little child, to me is the same as Buddha nature, the state of awareness and lack of mental-narrative that occurs with practice and meditation.

Interestingly, in that same passage of Luke above, Jesus goes on to describe a more traditional view of the coming of the Kingdom of God, but only to his disciples. But hey, dharma teachings are like rafts, and this second part of Jesus's teaching is a raft unsuitable for me.

The second passage below, about how nothing going into a person can make them unclean, just what comes out. There is a subtext of the idea of sin and its corollary guilt here, but I want to concentrate more on the positive side of it. Nothing coming into us has the intrinsic power to harm us. I'd like to expand that a bit and say that even objects in our own mental landscape do not have the intrinsic power to harm us. This includes emotions, thoughts, fantasies, etc. It is what we do with them that causes harm. It is what comes out of us. Moreover, when what comes out of us is tainted by inner problems, it harms those we come in contact with, but I would venture to say that it harms us even more. By maintaining a peaceful, detached, aware mental landscape, we can experience things with calm and equanimity, and can ourselves generate more good in the world.

The other passage quoted below i like because it emphasizes humility, a concept very close to egolessness. I do not have any special place in the world. I am part of the world, and of the human organism, and I am not intrinsically better or worse than anyone else.

Some Gospel Verses

Once, havign been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you."
Then he said to his disciples...

-Luke 17:20-22

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a [person] can make [them] `unclean' by going into [them]. Rather, it is what comes out of a [person] that makes them 'unclean.'"

-Mark 7:14-15

Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be very last, and the servant of all."

-Mark 9:35

"I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the knigdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

-Mark 10:15

Uncomfortable

This book of Pema Chödron's is extremely good. She is an American Buddhist nun, and she has a wonderful, compassionate writing style, moreover her understanding seems very solid and deep, consistent with my own understanding, developed over my short period of practice.

I can really identify with this excerpt. I have this habit of encountering unpleasant thoughts, memories and feelings while progressing through my constant mental self-narration, and immediately trying to move away from the unpleasantness. However, I've found that through meditating I am more likely to acknowledge the unpleasant thought and let it sit. This helpe me to understand my own psyche much better, and by understanding it, acknowleding its defects lovingly, I can truly accept and love myself. I have made some important discoveries about myself this way.

I titled this commentary "uncomfortable" because, as part of a moral inventory I am taking of myself, I have encountered a major, and kind of nasty surprise. I have talked about it at length with a few people, and it hurts alot. It may be like an arrow lodged in me. To heal, it needs to be removed, but it is painful coming out. This practice of meditating and looking at my own thoughts with loving acceptance and appraisal has helped me to discover this arrow. I had repressed its effect effectively. I also never admitted how much I hated the arrow, because part of my self-narrative is that I am kind an loving, and that i cannot hate.

This acknowleding of my own emotions has been quite stormy, mainly because I now am aware of them. I believe I used to get angry or upset or insecure about a situation, but not be conscious of it. It would affect my outlook and my actions without me even really knowing. Now, something will bother me, and then in meditation my mood change will be set in stark relief, and I will see it clearly, and realize that I have, in fact, been bothered. I now notice that random day-to-day things bother me a fair amount, but also that this passes relatively quickly, especially because I can act on any resentments that build.

For example, I was involved in a misunderstanding a few days ago, and I was really bothered by it. But I saw this clearly, and worked actively to free myself of the resentment, so that by the next day I was recovered, and could genuinely laugh about the incident with the other fellow.

Anyway, ta ta for now.

Encountering the Edge

In the teachings of Buddhism, we hear about egolessness. It sounds difficult to grasp; what are they talkign about anyway? When the teachings are about neurosis we feel right at home. That's something we really understand. But egolessness? When we reach our limit, if we aspire to know that place fully--which is to say that we aspire to neither indulge nor repress--a hardness in us will dissolve. We will be softened by the sheer force of whatever energy arises--the energy of anger, the enrgy of disappointment, the energy of fear. When it's not solidified in one direction or another, that very energy pierces us to the heart, and it opens us. This is the discovery of egolessness. It's when all our usual schemes fall apart. Reaching our limit is like finding a doorway to sanity and the unconditional goodness of humanity, rather than meeting an obstacle or a punishment.

The safest and most nurturing place to begin working this way is during sitting meditation. On the cushion, we begin to get the hang of not indulging or repressing and of what it feels like to let the energy just be there. That is why it's so good to meditate every single day and continue to make friends with our hopes and fears again and again. this sows the seeds that enable us to be more awake in the midst of everyday chaos. It's a gradual awakening, and it's cumulative, but that's actually what happens. We don't sit in meditation to become good meditators. We sit in meditation so that we'll be more awake in our lives.

-Excerpted from Comfortable with Uncertainty, Pema Chödrön

Thirty-two

"Subhuti, suppose someone filled infinite incalculable numbers of worlds with precious substances and used these to give in charity. Now suppose a good man or a good woman who has awakened the inspiration for enlightenment holds this sutra, even so much as the equivalent of a four-line verse, accepts and holds it, reads and recites it, and expounds it for others, the blessing in this will exceed the former.

"How does one expound it for others? Not grasping forms, not budging from thusness as such. Why? All created things are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows; like dew, and like lightning. They should be viewed in this way."

After Buddha had spoken this sutra, the elder Subhuti, as well as monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen, angels, humans, and titans from all worlds, having heard what the Buddha said, all rejoiced greatly; they believed it, accepted it, worked at it, and put it into practice. [Thomas Cleary: from The Sutra of Hui-Neng Shambhala Publications 1998]

"If even a Bodhisattva of Great Courage filled innumerable galaxies with the seven precious treasures, and offered them as a gift to the supremely enlightened ones, his merit would not compare with the immeasurable merit of a good man or woman who took just one stanza from this Prajnaparamita discourse on dharma and remembered, recited, studied and illuminated it for others. How is this done? In a way which is free from appearances. thus one illuminates it for others."

Like a meteor, like darkness, as a flickering lamp, An illusion, like hoarfrost or a bubble, Like clouds, a flash of lightning, or a dream: So is all conditioned existence to be seen.

Thus spoke Buddha. [Joshua Priitkin: from Scott Newton's Zen Pages]

"Furthermore, Subhuti, if a fearless bodhisattva filled measureless, infinite worlds with the seven jewels and gave them as an offering to the tathagatas, the arhans, the fully-enlightened ones, and a noble son or daughter grasped but a single four-line gatha of this teaching of the perfection of wisdom and meomorized, discussed, recited, mastered, and explained it in detail to others, the body of merit produced by that noble son or daughter as a result would be immeasurably, infinitely greater. And how should they explain it? By not explaining. Thus is it called `explaining.'

"As a lamp, a cataract, a star in space
an illusion, a dewdrop, a bubble
a dream a cloud, a flash of lightning
view all created things like this."

All this was spoken by the Buddha to the joy of the elder Subhuti, the monks and nuns, the laymen and laywomen, the bodhisattvas, the devas, humans, asuras and gandharvas of the world all of whom were greatly pleased with what the Buddha said. [Red Pine: from The Diamond Sutra Counterpoint 2001]

Thoughts on Thirty-One

Know all dharmas but don't be attached to them. Buddha really does say `all' here, a subtlety I missed when i read this at first. Here is a relevant quote by Thich Nhat Hanh

All concepts co-arise and are empty of a separate self. If the highest, most fulfilled, awakened mind is empty, then the perception of self and so on are also empty. Ao why should we discriminate or be afraid of them? All concepts are dharmas, objects of mind, signs. Look deeply into one dharma, and you will see all dharmas. Once we understand that a concept is just a concept, we can go beyond that concept and be free of the dharma that concept represents.

Just like all objects in the universe are interdependent, the objects of our minds are all interdependent, and cannot exist in isolation. Our minds arise from interconnections. Looking deeply at one teaching, even if it is a terrible one, one will be bringing in other ideas and moving out among the web of interconnections, exploring the dharma landscape. Of course, one needs to actually look deeply and practice awareness for this to be true. Some teachings encourage us to look shallowly, and this might obstruct people who do not already have the right spirit of awareness and inquiry. Once we have that spirit, though, such teachings cannot harm us.

Clinging to a specific dharma, by the way, shuts down that spirit I just talked about. Dharma teachings are like rafts. A raft is a dependable and trustworthy way to cross a river, but it needs to be discarded when the other side is reached.

Thirty-One

"Subhuti, if someone says that the Buddha expounds the notion of self, the notion of person, the notion of a being, or the notion of a liver of life, do you think this person understands the principles I expound?"

"World Honored One, this person does not understand the principles expounded by the Realized One. Why? The World Honored One says that a notion of self, a notion of person, a notion of a being, or a notion of a liver of life, they are called the notion of self, the notion of a person, the notion of a being, and the notion of a liver of life."

"Subhuti, those who aspire to unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment should know, see, and believe and understand all truths in this way, not conceiving of an appearance of truth. Subhuti, the Realized One says that the supposed `appearance of truth' is not characteristic of truth; this is called the characteristic of truth." [Thomas Cleary]

"Suppose, Subhuti, that someone said that the Tathagata has taught a conception of a self, an entity or a personality. Would he be right?"

Subhuti answered: "Not at all, Buddha. That which the tathagata has called `a conception of self' is no conception."

"Therefore, Subhuti," Buddha said, "one who has set out on the Bodhisattva Path should know all dharma and view them intently. Yet he should know them and view them in a way which does not give rise to a perception of any dharma. Why? The Tathagata has taught that perception of a dharma is no perception, even though it is called `perception of a dharma.'" [Joshua Pritikin]

"And how so? Subhuti, if someone should claim that the Tathagata speaks of a view of a self, or that the Tathagata speaks of a view of a being, a view of a life, or a view of a soul, Subhuti, would such a claim be true?"

Subhuti said, "No, indeed, Bhagavan. No, indeed, Sugata. Such a claim would not be true. And why not? Bhagavan, when the Tathagata speaks of a view of a self, the Tathagata speaks of it as no view. Thus is it called a `view of the self.'"

The Buddha said, "Indeed, Subhuti, so it is. Those who set forth on the bodhisattva path know, see, and believe all dharmas but know, see, and believe them without being attached to the perception of a dharma. And why not? The perception of a dharma, Subhuti, the `perception of a dharma' is said by the Tathagata to be no perception. Thus is it called the `perception of a dharma.'"[Red Pine]

Thoughts on Thirty

Buddha asks Subhuti a question which seems to lead nowhere. If one were to grind a huge number of galaxies into atoms, would there be a lot of atoms? Subhuti says yes, even though atoms and galaxies are provisional concepts. Unlike some previous times, Buddha doesn't go on to use the answer itself to develop his point, but rather uses Subhuti's provisos to develop his point. "Yes, indeed, Subhuti, attachment to an entity, such as a galaxy or an atom, is neither dharma nor a dharma, incomprehensible and inexpressible."

The subdivision process is related to the holistic conception of reality. The universe is made of atoms, so it is not fully unified, but on the other hand the atoms cannot exist apart from the universe, so they are not fully individual. My concept of a door is inaccurate, and the door itself has no self-nature. It cannot exist apart from the trees that were cut down to make it. It cannot exist apart from human culture. My personal concept of the door cannot exist apart from me. The door could not exist without the door frame. It can't hang in midair. But the doorframe cannot exist without the wall, else it wouldn't really be a door in the usual sense. If I were to conceive of a door in a doorframe without a wall, such as might exist after a tornado demolished most of the house, this would merely point to the fluid nature of the concept of door. It is not solid and fixed, but changing. However, despite all of these ways in which the `door' is empty, if I were to attempt to walk through it without opening it, I would fail. Just as the atoms referred to above have some individual existence, so does the door. The empty nature of reality does not mean reality does not exist.

In a similar vein, we can never fully understand the mind of another person. (In fact we can never understand our own mind.) But that doesn't mean we should ignore people, or that we need not be compassionate. Indeed, it means quite the opposite. All boundaries are illusory, the dividing line between me and another person is artificial. I am part of the human organism. I am part of the body of the natural world. As a result, I want to be compassionate and helpful toward others. On the other hand, I am not the leader of the human organism or the natural world, just a small cell in the complex whole. As a result, I am not responsible for the actions of another. I cannot change anyone else, nor can I force them to do anything. They are their own people. Complex individuals with a universe full of atoms of their own. (Several commentators took the start of Chapter Thirty to be metephorical for the mind (the universe) and its thoughts (the atoms).) We are all one, but we are all many. We have incomprehensible diversity and complexity.

Thirty

"Subhuti, if a good man or a good woman pulverized the billion-world universe into atoms, do you think there would be many of these atoms?"

Subhuti said, "Very many, World Honored One. Why? If these atoms were really existent, then the Buddha would not say they were a mass of atoms. Why? The Buddha says a mass of atoms is not a mass of atoms, it is called a mass of atoms.

"World Honored One, the billion-world universe spoken of by the Realized One is not a universe, it is called a universe."

"What is the reason? If the universe really existed, it would be a compound; but the Realized One says that a compound is not a compound, it is called a compound."

"Subhuti, the compound is inexpressible, but ordinary people greedily cleave to their affairs."
[Thomas Cleary]

"If a man or woman took a galaxy for every particle of dust in this vast galaxy and thoroughly ground each one until it was reduced to atoms, would the heap of atoms be great?"

"Indeed, Buddha," Subhuti answered, "the heap of atoms would be immense. And yet this enormous heap of atoms is not really a heap of atoms, even though it is called 'a heap of atoms'.

"Further, although the Tathagata has said 'galaxy,' he teaches that it is not in truth a galaxy. For, Buddha, if there were in truth a galaxy, it would be a material object to be seized upon, and the Tathagata has taught that there is no seizing at all."

"Indeed, Subhuti," Buddha said, "this 'seizing upon a material object' is a convention of language, an expression devoid of real content. It is neither dharma nor adharma, even though ordinary people have seized upon it foolishly." [Joshua Pritikin]

"Furthermore, Subhuti, if a noble son or daughter took as many worlds as there are specks of dust in a billion-world universe and by an expenditure of limitless energy ground them into a multitude of atoms, Subhuti, what do you think, would there be a great multitude of atoms?"

Subhuti replied, "So there would, Bhagavan. So there would, Sugata. There would be a great multitude of atoms. And why? If a great multitude of atoms existed, Bhagavan, the Tathagata would not have spoken of a `multitude of atoms.' And why? Bhagavan, this multitude of atoms of which the Tathagata speaks is said by the Tathagata to be no multitude. Thus it is called a `multitude of atoms.' Also, Bhagavan, this `billion world universe' of which the Tathagata speaks is said by the Tathagata tp be no universe. Thus is it called a `billion-world universe.' And how so? Bhagavan, if a universe existed, attachment to an entity would exist. But whenever the Tathagata speaks of attachment to an entity, the Tathagata speaks of it as no attachment. Thus it is called `attachment to an entity.'"

The Buddha said, "Subhuti, attachment to an entity is inexplainable and inexpressible. For it is neither a dharma nor no dharma. Foolish people, though, are attached." [Red Pine]

Where to now?

The Diamond Cutter Sutra is almost over now. It has thirty-two chapters. My question is: what should we do next? I value my practice of getting up in the morning and devoting some time to spiritual progress, and I would like to continue.

Some options:

1) Go through the same sutra again, keeping the old stuff.

2)Go through the sutra again, overwriting the old stuff. (Like the sand forms that certain Zen monks erase after making.)

3) Go through a different text, such as one by Suzuki, or Hanh.

4) Something else. I'm open to suggestions.

Thoughts on Twenty-Nine

The Tathagata has no form. Our Buddha nature has no form. When our mind is clouded, the Buddha nature is obscured. When the clouds disappear, our Buddha nature, like the moon, becomes apparent behind the clouds. Put in this way, I see why meditation is such a useful tool. Sitting there, clearing thoughts from the mind, the clouds can disappear, and stop obscuring the moon.

This conception of our Buddha nature resonates with me. I was involved in an incident (of no lasting consequence) with a certain caustic individual a couple of days ago, and despite the fact that I have tried to let the incident go, it has definitely lingered to cloud my mind. I have observed myself become more irritable and less spiritual as a result. My mind has become clouded. As B. so wonderfully pointed out though, I don't have to pile on additional clouds, thunderheads of self-pity and guilt. The fact that my state of mind is receptive enough for me to notice and be conscious of the clouds in the first place is a wonderful thing.

By the way, I didn't invent the moon metaphor, it is Buddhist tradition that I picked up from several different books I've read. It's a beautiful metaphor, though. I like it better than the sun, which can be harsh, uncomfortable and far from tranquil. The moon is peaceful, beautiful and subtle. A landscape illuminated by moonlight, such as some I've seen in the desert where there is little light pollution, is an extremely beautiful and calming sight.



(I stole this image from here. )

Twenty-Nine

"Subhuti, if anyone says the Realized One comes or goes, sits or reclines, this person does not understand the principle I expound. Why? The Realized One comes from nowhere and goes nowhere; that is why he is called the Realized One." [Thomas Cleary]

Buddha continued: "If anyone says that the Tathagata comes or goes, sits or reclines, he fails to understand my teaching. Why? The Tathagata has neither whence nor whither, and therefore he is called the supremely wnlightened one." [Joshua Pritikin]

"Furthermore, Subhuti, if anyone should claim that the Tathagata goes or comes or stands or sits or lies on a bed, Subhuti, they do not understand the meaning of my words. And why not? Subhuti, those who are called `tathagatas' do not go anywhere, nor do they come from anywhere. Thus are they called `tathagatas, arhans, fully-enlightened ones.'"[Red Pine]

Thoughts on Twenty-Eight

A central teaching of Buddhism is emphasized here: the selfless, birthless nature of all things. The understanding and accepting of this teaching produces more good in the worlds than monumental acts of material charity. That's what the Buddha says anyway. And even though the understanding of this teaching produces a lot of good, if a person holds onto this good, if a person holds onto the mental image of expected rewards, that person is not a bodhisattva at that moment. Holding onto and grasping at rewards negates to a large extent the merit produced by understanding and accepting emptiness.

A story about emptines. I read in a book by Osho(?) that Shakyamuni's inspiration for the selfless, birthless nature of all things was a dead leaf. He realized that the leaf really had no beginning since it was transformed from other elements (soil and sunlight) into its current state. In a similar way it has no end, because again it transforms into other constituents, such as soil particles. I would add to that that the leaf has no self-nature because it depends on many other things for its existence: the tree, the sun, the earth, the ecosystem, its ancestors, the ecosystems that came before, etc. We humans don't seem to have the gratitude for our current existence which is on the level of all these dependencies. Furthermore, there are so many more beings that will exist in the future, and we don't seem to care at all how we hand the planet to them. Why are their needs less important? especially since there are many more people in the future than have ever existed in the past. I admit that I am often cavalier about pollution and taking care of the environment, but I do think I have a moral responsibility to treat the planet kindly.

Wow, I kind of got distracted there. Maybe this shows that if we really accept that all of our self-natures in reality are not self-natures and interdepend in complex ways, then we really will gain more compassion for others, even those of the future and past. ta ta for now...

Twenty-Eight

"Subhuti, suppose a bodhisattva took as many jewels as would fill worlds as numerous as the sand grains in the Ganges River and gave them in charity. Now suppose someone else knew the selflessness of all things and attained tolerance; this bodhisattva would surpass the blessings attained by the former bodhisattva.

"Why? Subhuti, it is because bodhisattvas do not accept blessings. Subhuti, the blessings produced by bodhisattvas are not supposed to be objects of greed and attachment; therefore it is said they no not accept blessings."[Thomas Cleary]

"Suppose, Subhuti, that a man or woman filled with the seven treasures as many galaxies as there are grains of sand in the great Ganges, and then offered them all to the Tathagatas; and suppose a Bodhisattva patiently forbore all dharmas, which in themselves have no essence. This Bodhisattvas would gain an immeasurably greater merit. And yet a Bodhisattva should gain no merit."

"But would not, Buddha," Subhuti asked, "A Bodhisattva gain much merit?"

"He would gain it, Subhuti, but he should not grasp it."
[Joshua Pritikin]

"Furthermore, Subhuti, if a noble son or daughter took as many worlds as there are grains of sand in the Ganges and covered them with the seven jewels and gave them as a gift to the tathagatas, the arhans, the fully enlightened ones, and a bodhisattva gained an acceptance of the selfless, birthless nature of dharmas, the body of merit produced as a result would be immeasurably, infinitely greater. And yet, Subhuti, this fearless bodhisattva would not obtain a body of merit."

The venerable Subhuti said, "But surely, Bhagavan, this bodhisattva would obtain a body of merit!"

The Buddha replied, "They would, Subhuti, but without grasping it. This is it called `obtaining.'"[Red Pine]

Thoughts on Twenty-Seven

Buddhism is constructive and not destructive. It's good to recognize the tenuous nature of all things, their `empty' nature, their `unreality,' but that doesn't mean we have to go down the path of nihilism. I believe William James said something along the lines of `We shouldn't believe things that are false, but we should believe things that are true.' Furthermore, all concepts are incorrect to some extent, but on the flip side, all concepts are correct to some extent. It is good to look for connections between people, concentrate on similarities, and not focus on differences. This is a prescription for peace. Standing up on a pedestal and yelling at others, "I am right, and you and your dharmas are wrong," is not treading the Bodhisattva path. If I were to do this, I would be severing my connection with those beings. I would be communicating anger, lack of compassion, egotism, and other things, and not the right message. I would be contributing to those beings' suffering. I would also be contributing to my own suffering by building up internal resentment that others do not share or affirm my beliefs. Indeed, a couple of years ago, I was an insecure atheist. I would fairly often get into caustic exchanges, belittling people who had a belief in God. I was lashing out because of my own fear, my own insecurity. I felt threatened by others' belief. In addition, the feeling of superiority that I got when I felt another's belief was childish, was a temporary salve to my ego. Yet I was really ingesting poison by cultivating anger and resentment in this way, and spreading it around too, with no compassion for my victims. The way I'm living now is more peaceful, more sustainable, and more beneficial for myself and others.

Twenty-Seven

"Subhuti, if you entertain the thought that the Realized One does not attain unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment on account of perfect manifestation, you should not think this way. Subhuti, if you entertain the thought that those who aspire to unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment speak of all things as being annihilated, you should not think this way. Why? Those who aspire to unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment do not speak pf things as being annihilated." [Thomas Cleary]

The Buddha said: "No one should say, 'Those who set out upon the Bodhisattva Path presume the annihilation of a dharma,' for it is not so, Subhuti. Those who tread the Bodhisattva Path do not presume the annihilation of any dharma. [Joshua Pritikin]

"Subhuti, what do you think? Was it due to the possession of attributes that the Tathagata realized unexcelled, perfect enlightenment? Subhuti, you should hold no such view. And why not? Subhuti, it could not have been due to the possession of attributes that the Tathagata realized unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.

"Furthermore, Subhuti, someone may claim, `Those who set forth on the bodhisattva path announce the destruction or the end of some dharma.' Subhuti, you should hold no such view. And why not? Those who set forth on the bodhisattva path do not announce the destruction or the end of any dharma." [Red Pine]

Thoughts on Twenty-Six

I posted four translations since the first three seemed to differ substantially. According to legend, a sage looked at the baby Shakyamuni (the future Buddha) and seeing the thirty-two marks declared he would be a universal king or a buddha. Historically, early Buddhists thought that genuine Buddhas had to have thirty-two specific physical attributes. This Sutra refutes that claim, drawing on the aforementioned legend for evidence. Buddha only makes reference to thirty-two attributes in some translations, leading me to believe that the original teaching was just concerned with attributes in general, and not refuting the specific belief of early Buddhism concerning the thirty-two. Early Buddhists were just as swaddled in delusion as all other creatures, but it says a lot that Buddhist practice has persisted, grown and evolved. Later Buddhists de-emphasized the Buddha himself, lest beings get too attached to the concept and to the person.

To me, Buddhism is about practice, about realizing my own Buddha nature. I think this may be what is meant by "looking for the Buddha." My own Buddha nature is hard to describe, it is a mental place within myself which I relaize when I meditate and which helps to inform my actions in my day-to-day living.