The Flower Ornament Scripture

 

I have had the Avatamsaka Sutra in my collection for many years. Checking in at well over 1000 pages I have never read it all, just parts. Yet in fact the first chapter (which itself is over 100 pages) I have read more than once. This first chapter consists of the proclamations of myriad Enlightenment Beings, each speaking of the way they came to Enlightenment

For the blurb on the back I wrote my own take on this first chapter, that it could be seen to represent all the various acts of compassion and kindness enacted each day in this world - often going unrecognised.

As well as such a view, for me it speaks of the Mahayana teaching of Upaya, or "skilful means", that the "one way" of enlightenment/salvation is nevertheless of infinite expression, moulded to each unique human being. This point is made throughout the Scripture.

Here is D T Suzuki speaking:-

“As to the Avatamsaka-Sutra, it is really the consummation of Buddhist thought, Buddhist sentiment, and Buddhist experience. To my mind, no religious literature in the world can ever approach the grandeur of conception, the depth of feeling, and the gigantic scale of composition, as attained by the sutra. Here not only deeply speculative minds find satisfaction, but humble spirits and heavily oppressed hearts, too, will have their burdens lightened. Abstract truths are so concretely, so symbolically represented here that one will finally come to a realization of the truth that even in a particle of dust the whole universe is seen reflected—not this visible universe only, but a vast system of universes, conceivable by the highest minds only.”

I am now reading deeper into this Scripture and it repays whatever effort is required to concentrate and reflect upon its words. The translator, Thomas Cleary (who I thank) says himself in his Introduction:-

THE FLOWER ORNAMENT SCRIPTURE, called Avatamsaka in Sanskrit and Huayan in Chinese, is one of the major texts of Buddhism. Also referred to as the major Scripture of Inconceivable Liberation, it is perhaps the richest and most grandiose of all Buddhist scriptures, held in high esteem by all schools of Buddhism that are concerned with universal liberation. Its incredible wealth of sensual imagery staggers the imagination and exercises an almost mesmeric effect on the mind as it conveys a wide range of teachings through its complex structure, its colorful symbolism, and its mnemonic concentration formulae.

Mr Cleary also states that it is not known when or by whom this scripture was composed. It is not claimed to be written by "God", nor was it found on golden plates () But does it matter? For me all reality is "revelation" - we can ourselves give pre-eminence to certain events or books, but Grace, Mercy, Compassion have no precise boundaries.

As Meister Eckhart once said:- "They do Him wrong who know God in just one particular way - they end with a way, not with God."

Well, I will get back to reading the scripture, immerse myself in the doings of such as "Sound of Light of Universal Knowledge", "Universal Light of the Lamp of Wisdom" and "Array of Quality Jewels of Fragrant Flowers." Visit and learn of such lands as "Ocean of Worlds named Pleasant Jewel Light", "Ocean of Worlds called Treasuries of Light Spheres of Lapis Lazuli Lotuses" and "Land called Array of Jewels" (where abides the Buddha called "Fearless Lamp of All Truths")

No condemnation is found.

May true Dharma continue.
No blame. Be kind. Love everything

The Ground of Being

 Some words of others tend to stay with me. They often pop back into my mind. An example are these, written by the Catholic Scholar Heinrich Dumoulin:-

Whether, on its deepest ground, being is personal or impersonal, is something that humans will never be able to plumb by their rational powers. Here we face a decision which one makes according to one's own tradition and upbringing, and still more according to one's faith and experience. The Christian sees ultimate reality revealed in the personal love of God as shown in Christ, the Buddhist in the silence of the Buddha. Yet they agree on two things: that the ultimate mystery is ineffable, and that it should be manifest to human beings. The inscription on a Chinese stone figure of the Buddha, dated 746, reads......

"The Higest truth is without image.
If there were no image at all, however, there would be no way for truth to be manifested.
The highest principle is without words.
But if there were not words at all, how could principle possibly be revealed?"

(Well, my grandaughter, when not yet three, was not to be fooled. After a year or so of "grandad's special pizza" she saw through the whole thing.........."THAT'S not pizza, that's cheese on toast". And Grandad, chastened, retired to the kitchen to lick his wounds)

As I've said before, I am a non-theist, preferring the "silence of the Buddha". Yet interested in exactly where the dividing line falls between theism and non-theism - if anywhere.

Back in the day it was recognised by those who pursued "truth" that God could not exist in the same way that objects, or we ourselves, "exist". The ultimate source of all Reality is more the Ground of existence/being, the "ground" in which we live and move and have our being (as the Good Book says......)

This has largely been forgotten and many now simply say that until God demonstrates "his" existence to them then they will remain sceptical. Obviously any testimony of another will not be sufficient - and why should it be?

Yet some modern Christians, such as Paul Tillich and Thomas Merton do seek to explain all this. Merton actually traces the evolution of this fairly modern phenomenon of demanding that God show himself......He goes back to Descartes, where the search for truth and meaning was placed upon the thinking "I" as the one certainty. "I think, therefore I am". Merton shows how such a base will inevitably lead to a God as "object", out there, or up there, a God who will depend upon our will for his existence. And such a God will die, as per Nietzsche. So we live, in the west, with the death of God. Yet the ultimate source can never cease to be. Merton proposes another source of Being, in opposition to Descartes, which is one of the "ground", as spoken of above. (All this in his fine book of essays "Zen and the Birds of Appetite" - available from all good bookstores....)

In the "east" rather than "Ground", emptiness is spoken of, "sunyata", often bringing down accusations of nihilism and suchlike nonsense. But as one wag once said, we must place our feet upon the firm ground of emptiness, or as per the great Christian mystic St John of the Cross once said, if we wished to tread truly then we should close our eyes and walk in the dark.

Well, maybe enough for now.

Pen names and Stephen Batchelor

 I suppose that with a name like Dookie I should steer clear of making a bit of fun about pen names, assumed names and suchlike. To a certain extent Buddhism had monastic origins and it seems the done thing in monasteries to give new names to people when they joined up. Out with the old and in with the new, or something like that.

Whatever, way back I picked up a rather thick book "A Survey of Buddhism" and it was by a guy called Sangarakshita. Here was the real McCoy I thought, the Dharma straight from the horses mouth so to speak. About half way through the book I found out that Sangarakshita was in fact Dennis Lingwood from Romford. Which was a bit of a bummer at the time - nothing against Romford of course, it has a fine market, but the idea of "eastern promise" and authenticity tended to fade just a bit.

It did not end there. I found that Nyanaponika Thera was Sigmund Feniger, Wei Wu Wei was Terence Gray and virtually all of the Kenshu's, Red Pines etc were in fact various Toms, Dicks and Harrys who had perhaps never been further east than Watford.

One exception to all this is Stephen Batchelor, who just happens to be one of my favorite writers on the Dharma. 

He would be well entitled to such nom de plumes as Padmasambhāva or Milarepa, having been educated in part in the east, after being born in Dundee in Scotland. But no, he insists that he is just plain old Stephen Batchelor. He writes much on so called "agnostic" or secular Buddhism, and he comes in for a lot of stick on some Buddhist forums for his agnostic attitude towards such Buddhist teachings as karma and rebirth. Me, I think it is just fine. Reading his many books he actually often links his way of seeing things to the fundamental, core Theravada texts.

Anyway, a few tasters from Stephen Batchelor:-

Dharma (Buddhist) practice requires the courage to confront what it means to be human. All the pictures we entertain of heaven and hell or cycles of rebirth serve to replace the unknown with an image of what is already known. To cling to the idea of rebirth can deaden questioning.

Failure to summon forth the courage to risk a nondogmatic and nonevasive stance on such crucial existential matters can also blur our ethical vision. If our actions in the world are to stem from an encounter with what is central in life, they must be unclouded by either dogma or prevarication. Agnosticism is no excuse for indecision. If anything, it is a catalyst for action; for in shifting concern away from a future life back to the present, it demands an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of hope and fear.

I think this is well put.......especially an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of hope and fear.

More:-

The purpose of the Buddha’s teaching is not to resolve doubts about the nature of “reality” by providing answers to various conundrums but to offer a practice that will remove the “arrow” of reactivity, thereby restoring practitioners’ health and enabling them to flourish here on earth.

In another of his books, "Buddhism Without Beliefs" he points to the possibility of genuine freedom of mind. After speaking of a pseudo integrity that responds to a moral dilemma only by repeating the gestures and words of a parent, an authority figure or a religious text, he writes:-

( we sometimes act ).... in a way that startles us. A friend asks our advice about a tricky moral choice. Yet instead of offering him consoling platitudes or the wisdom of someone else, we say something that we did not know we knew. Such gestures and words spring from body and tongue with shocking spontaneity. We cannot call them "mine" but neither have we copied them from others. Compassion has dissolved the stranglehold of self. And we taste, for a few exhilarating seconds, the creative freedom of awakening.

I think we can often look to Religion for comfort, for answers, yet Stephen Bachelor actually links his entire approach to Suttas found in the oldest texts of thecTheravada tradition. Such as......

So you should you train yourself: “in the seen, there will be only the seen; in the heard, only the heard; in the sensed, only the sensed; in that of which I am conscious, only that of which I am conscious.” This is how you should train."
(UDĀNA)

But most want more. Will always want more. Will seek to justify whatever more they use to justify themselves by the descent into wars and inquisitions; greed, hatred and ignorance.

Stephen Batchelor begins his book "After Buddhism" with reference to one of the earliest records of the Buddha's own method of discourse:-

A well-known story recounts that Gotama — the Buddha — was once staying in Jeta’s Grove, his main center near the city of Sāvatthi, capital of the kingdom of Kosala. Many priests, wanderers, and ascetics were living nearby. They are described as people “of various beliefs and opinions, who supported themselves by promoting their different views.” The text enumerates the kinds of opinions they taught:

The world is eternal.
The world is not eternal.
The world is finite.
The world is not finite.
Body and soul are identical.
Body and soul are different.
The Buddha exists after death.
The Buddha does not exist after death.
The Buddha both exists and does not exist after death.
The Buddha neither exists nor does not exist after death.

They took these opinions seriously. “Only this is true,” they would insist. “Every other view is false!” As a result, they fell into endless arguments, “wounding each other with verbal darts, saying ‘The dharma is like this!’ ‘The dharma is not like that!’”

The Buddha commented that such people were blind. “They do not know what is of benefit and what is of harm,” he explained. “They do not understand what is and what is not the dharma.” He had no interest at all in their propositions. Unconcerned whether such views were true or false, he sought neither to affirm nor to reject them. “A proponent of the dharma,” he once observed, “does not dispute with anyone in the world.” Whenever a metaphysical claim of this kind was made, Gotama did not react by getting drawn in and taking sides. He remained keenly alert to the complexity of the whole picture without opting for one position over another.

As I see it Stephen Bachelor points truly towards the Middle Way, which is not a position between two extremes (Annihilationism and Eternalism for instance ) but more a "no-position" that supercedes all positions, a living truth that can only be lived, not thought. A life where our past does not dictate our present, or our future. We remain open to the unfolding of Reality around us, a constant advance into novelty.

All this relates for me with my own Pure Land path, where Faith (shinjin) is salvation. Faith as the opposite of belief.

Well, a good helping of waffle today. It is my Oxfam afternoon and I have a burger as well as a coffee in McDonalds beforehand. A bit more time.

Koans and other things

 One verse from the Theravada scriptures has been a constant companion, even as I drifted away into Mahayana.

So this holy life does not have gain, honour, and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of virtue for its benefit, or the attainment of concentration for its benefit, or knowledge and vision for its benefit. But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood, and its end.

No mention of the end of suffering which features so much in other texts. Just "unshakeable deliverance of mind". Sometimes I think that this concentration on "ending suffering" can send me - and has sent me - down false paths, especially as "suffering" is simply the usual translation of the Pali dukkha which has far wider and deeper connotations.

Way back on another Forum, when I was much newer to Buddhism I read this book by a lapsed Tibetan Buddhist. He spoke of the death of his mother and how her death had left a hole in his heart that could never be filled. "And" he said "I do not even want it to be filled." He spoke of his fond memories of her and then said that he never wished to relieve such personal anguish in "some pseudo evolved transcendence of personal pain."

I asked on the forum:- "In what sense does suffering end?" and - as is the case on Buddhist forums - got a large variety of answers! Me, I have continued to ask the question, never wanting to betray the realities of this world, either by conceptual mumbo jumbo or by positing some existence beyond the grave where some sort of consolation/recompense is promised.

Which I suppose brings me to koans, that seek to get our mind/hearts beyond "pseudo evolved" anything and leave us instead truly alive, living truth, not "believing" it or "thinking" it.

D T Suzuki wrote, in his essay "The Buddhist Conception of Reality":-

The intellect looks outward, taking an objective view........it is unable to look inwardly so as to grasp the thing in its inwardness.........the unifying principle lies inside and not outside. It is not something we arrive at; it is where we start. It is not the outcome of postulation; it is what makes postulation possible (Without unification, division is not possible)


I'd quibble now about "inside" and "outside" but Suzuki is often a good guide. As well as zen he was well into Shin Buddhism (Pure Land) having had a Shin Buddhist mother. But whatever, when we truly "grasp" a thing we are it. Much like the old Christian fundamentalist taunt/joke, "did you hear about the man who missed out on heaven by 12 inches? He believed with his head but not with his heart." Much like it, but not quite.....

Koans seek to shake us out of our conceptual mind. In Pure Land Buddhism some see Amida as "up there" or "out to the West". He/she will come at death to take us to the Pure Land. Others see Amida as a personification of Reality-as-is and the Pure Land is here, now when known and lived with new eyes, a transformed mind/heart. The same point is made by a guy speaking of Tibetan prayers:-

...... whether, as Buddhists, we conceive that we are praying to enlightened beings who are imagined to be out there somewhere, or whether we see our prayers as simply a skillful means to connect with the Buddha Nature that is the ground and ultimate state of our own being, really makes no difference. Either view, being conceptual, is simply provisional, and indicative. Our efforts will bear fruit, no matter which concept fits our minds better.

Everything is provisional, conceptual until "enlightenment". Myself, I don't really think much about enlightenment. I like the advice of Ajahn Chan...

Do not worry about enlightenment. When growing a tree, you plant it, water it, fertilize it, keep the bugs away; and if these things are done properly, the tree will naturally grow. How quickly it grows, however, is something you cannot control.

"Keeping the bugs away"!

Well, not much said about koans. Instead of finishing with a couple, I'll post instead a couple of zen sayings..

With no bird singing

The mountain is yet more still.



Ride your horse along the edge of the sword
Hide yourself in the middle of the flames
Blossoms of the fruit tree will bloom in the fire
The sun rises in the evening.

Well, OK, a koan...  "What is the sound of one hand clapping"

Don't lose sleep......

Simple Things

 Often I seem to ramble on and say a lot of things, quote a lot of words written by others.

I'm not exactly just talking to myself but it comes fairly close. I truly find pouring it all out therapeutic and mean no harm () Apart from stray thoughts that pop into my mind at odd moments which just might suggest a theme I genuinely have little idea of what I'm going to say until I have said it.

Yet, in saying this, often when I look back at the words there are words/themes that for me are the hub, the heart, of whatever stumbling life I lead. And to be honest, I do feel that many responses simply miss this. So I will say a couple of things again, hoping they will not be missed by anyone unfortunate enough to come across this......

My way is one of hakarai, that is, of no-calculation. The faith, my faith, is that things are made to become so of themselves. The future will always be a surprise, and looking back, given things I have believed in the past, I'm surprised now by what I am or have become - though I try not to look too deep, or judge, or analyse overmuch.

Simple Faith and "hakarai" walk hand in hand. I really don't try to put all my quotes together into any formula. I try not to cling to definitions, and avoid conclusions like the plague. To congeal into a "finished product" of self-justification, have a solid set of convictions from which I judge the world and others would be a hell to me.

As I have said many times, belief clings, faith lets go. Belief and faith are to me complete opposites.

That's it. Once more, even on sunday, I find myself in McDonalds, coffee beside me.

May true Dharma continue.

No blame. Be kind. Love everything.

The Autumn Wind - Revisited

 The need to use terms/words (as I see it) involves the Two Truths, conventional and absolute. I've read a few expositions of the Two Truths doctrine but my mind/heart still seeks clarification. Much remains a jumble.

Looking at Buddhism very broadly, Theravada is the conventional truth, Mahayana speaks from the viewpoint of enlightenment (absolute truth) while Ch'an (zen) seeks to relate the two in existential life/reality.

I feel fortunate that I began very much with Theravada, this before entering the murky waters of Mahayana, waters that can turn the brain to mush in an instance!

Anyone interested, here is the Theravada Elder Nyanaponika Thera (born Sigmund Feniger in Germany) who was once a great guide for me. He is speaking of the transcending of Opposites:-

One should, however, know well and constantly bear in mind that the relinquishing of both sides, the transcending of the opposites, is the final goal — a goal which comes at the end of a long journey. Because this journey unavoidably leads through the ups and downs of samsara, the traveler will repeatedly encounter the play of opposites, within which he will have to make his choices and select his values. He must never attempt to soar above the realm of opposites while ill-equipped with feeble wings or else his fate, like that of Icarus, will be a crash landing. For a time, to the best of his knowledge and strength, he must firmly choose the side of the "higher" against the "lower," following what is beneficial from the standpoint of the Dhamma and avoiding what is harmful. But he should regard his choices and values as a raft, not clinging to them for their own sake, always ready to leave them behind to embark on the next phase of the journey. While still on the mundane plane, he must never forget or belittle the presence within himself of the "lower," the dark side of his nature, and he must learn to deal with this wisely, with caution as well as firmness

To cross the ocean of life and reach "the other shore" safely, skill is needed in navigating its currents and cross-currents. In adapting oneself to those inner and outer currents, however, one must always be watchful. The currents can be powerful at times and one must know when it is necessary to resist them. Sometimes right effort has to be applied to avoid or overcome what is evil and to produce and preserve what is good. At other times it is wise to restrain excessive and impatient zeal and revert to a receptive attitude, allowing the processes of inner growth to mature at their own rate. By wisely directed adaptation we can learn to give full weight to both sides of every situation — to the duality in our own nature and in the objective circumstances we face. Only by confronting and understanding the two sides within one's own experience can one master and finally transcend them.

These are wise words. At least, I think so. The Dharma is a raft "for crossing over not for grasping" and yet if we cease to "grasp" too soon we will find ourselves in mid-ocean, sinking. Nice to think of "living in the now" but it is easy, out of pride, to fool ourselves.

That said, I do think that the heart of the Dharma can be found in Zen , among all its apparent nonsensical quips, koans and suchlike.

One koan especially stays with me, maybe a life koan, one that shimmers and changes its meanings as you grow (or dissolve!) along with it.....

A clearly enlightened person falls into the well. How is this so?

Now, this relates in my mind/heart with the words of Dogen in his Genjokoan:-

Therefore flowers fall even though we love them; weeds grow even though we dislike them.

Salvation/enlightenment is not to be "above" suffering. It is to remain "just as we are", with all others, and yet, in some strange way, to find this "beyond" suffering.

Returning to words and expressions, and the need for them, at the moment I still turn to Dogen. His thought is complex, expressed often in poetic language - and commentators often seem to come to differing conclusions of what he actually meant.

Boxing around this, words that simply point, that are not "the thing itself" and all that sort of thing, Wittgenstein insisted that:- 'An expression has meaning only in the stream of life.'

Extract the words from their context and all is lost. The treacherous sea of language.

Language is no longer linked to the knowing of things, but to human freedom.

(Michel Foucault, "The Order of Things")

(I love this name dropping, I hope others are suitably impressed.......)

Well, I had better finish, my coffee is beginning to get cold. On Buddhist Forums you will not go far without finding the expression "Don't mistake the finger that points for the moon itself". Dogen saw this as pure duality. There is the finger, and there is the moon - the mind is in two places at once. Here is Kim-Jin Kim commenting Dogen's thought, an extract from his book "Eihei Dogen:Mystical Realist":-

Words and letters, however socially constructed, are never mere signs in the abstract, theoretical sense, but alive and active "in the flesh and blood." Contrary to the conventional view that language is no more than a means of communication, it is profoundly internal to an individual's life. Language flows individually and collectively through the existential bloodstream, so much so that it is breath, blood and soul of human existence. Herein lies the essence of Dogen's radical phenomenalism. Thus knowledge becomes acesis, instead of gnosis or logos - "seeing things as they are" now means "making things as they are." In this light the indexical analogy of "the finger that points at the moon" is highly misleading, if not altogether wrong, because it draws on a savifically inefficacious conception of language.

Just a little bit deep and over my head at times, but I begin to get the drift of it.

Wherever we are I think we must try to be real and true to ourselves, not get ahead of ourselves. Way back I would read Krishnamurti and he would often say "When seen it is over." The analogy I thought of was of a red hot-plate. The red is seen, therefore you do not touch. You know it will burn. You need no instruction, no moral code. You live truth, not think it.

"When I speak well of myself and ill of another the autumn wind chills my lips" (Buson)

Living in the autumn wind there can be a spontaneity in our lives, that can issue in grace and mercy, not of ourselves, but of Reality-as-is.