Introducing Dr. Joongpyo Lee - the Mahayana as an answer to Buddha's ten unanswered points

Hello everyone,
I’m so happy to have found this community and very much appreciate seeing such rich and sincere Dhamma discussion. I recently shared this introduction to my Teacher, Dr. Joongpyo Lee, to Bhante Sujato, and he encouraged me to share this with the broader group.

TL;DR:
Dr. Lee is a Korean professor and Mahayana teacher who has dedicated his life to helping clarify the real meaning of the Mahayana, and introducing Buddhism in a secular way for the modern world. The key to unlocking that meaning? A careful and sincere reading of the Nikayas.

“If you find yourself in a strange place without a map, there is only one way to avoid being lost. You must retrace your steps to where you came from. Buddhism in Korea has lost its way. To find our way again, we must trace our steps back to Buddha’s original teachings, and understand their real meaning.”

  • Dr. Joongpyo Lee

Brief biography of Dr. Joongpyo Lee

Dr. Joongpyo Lee is an acclaimed Buddhist scholar and founder of Buddhanara, an organization dedicated to building harmony, equality, and peace through promoting wisdom. Dr. Lee has dedicated his life to understanding and sharing the truth that Buddha realized in a way that is compatible with modern society.

His work began in high school when he organized a successful Buddhist society. After graduating from the Department of Philosophy at Chonnam National University, he received his master’s and doctorate degrees in Buddhism from Dongguk University. He spent some of his university years as an ordained monk.

Dr. Lee’s love of the Dhamma drove him to try to understand the real meaning of the teachings. Increasingly dissatisfied that he couldn’t find any texts that clearly and coherently explained Buddha’s core teaching, the twelve dependent-related links, he learned Pali to read and study the earliest suttas, the Nikaya, himself. His study culminated in receiving a doctorate degree from Dongguk University for his thesis ‘A Study of the Middle Way System in the Chinese Āgamas and Pāli Nikāyas’.

This thesis began a comprehensive exploration that revealed the profound alignment of early Buddhist teachings, the Mahayana, modern philosophy, and science. Dr. Lee has been recognized as one of the leading Buddhist scholars in Korea, and one of the main voices in the secular Dharma movement. Fluent in all the traditional scriptural languages, he is the author of seven books and recently completed a modern and readable translation of all Buddha’s Nikaya teachings.

He served as a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Chonnam National University for 33 years, he was appointed professor emeritus upon his retirement in 2018.

He served as the director of the Honam Buddhist Culture Research Institute, the president of the Pan-Korea Philosophical Society, and the president of the Buddhist Studies Research Society.

Dr. Lee says “Even after modern Christian values ​​collapsed in the West, the hierarchical power and class structure with God at the apex remained. It is taken for granted that the strong win and trample the weak through struggle and competition for positions,” he explained. He contrasts this view of society with the truth of dependent-relationship Buddha discovered 2600 years ago: “What Buddha realized is we are all connected and we depend on another. We cannot truly be happy when others are unhappy. We cannot truly be healthy when others are sick. My happiness and well-being comes when the whole system of life is happy and healthy.”

Dr. Lee’s Translations of the Nikaya

Since 2010, Dr. Lee has been working full-time on a fresh new translation of the Nikayas from Pali into modern Korean. Thus far, he has translated the Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, the Mahavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka, and is near completion of the Suttanipatta. Those texts and others by Dr. Lee have been published by Bulkwang Co.

Originally trained in Korean (Mahayana) schools, he became increasingly concerned that the main meaning of Buddha’s teachings had been lost, and has dedicated his life to reinvigorating Buddhist understanding and practice. Buddhist faith has deep roots in Korea, but people struggle to convert that faith into practical insights. Monastic authority is intertwined with political influence and plagued by corruption. Spiritual practice centers around the practice of hwadu, but without understanding fundamentals such as the 12 dependent-related links, hwadus can’t lead to liberating insights. People study and memorize Mahayana scriptures, but struggle to convert that understanding into freedom from craving and clinging.

Many Koreans now look to Southeast Asian countries like Burma, and to Western countries for insight into Buddhism. And many people have rejected Buddhism to strive for external success or to follow the allure of wealthy and charismatic Christian churches. While there’s beauty and value everywhere, Koreans’ rich Buddhist legacy can be a perfect guide to finding happiness in the modern world, but only if Koreans gain the wisdom to interpret the Dhamma correctly.

“If you find yourself in a strange place without a map, there is only one way to avoid being lost. You must retrace your steps to where you came from. Buddhism in Korea has lost its way. To find our way again, we must trace our steps back to Buddha’s original teachings, and understand their real meaning.”

  • Dr. Joongpyo Lee

The seeds for this insight came decades ago, when Dr. Lee was working on his doctoral thesis, ‘A Study of the Middle Way System in the Chinese Āgamas and Pāli Nikāyas’. The Mahayana teachings are often contrasted with early Buddhist teachings, and competition among lineages has reinforced this separation. But Dr. Lee realized that it is impossible to understand Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka philosophy without recognizing it as a response to the ten questions that Buddha refused to answer, and as a rebuttal of the Abhidhamma interpretations of Buddhism that arose in the 3rd century CE.

Despite the overwhelming size and variety of the Mahayana suttas popular in Korea, their essential meaning is to point people to this middle way and to guide people how to live in harmony through understanding the equality of self and others. The unanswered questions point to a middle way that can only be realized through meditating on foundational teachings such as the five aggregates, three marks of existence, and 12 dependent-related links. But many Mahayanists don’t appreciate the profundity of these Nikaya teachings.

Although Buddha’s teachings are normally presented as a religion that require people to adopt a set of beliefs, Buddha again and again made the point that his teachings were something that everyone could see and validate in their own experience. Careful reading of the Nikaya reveals the path to liberation. This path is always available to us, but we need to identify how we constantly recreate a self on the basis of clinging to impermanent aggregates.

To promote the study and practice of Dhamma, Dr. Lee created Buddhanara, an organization dedicated to bringing Dhamma into modern life. Buddhanara currently operates six dedicated teaching Centers across Korea, as well as a nascent US branch.

To get a sense for Dr. Lee and his teachings, look at this talk he gave as an introduction to Buddhism which conveys some of his views (Andrew and Ashley Davis did the English closed captions). Although the rest of his teachings are in Korean, you can see more of his work and talks on YouTube or at the Buddhanara website.

Dr. Lee’s Nikaya translations are the foundation of the current and future teachings from Buddhanara. These translations have three essential characteristics:

  • They are an anthology of selected suttas, about 40% of the full Nikaya
  • They use modern Korean terminology, and represent an extremely careful process of choosing fresh and clear translations
  • Some closely related suttas have been condensed into a single text for readability (see the image below for an example)

In the next few years, one of his goals is to combine these condensed texts into a single volume (inspired by the Bible) to make it easier for people to study and share Buddha’s teachings.

Dr. Lee’s 33 years as a university professor put him in constant contact with experts in fields such as Anthropology, History, Physics, and Philosophy. Those interactions have equipped him to understand and explain how historical forces shaped aspects of Buddhism, and how Dhamma is necessary to make sense of profound modern topics like Quantum Physics and Artificial Intelligence. These secular explanations are an important contribution to showing the relevance of Dhamma to our modern world. To facilitate this interdisciplinary dialog, Dr. Lee organized Buddhanara Open University in which a variety of university professors offer concise courses that introduce fields such as Astrophysics and show how Dhamma relates to those topics.

10 Likes

Hi, Andrew.
I admire Prof. Lee’s works on translation and his way of interpreting Mahayana sutras. However, as far as I know, he rejects rebirth and advocates the so-called single life interpretation of paṭiccasamuppāda, which I found a bit problematic.

4 Likes

Great to hear that you’re familiar with him, and yes that’s a criticism that’s frequently made towards him.
Obviously this is a big topic that gets discussed a lot. So it may be better to open a new thread if we want to discuss either of those points in depth.

His intention is to convey the meaning of the suttas, which clearly reject both permanence and annihilation. Most Buddhist teachings describe the self in a language that’s closer to permanence, making it easy for people to believe that there is a self who is reborn and eventually attains nirvana. He describes the self in a language that’s closer to annihilation, which is easier to reconcile with a secular worldview.
The point is to find the middle way between those.

As for the 12 dependent related links, he definitely emphasizes the point that the three-life interpretation of that is a creation of the Abhidhamma, not justified by the Nikayas. The link between existence and birth is easier to understand if you think in terms of past and future lives, but then you miss the point that’s clearly being made in the Nidanavagga: there is no self that is reborn. The link of existence means that the concept of self is created by craving and clinging. And that concept of self leads to the concepts of birth and death and all the attendant suffering.

3 Likes

As a Mahayanist, I do wish more Mahayanists would anchor themselves in the EBTs. Mahayana sutras presume much which is found in the EBTs and the early Mahayana philosophers like Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu wrote within that framework. Yinshun is another figure which I admire in this.

So this is a step in the right direction I think.

6 Likes

Is this a truth claim you are making, or just rhetoric?

That is a truth in the context of the Korean (and East Asian Mahayana) Buddhist atmosphere decades ago, against which Prof. Lee has argued his interpretation of the EBT and other scriptures.

2 Likes

Interesting stuff. I liked the video. I will be interested in reading more about this when English translations are available.

That said, I don’t think the Buddha thought the questions he would not answer were meaningless. I think later Buddhists who definitely had views about the things the Buddha would not comment on found them very inconvenient and tried to work around them. Usually, to justify there theories about rebirth.

I think that saying there is no rebirth would have been as objectionable to the Buddha as saying there is rebirth. The world is is one extreme and the world is not is another. To express definite views about it is to tip over to one of the extremes. He suspended judgement. Later Buddhists clearly did not.

That said, I think it is interesting to see the other side of the coin pushed in the rebirth debate, though I think the view is anachronistic.

2 Likes

Ah! I understand. Helpful info! Thanks

I should certainly tread more carefully when saying things like “Most Buddhist teachings”, but my experience was from the Tibetan tradition where there’s a very strong and literal understanding of past and future lives. Even Westerners who adopt those views learn about emptiness and impermanence, but tend to conceive of there “being a self” that has emptiness and impermanence as characteristics but which has existed since beginningless time and will/can never cease.
In my view there’s a sense of permanence hiding in that view, and so practitioners approach the middle way from the extreme of permanence, rather than starting from the view that the self ceases completely at the time of death and then approaching the middle way from there.

3 Likes

Well, the first thing I would note here is that all Buddhist traditions (other than the relatively recent “secular Buddhism” trend) have “a very strong and literal understanding of past and future lives”. So if you’re saying that this is uniquely the case with Tibetan Buddhism, then this is just not the case.

Secondly, I cannot say anything about the people that you’ve encountered within Tibetan Buddhism, but from what I have experienced, there is a very strong emphasis with understanding that while there is rebirth and there is a kind of mindstream which undergoes rebirth, this is empty, impermanent and not self. This is the standard view in all forms of Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism. This is also pretty standard in other forms of Buddhism as well, whether it is the Theravada school’s bhavanga doctrine of rebirth or the classic Mahayana view of the alaya-vijñana.

A similar idea is also not that alien to the EBTs, which speak of a “being seeking rebirth” (sambhavesī, which exists in the intermediate state), a gandhabba, and other similar terms that refer to what undergoes rebirth. Sujato wrote an essay about the intermediate state which mention some of these passages, you can read it here.

So honestly, I am a bit perplexed at what you’re trying to say here or who you’ve encountered that was teaching a Tibetan Buddhist ‘self’. If by this you don’t mean an atman per se, but just mean something which undergoes rebirth, then how is this radically different than what is taught in the EBTs?

2 Likes

This confuses me a bit.

As I understand the teaching of the Buddha, the self cannot “cease completely at the time of death”. For the simple reason that … there is no “self” in the first place.

As is for example said in SN 22.17:

“Mendicants, form is not-self. And what’s not-self should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Feeling is not-self …

Perception is not-self …

Choices are not-self …

Consciousness is not-self. And what’s not-self should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

And this is repeated in many other places.

Can you explain what you mean by “the view that the self ceases completely at the time of death”?

3 Likes

@sabbamitta and @Javier
I honestly didn’t mean to start yet another discussion thread on “what is the Buddhist view of self?” here.

My point is simply that:

  • The correct view Buddha taught is profound and subtle and can be described as a middle way between extremes
  • The Middle Way is “beyond words, thoughts, and conceptions” and so can’t be simply understood intellectually (sanjanati) but rather must be experienced directly (abhijanati)
  • Someone might be very intelligent and articulate, but if their actual, practical view isn’t a direct view of the middle way then that implies that it veers towards one extreme or another
  • All of the schools of Buddhism espouse a view of the middle way, but practitioners of those schools may tend towards one extreme or another in their actual thinking and perception
  • Regardless of what we say we believe, if we sincerely believe in past and future lives and rebirth but have not quite perfected the correct view of the middle way, we are veering towards the extreme of existence.
  • And regardless of what we say we believe, if we sincerely believe that our mental characteristics are exclusively determined by the interaction of our physical basis (brain, etc.) with its environment, and we have not quite perfected the correct view of the middle way, we are veering towards the extreme of non-existence/annihilation.

I agree with @Javier 's point that rebirth is central to traditional Buddhist views, but I would say that there is a risk that such practitioners might fall into the extreme of existence unless they realize directly the middle way.

If someone is primarily coming from a Western/materialist pov, they will tend towards the extreme of non-existence, but if they study points like the one @sabbamitta shared, they can find a middle way that helps them understand that this merely imputed self never dies.

2 Likes

Nicely said.

Which view did you take as anachronistic?

Your info has been helpful. I think it is important to state that the “middle way” is not necessarily the same as “the middle of the road” at least that is not how I have understood it, and not how I have been taught it by monastics, throughout my time studying the suttas. It may be avoiding extremes, which I understand, but I just have found it useful to not think of it in the literal middle of things, because it muddies the waters and leads one to think that neutrality (being literally in the middle of friend and foe) is what the middle way is, when that isn’t necessarily true. But, I can be dense sometimes so, I might be misunderstanding.

1 Like

I totally agree. Some people interpret Buddha’s silence on those ten points to mean that he was saying “don’t get into such philosophical debates”. But that would fit your example of a “middle of the road” interpretation.
Buddha does say “I don’t debate with the worldly”, but that’s not why he didn’t respond to these ten points. He didn’t respond because the correct view of the middle way is very subtle, and the questions themselves have misunderstandings implicit in them. Asking “does the self cease at death?” or “is the self permanent?” both imply that there is some self. Those are faulty questions.

1 Like

I do not think that the Buddha of Snp 4.3, MN 63, and AN 3.65 would say that there is no rebirth because self is an empty notion. Note, that views on rebirth are views about the world and other realms. Snp 4.3 tells us not to have views about just this. MN 63 has the Buddha not answering questions about the world and other realms. And AN 3.65 has the Buddha going out of his way to enumerate different possible scenarios regarding whether there is an after life or not or whether or not there is karmic retribution without committing to any of them.

Snp 4.3
The cleansed one has no formulated view
at all in the world about the different realms.

MN 63
So, Māluṅkyaputta, you should remember what I have not declared as undeclared, and what I have declared as declared. And what have I not declared? I have not declared the following: ‘the cosmos is eternal,’ ‘the cosmos is not eternal,’ ‘the world is finite,’ ‘the world is infinite,’ ‘the soul and the body are the same thing,’ ‘the soul and the body are different things,’ ‘a Realized One exists after death,’ ‘a Realized One doesn’t exist after death,’ ‘a Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death,’ ‘a Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death.’

AN 3.65
When that noble disciple has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, uncorrupted and purified, they’ve won four consolations in the present life. ‘If it turns out there is another world, and good and bad deeds have a result, then—when the body breaks up, after death—I’ll be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ This is the first consolation they’ve won.

‘If it turns out there is no other world, and good and bad deeds don’t have a result, then in the present life I’ll keep myself free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy.’ This is the second consolation they’ve won.

‘If it turns out that bad things happen to people who do bad things, then since I have no bad intentions, and since I’m not doing anything bad, how can suffering touch me?’ This is the third consolation they’ve won.

‘If it turns out that bad things don’t happen to people who do bad things, then I still see myself pure on both sides.’ This is the fourth consolation they’ve won.

When that noble disciple has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, undefiled and purified, they’ve won these four consolations in the present life.”

The Buddha in these suttas is being very careful about NOT making definitive statements with regard to rebirth/the world and other realms. To say that the Buddha would say there is no rebirth because the self is empty contradicts these suttas so I think saying the Buddha thought there was no rebirth because self is empty is introducing an anachronism. The Buddha did not think in these terms.

There are places in the canon where the Buddha does make definitive statements about these things, but we have to decide what we are going to take seriously and what we are going to turn a blind eye to. That said, I think it is a lot harder to explain “no views” Buddhism becoming canonical after “views” being canonical given that views about rebirth existed and were very popular long before Buddhism. No views with regard to this would be an extremely hard sell even for the founder let alone someone trying to sell it later.

Thanks for sharing those quotes @Raftafarian!
This is exactly the kind of subtle riddle that forces us to try to study and contemplate carefully.
Buddha gives us a lot of warnings not to get entangled in the net of (wrong or limiting) views. And we can debate endlessly and inconclusively about theories of what lies beyond this life.
Hidden in these passages is a middle way, and it’s an honor to have a chance to contemplate it.

1 Like

Does Dr. Joongpyo Lee know Ven. YinShun and his works, in particular his publications on the formation of early Buddhist texts and their connection with Mahayana Buddhism?

In (SN12.15)

“‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”

The Buddha teaches the Dhamma by the middle as: “With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be… With the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations…” In other words, he teaches “with proper condition, this comes to be, without proper condition, this ceases.” This is called middle way.

Therefore, there is a self is an extreme, there is no self is another extreme. We should say: With proper condition, there is a self. Without proper condition, there is no self. Or with ignorance as condition, a self exists. Without ignorance as condition, the self does not exist. This is the middle way.

With ignorance, we will take form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness as “This is mine, I am this, this is my self.” By taking the five aggregates like that, there is a self (I, my, mine).

Without ignorance, we will not take form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness as “This is mine, I am this, this is my self.” Therefore, “I, my, mine” or the self does not exist.

1 Like

As the Buddha said:

Ud 1.10
“In that case, Bāhiya, you should train like this: ‘In the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.’ That’s how you should train. When you have trained in this way, you won’t be ‘by that’. When you’re not ‘by that’, you won’t be ‘in that’. When you’re not ‘in that’, you won’t be in this world or the world beyond or between the two. Just this is the end of suffering.”

If this isn’t nonduality, I don’t know what is. This is the middle way.

Added later: it is the middle between our usual absorption of being an organism in the world (the world exists) and absorption in a formless and selfless state (the world does not exist). It is a state with forms, without a sense of being an organism in the world.

1 Like