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

The Watercooler
7

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
8

Ah! I understand. Helpful info! Thanks

9

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
10

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
11

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
12

@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
13

Nicely said.

Which view did you take as anachronistic?

14

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
15

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
16

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.

17

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
18

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?

19

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
20

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
21

Love it. 100% agree
Thank you

22

I was thinking about your statement last night while listening to a talk by Dr. Lee.
He used analogies to point out three kinds of misunderstandings of what Middle Way means:

Chopsticks need to be middle length. If they’re too short, you can’t use them. If they’re too long, you can’t use them. If you know how long chopsticks should be, you can gauge what’s too long or too short.
But that’s not how we should interpret Buddha’s Middle Way, it doesn’t just mean moderation.

There’s also the story of Sona in AN6.55 that uses the example of a harp to illustrate how our effort shouldn’t be too tight or too loose.
But that’s not how we should interpret Buddha’s Middle Way, it doesn’t just mean balance.

If you’re firing an arrow, you aim to hit the bullseye, right in the middle. Deviating in any direction means you’re off target.
But that’s not how we should interpret Buddha’s Middle Way, it’s not a static target.

A better analogy for the middle way is when you’re traveling down a river in a raft, you need to stay in the center of the channel, and not veer into either bank. The river is always flowing, your environment is always changing, but there are always two extremes on either side that are threatening to make you stuck.
The Middle Way keeps the mind balanced in the midst of constant change, without veering into the extreme of thinking that things exist or that they don’t exist. Rather, existence is a creation of the mind that names things; we create this world of names because we crave certainty.

3 Likes
23

It took me a little time to get an answer on this one.
Dr. Lee has heard of Ven. YinShun, but is not very familiar with his work. Thanks for pointing him out.

24

Thanks for your reply.

The reason I asked this question is the Chinese scholar-monk, Ven. YinShun in his works suggests that Saṃyukta-āgama/Saṃyutta-nikāya is the foundation of both the four āgamas/nikāyas, and the Mahayana Madhyamaka and Yogācāra’s essential teachings.
Cf.: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

25

Someone had shared with me this article which makes a similar point. Now that I’m reviewing it, I see that the author is citing Ven. Yin Shun extensively.

The Samyutta Nikaya is the first Nikaya I’ve studied (I’m currently studying it with Dr. Lee), so I’m very happy to hear that I’m starting in the right place. It’s been a joy to learn so far.

26

Good to know you are currently reviewing the book by Choong Mun-keat on the Sutra-anga portion of SA/SN , and also studying SN with Dr. Lee. The following article by the same author provides further useful information on SA/SN:

Choong Mun-keat, “Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts” in Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts, Research Series 8; edited by Dhammadinnā), Taiwan: Dharma Drum Corporation, August 2020, pp. 883-932.
((PDF) Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts | Mun Keat Choong - Academia.edu)

1 Like