[Buddha-l] Re: G-d, the D-vil and other imaginary friends

[r.g.morrison]

Hello Stephen.  Good to see you back!

: r.g.morrison wrote:
:
: > To this end the text is continually giving analogies to
: > make this point unambiguously clear, for example the analogy milk and
: > ghee.
: > Milk plus the right conditions eventually gives rise to ghee.  But if 
you
: > think that ghee in some manner actually exists in the milk, then you are 
a
: > literal minded twit.
:
: The problem here is that the Dharmaksema version is multilayered and
: somewhat contradictory.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, the authors of the
: extended parts of Dharmaksema have clearly set out to subvert the meaning 
of
: the older Indic portion of the text.

Yes, but reading Yamamoto's translation of Dharmaksema, at least all the 
analogies used are consistent in attempting to show that it is a mistake to 
take Buddha-nature as a literally existing in unawakened beings.

: The problem here is that the Dharmaksema version is multilayered and
: somewhat contradictory.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, the authors of the
: extended parts of Dharmaksema have clearly set out to subvert the meaning 
of
: the older Indic portion of the text.  Your statement above is contradicted
: by a passage in the Indic version which, dealing with the same simile,
: states, "Ghee arising from the cow does not arise from something else and
: does indeed exist in all cases (= milk, curds, butter etc) inherently,
: nevertheless it is not apparent because it is obscured by defects and
: subsists mixed mutually with [the milk and so forth]".  The same idea is
: repeated elsewhere.   Such alterations in later portions of the 
Dharmaksema
: version indicate that the authors had an agenda to undermine or subvert 
the
: doctrinal position of the Indic version.  Whether that position is correct
: is another matter, but the interpretation in the Indic version seems to 
echo
: the standard Indian adage that a result must inhere as a potentiality (at
: least) in a cause.

Yes, I actually made a note next to your draft translation of this passage: 
'this seems more essentialist than the similes found in Dharmaksema's text'. 
So are you suggesting that Dharmaksema, or at least his text, has been 
modified to present a consistent anti-essentialist view of 
Buddha-nature/-dhatu?  Also, these analogies are scattered throughout 
Dharmaksema's text, not just the 'later portions'.  As for the 'correct 
position', I would argue as follows.

In the "Svetaa"svatara Upani.sad, 1. 15-16, we have the analogy where 
brahman/aatman is said to contained in the body like 'butter in curds' and 
'like butter in milk'.  This is straightforward essentialism, later called 
satkaaryavaada, 'the doctrine that the effect exists in the cause'.  To my 
understanding, this is exactly the kind of view the Middle-Way, aka 
conditioned-arising, is designed undermine.  The Middle-Way is 
anti-essentialist through and through (as well as being 
anti-annihilationist).  To this end the Buddha in the Pali texts actually 
uses this very analogy to make this point.

In the Diigha Nikaaya [i. 201], in a dialogue with a monk called Citta about 
the nature of the aatman, the Buddha says that:

'from a cow we get milk, from milk cream, from cream butter, from butter 
ghee, and from ghee cream of ghee.  And when there is milk, we do not speak 
of cream, of butter, of ghee, or of cream of ghee, we speak of milk; when 
there is cream, we do not speak of butter, of ghee, or of cream of ghee, we 
speak of cream [etc. through to], when there is cream of ghee . we speak of 
cream of ghee'.

I read this as saying that when we have milk, stick with the fact that in 
terms of what exists here and now there is only milk.  If we start to 
speculate and ask questions such as where the cream of ghee is when there is 
only milk, or where the milk goes when we have cream of ghee - which is 
quite natural for a curious mind - if one is too literal minded, this can 
lead one from the Middle-Way.  For example, thinking that the cream of ghee 
actually exists hidden in the milk would correspond to view of the immanent 
aatman as found above in the "Svetaa"svatara Upani.sad. Thus to think that 
cream of ghee actually exists as some trans-empirical, unchanging essence 
'behind' or 'hidden within' the appearance of milk would be to fall into the 
extreme view of 'eternalism' ("sa"svatavaada), similar to that of 
satkaaryavaada. So to me the Buddhist view here, the 
Middle-Way-cum-conditioned-arising, would be to see that without milk there 
can be no cream, without cream there can be no butter, etc.  There is a 
continuity of conditionally arising perceptible events, each of which is 
given a name, represented here by the process from milk to cream of ghee, 
but within this process there is no thing or essence that remains unchanged, 
hidden behind or within, obscured by the milk, cream, etc.  As the Buddha 
goes on to say:

'But, Citta, these [i.e. 'milk, cream', etc.] are merely names, expressions, 
turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the 
Tathaagata uses without being misled by them. [202]

In other words, the essence of the problem is in thinking that our 
designations 'milk', 'curds', 'Buddha-nature', etc. actually correspond to 
real, separately existing things.  Thinking in this way we have the 
'problem' of where the ghee is when there is only milk, or where Buddhahood 
is when there are no Buddhas. Therefore given that milk, under certain 
conditions, produces (in a manner of speaking) ghee, the ghee must somehow 
exist in the milk.  Given that beings can become a Buddhas, they all must 
have a Buddha-nature!

So while the 'ghee actually exists hidden in the milk' view is certainly 
Indic, it completely contradicts what the Buddha is reported as saying above 
and in many others places in the Pali suttas and Aagamas.  So if Dharmaksema 
or his followers did alter the text, then it seems they might have done so 
to subvert what they saw as brahminism sneeking in under the guise of 
Buddha-nature / Buddha-dhaatu / Tathaagatagarbha!  All of the analogies in 
Dharmaksema's text support the view found in the Diigha Nikaaya, whereas the 
view in the text you quote contradicts it, and fits well with the view of 
the immanent brahmin/aatman found in the Upani.sads.

Cheers, (how's the back?)

Robert Morrison