Saturday, December 28, 2013
Midnight Cowboy
Wow, it sure took me long enough to finish this film. At least five times I started it and had to turn it off because it was simply too upsetting. Brilliant, but terrible, in exactly the same way Requiem for a Dream is. I can't be the only one to draw that parallel. Both movies use the medium of film in exactly the way it was meant to be used, playing with time and consciousness in ways that perfectly evoke the intended sensations without being obscure or obvious. Nonetheless, I hated it, and I doubt you could pay me to watch it again.
Anthony Trollope: The Warden
It's been a while since I read something for pure pleasure--or more specifically to distract me from other, less pleasant things. For that purpose, I could not have done much better than this book. Posessed of all the charm of Dickens, but with significantly more insight into his characters, Trollope takes aim not at social evils, but at personal ones. Trollope even goes so far as to make light of his generally more regarded contemporary, terming him "Mr. Popular Sentiment", an author guilty oversimplifying the rather complex issues of their day to ones of simple villainy.
Trollope goes to great lengths to avoid this, and makes a point of humanizing all of the characters--even the least sympathetic--in remarkably believable ways. Whereas Dickens' creations behave like caricatures, and are correspondingly amusing, but free of substance, Trollope's are at every moment believable, human, and more to the point, a mixture of vice and virtue. "In this world," as he observes, "no good is analloyed, and that there is but little evil that has not in it the seed of what is goodly" (194).
Which made the book somewhat more troubling to read than a similar one of Dickens' might have. The fact that the most noble of characters--John Bold, here-- brings about disaster through his good intentions, and the most sniveling of men--the eponymous Mr. Harding--is fundamentally noble accurately portrays the state of the world. To take a proud stand against a social evil is rather pigheaded and misguided, as it turns out. The greatest battles of all, and the only ones wirth winning, are those within ourselves, those we fight against our own mixed nature.
Trollope goes to great lengths to avoid this, and makes a point of humanizing all of the characters--even the least sympathetic--in remarkably believable ways. Whereas Dickens' creations behave like caricatures, and are correspondingly amusing, but free of substance, Trollope's are at every moment believable, human, and more to the point, a mixture of vice and virtue. "In this world," as he observes, "no good is analloyed, and that there is but little evil that has not in it the seed of what is goodly" (194).
Which made the book somewhat more troubling to read than a similar one of Dickens' might have. The fact that the most noble of characters--John Bold, here-- brings about disaster through his good intentions, and the most sniveling of men--the eponymous Mr. Harding--is fundamentally noble accurately portrays the state of the world. To take a proud stand against a social evil is rather pigheaded and misguided, as it turns out. The greatest battles of all, and the only ones wirth winning, are those within ourselves, those we fight against our own mixed nature.
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Paul Nation: Learning Vocabulary in Another Language
Having heard Mr. Nation speak at a conference of English teachers some years ago, and having been impressed with his approach, I suspected this to be the definitive work on the subject. Accordingly, I checked it out from the library to read over the summer, but life happened and I didn't finish it before it was due to be returned. As fate would have it, it then appeared again on the reading list for one of my classes this semester, and I was called upon to not only write a paper on it, but also to give a thirty minute presentation in Korean.
I won't bore the reader with reproducing here my paper or my presentation, but I will say that it was at once the most stimulating and the most frustrating treatment of the subject. Stimulating because it adresses the topic from multiple nooks and crannies, and gives each topic a thorough and grounded treatment. Frustrating because in the course of finishing it, I discovered that the very experiment I wanted to conduct for my thesis next year had already been done, and referred to offhandedly by Nation here. If only I had finished the book over the summer, my disappointment would not have been reduced, but the time lost would most certainly have been. It's difficult not to think of all the research I did before Mr. Nation unknowingly popped my bubble as being in vain, but of course, no knowledge is in vain. I have to start over on a new topic, it is true, but I do so with a fortified understanding that it juuuuuuust barely beginning to make sense of the strange and seemingly inexplicable process of second language acquisition.
I won't bore the reader with reproducing here my paper or my presentation, but I will say that it was at once the most stimulating and the most frustrating treatment of the subject. Stimulating because it adresses the topic from multiple nooks and crannies, and gives each topic a thorough and grounded treatment. Frustrating because in the course of finishing it, I discovered that the very experiment I wanted to conduct for my thesis next year had already been done, and referred to offhandedly by Nation here. If only I had finished the book over the summer, my disappointment would not have been reduced, but the time lost would most certainly have been. It's difficult not to think of all the research I did before Mr. Nation unknowingly popped my bubble as being in vain, but of course, no knowledge is in vain. I have to start over on a new topic, it is true, but I do so with a fortified understanding that it juuuuuuust barely beginning to make sense of the strange and seemingly inexplicable process of second language acquisition.
Hebrews
Possibly the most interesting thing about this book, before even getting into its famously elegant theology, is its authorship. For some reason I have a hard time accepting its anonymity, even though there is no way of knowing exactly who wrote this masterpiece. In fact it really bothers me, more than it should. I find that I've gotten into the habit of reading these books through the eyes of their authors, and the inability to do that here leaves me feeling a bit adrift. How often are we able--even forced--to take a text purely on its content?
1:1-4 The tone of this section is one of review, the statement of generally accepted facts. If, as by most accounts, it was written around 63 C.E., that speaks to the pretty rapid establishment of such doctrines as the ransom and Christ's relative divinity. It is worth noting here that that divinity is still only relative, Christ being the exact imprint of God's very being, but not God himself.
1:10 And here it is also seen that the idea of Christ's prehuman existence is generally accepted by the church even at this early date.
2:1 At first I had trouble following this logic, but the author seems to be saying that if people suffered for disregarding the messages of angels, how much more so if they disregard the message of one whom God has placed above angels.
2:6 "someone has testified somewhere" is a rather unconvincing form of citation, but no doubt the audience would have been intimate with the source material in Psalms.
2:9 A parallel between the sufferings of Christ and those of the readers. Just as Christ had to be lower than angels before his ascension, so to are the readers merely preparing for their ultimate glory.
2:14 This is an interesting bit of theology. The devil here seems to receive a promotion, from a mere tempter to one with actual power over death.
2:18 In what sense was Christ's suffering necessary to his position as high priest for the descendants of Abraham? Was it a matter of credibility? Or training? Or something more metaphysical? The implication here is that he needed to understand the human experience fully in order to minister to humans, which is consistent with the theology in this book so far, but not with absolute divinity. And no mention is made of a ransom in this passage.
3:2 The transition between Christ and Moses is a little shaky here, and feels like a rhetorical necessity to introduce the ideas in v.7. In general the transitions seem more thematic that logical, not building a logical structure, but telling a fluid story. This in and of itself is enough to suggest that Paul was not the author.
4:1 Again a thematic, rather than a logical, transition to the new idea.
4:4-9 But a very solid bit of reasoning here, that results in some intriguing theology. By this logic, we are still in the sevnth day of Genesis, and the days mentioned therein could not possibly be literal 24 hour periods.
4:12 I'm always intrigued by mention of "the word" in the Bible. Most take it, and especially so here, to mean the Bible itself. But in this context, an interpretation of the word to mean Christ himself is rather easy to support. It is even possible, given the context, that the word mentioned here is the same word spoken in Genesis 2:3, the blessing of the seventh day, or the word of power that swept over the waters of the Earth before giving them shape. All interpretations are tempting, and a theology that combines the three seems best suited to answer the question.
4:14 The lack of a transition here would imply that it is Christ who has been referred to in the previous verses.
4:16 This is the second mention of boldness and confidence as being virtues for the reader, an idea that doesn't really crop up in other letters. In fact, in the vast majority of the Greek scriptures, humility is to be preferred.
5:2 Could it really be said that Christ was subject to weakness? If so, that draws a nice distinction between weakness and sin.
5:11 I laughed inwardly at this. I wonder aobut the "solid food", the more complex truths that are being withheld here from the dullards in the audience.
6:2 I want to know about their basic teachings! Don't skip over them! I am especially interested to know what their version of eternal judgement was, since it was evidently so basic.
6:18 What are the two unchangeable things? I only count one here: God himself.
7:3 In this way, the author of this book is a bit like Melchizedek as well: "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life . . ." Yes, I'm still obsessed with the authroship of this book.
7:4 This begins a very different line of reasoning here, altogether more well constructed and persuasive than the first half. Even the vocabulary is different.
8:9 There's the slightest of chinks in the logic of Hebrews here (it seems appropriate to refer to the book as its own author). It goes to some lengths (the entirety of chapter 7) to set Melchizedek up as evidence of the flaws in the Levitic code. In this verse, however, it acknowledges that the fault was not with the code itself, but with the Israelites failure to follow it.
8:11 Now this is a fascinating verse. "They will not teach one another, or say to each other 'Know the Lord'." At any rate, this would prevent what went wrong with the first covenant from repeating itself. But what would that look like? Watever it is, as Hebrews observes in 5:11 it is still a ways off from the early Christians.
9:14 The logic is pretty compelling here. If I accepted all of the premises upon which it was based, I might even be convinced of ransom theology, which I am generally inclined to view as silly.
9:17 Stretching the metaphor just a wee bit here
10:1 I can't help but be reminded of the Perfection of Wisdom here. I wonder if Hebrews is conscious of the fact that even these doctrines are shadows of a celestial reality.
10:26 These verses are a bit troubling taken out of context, but they make perfect sense here. The problem with the first covenant was that the sins were not erased from the hearts of the Israelites, they were merely covered over. And like any paint job, it needed regular touch ups. The sacrifice of the second covenant doesn't cover over those sins, it erases them. And it replaces them in the hearts of believers with the law itself. If even after that, they willfully persist in sin, there truly does remain no sacrifice.
10:37 The very little while here certainly has taken rather a long time, however. And here is the weakness of the exhortations here. Hebrews' call to confidence, endurance and faith is very effective . . . in the short term.
11:1 People often take this verse as a distinction between faith and hope. "Faith," such an one might say, "is based on fact--even though the facts have not been witnessed." But I, for one, fail to see the distinction. That sounds an awful lot like hope, or worse yet credulity.
11:7 See, what Noah did was not faith. He had assurances, a concrete warning. The faith mentioned in 11:1 doesn't fit this definition.
11:8 Which makes it no wonder that Kierkegaard chose Abraham as his model for the real mystery of faith, not Noah. He acted in faith, and somehow, a terrible bloody intention was purified. That scene, unsurprisingly, is not mentioned here.
11:13 And just as Abel, Noah and Abraham all died without receiving their promises, so did all those who first read this letter, and all who have since.
11:19 Ahhh, here it is. The kicker.
11:23 Here's an interesting riddle. Hebrews here speaks of Moses; parents displaying faith. Plural. What mention is there ever of Moses' father in Genesis though? An interesting line of inquiry.
11:26 Now surely Hebrews is taking a liberty here. Moses could not by any stretch of the imagination be said to have had an idea of the Christ.
11:30 And it also seems like a stretch to say that the wals of Jericho were felled by faith. It was pretty clearly God who did that, not man.
11:35 Those who were tortured here had no idea of a resurrection, though. They suffered not for hope of something better, for the fulfillment of a promise, but for virtue. Because it was impossible for them to do otherwise and live.
11:40 I find this verse entirely opaque. Are they to be joined with the readers then? Syntactically very unclear.
12:1 The train begun in ch.7 continues to pick of speed here. Notwithstanding the petty chinks noted above, this is a pretty forceful piece of writing. I'm almost convinced. Poetic. Soaring, even.
12:14 and Hebrews takes a breath here. Havnig made its point rather unassailably, it relies on that strength to make its final plea.
12:18 Here's an interesting moment. Hebrews reminds the reader that the reality of God is something at once rather terrifying and wonderful. Best for the reader to focus on the wonderful, it seems to say.
12:25 And I can't help but feel here that Hebrews finally gets to the things that it referred to in 5:11, the solid food, so to speak. The Buddha would no doubt approve of this passage, insofar as all creation is shakable and, therefore, not exactly real.
13:1 The denouement. Be loving. Be true. Live simply. Be steadfast. Be humble.
13:18 Who is "I"?!?!?!? Somebody who was on trial, and who knew Timothy, and was in Rome. Certainly sounds like Paul to me, but the tone and focus are so different. Nonetheless, the book also closes in the manner Paul was accustomed to. If not Paul, certainly someone who knew him. For my part, I choose to believe that Hebrews was written by Melchizidek, who is somewhere still alive, and still writing such beautiful things.
1:1-4 The tone of this section is one of review, the statement of generally accepted facts. If, as by most accounts, it was written around 63 C.E., that speaks to the pretty rapid establishment of such doctrines as the ransom and Christ's relative divinity. It is worth noting here that that divinity is still only relative, Christ being the exact imprint of God's very being, but not God himself.
1:10 And here it is also seen that the idea of Christ's prehuman existence is generally accepted by the church even at this early date.
2:1 At first I had trouble following this logic, but the author seems to be saying that if people suffered for disregarding the messages of angels, how much more so if they disregard the message of one whom God has placed above angels.
2:6 "someone has testified somewhere" is a rather unconvincing form of citation, but no doubt the audience would have been intimate with the source material in Psalms.
2:9 A parallel between the sufferings of Christ and those of the readers. Just as Christ had to be lower than angels before his ascension, so to are the readers merely preparing for their ultimate glory.
2:14 This is an interesting bit of theology. The devil here seems to receive a promotion, from a mere tempter to one with actual power over death.
2:18 In what sense was Christ's suffering necessary to his position as high priest for the descendants of Abraham? Was it a matter of credibility? Or training? Or something more metaphysical? The implication here is that he needed to understand the human experience fully in order to minister to humans, which is consistent with the theology in this book so far, but not with absolute divinity. And no mention is made of a ransom in this passage.
3:2 The transition between Christ and Moses is a little shaky here, and feels like a rhetorical necessity to introduce the ideas in v.7. In general the transitions seem more thematic that logical, not building a logical structure, but telling a fluid story. This in and of itself is enough to suggest that Paul was not the author.
4:1 Again a thematic, rather than a logical, transition to the new idea.
4:4-9 But a very solid bit of reasoning here, that results in some intriguing theology. By this logic, we are still in the sevnth day of Genesis, and the days mentioned therein could not possibly be literal 24 hour periods.
4:12 I'm always intrigued by mention of "the word" in the Bible. Most take it, and especially so here, to mean the Bible itself. But in this context, an interpretation of the word to mean Christ himself is rather easy to support. It is even possible, given the context, that the word mentioned here is the same word spoken in Genesis 2:3, the blessing of the seventh day, or the word of power that swept over the waters of the Earth before giving them shape. All interpretations are tempting, and a theology that combines the three seems best suited to answer the question.
4:14 The lack of a transition here would imply that it is Christ who has been referred to in the previous verses.
4:16 This is the second mention of boldness and confidence as being virtues for the reader, an idea that doesn't really crop up in other letters. In fact, in the vast majority of the Greek scriptures, humility is to be preferred.
5:2 Could it really be said that Christ was subject to weakness? If so, that draws a nice distinction between weakness and sin.
5:11 I laughed inwardly at this. I wonder aobut the "solid food", the more complex truths that are being withheld here from the dullards in the audience.
6:2 I want to know about their basic teachings! Don't skip over them! I am especially interested to know what their version of eternal judgement was, since it was evidently so basic.
6:18 What are the two unchangeable things? I only count one here: God himself.
7:3 In this way, the author of this book is a bit like Melchizedek as well: "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life . . ." Yes, I'm still obsessed with the authroship of this book.
7:4 This begins a very different line of reasoning here, altogether more well constructed and persuasive than the first half. Even the vocabulary is different.
8:9 There's the slightest of chinks in the logic of Hebrews here (it seems appropriate to refer to the book as its own author). It goes to some lengths (the entirety of chapter 7) to set Melchizedek up as evidence of the flaws in the Levitic code. In this verse, however, it acknowledges that the fault was not with the code itself, but with the Israelites failure to follow it.
8:11 Now this is a fascinating verse. "They will not teach one another, or say to each other 'Know the Lord'." At any rate, this would prevent what went wrong with the first covenant from repeating itself. But what would that look like? Watever it is, as Hebrews observes in 5:11 it is still a ways off from the early Christians.
9:14 The logic is pretty compelling here. If I accepted all of the premises upon which it was based, I might even be convinced of ransom theology, which I am generally inclined to view as silly.
9:17 Stretching the metaphor just a wee bit here
10:1 I can't help but be reminded of the Perfection of Wisdom here. I wonder if Hebrews is conscious of the fact that even these doctrines are shadows of a celestial reality.
10:26 These verses are a bit troubling taken out of context, but they make perfect sense here. The problem with the first covenant was that the sins were not erased from the hearts of the Israelites, they were merely covered over. And like any paint job, it needed regular touch ups. The sacrifice of the second covenant doesn't cover over those sins, it erases them. And it replaces them in the hearts of believers with the law itself. If even after that, they willfully persist in sin, there truly does remain no sacrifice.
10:37 The very little while here certainly has taken rather a long time, however. And here is the weakness of the exhortations here. Hebrews' call to confidence, endurance and faith is very effective . . . in the short term.
11:1 People often take this verse as a distinction between faith and hope. "Faith," such an one might say, "is based on fact--even though the facts have not been witnessed." But I, for one, fail to see the distinction. That sounds an awful lot like hope, or worse yet credulity.
11:7 See, what Noah did was not faith. He had assurances, a concrete warning. The faith mentioned in 11:1 doesn't fit this definition.
11:8 Which makes it no wonder that Kierkegaard chose Abraham as his model for the real mystery of faith, not Noah. He acted in faith, and somehow, a terrible bloody intention was purified. That scene, unsurprisingly, is not mentioned here.
11:13 And just as Abel, Noah and Abraham all died without receiving their promises, so did all those who first read this letter, and all who have since.
11:19 Ahhh, here it is. The kicker.
11:23 Here's an interesting riddle. Hebrews here speaks of Moses; parents displaying faith. Plural. What mention is there ever of Moses' father in Genesis though? An interesting line of inquiry.
11:26 Now surely Hebrews is taking a liberty here. Moses could not by any stretch of the imagination be said to have had an idea of the Christ.
11:30 And it also seems like a stretch to say that the wals of Jericho were felled by faith. It was pretty clearly God who did that, not man.
11:35 Those who were tortured here had no idea of a resurrection, though. They suffered not for hope of something better, for the fulfillment of a promise, but for virtue. Because it was impossible for them to do otherwise and live.
11:40 I find this verse entirely opaque. Are they to be joined with the readers then? Syntactically very unclear.
12:1 The train begun in ch.7 continues to pick of speed here. Notwithstanding the petty chinks noted above, this is a pretty forceful piece of writing. I'm almost convinced. Poetic. Soaring, even.
12:14 and Hebrews takes a breath here. Havnig made its point rather unassailably, it relies on that strength to make its final plea.
12:18 Here's an interesting moment. Hebrews reminds the reader that the reality of God is something at once rather terrifying and wonderful. Best for the reader to focus on the wonderful, it seems to say.
12:25 And I can't help but feel here that Hebrews finally gets to the things that it referred to in 5:11, the solid food, so to speak. The Buddha would no doubt approve of this passage, insofar as all creation is shakable and, therefore, not exactly real.
13:1 The denouement. Be loving. Be true. Live simply. Be steadfast. Be humble.
13:18 Who is "I"?!?!?!? Somebody who was on trial, and who knew Timothy, and was in Rome. Certainly sounds like Paul to me, but the tone and focus are so different. Nonetheless, the book also closes in the manner Paul was accustomed to. If not Paul, certainly someone who knew him. For my part, I choose to believe that Hebrews was written by Melchizidek, who is somewhere still alive, and still writing such beautiful things.
Red Pine (translation and comentary): The Diamond Sutra
Before getting into the linguistic puzzle that is The Diamond Sutra, I feel obliged to mention that the level of scholarship displayed by Red Pine in this edition is without peer. Not only has he translated the text in a way that seems to capture the essence of the Buddha's message, and supplemented that translation with extensive and credible notation, not only has he added his own insightful and transparent commentary, but he ahs gone to the additional step of selecting and compiling the commentary of the very best Buddhist thinkers of history. This last step is one of both scholarship and humility, and the edition as a whole seems to be enough to have taken any man a lifetime to put together. I am agape at the amount of work and sagacity that this volume represents.
Nonetheless, the editor, outstanding as he is, is not the real star of this text. Out of nearly five hundred pages, only the first 27 are the sutra itself. It is that dense, that rich, it took that much explication to make it even remotely accessible. The text centers upon a central puzzle, which I perceived to be slightly semantic in nature. The Buddha repeatedly tells Subhuti X is not X. Thus is it called X. For example, in chapter 9 he says "Those who return no more do not think, 'I have attained the goal of returning no more.' And why not? Bhagavan, they do not find any such dharma as 'returning no more.' Thus are they said to 'return no more'." Again in 10 he says "The transformation of a world, Subhuti, the 'transformation of a world' is said by the Tathagata to be no transformation. Thus is it called 'the transformation of a world."
The first part of this argument presents no problem. The Buddha is merely saying that what we thought is real, turns out to not exist at all. That which we thought was a return turns out to be no return, and that which we thought of as a transformation turns out to be no transformation at all. But the second part of the argument, "thus is it called X" is a bit of a problem. If it does not exist, why is attention drawn again to the term itself? Furthermore, why is the conjunctive "thus" used to indicate that the terminology is not just a semantic trick, but an entailment of its nonexistence? The Buddha goes on to use this same structure in some form for nearly every concept that he mentions. He must be doing more than merely drawing our attention to the fundamental nothingness of certain dharmas--indeed, this makes sense, as Subhuti already was viewed as an expert on nothingness at the beginning of this sutra. The Buddha must be taking Subhuti (and us as his proxies) past the idea of nothingness into something more.
And this is where I am grateful to the attentions of the editor. He doesn't seem to struggle with the seemingly incomprehensibility of these statements as I did, but the combination of his own commentary with the included commentary of centuries of other Buddhist thinkers unlocked it for me a bit around chapter 19. In speaking of a body of merit, Buddha again employs the familiar structure: ". . .'a body of merit' is spoken of by the Tathagata as no body. Thus is it called a 'body of merit'." But while he usually stops at theat, here he adds the additional information "Subhuti, if there were a body of merit, the Tathagata would not have spoken of a body of merit as a 'body of merit'." Aha! The puzzle untangles a little. Bodies of merit, returning no more, transformation of a world, do not exist. But here tThe Buddha reveals that the "Thus is X called X" structure is added to that fact to reveal how we know that it is true. We know that X is not X because X is called X. If X existed, there would be no way to speak of it.
Which raises the question of why mention it all? If the very speaking of something is evidence of its nonexistence, what is the point of any sutra, let alone this one? Red Pine's commentary put a pin in the crux of the question: "Not only can a thought of enlightenment not be found, neither does a body of merit exist. And yet the Buddha speaks of a body of merit . . . Rather he insists on it, and he insists on it precisely because it does not exist" (322). The perception of emptiness is not the ultimate enlightenment. If it were, Subhuti would have finished his path before this conversation. Rather, the key is to perceive both emptiness and non emptiness. "The dharma eye sees beyond emptiness to what advances liberation," as Pine puts it.
The truly enlightened one perceives both the emptiness and the non emptiness of reality. What is real? Is a shadow real? It has no substance. It is merely a trick of the light, a perception of something that doesn't exist. And yet it exists. We can says that a shadow exists. It is neither real nor not real. And as any seemingly solid object is merely an illusion caused by the way atoms and light meet, as the things we think we see or touch--but do not really--are merely convenient mental constructs, so too is any dharma that can be spoken: neither true nor not true. Pine quotes Chi-Fo as saying "neither atoms of dust nor worlds are real. If atoms of dust wree real, they couldn't be combined to form a world. If worlds were real, they couldn't be separated into atoms of dust" (414). Both the things we perceive, and the atoms that seem to constitute them, on closer examination "turn out to be rather arbtrary views of reality founded on nothing more than linguistic conventions, which are themselves the detritus of previously established arbitrary views" (420). So is it true of any dharma the Buddha has spoken, and by extension any philosophy, creed, or religion that has ever existed.
But the key is not to abandon those dharmas! The Subhhutis of the world discover that everything is pretty much an illusion, especially things associated with the dharma teachings of organized religion. And so they become free thinkers, scoffing at the idea that there is any meaning to life at all, and contenting themselves to live in a manner that they deem virtuous. There is nothing wrong with this way of living, but it is a mistake to think that it represents enlightenment. True enlightenment comes from the knowledge that all dharmas are not only empty, they are also not empty. The fact that we cannot express the something which exists in an above us does not mean that it does not exist. Enlightenment comes from making peace with the fact that everything we think we know about reality is neither true nor not true. God, Subhuti, "God" is spoken of by the Buddha as no God. Thus is it called "God". Subhuti, if there were a God, the Buddha would not have spoken of God as "God".
Nonetheless, the editor, outstanding as he is, is not the real star of this text. Out of nearly five hundred pages, only the first 27 are the sutra itself. It is that dense, that rich, it took that much explication to make it even remotely accessible. The text centers upon a central puzzle, which I perceived to be slightly semantic in nature. The Buddha repeatedly tells Subhuti X is not X. Thus is it called X. For example, in chapter 9 he says "Those who return no more do not think, 'I have attained the goal of returning no more.' And why not? Bhagavan, they do not find any such dharma as 'returning no more.' Thus are they said to 'return no more'." Again in 10 he says "The transformation of a world, Subhuti, the 'transformation of a world' is said by the Tathagata to be no transformation. Thus is it called 'the transformation of a world."
The first part of this argument presents no problem. The Buddha is merely saying that what we thought is real, turns out to not exist at all. That which we thought was a return turns out to be no return, and that which we thought of as a transformation turns out to be no transformation at all. But the second part of the argument, "thus is it called X" is a bit of a problem. If it does not exist, why is attention drawn again to the term itself? Furthermore, why is the conjunctive "thus" used to indicate that the terminology is not just a semantic trick, but an entailment of its nonexistence? The Buddha goes on to use this same structure in some form for nearly every concept that he mentions. He must be doing more than merely drawing our attention to the fundamental nothingness of certain dharmas--indeed, this makes sense, as Subhuti already was viewed as an expert on nothingness at the beginning of this sutra. The Buddha must be taking Subhuti (and us as his proxies) past the idea of nothingness into something more.
And this is where I am grateful to the attentions of the editor. He doesn't seem to struggle with the seemingly incomprehensibility of these statements as I did, but the combination of his own commentary with the included commentary of centuries of other Buddhist thinkers unlocked it for me a bit around chapter 19. In speaking of a body of merit, Buddha again employs the familiar structure: ". . .'a body of merit' is spoken of by the Tathagata as no body. Thus is it called a 'body of merit'." But while he usually stops at theat, here he adds the additional information "Subhuti, if there were a body of merit, the Tathagata would not have spoken of a body of merit as a 'body of merit'." Aha! The puzzle untangles a little. Bodies of merit, returning no more, transformation of a world, do not exist. But here tThe Buddha reveals that the "Thus is X called X" structure is added to that fact to reveal how we know that it is true. We know that X is not X because X is called X. If X existed, there would be no way to speak of it.
Which raises the question of why mention it all? If the very speaking of something is evidence of its nonexistence, what is the point of any sutra, let alone this one? Red Pine's commentary put a pin in the crux of the question: "Not only can a thought of enlightenment not be found, neither does a body of merit exist. And yet the Buddha speaks of a body of merit . . . Rather he insists on it, and he insists on it precisely because it does not exist" (322). The perception of emptiness is not the ultimate enlightenment. If it were, Subhuti would have finished his path before this conversation. Rather, the key is to perceive both emptiness and non emptiness. "The dharma eye sees beyond emptiness to what advances liberation," as Pine puts it.
The truly enlightened one perceives both the emptiness and the non emptiness of reality. What is real? Is a shadow real? It has no substance. It is merely a trick of the light, a perception of something that doesn't exist. And yet it exists. We can says that a shadow exists. It is neither real nor not real. And as any seemingly solid object is merely an illusion caused by the way atoms and light meet, as the things we think we see or touch--but do not really--are merely convenient mental constructs, so too is any dharma that can be spoken: neither true nor not true. Pine quotes Chi-Fo as saying "neither atoms of dust nor worlds are real. If atoms of dust wree real, they couldn't be combined to form a world. If worlds were real, they couldn't be separated into atoms of dust" (414). Both the things we perceive, and the atoms that seem to constitute them, on closer examination "turn out to be rather arbtrary views of reality founded on nothing more than linguistic conventions, which are themselves the detritus of previously established arbitrary views" (420). So is it true of any dharma the Buddha has spoken, and by extension any philosophy, creed, or religion that has ever existed.
But the key is not to abandon those dharmas! The Subhhutis of the world discover that everything is pretty much an illusion, especially things associated with the dharma teachings of organized religion. And so they become free thinkers, scoffing at the idea that there is any meaning to life at all, and contenting themselves to live in a manner that they deem virtuous. There is nothing wrong with this way of living, but it is a mistake to think that it represents enlightenment. True enlightenment comes from the knowledge that all dharmas are not only empty, they are also not empty. The fact that we cannot express the something which exists in an above us does not mean that it does not exist. Enlightenment comes from making peace with the fact that everything we think we know about reality is neither true nor not true. God, Subhuti, "God" is spoken of by the Buddha as no God. Thus is it called "God". Subhuti, if there were a God, the Buddha would not have spoken of God as "God".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)