Posted by: Tusar N. Mohapatra on: January 18, 2009
Da is not the only person to note the “logic” of this kind of movement. This “movement” is also described by the Japanese Buddhist scholar Nagao in his various articles on Madhyamika and Yogachara.
This emphasis upon immanence is taken over by the Tantric schools such as the Vajrayana and Kashmiri Shaivism, both of which were heavily indebted to the Yogachara, and melded with the generally “world-centric” orientation of Tantrism. Historically, what the Vajrayana does is take the “three-fold turning” over from the Yogachara and apply it to a kind of “pseudo-historigraphy” so as to justify Tibetan Buddhism. There, inn the self-understanding of Tibetan Buddhism, we find the three “yanas,” Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana, where we once found the three “turnings.”
Something very similar could be done with the Hindu traditions of Samkhya, classical Advaita Vedanta, and Kashmiri Shaivism. One could probably extract just such a conception from the works of Abhivanagupta, who speaks of the Shaiva Kaula dharma as “transcending and including” all other traditions, including classical advaita vedanta, just as the elephant’s footprint obliterates the tracks of all other animals.
Da’s use of these ideas in Nirvanasara are not identical to the above, but he makes use of the same dialectical structure. Generally, he speaks of classical Advaita and classical Buddhism as reifying nirvikalpa samadhi and “classical nirvana” (or nirodha if we want to bring Goleman’s language into the picture as Ken does). According to Da, these traditions discriminate “nirvana” and nirvikalpa samadhi from the world. Da refers to these two traditions as two poles, one “realistic” and the other “idealistic” (an idea he may have picked up from Western scholars), but he calls both forms of “transcendentalism” and by this I take it that he means to say that both emphasize transcendence over immanence.
In Da’s writings, the term “discrimination” becomes a kind of catchword used when referring to “merely six stage” soteriological strategies. This idea, “discrimination” as a kind of “bug-bear, is, I believe, taken over from D.T. Suzuki’s translation of the Lanakavatara Sutra, a work, it should be noted that has a pronounced Yogachara orientation. Throughout his translation, Suzuki repeatedly translates the term “vikalpa,” which loosely means dichotmous or dualistic thinking, with the English term “discrimination.” This, as some reviewers have noted, is highly misleading as it does not differentiate vikalpa (bad) from viveka (good).
However, in at least one place in the text, the Sanskrit term “viveka” does indeed appear where Suzuki uses the term “discrimination; moreover, the Lankavatara does indeed repudiate viveka at this point. On this count and to this extent, both Suzuki and Da are correct: the general orientation of the Lankavatara is indeed one that emphasizes non-discrimination over discrimination; immanence over transcendence. It was for this reason that Da once called the Lankavatara a “seventh stage” text.
To return to my point about Ken’s most recent work, insofar as Ken still remains attached to such conceptions — which are clearly at work in his conception of “enlightenment” as “union” with objects — he still remains attached to a specific metaphysical conception and orienttion. To give a specific example, to say that immanence is “superior” to transcendence implies that one accepts the historiography that takes the Vajrayana as “superior” to Mahayana and “Hinayana.” Only a tantrika, a Vajrayanist or Kashmiri Shaiva, could say such a thing. For the rest of the tradition, historically speaking, we have been in a state of spiritual decline; this is the Kali Yuga, after all!)
It goes without saying that any such “historigraphy” is by its very nature teleological in nature. And to that extent is remains metaphysical at its core. Jan 17, 2009 Gaia Community: kelamuni’s Blog
- I have at times referred to Kenny’s use of hyperbole when referring to other individuals or their teachings. I take it that Kenny has picked up this particular rhetorical modality from the mate… Hyperbole in Wilber from Gaia Community: kelamuni’s Blog
- Throughout his writings, and notably in Integral Spirituality, Ken speaks of “phenomenology” in terms of a “first person” account or description of the contents of consciousness… Jan 17, 2009 Gaia Community: kelamuni’s Blog
- In Integral Spirituality, Ken writes: When one is in deep meditation or contemplation, touching even that which is formless and unmanifest-the purest emptiness of cessation-there are of course no … Jan 17, 2009 Gaia Community: kelamuni’s Blog
- Wilber’s One Taste, which contains a series of journal entries edited for public consumption, contains a reflection on “transformation” and its relation with what he calls “trans… Jan 17, 2009 Gaia Community: kelamuni’s Blog
- I ran across this interesting net-page today. The article belongs to a set of articles in which various authors debate the veracity of “neo-advaita” as opposed to ”traditional adva… Jan 17, 2009 > Hyperbole in Wilber from Gaia Community: kelamuni’s Blog
[...] “World-centric” orientation of Tantrism [...]
Recent Comments