The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

taleen
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:35 am

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by taleen »

SilenceMonkey wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:58 am My own impression (not based on tian tai philosophy) is that the Buddha world pervading the 3 realms is emptiness, uncompounded and undefiled by the impurities of the three realms. It's there somehow... but unhindered, untouched by samsara.
In the world but not of the world.

Unmoved mover
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by tkp67 »

I believe the Devadetta chapter puts it into context. Basically good and evil represent the end spectrum of duality respectively. My interpretation from that chapter the life of Shakyamuni is this.

When he enjoyed the protection of the palace, it was assumed it was the product of great good and thus it was not to be questioned. When he left the palace he saw the contrast caused by this ideology and social policy. I don't believe he understood the cause at first and after enlightenment knew he couldn't change society in a single lifetime.

Great good gives rise to great evil and great evil gives rise to great good.

This good of course is not in context with what is considered the virtue of the buddha but rather a good that is subject the realms and this biased against some facet of sentient beings by proxy even if this is not the intended consequence.

The buddha did not seem to feel people were ready to understand all agency was on them as individuals and that individual agency is the source for all the external agency. Instead he taught as if that agency was far away. I have many thoughts on why this could be but it comes down to cause, condition and capacity in the end.

I think it is an observable phenomenon. I have seen the cause and effect by this very dynamic and it seems to still be unfolding for me. That is to say I am even looking back to when I tried to do the right thing out of empathy only to elicit the opposite response. I have also seen it expressed across the generations within my family lines and in the lives around me.

Seems the buddha did not disregard those in his environment so evil did not need to generate from his physical being for him to be involved in the cause and effect of evil. His presence drew negative response from some. Why? because he was a clear mirror to the state of their own mind. The anger expressed was the limit of the realms they were in possession of. His presence exposed it. Like a child crying to their mother because that is the limit of their understanding the delusional minds around him reacted in lifemuni did not rest because he never ceased to encounter minds that were still according to realms that were discernible to him even though he was no longer subject to them. This has many implications but in the context of this thread as long as the realms manifest outside of one's self (in other people's minds) the land is still impure, there are still sentient beings to save.

This reflects Shakyamuni's existence as reported so it can be observed from the ordinary aspects of his life. At least this is how I perceive it.
Vert
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed May 25, 2022 4:57 am

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by Vert »

Queequeg wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 11:21 pm From the article OP referred to.

1. Take note that Zhili is not a patriarch of the Tendai lineage in Japan. Transmission to Japan happened before he appeared. I vaguely recall that he had a correspondence with Japanese Tendai teachers, but they anticipated his answers to certain questions and concluded he was wrong. I'll have to find the details.

2. I don't think evil is the problem the author proposes in Buddhism. Evil a way to characterize the actions that flow from a deluded mind. A deeply deluded mind will be prone to commit great acts of evil. In our ordinary, daily lives, most of us commit small evils incessantly. Evil is just what mires us more deeply in samsara. Relative good, on the other hand, might lead to higher states of being in the three higher realms, but it doesn't help us transcend samsara.

3. My opinion - Zhili was an eccentric. I don't know how he got to his conclusion. I read Ziporyn a while ago, and frankly I couldn't follow him when he got to Zhili, and I wasn't particularly interested. Maybe I'll try to revisit in light of this discussion. I have not read this article, but the questions posed in the intro don't suggest that it will be good.

My understanding of the mutual identity of Buddha and the Nine Realms is something like this - Beings in the nine realms can relate to Buddha because they have Buddhanature. No Buddhanature, they would not be able to see the Buddha. The Buddha, on the other hand, can relate to beings in the Nine Worlds because the Buddha tread those paths and they were the cause of Buddhahood. This does not mean the Buddha has some latent evil, but rather the Buddha is not separate from these worlds. This is also described in terms of Buddhanature being unaquired.

I don't know if Zhili offers much help in illuminating.

Gotta take the kids trick or treating. I'll try to come back to this later.
Zhili reestablished the Tiantai school during China's Northern Song dynasty period and in doing so he also combined Tiandai and Pure Land thought together as well as focusing on giving a theological justification against the idea of sudden enlightenment. Thus Zhili cannot be considered a source of Orthodox Tiandai philosophy three reasons:
1.For there was no proper Tiandai organization during his studies to protect a line of philosophical tradition and understanding, he is the one that went to revive a shattered organization.
2.He clearly mixed Tiandai thought with other streams like Pure Land which would have altered the way doctrines would have been interpreted before hand
3.Part of his philosophy was in part reactionary against the idea of Sudden enlightenment which would have given reason for him to reinterpret and present certain Tiandai philosophical points to help support his view on the subject.
Caoimhghín wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:40 am
Ven Zhiyi is actually arguing what looks to be orthodox Sarvastivada here, interestingly enough, though Sarvastivada would have none of his Lotus Sutra or Mahayana in general, being a Sravaka school. I will explain how. In orthodox Sarvastivada, they are defined as you know by the persistence of the existence of the dharmas through the three times. Specifically, there is 本法, the "dharma itself," or the root dharma, which is the intrinsic essence of the dharma marked by its svabhava that, when it is not active, exists in a modality of latency. Basically, the Sarvastivadins believed that things which are not manifest exist as latencies that "persist through the three times." What Ven Zhiyi argues of fire in the bamboo here is actually identical to the Sarvastivadin presentation of how fire exists in the future as a latency, is brought into activity/manifestation and exists in the present, and then ceases and becomes latent once more, waiting for the proper causes and conditions to cause it to manifest in the future present. This is incredibly close to how Ven Zhiyi treats the fire and the bamboo, and it is interesting to hear him compare good and evil similarly.
That is likely due to the influence of certain Sarvastivada sutras and Abidharma that were popular in Chinese Buddhism at the time, like the Dhyāna sutras and the Mahāvibhāṣā. Zhiyi would mostly likely be familiar with such materials and as such It would have been an influence in his philosophy.
Last edited by Vert on Mon Jun 06, 2022 4:02 am, edited 3 times in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Tendai”