The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by FiveSkandhas »

The quotes and most of the background in this post come from a 2007 academic paper of the same name as the thread title, written by Jee Loo Liu of California State University
A unique thesis of Tiantai Buddhism is the claim that human nature contains evil and that even the Buddha cannot be completely rid of his evil nature. The thesis was most vigorously defended and developed by a Tiantai monk, Zhili (AD 960–1028). This thesis has attracted a lot of discussion among Tiantai scholars. Their debate focuses on whether this thesis is truly representative of the original doctrine of the Tiantai founder, Zhiyi (of the sixth century AD).
As most with a background in Tiantai/Tendai know, Zhiyi is famed for the doctrines of “Ten [dharma] realms mutually contained” and “three thousand worlds in a single thought moment.” As Jee Loo Liu explicates:
The ‘ten dharma realms’ include the realm of Buddha, of bodhisattvas, all the way down to the realm of hungry ghosts and the realm of hell beings. They are mutually contained in the sense that each single realm contains all ten realms…thus the totality of reality includes 3,000 worlds (referring to the multiplicity of phenomena). All 3,000 worlds are contained in one conscious instant of mental activities, according to Zhiyi.


This model of reality is not without some puzzling implications, however – specifically, dealing with the problem of “evil” or “defiled” nature in a cosmic scheme that interpenetrates so completely. Jee Loo Liu goes on:
In one of his later works, Guan-yin-xuan-yi (The Esoteric Meaning of Guan-yin), the idea of evil nature first emerged as a logical consequence of the above two theses. If the realm of Buddha also contains the realms of hungry ghosts and hell beings, then it is not a realm of pure good or absolute quietude. If the Buddha’s one instant of thought also contains the 3,000 worlds, then the Buddha must already contain evil in his nature. This became the famous Tiantai doctrine of ‘dharma containment’ (li-ju) or ‘nature containment’ (xing-ju)... The claim that the Buddha realm is not all clean and pure and the Buddhas are not all good and free from evil seems quite contrary to the teaching of Buddhism [and has caused controversy and debate in Tendai circles down to contemporary times.]
Jee Loo Liu proposes what I consider an elegant (if slightly subtle and complex) solution to this issue in her paper, but before I make her argument for her I’d like to see if there are any members with thoughts or comments on the doctrinal controversy in general.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
User 3495
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:50 pm

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by User 3495 »

This is the article FiveSkandhas is referring to
Attachments
Liu_ParadoxofEvil.pdf
(335.9 KiB) Downloaded 211 times
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 »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 4:42 am The quotes and most of the background in this post come from a 2007 academic paper of the same name as the thread title, written by Jee Loo Liu of California State University
A unique thesis of Tiantai Buddhism is the claim that human nature contains evil and that even the Buddha cannot be completely rid of his evil nature. The thesis was most vigorously defended and developed by a Tiantai monk, Zhili (AD 960–1028). This thesis has attracted a lot of discussion among Tiantai scholars. Their debate focuses on whether this thesis is truly representative of the original doctrine of the Tiantai founder, Zhiyi (of the sixth century AD).
As most with a background in Tiantai/Tendai know, Zhiyi is famed for the doctrines of “Ten [dharma] realms mutually contained” and “three thousand worlds in a single thought moment.” As Jee Loo Liu explicates:
The ‘ten dharma realms’ include the realm of Buddha, of bodhisattvas, all the way down to the realm of hungry ghosts and the realm of hell beings. They are mutually contained in the sense that each single realm contains all ten realms…thus the totality of reality includes 3,000 worlds (referring to the multiplicity of phenomena). All 3,000 worlds are contained in one conscious instant of mental activities, according to Zhiyi.


This model of reality is not without some puzzling implications, however – specifically, dealing with the problem of “evil” or “defiled” nature in a cosmic scheme that interpenetrates so completely. Jee Loo Liu goes on:
In one of his later works, Guan-yin-xuan-yi (The Esoteric Meaning of Guan-yin), the idea of evil nature first emerged as a logical consequence of the above two theses. If the realm of Buddha also contains the realms of hungry ghosts and hell beings, then it is not a realm of pure good or absolute quietude. If the Buddha’s one instant of thought also contains the 3,000 worlds, then the Buddha must already contain evil in his nature. This became the famous Tiantai doctrine of ‘dharma containment’ (li-ju) or ‘nature containment’ (xing-ju)... The claim that the Buddha realm is not all clean and pure and the Buddhas are not all good and free from evil seems quite contrary to the teaching of Buddhism [and has caused controversy and debate in Tendai circles down to contemporary times.]
Jee Loo Liu proposes what I consider an elegant (if slightly subtle and complex) solution to this issue in her paper, but before I make her argument for her I’d like to see if there are any members with thoughts or comments on the doctrinal controversy in general.
I never understood the controversy. Could someone explain why there would be any?
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Tatsuo wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 12:33 pm This is the article FiveSkandhas is referring to
Thanks for posting that. :thumbsup:

tkp67 wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 12:55 pm I never understood the controversy. Could someone explain why there would be any?
Well, if the ten worlds interpenetrate perfectly and even hell beings and hungry Ghosts partake of the Buddha world to some extent, the question becomes: Do Buddhas and advanced Bodhisattvas thus also partake in a kind of 'hell nature'? There is in "orthodox" Buddhist thought the idea of non-retrogression, or that once a being reaches a sufficiently advanced stage, it cannot 'backslide" into the hell worlds and the like again. Also a Buddha is generally considered a perfected being. But if the ten worlds interpenetrate perfectly in each single thought-moment, would not the Buddhas carry some aspects of unperfected nature within them as well? If ordinary world beings have 'seeds" for Buddha-nature than do Buddhas also retain "seeds" for evil nature? Is a Buddha capable of evil or unskilled retrogression? There have been many Tendai thinkers who come down on both sides of the issue over the centuries.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
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 »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:49 pm
Tatsuo wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 12:33 pm This is the article FiveSkandhas is referring to
Thanks for posting that. :thumbsup:

tkp67 wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 12:55 pm I never understood the controversy. Could someone explain why there would be any?
Well, if the ten worlds interpenetrate perfectly and even hell beings and hungry Ghosts partake of the Buddha world to some extent, the question becomes: Do Buddhas and advanced Bodhisattvas thus also partake in a kind of 'hell nature'? There is in "orthodox" Buddhist thought the idea of non-retrogression, or that once a being reaches a sufficiently advanced stage, it cannot 'backslide" into the hell worlds and the like again. Also a Buddha is generally considered a perfected being. But if the ten worlds interpenetrate perfectly in each single thought-moment, would not the Buddhas carry some aspects of unperfected nature within them as well? If ordinary world beings have 'seeds" for Buddha-nature than do Buddhas also retain "seeds" for evil nature? Is a Buddha capable of evil or unskilled retrogression? There have been many Tendai thinkers who come down on both sides of the issue over the centuries.
There is no entity that is an independently existing phenomenon. Thus the evil in the world was recognizable even to the world honored one himself. He was not an independently existing phenomenon.
User 3495
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:50 pm

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by User 3495 »

Thank you for sharing this, FiveSkandhas. I have been struggling with the Tiantai/Tendai view of evil for a while now after reading the Mappo Tomyo Ki (http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/mappo.html), which makes the point that in the age of mappo we have to see monks who don't keep the precepts as national treasures and we should not make a distinction between them and monks who keep the precepts. So Sogyal Rinpoche and others who created immense suffering are national treasures in this reading..
avatamsaka3
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:11 am

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by avatamsaka3 »

that in the age of mappo we have to see monks who don't keep the precepts as national treasures and we should not make a distinction between them and monks who keep the precepts.
Nonsense.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by Queequeg »

The problem of evil is one of the most difficult topics in theology, but
Buddhist philosophy has not sufficiently dealt with this problem. We should
see that how to explain away or to deal with the existence of evil is not just
a problem for Tiantai thinkers; it is a problem for the whole Buddhist
philosophy. If Buddhism preaches nondiscrimination, then how could we
discriminate against evil people and evil deeds? If the world is the result of,
for some schools, the transformation of pure consciousness, and for some
other, the transformation of the Buddha, then where did evil come from?
If the essence of existence is fundamentally empty, then where do defilements
and contamination attach themselves? If, from the highest point of view,
good and evil are equally empty, then how are we to choose between them?
If without evil as a contrast there would be no good, then should we actually
be grateful for presence of the wicked and the malevolent people in our
world? All Buddhist schools must face these questions, and Tiantai thinkers
were simply the first ones to candidly tackle these difficult issues.
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.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Budai
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:12 pm
Location: ༀ ∞ Nam Myoho Renge Kyo ∞ ༀ

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by Budai »

There's no such thing as evil within the Buddha. If you can't understand that then you aren't striving for the right goal. At this point you should be.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by Queequeg »

Brahma wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 6:08 am There's no such thing as evil within the Buddha. If you can't understand that then you aren't striving for the right goal. At this point you should be.
wow. what an insightful remark. that clears it all up.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by Caoimhghín »

Queequeg wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 2:51 pm
Brahma wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 6:08 am There's no such thing as evil within the Buddha. If you can't understand that then you aren't striving for the right goal. At this point you should be.
wow. what an insightful remark. that clears it all up.
Well, it's good to keep some grounding when dealing with complicated subjects. It's obvious, or should be, that the Buddha is not evil, so Ven Zhiyi must be suggesting something else when he all but implies this and later disciples and consequent Patriarchs build it up into a doctrine of a "school." I'm not convinced that Vens Zhili and Zhanran are good exegetes of Ven Zhiyi, for instance.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by narhwal90 »

If it is the case there is no fundamental distinction between a buddha and a deluded being then both incorporate all 10 Worlds. A difference might be seen in their actions; to what extent each is driven by greed, anger, ignorance and so on.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by Queequeg »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 4:05 pm
Queequeg wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 2:51 pm
Brahma wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 6:08 am There's no such thing as evil within the Buddha. If you can't understand that then you aren't striving for the right goal. At this point you should be.
wow. what an insightful remark. that clears it all up.
Well, it's good to keep some grounding when dealing with complicated subjects. It's obvious, or should be, that the Buddha is not evil, so Ven Zhiyi must be suggesting something else when he all but implies this and later disciples and consequent Patriarchs build it up into a doctrine of a "school." I'm not convinced that Vens Zhili and Zhanran are good exegetes of Ven Zhiyi, for instance.
There's no grounding there. Its obvious he is not dealing with this material and is just doing a drive by hot take.

Turning to the material.

I've read through the article referred to by OP and I make a few preliminary observations. I'm not at all convinced either Liu or Ziporyn are looking at either Zhiyi or Zhili as Buddhist thinkers, but rather as philosophers. I don't want to draw too much of a conclusion based on Liu's background, or Ziporyn's for that matter, but I think both are coming to the subject as scholars of Chinese philosophy. In simple terms, I am afraid that they both tend to lose focus of the fact that both Zhiyi and Zhili would have understood these writings as guides to practice, not philosophical exercises.

Liu's citations leave a lot to be desired. For instance, this:
Zhiyi’s theory of dharma nature appears in his undisputed masterpiece, Mo-he-zhi-guan. Zhiyi says,‘Ignorance is right in (ji) dharma nature; dharma nature is right in (ji) ignorance. . . . In reality there is no designation. If you call ignorance “dharma nature,” then dharma nature is revealed and ignorance is turned into enlightenment. Once ignorance is transformed, there is no more ignorance. How do you talk about “dharma nature” then?’ (Mo-he-zhi-guan, vol. 6, cited by Yang 1996, p. 122, my translation)
I tried to find this passage Liu refers to in the Mohezhikuan working with Swanson's translation. It would be nice to have the Taisho reference for this which would let us find this passage even without access to Yang. Moreover, we'd get the context in which this passage is found.

The best I could do was these two passages (which are not in Vol. 6 of the MHCK, but rather in Volume 2 - T. 46.21b-c and 21c). These passages arise in the context of sections where Zhiyi discusses applicable terminology for his discussions on Samatha and Vipasyana that are to follow in sections title by Swanson, Three Relative Meanings of Cessation (samatha) and Three Relative Meanings of Contemplation (vipasyana), respectively. I quote the fuller contexts and mark what I think Liu might be translating in bold:
[The three relative meanings for “cessation” [samatha] are:]
1 the meaning of stilling
2 the meaning of stopping
3 the meaning of cessation in contrast to non-cessation...

(3) The clarification of cessation [that is, realization of the nature of reality] in terms of contrast with non-cessation [that is, still in a state of ignorance] is as follows. Though the verbal expressions [of this third meaning] may share much with what has come above, the intent is quite different. That is, the above two [meanings of] “cessation” express the “still,” quiet cessation of nirvana in contrast to the flowing current of samsara. They express the cessation of “stopping” in terms of prajña-wisdom, with one’s thoughts still considered “outside” or apart from reality. These are relative expressions, used generally in terms of wisdom severing [negative passions and thoughts].

Now, however, I am distinctly discussing the relative [meaning] in terms of the principle of truth. [In this sense,] ignorance is indivisible with Dharma-nature, and Dharma-nature is indivisible with ignorance. Ignorance is not something that is stopped, nor is it something that one does not stop, yet it is possible [in a relative sense] to say that ignorance corresponds to “non-cessation”. The Dharma-nature also is [ultimately] neither stopped nor not stopped, but it is possible [in a relative sense] to say that the Dharma-nature corresponds to “cessation”. This expression of Dharma-nature as “cessation” assumes [the description of] ignorance as “non-cessation.” As the sutras say, Dharma-nature neither arises nor perishes, and yet it is said that Dharma-nature is quiescence; the
Dharma-nature is neither defiled nor pure, and yet it is said that Dharma-nature is pure...

The meaning of contemplation [that is, realization of the nature of reality] in contrast to non-contemplation [that is, still in a state of ignorance] is as follows— though the verbal expression may share much with what has come above, the intent is quite different. The reason is that the above two [meanings of] contemplation express [the action or ability of contemplation to] “pierce through”
[delusions and so forth] with regard to the inundation of samsara, and express [the meaning of] “penetrating insight” in contrast to delusions and dark blindness. These are used generally in terms of wisdom severing [negative passions and thoughts], to clarify [the meaning of] contemplation in a relative sense.

Now, however, I am distinctly discussing the relative [meaning] in terms of the principle of truth. [In the ultimate sense,] ignorance is indivisible with Dharma-nature (dharmata), and Dharma-nature is indivisible with ignorance. Ignorance is [ultimately] not something that is contemplated or not contemplated, but it is possible [in a relative sense] to say that ignorance involves “non-contemplation”. Dharma-nature also is [ultimately] neither something that is contemplated nor not contemplated, but it is possible [in a relative sense] to say that Dharma-nature involves “contemplation”. As the sutras say, Dharma-nature is neither illumination g nor darkness [or “ignorance”, avidya], but it is possible [in a relative sense] to say that [to know] Dharma-nature is illumination. The supreme meaning of emptiness is [ultimately] neither wisdom nor deluded stupidity, but it is possible [in a relative sense] to say that the supreme meaning of emptiness is wisdom. This is the clarification of [the meaning of] of contemplation in contrast to non-contemplation.
I can't be sure. Maybe access to Yang's work would help, but its in Chinese to boot, so...

In any event, I agree with Liu that Ziporyn is way off the mark in his interpretation of Zhili, but I make this assertion without information - just a gut sense that there is no freaking way a Buddhist could look on genocide as an expression of bodhi. That's something only a philosopher could come up with. I think Ziporyn understands this and describes his interpretation of Tiantai as Neo-Tiantai

Moving on, something bothers me about the way evil is treated as some ascertainable quality in both Liu and Ziporyn's approaches, and this is what suggests to me they're approaching this subject as philosophers and not Buddhist practitioners who are applying these texts as guides to samatha and vipasyana practice.

Zhiyi is always consciously framed within a Madhyamaka and Lotus Sutra framework. This is obvious if you take MHCK in as a whole. As such, terms like good and evil carry the ethical meaning in the Madhyamaka and Lotus Sutra context as well as being framed by the approach to provisional meaning that informs all teachings (all teachings are expressed as upaya).

Moreover, they seem to lose sight of the fact that evil is very straightforwardly dealt with in the Buddhist teachings - evil (as well as good) are functions of the three poisons - attachment/aversion, anger, ignorance. Committing evil just furthers the obscurations that pose an obstacle to awakening. Doing good puts one in a better position to awaken, but in itself does not lead to awakening - just stations in samsara marked by less suffering and more ease.

If the two passages I quoted line up with the passage Liu quotes, then it is obvious that what is being discussed is terminology applicable to practice in the relative sense. This means Zhiyi does not place ultimate value on these assertions but rather invokes them as guides to awakening. Good and Evil are not meant to be ascertained as real things, but rather, they are helpful markers to guide one's practice.

It is critical to keep in mind: MHCK is a guide to practicing the Lotus Sutra; its not a philosophical text meant to help people construct some sort of meaning in a samsaric context.

So, then I guess I should explain my own view on good and evil and how this relates to practice.

Good is what is conducive to awakening. Evil is what creates obstacles to awakening. Being a serial killer is not conducive to awakening. Angulamila was a serial killer who became a disciple of the Buddha and attained arhatship. But, there is no way he would have done so by continuing to be a serial killer. Those activities would have presented such obstacles to clear insight that he would not have attained arhatship.

I agree with Liu's description of the Buddha as being inert to evil. Buddha's create no karma in their activities. Even when they appear to create karma, as in the display that Shakyamuni put on when he appeared as Gautama Buddha, there is no karma. Notwithstanding, that does not prevent Buddhas from interacting with beings in the nine realms. Buddha understands all of these myriad beings without karma, and teaches without karma. Buddha's appearances arise in dynamic response to the karma of beings - to a hell being's suffering, to a preta's insatiable desires... etc. These beings, in turn, can relate to the Buddha because fundamentally, they "possess" buddhanature. If they did not, they could not relate to the Buddha. These capacities for interaction are called "seeds". All beings arise because they fundamentally misunderstand buddhanature. Awakening is the process of removing obscurations to reveal buddha nature.

Anyway, I guess my point is, these are interesting discussions, but they're not really about Tiantai.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by Caoimhghín »

You've given me a lot to read that I've not yet read. Something to consider that I was just considering:
Furthermore, a single moment of thought in the mind of a common being possesses the ten realms. They completely possess the nature and characteristics of evil karma, yet the nature and characteristics of evil are the nature and characteristics of virtue. It is due to evil that there is virtue. Apart from evil there is no virtue. Turning over evils, there is virtue supporting them, like inside bamboo there being the nature of fire. It is not yet the object of fire, which is why it exists but does not burn. When meeting with conditions the phenomenon comes to exist, and then it can burn things. Evil as the nature of virtue is not yet an existent phenomenon. When it meets with conditions it become an existent phenomenon, and then there can be a turn to evil. It is like bamboo. Fire is emitted and returns, burning the bamboo. In evil there is virtue. When virtue comes to exist it returns, destroying the evil. This is why that which are the nature and characteristics of evil are the nature and characteristics of virtue. A single moment of thought of an ordinary being always possesses the consciousnesses, names and forms of the ten realms.
This is from one of Ziporyn's books, but I have to find where. The quote I believe is from The Dharma Flower's Profound Meaning.

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.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by narhwal90 »

The 10 Factors (being one of the factors of the Ichinen Sanzen 3000 realms) address the latent vs expressed aspects of phenomena eg viewing a seed as a latent plant, needing appropriate factors in order to manifest. Of course there are the difficulties associated with making the distinctions and deciding upon sequence and what manifesting looks like. For my part the interesting factor in the 3000 are the "3 Realms" being the 5 Components, Realm of Living Beings and Realm of the Environment- specifically the 5 Components; form, perception, conception, volition, and consciousness which incorporates volition and consciousness and excludes non-beings from the 3000 realms. OTOH deciding what a being is or is not is problematic, (eg do the 10 Factors still apply?)- but maybe thats not the point.

It also has the effect of suggesting the inseperability of mind and experience and the pivotal role of choice in the arc one experiences through the manifold.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by Queequeg »

Caoimhghín wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:40 am You've given me a lot to read that I've not yet read. Something to consider that I was just considering:
Furthermore, a single moment of thought in the mind of a common being possesses the ten realms. They completely possess the nature and characteristics of evil karma, yet the nature and characteristics of evil are the nature and characteristics of virtue. It is due to evil that there is virtue. Apart from evil there is no virtue. Turning over evils, there is virtue supporting them, like inside bamboo there being the nature of fire. It is not yet the object of fire, which is why it exists but does not burn. When meeting with conditions the phenomenon comes to exist, and then it can burn things. Evil as the nature of virtue is not yet an existent phenomenon. When it meets with conditions it become an existent phenomenon, and then there can be a turn to evil. It is like bamboo. Fire is emitted and returns, burning the bamboo. In evil there is virtue. When virtue comes to exist it returns, destroying the evil. This is why that which are the nature and characteristics of evil are the nature and characteristics of virtue. A single moment of thought of an ordinary being always possesses the consciousnesses, names and forms of the ten realms.
This is from one of Ziporyn's books, but I have to find where. The quote I believe is from The Dharma Flower's Profound Meaning.

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.
I've wondered about the what looks like Sarvastivada, but I'm not sure. I'd like to see the context of that passage.

I've found references to fire in the bamboo and fire in wood in other contexts. Zhiyi uses the analogy to illustrate what is meant by Such Nature, the second of ten factors.

From Swanson's translations:

In Fahua Hsuani (Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra):
T. 33, 694a~
"Such-like nature:: [these bings in the four evil destinies] have an instrinsic nature which is "black." They are so accustomed to "black evil" [deeds] that it is difficult for them to change. It is like wood when it comes into contact with fire, in the rights conditions it will burn [and turn black]. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra says, "Since the dharmas of passions have the nature of arising, therefore it is possible for them to arise." These evil beings have the propensity ["nature"] to be born in these four destinies. Therefore if the conditions are such, they are born [in these four evil destinies]. Even if a clay or wooden image has the outer appearance [of something], it lacks the inner nature [of that which it represents] so it is not able to arouse birth. The nature of evil beings is not like this. Therefore it is called "suchlike nature."
and from MHCK 53a~:
Suchlike nature: nature has its point of reference internally. Generally speaking, this has three meanings:
1. “Nature” is also called “that which does not change.” The Sūtra of Nonactivity uses the term “unmoving nature.”
2. Again, “nature” is called “individual nature.” This is the meaning [of the characteristics] of specific types, which are not the same from one to the other [divisions or individuals], and each do not change.
3. Again, “nature” is “true nature,” that is, [it participates in] the nature of reality, the ultimate reality that is without deficiency; this is another name for the Buddha-nature.
The “unmoving nature” corresponds to emptiness, the specific [individual] nature corresponds to conventionality, and the “true nature” corresponds to the Middle.

Now I will clarify [only the first meaning, that of] the inner nature as unchanging. Take, for example, the nature of fire [existing as a potential] within bamboo. Although [this nature] cannot be seen, it cannot be said to be nothing, for if dried grass is kindled, all will be burned away. The mind is also like this; it includes the natures of all of the five skandhas. Although these cannot be seen, they cannot be said to be nothing. If you contemplate this with the eye of wisdom [53b], [you can realize that] all natures are included therein.

[The misconceptions of] the people of the world [concerning the idea of “unchanging”] are laughable. They evaluate [the teachings of] the perfect sūtras on the basis of a one-sided hearing. Because the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra clarifies that the Buddha knows that sentient beings have Buddhanature, they conclude that this means an “ultimate permanence.” Because the Lotus Sūtra clarifies that the Buddha knows the suchlike nature of all phenomena, they conclude that [everything is] transient. Why should it be concluded that [the teaching of] permanent [nirvana] is of little wisdom, and [the teaching of] transiency is of much wisdom [when both perspectives should be taken into account]? The Lotus Sūtra also says that the Buddha knows all phenomena, that all are of “one type and one nature.” These words, then, should also be of “little [wisdom]”; how, then, can they [one-sidedly] evaluate [the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra as teaching merely the idea of permanence and the Lotus Sūtra as teaching merely the idea of] transiency?

Again, there are teachers who assess the ten suchnesses in the Lotus Sūtra and say that the first five are tentative and belong to ordinary people, and that the last five are real and belong to the sages. If we rely on this interpretation, then ordinary people have no [relation to] the real, and will forever be unable to attain sagehood, and the noble sages have no [relation to] the tentative and thus cannot have true universal knowledge. This is truly a capricious attitude; it slanders the Buddha and ridicules ordinary people.

Again, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra clarifies that “all sentient beings without exception have Buddha-nature,” and this is taken to imply “permanence.” The Vimalakīrti Sūtra says that “all sentient beings have the marks of bodhi-wisdom,” and this is taken to imply “transiency.” If the marks of Buddha-nature and bodhi-wisdom are different, then you could say that one is permanent and the other is transient. If they are not different [as it surely is the case], then this assessment [that one represents permanence and the other transiency] is a great error. It is like a diviner perceiving the marks and nature of a king and concluding that he will rise to the highest position; [in the same way] how can it be said that the marks of Buddha-nature and bodhi-wisdom are not the same?
I think its reading too much into that passage to conclude Zhiyi is advocating that dharmas endure through the three times. He explicitly rejects that based on Madhyamaka analysis throughout his works. It sounds more like the factors as discussed in yogacara?

What he's discussing in these passages is not something that is said to exist, but rather a nature, that in combination with other circumstances, will give rise to some phenomena. Fire doesn't exist in bamboo, but bamboo has the nature to give rise to fire when the conditions are right. I don't know sarvastivadin arguments well beyond some vague descriptions of their doctrines, so I'll take your word on that.

Digital Dictionary of Buddhism gives "yat-svabhava" and "tathatra". The translation of yat-svabhava is just "being of which nature or character". No translation of tathatra.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by Queequeg »

Queequeg wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:24 am It sounds more like the factors as discussed in yogacara?
Thought more about this over night.

I think its something along the lines of the seeds in the alayavijnanana.

Its important to keep in mind the three truths, 10 worlds, mutual possession, thousand factors, three thousand in one thought moment - these are all conventional expositions - more particularly, upaya, a certain type of conventional thing that has the express purpose of causing beings to awaken. Everything that is brought up in these contexts carries the caveat that these conventions are also empty, and in the Tiantai system, the middle.

Conventionally speaking - I have the capacity to be a murderer. I've certainly felt anger and rage at times in my life, enough to want to hurt people, leading me to get into fist fights - some that I "won" and other times when I got my ass kicked. I could see the cultivation of malevolent feelings driving me to all kinds of terrible things. But, I made certain decisions along the way to favor liberation, and so those impulses are not given succor, and instead, I cultivate love and care. I am told I have the capacity to be a buddha. So, I have in me, that I can confirm by my testimony to you, I have the nature of a murderer, I have the nature of a buddha. This latter claim is based on the fact that I would need the nature of Buddha a priori to even conceive of the notion of buddha. (that's the nature of these "seeds" or latent natures).

The problem that the article OP referenced labors under is a reification of this notion of "evil". Ziporyn also goes too far with this. All these sources need to be understood as tentative, not expositions of view that have existent finality. Again, they are guides to samatha and vipasyana.

But if you keep those things in mind, there's not really much for non-Buddhist philosophers to play with.

I suppose its all grist for their academic careers, but I'm not sure their observations help one toward liberation. To a point, for sure. Information can be useful.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by Caoimhghín »

So I'm the worst for reading things, remembering them, but forgetting the source other than "a paper."

In the process of substantiating some other rather extravagant claims I made about Tiantai Buddhism, I found this, which I remember thinking of but being able to cite before:
Sato Tetsuei, without crediting developments to Jizang's influence, also concludes that the Guanyin xuanyi (T1726), a work traditionally attributed to Zhiyi as recorded by Guanding and containing the clearest expression of the Tiantai doctrine on evil, should be ascribed to Guanding. The Japanese Jodoshu monk Fujiyaki (1707-1781) was the first to question the authorship of this text primarily on the basis of the inclusion of this controversial doctrine (Bukkyo daijiten 1:177a-772b).
(Linda Penkower In the beginning ... Guanding and the Creation of Early Tiantai footnote 111 p. 290 JIABS Vol 23 No. 2 2000)

I barely remember how to actually cite things academically. That is not a standard citation, but if you put the title into Google the paper is free on the Internet. This Tiantai literature review is reminding me of how long it's been since university.

I simplified a Taisho citation and there are no diacritics.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by SilenceMonkey »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 4:42 am
Jee Loo Liu proposes what I consider an elegant (if slightly subtle and complex) solution to this issue in her paper, but before I make her argument for her I’d like to see if there are any members with thoughts or comments on the doctrinal controversy in general.
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.
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: The Paradox of Evil in Tiantai Buddhist Philosophy

Post by SilenceMonkey »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:49 pm
Well, if the ten worlds interpenetrate perfectly and even hell beings and hungry Ghosts partake of the Buddha world to some extent, the question becomes: Do Buddhas and advanced Bodhisattvas thus also partake in a kind of 'hell nature'? There is in "orthodox" Buddhist thought the idea of non-retrogression, or that once a being reaches a sufficiently advanced stage, it cannot 'backslide" into the hell worlds and the like again. Also a Buddha is generally considered a perfected being. But if the ten worlds interpenetrate perfectly in each single thought-moment, would not the Buddhas carry some aspects of unperfected nature within them as well? If ordinary world beings have 'seeds" for Buddha-nature than do Buddhas also retain "seeds" for evil nature? Is a Buddha capable of evil or unskilled retrogression? There have been many Tendai thinkers who come down on both sides of the issue over the centuries.
Maybe if they are reborn as hell beings?

And if not... Maybe the interpenetration of ten realms in one thought is like a prism. A buddha or bodhisattva's thought manifesting like a rainbow through a prism. Although it seems to be in the form of that which happens in the ten worlds, its real nature is Buddha mind.
Post Reply

Return to “Tendai”