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.