A City in the Clouds

“It is like the city of the Gandharvas which the unwitting take to be a real city when in fact it is not so. The city appears as in a vision owing to their attachment to the memory of a city preserved in the mind as a seed; the city can thus be said to be both existent and non-existent. In the same way, clinging to the memory of erroneous speculations and doctrines accumulated since beginning-less time, they hold fast to such ideas as oneness and otherness, being and non-being, and their thoughts are not at all clear as to what after all is only seen of the mind. It is like a man dreaming in his sleep of a country that seems to be filled with various men, women, elephants, horses, cars, pedestrians, villages, towns, hamlets, cows, buffalos, mansions, woods, mountains, rivers and lakes, and who moves about in that city until he is awakened."

Gautama, Buddha. THE LANKAVATARA SUTRA (p. 6). Independent. Kindle Edition. 

What is this city of Gandharvas that is described in the Lankavatara Sutra? I think it must be a very strange place indeed, something like a nostalgic place or a golden age. Most people have some place in their mind where they feel innocent and can go back to it when they feel stressed. But the point is that if we are not careful, we will cling to the memory and take it as something substantial, like a city that never ends.

Non existent means the city does not really exist as something separate from our perceptions of it. Yet, we can still call something existent because it lives within our mind. We still function as though it were real, and as long as we take it as real, we will always create a separate sense of self that moves within it.

I once heard a story about a man who divorced his wife because she became jealous of his video game activity and decided to "murder" him online--meaning kill off his character in an online game. The point is that the man took his image of himself and the "world" he lived in to be so real that he couldn't separate from it. He could not even tell that the body and image he created and "inhabited" in this game was just that: a series of concocted images that become habits as they are enforced within the mind over time. Had the man realized that he was only in a dream, he could loosen up a bit and forgive his wife for "killing" him, knowing that his body and all he takes to be "him" are only figments of the imagination.

To move about in this city--is this delusion? If we know we are in a dream-like place, we can function perfectly fine in the imaginary city, to the point where we are no longer bothered by the fact that it's illusory. What we do in that dream does matter. For instance, if we resists what happens within the dream, we only reinforce the sense of duality that gets us in delusion in the first place. When we stop resisting, we see that all the walls in the dream are merely projections of mind--not even a my mind, it's just ripples and effects. 

So, it is definitely important that we behave well within this dream: follow precepts and try to improve. But at the end of the day, there is no I that is improved. We are only living the dream and enjoying the scenery floating by like a city in the clouds.

Compassion and Empty Void

 “Mahamati, since the ignorant and simple-minded, not knowing that the world is only something seen of the mind itself, cling to the multitudinous-ness of external objects, cling to the notions of beings and non-being, oneness and otherness, both-ness and non-both-ness, existence and non-existence eternity and non-eternity, and think that they have a self-nature of their own, and all of which rises from the discriminations of the mind and is perpetuated by habit-energy, and from which they are given over to false imagination. It is all like a mirage in which springs of water are seen as if they were real. They are imagined by animals who, made thirsty by the heat of the season, run after them. Animals not knowing that the springs are merely hallucinations of their own minds, do not realize that there are no such springs."

Gautama, Buddha. THE LANKAVATARA SUTRA (p. 5). Independent. Kindle Edition. 

It's very easy to mistakenly think that practice is about realization of "nothingness" or a kind of "empty void", which is imagined as some kind of literal "no thing"--perhaps an empty space or an empty sky. The problem here is that of subtly separating the concept of emptiness from the very forms where emptiness manifests. This can create an overly detached or nihilistic attitude which feeds into a habit energy, perhaps something akin to ennui or boredom. When practitioners become bored in meditation or experience dryness, most likely it is because they have created a kind of inert "thing" out of the concept of emptiness, or are even just lacking attention to the method. This is a sign of laxity, but it can be easily corrected through attention to all the elements of experience. Practice is like a mirror. We have to keep shining the mirror as much as possible on all things, illuminating them equally with a kind of equanimity. If we don't do so, we fail to recognize the changing and impermanent qualities of mind, which then puts us into a torpor state.

The mirage that is described in this sutra is taking something to be real that is only a construction of the mind. When we let go of even such things and don't take them to be concrete realities, then we have this freedom for the mind to move in infinite directions, because it's no longer attached to any particular thought. A mind that doesn't stick to anything also doesn't create the illusion of something existing "out there", even if it is something called "emptiness" or "spirit". The important point is to try to directly observe things as the operations of mind, such as when sensations are grouped into perceptions, perceptions become thoughts, and thoughts lead to decisions. This is a kind of subtle awareness that I have to admit I have only rarely achieved in my life.

The mirage metaphor extends the dream metaphor, by adding the qualities of heat and thirst, which often accompany a frenzied state of desire or greed. This is an apt metaphor to describe the twin problems of a) taking something we desire to be real, when it's not so substantial; b) moving toward it in expectation, only to be disappointed. 

Practice needs to be sustained through a continuous checking in with our mind and even with our body. With subtle vexations comes a sense of an object that I want to avoid or surmount, which then leads to discontent and agitation. Then the question of , where is mind now? Mind is not those vexations, so why are we so closely identifying with them? Why is the mind narrowing toward a concept or object, as though the other phenomena were not the mind? When the mind is able to embrace everything that comes up with an attitude of not seeking it, clinging to it or rejecting it, then true peace and equanimity naturally arises. We need to let go of even the concept of letting go, since that will also ensnare us.

On Precepts and Emotions

 We had a discussion about precepts in our Buddhist academy class today. I have been thinking since then about the notion of using the precepts to "reflect on myself" as opposed to using them to "judge others" and their practice (or karma). It seems that in most religious traditions, people have had a problem when they turn otherwise discretionary precepts into hard commandments, and then use these commandments to persecute or judge those around them. From a Chan perspective, I would say that whenever we judge others, we are really judging ourselves, since everything is of the mind. When we create an attitude of negative energy about a person, we are really attacking ourselves, because that person we see is a manifestation our own mental energy.

   To reverse this tendency, I propose two options. One is that, when we feel disappointed in a person or an outcome, we can change the energy of anger into a cooler and calmer energy, by using the method of turning toward cause and conditions and then feeling the sadness of disappointed outcomes.  I consider sadness and regret to be the flipside of anger, in the sense that the former often come before the energy of anger rears its head. The student whom I was tutoring tonight shared with me how disappointed she felt when she got an A in a sewing assignment, only to find that her second professor docking her grade down due to bell curving. It would be easy to go from feeling hurt and disappointed to feeling the "injustice" and "unfairness" of getting a lowered grade due to some administrative gaffe. However, my student later concluded that life isn't always fair, and this seemed to have given her greater room to grieve and at least accept the possibility that she would be ok no matter what. 

In contrast to sadness, I find that anger polarizes things and people. It divides the world into "good people" and "bad people" and then tries to find a way to control what it deems as bad. Anger justifies itself using words like justice and fairness, but how exactly do we define what is fair? There are many things in life, as my student discovered recently, that just aren't fair at all. So there needs to be a way of handling the disappointment and accepting it even when we do have reasons to feel sad or disappointed.

 It may seem hard to believe, but our thoughts aren't really "our" thoughts. I say this for two reasons. Firstly, most of our thinking is a combination of previous experiences, memories, culture and language. Our personalities are shaped in such indelible ways from the day we are born that it's sometimes no surprise that we find ourselves sounding more and more like our parents as we age. This is because the family is such an intimate bond that has a huge impact on how we frame the worlds that we inhabit. Secondly, thoughts aren't identified with a fixed person or "I". Have you ever had a thought that was so negative that you later judged yourself for having it? That's like giving two hammer strikes instead of one! The first thought hurts you by having a negative energy, but then the second thought judges "you" for having that thought. In fact, so long as we don't water the seeds of negative thinking, those seeds will dissipate. And we can do this by recognizing that the thoughts have no thinker behind them. There is no cohesive or coherent I that is beneath those thoughts.

Some people still try very hard to perfect their selves, but the meaning of repentance is simply to reflect on habitual tendencies. It's not the "self" that we need to make better, but rather, our habitual tendencies and energies that can be improved. No action, no matter how good or bad, can define me, because actions are, at heart, impermanent. If we can move beyond the stifling notion that there is a fixed self, then our attitudes toward ourselves and other beings can become much more fluid and flexible.

Another option for coping with this judging tendency is to simply let go of thinking there is anything outside the mind that we can pass judgment on. After all, if all the things we judge were simply dreams of our own reckoning, is there anybody in that dream who can be judged? Not really! Anything of the mind is only phenomena, and there is not even an "I" in there that we can establish as an object to be punished. In this way we can be freed of judgments altogether as well as the accompanying restrictions that result from them.

Multitudinous Nature of Objects

 “Mahamati, since the ignorant and simple-minded, not knowing that the world is only something seen of the mind itself, cling to the multitudinous-ness of external objects, cling to the notions of beings and non-being, oneness and otherness, both-ness and non-both-ness, existence and non-existence eternity and non-eternity, and think that they have a self-nature of their own, and all of which rises from the discriminations of the mind and is perpetuated by habit-energy, and from which they are given over to false imagination."

Gautama, Buddha. THE LANKAVATARA SUTRA (p. 5). Independent. Kindle Edition. 

It's worthwhile to pause and reflect on these sentences for a while. "Not knowing that the world is only something seen of the mind itself" is quite interesting in that it makes me realize that "all is me", and there is nothing that I can say is separate. If I take something to be scary or bad, I am really taking part of me and calling it scary and bad. It's like when we are conditioned to think of things as messy or disorganized, because many people frowned upon it and it came to be known as something negative. If we accept the way that even these people and voices are created by the mind, then we can find relief in this unfolding movie we are observing.

 This doesn't mean that we are beyond praise or blame. Rather, not thinking that these thoughts relate to external realties, we have more freedom within to reframe our situations in various ways. It's a little bit like acting on a stage. Every new situation has brand new variables, and by not buying into the identity game of thinking I am only this body or "this character" that is fixed, then I can interact more freely. In fact, it isn't really my body that is interacting with other bodies at all. 

This brings me to the first point which is, "cling to the multitudinous-ness of external objects". We take all these objects to be things that are outside of the mind, and then discriminate the ones we like and dislike. We classify them and label them, not realizing that all of these so-called things has the essence of appearances rather than graspable entities. Then we try to hoard them, only to find we have no space for them anymore (I am looking at my bookshelf now!).

 Multitudinous things brings to mind the way that we get confused in a candy store. We hardly realize that all those colorful confections are really only sugar in different forms and flavors. The essence is the same. Even down to the molecular level and atomic level, there is not much to these energy forms. Yet we spend so much time investing in the tastier ones, and even become addicted to them when they are all fundamentally just syrup and other simple compounds. Life itself is just different form configurations. But the basis of these configurations is more or less similar laws and properties coming together, so there is no need to prefer one to the other.

That means we can be less worried. Everything is just a new challenge, and we can enjoy these configurations of the mind. But not get so attached to them.

Beyond Praise and Fortune

 Those who see thee thus, serene and beyond conception, will be emancipated from attachment, will be cleansed of all defilements, both in this world and in the spiritual world beyond. In this world whose nature is like a dream, there is place for praise and blame, but in the ultimate Reality of Dharmakaya, which is far beyond the senses and the discriminating mind, what is there to praise? O you who are most Wise!

Gautama, Buddha. THE LANKAVATARA SUTRA (p. 4). Independent. Kindle Edition. 

This quote makes me think, indeed, there is place for praise and blame, and all human beings will probably have their share of turmoil. We go through all the round of suffering because life is hard work and takes a lot out of us, and we aren't just isolated beings. We live in community with other beings, where right/wrong, praise/blame etc. become the norm. But ultimate reality is not so strict, since there are an abundance of opportunities and we need not approach anything from the perspectives of scarcity and demands.

When we look at things from this more spacious perspective, then there is no need to be so tightly wound up within the illusory ideal of the self. Instead, we can take a more open and surrendering approach to life--not knowing what's next, but eager to find out. More importantly, perhaps we can give ourselves permission to truly belong in the universe and to know that we are also in the care of other sentient beings, and nobody is ever excluded from this care. In this realm, there is no praising one sentient being over another, since all possess Buddha nature and all will discover it eventually. There are only differences in time.

Going beyond senses and discriminating mind means there is something to hope for that is beyond the self and its concerns. When we are fully aligned to this, then we don't base our sense of worth on what we have acquired or what we do. While this doesn't excuse reckless use of money, it suggests that we not identify with what we have and simply be happy with who we are. We can give ourselves permission to fail, to make mistakes, and even to sometimes appear foolish, since life can be embraced fully with all its ups and downs as temporary phenomenon. Perhaps this is what gives us courage to live in the life of turmoil and unpredictability.

Vanishing into Nirvana

You do not vanish into Nirvana, nor does Nirvana abide in you, for Nirvana transcends all duality of knowing and known, of being and non-being.

Gautama, Buddha. THE LANKAVATARA SUTRA (pp. 3-4). Independent. Kindle Edition. 

In this passage, it seems Buddha is talking about two common ways of thinking about nirvana. On the one hand, we might take the approach that nirvana is a great "leaving" or "vanishing", similar to a disappearing act where we enter some void and never return again. But if there is an actual "vanishing", who is vanishing? The notion of vanishing into Nirvana still leaves the question of what is aware of the vanishing and whether it resides in the void.

.On the other had, the notion of a nirvana that abides within is also reminiscent of an essentialist view of the spirit. It is as though we could look inside of our bodies and find nirvana residing there. This too is resting on the delusion that there is a separate being that always resides in ourselves or even an essential nature. Even though texts do talk about Buddha nature, it seems this is not a substance that we can point to.

So when this part of the sutra suggests that Nirvana transcends duality of knowing and known, being and non-being, I have the thought that it means going beyond all categories that we create. Whenever we label or judge ourselves, we are always imagining a self or a being that remains the same. Is there? Even when we are making mistakes, do we make the same mistake twice? The notion that there is a self who is "essentially" or "inevitably" anything gives rise to all kinds of attachments, including the desire to protect the self or to achieve something special like the feeling of "vanishing" or "possessing" some prized or coveted object that nobody has.

If, on the other hand, we see life as a process that is always moving and in motion, then we no longer stick to the notion that we are "something" or "becoming something". Instead, we can acknowledge that our nature is always empty and compounded. Under this notion, our troubles are no more static than bubbles, and our successes also seem fleeting. This frees us up to embrace whatever is happening with equanimity: nothing to celebrate when things go "well" and nothing to mourn when things go "badly". This is because nothing is born or dies.  

Finally, Nirvana is not something we acquire through knowledge. The more we know, the farther we might even get from the view of empty mind. We continue to think in terms of acquisition, like a hand trying to grasp at sand.

Egoless

 With your perfect intelligence and compassion, which are beyond all limit, you comprehend the ego-less-ness of things and persons, and are free and clear from the hindrances of passion and learning and egoism.

Gautama, Buddha. THE LANKAVATARA SUTRA (p. 3). Independent. Kindle Edition. 

"Ego" has become a catch-word in psychology. I do recall learning about ego based psychology as an undergraduate student (see Heinz Kohut, for instance), who linked the development of ego to the proper empathy that a child can receive from caregivers. It may seem surprising, therefore, for Westerners to learn that Buddhism stresses the "ego-less-ness" of things and persons, meaning that there is no ego inside things or people. I suppose this can be taken in different ways, but maybe what the Buddha is trying to convey is that the ego is only a mental construct that we habitually form around ourselves and people around us. Once we do become locked into a strong sense of ego, it may be hard to realize that people are actually an amalgamation of many moving forces, and there isn't once cohesive "person" in all of it after all.

Ego is not just about being attached to one's own self. In fact, in the context of this passage, it seems that even "things" can be endowed with a sense of ego, such as when we assume that a precious or loved object has permanent qualities or characteristics. We even endow "human" qualities onto non-human objects, so this also adds to the idea that ego is a construct.

How does one build a sense of ego? Passion, for one, is being attached to certain things and repelling others. But it surprises me that "learning" would also be said to be a hindrance to ego. Why "learning", you may wonder? I think because learning often creates a sense of "I have learned or heard this already" which blocks us from directly experiencing things, which strengthens a conceptual understanding of self as opposed to a direct awareness of its impermanence.