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.

Visions Beyond Reach

 As you review all things by your perfect intelligence and compassion, they must seem to you like visions beyond the reach of the human mind, as being and non-being do not apply to them.Gautama, Buddha. THE LANKAVATARA SUTRA (p. 3). Independent. Kindle Edition. 

What does this term mean, "visons beyond reach of the human mind"? I think the clue to this lies in the second part of the sentence, which says "as being and non-being do not apply to them". It seems to suggest that the more we reach a stage of enlightenment, the more things take on the nature of appearances, rather than solid and living entities that we can refer to as "existent" as opposed to "non existent". We often distinguish between "real" and "unreal" or "fantasy" vs. "reality", without truly defining the terms. What exactly do we use to measure the real as opposed to the fantastic?

 Scientists would say that the burden of proof always lies with the observer or the believer. In other words we need some kind of quantitative or experimental proof to confirm that something is true. But we often take things purely on faith and trust, such as when we eat food at a restaurant believing that it's "safe" when we haven't directly seen any inspection of the kitchen or staff. Our observations are often, in fact, a combination of sensation and beliefs. There is nothing inherent in the appearance of a snake that would make us feel it is dangerous in any way, yet we flinch when we see a snake darting in front of us. We might think the snake "appears" harmful, but what exactly does "harmful" look like, and how do we really know? Our knowledge is often a combination of direct observation and passed down folklore that takes the form of common sense. In so many ways, our knowledge is not directly perceived but is rather culturally acquired at a very early age.

The point is, the more we look at what believe to be "existent", the more we realize that what we take to be "real" is often the result of interpretation, hearsay and faith, rather than direct experimental proof or experience. Fact and fiction can at times blend together to create imagination. Perhaps an enlightened being is so attuned to the impressions of the mind that they are more sensitive to fantastic visions o that don't necessarily have a grounding in empirical observation. Here, neither being nor non-being apply, since these fantastic visions are purely created by the mind or are mental energies.

Looking this way, one may start to see the world in a new way. The apparently real seems all the more fantastic because it is momentary and created by the mind. The present unfolding moment seems to be a source of awe and splendor when we stop buying into the idea that what we experience is external to an observing I. This can be a delightful vision that happens because we are not attached to an idea of the world that situates things as self-existent and outside of the mind.

Dream Like Mind

 "As you review the world with your perfect intelligence and compassion, it must seem to you like a dream of which it cannot be said: it is permanent or it is destructible, for the being and non-being do not apply to it." Gautama, Buddha.  THE LANKAVATARA SUTRA (p. 3). Independent. Kindle Edition. 

If we want to know the quality of our life, we might begin with the question: What are our dreams like? 

 It's hard to believe that we create our own dreams and then live in them, similar to the expression, "lie in the bed you've made". If one's mentality is one of blame or anger, then one creates a world where no one is to be trusted. Conversely, a world where nobody seems to be trustworthy fosters the belief that I must rely completely on my own devices in order to get along in the world. But if we loosen our ideas of what constitutes reality, we will find that there is a lot of wiggle room in which to breathe.

If we take the emotion of anger, for instance, we will find that an angry dream is a contracted one. But there are many complexes where anger thrives. One of them is the belief that if I am sufficiently upset, I can influence the way others behave toward me. Many of my old teachers in grade school and middle school projected an aura of anger in order to intimidate their students. Only on the last day of school might these teachers relent and even have a smile or two! The point is that an angry demeanor often generates a sense of fear, authority and respect. On the other hand, it's clear that anger often separates people. When a person says unkind or angry words without thinking about their impact, they create an atmosphere of tension which can lead to others subtly avoiding the person for fear that they will trigger the person's anger. While this may be advantageous for an authoritarian personality, it doesn't go well in groups or teams of people.

Another part of an angry dream is indeed, the idea of hurt pride or honor. When we "lose face" or reputation, we can behave like the asuras or "jealous gods", who endlessly compete with each other in a certain kind of heaven for things like merits and blessings. If, on the other hand, we let go of honor or reputation, we become like a poor man with nothing from which a person can steal. Who steals from a homeless person or a vagabond? This is an analogy but the poor in spirit is someone who has nothing to lose and nothing gained either. Such a person is unafraid of losing honor, and can remain happy when the powerful around them are competing for titles and honors.

Anger feels like power, at least momentarily, but it often doesn't wield very much power beyond the ability to hurt our bodies. If I become angry, my heart races, my face turns red, and my stomach becomes very sore and very unstable. All of these symptoms do not happen to the person with whom I am angry! So, by generating anger, I only hurt my own body. So why do we so often see portrayals of heroes in movies using their anger to reap a satisfactory "vengeance" on the enemy? This is because movies don't accurately convey the workings of karma. A heroic journey is nearly always an uphill climb to success, whereas the real story of life is always a circle of ups and downs. Whatever I exert will come back to me in some form; it can't go anywhere else.

It might be better to find the sadness that underlies our anger. Anger is about some kind of threat of loss. But as soon as we are angry, we have already lost! We have lost our peace of mind, so we should really turn anger to sadness and see how the situation we are in is one of extreme suffering. Turning from hot anger to cool sadness is like water pouring out a fire. Sadness is much more controllable--it never rages outside the boundaries of our heart. At least realistic sadness suggests: we can never really get what we want all the time, and we might have to live in a state of constant compromise and negotiation as a result.

Let's look at the sutra again:

 it must seem to you like a dream of which it cannot be said: it is permanent or it is destructible, 

Remember how in the previous section, the flower was used to illustrate the idea of no birth and no death. Now the sutra turns to the notion of impermanence. We can't say a dream is permanent, because it consists of nothing but mental imagery that is unfolding in our mind. But nor can we say a dream is "destructible", precisely because its core nature or essence is mind itself. Nobody has ever "reached out" to a dream and crumpled it, threw it in the garbage, or even blew it up with dynamite. That is, there is no causal efficacy to dreams, because dreams are only images that flit about here and there. Even in the case of "lucid" dreaming, can we say there is a real "dreamer" manipulating things in the dream? Where is the dreamer, and where is the dream? These are concepts that can't even be located. The dream is little more than a succession of ideas.

Buddhism isn't nihilistic: it doesn't say, all things are nothing but images with no reality. It goes deeper than that, suggesting that the nature of life cannot be reduced to causes and effects. In a dream, nobody comes in and becomes the hero, because all the elements of the dream are from the same mind. Nobody "wins" or "loses" and there isn't a predominant element, because these cascading thoughts have no connection with each other. The ideas we impose upon life--causality, substance, nature, matter, people, self--simply fade out when we start to compare existence to a dream. These ideas are simply contrived principles that don't have a tangible or endurable existence. 

Even the concept of "Impermanence" is only one of many illusory constructs. It's meant to point to a nature of mind that is forever infinite and changing, but there is no impermanence/permanence--they are only relative concepts that mean nothing. Impermanence comes close to what we experience directly in the present moment, but we mustn't imagine there is such a thing called impermanence or permanence. That's because these are dualistic concepts. When we finally have the last leg of the chair taken off, there are no more concepts that we can cling to to capture this moment, now, the thusness of what is. It's dream-like, but on the other hand cannot compare to anything we can conceptualize mentally.

Ethereal Flowers

 As you review the world with your perfect intelligence and compassion, it must seem to you like an ethereal flower of which one cannot say: it is born, it is destroyed, for the terms beings and non-being do not apply to it. Gautama, Buddha. THE LANKAVATARA SUTRA (p. 3). Independent. Kindle Edition. 

When I think of ethereal flowers, I am reminded of the Sutra of Complete Enlightenment, which compares deluded mind to the floaters that appear on one's eyes. When we say it is not born, not destroyed, what do we mean? A delusional flower is not actually a "real" flower, so we can't speak of it needing water or soil, or other conditions to grow. In fact, because the flower is only an image we form in our mind, there are no causes and effects for it to happen. 

Now surely, this can't apply to everything, can it? After all, Buddhism doesn't deny that there are causes and conditions. However, what it does say is that the nature of cause and effect is more mental than we take it to be. David Hume, the British philosopher, was my first exposure to this idea, because he showed that causal relationships are more of a matter of customary association than they are actual "substances" that cause things to happen in the world. For instance, when I see a rock being thrown through a window and glass breaking, I imagine that this is a purely physical relationship, where the mass of the rock "causes" the window to shatter. But Hume suggests that from the purely mental point of view, we don't experience any cause or effect, only one event customarily preceding the other: I see a rock hitting a window, then see glass breaking. I then infer that the rock causes the glass to break. Causality, however, or the force thereof, is not directly observable.

We do plant seeds, and seeds become flowers, but we are only ever interacting with the flowers of our minds. Flowers, like any other form, depends on the mind to appear. This is why it's thought to be "ethereal". We need awareness to be able to recognize the flower as a flower, and give it a name, as well as distinguish it from other things in the environment. All these are purely mental acts, on top of which we project the notion of "I" (a subject) when we narrow our focus on an object.

More so, because the appearance of the flower is so mind-dependent, it cannot be said to be a separate thing that is "born" or "destroyed". Can thoughts or memories "give birth" or "die"? They don't have these properties, and therefore the flowers we perceive are also not born or destroyed. We might imagine that the image of a flower "dies" when we don't perceive it, but actually this is only a metaphorical expression to say that something "leaves" a scene or leaves the world. These metaphors don't apply to images, since images only appear once, then get superseded by other images. In a movie film strip, we similarly see this kind of constant change, which makes it seem as though there is one single image that forms the substance of the others, when in fact, it's all just a series of images put together. The mind "fills in" the rest.

By having a clinging and tenacious view of thoughts, we cling to happy things, sad things, likes, dislikes, and then imagine they are more pervasively real than they are. They start to take on a larger than life power over us, when in the end they are only the thoughts that we feed habitually. A good example is an addictive substance: we try to quit, but seeing the substance triggers a habit energy that seems to impel us toward it. Actually, these habits are only tendencies of the mind, which can easily be curbed by developing other habit energies. This is a little bit of why "ethereal flowers" are a common metaphor in Buddhist scriptures.