What would Manjushri do?
Jun 17, 2024 16:01:47 GMT
White Lotus, JustaWhistleStop, and 1 more like this
Post by CoalBucket on Jun 17, 2024 16:01:47 GMT
A dear friend asked me to write some random unstructured musings about spontaneous function. And who am I to deny this request? I assume though that my presentation lacks the appropriate skill and insight but I might learn something from this mistake. If I later realized that I didn't learn anything, I still had the chance to improve my typing skills. By hiding myself in "appeal to authority" I quote the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Mañjuśrīparivarta Sūtra.
So, how can I approach not seeing my life merely as a story? How can I allow the space of my appearance to be accepted and not be judged automatically?
Is it possible to see all these beautiful and not-so-beautiful things appear without turning them into more content for my story? And could this be my chance to act and react directly and not be inhibited by trauma, culture, preferences, and proclivities?
Shouldn't I be beyond all this already?
It looks like Buddhism seems to offer ideas on how to approach these matters. At least it does for me. I recently read these parts of a shorter scripture from the Prajnaparamita collection:
The Buddha spoke to Mañjuśrī, saying, “When cultivating Prajñāpāramitā thusly, how should one abide in Prajñāpāramitā?”
Mañjuśrī said, “Not abiding in dharmas is abiding in Prajñāpāramitā.”
The Buddha again asked Mañjuśrī, “Why do you say that not abiding in dharmas is abiding in Prajñāpāramitā?”
Mañjuśrī said, “Not abiding in appearances is itself abiding in Prajñāpāramitā.”
The Buddha spoke to Mañjuśrī again, saying, “When abiding in Prajñāpāramitā thusly, do one’s good roots increase or decrease?”
Mañjuśrī said, “If one is able to abide in Prajñāpāramitā thusly, then one’s good roots neither increase nor decrease, just as all dharmas neither increase nor decrease, and the characteristic of the nature of Prajñāpāramitā likewise neither increases nor decreases. Bhagavān, cultivating Prajñāpāramitā thusly is not abandoning the dharmas of ordinary beings, nor is it grasping the dharmas of the noble ones.
Why? Prajñāpāramitā does not perceive the existence of a dharma which can be grasped or abandoned. Cultivating Prajñāpāramitā thusly is also not seeing Nirvāṇa to delight in, nor birth and death to despise.
Why? One does not perceive birth and death, much less something to leave behind. One does not perceive Nirvāṇa, much less something to delight in. Cultivating Prajñāpāramitā thusly is perceiving neither impurity or affliction which may be abandoned, nor perceiving merits which may be obtained. Regarding all dharmas, the mind is without increase or decrease.
Why? One does not perceive the existence of increase or decrease in the Dharma Realm. Bhagavān, if one is capable of practicing thusly, then this is called cultivating Prajñāpāramitā.”
Mañjuśrī said, “Not abiding in dharmas is abiding in Prajñāpāramitā.”
The Buddha again asked Mañjuśrī, “Why do you say that not abiding in dharmas is abiding in Prajñāpāramitā?”
Mañjuśrī said, “Not abiding in appearances is itself abiding in Prajñāpāramitā.”
The Buddha spoke to Mañjuśrī again, saying, “When abiding in Prajñāpāramitā thusly, do one’s good roots increase or decrease?”
Mañjuśrī said, “If one is able to abide in Prajñāpāramitā thusly, then one’s good roots neither increase nor decrease, just as all dharmas neither increase nor decrease, and the characteristic of the nature of Prajñāpāramitā likewise neither increases nor decreases. Bhagavān, cultivating Prajñāpāramitā thusly is not abandoning the dharmas of ordinary beings, nor is it grasping the dharmas of the noble ones.
Why? Prajñāpāramitā does not perceive the existence of a dharma which can be grasped or abandoned. Cultivating Prajñāpāramitā thusly is also not seeing Nirvāṇa to delight in, nor birth and death to despise.
Why? One does not perceive birth and death, much less something to leave behind. One does not perceive Nirvāṇa, much less something to delight in. Cultivating Prajñāpāramitā thusly is perceiving neither impurity or affliction which may be abandoned, nor perceiving merits which may be obtained. Regarding all dharmas, the mind is without increase or decrease.
Why? One does not perceive the existence of increase or decrease in the Dharma Realm. Bhagavān, if one is capable of practicing thusly, then this is called cultivating Prajñāpāramitā.”
Prajnaparamita, the "wisdom beyond wisdom" always sounded a bit like a contrived metaphysical, abstract, and hence philosophical concept when I first started my study. I wasn't interested. But I reconsidered due to the endless repetition of the Heart Sutra, which is one of the more condensed versions of the idea. I nowadays prefer the longer Sutras but maybe because I am just slow. It doesn't contradict the Diamond Sutra either. I just liked the text.
What does this word "Prajnaparamita" mean to me? Maybe it is one view of my fundamental precognitive perception of the world. What happens before I name and categorize? This is an already complete world. I do not need to retroactively add another level of complexity, I rather remove the arbitrary complexity, which is often (not always) not required in the first place. Yet, turning this story into a "better story" of myself would be very inauthentic, I would be playing to "not adding" something. This makes exchange so delicate.
Manjushri goes the extra mile and he meticulously creates tuples, negates the tuples, and supercedes the negation and even the non-negation. This is (traditionally) an accepted way to express the ineffable but it can indeed appear a bit exhausting.
So, he recommends I practice this view and I think he could be right, maybe his wisdom could be my wisdom. But what should I do? How should I act from here? Another snippet from another part of the sutra:
The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī, “Do you observe the precepts?”
He replied, “They are observed.”
The Buddha said, “What is this observing?”
Mañjuśrī said, “I do not observe as an ordinary person, nor do I observe as a noble one; I do not observe as one with more learning or as one beyond learning; I perceive neither large nor small, perceiving neither regulation nor non-regulation, neither perceiving nor not perceiving.”
Śāriputra spoke to Mañjuśrī saying, “You observe the Śrāvaka Vehicle thusly, but how do you observe the Buddha Vehicle?”
Mañjuśrī said, “I do not perceive a dharma of Bodhi, a cultivation practice of Bodhi, or even one who realizes Bodhi.”
He replied, “They are observed.”
The Buddha said, “What is this observing?”
Mañjuśrī said, “I do not observe as an ordinary person, nor do I observe as a noble one; I do not observe as one with more learning or as one beyond learning; I perceive neither large nor small, perceiving neither regulation nor non-regulation, neither perceiving nor not perceiving.”
Śāriputra spoke to Mañjuśrī saying, “You observe the Śrāvaka Vehicle thusly, but how do you observe the Buddha Vehicle?”
Mañjuśrī said, “I do not perceive a dharma of Bodhi, a cultivation practice of Bodhi, or even one who realizes Bodhi.”
How often did I turn my good deeds into something special? How often did I judge myself for no good reason? Can't I just trust in my inherent goodness and rely on my capacity for adaptation?
But telling myself I know it better now... Isn't that another story? After all, the appearances of my deeds differ not fundamentally, and so my perception of specialness is nothing but a major transgression.
I guess it is best for me to just continue and see where I can be of help. But what could I do if I fail?
Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha, saying, “Bhagavān, Bodhi itself is the Five Offenses, and the Five Offenses are themselves Bodhi.
Why? Bodhi and the Five Offenses are without the characteristics of duality. Without learning and without learner, without perception and without perceiver, without knowing and without knower, without discrimination and without one who discriminates: this is the characteristic which is called Bodhi, and perception of the characteristic of the Five Offenses is also such as this.
Yet if one says that they perceive the existence of Bodhi, then this is grasping at realization, and it should be known that this is an arrogant person.”
Why? Bodhi and the Five Offenses are without the characteristics of duality. Without learning and without learner, without perception and without perceiver, without knowing and without knower, without discrimination and without one who discriminates: this is the characteristic which is called Bodhi, and perception of the characteristic of the Five Offenses is also such as this.
Yet if one says that they perceive the existence of Bodhi, then this is grasping at realization, and it should be known that this is an arrogant person.”
Being realistic and even "objective" about my own deeds could appear almost impossible in most situations. Still, with some distance, everything becomes a new "normal". And how much do I need to regret the "new normal"? How much do I need to be proud of my "new normal"? Why should someone know? I don't know whether I should tell someone that I don't have back pain while they may be suffering from back pain. I don't think I would make for a good idol.
I still don't really know what to do now...
The Buddha said, “Do you enter into the inconceivable samādhi?”
Mañjuśrī said, “No, Bhagavān, I am the inconceivable itself, perceiving neither the existence of a mind, nor one who is able to have thoughts, so how could I be said to enter the inconceivable samādhi? When I was beginning, I developed the aspiration and entered this samādhi, but now there is truly no thought for entering this samādhi.
This is like a person who is learning archery. After a long time of practice this person is skillful, and due to this long practice, without thought, his arrows strike the center of their target.
It is just like this for myself, and when I began learning the inconceivable samādhi, I focused my mind on a single point. After a long time of practice, although there is no thought of it, I am always completely in this samādhi.”
Mañjuśrī said, “No, Bhagavān, I am the inconceivable itself, perceiving neither the existence of a mind, nor one who is able to have thoughts, so how could I be said to enter the inconceivable samādhi? When I was beginning, I developed the aspiration and entered this samādhi, but now there is truly no thought for entering this samādhi.
This is like a person who is learning archery. After a long time of practice this person is skillful, and due to this long practice, without thought, his arrows strike the center of their target.
It is just like this for myself, and when I began learning the inconceivable samādhi, I focused my mind on a single point. After a long time of practice, although there is no thought of it, I am always completely in this samādhi.”
Maybe Manjushri has a point here, maybe he hasn't. It takes a while to figure that out... I guess.
I often lose interest in things quickly. But I also gain interest in other things quickly. Neither seems to be wrong, but do I need to be concerned? The process appears through its workings. But it isn't comprehensible while it is running. And even if it did, why shouldn't I just befriend this process? This could be a good friend, a reliable friend, a friend I can deeply trust in.
I am afraid that I could not be as perfect as that friend though.
At that time, the Buddha spoke to Mañjuśrī, saying, “As the tathāgatas thus speak of self-wisdom, what is that ability of belief?”
Mañjuśrī said, “Such wisdom is neither a dharma of Nirvāṇa nor a dharma of birth and death; it is the practice of silence, the practice of stillness; it neither severs desires, hatred, and delusion, nor does it not sever them.
Why? It is without creation and without destruction; it is neither apart from birth and death, nor with it; it is neither the cultivation path, nor different from the cultivation path. Such understanding is called right belief.”
The Buddha spoke to Mañjuśrī, saying, “Excellent, excellent! Thus have you explained the profound meaning of this principle.”
Mañjuśrī said, “Such wisdom is neither a dharma of Nirvāṇa nor a dharma of birth and death; it is the practice of silence, the practice of stillness; it neither severs desires, hatred, and delusion, nor does it not sever them.
Why? It is without creation and without destruction; it is neither apart from birth and death, nor with it; it is neither the cultivation path, nor different from the cultivation path. Such understanding is called right belief.”
The Buddha spoke to Mañjuśrī, saying, “Excellent, excellent! Thus have you explained the profound meaning of this principle.”
What if I don't need to correct myself? I have seen enough emotional content to not be accustomed to it. I don't think ignoring it would be adequate, and trying to "remain calm" by suppressing the appearances is often too hard anyway. It's funny how even a few minutes later the whole situation looks differently. But what if it looks differently while it happens? That's almost magical.
But haven't I been to this place before?
“For example, a person who has heard this sūtra before is like one who has seen a city before. Following this, suppose he hears others praise that city and its gardens, parks, the various ponds and streams, its flowers, fruits, and forests, and its men and women, all its wonderful things. After hearing this, he is very happy, and will ask the other person to speak more about this city’s gardens, parks, and multitude of good adornments, its flowers, ponds, streams, its many sweet fruits, all its wonderful things. When this person hears about them, he is extremely happy, because he has perceived these things before.
Suppose a good man or good woman hears this Prajñāpāramitā, listening and accepting with a mind of belief, able to give rise to joy, delighting in hearing it and without contempt, and asking for it to be spoken even more. One should know that this person has already heard Prajñāpāramitā thusly from Mañjuśrī.”
Suppose a good man or good woman hears this Prajñāpāramitā, listening and accepting with a mind of belief, able to give rise to joy, delighting in hearing it and without contempt, and asking for it to be spoken even more. One should know that this person has already heard Prajñāpāramitā thusly from Mañjuśrī.”
That sounds like a good thing. I hope I never forget that no matter if someone reminds me or not.
