by Tang Huyen

Buddhism aims at shaking loose our congealed certainties,
our agglutinated fixities, to soften them, ultimately to dissolve
them — and except for the technique of meditation, there is
nothing in Buddhism that surpasses a few sayings of Europe.

I haven't the Sanskrit of the Descent into Ceylon (the
Lankavatara Sutra), but guessing from the translation as
given, it is being contrarian — contradictorian — in the
most banal, literal, and pedestrian sense. In "the primary
elements have never come into existence", the primary
elements are bhuuta, literally "becomes", "reals", "trues",
and "have never come into existence" probably translates
something like a-bhuuta or some close cognate. What
looks like profound speculation in translation may well
be a word-play with the most banal Great Vehicle
tendency: the becomes (bhuuta) are un-become
(a-bhuuta), the reals are unreal, the trues are untrue.

The above is just a guess, but much of the Great Vehicle
speculation revolves around such simple-minded word-play.
Not that such simple-minded word-play hasn't its
philosophical value, as it can remind us of the
arbitrariness of our conventions, but often Great Vehicle
negations turn on a literary dime. They can be quite
mechanical and uninspired, and lots of them can be
strung together pages after pages. The bulk — in the
pejorative sense — of the Perfection of Wisdom scriptures
comes down to such tit-for-tat negations.

The Buddha says in Itivuttaka, 44: "Here a monk sees
the become (bhuuta) as become, and by seeing thus he
has entered upon the way to dispassion for it, to the
fading of lust for and cessation of it (Idha bhikkhu
bhuutam bhuutato passati, bhuutam bhuutato disvaa
bhuutassa nibbidaaya viraagaaya nirodhaaya patipanno
hoti)." The Bodhisattva-bhuumi, 266 has bhuutam ca
bhuutatah prajaanaati — "know the become as become."
In both cases, the meaning "become" shades and fades
into "true," for after one has seen the become as the
become, it becomes true when one sheds one's mentation.

Buddhism aims at shaking loose our congealed
certainties, our agglutinated fixities, to soften them,
ultimately to dissolve them, and except for the technique
of meditation, there is nothing in Buddhism that surpasses
a few sayings of Europe.

John the Scot (Johannes Scotus Eriugena), On the
Division of Nature (Periphyseon), II, 614c–d:

"But these are things which are contemplated at a
deeper and truer level than they are expressed in speech,
and understood more deeply and more truly than they are
contemplated, and are deeper and truer than they are
understood to be; for they pass all understanding. For
whatever things are said or contemplated or understood
of the Holy Trinity of the most simple Goodness are but
traces and theophanies of the Truth, not Truth itself,
which surpasses all contemplation not only of the
rational but also of the intellectual creature. For it is not
that kind of unity or trinity which can be thought of or
understood from any creature, or be shaped by any
fantasy however clear and close to the truth it may
be — for all these things deceive as long as this is made
the end of our contemplation — because it is more than
unity and more than trinity."

John's complicated hierarchy, Christian in appearance
but borrowed from Neoplatonism, can be ignored. What
is however remarkable is his assertion: haec enim
omnia fallunt dum in eis finis contemplationis ponitur —
"for all these things deceive as long as this is made the
end of our contemplation."

Hegel, Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences, I,
Science of Logic, third edition, 1830, §31: "The
representations of the soul, the world and God seem
at first to provide a firm support for thought. But,
besides the fact that the character of particular
subjectivity is mixed in with them and that they
therefore can have very different meaning, they need
rather to receive the fixed determination by thought
to begin with."

Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmum 38, 7: "In attending
to it well, it is clear that it is not; if I attach to it, it is as
if it was, but if I pass by and leave it, it is not (Plane,
si adtendam bene, non est: si haream, quasi est; si
transiliam, non est)."

And from these boards, a Hinduist poster:

"It's all just a play of ideas, no need to take it seriously.
It's a passing fancy, a caprice, a felicity. Trying to box it
in with concepts is never ending and never satisfying."

I know nothing in thought and language — I am leaving
out the insight outside of thought and language — in
Buddhism that surpasses the above sayings in
philosophical penetration. Technical jargon like the five
aggregates and the four primary elements means diddly
squat.

Colophon

Posted to talk.religion.buddhism on January 22, 2005, in response to a post by Chris Degnen on the Lankavatara Sutra and the unborn nature of the primary elements. Author: Tang Huyen. Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

The essay moves in two directions at once: downward (deflating Mahayana technical vocabulary as mechanical word-play) and outward (elevating European mystics and philosophers as equal or superior in philosophical penetration). The core argument is that the bhuuta/a-bhuuta negation, and much Perfection of Wisdom literature, is driven by a contrarian impulse rather than genuine insight — while Eriugena's "all these things deceive as long as this is made the end of our contemplation," Augustine's observation that the thing vanishes the moment one stops clinging to it, and Hegel's note that ordinary representations need thought to fix them are all more precise and less mechanical than the bulk of Great Vehicle negation literature. The anonymous Hinduist poster's remark closes the loop: the insight that concepts cannot box reality is universal, informal, and accessible without technical apparatus.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.

🌲