Classes philo, cours d'empathie, pratique de l'attention, etc. à l'école

Le futur ministre de l'Education à Trappes avec la fondation SEVE en fév 2020 (photo : FB G.Attal)

Les entrepreneurs attentionnels sont toujours très actifs et les rapports avec l’ancien ministre de la santé Agnès Buzyn, l'écologiste Delphine Batho et le nouveau ministre de l’éducation nationale Gabriel Attal sont excellents. Cela malgré la lettre ouverte envoyée par une quinzaine d’associations et de syndicats au ministre de l’époque (18/01/2022), Jean-Michel Blanquer. Parmi les signataires figuraient “la Ligue des droits de l’Homme, celle de l’Enseignement, les syndicats FSU, CGT et Unsa, la fédération de parents d’élèves FCPE et l’association de lutte contre les dérives sectaires Unadfi.” Ils écrivent notamment :

“la pratique sur des enfants mineurs d’une méthode qui peut aboutir à un conditionnement avec perte d’esprit critique et assujettissement de l’individu engendre (…) des risques importants qui ne peuvent être négligés.”

Trappes, avec F. Lenoir, G. Attal et J. Lenormandie en fév 2020 (photo : FB G.Attal)

Gabriel Attal avait déjà rencontré Frédéric Lenoir, le président de la fondation SEVE (Savoir Être et Vivre Ensemble) avant d’être ministre, en février 2020, et fut très impressionné par les “ateliers philo”, et de “pratique de l’attention”, une autre façon de faire référence à la méditation de la pleine conscience (MPC), introduite en France par le moine bouddhiste Matthieu Ricard, le psychiatre Christophe André, qui sont les “parrains” de la fondation, avec quelques autres célébrités comme Boris Cyrulnik, Edgar Morin, Abdennour Bidar, etc.

F. Lopez, Ilios Kotsou (Mindful Leadership SBS-EM), M.Ricard, F. Lenoir, C. André,
Journée Emergences à Bruxelles "Se changer, changer le monde"

Certains oiseaux de malheur considèrent que ces initiatives privées de la part de “lobbies ésotériques” ou plutôt “philo-spirituels” n’ont pas leur place dans l’école républicaine, et considèrent ces tentatives comme de l’ “entrisme”. Ces initiatives sont néanmoins soutenues par les plus grandes entreprises mondiales et par des acteurs hors pair de “l'entrepreneuriat social”, comme la fondation Ashoka fondée par Bill Drayton, un ancien de McKinsey & Company. La présidente de la branche française Ashoka France, Martine Roussel-Adam, est même la Vice-Présidente de SEVE.

“Car l'aide d'Ashoka, association créée en 1980 en Inde par un Américain, Bill Drayton, ancien consultant du cabinet de conseil en stratégie McKinsey, est de "soutenir des personnes dont les idées et les ambitions sont à même de propager de nouvelles solutions aux problèmes sociaux et environnementaux". L'association leur met le pied à l'étrier. Son apport n'est pas seulement financier, mais aussi intellectuel grâce à son réseau de partenaires, entreprises et particuliers. Les cabinets de conseil les plus réputés lui prêtent main-forte : McKinsey, bien sûr, mais aussi Latham & Watkins dans le domaine juridique, Hill & Knowlton (communication), Ernst & Young (financier), Egon Zehnder (ressources humaines).

Des particuliers apportent également un soutien financier (10 000 euros par an chacun) et du temps. "La crise montre bien l'importance de ces nouveaux modèles. Participer à leur émergence m'apporte beaucoup", confirme Martine Roussel-Adam, entrepreneuse elle-même.” Le Monde, 14/10/2009, Annie Kahn.

Un des objectifs d’Ashoka France est de Transformer L'Expérience Éducative, parce que “les nouvelles générations doivent acquérir des compétences et des qualités essentielles telles que la prise d’initiative, la collaboration ou l’empathie”, pour en faire les “acteurs de changement” (Changemakers) de demain, “des bâtisseurs du futur”, et “des citoyens conscients, actifs et éclairés”.

Ce en quoi, l’école telle que nous la connaissons semblerait échouer sans l’aide du secteur privé. Un coup de main philanthropique n’a donc pas de refus. Qui sait, si les classes de philosophie, de “pratique de l’attention”, et de “développement de la pensée réflexive” et d’empathie sont un succès, ces entrepreneurs sociaux et attentionnels pourraient jouer un plus grand rôle dans les écoles de la République, en développant l’attention, l’empathie, la résilience, une meilleure gestion individuelle sociale et émotionnelle, etc., en soulageant les professeurs et les budgets toujours sous pression. Le développement de compétences entrepreneuriales parmi eux serait évidemment un plus, et ferait d’eux des citoyens conscients, éclairés, prêts à mettre la main à la pâte.

Le lien école de la République-secteur privé est gagnant-gagnant. Les matériaux, les contenus et les applications “attentionnels” ("attentionique", "conscientique" ?) et la logistique nécessaires aux animations et formations permettent de financer celles-ci, de créer de l’emploi, et de faire un peu de profit aux philanthropes, qui sera éventuellement reversé à des charités. La "conscientique" et le coaching spirituel sont des marchés porteurs (voir mes blogs L'impitoyable marché de la méditation 03/06/2019 et La pleine conscience peut-elle casser des briques ? 30/03/2020).

Vidéo de BFM TV mise à disposition sur le site de SEVE

Après sa rencontre en février 2020 avec Frédéric Lenoir, et avant même de devenir Ministre de l'Education nationale, Gabriel Attal faisait de nouveau référence aux ateliers SEVE sur BFM TV, le 18/10/2020, suite au meurtre de Samuel Paty.

“Il faut faire plus, il y a aujourd’hui de très bonnes initiatives qui sont prises, dans certains établissements”. Pour un cadre général, on peut s’inspirer d’initiatives qui sont prises dans certains établissements. Un exemple, quand j’étais secrétaire d’état à l’Education, j’étais voir des établissements scolaires, ce que fait une fondation, la fondation SEVE, qui est porté par un philosophe qui s’appelle Frédéric Lenoir, qui met en place ce que l’on appelle “les ateliers philo”. C’est des ateliers qui permettent d’étayer l’esprit critique des élèves, et d’aborder avec eux des questions difficiles, comme celle-ci [le meurtre de l’enseignant Samuel Paty], pour faire progresser la conscience de chacun.”

Dans l’esprit de Gabriel Attal, il semble s’agir de classes philosophiques de type éducation civique, qu’il faudrait selon lui commencer dès la primaire, pour parler de liberté d’expression, de tolérance, du racisme, de l’antisémitisme, de la radicalisation...

Le 17 octobre 2023, lors de la Commission des affaires culturelles ((à2:34:13), le Ministre, en parlant des "cours d'empathie", réaffirme sa confiance en "les méthodes extrêmement intéressantes" de la fondation SEVE et F. Lenoir, sur lesquelles "il faudra s'appuyer pour déployer l'apprentissage de l'altruisme, de l'altérité et de la tolérance à l'École".

Dans la dernière intervention de Frédéric Lenoir à l’institut Diderot (01/12/2023), celui-ci semble cependant viser une approche davantage entre “la philosophie et la spiritualité” (1:36:37), la philosophie seule ne suffit pas. Il y revient aussi sur le projet SEVE, et mentionne avoir revu récemment Gabriel Attal, cette fois-ci Ministre de l’Education, avec qui il avait déjeuné.

“ [Le Ministre de l'Education Gabriel Attal] m'a dit qu'il souhaite développer de plus en plus “les ateliers philo” [SEVE] dans les écoles, parce que cela développe les compétences psychosociales et cognitives.”

Cela tombe bien, car Frédéric Lenoir raconte également à la fin de sa conférence comment ils ont “formé 5000 animateurs en 7 ans” (1:41:27), et qu’ils travaillent désormais avec l'Éducation nationale. La formation d’un animateur SEVE est sans doute beaucoup plus rapide, et moins coûteuse, que celle d’un enseignant fonctionnaire, puisque les animateurs paient pour leur propre formation.

“Le Parcours SEVE est construit autour de trois modalités pédagogiques :

- 8 journées en présentiel en pédagogie active pour un total de 48 h

- Un parcours e-Learning complémentaire d'environ 8h, accessible en ligne sur une plateforme pédagogique dédiée (extranet participant)

- Une mise en pratique de l'animation d'ateliers philo et pratique d'attention en relation bienveillante à l'enfant, avec 3 animations et 3 observations auprès de groupes d'enfants ou adolescents.”

Un parcours dure 65h30m et coûte actuellement “650 € Net de taxe”.

Au terme de ce parcours, l’animateur SEVE pourra intervenir dans les écoles. Je ne sais pas s’il y a d’autres conditions[1], formation continue, etc.

Pour revenir sur la tendance “entre philosophie et spiritualité”, il faudrait regarder toute la conférence, mais à la fin de la conférence, Frédéric Lenoir résume sa pensée.

“1:36:37 On est entre la philosophie et la spiritualité. En tout cas, c'est une exigence personnelle que nous pouvons avoir chacun, pour nous engager. Si l’on se dit que l’on veut juste recevoir des avantages, mais qu'on est prêt à ne rien donner au collectif on va imploser. C'est cela, la grande crise des démocraties modernes. C'est l'individualisme triomphant qui devient narcissique, et c'est d'ailleurs un danger qui guette les spiritualités. Les spiritualités individuelles, j'en ai dit plutôt du bien, mais il faut bien voir qu'elles sont complètement menacées par le narcissisme individuel, et qu'au fond aujourd'hui, vous pouvez avoir des individus qui vont faire du yoga, de la méditation machin, mais en se fichant complètement de ce qui se passe dans le monde. Ce n’est pas un progrès.

La personne qui l'avait très bien dénoncé, c'est un lama tibétain qui s'appelle Lama Chogyam [Trungpa] Rinpoché, qui est le premier Lama à venir en Occident[2]. Après 5 ans de vie aux États-Unis, où il avait un succès colossal. Il faisait de grands enseignements, il y avait des dizaines de milliers de personnes, il remplissait des stades. Puis au bout de 5 ans, il a écrit un livre qui s'appelle “Le matérialisme spirituel[3]”, et dans lequel il dénonce ce narcissisme.

Il dit, au fond, vous les Occidentaux vous êtes des consommateurs. Vous consommez des objets, mais vous consommez aussi de la spiritualité. Donc vous allez faire des grandes initiations bouddhistes, vous allez pratiquer le yoga, vous allez faire du néochamanisme et cetera, mais si cela ne vous transforme pas, cela ne sert à rien. Cela devient simplement un trophée. Vous dites voilà j'ai fait un stage de Vipaśyanā, j'ai fait un stage de ci, mais ça doit vous transformer, ça doit vous changer votre Être. Vous devez progresser en tant qu'être humain, et si c'est juste une accumulation, eh bien vous êtes dans l'avoir. Il conclut son livre en disant vous êtes des boutiquiers[4]. Au final, il montre à quel point le consumérisme contemporain menace la spiritualité, parce qu'on devient des consommateurs de spiritualité au lieu d'être des humains qui sont transformés par la spiritualité, donc là il y a aussi un vrai danger.”

Le livre auquel fait référence Frédéric Lenoir date de 1973, Chogyam Trungpa est mort en 1987. Cela ne s’est pas du tout bien passé avec lui, son régent, son fils, certains de ses disciples, ses organisations, mais Frédéric Lenoir, ancien directeur du Monde des religions (2004-2013), ne semble pas être au courant. Trungpa et ses organisations ne manquaient pas de narcissisme justement. Ce que Trungpa reproche au fond aux occidentaux, c’est leur “cherry picking” : “Sélectionner uniquement les éléments les plus désirables d'un ensemble, choisir sur le volet (comme on cueille des cerises, cherry).”

Chogyam Trungpa avec un jeune disciple à genoux (photo: Elephant Journal)

Trungpa demandait à ses disciples de choisir leur voie et leur maître une fois pour toutes, et de s’y tenir, quoi qu’il arrive, et il en est arrivé des choses. Trungpa, Sogyal, Robert Spatz, etc., n’étaient pas de bonnes “cerises”. Ils ne demandaient pas à leurs disciples de développer un esprit critique, au contraire. Pourquoi faire référence à une citation d’un maître religieux, narcissique et sectaire, dangereux pour les enfants en plus, dans le cadre d'une réponse sur les classes de philo, pour apprendre “à avoir une tête bien faite” ? C'est étonnant et inquiétant.

Mes blogs anciens sur Chogyam Trungpa (liste non-exhaustive) :

Il est des nôtres… 2014
Finie la lune de miel ? 2016
L'art d'enfumer 2016
Folle sagesse 2017
Réussir (siddhi) 2017
Shambala et Gésar de Ling, modèles pour une société éveillée séculière ? 2017
Transmissions célestes 2017
Un gourou pour insulter l'ego (II) 2017
Insulter l'ego en torturant des animaux 2018
Noyades en série dans eaux de bain 2019
La pratique d'une idéologie 2019
"Faire les choses, sans les faire vraiment" 2021
La réhabilitation d'un détenteur de lignée déchu 2021
La Trungpamanie fait de la résistance 2021
L'autre livre sur le Vajradhatu-Shambala de Trungpa 2021

Grandir dans une secte bouddhiste tibétaine* 2022       


Voir aussi De McMindfulness à la Révolution de la méditation 2020

***

[1] Conditions de pré-inscription :

“-un extrait de casier B3 pour que la demande soit traitée

- un CV nous permettant de mieux vous connaître (compétences et expériences)

- une lettre précisant votre motivation à suivre ce parcours et également votre objectif personnel et/ou professionnel. Dans quel cadre pensez-vous expérimenter l'animation d'atelier philo ?”

[2] Voir le titre de l’hagiographie de Fabrice Midal : Trungpa, L'homme qui a introduit le bouddhisme en Occident.

[3] En France : Pratique de la voie tibétaine : au-delà du matérialisme spirituel

[4] “En fait, nous avons simplement monte une boutique, une boutique d'antiquités. Peut-etre nous sommes-nous spécialisés dans les objets orientaux, les antiquités du Moyen- ge chretien, ou les vieilleries de telle culture à telle époque, mais, quoi qu’il en soit, nous sommes des boutiquiers. Avant d'être bourrée d ’objets, la pièce etait belle : des murs blancs, un simple plancher, et une lampe au plafond. Un objet d’art tronait au milieu de la pièce et c’était beau. Tout le monde venait jouir de cette beauté, a commencer par nous. Mais nous n'étions pas satisfaits. Nous pensions : « Si ce seul objet embellit tellement ma chambre, plus j ’en aurai, plus ce sera beau. » Alors, nous avons commencé à collectionner et le résultat fut chaotique. Nous avons parcouru la planète entière à la recherche de beaux objets - l’lnde, le Japon, et les contrées les plus diverses. Et, a chaque fois que nous trouvions une pièce rare, comme nous n’en découvrons qu’une a la fois, nous la trouvions belle et pensions qu’elle ornerait notre boutique. Mais, lorsque nous rentrions avec l’objet, il venait s’ajouter a notre bazar heteroclite. L’objet n’irradiait plus aucune beauté des lors qu’il était perdu au milieu de tant de choses merveilleuses. Il ne signifiait plus rien. Et notre chambre magnifique prenait figure de débarras!”

L’original en anglais :

“But we have simply created a shop, an antique shop. We could be specializing in oriental antiques or medieval Christian antiques or antiques from some other civilization or time, but we are, nonetheless, running a shop. Before we filled our shop with so many things the room was beautiful: white- washed walls and a very simple floor with a bright lamp burning in the ceiling. There was one object of art in the middle of the room and it was beautiful. Everyone who came appreciated its beauty, including ourselves. But we were not satisfied and we thought, "Since this one object makes my room so beautiful, if l get more antiques, my room will be even more beautiful." So we began to collect, and the end result was chaos. We searched the world over for beautiful objects-India, Japan, many different countries. And each time we found an antique, because we were dealing with only one object at a time, we saw it as beautiful and thought it would be beautiful in our shop. But when we brought the object home and put it there, it became just another addition to our junky collection. The beauty of the object did not radiate out any more, because it was surrounded by so many other beautiful things. It did not mean anything anymore. Instead of a room full of beautiful antiques we created a junk shop! Proper shopping does not entail collecting a lot of informa- tion or beauty, but it involves fully appreciating each indi- vidual object. This is very important. If you really appreciate an object of beauty, then you completely identify with it and forget yourself. It is like seeing a very interesting, fascinating movie and forgetting that you are the audience. At that moment there is no world; your whole being is that scene of that movie. It is that kind of identification, complete involvement with one thing. Did we actually taste it and chew it and swallow it properly, that one object of beauty, that one spiritual teaching? Or did we merely regard it as a part of our vast and growing collection?”

Buddhism and Violence: The Perfection of Meekness

Buddha sitting on the earth, taking the earth as witness (photo: Indiadivine)

Quite a long digression as an introduction, but don’t worry, I will get to the point.

In old mythologies preceding the classic ones, there was the earth and the female/male womb of the earth. The cycle of life consisted of life being generated on the earth from the womb and returning to the womb of the earth, which contained all the seeds of plants, animals and men, male and female seeds, without any identity. This cycle (di-odos) consists of the ascension (an-odos) of biological entities and their descent (cath-odos) back into the womb of the earth. The cycle of life. No heaven and hell, no good or evil, no gods and demons, etc. were needed for this process. This "superstructure" was minimalist. Men and women were born, procreated offspring with their biological seed, and returned into the womb. The “seed” of grandfathers was thought to be “reborn” into grandsons, and the “seed” of grandmothers into granddaughters. No individual identity was attached to these “seeds”.

In my fertile imagination the thought of having to free oneself from an ever returning “identical seed”, or from this Cycle of life didn’t seem to occur then. Even less so the thought of having to help and guide others to “free” themselves too. As for thinking about a beginning and an end of a cycle, what would have been the point?

With the invention of the third (tertiary) level "heaven", a better quality of “life” outside the Cycle of life, and of a "liberated" permanent individual seed, all the attention was directed towards a superstructure, and a new economy evolved around it. Simple life and survival on earth were henceforth in competition with a more glorious afterlife in heaven, at least for those believing in it. One could make efforts for this life, survival and/or comfort, or efforts with longer lasting effects (“investments”) for the afterlife (tib. tshe phyi ma). Celestial experts (hereafter Celestines) would explain how exactly to invest in the future, while making sacrifices in the present.

Since “Seeds” had become permanent and (like Google accounts) capable to keep records of all deeds, words and thoughts of the life of an individual, those who didn’t invest in their afterlife (hereafter Earthlings), would keep descending (cath-odos) back in the womb of the earth, after their death, and, from a Celestine point of view, the same “Seed” would be coming back (an-odos) on earth, as long as their afterlife needs were neglected. Since the Seeds had become individual and permanent, families could be divided into Celestine members caring for their afterlife, and Earthling members who didn’t, out of ignorance or sheer ill will. This entailed that some members of a family could end up in heaven, while others would return to the womb of the earth, henceforth called Hell, Hades, etc. A new cause of worry for the Celestines, who in order to help their unlucky Earthling brothers and sisters needed powerful means, which Celestine experts would gladly provide.

Sure, the newly added third level, would be yet another source of anguish, but at the same time it provided all the means to get a certain peace of mind, provided by Celestine experts. Earthlings could be converted, even at the very last moment, or could be helped in other ways, through prayers and investments on their behalf, to alleviate their future fate (the Cycle of life), to avoid the return to the womb of the earth, and sometimes to get them a place in heaven, even despite themselves.

These two afterlife destinations (womb of earth > earth, and heaven, “the two cities”) are to be found in creeds and religions under all sorts of forms and names. The “heavenly city” is permanent and the “earthly city” is cyclic, and therefore a cause of permanent anguish. The heavenly reality is higher, the earthly reality lower. I mean open your eyes… heaven is above, and earth below.

It’s common sense that acting in favour of, and investing in a higher and permanent reality is better than to do so in a lower one. Those who deny this are Nihilists, who don’t care for the third level. Nihilists, just like their Earthling ancestors living base lives, no better than plants and animals, in a two-leveled world myth cycle. In the three-leveled myth, as long as they are on the earth, and at least until their afterlife, all sprouted “Seeds” are subjected to two realities, the higher and the lower one, and will have to make do with both.

Celestine rules may forbid killing, fornication, stealing, lying, etc., but whilst living on the earth, Celestine experts and their patrons may, in the performance of their duties, need to “seem to” break some Celestine rules, in order to act in the best interest of all, Celestines, Earthlings and Nihilists without distinction. Not only does Celestine realpolitik allow them to do so, it even rewards them for it.

The legend of the Buddha learns us that the Buddha did not take Heaven and the gods as the witness of his Awakening, but the Earth (bhūmisparśa-mudrā). Perhaps he felt closer to the Earthling two-level system or more comfortable with it. You can touch and feel the earth.

As a religion, Buddhism too has a Celestine (paramārtha) and an earthly (saṃvṛti) reality. Buddhism started off as a Śramaṇic movement of renunciates, who wanted to free themselves not only from the earthly reality, but also from certain essentialised elements of Celestine reality. The nirvāṇa thus obtained seems to have been, initially, not an annihilation of the “Seed”, but an unbinding, extinction or “blowing out”, although Buddhists never agreed on the subject. The Celestine reality made quite a spectacular comeback with mahāyāna and vajrayāna, and the former nāstika Buddhism was welcomed back as a peer among other three-level religions. And there was much rejoicing.

Just like any other religion, Buddhism’s own survival has become its first priority, and any sacrifices made for its survival are necessary, and all efforts will be generously rewarded. Buddhism is not a violent religion as long as its interests remain untouched. Alliances with and protection by a Dhamarāja, a Theocrat, or if needed any secular, military and economic power is sought for, in order to guarantee its survival and development. Killing (and almost anything else) is allowed, provided it’s done “with compassion” and for “a good reason”, such as to destroy an enemy. Celestine reality overrules earthly reality, and the cycle of life will continue, until it ends by itself, or until competing Celestine realities finally rid us of it completely. “Compassion” in this context is not empathy, or altruism, but, in Buddhism, the simple conformity to the mahāyāna project of converting those to be converted to Celestine interests, in the long term, by various means, including through the four types of Tantric “enlightened activity” (caturkarman).

Many examples can be found in Michael Jerryson’s Buddhist Warfare (2010) of what may seem like Buddhist violence for those looking at it through earthly eyes. For Mahāyāna, anyone with power and wealth is a (potential) bodhisattva, entitled to “violence” for a good (Celestine) cause.

In Chan Buddhism, the Jueguan lun[1] similarly states that, if a murderous act is as perfectly spontaneous as an act of nature, it entails no responsibility:

"Question: “In certain conditions, isn’t one allowed to kill a living being?”—Answer: “The fire in the bush burns the mountain; the hurricane breaks trees; the collapsing cliff crushes wild animals to death; the running mountain stream drowns the insects. If a man can make his mind similar [to these natural forces], then, meeting a man, he may kill him all the same."

In a “heavenly” mindset, when in harmony with heaven, a man may kill another man, acting merely as a Celestine instrument, without any selfish reasons of himself. For the Fifth Dalai Lama, his Mongol protector Gushri Khan, a bodhisattva in disguise, was “entitled” to violence, because he was an ally and protector, and heaven smiled on his pro-Celestine activities. Another Dalai Lama, the Fourteenth, the Nobel Peace Prize 1989, “abstained from condemning the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq”[2], the U.S. being his ally and protector. He also may have thought that these invasions were in harmony with natural forces, the hand of God or Karma, and that it would not be wise to interfere. Anyway, anthropology (Freud, Girard, Lévy-Strauss, …) teaches us that violence, or even murder (Freud), is found at the beginning of society. The price to pay for leaving the “incomplete” two-leveled Earthling system. Can there be humanity (jen) without heaven (tian)? So, when societies and civilisations are murdering away, they are simply fighting for their own survival. Is violence for higher Celestine (tian) reasons perhaps the price to pay for “humanity” and “compassion”? Is that sort of “compassion” indeed higher than the empathy and compassion of Earthlings, that Chogyam Trungpa and his disciples call “idiot compassion”.

“Chogyam Trungpa once said that you can actually kill someone with a sword and penetrating them with the blade is like making love to them. This expression of love and compassion is the same as holding the brother accountable. You can lovingly sink the blade of tough love into him and cut down his ego fixation on approval. If you remind him that his actions caused this result and you cannot offer him absolution. It comes from a place of pure love and compassion for the brother’s confusion. An intimate empathy can almost boil over in your heart as you say the words. But you know that telling the truth, when its hard is the right thing, not excusing your brother’s misconduct — no matter if it damages your family.” Karma Tsering Paljor, Idiot Compassion is not a Buddhist Value

Bernard Faure rightly observes that Buddhist violence isn’t limited to warfare, but includes also “ militant syncretism”.

“[...] rival doctrines were co-opted and integrated at a lower rank in a doctrinal classification (Ch. panjiao) that placed one’s own doctrine at the top. Needless to say, this kind of syncretism easily led to sectarianism[3].”

Metaphors for the conversion of local deities are associated with “sexual submission”[4].

“An even cruder sexual symbolism is found in a variant of the myth of Maheśvara’s submission, in which Rudra (another form of iva) is literally sodomized by his Buddhist nemesis, Hayagrīva (a terrible form of the “compassionate” Avalokiteśvara).[5]”

Bernard Faure mentions asceticism as a form of violence (tapas, fasting) against oneself, as long as one is not in compliance with heavenly prescriptions. Discrimination against women, yet at the same time putting women on a pedestal and using them as instruments to liberation, or to be displayed as status objects (concubines). Sexual abuse of mudrās, and of children in monasteries. Violence used for the education of young monks or in Western Buddhist centers (OKC). Violence used by gurus/lamas in “crazy wisdom”, “smashing concepts” and “insulting the ego”.

This is not to point at violence used in Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet, in the past, but at the violence still present today in Western settings, and still considered as a part of the transmission. Sogyal Lakar (1947-2019) considered himself a student of Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö (1893 – 1959).

“For three years, while his tutor was ill, Jamyang Khyentse worked hard to fetch water, gather firewood, look after him and so on. He had no help from anyone else, but did it all on his own. Later on, he would say this had been a supreme method for gathering merit and purifying his obscurations. He used to say, “I purified a little of my negative karma by really serving my teacher.” His teacher was very strict, and used to beat him whether there was good reason or not. Later in his life whenever he shaved his head you could see all the scars from the beatings. It was at the end of his thirteenth year that the tutor passed away.” Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche, The Life of Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö

Mary Finnigan and Rob Hogendoorn wrote about this in Sex and Violence in Tibetan Buddhism. 

“[Jamyang Khyentse] Chokyi Lodro was a tyrant who punished monks ten at a time. When a flogging was ordered, Rinpoche insisted on four or five hundred lashes and he always watched from the window of his residence when the punishment was delivered.

For some people, being hit on the head is alleged to be a healing method; Chokyi Lodro once knocked a lama nearly unconscious because his blood was said to be toxic. The beating allegedly induced a complete recovery. Orgyen Topgyal even alludes to the possibility that he may have assaulted his young wife. “I haven’t heard that Rinpoche ever hit her, but people tend not to talk about such things".[6].

The day after Sogyal Lakar, Chokyi Lodro’s disciple, lost his temper and hit a nun in her stomach in front of a large audience, he declared this was part of “his method”.

"The next day, one of the Rigpa hierarchy addressed the doubters. Sogyal, he said, was upset that people should be questioning his methods. If people didn’t understand what had actually happened, then they probably weren’t ready for the promised higher-level teachings, and Sogyal would not teach again during the retreat." The Telegraph, Sexual assaults and violent rages... Inside the dark world of Buddhist teacher Sogyal Rinpoche, Mick Brown, 21/09/2017

The Tibetan term for what we see translated as “disciplining”, “converting”, “taming”, “breaking in”, “subjugating” is btul ba or dul ba, in Sanskrit vinayati and damya. In the Mahā-prajñāpāramitā-śastra (The treatise on the great virtue of wisdom), attributed to Nāgārjuna, the Buddha is called “puruṣa-damya-sārathi”, “‘Leader of the caravan of men to be converted”.

“The doctrine of the Buddha is a chariot, the disciples are the horses,
The true dharmas are the merchandise, the Buddha is the leader.
When the horses stray from the path and wander from the way,
The Buddha corrects them and controls them.” MPS

If you wonder why “the caravan of men”, MPS anticipated you’d wonder about this, and provides an answer:

“Question. – The Buddha converts (vinayati) women (strī) also and makes them fond of the Path. Why is it a question of men only [in the name puruṣadamyasārathi]?
Answer. – Because men are noble whereas women are lowly, because the woman follows the man and because the man [alone] is master of his actions."

A good disciple is a meek (dul ba) disciple, or as Chogyam Trungpa would put it:

“Well, don’t be amazed to find that actually the whole teaching is simply emptiness and meekness.” Trungpa in conversation with Allen Ginsberg[7].

In Tibetan Buddhism, including as taught and practiced in the West, students are required to practice the “Four Foundations of Buddhist Practice” (sngon 'gro), the last one is specifically called “Guru-Yoga” (bla ma’i rnal ‘byor), but even the first one presents a Refuge tree with the specific lamas of a specific lineage, and the lama is the center of all four practices. One of the books still used as an explanation of these practices, including in the West, is Jamgon Kongtrul’s The Torch of Certainty, Shambhala Publications Inc.

“Failure to appreciate the guru's kindness reveals lack of esteem for the Dharma. If you lack such esteem, all your Dharma practice will be futile and will net you no positive qualities no matter how hard you try. If, due to this lack of esteem, you take the arrogant view that it is impossible for the guru to acquire positive qualities, or you take the diffident view that it is impossible for the rest of us to do so, you are meditating with a perverted attitude. Since you have fallen into the first transgression, all your previously accumulated merit is swept away ! Re- spect for the guru and the Dharma will arise of their own accord if you appreciate the guru's kindness. All positive qualities will then be yours spontaneously, with no effort on your part.”

“Buddhajñānapāda's faithless perception caused him to see Manjushri as a married monk with children. This perception obstructed his attainment of supreme siddhi. Similarly, your own mental attitude causes you to see faults in the guru. How can a Buddha have faults? Whatever he does, let him do it! Even if you see your guru having sexual relations, telling lies and so on, calmly meditate as follows: "These are my guru's unsurpassed skillful methods of training disciples. Through these methods he has brought many sentient beings to spiritual maturity and liberation. This is a hundred, a thousand times more wonderful than preserving a pure moral code! This is not deception or hypocrisy but the highest mode of conduct!" In particular, when he scolds you, think: "He is destroying my bad deeds!" When he hits you, think: "He is chasing away the demons who obstruct (my spiritual progress]!" · Above all, consider the fact that your guru loves you like a father loves his son. His friendship is always sincere. He is very kind. If he seems displeased or indifferent toward you, think that this is the retribution which will remove your remaining karmic obscurations. Try to please the guru by serving him in all ways possible. In brief, do not find fault with the guru.[8]”

This will lead to the Perfection of Meekness and the attainment of supreme siddhi. Once a guru yourself, you will require the same of your own “manly” students. As for the other ones, “make them fond of the Path”.

***

[1] “Jueguan lun,” in Suzuki Daisetsu Zensh, Vol. 2, ed. D. T. Suzuki (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1980 [1968]) (94a1–5). Quoted by Bernard Faure, Afterthoughts in Michael Jerryson’s Buddhist Warfare (2010.

[2] Ibid. Bernard Faure

[3] Ibid. Bernard Faure

[4] See my French language blog “Le phallus qui soumet la nature et la femme” 01/02/2014

[5] Ibid. Bernard Faure
Also see my blog La promotion fulgurante de l’ambitieux yaksha Vajrapāṇi 20/11/2011

“Le Dict de Padma contient un exemple de conversion particulière. Les 24 territoires (S. pīṭha) sont contrôlés par les dieux et démons (S. vighna) sous les ordres de Rudra en faisant souffrir les habitants. Rudra, résidant à Pretapuri, doit être converti pour que la doctrine bouddhique puisse se répandre. Evidemment, Vajrapāṇi sera de la partie. Ce sont Hayagrīva et Vajravārāhi, le cheval et le sanglier, qui sont chargés de cette mission par la congrégation de bouddhas. Hayagrīva pénètre par la "porte du bas" de Rudra, jusqu’à ce que sa tête de cheval sorte par le sommet de la tête de Rudra. Les bras et les jambes de Rudra s’étendent. Vajravārāhi pénètre par le bhaga (vagin) de sa compagne (Umā[7]), et sa tête de sanglier sort du sommet de la tête de la compagne. L’union (T. zhal sbyar) de "Cheval" (Hayagrīva) et de "Cochon" (Vajravārāhi) donne naissance à une manifestation de Vajrapāṇi portant le nom Bhurkumkuta (T. rta phag zhal sbyar dme ba brtsegs pa[8] bskrun [9]). Le culte de Vajravārāhi (Kubjikā) est cependant apparu après l'époque du roi Khri srong lde btsan.”

[6] Finnigan, Mary and Hogendoorn, Rob. (2019). Sex and Violence in Tibetan Buddhism, The rise and Fall of Sogyal Rinpoche, Jorvik Press, p. 25

[7] When the Party’s Over, interview avec Allen Ginsberg in Boulder Monthly, mars 1979.
“ He said, well, the problem with Merwin — this was several years ago — he said, Merwin’s problem was vanity. He said, I wanted to deal with him by opening myself up to him completely, by putting aside all barriers. “It was a gamble.” he said. So I said, was it a mistake? He said, “Nope.” So then I thought, if it was a gamble that didn’t work, why wasn’t it a mistake? Well, now all the students have to think about it —so it serves as an example, and a terror. But then I said, “What if the outside world hears about this, won’t there be a big scandal?” And Trungpa said, “Well, don’t be amazed to find that actually the whole teaching is simply emptiness and meekness.”

[8] Jamgon Kongtrul. (1977). Torch of Certainty, translated by Judith Hanson, Foreword by Chogyam Trungpa.

Pensée paresseuse, récitation et langage totalitaire

Dialogue de Boris Cyrulnik et Fabrice Midal sur la Psychologie du mal (YouTube)

"Si j’ai un livre pour me tenir lieu d’entendement, un directeur pour ma conscience, un médecin pour mon régime… je n’ai pas besoin de me fatiguer moi-même. Je n’ai pas besoin de penser, pourvu que je puisse payer; d’autres se chargeront à ma place de ce travail fastidieux." Emmanuel Kant, Qu'est-ce que les Lumières ? 1784.

Boris Cyrulnik est un neuropsychiatre et éthologue français, qui utilise des concepts clés tels que la "pensée paresseuse", la "récitation" et le "langage totalitaire", qui peuvent être le résultat d’un refus de l’altérité, et d’une attitude “totalitaire”.

Une pensée totalitaire est

“une pensée totalement explicative qui ne laisse pas la possibilité d'inventer d'autres pensées. C'est une excellente stratégie de prise de pouvoir qui empêche le plaisir de penser, mais donne les bénéfices de la récitation partagée. Ce sont des pensées simples et linéaires qui semblent vraies et incontestables. Ces raisonnements sont très convaincants. Ils sont souvent étayés de 'preuves', de démonstrations scientifiques, de données statistiques. Cependant, ces mono-explications ont un effet dévastateur. Elles sont totalitaires. Elles paraissent pour vraies et uniques, parce qu’elles sont logiques[1].”

La “pensée paresseuse” est au fond un manque de pensée, l’utilisation de “prêt-à-penser”, de généralisations hâtives, de stéréotypes, de slogans, d' “éléments de langage”, sans remise en question, sans pensée critique, et sans exploration intellectuelle. Quand ces pensées sont répétées sous forme de slogans, elles deviennent de la “récitation”. Leur répétition incessante empêche la réflexion, et permet en outre d’identifier les bons et les mauvais sujets de la pensée dominante, et ainsi de resserrer les rangs.

La simplification excessive, la résistance à la complexité, et le manque de réflexion critique peuvent conduire à des croyances sans fondement. Dans un groupe, elles peuvent contribuer à la polarisation et à des conflits interpersonnels. Quand le “pensée paresseuse” devient comme une doctrine rigide, qui rejette l’altérité et les remises en question, elle peut installer parmi ses membres une vision simpliste et stéréotypée du monde, ce qui pourrait même conduire à l’isolation sociale. Les groupes où règnent une “pensée paresseuse”, voire une “pensée unique” et sa “récitation”, peuvent être facilement manipulés par leurs chefs, surtout si ces derniers ne sont pas sous le contrôle d’une instance supérieure, et entretiennent des relations privilégiées avec chacun des membres, dont ils pourraient être le directeur de conscience, voire davantage… Dans un tel groupe, les dérives totalitaires sont inévitables, surtout s’ils ont pour objet de créer une “société éveillée” selon leurs propres principes, au sein de la société dont ils sont tous issus et dont ils font tous partie, et parfois contre les principes mêmes de la société mère, p.e. un royaume théocratique dans une république démocratique.

Dans le cadre de la promotion de son dernier livre, où ces thématiques étaient abordées, Boris Cyrulnik a passé un entretien intéressant avec Fabrice Midal, l’auteur de l’hagiographie Trungpa, L’homme qui a introduit le bouddhisme en Occident. Quelques extraits.

1:53 Depuis mon enfance je suis fasciné, et encore plus maintenant fasciné, parce que la plupart des gens qui sont tentés par l'aventure du mal n'ont pas conscience du mal. Ils ont même conscience d'une sorte de morale. Ils commettent des crimes énormes même au nom de d'une morale, que je propose d'appeler la “morale perverse”, c'est-à-dire que c'est au nom d'une représentation totalitaire qu'ils ont du monde.

4:13 Le monde humain est créé dès l'instant, où l’on entre dans le monde de l'artifice et surtout dans le monde de la verbalité. Et là, on crée le monde humain pour ce que ce monde a de merveilleux, la poésie, la spiritualité, l'art, toutes les formes d'art. Et ce qu'elle a d'horrible, c'est-à-dire une représentation délirante, coupée de la réalité. Dé-lira, dé-, privatif, lira, coupé de la réalité, du sillon sur la terre, [et cependant] logique... Je propose l'expression de “délire logique”. Ces gens qui délirent ne sont ni psychotiques, ni même plus névrotiques que moi, et pourtant ils délirent.

14:08 [En vivant] dans un stéréotype verbal, le stéréotype donne l'apparence, l'illusion d'une pensée mais ce n'est pas une pensée, c'est une “récitation”, et le “langage totalitaire” est très doué pour faire des slogans qui arrêtent la pensée dans un slogan. On n’a plus besoin de penser. C'est le confort dans la servitude qui séduit énormément de monde. Plus besoin de faire l'effort de penser.

21:44 Il y a une une ontogenèse, c'est-à-dire un développement continu sous l'effet des pressions du milieu. Les pressions ne sont pas les mêmes selon les stades du développement. Les garçons, plus aptes que les filles à frapper, mordre, pousser, sont récupérés par absolument toutes les cultures, pour leur apprendre les métiers de la guerre. Toutes les cultures, toutes les frontières sont le résultat de guerres. S'il y a une cartographie des croyances religieuses, c'est parce qu'il y a eu des guerres de religion. Si on parle français en France, c'est parce que la République a interdit le breton, le basque et d'autres langues. C'est par la violence, ce n’est plus de l'agressivité, c'est la violence. C'est par la violence que la société se construit.

24:11 Les garçons sont héroïsés, parce que héroïser un garçon, c'est la preuve de la difficulté du groupe social. Quand un groupe a besoin de héros, c'est que le groupe est en difficulté. Quand un groupe est en paix, il n’a pas besoin de héros.

24:32 Si un groupe social a besoin de héros, c'est qu’il y a un malaise social, et que le héros est encouragé au sacrifice : tuer les autres, ou se faire tuer, pour sauver le groupe, ou pour sauver l'estime du groupe. Donc, c'est un mauvais signe quand on a besoin que les hommes soient sacrifiés, héroïsés, et bien sûr, la plupart du temps ils sont oubliés très rapidement, après leur mort, alors qu'on promet qu'ils vont être des martyres inoubliables.

53:17 [sur la pensée totalitaire] Il n’y a qu'une seule pensée, il n’y a que des slogans. Ce n'est pas une pensée, c'est un slogan, une illusion de pensée. Je récite comme le chef, le chef ne se trompe jamais, donc je ne me trompe pas. C’est vraiment le triomphe de la pensée paresseuse.

59:26 On se soumet à un langage totalitaire, c'est-à-dire un langage sans altérité.


Une autre forme d’appauvrissement de la pensée est la pensée symbolique, très présente dans la pensée religieuse. Extrait de mon blog De numérologie et de gnosticisme aryen 09/12/2019.

Johan Huizinga, l’auteur de Déclin/Automne du Moyen-Âge, écrit dans le chapitre XV Le symbolisme à son déclin, comment une société en déclin s’accroche à son symbolisme en multipliant l’usage des symboles. Devenus vides, ceux-ci n’ont plus de puissance, et l’on pense qu’en les multipliant, leur nombre compensera leur manque de puissance. Mauvais calcul, cela deviendra au contraire un facteur qui accélère le déclin, parce que le manque de puissance des symboles deviendra de plus en plus évident.

“Du point de vue causal, le symbolisme se présente comme une espèce de court-circuit de la pensée. Au lieu de chercher le rapport de deux choses en suivant les détours cachés de leurs relations causales, la pensée, faisant un bond, le découvre, tout à coup, non comme une connexion de cause ou d'effet, mais comme une connexion de signification et de finalité. Un rapport de ce genre pourra s'imposer dès que deux choses auront en commun une qualité essentielle qu'on peut rapporter à une valeur générale. Ou, pour employer la terminologie de la psychologie expérimentale : toute association basée sur une similitude quelconque peut déterminer immédiatement l'idée d'une connexion essentielle et mystique. Fonction mentale assez pauvre, si l'on en restait là.” (Huizinga)

Le “court-circuit de la pensée” se traduit notamment dans la loi de correspondance basée sur la sympathie universelle. L’utilisation des correspondances par le nombre est très populaire. Les religions qui, par souci de rester traditionnelles, ont souvent conservé des arguments “Scientifiques” (numérologiques, etc.) très anciennes, comportant toujours de nombreuses correspondances de nombres.

“ L'assimilation ne repose souvent que sur une égalité de nombre. Une perspective immense de dépendances d'idées s'ouvre de ce fait, mais ce ne sont que des exercices d'arithmétique. Ainsi, les douze mois signifieront les apôtres; les quatre saisons, les évangélistes ; l'année, le Christ. Il se forme tout un agglomérat de systèmes de sept. Aux sept vertus correspondent les sept prières du Pater, les sept dons du Saint-Esprit, les sept béatitudes et les sept psaumes de la pénitence. Tous ces groupes de sept sont en rapport avec les sept moments de la Passion et les sept sacrements. Chacun d'eux s'oppose aux sept péchés capitaux qui sont représentés par sept animaux et suivis par sept maladies.” (Huizinga)

***

[1] Les dangers des pensées totalitaires, site Couples et familles, Analyse rédigée au départ de la conférence « La pensée totalitaire » de Boris Cyrulnik lors du séminaire du Centre de Ressource Educative pour l’Action Sociale, le mercredi 26 février 2014.

The Buddha's question that Saccaka could not refuse to answer

Buddha performing a miracle before ascetics, converting them. Kushan period, 2ndC-3rdC, British Museum
On the Buddha's left, Vajrapāṇi/Heracles, the "Gandhara Zeus"[1] 

In the Āryasatyaka-parivarta (see previous blog A Buddhist view on warfare?), Satyavādin (“truth-speaking”[2]), a non-Buddhist nirgranthaputra, comes with many other nirgranthas to the kingdom of King Caṇḍrapradyota. Satyavādin teaches Dharma the king and his retinue. The Āryasatyaka-parivarta/Ārya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upāyaviṣaya-vikurvaṇa-nirdeśa Sūtra is a Mahāyāna sūtra and a development (“sutrafication”) from a small part of earlier Pāli suttas[3]. Technically, in the Mahāyāna sūtra it’s Satyavādin who gives the advice to the king (rājavṛta/rgyal po'i tshul, a minor topic in Pāli sutta MN 35). Some extracts from The Range of the Bodhisattva: A Mahāyāna Sūtra. Trans. Lozang Jamspal. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2011, ISBN 978-1935011071

“ Satyavādin considers how a ruler who becomes wicked should correct himself. A righteous ruler should protect beings by not burning or ruining their surroundings; a righteous ruler should protect local deities; how these deities may cause crop failures, etc., if there are wicked people such as householders who are disrespectful to elders, or who do not share with their families and workers, or who disrespect monks, priests, and others due homage. He states again that a ruler should not kill, cut off limbs, or destroy the sense organs of wicked people, but rather should tie them up or imprison them so that they may become good. Satyavādin also comments upon how a ruler should oversee stockpiles of food; the nature of taxes and who should pay them; and the ten perfect aspects of royal virtue and their characteristics.

Satyavādin then describes the ways in which a righteous ruler should deal with war: the ways of preventing it by settling disputes skillfully; the ruler's aims if war is unavoidable; the ways to conduct a war; and the ways that heedfulness and compassion can mitigate the retribution one would suffer from inflicting suffering and death upon others. He enumerates the righteous ruler's eight correct conceptions of his people and the results of righteous rule-proper rainfall, good harvests, lack of famine, etc. Finally, six verses summarize the most important attitudes and the most important aspects of conduct of a righteous ruler.”

Satyavādin lists all the faults he finds with kings and princes, whose names he mentions. The king asks him if he knows Gautama, and Satyavādin answers by describing all the virtues of the Buddha. The king then asked to come and visit the Buddha with him, and Satyavādin accepted and turned out to be a high rank bodhisattva who was actually already a Buddha, and the Buddha prophesied his future Buddhaship in the Mahāyāna sūtra.  

But in the Pāli Cūḷasaccaka sutta (The Shorter Discourse With Saccaka), Saccaka is a proud debater who wants to take on the Buddha[4]. He provokes, insults (he insuates the Budhha is "fat",  "the revered Gotama is both developed as to body and developed as to mind”) and taunts the Buddha by claiming that the five aggregates (kandhas[5]) are the self, whereas the Buddha claims they are not the self. The Buddha answers by comparing the power of a king over his territory and Saccaka's alledged power over his aggregates:

“Well then, Aggivessana, I will question you in return about this matter. You may answer me as you please. What do you think about this, Aggivessana? Would a noble anointed king, such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or such as King Ajātasattu of Magadha, the son of the lady of Videhā, have power in his own territory to put to death one deserving to be put to death, to plunder one deserving to be plundered, to banish one deserving to be banished?”

“Good Gotama, a noble anointed king, such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or such as King Ajātasattu of Magadha, the son of the lady of Videhā, would have power in his own territory to put to death one deserving to be put to death, to plunder one deserving to be plundered, to banish one deserving to be banished. Why, good Gotama, even among these companies and groups, namely of the Vajjis and Mallas, there exists the power in their own territories to put to death one deserving to be put to death, to plunder one deserving to be plundered, to banish one deserving to be banished. How much more then, a noble anointed king, such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or such as King Ajātasattu of Magadha, the son of the lady of Videhā? He would have the power, good Gotama, and he deserves to have the power.”

“What do you think about this, Aggivessana? When you speak thus: ‘Material shape is my self,’ have you power over this material shape of yours (and can say), ‘Let my material shape be thus”, ‘Let my material shape be not thus’?” When this had been said, Saccaka, the son of Jains, became silent.”

Just like the kings have power (life and death) over their subjects in their territory, does Saccaka have power over his aggregates? The Buddha asks a second time and Saccaka remains silent. Then he asks a third time (making him an offer he couldn't refuse...)

“Then the Lord spoke thus to Saccaka, the son of Jains: “Answer now, Aggivessana, now is not the time for you to become silent. Whoever, Aggivessana, on being asked a legitimate question up to the third time by the Tathāgata does not answer, verily his skull splits into seven pieces.”

And Saccaka concedes, “This is not so, good Gotama.” But was it under the threat by the Buddha, repeated by a “Thunderbolt-bearer yakkha” (Vajrapāṇi) that suddenly appeared on the scene, only to be seen by the Buddha and Saccaka[6]? 

Another question is whether this was just a “Thunderbolt-bearer yakkha”, or the seed of what was to become yakkha/yakṣa Vajrapāṇi, who later became the general of the yakṣa armies, the guardian of the Tantric scriptures and even Vajradhara (“the Gāndhāra Zeus”) …

This discussion actually already took place (in 2010) on Buddha-L, among Dan Lusthaus, Lance Cousins and others, and I am standing on the shoulders of giants.  

***

[1] Comment below the photo explaining the scene.

"Panel showing the Buddha performing a miracle before ascetics. Kushan period, 2ndC-3rdC. Schist, H. 29,5 cm. (complete, here: partial view). « On the Buddha's left, Vajrapāṇi, with long, bearded face, modelled planes of musculature, genitals, a long draped overgarment from his left shoulder passing across the legs, holds a faceted vajra with rounded ends in his left hand and raises a fly-whisk like a torch in the right. » (Museum Collection on line) : This is a detail of a frieze regarding the conversion of three brothers to Buddhism. It is cropped to focus on the Buddha flanked by a figure of his guardian, Vajrapāṇi. [1] In this image, Vajrapani is depicted in a more classically Grecian style than the surrounding figures, indicative of his cross-cultural status. Vajrapani is usually syncretized with Hercules,[2] but is also sometimes syncretized with Zeus. [3] (This particular piece could be understood either way) In one hand Vajrapani carries a vajra (usually syncretized with Zeus' lightening and/or Hercules' sacred club) and in the other he brandishes a chamara, which is a fly-wisk symbolic of the sovereignty of the Buddha. [4] References "On the Buddha's left, Vajrapāṇi, with long, bearded face, modelled planes of musculature, genitals, a long draped overgarment from his left shoulder passing across the legs, holds a faceted vajra with rounded ends in his left hand and raises a fly-whisk like a torch in the right." Panel #1961,0218.1. British Museum.[1] "Heracles became Vajrapani, guardian of Sakyamuni. There is a wealth of material and studies on the subject... to explain how Heracles went from being a purely classical Greek figure to being a guardian god in the Buddhist pantheon." HSING, I-TIEN, and WILLIAM G. CROWELL. “Heracles in the East: The Diffusion and Transformation of His Image in the Arts of Central Asia, India, and Medieval China.” Asia Major, vol. 18, no. 2, 2005, pp. 103–154. JSTOR, [www.jstor.org/stable/41649907] "In the art of Gandhara Zeus became the inseparable companion of the Buddha as Vajrapani." in Freedom, Progress, and Society, by K. Satchidananda Murty p.97 The Handbook of Tibetan Buddhist Symbols p.177"

[2] “The name has been deliberately altered. The usual Sanskrit form of Saccaka's name (e.g. in the Dīrghāgama) is Sātyaki. And, incidentally, -putra in this kind of context doesn't mean 'son'; it means something like 'community member'. So a nigaṇṭhaputta is a 'member of the Jain monastic community' “ Lance Cousins in a message posted on Buddha-L

[3] Majjhima Nikaya suttas 35 and 36, the The Shorter Discourse With Saccaka (Cūḷasaccaka sutta 35) and The Greater Discourse to Saccaka (Mahāsaccakasutta 36).

[4] “Now at that time at least five hundred Licchavis were gathered together in the conference hall on some business or other. Then Saccaka, the son of Jains, approached those Licchavis; having approached, he spoke thus to those Licchavis: “Let the good Licchavis come forward, let the good Licchavis come forward. Today there will be conversation between me and the recluse Gotama. If the recluse Gotama takes up his stand against me, as one of his well-known disciples, the monk Assaji, has taken up his stand against me, even as a powerful man, having taken hold of the fleece of a long-fleeced ram, might tug it towards him, might tug it backwards, might tug it forwards and backwards, even so will I, speech by speech, tug the recluse Gotama forwards, tug him backwards, tug him forwards and backwards. And even as a powerful distiller of spirituous liquor, having sunk his crate for spirituous liquor in a deep pool of water, taking it by a corner would tug it forwards, would tug it backwards, would tug it forwards and backwards, even so will I, speech by speech, tug the recluse Gotama forwards, tug him backwards, tug him forwards and backwards. And even as a powerful drunkard of abandoned life, having taken hold of a hair-sieve at the corner, would shake it upwards, would shake it downwards, would toss it about, even so will I, speech by speech, shake the recluse Gotama upwards, shake him downwards, toss him about. And even as a full-grown elephant, sixty years old, having plunged into a deep tank, plays at the game called the ‘merry washing,’ even so, methinks, will I play the game of ‘merry washing’ with the recluse Gotama. Let the good Licchavis come forward, let the good Licchavis come forward; today there will be conversation between me and the recluse Gotama.” Translation by I.B. Horner

[5] i.e. material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies, and consciousness.

[6] “Now at that time the yakkha Thunderbolt-bearer, taking his iron thunderbolt which was aglow, ablaze, on fire, came to stand above the ground over Saccaka, the son of Jains, and said: “If this Saccaka, the son of Jains, does not answer when he is asked a legitimate question up to the third time by the Lord, verily I will make his skull split into seven pieces.” And only the Lord saw this yakkha Thunderbolt-bearer, and (Ed: ‘above’ rather than ‘and’) Saccaka, the son of Jains.

Then Saccaka, the son of Jains, afraid, agitated, his hair standing on end, seeking protection with the Lord, seeking shelter with the Lord, seeking refuge with the Lord, spoke thus to the Lord: “Let the revered Gotama ask me, I will answer.”

“What do you think about this, Aggivessana? When you speak thus: ‘Material shape is my self,’ have you power over this material shape of yours (and can say), ‘Let my material shape be thus”, ‘Let my material shape be not thus’?”

“This is not so, good Gotama.”

A Buddhist view on warfare?

Prince Siddhattha is shown travelling (WMS Burmese 22, nr: L0026534)

"[The Āryasatyaka-parivarta] offers sophisticated practical thought on violence, arguing that compassionate internal governance and benevolent international relations enhance political security and prosperity. The goodwill, trust, and economic well being of international neighbors are vital political assets. Just as domestic poverty leads to violence and moral degeneration domestically, international insecurity and exploitation are seeds of violent conflict. Exploitive international relations create conditions of hostility that engender the arising of dangerous enemies and undermine support from potential allies. Exploitive internal governance undermines the economy and creates a culture of tax evasion, rather than generosity. Rapacious greed ultimately diminishes the treasury. Failure to exhaust all other possibilities, such as negotiation, intimidation and bribes, leads to unnecessary warfare, which is generally regarded in Indian political ethics as a dangerous mistake entailing great risk even for a superior military force."

"When warfare is conducted, casualties should be avoided, particularly enemy casualties; destruction of infrastructure and the natural environment should be minimized; and prisoners should be treated with humanity. Before dismissing such concerns as politically naïve, we might consider, with some shock and awe, how ignoring each of these has been an enormously costly mistake for the victor in recent wars."

"Along with protecting his people and attempting to capture his enemies alive, the third chief concern of a Buddhist king going to war should be to win. Rather than arguing that political pragmatism must yield to ascetic ideals of compassionate pacifism, the scripture maintains that a measured and principled use of violence, governed by compassionate intentions, enhances security and serves the purposes of acquiring and retaining power, while maintaining moral integrity. Just as in personal ethics, where Buddhist texts argue that compassion is selfinterested, the sūtra claims that compassionate state policy is ultimately self-beneficial and rejects the idea that absolutizing national or personal interest is actually in the national or personal interest."

Extracts from The Range of the Bodhisattva: A Mahāyāna Sūtra Reviewed by Stephen L. Jenkins  The reviewed book: The Range of the Bodhisattva: A Mahāyāna Sūtra. Trans. Lozang Jamspal. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2011, ISBN 978-1935011071

"Although the [Āryasatyaka-parivarta] allows for war, it does so only under special conditions and with special restrictions on its conduct. In a graded series of skillful means, a king must first try to befriend, then to help, and then to intimidate his potential enemy before resorting to war. This set of four stratagems diverges from an ancient and pervasive set only by substituting 'intimidation' for 'fomenting dissension.' "

"Should attempts to succeed without armed conflict fail, the king is then instructed in how to assemble and deploy the various divisions of an army. He is to go to war with three intentions: to care for life, to win, and to capture the enemy alive."

"The concern to care for life in the sūtra also includes the well-being of all innocents, including animals and the spirits that dwell in trees and water. In contrast to most Hindu dharmaśāstras, the sūtra forbids burning homes or cities, destroying reservoirs or orchards, or confiscating the harvest. This condition is extended to what might be called infrastructure in general, i.e., “all things well developed and constructed.”

Extracts from Making Merit through Warfare and Torture According to the Ārya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upāyaviṣaya-vikurvaṇa-nirdeśa Sūtra by Stephen Jenkins, published in Jerryson, Michael and Mark Juergensmeyer. Buddhist Warfare. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Interesting discussions on "Buddha Nature" and "Luminosity"

Venerable Dhammadipa (Thomas Peter Gutman)

I recently discovered a series of discussions with the Venerable Dhammadipa on the Tsadra Foundation Media Channel. I had the pleasure of meeting Thomas as he was called then in India in 1980. I was a monk then, traveling with other monks in India and staying most of the time at the monastery of Kalu Rinpoche I in Sonada. We received a series of private teachings by Kalu rinpoche I in his room (translated by Jerry), and Thomas was there as well. We were already impressed by his friendliness and knowledge and so was Kalu Rinpoche I, who, half jokingly half seriously, called him a “mahāpaṇḍita”. We met Thomas again later, while traveling through India, in Nālandā where he stayed at a local Chinese temple. I am happy to read how well he fared from there, how he became a very “complete” Buddhist, having studied and practiced many different forms of Buddhism, and how he conveys his knowledge with great simplicity.

I transcribed (and slightly edited) two short discussions (Boulder, CO, 30 January 2019) between the Venerable Dhammadipa and members of the Tsadra team, Marcus Perman and others.

1. “On the Roots of Tathāgatagarbha and His Position on the Concept”

The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra you may know is a kind of a base for the whole of the Yogācāra tradition. In the Yogācāra tradition we have two traditions, one is based on the ālaya[-vijñāna], the other is based on what you may call the supermundane consciousness. The supermundane consciousness links us to the Buddha Nature, as you call it, and in Chinese tradition there is a very important text which I have translated into Czech and which is attributed to Aśvaghoṣa, The Awakening of faith in Mahāyāna. It is a very interesting text for this Tathāgatagarbha tradition, and in China it is like the most widely studied text especially in the Zen tradition. You may say that Zen tradition is also a Tathāgatagarbha tradition, and most of the Chinese tradition is also connected to the idea of Tathāgatagarbha. In it, you may find roots for Madhyamaka and for Yogācāra, but you will hardly find anything on the Tathāgatagarbha tradition, that's for sure. So Chinese Buddhists may not find any difficulty in accepting Tathāgatagarbha, but you will find it difficult to convince Theravada Buddhists that this teaching is to be traced back to the Buddha himself.

Marcus: Is that because it's not found in the Nikāyas?

You don't find any clear indication of that in the Nikāyas, maybe only in the Vinaya. There is a famous story that Buddha, after his enlightenment, sees all the beings as lotus flowers deeply merged in the mud. This story exists in the Vinaya and may be also the root for this tradition. What else are these lotus flowers than the Tathāgatagarbha?

Marcus: Do you find Tathāgatagarbha an interesting idea?

Well if as taught in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, if you consider it to be skillful means [upāya], then no one should have any problem with that, but if you consider it to be like the definitive truth of Buddhism as the, say substance, then I will have difficulty with that.

Marcus: Because it contradicts the teachings on emptiness or could you explain that a little more?

Well if you study Buddhism, you are not likely to accept the idea of any essence whatsoever. Finally it is the same in Madhyamaka and Yogācāra. However you explain, the basic idea of Buddhism is essencelessness (niḥsvabhāvatā). Learning buddhism is learning essencelessness. Essencelessness is selflessness. Normally, however you explain Buddhism, the principal idea of all its genuine traditions is selflessness. Where you find selflessness, there is buddhism. If you talk about a Self, then it is suspicious. But you can of course explain, like in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, that it is a skillful means. Then we have no problem with that. Because the Indian tradition of the Upaniṣads and so on is definitely concerned with the searching for the Self. In Buddhism, even in Dhammapada [Chapter 12], you find verses such as that the meaning of Buddhism is searching for the true self, it is there.

“The self is a master of the self
Where else would you find the self?[1]”

These are famous verses from the Dhammapada. You can explain it in this way. There is a very important sūtra for the Yogācāra tradition, called the great Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra. It also teaches permanence, happiness, Self and purity, the exact opposites… But it does not teach Tathāgatagarbha directly.

Marcus : That teaching you would accept as, I don't want to get absurdly technical, but do you accept that text as one of the texts that teaches…

It is a very important text for the Yogācāra tradition. The main disciple of Xuanzang, Kuījī, advises all to read the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and the Great Nirvāṇasūtra. These are the two sūtras which are to be studied especially for understanding Yogācāra.

Marcus: Those two seem to have some links with, or at least in, other traditions. They point to those sūtras as being sources for Tathāgatagarbha teachings.

Indirectly yes, but not directly, not directly.


2. "On the Nature of Mind in Yogachara"

Marcus: When they talk about the nature of mind, there is often this word that comes up, luminosity [prabhāsvaratā], or there is sometimes the attempt to describe that nature.

As you know, the Yogācārabhūmi-śastra does not talk much about it, and the Prajñāpāramitā-śastras do not talk about luminosity. They talk about the original purity of the mind. They also have original enlightenment. The understanding of original enlightenment is the beginning of the practice. But they don’t speak about luminosity.

Marcus: How do they describe mind in that sense, or the nature of mind?

Simply as empty, emptiness. The light is just a skilful means for understanding the ungraspable [brtag tu med pa, arūpi?[2]]. But ungraspable is the truth, not the light. If you take the light as a truth, then you have something you can hold on to. But this is not the teaching of the Prajñāpāramitā, which is the basis of the whole of Mahāyāna. Without Prajñāpāramitā, there is no Mahāyāna. Prajñāpāramitā is the mother of Mahāyāna. So if you're holding on to the light, you are in a way rejecting the teachings of the Prajñāpāramitā.

[Discussion about luminosity not being an ideal translation. Clarity is suggested as another translation]

Clarity is alright.

[Discussion between Tsadra members
-It’s not like light emanating, it’s not radiation or luminosity or anything. That word in English, luminosity, being used, has gotten very confusing.
-But the key is that there is a basis at all which is upsetting to Madhyamika right? You can’t attribute anything to the nature of mind.
-There is a sense that you could cognize something, which is the clarity.]

Actually, the main idea of these sūtras and śastras and of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra is that its practice is the practice of praśrabdhi[3] [shin tu sbyangs pa]. Praśrabdhi is the opposite of duṣṭatā [skyon chags pa], which means grossness. You find this also in Theravada suttas, it’s a very genuine tradition. Meditation practice, vipaśyanā-samatā is a practice of praśrabdhi, which you may translate as clarity and relaxation. It is the opposite of grossness. According to the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, strictly speaking, you can not practice śamatha and vipaśyanā unless you have attained the state of clarity and relaxation. But they don’t mention any light/luminosity, no.

Marcus: Do they say anything beyond “Don’t describe it”? The question would be how do Buddha qualities, or how does the Buddha manifest, if the nature of mind and the dharmakāya is just nothing at all?

Actually, this is explained very clearly as the suchness [tathatā] of emptiness and non-emptiness. This is explained specifically in the Awakening of faith in Mahāyāna. If you explain emptiness, it is not complete. If you explain non-emptiness it’s not complete. The two aspects have to be explained. Emptiness and non-emptiness. The aspect of emptiness is non separated from the infinite virtues of suchness. This is a teaching of the Diamond Sūtra and so on. Suchness has these infinite virtues, not an individual. This is very important to understand.

Question: What is non-emptiness in Sanskrit?

It is in Chinese, so it is called bukong (不空). In sanskrit aśūnya.

Marcus: So it’s not that each being has Buddha-nature, it’s that everything is suchness anyway, and suchness has immeasurable qualities?

In the Buddhist translation, suchness has a mundane/worldly and a supramundane aspect. The worldly aspects are e.g. the solidity of earth, the perception of the senses, etc. In Pāli it’s called sadisa, which means “similar to this”. It's a very significant word to trace suchness in Pāli traditions. Sadisa or sadṛśa [in Sanskrit] means “similar to that”. Similar to what? Similar to ultimate reality. The solidity of earth, the fluidity of water, the heat of fire are “similar to that”. This is where Mahāyāna philosophy finds traces in the āgamas. You have suchness in the relative sense and in the ultimate sense. These two aspects of suchness represent the whole of reality.

In the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, as long as you're not enlightened, you only know the differentiated and non-differentiated images in the mind. When you become enlightened you know the worldly reality which is called yāvadbhāvika[jñāna] (ji snyed pa mkhyen pa’i ye shes), as far as one can go. This includes the five aggregates (skandha), the twelve ayatanas, the eighteen dhātus, dependent origination. This is as far as one can go in the world. Then there is the yathāvadbhāvika[jñāna] (ji lta ba mkhyen pa’i ye shes), the aspect of suchness of this, which is on one side saṃsāric and on the other the ultimate. Rather than saṃsāric we call it relative. Some say the relative has a worldly aspect and the ultimate aspect. This is how you can bring all these things together[4].

Marcus: the two truths basically. That’s really interesting to me.

In Yogācāra, the most important is the third aspect, parikalpita, in which we live, because we don’t understand the nature of dependent origination. This is pure Yogācāra.

Marcus: The three natures (trisvabhāva, or three defining characteristics lakṣaṇa). Do these appear in other texts as a three natures set? In The Awakening of faith in Mahāyāna etc.?

You will find it everywhere in the Yogācāra scriptures. We are all subjected to parikalpita. This is our saṃsāra. Through removing the parikalpita from the paratantra, one attains the pariṇiṣpanna, ultimate reality. This is also the basis for meditation. Finally śamatha is the most important. In the Sandinirmochana sūtra, śamatha is defined as the state without object… the mind.

French language blogs on the ambiguous (non-allegorical) use of light and luminosity from a more mainstream Buddhist point of view:

La lumière est-elle la même en Inde qu'en Chine ? 22/10/2014
Petite genèse des lumières de la Lumière 25/11/2014
Théorie orientale de l’illumination 26/11/2014
Illumination et perception 30/11/2014
Illumination au sens propre 02/12/2014
Le monde imaginal 05/12/2014
Naturellement lumineux 09/12/2016
Esoterisme, illuminisme et mysticisme 14/11/2018
De la pensée lumineuse à la Claire Lumière 09/01/2020

***

[1] Dhammapada, Attavaggo 12. The Chapter about the Self, translated by Ānandajoti Bhikkhu (2nd edition, November 2017). E.g.

160 Attā hi attano nātho, ko hi nātho paro siyā?
Attanā va sudantena nāthaṁ labhati dullabhaṁ.

For the self is the friend of self, for what other friend would there be?
When the self is well-trained, one finds a friend that is hard to find.

380 Attā hi attano nātho, attā hi attano gati,
tasmā saṁyamayattānaṁ assaṁ bhadraṁ va vāṇijo.

Self is the protector of self, self is the refuge of self,
therefore one should restrain oneself, as a merchant his noble horse.

[2] A term found in the Ratnagotravibhāga/Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra and thus in Tathāgatagarbha theory, but perhaps Bhante has another term and theory in mind?

[3] Fifth among the branches or limbs of awakening (Skt. bodhyaṅga)

[4] See Apple, James. (2018). Khu lo tsā ba's Treatise: Distinguishing the Svātantrika/*Prāsaṅgika Difference in Early Twelfth Century Tibet.

“Section (6) covers the result of practice (nyams su blang ba’i ’bras bu) [15.3 – 16.10] and again makes a distinction between how Autonomists [15.3–15.5] and Consequentialists [15.5–16.9] have different understandings of what constitutes buddhahood. For the Consequentialists all appearances are ignorance, buddhas do not have ignorance and therefore do not have appearances. The state called “Buddha” is the pacification of all elaborations and the cessation of all mind and mental factors. The understanding of buddhahood being without conceptuality and inconceivable is found in the works of Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti and is strongly advocated throughout the works of Atiśa and his early Kadampa followers. The form bodies of a buddha appear to sentient beings like a wishfulfilling jewel or tree that manifests based on sentient beings own conceptual thought together with the condition of the buddha’s previous aspirations and virtues accumulated as a bodhisattva in previous lifetimes. This leads the author to state an unusual position in Mahāyāna Buddhist thought and buddhology, attributed to Atiśa that,

As wisdom is the cessation of differentiaton and objects of knowledge are not at all [16.8] established, the wisdom which does not conceptualize anything at all exists as the pristine wisdom which cognizes reality just-as-it-is and the pristine wisdom which cognizes reality to its utmost extent along with its appearances does not exist. 

The pristine wisdom which cognizes reality just-as-it-is, yathāvadbhāvikajñāna (ji lta ba mkhyen pa’i ye shes), and the pristine wisdom which cognizes reality to its utmost extent, yāvadbhāvikajñāna (ji snyed pa mkhyen pa’i ye shes), as far as known in current scholarship, are considered to be two forms of wisdom that a buddha possesses simultaneously. The currently known exegesis of these two types of wisdom is based on Yogācāra sources. Our manuscript therefore provides a previously unknown Madhyamaka exegesis on these two pristine wisdoms of a buddha.”