Fools and Children, Wise men and Yogis

"I will be good" - Dunce Cap 

Reading Rob Hogendoorn's interesting Yogis And Children, I stumbled on these apparently quite often quoted and famous verses from the 4th century Laṅkāvatāra[1].

“My doctrine has two modes,
Advice and tenets
To children I speak advice
And to yogis, tenets[2]”

This quote is a translation from the Tibetan. The same quote in DT Suzuki’s English translation[3]:

“I have two forms of teaching the truth: self-realisation and discoursing. I discourse with the ignorant and [disclose] self-realisation to the Yogins.”

For context, the full passage of LXXII can be found in the footnote below. The term that here expresses “children”, "childish", “ignorant”, “fools” and other pejorative synonyms in the Sanskrit original of the Laṅkāvatāra is bāla, and appears 231 one times in the multilingual version of Bibliotheca Polyglotta[4]. I will vary the translation of bāla in this blog in order to show its pejorative intent. For the very polemical Laṅkāvatāra, the (Buddhist) world is divided between children/fools and Yogis, between those who follow the suttas/sūtras or discourses[5] and those who practice and obtain the state of “self-realisation” (pratyātmagatikaṃ, t. rang gi grub pa'i mtha'). What Suzuki translates as “self-realisation” is in fact the access to the absolute, the ultimate truth.

“The knowledge which knows the ultimate truth is a central topic of the Lanka and is variously termed pratyātmāryajñānagati (the state of noble knowledge realized by oneself), svapratyātma (inner self-realization), pratyātmagati (that which is realized by oneself), pratyātmagatigocara (the field realized by oneself) and pratyātma dharmatā (the Dharma nature realized by oneself) in the sutra. Akira Suganuma writes that this "inner wisdom" is "that which all the teachings in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra indicate to us is to realize or accomplish." (Wikipedia).

“Yogis” are simply those who directly know the “ultimate truth” and know how to access it, and even to transmit it, sometimes directly from “mind to mind”. Knowing absolute truths is the domain of religion and gnosis. According to the Laṅkāvatāra, the Buddha intentionally taught differently to “fools” (bāla) and “wise men” (paṇḍitas, later Yogis). But not all paṇḍitas and logicians (tārkika) are “Yogis”, that follow the tenant of the Laṅkāvatāra and thereby come to know the ultimate truth. The “foolish” (t. mi mkhas pa) are no longer contrasted with paṇḍitas or logicians (t. mkhas pa), but with “Yogis”.

“This is indeed not a mental realm to be reached by the philosophers and the Śrāvakas; what is taught by the leaders [nāthāḥ, Lords] is the realm of self-realisation[6].”

Śrāvakas, "hearers" were the Buddha’s first direct disciples, to whom the Buddha gave his teachings (suttas), considered by the Laṅkāvatāra as “discourses” intended for “children”.

The Laṅkāvatāra, written in sanskrit, reconfirmed a form of Buddhism that, following a mind-only philosophy, focussed more on the “ultimate truth” (rather than a middle way) as a goal, and requalified the first teachings of the Buddha as “discourses” intended for the “ignorant”. Most of these discourses were not even transmitted in “Vedic” or proper Sanskrit, but in vernaculars...

“In the Pali canon (Cullavagga 5.33; Vin. ii.139.1 ff.) occurs a famous passage which, in abbreviated form, may be rendered thus:

Two monks, brothers, brahmans by birth, of fine language and fine speech, came to the Buddha and said: Lord, here monks of miscellaneous origin (literally, of various names, clan-names, races or castes, and families) are corrupting (dūsenti) the Buddha’s words by (repeating them in) their own dialects; let us put them into Vedic. The Lord Buddha rebuked them: Deluded men, how can you say this? This will not lead to the conversion of the unconverted. . . And he delivered a sermon and commanded (all) the monks: You are not to put the Buddha’s words into Vedic. Who does so would commit a sin. I authorize you, monks, to learn the Buddha’s words each in his own dialect.[7]”

There were quite “A Few Good Men[8]” among the Buddha’s crowd of rowdy śramaṇa, who “sutraficated[9]” more positive materials for those (“Yogis”) who looked for direct knowledge of the “ultimate truth” (paramārtha), and that were not suitable for and accessible to “children” holding “a destructive and nihilistic view concerning such subjects as continuation, activity, rising, breaking-up, existence, Nirvāṇa, the path, karma, fruition, and truth[10].”

“Because they have not attained an intuitive understanding [of the Truth], because they have no fundamental insight of things[11].”

For these “good men”, Bodhisattvas and, later, Yogis, some Buddhist śramaṇas were too much into philosophy, logic, and held “nihilistic” (nāstika) views, which may reflect the old Sāṃkhya-Yoga tension. Too much into Sāṃkhya (analytic knowledge, prajñā, or jñāna), not enough into “Yoga” (intuition of the ultimate truth, through karma, i.e. effort and ritual). Obviously, the Yogis following the Laṅkāvatāra considered their approach very much superior to that of “fools” and “children”.

The distinction between a “Yogi” and a “child” finally comes down to this: to “intuit” or not to “intuit” “the Truth” (paramārtha). Those who intuit the Truth are awakened, those who don’t are not. For Yogis the “discourses” (sūtras) of the Buddha don’t lead to a direct knowledge of the Truth, but do allow to deal with passions (kleśa) and imaginations (vikalpa), and to accumulate merit (puṇya) in order to hopefully obtain more favorable conditions to practice the way of the Yogis in another existence. Followers of the Laṅkāvatāra and other Yogācārins, “Yogis”, needed to find ways to decide among themselves who intuits the Truth and who doesn’t, who is awakened, and to what degree, and who is still a “child”. Once “awakened”, always awakened, in whatever one does. It is the duty of the “Awakened”, “Yogis”, “Leaders” (nāthāḥ), to lead “children”.

“It is the Tathāgata's great love (mahākaruṇā) of all beings, which never ceases until everyone of them is happily led to the final asylum of Nirvāṇa”

“He is ever devising for the enlightenment and emancipation of all sentient beings. This is technically known as the working of Skilful Means (upāyakauśalya). Upāya is the outcome of Prajñā and Karuṇā. When Love worries itself over the destiny of the ignorant [bāla], Wisdom, so to speak, weaves a net of Skilful Means whereby to catch them up from the depths of the ocean called Birth-and-Death (saṃsāra). By Upāya thus the oneness of reality wherein the Buddha's enlightened mind abides transforms itself into the manifoldness of particular existences.”[12]

From the “intuition of the Truth” (prajñā) and the Love (karuṇā) of the “Awakened” for the ignorant (bāla) arise the Skilful Means (upāyakauśalya) and the Awakened’s “particular existences” (nirmāṇakāya t. sprul sku) that will help fishing the ignorant out of the Ocean of ignorance (saṃsāra) by leading them certainly and surely to the intuition of the Truth.

How can the ignorant recognize and identify these “particular existences” of a Buddha or one of his avatars, capable of leading them? They can’t because they are ignorant. But there has been an unbroken line of spiritual generations of “particular existences” and patriarchs, said to go back all the way to the Buddha himself. Hagiographies recount how these were recognised by other “particular existences”, who all intuited the Truth. If a recognised and enthroned nirmāṇakāya performatively declares someone to be a nirmāṇakāya or an equivalent thereof, or if a master (recognised as such by his master or patriarch) declares someone else a master, then an ignorant ought to trust that “particular existence” and follow his lead. Being an island to oneself may sound good, but can “children” really be left alone?

The blind leading the blind, Pieter Bruegel the Elder

To this sort of transmissions and lineages of nirmāṇakāyas and Masters, the “old” Buddha of the “discourses” could have objected:

“Suppose there was a queue of blind men, each holding the one in front: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. In the same way, it seems to me that the brahmins’ statement turns out to be comparable to a queue of blind men: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. Their statement turns out to be a joke—mere words, void and hollow.” Tevijjasutta DN13[13]

Lineages of Yogis intuiting the ultimate truth are perhaps not that different from queues of Brahmins knowing the path to Brahmā, the Absolute. Only, Bodhisattvas and especially Yogis don’t accept to be treated as the Buddha treated the Brahmins. They are beyond any assessment. Didn’t the 3rd century Śūraṃgamasamādhi Sūtra state:

“'Monks, a man [pudgala] should not judge a man, for he harms himself very quickly, O monks, that man who judges a man. I myself or someone like me can assess a man. In accordance with this teaching, O Kasyapa, a bodhisattva and a śrāvaka should consider all beings as being the Master himself, and ask themselves cautiously if some individual adhering to the Bodhisattva Vehicle is not before them[14].”

A Buddha or someone like the Buddha (e.g. representing him) can assess a common man (pudgala, t. gang zag), but a common man can’t assess a bodhisattva. That would be his ruin. So therefore a man better avoids to specifically assess any superior, since he doesn’t know whether a certain individual isn't in fact a bodhisattva. This is even more true if an individual is his Guru or his Vajra Brother…

There definitely is a Brahmanist influence at work in Mahāyāna Buddhism, allowing for the establishment of a hierarchy, a caste of clerks and priests, often in the service of the ruling classes, where bodhisattvas can better serve the general interest than among the ignorant, that are merely advised to accept their karma or embrace their fate, to stay in their place (svadharma) and obey. 

Whilst assessing is not recommended for common pudgalas, it’s part of the duty of holy men, wise men, good men, Yogis to assess them, to put them back in their place, beat, condemn and execute them when necessary, while essentialising them as ignorant. 

Karma is also called to the rescue. When one is born in a poor bāla family, it is because one did not follow the teachings of the wise in a previous life. The only way out is to follow their teachings, to obey and serve them, without assessing or criticizing them. 

There will always be wise men around to help the ignorant, if not to become wise, then at least to remain harmless until all the ignorant will have been fished out of the Ocean of ignorance. All those in charge are bodhisattvas, the Buddha and karma wouldn’t have allowed it to be otherwise.

This has been repeated ad nauseam by the wise, but the ignorant won’t listen. In his Elegant Sayings (Legs bshad rin po che’i gter)[15], Sakya Paṇḍita (1182-1251) could sometimes get quite upset by this.

“One that has not gained knowledge in his former birth
Is ignorant in the present life.
He who fears ignorance in his next life,
Must study assiduously in this one.[16]”

“Acquire knowledge though you may die next year.
Although in this life you may not become wise,
In your future birth, if take with you,
It will become a precious thing[17].”

“Even if you strive for the sake of this present life,
you will succeed happily if you act in accord with Dharma.
Observe the difference between the prosperity
of virtuous people and that of thieves.[18]”

“He that understands well
The difference between an excellent and low man
Knows how to act.
This is the great foundation of prosperity[19].”

“Ignorant people believe a monkey-catcher
To be greater than a wise man.
When great delicacies are served along with bread and meat,
They come back uneaten[20].”

“Offering sweet scents to dogs and pigs,
A light to the blind, meat to those with indigestion,
Or instructions to the foolish -
These actions are senseless.[21]”

Diligently conceal your own conduct,
or most of it will be destroyed if you demonstrate it openly.
If the monkey didn’t dance,
why would anyone put a rope around its neck?[22]”

“Though low-minded men may be angry with a holy man,
How could that holy man become wrathful in return?
Though the jackal may utter a nonsense language,
The king of the forest mercifully protects him[23].”

“The generous, though angry, are gentle when one bows before them.
The mean, yielded to, glow haughty.
Gold and silver, though hard, may be melted.
Dog's dung stinks when burned[24].”

Knowledge is said to be power, and creates a gap between those who have and have not access to it. But what sort of knowledge are we talking of here, and is it really about a specific knowledge or even gnosis, in this case the intuition of “the ultimate truth”? 

Those with knowledge, any knowledge that is in favour at any time, will always side with those in power. Those with the required “knowledge” or expertise at a certain time associating with those that have power and means will be at the top, those without “knowledge”, power and means at the bottom. 

The justification of why those at the top and bottom end up there is built into this “knowledge” and reproduced by it. And this rests on the respective “merit” of each party. The extent of this “knowledge” is determined by those “in the know” using their discretion. One’s karmic “merit” will only be known after one’s death, when one is reborn in such and a such a clan, caste, class, et ceter. Meanwhile, knowledge and expertise can be bought with power and means. Intelligence can acquire the knowledge en vogue. With such “knowledge” one can serve the good ones and become good and even somewhat prosperous oneself, as Sakya Paṇḍita reminds us.

This article has also been published on Open Buddhism.

***

[1] Lang kar gshegs pa'i mdo las/

nga yi chos tshul rnam gnyis te//
bstan pa dang ni grub mtha'o//
byis pa rnams la bstan pa bshad//
rnal 'byor pa la grub mtha'o//

[2] Geshe Lhundub Sopa, & Jeffrey Hopkins. (1989). Cutting Through Appearances: Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism. Snow Lion Publications. p. 149

Tenets (t. grub mtha’, s. siddhānta) seems to be the wrong translation here. The right word in Sanskrit is svapratyātma, in Tibetan rang gi grub pa'i mtha', as can be read further on.

[3] Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro. (1932). The Lankavatara Sūtra, A Mahayana Text, LXXII. 61. For the full passage:

“Further, Mahamati, the ignorant and simple-minded keep on dancing and leaping fascinated with their wrong reasonings, falsehoods, and self-discriminations, and are unable to understand the truth of self-realisation and its discourse in words; clinging to the external world which is seen of the Mind itself, they cling to the study of the discourses which are a means and do not know properly how to ascertain the truth of self-realisation which is the truth unspoiled by the fourfold proposition.

Said Mahamati: Blessed One, it is just as you say. Pray tell me, Blessed One, about the characteristic features of the truth of self-realisation and about the discourses on it, whereby I and other Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas in future time, understanding what they are, may keep ourselves away from the wrong logicians such as the philosophers and those who belong to the vehicles of the Sravaka and the Pratyekabuddha.

(172) Said the Blessed One: Then, Mahamati, listen well and reflect well within yourself; I will tell you.

Certainly, Blessed One; said Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva and gave ear to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said this to him: Mahamati, there are two forms of teaching the truth attained by the Tathagatas, Arhats, Fully-Enlightened Ones of the past, present, and future. They are: the teaching by discourses, and the teaching by the establishment of self-realisation. What is meant by the studying of the discourses is this, Mahamati: there are various materials and canonical texts and discourses by which sentient beings are taught according to their dispositions and inclinations. What then is the truth of self-realisation by which the Yogins turn away from discriminating what is seen of the Mind itself? There is an exalted state of inner attainment which does not fall into the dualism of oneness and otherness, of bothness and not-bothness; which goes beyond the Citta, Manas, and Manovijnana; which has nothing to do with logic, reasoning, theorising, and illustrating; which has never been tasted by any bad logicians, by the philosophers, Sravakas, and Pratyekabuddhas, who have fallen into the dualistic views of being and non-being— this I call self-realisation. This, Mahamati, is what characterises the truth of self-realisation and discoursing on it, and in this you and the other Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas are to discipline themselves. So it is said:

61. I have two forms of teaching the truth: self-realisation and discoursing. I discourse with the ignorant and [disclose] self-realisation to the Yogins.”

[4] There also is the sanskrit version of Gretil, where it occurs 232 times.

[5] De la bstan pa'i tshul ni 'di lta ste/ sems can rnams kyi sems kyi mos pa ji lta ba bzhin du tshogs sna tshogs kyi mdo sde bshad pa ste/ de ni bstan pa'i tshul zhes bya'o/

[6] Laṅkāvatāra:

tārkikāṇām aviṣayaṃ śrāvakāṇāṃ na caiva hi |
yaṃ deśayanti vai nāthāḥ pratyātmagatigocaram || 2.122 ||

[7] Edgerton, Franklin. (1985 reprint). Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary (2 Vols.), Motilal Banarsidass, Volume 1, Introduction, p. 1

[8] Nattier, Jan. (2003). A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugraparipṛcchā, University of Hawaii Press.

[9] “Whether the Ugra began its life as a sūtra - that is, whether the person who first formulated what was to become this canonical document deliberately placed his own words in the mouth of the Buddha - we will never know. It is by no means certain that it did: there are examples in the Buddhist canon of texts originally attributed not to the Buddha, but to a particular (and named) individual, which were only gradually subjected to a process of "sūtrafication" during which the standard features of the sutra genre were added and the Buddha introduced into the text.” A Few Good Men, p. 11

[10] Ye kecin mahāmate śramaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā abhūtvā śraddhāhetuphalābhivyaktidravyaṃ ca kālāvasthitaṃ pratyayeṣu ca skandhadhātvāyatanānāmutpādasthitiṃ cecchanti, bhūtvā ca vyayam, te mahāmate saṃtatikriyotpādabhaṅgabhavanirvāṇamārgakarmaphalasatyavināśocchedavādino bhavanti | (41*)

[11] Tat kasya hetor yad idaṃ pratyakṣānupalabdher ādyadarśanābhāvāt. 

Tib. mngon sum dang*/ mi dmigs pas/ thog ma mthong ba med pa’i phyir ro//

[12] Introduction of Suzuki’s translation of The Lankavatara Sūtra.

The “particular existences” of the Buddha are one of the main subjects of the 3rd century Śūraṅgamasamādhi Sūtra.

“This is Sakyamuni in Heroic Progress, a pure ray of wisdom and power, who manifests himself simultaneously in our little universe of four continents, in the Great Cosmos ... and in all the great cosmic systems ...; there, he is some divinity .... He is the same as the Buddha Vairocana.”
Lamotte, E. (1998), Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, The Concentration of Heroic Progress: An Early Mahayana Buddhist Scripture, translated by Sara Boin-Webb, London, Curzon Press

[13] Experts in the Three Vedas, DN13, Bhikkhu Sujato

“What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Do the brahmins proficient in the three Vedas see the sun and moon just as other folk do? And do they pray to them and exalt them, following their course from where they rise to where they set with joined palms held in worship?”

“Yes, Master Gotama.”

“What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Though this is so, are the brahmins proficient in the three Vedas able to teach the path to the company of the sun and moon, saying: ‘This is the only straight path, the direct route that leads someone who practices it to the company of the sun and moon’?”

“No, Master Gotama.”

“So it seems that even though the brahmins proficient in the three Vedas see the sun and moon, they are not able to teach the path to the company of the sun and moon.

But it seems that even though they have not seen Brahmā with their own eyes, they still claim to teach the path to the company of that which they neither know nor see.

What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? This being so, doesn’t their statement turn out to have no demonstrable basis?”

“Clearly that’s the case, Master Gotama.”

[14] Etienne Lamotte (2005), Śūraṃgamasamādhi Sūtra, English translation, Motilal Banarsidass.

[15] Tarthang Tulku. (1977). Elegant Sayings, Nāgārjuna and Sakya Paṇḍit, Dharma Publishing.

[16] skye ba snga mar ma bslabs pas//
tshe 'dir blun por mthong nas ni//
phyi mar blun por skye dwogs pas//
tshe 'dir dka' yang 'bad de mnyan//

[17] rig pa ngan par ‘chi yang bslab//
tshe ‘dir mkhas par ma gyur kyang*//
skye ba phyi mar btsol ba yi//
nor la rang nyid len par ‘dra//

[18] glo ldan tshe 'di bsgrub na yang*/
chos kyis bsgrub na bde bar 'grub//
dam pa rnams dang chom rkun gyi//
phun sum tshogs pa'i khyad par ltos//

[19] Mi gang skye bo dam pa dang*//
dman pa’i khyad par legs shes nas//
de yi bya ba bsgrub shes pa//
phun sum tshogs pa’i gzhi chen yin//

[20] blun po'i drung du mkhas pa bas//
spre'u 'dzin pa khyad par 'phags//
sprel 'dzin zas dang nor gyis mchod//
mkhas pa lag pa stong par 'gro//

[21] khyi phag rnams la dri zhim dang*//
dmus long ba la sgron me dang*//
ma zhu ba la kha zas dang*//
blun po rnams la chos ci dgos//

[22] rang spyod ‘bad pas sba bar bya//
phal cher gsal bar bstan pas nyams//
spre’us zlos gar mi byed na//
mgul du thag pa ci ste ‘dogs//

[23] skye bo dman rnams dam pa la//
khyad gsod byed kyi dam pas min//
seng ges wa tshogs legs skong ste//
wa nyid wa yi rigs la 'gran//

[24] dam pa khros kyang btud na zhi//
dman rnams btud na lhag par rengs//
gser dngul sra yang bzhu nus kyi//
khyi lud bzhu na dri ngan 'byung*//