How inoffensive are religious metaphors and frames?

The religious view of the cosmos and the origin of life that is still in use in our times is a God-centered one in a geocentric model, where “matter”, both subtle and gross, is a combination of the four elements, held together by “intellect” and “life”, and often infused with a “higher consciousness” (nous). From a modern scientific point of view, regardless of the existence of “God”, or a creator, it is an outdated view. Yet, the whole religious spiritual path is built on such a view, which hasn’t changed for thousands of years. The cosmos in which we live and the religious cosmos have irrevocably driven apart. Religions live in the past, because that’s where their divine revelations and references are, that may not be interfered with at loss of authority. Interpretations are the only way for minor temporary adjustments that will last as long as the next interpretation, whether seen and presented as a return to tradition or as progress.

The ancient cosmos and “nature” (“physics”) were considered to be animated by agents, called “daimones” or “genii”, both for believers and “unbelievers”. The “nature” of so-called “natural philosophers” was an animated one. There were debates about whether the intellect was a byproduct of the four elements, or the four elements a product/emanation of the intellect, but there was no doubt that “nature” was animated. Both “theists” and “non-theists” (anachronism) would have agreed on that. This was a given and all would turn to whatever “natural” means and “natural” agents (daimones) available to improve their lives, with perhaps some few exceptions such as Heraclites, Democritus, Epicure etc.

Religion is a given too. There is no point in denying this. Regarding religion, the śramaṇa Buddha may be considered as a minimalist. Śramaṇa ascetics were Do-It-Yourself daimonifiers. They would follow “natural” laws (of which transmigration could be a part) like everybody else, but, when possible, independently of “natural” agents. They measured their “progress” by their “ascension” in the cosmos in order to go beyond (unbind). But “what” exactly was making that ascension? The conglomerate of the four elements with consciousness as a byproduct? Such a conglomerate could only go so far, because earth and water won’t last in the higher and therefore more fiery spheres. The intellect (buddhi)? A “higher consciousness” (nous)? Is there such a thing, independently of the four elements and preexisting them, in Buddhism? In theory no. But in practice? How essenceless is the non-self, and how empty is emptiness, when there is thought to be some sort of a Divine Intellect or Light “above” it? The old Buddha refused to answer this sort of questions, the later ones loved to go into all the details and are still producing revelations that they plug into the minds of recently incarnated “daimones”.

Religions follow tradition, because this is necessary for the religious path to work, just like it did in the past. By following the same old religious maps one has the best chance to end up in the same old spheres, heavens, Pure lands, bhūmis etc. of the same old geocentric model cosmos, and the same material and/or immaterial “bodies”, piloted by something like a “higher consciousness”, that in the highest spheres would shed their burden (bhāra-sutta) and move on all by itself in order to join the Divine Light or something in that neighborhood. Wouldn’t this be like using an old flat world map or sat nav with directions, places, routes, service platforms and commodities that no longer exist? A flat world with the various stages of a huge and endless axis mundi.

Sure, this is a very materialistic way of looking at it, but, knowing what we know now, and living now, is there really any other way? This is the basic religious reference material. It is clearly outdated with regard to the modern view of the cosmos, the elements, and all the biological and neurological discoveries. How can it still “work”? Can a “reference” still work as a symbolic or mock reference, in spite of the huge gap, because of the principle of “I believe because it is absurd” (Credo quia absurdum)? For the first Christians and Buddhists however this view wasn’t absurd at all, it was the only one available, so how would the “absurdum” principle have “worked” for them? Moreover, and for different reasons, some contemporary Christians and Buddhists seem to believe it’s not absurd at all, on the contrary they believe it is true, but in ways that would go beyond our ordinary understanding. To them it somehow corresponds to the core of our awakened psychic or archetypal spiritual make-up, a deeper inner reality, or a higher reality…that hopefully would constitute a way out.

The same thing goes for the various agents (daimones) of “animated nature”. In the Tibetan Buddhist practice, like in all “polytheistic” practices in the past and still in the present, offerings made to “daimones”, deities, lamas, gods and demons are done on a daily basis. In esoteric Buddhism, our subtle body, is the microscopic copy of the macrocosmos, with its own internal axis mundi and its various levels (cakras), inhabited by deities, gods and demons, because “as above, so below”. The “actualized” unified macrocosmos and microcosmos is the same old animated geocentric model. How does a modern practitioner manage to live in two “cosmoses” at the same time? Through living a double life? Through imagining that our modern cosmos is actually an illusion (māyā) and the old one the real thing (sacred outlook)? What law should be followed then, those of the City of Man or of the City of God? The laws of one’s “temporary” countries or the religious laws? To whom should we turn in case we need help in practical matters (health, mental health, infamy, obstacles, obstacles for babies etc.), to worldly helpers or to daimones? “So many questions”.

One solution to try and close the growing gap between religion and philosophy was to continue the established rites of worship (tradition) whilst believing in the true nature of the gods/Gods/God for those who, for various reasons, liked to worship just like their ancestors. This was the case for the Greek Plutarch[1] (1st century BCE) and for the Indian Ratnākaraśānti[2] (11th century). The traditional continuation of worship (puja) is essential, like sacrifices were for Confucius for “the harmony between man and the general order of the world”. But “practice”, or rather praxis, is also the continuation, acting out, or embodiment of a theory, ideology or belief, through which it is tested against the reality (“ehi passiko”, come and see) it seeks to explain or transform, if that is indeed what one would like to do…

Food for thought. Ninety-eight percent of our thought is unconscious. “Most of your ideas, thoughts and opinions exist in your brain without you having any awareness of them. They just seem to automatically be there.” “These unconscious beliefs help determine our deeply-held moral, social and political beliefs.” “Powerful metaphors and frames, often repeated by politicians and the media, sink into our unconscious and create a concept of "common sense” — even when the ideas behind them are the opposite of sensible.” “Knowing that most thought is unconscious, campaigns focus on symbolic language, repetition, and emotional appeal.” “Once certain frames become established in the unconscious, they can be incredibly resilient. This is why changing someone's political opinion can be nearly impossible. Their cognitive frames need to be shifted, not just their conscious thoughts. That is very hard to do.” Quotes from FrameLab, a project by Gil Duran and George Lakoff.

Repetition, automatisms, can lead to “natural” and “spontaneous” reflexes and experiences, “that seem to be automatically there”, but “emerge” in fact from the ninety-eight percent of unconscious thought. Saṃskāra and vāsanā, as a Buddhist could say. Therefore we should be careful with the metaphors and frames we use and reproduce.

***

[1] “If, then, you listen to the stories about the Gods in this way, accepting them from those who interpret the story reverently and philosophically, and if you always perform and observe the established rites of worship, and believe that no sacrifice that you can offer, no deed that you may do will be more likely to find favour with the Gods than your belief in their true nature, you may avoid superstition which is no less an evil than atheism.” "On Isis and Orisis," translation by Frank Cole Babbitt. Also see Bill Thayer online

[2] “(4) Or, if one meditates only on the true nature of what the deities stand for and not the deities, then in this case too, one would attain Buddhahood in many countless aeons but not quickly.

(5) Therefore, the meditation of both [the mind as deities and the true nature of the deities at the same time], because it is extremely pleasant to the mind and because it is a special kind of empowerment, causes one to obtain the highest perfect awakening very quickly.” “Madhyamakanising” Tantric Yogācāra: The Reuse of Ratnākaraśānti’s Explanation of maṇḍala Visualisation in the Works of Śūnyasamādhivajra, Abhayākaragupta and Tsong Kha Pa Daisy S. Y. Cheung

Luminous theology

Descent of Buddha from Trayastrimsa Heaven, 2nd-3rd Century (Victoria and Albert)
"It shows the descent of the Buddha from the Heaven of the Thirty-three gods (Trayastrimsa),
where he had gone to preach the law to his mother, Mayadevi.
Three staircases are seen in the central section with the Buddha depicted
at three stages of his descent flanked by the Hindu gods Brahma and Indra." See Lalitavistara Sūtra

Buddhism as a philosophy, a way of life, a science of mind, etc. doesn’t correspond to how Buddhism, and in particular Tibetan Buddhism, is used and practiced as what we would call a religion. Perhaps most clearly so in the Dzogchen Great Perfection of the Nyingma school, which is in fact a compendium of all types of beliefs and practices with different origins and frames, that have been more or less successfully grouped together and systematised into a Great Perfection patchwork. But certainly not exclusively so.

Buddhism's most “philosophical” part is that which the Dalaï-Lama now seems to call the “Nālandā tradition”, enhanced with Indo-Tibetan philosophical tenets, where contemplation plays an essential part. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, Yogācāra was more positively and “practically” (Yoga) inclined and included eternalist religious elements in skillful ways… It also made the Budhist path a lot more tangible. Asceticism, Buddhist phenomenology, and theological “philosophy” were joined by theurgy (mantranaya), that would henceforth play the main role and determine the success (siddhi) of (esoteric) Buddhist endeavors.

A similar evolution (although more in conformity with its initial views) can be seen in Platonism, Middle platonism, Neoplatonism, Late Neoplatonism and their “divide” into “contemplatists” and “theurgists” (see Olympiodorus the Younger[1]). According to the theurgist Proclus (c. 480) theurgy is "a power higher than all human wisdom embracing the blessings of divination, the purifying powers of initiation and in a word all the operations of divine possession.[2]"

The Yogācārin theurgist Ratnākaraśānti (T. rin chen 'byung gnas zhi ba), also called Śāntipa, made a similar declaration about the superiority of the use of theurgy in esoteric Buddhism. He wrote about five different Buddhist contemplative scenarios[3], where the inclusion of theurgy would guarantee the quickest and most complete results.

“(1) If one meditates on the mind alone, then one would only obtain mundane mental concentration (ting nge ’dzin, *samādhi) like the stage of the infinity of consciousness (rnam shes mtha’ yas skye mched, *vijñānānantyāyatana).
(2) Yet if one meditates on emptiness above all, that [result] too becomes only complete cessation, because of not perfecting the actions of purifying the Buddha qualities.
(3) Or, if one meditates on [the mind] only as having the nature of the deities, in this case, one does not even become awakened at all through that alone because the perfection of actions is incomplete.
(4) Or, if one meditates only on the true nature of what the deities stand for and not the deities, then in this case too, one would attain Buddhahood in many countless aeons but not quickly.
(5) Therefore, the meditation of both [the mind as deities and the true nature of the deities at the same time], because it is extremely pleasant to the mind and because it is a special kind of empowerment, causes one to obtain the highest perfect awakening very quickly[4].” (Madhyamakanising)

Method (1) is followed by “non-tantric and non-Buddhist practitioners of mind-focused meditation”. Method (2) by “śrāvaka Buddhists who meditate on a specific aspect of emptiness (without the aid of Mahāyāna skillful methods)”. Method (3) by “Tantric, non-Buddhist practitioners of meditation”, i.e. non-Buddhist theurgists. Method (4) by “Mahāyāna Buddhists following the perfection method” and method (5) by “Mahāyāna Buddhists following both the perfection method and the mantra method”.

For the convoluted reasoning[5] of Indo-Tibetan teachers behind the necessity of theurgy for the best performance and highest efficiency to achieve Buddhahood, I refer to Daisy S. Y. Cheung’s article. The reasoning can be compared to justifications regarding a transcendent God that is both involved and not involved in creation, has nothing to do with evil (off-camera), is not one, not many, not the same, not different, etc. In short, wanting to have its non-dual cake and eat it too with a huge layer of divine cream and an invisible cherry on top.

The success of Yogācāra theurgy (and thaumaturgy) was such that it became the main ingredient of Mahāyāna Buddhism and that even mādhyamikas had to integrate it, if you don’t mind my Western bias. Daisy S. Y. Cheung’s article gives some examples, including Tsongkhapa’s way of dealing with it. Temple practice was widespread and popular, and simply the ideology of the day. Would it have been possible for Buddhist vihāras to survive without it? And they didn't survive in India in the end. Theurgists were as common as ministers in royal and imperial courts, whose favors were needed to finance temples. For any endeavor to succeed, the help of the gods was necessary. Including for Buddhahood. Yogācārins were no doubt more enthusiastic about it than Mādhyamikas, but both wanted full and complete Buddhahood, and as fast as possible. For the yogācārin Ratnākaraśānti “The mind itself is not empty, and what is ultimately real is sheer luminosity (prakāśamātra)” (Madhyamakanising).

For mādhyamikas like e.g. Abhayākaragupta “the mind itself [is] empty i.e. without intrinsic nature (svabhāva), and what is ultimately real is the absence of intrinsic nature (niḥsvabhāvatā)[6]”. As an interesting aside, Daisy S. Y. Cheung explains:

“In other words, Ratnākaraśānti adopts the Yogācāra understanding of emptiness as an implicative negation (paryudāsapratiṣedha), while Abhayākaragupta adopts the Mādhyamika understanding of emptiness as a nonimplicative negation or absolute negation (prasajyapratiṣedha).” (Madhyamakanising).

The neoplatonist theurgist Syranios, who was Proclos’ teacher, follows a similar line of thinking, and uses an indefinite negation, implying a super-essence.

“Syrianos reflects on the status of negation (ἀποφασίς) and privation (στέρεσις) by commenting on Aristotle. This is what allows him to say that the first hypothesis of the Parmenides affirmed the position of the One through negation. The negation is indefinite and the privation has a cataphatic aspect. This allows for determining a super-essence: the One-that-is-not is not because it is beyond being.[7]”

The super-essence implied by Ratnākaraśānti’s (and other hardcore theurgists’) “implicative negation” is “sheer luminosity”, Divine Light (Nous), the source of the gods that clearly were so indispensable for esoteric Buddhism, and the “ultimately real” substance of the mind (prakāśamātra). “Badass” Longchenpa said it even more explicitly:

“The sphere [dhātu] is the ultimate truth. It is said that by seeing its nature [rang bzhin] you see ultimate truth. But again, it is not the case that an emptiness in which nothing exists at all is the ultimate truth. To fools, ordinary beings, and beginners, the teachings on selflessness [anatta] and so forth [sic!] were given as a remedy for being attached to a self. But [this selflessness or emptiness], it should be known, [is] in reality the sphere [or] luminosity, [which is] unconditioned and exists as something spontaneously present.[8]”

In the first centuries of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, obviously theurgy and thaumaturgy were central, whether one was a Yogācārin or a Mādhyamika or one of their garden varieties, but there were still debates about the nature of mind, the nature of the gods, etc. -- not really about the reality and the necessity of the gods though -- but later on and especially nowadays, “sheer luminosity” (prakāśamātra, Nous) has taken the place of selflessness, emptiness and “and so forth” (la sogs pa), and theurgy is its main practice. (Tibetan) Buddhism is not a philosophy, a way of life, a science of mind, it’s a religion, best approached through Luminous theology.

***

[1] Olympiodore d'Alexandrie, dit le Jeune, In Platonis Phaedonem (vers 550), éd. W. Norvin, 123.3.

[2] Proclus, On the theology of Plato, 1.26.63. E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, University of California Press, 1959).

[3] “Madhyamakanising” Tantric Yogācāra: The Reuse of Ratnākaraśānti’s Explanation of maṇḍala Visualisation in the Works of Śūnyasamādhivajra, Abhayākaragupta and Tsong Kha Pa Daisy S. Y. Cheung

[4] Seton, G. M. (2023). Ratnākaraśānti: The illumination of false forms. In W. Edelglass, P.-J. Harter, & S.McClintock (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Indian Buddhist philosophy, p. 590.

[5] "[Ratnākaraśānti] explains in the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa (Tōh. 4079) and the *Madhyamakālaṃkāropadeśa (Tōh. 4085) that although the representational forms (ākāra) are ultimately unreal, they possess a special identity (I) relation with the real reflexively aware luminosity (prakāśa). The identity between the representational forms and reflexively aware luminosity is a superimposed identity (*āropitaṃ tādātmyam) which, while imposing an identity, still maintains a difference between the two.” (Madhyamakanising).

[6] Abhayākaragupta’s Munimatālaṃkāra chapter one.

[7] “Syrianos réfléchit sur le statut de la négation (ἀποφασίς) et de la privation (στέρεσις) en commentant Aristote. C'est ce qui lui permet de dire que la première hypothèse du Parménide en niant affirmait la position de l'Un. La négation est indéfinie et la privation possède un aspect cataphatique. Cela permet de déterminer une sur-essence : l'Un qui n'est pas, n'est pas car il est au-delà de l'être.”
Eric Robertson Dodds, Les Grecs et l'irrationnel (1959), trad., Flammarion, coll. « Champs », 1977, p. 301, en grec.

[8] Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Gö Lotsāwa's Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2008.
Ibid., 185.6-186.2: de'ang don dam pa'i bden pa dbyings yin la/ 'di'i rang bzhin mthong bas don dam bden pa mthong zhes bya'i/ cir yang med pa'i stong nyid kyang don dam bden pa ma yin no/ de'ang byis pa so so skye bo dang/ las dang po dag bdag tu zhen pa'i gnyen por bdag med pa la sogs pa bstan pa yin gyi (text: gyis)/ don la dbyings 'od gsal ba 'dus ma byas shing lhun grub tu yod pa shes par bya ste/.