smuggled essence



On this topic
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 1995 12:00:01 -0400
From: Sally Clay
Subject: smuggled essence
Jamie Hubbard wrote:

>If Buddha nature is the reason, this illustrates the problem nicely, as Buddha nature is problematic in the extreme: most schools dismiss it as but an upaya, and others denounce it outright as a smuggled essence.

Oh yeah?

I have a koan for the group:
Does Jamie Hubbard have Buddha nature?

Come on, Jamie, MAKE MY DAY:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sally Clay
Northampton, MA 01060
"Where the coffee is strong and so are the women."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 1995 17:29:51 -0400
From: Jamie HUBBARD
Subject: Re: smuggled essence
Sally wrote:
>Oh yeah?

>I have a koan for the group:

>Does Jamie Hubbard have Buddha nature?

To paraphrase some Chinese fellow,

"MU, and neither do YU."

Seriously.

Jamie

>Come on, Jamie, MAKE MY DAY:
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SSally Clay
>Northampton, MA 01060
>"Where the coffee is strong and so are the women."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 1995 14:43:23 -0700
From: Ken O'Neill
Subject: Re: smuggled essence
>Jamie Hubbard wrote:

>>If Buddha nature is the reason, this illustrates the problem nicely, as Buddha nature is problematic in the extreme: most schools dismiss it as but an upaya, and others denounce it outright as a smuggled essence.

Sally Clay responded:

>Oh yeah?

>I have a koan for the group:
>Does Jamie Hubbard have Buddha nature?

Jamie's remark is interesting. I've been a teacher of one tradition of Buddhism for 23 years; in that time my friends have included teachers of Zen and Tibetan traditions. Every last one of them takes buddha-nature teachings seriously since those teachings are active parts of how we work with people. I'd like to know where Jamie got this idea. Are you in a teaching lineage, Jamie, or an academic? What experience leads you to this conclusion; I'm not interested in citations because we know well one can always find one then attempt to warrant a position on an exception to the rule. Do you disagree with Sally B. King's work?

Thanks,

Ken O'Neill
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 1995 00:46:38 -0400
From: Sally Clay
Subject: Re: smuggled essence
Dear Jamie Hubbard, your original message read:

>If Buddha nature is the reason, this illustrates the problem nicely, as Buddha nature is problematic in the extreme: most schools dismiss it as but an upaya, and others denounce it outright as a smuggled essence.

To this I responded:

>Oh yeah?

>I have a koan for the group:
>Does Jamie Hubbard have Buddha nature?

To which you responded:

>"MU, and neither do YU."

Well . . . you've got me there. I have studied the Dharma in the Tibetan tradition, so I really don't know much about koans, and I don't know what MU means. But I do agree with Ken O'Neill that, in every Buddhist tradition, recognizing Buddha nature is essential. So please allow me to smuggle some in, as an argument for human rights.

Since I do not practice zen, I can give you a straight answer to my koan. You, Jamie Hubbard, have buddha nature. How do I know this? I know this because I know that I have buddha nature. I have not yet (in this current discussion) recognized your buddha nature because I have not been able to cut through your academic nihilism.

That is why I sent you my address. I live in Northampton, MA, and I assume you do, too, since your email address is connected with Smith College. Not too far from where we sit, you and I, there are a bunch of rotting buildings that used to be Northampton State Mental Hospital. This institution was closed down a few years ago by legal advocates, who established that the rights of the patients were being violated. Human beings were incarcerated and forcibly treated in this place for years under conditions of filth and degradation.

Now housed in one of those buildings is the Department of Mental Health, Western Massachusetts Area. Only today I received a letter from Patrick Austin, Consumer Affairs Manager for DMH. Patrick wrote that an RFP has been sent out for managed care for all acute care services:

"We as consumer/survivors were not consulted as to what crisis services, hospital stays, crisis respite, day hospitals would look like. We don't know if the new acute services are going to be good or user friendly."

Some questions for you are: Should mental patients be consulted on such matters? Should mental patients be allowed the same consideration as medical patients--considerations such as informed consent for treatment? Should mental patients be given the same protections as criminals--protections under the law, such as due process? Should these considerations be guaranteed under the law, or are we to rely on the benevolence of bureaucrats who in this country created monstrosities such as Northampton State Hospital--and who in Nazi Germany used mental patients and other "useless eaters" as templates for genocide?

Is it dharmicly correct to regard the consideration of consent and the protection of legal process as rights? Can one believe that all citizens of Massachusetts are entitled to be treated with equal respect and dignity? Are mental patients citizens? Are women citizens? Are African Americans human beings? Do mental patients have buddha nature?

Government by the consent of the governed rests on the principle that all people are created equal. As a woman, I am suspicious of that principle when it refers only to white men. As a Buddhist, I have reservations about the "created" part. But, as a manic-depressive who attempts to practice equanimity, I understand the equal part very well. IMHO, buddha nature is, while not created, still inherent in all of us.

Patrick also wrote:

"I'll update you on the Bill of Rights rally that will take place in Boston on Monday October 16th. If anyone is interested, there will be a free bus leaving from the Pittsfield Grayhound Bus Station. . ."

Well, Jamie, how about YU:
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 1995 17:35:22 -0400
From: Jamie HUBBARD
Subject: Re: smuggled essence
Responding to my comments on Buddha-nature, Ken O'Neill wrote:

>I'd like to know where Jamie got this idea. Are you in a teaching lineage,
>Jamie, or an academic?

Hmmmm-- from where I sit they look pretty much the same, Ken (do you remember asking me this once before, back in the days of the IndraNet BBS?)

>What experience leads you to this conclusion; I'm not interested in citations because we know well one can always find one then
>attempt to warrant a position on an exception to the rule.

Good point; ok, then, over and beyond what the tradition itself has to say on the subject, the experience that leads me to say this is critical thinking about Buddhist truth. But in terms of the tradition, I perhaps was overstating the case a bit (wishful thinking, or perhaps limiting my definition of Buddhists :) to those that would reject it).
Buddha-nature and tathaagatagarbha have always been controversial in the extreme, and among those that either dismissed these ideas or interpreted them away (as but upaaya) we can count the Gelugspa and Doogen. Much has been written on this topic of late.

>Do you disagree with Sally B. King's work?

Sometimes (we went to school together), but for the most part I think that her exegesis of the Buddha-nature Treatise is accurate; her conclusions also illustrate the problem nicely, though, at least insofar as the question raised is one of bringing moral discussion into line with metaphysical principles, and hence rights, protection of those in need, and so forth, so permit to cite something I wrote on the topic a while back:

For example, in explicating the Buddha-nature Treatise, Sally King has written, "In sum, as presented in the BNT, the person (human being) in the deluded existential mode is not a person as we ordinarily use the term in the popular Western sense. There is no real historicality or individuality accruing to the person and precious little freedom. What we consider to be the basis of individual personhood is written off as unreal. What is real is the universal sameness of Buddha nature; in this sameness, individual personhood, as we ordinarily use the term, cannot be found. Thus, before `conversion' and while in the existential mode of delusion, a person is not a person." After enlightenment, however, "history and individuality, which were lacking in the deluded existential mode, enter the constitution of the person. . . The particular behaviors, mannerisms, and even the personality of the person now possess reality and value." Sally King, "Buddha nature and the concept of person" in Philosophy East and West, vol. 39, no. 2 (April, 1989), p. 164 [cf. her book pp. 146- 147]. In this reading, as true to the tradition as to the cross-cultural philosophy of Professor King, of what concern is the *unreal* behavior, mannerisms, and personality of the deluded *non*-person? This doctrinal attitude has recently been singled out by Professor Hakamaya in several articles as the basis for institutional and social discrimination and racism. See, for example, "Thoughts on the Intellectual Background of Discrimination" (Sabetsu Jish o Umidashita Shis teki Haikei ni Kansuru Shikenm1) in Komazawa Daigaku Bukkygakubu Kenkyuu Kiyoo, no. 44 (Showa 61). [from _Buddha Nature: A Festschrift in Honor of Minoru Kiyota_, Reno: Buddhist Books International, 1990, pp. 76-77.]

Jamie
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 1995 17:51:35 -0400
From: Jamie HUBBARD
Subject: Re: smuggled essence
Sally wrote all sorts of stuff about mental health patients in Northampton. I am not sure what to say to most of it (at least in terms of this thread); the only question I can answer is:

>Do mental patients have buddha nature?

MU again. MU means NO!

>IMHO, buddha nature is,
>while not created, still inherent in all of us.

I think that it was the Buddha's wisdom to realize that a moral life can only be had by banishing fantasies about inherent purity of any sort; IMNSHO this is the crux of both the logical force *and* the ethical imperative of the dharma.

Jamie
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 1995 16:43:17 -0600
From: Stephen Evans
Subject: Re: smuggled essence
>means. But I do agree with Ken O'Neill that, in every Buddhist tradition, recognizing Buddha nature is essential. So please allow me to smuggle some in, as an argument for human rights.

... ...
>Sally Clay

No it's not & smuggling it in, in this capacity, I'm afraid just confuses the issue.

Otherr concerns, esp. the "mentally ill" -- important, difficult issues here. To me the problem is that our society is ridiculously narrow with functional "slots" only for a narrow range of personalities. Still it can be a dangerous situation (I've grappled with this personally) and if any area points out that Human rights based on invariant principles is inadequate, this does. Each person & situation is unique...

Thanks for raising the issue.

-- Santipala
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 1995 23:48:31 +0000
From: Christopher Fynn
Subject: Re: smuggled essence
Tathagatagarbha embraces and permeates all beings.
-Samadhirajasutra

Just as butter exists permeating milk, so does Tathagatagarbha permeate all beings.
-Mahaparinirvanasutra

All sentient beings are constantly endowed with Buddha-nature.
-Uttaratantra

Since The Buddha is essentially Dharmakaya and Dharmakaya Sunyata and since this Sunyata permeates all beings, the latter are endowed with Buddha-nature.
-Gampopa

Beings are endowed with Buddha-nature since in the Tathata of Buddhas and of sentient beings there is no differentiation into good or bad, great or small, high or low.
-Gampopa

As silver is found in and may be refined from its ore, sesame oil pressed from its seed and butter churned from milk, so in all beings may Buddhahood become a reality.
-Gampopa

(All quoted from Gampopa's "Jewel Ornament of Liberation" trans. H V Guenther )
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 11:55:48 +0100
From: "peter.harvey"
Subject: smuggled essence
'Buddha nature', per se, is a concept found only in Mahaayaana Buddhism; even here, there are differences over what status to attribute to it: as at the ultimate or non-ultimate level of discourse. However, it seems that all Mahaayaana schools agree that the Buddha nature -in some sense- exists. Theravaada, while not talking of the 'Buddha nature', agrees that all are capable of enlightenment/awakening (as an //Arahat//, if not a perfectly and completely awakened one), and that this potential is repersented by the 'brightly shining' (Pali //pabhassara//, sanskrit //pravbhaasvara//) nature of mind. Can't we all simply agree on the statement that all beings are capable of awakening, and that human existence offers the best opportu ity for actualising this potential?

Peter Harvey
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 14:37:01 +0200
From: M Clasquin
Subject: smuggled essence -Reply
>>>Sally Clay 7/10/95, 06:00pm >>>
Jamie Hubbard wrote:

>If Buddha nature is the reason, this illustrates the problem nicely,
>as Buddha nature is problematic in the extreme: most schools dismiss it as but an upaya, and others denounce it outright as a smuggled essence.

Oh yeah?

I have a koan for the group:
Does Jamie Hubbard have Buddha nature?

<<<<<<<<<

MU!
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 19:14:36 -0400
From: "M. Jinavamsa"
Subject: Re: smuggled essence in Massachusetts
Dear Sally & others,
Would you know, then, of LAMP (Legal Assistance to Mental Patients, I think is what that stood for), Bob Roth (its founder, later worked in NYC), or for that matter, the book on the issues that you raise called Mass Murderers in White Coats, by Lenny Lapon? or, given where you are, the Psychiatric Genocide Research Institute (once in Spingfield Massachusetts)??
I've lost track on Bob (sorry to say) .... in peace,
Jinavamsa

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 07:05:19 -0400
From: Sally Clay
Subject: Re: smuggled essence in Massachusetts
Jinavamsa wrote:

>Would you know, then, of LAMP (Legal Assistance to Mental Patients, I think is what that stood for), Bob Roth (its founder, later worked in NYC), or for that matter, the book on the issues that you raise called Mass Murderers in White Coats, by Lenny Lapon? or, given where you are, the Psychiatric Genocide Research Institute (once in Spingfield Massachusetts)??
>I've lost track on Bob (sorry to say) ....

I'm sorry to say that I have not heard of LAMP. The Psychiatric Genocide Research Institute is the rubric under which Lenny Lapon wrote "Mass Murderers in White Coats." I do know Lenny, and have his book.

Steven Schwartz, at the Center for Public Representation here in Northampton, was the principle player in closing down Northampton State Hospital. This agency is, I think, a branch of PAIMI (Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness). PAIMI (formally P & A) is the federal program initiated by then-senator Lowell Weicker in 1986.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sally Clay, Zangmo Blue Thundercloud
*** Northampton, Mass.
"Where the coffee is strong and so are the women."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 20:11:28 -0700
From: Ken O'Neill
Subject: Re: smuggled essence
>Dear Jamie Hubbard, your original message read:

>>If Buddha nature is the reason, this illustrates the problem nicely, as Buddha nature is problematic in the extreme: most schools dismiss it as but an upaya, and others denounce it outright as a smuggled essence.

>To this I responded:

>>Oh yeah?

>>I have a koan for the group:
>>Does Jamie Hubbard have Buddha nature?

>To which you responded:

>>"MU, and neither do YU."

>Well . . . you've got me there. I have studied the Dharma in the Tibetan tradition, so I really don't know much about koans, and I don't know what MU means. But I do agree with Ken O'Neill that, in every Buddhist tradition, recognizing Buddha nature is essential. So please allow me to smuggle some in, as an argument for human rights.

>Since I do not practice zen, I can give you a straight answer to my koan. You, Jamie Hubbard, have buddha nature. How do I know this? I know this because I know that I have buddha nature. I have not yet (in this current discussion) recognized your buddha nature because I have not been able to cut through your academic nihilism.


There's a philosophical problem here. Using "have" does not make good buddhadharma sense. Better one say "you are buddhanatur." In the gnosis of buddhadharma one, after all, comes to know who they really are!!! not what they really have.

>"We as consumer/survivors were not consulted as to what crisis services, hospital stays, crisis respite, day hospitals would look like. We don't know if the new acute services are going to be good or user friendly."

>Some questions for you are: Should mental patients be consulted on such matters? Should mental patients be allowed the same consideration as medical patients--considerations such as informed consent for treatment? Should mental patients be given the same protections as criminals--protections under the law, such as due process? Should these considerations be guaranteed under the law, or are we to rely on the benevolence of bureaucrats who in this country created monstrosities such as Northampton State Hospital--and who in Nazi Germany used mental patients and other "useless eaters" as templates for genocide?


Osmond Humphreys in the early 1950s had a novel approach to such concerns. In those days, pukey institutional green was the color of interior design for mental institution walls. With a proposed new ward up for architectural planning, he walked the designing architect through a current ward - an hour or two after administering via intermuscular inject several hundred micrograms of Sandoz brand lysergic acid dimethylamide (lsd). The architect develop a sensitivity for habitation based on altered state learning. The only problem I can see in clients voicing opinions and needs is that of "will they be heard, will they be understood, will they be accepted" by decision makers. Aside from bigotted listeners, we have the immense problem of unenlightened communication in hearings, decision making, etc.


>Is it dharmicly correct to regard the consideration of consent and the protection of legal process as rights? Can one believe that all citizens of Massachusetts are entitled to be treated with equal respect and dignity? Are mental patients citizens? Are women citizens? Are African Americans human beings? Do mental patients have buddha nature?

>Government by the consent of the governed rests on the principle that all people are created equal. As a woman, I am suspicious of that principle when it refers only to white men. As a Buddhist, I have reservations about the "created" part. But, as a manic-depressive who attempts to practice equanimity, I understand the equal part very well. IMHO, buddha nature is, while not created, still inherent in all of us.

I'd be particularly careful here. The word Buddhism and the dominant paradigm of interpretation is an artifact of white European and American males of the Victorian era.

Gassho gracias amigos:

Ken O'Neill
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 20:11:50 -0700
From: Ken O'Neill
Subject: Re: smuggled essence
>Responding to my comments on Buddha-nature, Ken O'Neill wrote:

>>I'd like to know where Jamie got this idea. Are you in a teaching lineage,
>>Jamie, or an academic?

>Hmmmm-- from where I sit they look pretty much the same, Ken (do you remember asking me this once before, back in the days of the IndraNet BBS?)

>>What experience leads you to this conclusion; I'm not interested in citations because we know well one can always find one then
>>attempt to warrant a position on an exception to the rule.

>Good point; ok, then, over and beyond what the tradition itself has to say on the subject, the experience that leads me to say this is critical thinking about Buddhist truth. But in terms of the tradition, I perhaps was overstating the case a bit (wishful thinking, or perhaps limiting my definition of Buddhists :) to those that would reject it).
>Buddha-nature and tathaagatagarbha have always been controversial in the extreme, and among those that either dismissed these ideas or interpreted them away (as but upaaya) we can count the Gelugspa and Doogen. Much has been written on this topic of late.

>>Do you disagree with Sally B. King's work?

>Sometimes (we went to school together), but for the most part I think that her exegesis of the Buddha-nature Treatise is accurate; her conclusions also illustrate the problem nicely, though, at least insofar as the question raised is one of bringing moral discussion into line with metaphysical principles, and hence rights, protection of those in need, and so forth, so permit to cite something I wrote on the topic a while back:

>For example, in explicating the Buddha-nature Treatise, Sally King has written, "In sum, as presented in the BNT, the person (human being) in the deluded existential mode is not a person as we ordinarily use the term in the popular Western sense. There is no real historicality or individuality accruing to the person and precious little freedom. What we consider to be the basis of individual personhood is written off as unreal. What is real is the universal sameness of Buddha nature; in this sameness, individual personhood, as we ordinarily use the term, cannot be found. Thus, before `conversion' and while in the existential mode of delusion, a person is not a person." After enlightenment, however, "history and individuality, which were lacking in the deluded existential mode, enter the constitution of the person. . . The particular behaviors, mannerisms, and even the personality of the person now possess reality and value." Sally King, "Buddha nature and the concept of person" in Philosophy East and West, vol. 39, no. 2 (April, 1989), p. 164 [cf. her book pp. 146- 147]. In this reading, as true to the tradition as to the cross-cultural philosophy of Professor King, of what concern is the *unreal* behavior, mannerisms, and personality of the deluded *non*-person? This doctrinal attitude has recently been singled out by Professor Hakamaya in several articles as the basis for institutional and social discrimination and racism. See, for example, "Thoughts on the Intellectual Background of Discrimination" (Sabetsu Jish o Umidashita Shis teki Haikei ni Kansuru Shikenm1) in Komazawa Daigaku Bukkygakubu Kenkyuu Kiyoo, no. 44 (Showa 61). [from _Buddha Nature: A Festschrift in Honor of Minoru Kiyota_, Reno: Buddhist Books International, 1990, pp. 76-77.]

>Jamie
Good point. In fact, excellent. The Shin tradition is no stranger to problems resulting from claims of awakening as rationales for antinomian behavior. As you may know, Rennyo's inscription to Tannisho as a potentially dangerous book in the wrong hands accounts for its suppression down to the beginnings of this century. Dobbins' Jodoshinshu talks of the problem under the rubric of "licensed evil."

On the other side of the coin, I feel we must be very careful in attempts to impose "human rights" on buddhadharma rather than discovering how and where human rights fits in a buddhadharma outlook and soteriological discussion.

Gassho,

ken
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 20:11:57 -0700
From: Ken O'Neill
Subject: Re: smuggled essence
>Sally wrote all sorts of stuff about mental health patients in Northampton. I am not sure what to say to most of it (at least in terms of this thread); the only question I can answer is:

>>Do mental patients have buddha nature?

>MU again. MU means NO!

May I suggest MU means NOT - a hearty NOT to Yes and/or NO.

>>IMHO, buddha nature is,
>>while not created, still inherent in all of us.

>I think that it was the Buddha's wisdom to realize that a moral life can only be had by banishing fantasies about inherent purity of any sort; IMNSHO this is the crux of both the logical force *and* the ethical imperative of the dharma.

Jamie has said it all with an economy of words. A person of Ikkyu's zen no doubt!

Ken O'Neill
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 15:47:27 -0400
From: Sally Clay
Subject: Re: smuggled essence
Ken O'Neill wrote:

-------- start quote --------
(In response to my statement:)
>Since I do not practice zen, I can give you a straight answer to my koan. You, Jamie Hubbard, have buddha nature. How do I know this? I know this because I know that I have buddha nature. I have not yet (in this current discussion) recognized your buddha nature because I have not been able to cut
>through your academic nihilism.

There's a philosophical problem here. Using "have" does not make good buddhadharma sense. Better one say "you are buddhanatur." In the gnosis of buddhadharma one, after all, comes to know who they really are!!! not what they really have.
-------- end quote --------

I stand corrected. You, Ken O'Neill, are buddhanatur.

-------- start quote --------
The architect develop a sensitivity for habitation based on altered state learning. The only problem I can see in clients voicing opinions and needs is that of "will they be heard, will they be understood, will they be accepted" by decision makers. Aside from bigotted listeners, we have the immense problem of unenlightened communication in hearings, decision making, etc. -------- end quote --------

Alas, this is only too true.

-------- start quote --------
>But, as a manic-depressive who attempts to practice equanimity, I understand the equal part very well. IMHO, buddha nature is, while not created, still inherent in all of us.

I'd be particularly careful here. The word Buddhism and the dominant paradigm of interpretation is an artifact of white European and American males of the Victorian era.
-------- end quote --------

I am not a Buddhist. I am a recovering Episcopalian practicing the buddhadharma.


"We will convince them that they can never be free because they are weak, vicious, worthless and rebellious....In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say we don't mind being your slaves as long as you feed us." -- Dostoevsky, "The Grand Inquisitor"


Very truly yours,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sally Clay, Zangmo Blue Thundercloud
*** Northampton, Mass.
"Where the coffee is strong and so are the women."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^