Emptiness and Omnipresence

30 Dec 2025 - 30 Dec 2025
Open in Logseq
    • book by Brook Ziporyn
    • Ch 5 How Not to Know What You Are Doing

      • Really starts to get into Lotus Sutra
      • Points out something simple and retrospectively obvious about rebirth doctrines – it's not heaven, it's not a comforting form of afterlife, because in your next rebirth you won't have any better idea about the reality of rebirth than you have now. (p74) You_t+1 won't have any memory of being Yout, just as Yout doesn't remember being you_t-1. It's an unbroken chain of ignorance.
      • Applies to future selves too. Why should we care about them? Seinfeld quoted:
        • I never get enough sleep. I stay up late at night, cause I’m Night Guy. Night Guy wants to stay up late. “What about getting up after five hours sleep?,” oh that’s Morning Guy’s problem. That’s not my problem, I’m Night Guy. I stay up as late as I want. So you get up in the morning, you’re exhausted, groggy. . . oooh I hate that Night Guy! See, Night Guy always screws Morning Guy. There’s nothing Morning Guy can do. The only thing Morning Guy can do is try and oversleep often enough so that Day Guy loses his job and Night Guy has no money to go out anymore.
      • what appears to be our selfish care for ourselves, for our own future, accoding to Buddhist nonself theory, is actually already a kind of compassion for someone "else". (p75)
        • Rarely has a passage seemed both so profound and trite. I mean, I already figured out this stuff? Still seems good to have it crystallized in this context.
        • And actually this reframes it. Maybe it excuses narcissism, all that fascination of self at self is also really for someone "else", someone quite imaginary.
      • We can see already that the dichotomy between selfishness and compassion cannot be absolute in a Buddhist context. Compassion is unavoidable; it is a necessary condition of all living beings, of all action, of all life. It’s just a question of the range and criteria of its application. (p77)
        • This seems to ignore the problems of hostility and malevolence, action which seemingly is without compassion. I suppose the answer is that Nazis are being compassionate narrowly, just for future Nazis and at the expense of the outgroups. That sounds weird but I think it is close to an accurate statement of the Buddhist position?
    • Ch 6 The Middle Way, now even middlier

      • p?-94 getting at the memetic infectious nature of dharma. Anyone who receives the Buddha's teaching already is a Buddha. Problem solved! And a bodhisattva so inclined to replicate the dharma, that's the reproductive aspect.
      • The Buddha sums up the situation in a phrase that is the heart of the whole Lotus Sūtra, and the key to all of Tiantai thought: “Without seeking it, we nonetheless effortlessly attained it.”
        • p95 Where it means specifically bodhisattva-hood
      • The parable of the son. Shoveling shit for 20 years because he can't accept his noble heritage. It me!
        • the promoted to accountant, which is such a perfect metaphor for the scholarly approach to Buddhism (and life in general). The accountant is counting someone else's wealth – but in the parable, it turns out to be his all along.
      • Enlightenment is not the renunciation of skillful means; rather is the mastery of all skillful means. (p97)
      • As opposed to the raft theory, that says you let go of the means once you achieve the goal.
      • Second, note how this story illustrates the key idea of the Lotus Sūtra: “Without seeking it, we nonetheless effortlessly attained it.” The son did not seek to inherit the estate. He made no effort toward that end at all. He had no desire for it. But that does not mean he made no effort at all. Quite the contrary; he was working diligently the whole time. It wasn’t that he had no desire at all, just no desire for the goal he eventually attained. In fact, he needed his desire to get there—his desire for something else. He needed to want to make his meager minimum wage and not get fired. In fact, he was completely devoted to pursuing his own desire, which was the sole means to get beyond that desire, to get something he had never dreamed of. There is **a fundamental misrecognition and misdirection involved in the means/ends process here, in the structure of desire**, just as we saw in the story of the burning house. (p97 emph added)
      • the great contribution of the Lotus Sutra to the central problem/solution of Buddhism, The Middle Way between desire and not-desire.
      • We are not to discard our desires. On the other hand, we are not to take our desires seriously, as if they could actually be fulfilled. No, desire whatever you desire and pursue it wholeheartedly. But ...what you will end up attaining through this pursuit will definitely not—or at least will not only be, or not ultimately be—whatever it is you think you’re going to attain, what you want to attain, what is motivating you to work so hard at attaining it.
      • The fulfillment of the desire will not bring the expected satisfaction. It will turn out to be a stepping-stone to attaining something completely unexpected, something you presently cannot even dream of right now, which actually subsumes and nullifies in the process the thing you thought you were striving for. So go ahead and desire, strive with all your might to attain your desires, and at the same time know that your desires are futile, are deceptions, are systematic misdirections. This is neither desirelessness nor desire: the new Middle Way.
      • I'm having some trouble digesting this. Is it identical to that line of Blake, "the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom"? In both cases I am having a kind of square reaction, which is that they sound like excuses for destructive self-indulgence.
      • When we get to chapter 10 of the Lotus Sūtra, “Teachers of the Dharma,” this expansion of assurances takes a new turn; it now is directed at the reader of the text—at you. You, as a reader of the text, are also given the assurance of future Buddhahood. That is, “anyone who hears this Lotus Sūtra and experiences even one moment of pleasure in it,” will become a Buddha—in fact, the text seems to say in Chinese that they have already become a Buddha at this moment. (p100)
        • Alakazam! Actually it makes perfect sense. The Buddha, like Jesus, is an extremely strong memetic replicator (to use rather despiritualized language for something that is obviously spiritual at the core). It even has technologies of reproduction (skillful means) and language for discussing and developing them.
      • In other words, anyone who understands what it would mean if it were true (rather than having to actually accept it as true), who understands the wondrous implications of the idea set forth here, has activated those effects. This is a strange self-verifying structure that is characteristic of the Lotus Sūtra.
      • This structure is like laughter, self-reinforcing or self-creating in some way. It creates effects –recontextualization, overflowing joy, liberation – simply by being heard.
      • By delighting in the Lotus Sūtra right now, you make it the case that in the past you were a great bodhisattva who made a vow to be born here and now as this particular ordinary person. The past is a function of the present; it is the past of this present, never definitive, always changing. The same goes for the future: by delighting in the Lotus Sūtra teaching, the teaching that anything you are doing is bodhisattvahood, you live in a present with a future Buddhahood and a past bodhisattvahood. That isthe structure of the present; it is a present with bodhisattvahood behind it and Buddhahood in front of it. (p102)
    • Ch 7 The Interpretation of All Points of View

      • Have to admit I kind of lost the plot in here. Too many proofs of how arhats are bodhisattvas and vice-versa and whatnot. Empty games, and made me long for Zen simplicity, for nondualism.