Shortcut to this blog post: https://tinyurl.com/redpinelanka
If remembering correctly the only text the legendary Bodhidharma took with him to the East was the Lankavatara Sutra. That in itself ought be enough to read it. So after urging of a Dharma friend; the perception were it seems Chan has moved away from [amazon affiliate program link]: The Lankavatara Sutra — Translation and Commentary and more towards the Diamond Sutra; and after attending a Red Pine San Francisco Zen Center (online) event on his translation of “the Lanka” I finally read the thing. And still feeling I know very little about Mahayana, I can still ask questions (as a contribution) with somewhat of a beginners mind right?
- What is/are the source(s) of this text?
- Who wrote it down and when?
- What and where are the oldest surviving copies of the Lanka?
- Do we have any idea of how many alterations it went through before the most original source copies we have now?
- Isn’t the notion that everything beings experience — described again and again in the Lanka — as merely “projections that are perceptions of their own minds” itself a projection that is perception of the mind?
- Does, or could viewing everything as a projection that is a perception of one’s own mind neglect that which is our relative / consensual reality (in an impractical, irresponsible way)?
- What then is the best way to bridge such (a) profound realization with our everyday lives?
- How does reality differ for Yakshas/yakkhas vs humans (as this sutra opens Ravana, ruler of the yakshas)?
- For example, is what’s (more) relevant in one realm not in the other?
- What all differs on the wheel of dependent origination for 4 aggregate beings in formless realms vs 5 aggregate beings (other than namarupa)?
- If everything “is merely a matter of projections, which are themselves nothing but perceptions of the mind,” and put another way just “habit-energy of projections of the beginningless past” how does this address abhidhamma teachings of the four types of kalapas or ultimate materiality? [Other than mind born kalapas there’s also said to be fire born, kamma born and nutriment born kalapas]
- How can we best address the paradox of having to deeply discriminate in order to know there is nothing to discriminate or that such a thing as this is an illusion?
- How ought we best go about (not) having this notion of “everything is an illusion” as an excuse for harmful actions?
- How are manas consciousness and alaya consciousness not conceptual (consciousnesses)?
- If everything is a projection of the mind why aren’t there weirder things in the world due to (instant) “manifestations”? And why does it (then) seem so challenging for many to “manifest” things?
- How does the notion of “projections of one’s own mind” work with not-self? If there’s not a self who, or what, or where do the (mind) projections come from? And how? Projected on to what, or where?
- What are the origins of perception and mind?
- How does “everything is a perception of one’s mind” differ from the perception of the skandhas?
- About truth:
- “If they [tathagatas] taught the truth / in beings’ minds would be no truth” <– does this mean truth wouldn’t take or stick in the mind of beings?
- Also: “. . . but nothing I reveal is real.” <– Does this then negate everything mentioned in the Lanka? Why?
- The statement of “Akanishtha Heaven is the highest heaven in the realm of form. It is also the place where buddhas are enlightened and where they are said to attain their sambhoga–kaya, or body of realization.” What does Theravada say about this? How can a Buddha not already be enlightened before getting into that heaven? Or does this mean this Akanishtha Heaven is the place where buddhas are enlightened before entering into final human birth to attain Buddhahood? Or something else?
- How and why have beings forsaken their good roots? How does this work? How does the process of a Buddha returning a being’s good roots happen?:
Mahamati, what is meant by forsaking good roots? This refers to slandering the bodhisattva canon247 and falsely claiming it is not in accord with the teachings of liberation in the sutras or in the vinaya.
Pine, Red. The Lankavatara Sutra: Translation and Commentary (p. 101). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.
- Who or what transcends?
- Does the the emptiness of mutual exclusion — “the emptiness of this not applying to that” apply to the concept of tathagata-garbha? If so how?
- [Why is tathagata-garbha sometimes hyphenated and sometimes not in this translation?]
- Are the concepts of five lineages of realization, habit-energy, repository consciousness, transcendence, emptiness, non-arising, non-dualism, and being devoid of self-existence also a projection of one’s mind?
- If there’s not even mind (because how can mind be proved?) how can there be the perception and/or misperception of anything, even illusions, ie. how is there even the possibility of experiencing what’s deemed illusionary?
- If phenomena are “projections of one’s own mind” why not more projections of non-affliction, happiness, and good stuff in this world?
- What does this mean:
5. Cessation is unceasing / one thought follows another / before they focus on form / on what do they depend to arise
6. Because this arises from that / arising from what isn’t real / how could something be momentary / if it was never complete
Selection from part LXXXVII of The Lankavatara Sutra: Translation and Commentary by Red Pine (p. 259). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.
Integrating Presence 