Buddhist Paradoxology

I wish to characterize the Buddhist usage of seeming contradictory propositions and ideas as “Buddhist Paradoxology.” I do this for sheer fun. First, the eight kinds of profundities (zab mo brgyad) or eight kinds of profound teachings (zab mo’i chos rnam pa brgyad) should be explored. Such a paradoxology is very typical of the Prajñāparamitā doctrines and all those that are based on or inspired by these. A staring point would be the following:  Mi-pham, mKhas ’jug (§): ’o na bden pa gnyis su phye ba don med cing bden pa gcig tu ’gyur ro snyam na | bden pa gnyis su phye ba ni bden pa gcig pu don dam bden pa mthar thug pa chos dbyings mnyam pa nyid ’di la ’jug pa’i thabs yin pas don yod la | mthar thug pa den pa gcig pu chos thams cad gdod nas zhi zhing ma skyes la mya ngan las ’das pa mnyam pa nyid yin par rgyal ba nyid kyis gsungs zhing shing rta chen po rnams kyis bstan bcos dag las kyang de ltar bsgrubs zin to || de ltar zab mo’i mthar thug pa’i don ’di la bzod pa nam thob na de’i tshe de bzhin gshegs pa’i gsungs rabs mtha’ dag gi bstan don zab cing rgya che ba thams cad la nges pa’i shes pa the tshom gyi smag dang bral ba skye ba yin no || ’on kyang theg pa chen po la blo ma sbyangs shing tshogs bsags pa dman pa bden gnyis ’gal bar ’dzin pa’i blo can rnams skrag pa’i gnas su ’gyur mod kyi | zab mo brgyad ldan rtogs pa’i shes rab kyi spyan dang ldan pa rnams gnas ’di la shin tu yid ches par ’gyur te | zab mo brgyad gang zhe na | skye ba dang skye med lta bu bden pa gnyis po de dag byis pa’i blo la ’gal ba ltar snang yang | zab mo’i chos nyid gzigs pa rnams kyi ngor | don dam par skye ba brtag na dben bzhin rten ’brel bslu med kyi dbang gis tha snyad du skye ba yod pa ’gal ba med par ma zad don gcig tu ’char ba skye ba la zab pa | de bzhin du don dam par ’gag pa med kyang tha snyad du ’gag pa yod pa ’gal med don gcig tu rtogs pa ’gag pa la zab pa | slob lam du shes rab kyis de bzhin nyid shes kyang thabs mkhas pas dus min par mngon du mi byed par gsungs pa la | blo chung ba dag gis de bzhin nyid shes shing goms par bya ba yin na mngon du byed mi rung ba ci zhig yod | yod na shes shing goms par bya ba don med do snyam du khong du chud dka’ la | blo ldan rnams de bzhin nyid shes shing goms pa’i stobs kyis de ’ba’ zhig dus min par mngon du mi byed par yongs su dag pa mthar thug pa’i ngo bos mngon du byed pa ’gal med don gcig tu shes pa de bzhin nyid rtogs pa la zab pa | don dam spros bral la sbyin sogs sgrub tu med par shes bzhin tha snyad du sbyin sogs tshad med par sgrub pa yang | phal pa’i blo la sgrub tu med na sbyin sogs sgrub par yang mi ’thad la | sgrub par byed na sgrub pa med pa yang ma yin no snyam du ’gal ba’i tshul gyis de’i don mi shes kyang | zab mo’i blo dang ldan pa dag gis don dam par sgrub tu med pa’i dbang gis tha snyad du sgrub pa dang de’i ’bras bu ’grub pa bslu med du yod kyi | don dam par yod na de lta bu mi rigs pa’i tshul shes nas de gnyis don gcig tu rtogs pa shes bya la zab pa | don dam par chos gang yang dmigs su med pas mthong ba ci yang med la | ci yang ma mthong ba de nyid mthong ba’i dam pa’o zhes gsungs pa la | blo dman pa dag gis | ci yang ma mthong ba la mthong ba’i dam pa ci zhig yod | mthong ba dam pa yod na de nyid mthong ba yin gyi ci yang ma mthong ba ma yin no snyam du ’gal bar ’dzin la | zab mo’i blo ldan rnams kyis dngos dngos med kyi chos su gtogs pa’i mthong ba’am dmigs par bya ba yod na de nyid de’i mtshan mar ’dzin pa dang lta bar gyur pa yin pas mi rtog pa’i ye shes yod mi srid la | dmigs pas mthong bar bya ba ci yang med pa’i don so so rang gis rig pa la the tshom med cing chos kun gyi gnas lugs bsam gyis mi khyab pa ’di kho na yin par nyams su myong ba yod pa’i tshul khong du chud pa shes pa la zab pa | de bzhin du don dam par chos gang yang spyod du med pa la spyod pa ni spyod pa’i mchog ste gnas lugs kyi don la spyod par gsungs pa la’ang gong du bshad pa’i tshul gyis ’gal med don gcig tu rtogs pa spyod pa la zab pa | yang dag pa’i don du bsgrub bya sgrub byed gnyis med kyang tha snyad du lam sgrub pa yang gong du bshad pa’i tshul gyi ’gal med don gcig tu rtogs pa gnyis med la zab pa | kun rdzob tu tshogs gnyis rdzogs par byed la don dam par de’i ’bras bu sangs rgyas thob du med par bstan pa dang | thob med nyid thob pa’i mchog tu bstan pa la’ang | byis pa rnams kyis ’gal ’dur bzung nas | sgra ji bzhin du rtogs mi nus par rnam bzhag gzhan dang gzhan du ’chad par sems kyang | zab mo’i blo dang ldan pa rnams kyis don dam par thob tu yod pa dmigs pa can zhig yod na bsam gyis mi khyab pa’i ye shes kyi sku can sangs rgyas nyid ma yin te chos nyi tshe bas bsdus pa’i ’bras bu nyi tshe ba’o || chos nyid bsam gyis mi khyab pa’i gnas lugs ni bsgrub thob med par shes kyang | de ’dra’i chos nyid mngon du ’gyur ba la blo bur gyi dri ma dag byed tshogs gnyis tshogs dgos pa yin zhing | de yang don dam par bsgrub med dang thob med yin pa’i gnad kyis tha snyad du bsgrub cing thob pa bslu med yin pa’i tshul ’gal med don gcig tu rtogs pa ni ’bras bu mngon du byed pa’i thabs mkhas la zab pa ste | mdor na stong rten ’byung ’gal med zung ’jug don gcig tu rtogs pa’i zab mo brgyad ldan ’di ni mngon du gyur pa sa brgyad pa pa’i rtogs rigs su gsungs pa yin la | zab mo’i don dang rjes su mthun pa’i bzod pa thob pa rnams la’ang cha ’dra ba ’byung zhing | theg chen gyi dgongs don la ’jug par ’dod pa’i blo ldan rnams kyis kyang de’i rjes su mthun pa’i blo bskyed par bya dgos pa yin no ||.

Second, there are many related ideas. Some examples: ma mthong ba ni mthong ba dam pa, bgrod du med pa ni lam gyi mchog, rtsa ba med ni chos rnams kun gyi rtsa ba, ci yang med pa la cir yang ’char du rung ba, ma gzigs pa’i tshul gyis gzigs, and so forth.

Third, the idea of profundity and inconceivability in Mahāyāna Buddhism seems to be somehow related (genetically or generically) to the idea of secrecy and mystery in Mahāyāna. What makes an entity, reality, event, or mechanism amazing, wondrous, marvellous, and thus also mysterious. The Bodhicittavivaraṇa (verse no. 88; Lindtner 1997: 62) ascribed to one Nāgārjuna, in my view, expresses the marvel and mystery of the Mahāyāna paradoxology: chos rnams stong pa ’di shes nas || las dang ’bras bu bsten pa gang || de ni mtsho mtshar bas ngo mtshar || rmad du ’byung bas rmad du ’byung ||. This idea is one of the eight kinds of profundity-based Mahāyāna paradoxology.  Mi-pham in his Nges shes sgron me briefly alludes to the idea but mKhan-po Kun-dpal seems completely oblivious to it. Khro-chu ’Jam-rdor did realize it but he quotes a verse from the Pañcakrama. John Pettit (e.g. Pettit 1999: 269) does not bother to identify or even to comment on the source. It needs to be checked of the source indication is correct. I think what Mi-pham had in mind is Bodhicittavivaraṇa 88. Such a profundity-based Mahāyāna paradoxology has been, in my view, transmitted in the *Guhyagarbhatantra via what is known among the exegetes as e ma’o mtshar lnga, which actually belongs to the initiatory setting of the Tantric scripture. Also the popular idea which seems to be rooted in the gTer-ma literature, namely, the resolution of the paradoxology of the profundity and height of realization and karmic meticulousness and scruple seems to be connected with the same idea: nga lta ba nam mkha’ bas kyang mtho, las rgyu ’bras bag phye bas kyang zhib.                                     

A Buddhist Timeology

It is a little frustrating when we have an idea but we do not seem to have a suitable word to express it. I am thinking of a suitable word, a single word, for “philosophy/theory/study of time.” One finds “horology” but it is said to mean “the study and measurement of time” or “the art of making clocks and watches.” This may be indirectly related but this is not exactly what I want. I once used “temporalogy” but I am quite unhappy with it. One could use “timeology” but it is not particularly appealing either. One could perhaps use “Kālology” (from Sanskrit kāla “time”) but it can easily be confused with “kalology” (i.e. “the study of beauty; aesthetics”). But for the want of a better term, I will use here “timeology,” or specifically, “Buddhist timeology,” mainly for the sake of speculating about the Buddhist philosophies/ideas of time.

            For now, I am just collecting random Buddhist ideas that could be explored for studying the Buddhist concept of time. (1) Abhidharmically, time belongs to the category of “conditioned phenomena” (saṃskṛtadharma: ’dus byas kyi chos), and that too, to “aggregate consisting of impulses” (saṃskāraskandha: ’du byed kyi phung po). It is one of the 24 impulses dissociated from mind. One can elaborate here. (2) Speed, too, belongs to the same category. (3) Normally, time often means past, present, and future. The ontological status of time would be debated among various systems of Buddhism. (4) There is also the idea of a fourth dimension of time (i.e. dus bzhi mnyam pa nyid). (5) Some Buddhist systems propose the idea of the smallest units or moments of time. For Mādhyamikas, there is no such thing as unbreakable infinitesimal moment or span of time. This can be easily demonstrated. (6) Consider the idea of bya rdzogs kyi skad cig ma. This is completely contextual and variable. (7) One also should consider the ideas of hours, days, nights, weeks, seasons, years, decades, centuries, and various kinds of eons. (8) To my knowledge, Buddhism denies time as the agent of creation. Thus the idea that “time heals all wounds” may be acceptable as an expression but strictly speaking it would be a hollow statement. (8) Is there such a thing an auspicious time in Buddhism, for example, the birthday of the Buddha? There is such a thing. But it is not because of its special ontological status. Consider Klong-chen-pa and others in this regard. Trace Indian sources for it. There are various ideas of the suitable and unsuitable time for various kinds of activities and events. (9) Returning to the ontological status of time, perhaps the Sarvāstivādins or Vaibhāṣikas may posit that time is substantial (dravyasat: rdzas su yod pa). But for Sautrāntikas, it may simply be nominal (prajñaptisat: btags par yod pa). One may state that the Sautrāntikas posit “philosophical presentism” (i.e. the view that neither the future nor the past exist”). What is sure is that according to the Sautrāntikas, if something is existent, it must exist only in the present. The Mādhyamikas deconstruct all notions of time.  (10) One can indeed speak of a Buddhist philosophy of time or Buddhist timeology. In some Mahāyāna sources, time is considered to be one of the ten or so fields of expertise (mkhas par bya ba’i gnas). (11) One must also consider the ideas of speed and duration. (12) The ideas and practices of time-keeping and time-telling according to Vinaya sources should be studied. (13) Buddhist timeology would naturally include elements of astrology found in Buddhist sources. (14) Any other ideas related to the Buddhist ideas of time should be added here.

Buddhist Evolutionology

Apologies that I am using this neologism “Buddhist evolutionology.” Why am I using it? Because I need it. Should anyone else follow suit? No. The topic of the Buddhist concept of how external world of habitat and internal world of inhabitants, i.e. bhājanaloka and sattvaloka, originated and evolved, is fascinating. One does not have to believe what the Buddhist sources say. But one should, in my view, attempt to understand what they say or try to say. The venues of exploration are plenty. Here, too, as anywhere else, it will be desirable to look at the topic from both its diachronic and synchronic perspectives. What are the most archaic ideas of evolution that we can trace? How did these ideas evolve in due course at various times in history and in different places, systems, schools, and sources?

            Right now, I am working on the idea of secrecy in Buddhism. It just occurs to me that according to the “Buddhist evolutionology” suggested by Abhidharmic sources, which I am not giving them away yet, the psychology of secrecy is actually rooted in the psychology of privacy, the need for privacy is rooted in the psychology of guilt and shame, the psychology of guilt and shame is rooted in gender and sexuality. Interestingly, Buddhist evolutionology does not seem to ascribe the function of procreation as the primary function of gender and sexuality but rather what I call Buddhist bromatology (or Buddhist nutriology, Buddhist sitiology/sitology, and Buddhist alimentology). For better or worse (from the perspective of Buddhist soteriology), the evolution or distinction of gender has been directly attributed to the kind of nutrition that sentient beings take to sustain. Gender specific physical features evolved as a direct consequence of shifting from a much finer, lighter, and subtler form of nutriment to a grosser, heavier, and coarser form of nutriment. By the way, Buddhist nutriology speaks of four kinds of nutriment (i.e. kavaḍīkārāhāra: kham gyi zas; sparśāhāra: reg pa’i zas; manaḥsaṃcetanāhāra: yid la sems pa’i zas; and vijñānāhāra: rnam par shes pa’i zas). The intake of nutriment also has a direct consequence on the mode of excretion. Apparently, for example, there is no (and no need for) excretion if one can sustain on samādhic nutriment, for samādhic nutriment would produce no waste. Genitals thus evolved to function as apertures of excretion. There is nothing romantic about them. But what about sexual desire and sexual acts? Well, again according to Buddhist evolutionology, internal world of inhabitants evolves in a descending order and thus saṃsāric evolution is seen as a form of decadence and the hierarchy of the world is inversely proportional to the intensity and density of cognitional-emotional defilements (kleśa: nyon mongs pa) and detrimental karmic yields. It is the kāmarāga (sensual and particularly sexual desire) that propels the evolution of kāmadhātu, and not vice versa. In this regard, the evolution of sexual organs and sexual activities maybe seen as the actualization and manifestation of one’s sexual desire. One is, so to speak, born in the kāmadhātu to live out one’s kāmarāga (with all its implications). But obviously human beings in the kāmic sphere are not particularly proud of their kāmic desires and pleasures, kāmic organs, and kāmic activities. So, they prefer to keep these private and secret. The Abhidharmic evolutionology, in fact, clearly tells us that home or house was felt necessary and hence built, not primarily to protect oneself from other dangers but to protect one’s privacy, so that one’s kāmic activities can be performed and kāmic desire fulfilled in privacy and secrecy, without the peering or jeering eyes of onlookers besieged with all kinds of cognitional-emotional defilements. In short, at least according to Abhidharmic evolutionology, the need for secrecy is rooted in the need for privacy, and the need for privacy is rooted in one’s cognitional-emotional defilements, about which one is not particularly proud but rather embarrassed and ashamed of.