REVIEW-The Twilight Languag

8/12/2019 REVIEW-The Twilight Languag

1/10

THE JOURN L

OF THE INTERN TION L SSOCI TION OFBUDDHIST STUDIES

C O E D I T O R S I N C H I E F

GregorySchopenIndiana University

Bloomington, Indiana, USARogerJackson

Fairfield UniversityFairfield Connecticut, USA

E D I T O R SPeter N.Gregory

Universityof IllinoisUrbana-Cham paign, Illinois, U SA

Alexander W. MacdonaldUniversity de ParisX

Nanterre, FranceStevenCollins

Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada

Ernst SteinkellnerUniversityof Vienna

Wien, AustriaJikido Takasaki

University o f TokyoTokyo,Japan

Robert ThurmanAmherstCollege

Amherst Massachusetts, USA

Volume 11 1988 Num ber 2


2/10

C O N T E N T S

I . A R T I C L E S

T h e Sote rio logical Pu rpo se of Na gar jun a ' s Phi losophy :A S tudy o f C ha p te r Tw en ty -T hre e o f t heMula-madhyamaka-kdrikds, byW illiam L. Ames 7T h e R e d a ct io n s o f t h e Adbhutadharmaparydyafrom Gilgit ,byYael Bentor 21V acui te e t cor ps ac tual ise : Le pro ble m e de la pr esen cedes "Pers on nag es V6nereY' dan s leurs imagesselon la t r ad it i on du bo ud dh i s m e japo na i s ,byBernard F rank 51C h ' a n C o m m e n t a r i e s o n th eH eart Sutra: Pre l iminaryIn fe rences on the Pe rm uta t ion o f Ch ineseB u d d h i s m ,by John R. M cRae 8 5

II . B O O K R E V I E W S1. An IntroductiontoBuddhism, by J ik id o T akasak i

(Fe r nan do To la and C a rm en Dragon e t t i) 1152. On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation andtheM ind-BodyProblem,by Paul J. Gr iffiths(Frank Ho ffman) 1163 . The Twilight Language: Explorations in BuddhistMed itation and Sym bolism,by Ro derickS Bucknel land Mart in S tuar t -Fox(Ro ger Jackso n) 123O B I T U A R YL I ST O F C O N T R I B U T O R S 131136


3/10

REVIEWS 23out presu ppo sing that SPB is always preferable to later comm entaries or schools. As Griffiths himself shows, the store-consciousness idea itselfisnot im m un e from philosophical criticism (93).

Overall this is an excellent work. Although there is considerably m ore to Buddhist m editation and its philosophical psychology than "cessation," this book is one of the most careful studiesof a narrowly defined area of Buddhism ever to come to light.Griffiths is a philosopher's philosopher and a Buddhologist'sBuddhologist. It is difficult to be even one of these; Griffiths istruly both. Th e m ain text is well-written, the p roduction stand ardis high, and the backmatter (translations of key passages fromAbhidharmakosabhdsya and Abhidharmasamuccayabhdsya in appendices, notes, bibliography, and index) quite useful. W ithout hesitation this volume can there fore be rightly reco m m end ed as asignificant contribution to both philosophy and Buddhology.Frank J. Hoffman

The TwilightLanguage:ExplorationsinBuddhist Meditation andSymbolism, by Roderick S. Bucknell and Martin Stuart-Fox. London:Curzon Press, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1986. xiii + 233pages.In spite of Buddhism's rejection of an enduring essenceanywhere in the phenomenal world, Buddhists and Buddhistscholars alike seem forever to have been intent on finding inBuddhism itself jus t such a corea svalaksana, perhaps, on thebasis of which to unify the vast disparity of traditions that goun de r the nam e "Buddh ist." On e of the mo re intriguing of recentattempts to find such a svalaksanaat least in term s of B uddh istmeditationisThe TwilightLanguage,in which Roderick Bucknelland Martin Stuart-Fox employ a methodology "bringing togeth er. . .phenom enological description of med itation, and theanalysis of textual-historical data" (p. 197) in order to demonstrate that "the most advanced [Buddhist] meditation practices

[were] not recorded in the Tipitaka, but [were] transmittedthro ug h a secretive, elite tradition," tha t "that tradition m ay havecontinued unbroken during the millenium between Gotama'sdeath and th e composing of thetantras and that "the Vajrayana[was] a surfacing of the h ithe rto hidd en elite transm ission whichGotam a had initiated" (pp . 3 3 -3 4). Such a thesis, if proved , would


4/10

124 J I A B S V O L . i l NO . 2alter greatly our understanding of the relationship between twotypes of Budd hist med itation that often are felt to be polar oppo -sites: Theravadin satipafthdna and tantric sddhana. Such amethodology , if successful, could ch ang e forever the way in whichBuddhist studies are conducted.Bucknell and Stuart-Fox's argu m ent proceeds throu gh fourrelatively distinct stages.(1) In the first stage, the authors establish the relativelyuncontroversial point that the re is a funda m ental difference between th e two types of me ditation favored by Budd hists, tranquility and insight, the one being reductive and non-discursive, theother inclusive and observational. They point out that the mostcommon early formulation of the path, as eightfold, seems toemphasize tranquility at the expense of insight, but that thelimitations of tranquility and the centrality of insight have beenunderstood by Buddhists from the outset. Co m paring thenikdyas'ap pa re nt paucity of discussion on insight with th e obvious im portance of insight to Buddhists everywhere, the authors concludethat there must have existed an "elite meditative tradition"founded by Gotama to transmit the practices of insight meditation. (2) Having analyzed the "early" textual-historical data andfound clear accounts of insight meditation wanting, the authorsare faced with having to provide an account of a phenomenonthat they themselves admit is ill-defined. Their solution to thehistorical difficulties is to apply wh at they call a "ph enom enolo g-ical" methodology, whereby actual introspectionthe practiceof meditationis employed to arrive at descriptions the texts donot yield. On the basis of their introspection, then, the authorsconclude th at insight m editation m ust occur infivedistinct stages:(a) concentration, in which there is the attempt to still the mindon a particular object, (b) thought-stream, in which, in the wakeof concentration, we become aware of the fluidity and directionality of m ind, (c) retracing , in which the thou ght-stre am is tracedbackward, (d) observation of linking, in which the relationshipsamong the various elements in the thought-stream are understood and (e) awareness, in which one dispassionately, directly,observes events as they unfold in the present.(3) Having discovered introspectively the actual nature ofinsight meditation, the authors are able to apply what they havediscovered to understanding symbolically a number of importantBuddhist categories and concepts that often are taken literally.Thus , they explain the "three knowledges" acquired by the
http://jiabsvol.il/http://jiabsvol.il/


5/10

REVIEWS 125Bu dd ha on the n ight of his enlig hten m ent as his successive mastery of retracing (remembrance of previous lives), observationof linking (clairvoyant vision of the arising and passing away ofbeings) and awareness (knowledge of the destruction of thedsavas).His enligh tenm ent or nirvdijta, thus, "was actually theattainment of [a] condition of permanent awareness" (p. 92),while thesarjisdrahe transcend ed was simply the untam ed streamof thought, the births and deaths of beings within it a symbolicway of referring to the arising and ceasing of images in the min d.Similarly, the variousariyapuggalas described in Theravada areto be classified not on the basis of the n um be r of rebirths rem aining to them, but on the basis of their progress in the fivefoldpath of insight; and the three marks of existents are related toun ders tand ings reached in each of the final thre e stages of insightpractice.(4) Finally, then, the authors analyze in some detail thefivefold symbolism employed in Buddhist tantric systems, especially inmaqa alas and the system of cakras in the subtle body.Th ey conclud e that this symbolism ultimately refers to the unfolding of the five stages of insight meditation described above. Th u s,the different "dhyani Buddhas" of a tantric mawtala, as well asthe various mudrds,vehicles, seed-syllables an d elem ents associated with them, refer to different phases of insight meditation: "themariaala does have symbolic meaning. . .it symbolizesthe meditative path to enlightenment" (p. 148). By the sametoken, the different cakras in the subtle body refer not to "real'psychic centres,' which can be opened if one applies the rightmeditative tech niques"(p.152),but aswemight now expecttothe stages of insight analyzed by the authors. Thus, the codebehind the tantric "twilight language"{sarpdhd-bhdfd)tha t so longhas perplexed scholars has been broken: it is insight that is intended by those knotty terms and symbols.W hat a re we to make of all this? Th er e is mu ch in Bucknelland Stuart-Fox's account thatisinteresting an d provocative: theiranalysis of eightfold versus tenfold Theravada path-structures,their suggestions about the way in which symbolic systems areshaped to conform with pre-existing conceptual patterns andtheir explorations of the symbolic import of the elements of themarufala. Also, to their credit, they are modest abo ut the evidencethat can be adduced for their theory, which they consider "nomore than a hypothesis which remains open to refutation byscholars working in the field of Buddhist studies" (p. 191). Thissaid, it must be adde d that the re seem to be considerable difficul-


6/10

126 JIAB SV OL . 11 NO . 2ties at every stage of their argument, and with the methodology,too.I can not e nu m era te all the difficulties any more th an I couldspell out the argument itself intoto, but let me indicate some ofthe areas that appear most problematic, with regard first toTheravada, then to tantra, then to their methodology.The first problem we encounter with the authors' analysisof Therava da is perh aps the most fundam ental: their belief thatinsight meditation is not really taught in the Tipitaka, and thatit must, therefore, have been transmitted by an "elite meditativetradition." Now there is little doubt that in the nikdyas insightmeditation receives less detailed treatment than tranquility and/or thejhdnas, and certainly its practice canno t fully be un der stoo dwithout the instructions of a teacher who must transmit knowledg e beyond what is found in the texts. Nev ertheless, this hardlyjustifies the claim that there is in thenikdyasa vast lacuna whe reinsight ought to be, since insight meditation is discussed in considerable detail in the two recensions of the SatipaUhdna Sutta.Th u s , there exists an overt, exoteric tradition of insight meditation to which the authors barely refer. The existence of thistradition would seem,ipso facto, to reduce the necessity or likelihood of an esoteric tradition such as the authors propose. Theauthors themselves admit that the existence of such a traditionis not given much weightbypositivetextual or historical evidence;and if the neg ative evidence they cite (the absence of de scriptionsof insight) is problematic, then evidence of any kind seemsdif-ficult to adduce. I am not denying that there may in fact havebeen an esoteric tradition in early Bu ddh ism; w hat am qu estioning is whether the authors have provided convincing evidenceof such a tradition.

Further problems are raised by the authors' introspectivediscovery of the five stages of insight m editation. I have no qua rrel with their fivefold process as a (possibly) accuratephenomenological description of what happens in generalinm editation. W hat is problem atic is the assertion that this is whatBuddhist meditation really is and always has been. The existenceof the exoteric tradition of insight meditation described in theSatipaUhdna suttasprovides r ath er stro ng evidence tha t insightmeditation traditionally has been regarded as fourfold, depending on w heth er its objectisthe body, sensations, mind ordhamma s.T he SatipaUhdna suttasgive fairly detailed instruc tions on howeach of these "foundations of mindfulness" is to be developed,and nowhere is anything like the authors' fivefold schemesuggested. Furthermore, the authors themselves admit (p. 59)


7/10

R E V I E W S 127that th ere is no textual cor rob ora t ion for the s tage of " re t rac ing ,"an d they pro vide n o co r rob ora t ion for wh at they call "observat ionof l inking." Indeed, the only two of their f ive s tages thatdoseemexpl ic i t ly warranted by the texts are "concentra t ion" and "awareness , " which cor respond to the two procedures tha t seem alwaysto have been r ecognized by Buddhis t medi ta to r s .

Sti ll a fu r th er pr ob lem is enta iled by th e au th o rs ' insis tencethat such centra l Buddhis t concepts as rebir th , samsdra a ndniruariam ust be un de rs to od symbol ica lly , as rep res en t in g s tagesof ins ight me di ta t io n. W ha t is t rou bl in g abo ut th is is not thepar t i cu la r symbol ic cor r espondences the au thor s d raw, a s thefact tha t they insist on dra w in g th em . I t is qu ite ev ide nt f romtheir remarks in a number of places (especially p. 196) that theyare uncomfor table wi th a l i te ra l reading of t radi t ional Buddhis tcosmology, an d fear tha t it will be fou nd i r re levan t to the m od ernworld if i t is not reinterpreted symbolically. They regard theanlys is of mind in ins ight medi ta t ion as far more profound andcompel l ing than a t radi t ional cosmology, and so ins is t tha t tha tcosmology must mere ly be symbol ic of the deeper process wi thwhich they are concerned. No doubt , t radi t ional cosmology maybe read symbolically, and of ten has been; this does not mean,however , tha t i t never has been or should be meant l i te ra l ly ,tooand some would a rgue tha t tha t l i t e r a l r ead ing prov idesthe bas ic impetus and context for the prac t ice of ins ight medi tat ion itself T hu s , l ike so ma ny mo de rn in te rpre te r s o f Bud dh ism ,the authors go ra ther too far in ins is t ing tha t Buddhis ts have notreally believed things that Buddhists have, in fact , believed and,in most cases, continue to believe.

As no ted above , Buckne l l and S tua r t -Fox have under takena deta i led and fasc inat ing explora t ion of tantr ic symbol ism inthat sec t ion of the book where they turn to the Vajrayana andi ts l inks to the "e l ite me di ta t ive t rad i t ion ." T he y ex am ine var iousli st s o f "dhya ni B ud dh as" and the i r cor r es po nde nce s wi th va r iouse l e m e n t s , e m b le m s , skandhas, mudrds, cakras, etc. , which are, inturn, cor re la ted with the s tages of ins ight medi ta t ion. Unfor tunately, their central contention, that the essential ly f ivefold symbol ism of tantra represents the f ive s tages of ins ight medi ta t ion,s imply is no t bo rn e ou t . T h o u g h they have famil iar ized the m selves with several of the symbolic schemes found in tantra, andavai led themselves of a number of author i ta t ive secondarysources in the area , the authors show l i t t le indica t ion of havingexamined the ways in which marufalaso r cakras t radi t ional ly areut i l ized, e .g . , in the context of genera t ion- or complet ion-s tage


8/10

128 J I A B S V O L . I I N O . 2sadhana practices. An appreciation of thesesadhana contexts, inturn, should make it evident that, while a "meditation-stage"interpretation cannot be ruled out (one never can rule out alternative inte rpretatio ns of tantric symbolism ), the symbolism doesnot seem centrallyconce rned to reflect meditative stages, so muchas an array of divine forces. And, again, even if "stage-symbolism"is appropriate in some contexts, there is no evidence that thestages symbolized are those identified by the authors.A noth er difficulty posed by the auth ors ' treatm ent of tantrais that in analyzing the symbolism, they insist on a particular setof relations among the five stages of insight, the five dhyaniBuddhas, the five mudrds and the five elements, such that anyschem e that deviates from what they consider the norm isrejectedor revised. Thus, the sequencing of the dhyani Buddhas Vai-rocana, Aksobhya, Ratnasambhava, Amitabha and Amoghasid-dhi is declared to be "symbolically meaningless" (p. 150); andAmitabhaisreassigned from the fire to the water elemen t becauseof his association with the thought-stream and passivity (p. 185).It is not beyond imagining that there are inconsistencies andincoherencies in tantric symbolic schemes; on the other hand, touse a fivefold insight schem e tha t is itselfahypothetical historicalconstruct as thea priorion the basis of which tantric schemes areto be understood and judged, seems precipitous.A final, perhaps minor, difficulty with the authors' discussion of tantra is that they use the term "twilight language" quiteimprecisely. If we grant for the sake of argument that this is anadequate translation for satfidhd-bhdsd it nevertheless remainsthe case that the authors seem to take the term as synonymouswith "tantric symbolism." Th er e may be some sense in which thisis true, but they fail to discuss the context in which twilightlanguage most often is found: the dohasand carydgiti of thesahajiydsandmahdsiddhas. We are a long way from und erstan dingall that their twilit speech connoted, but the best guesses revolvearou nd various completion-stagesadhana practices and the pursuit of that multivalentsummumbonum,mahdmudrd; that twilightlanguage symbolizes a set of practices like those discussed by theauthors is not impossible, but it is less likely.Before closing, I want to comment very briefly on Buckneliand Stuart-Fox's methodology, which, it may be recalled, combines phenomenological accounts of introspection with textual-historical analysis. Meditation hardly has been a standard tool ofmodern Buddhist scholarship. Some might regret this, as theauthors do, and argue that meditation may hold the answers to


9/10

REVIEWS 129man y historical and textual problem s that are insoluble otherwise.This may be, butifmeditation is to be a tool of Bu ddh ist studies,I fear that it must be used with greater care than by the presentauthors. The experiential sample from which they are drawingnever is made entirely clear, and they are rather indiscriminatein their comparisons of these experiences with those of others,citing with approb ation anyon e, Buddhist or non-Budd hist, whoappears to share their ideas, and ignoring or explaining awayaccounts that seem to differ. Thus, the fivefold scheme of insightmeditation that they discover comes to exercise a kind of determinative tyranny over the book, shaping all textual readings, allhistorical analysis. Yet, as we have seen, the fivefold scheme mayreflect an accu rate account of the autho rs' sense of what med itation is and ought to be, but it does not tally so neatly with traditional Buddhist accounts of meditationand that is what theyare purporting to explain.Indeed, if there is a central problem in the book, it may bethat Bucknell and Stuart-Fox are not careful enough to separateexplanation from interpretation or history from "theology." Ifthey merely were saying, "this is our experience of meditation,and this is how we think Theravada and tantra ought to beinterpreted by sensible modern people," they they would havem ade a valuable contribu tion to the on going process of Budd hist"theology"indeed, I suspect that their views and modes of interpretation are shared by many. It seems to me that they aregoing farthe r, tho ug h, crossing the line into saying: "Th is is howit is and this is how it must have been, historically." When theycross that line, they are m aking assertions tha t they must corrob orate by more than the silence of texts and their own intuitionand this they fail to do.In spite of the problems in their arguments and methodology, we are in debt to Bucknell and Stuart-Fox for raising a hostof issues that deserve furth er explora tion.Canintrospection serveas a methodological tool for Buddhist studies? If so,under whatconditions? How will conflicting introspective claims be adjudicated? What is the process whereby symbolic schemes come tobe the way they are? Do they spring full-grown from the visionaryexperience, or do they reflect the manipulation of pre-existentsets of terms that must be adapted to a new context? AreTheravada and tantric meditation as radically different as sooften has been supposed, or are there not, at the very least,"family resemblances"detectable in the textual traditionthatunite them? Are there, for instance, structural parallels between


10/10

REVIEW-The Twilight Languag

Documents

Transcript of REVIEW-The Twilight Languag