The Wave and the Ocean

Just a couple of pages after the long quote from the Lankavatara Sutra that I mentioned in the previous post, there is a well known text where the Buddha compares the store consciousness (Alayavijnana) with the ocean, and the discriminating, conceptualizing mind as the wave. Now we all know that waves and the ocean are one and the same. There can be no waves without the ocean, and there can be no ocean without the waves (it just is not physically possible). So in essence the ocean and the waves are one the same, so are the conceptualizing mind and the Alayavijnana.

Now let us look at the text:

Like waves that rise on the ocean stirred by the wind, dancing and without interruption,

The Alaya-ocean in a similar manner is constantly stirred by the winds of objectivity, and is seen dancing about with the Vijnanas which are the waves of multiplicity

(The Lankavatara Sutra, D. T. Suzuki transl. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 2003, p. 42).

Now the alayavijnana is usually translated as ’store consciousness’ and refers to a seed of awakening that is already inside of us. It is the very nature of individual consciousness itself and has the characteristic of knowing and being conscious. All of our past karmic patterns are recorded in the Alayavijnana, and these will cease to be operative only when we have achieved total Liberation or nirvana or become a bodhisattva at the eighth stage. Basically speaking, the karmic patterns in the store consciousness will cease to function to us individually when we manage to merge ourselves totally with nature, or more accurately speaking, when we realize what is already there from the beginning - that there is no ‘ego’, no ‘I’, who functions as the perpetrator of actions and who thus receives the fruit.

The reason why we are still struggling in the ocean of samsara is because we do not realize this truth. However, this is not just a matter of being told and telling oneself. You have to become ‘one and the same’ with the teaching; every breath and every pore of your skin has to become one the same with the teaching. It is not just an intellectual exercise. All kinds of sufferings arise because the individual mind thinks that there is this thing and that thing and so on, and these imagined things are perceived and cognized to be affecting us in one way or another. This is only possible because the mind thinks of itself as something, some durable thing, that is, the ego.

Now when we do meditation, we try to observe the goings on of our thoughts. This is easier than it sounds, believe me. The key is to let the mind become still and calm on its own, through practices such as breathing meditation or hearing meditation that I talked about in an earlier post. Then when thoughts pop up, let us not follow them. We have been following our thoughts for no one knows how long. Now let us try to reverse the process and instead of immersing ourselves in whatever topic we happen to be thinking about, let us take a distance from that and see the thinking from outside. See the content of the thinking and its nature. Try to see when the thinking happens and when it ends, and — this is most important — try to be aware of the small gap that takes place after a previous thinking stops and before a new thinking starts. This is where the luminosity and the alayavijnana is.

The Lankavatara Sutra

Yesterday I went to the office of the Thousand Stars Foundation and found that there were a number of new books waiting to be catalogued and arranged on shelves. The books were given to the Foundation by Anne Tuech, a friend of the Foundation who had helped us with a lot of things. She gave the books to the Foundation so that more could benefit from them. As we say in Thai, we “anumodana-ed” with her merits — that is, we rejoiced sympathetically with her good merits.

Now one of the books was a copy of D. T. Suzuki’s translation of The Lankavatara Sutra. It turned out that I was looking for this important text for some time and in fact I had been using the online text of this version for quite some time. Thus finding the book at the Foundation office was indeed a blessing.

The main idea behind the Sutra is that everything that we perceive is but a manifestation of our own mind. That is, when we perceive things around as being the things that they appear to be to the untrained, unpracticed eyes, we are in fact see our own projections. This is corroborated by a teaching on karma by Deshung Rinpoche, whose oral teaching on The Three Levels of Spiritual Perception I have been reading very closely. In that book, Deshung Rinpoche teaches that one of the results of the karma we did is that the environment in which we live is conditioned by that very karma that we did. This is very startling to me. The idea seems outrageous at first. In what way could it be the case that my own environment is conditioned by the karma or the action that I did?

But when one thinks about it, one begins to see how this is possible. Suppose somebody is full of anger all the time, his mind would then be filled with all the defilements and all the malices that go with anger. So he will very often meet with all these ill wills and hatred and things like that. This is just another way of saying that his environment is conditioned by his karma. Suppose you are full of anger, chances are that you will associate yourselves with those who share the same anger, or the same habit of mind that leads to anger and ill will. This is your environment.

On the other hand, it is quite easy to imagine that one whose mind is directed toward benevolence and compassion will find another environment which is very different from the one mentioned above. Moreover, our karma does more than that. It conditions the kind of life and the kind of world we are born into. Our environment then is conditioned by the karma.

The point is that the idea that the objectively existing environment is conditioned by the karma, which is action performed with intention, shows that there is an intimate connection between the subject and the object, so much so that it does not make much sense, ultimately speaking, to say which is which and how to distinguish among the two. This is also the message of the Lankavatara Sutra. In a way, the mind creates the world. In as much as our karma does condition the kind of environment we find ourselves in, our mind does create the world. Everything we perceive — rocks, trees, mountains, cars, traffic lights, and so on — are nothing but pictures that play itself out before our conceiving mind.

Moreover, deep down behind these pictures is what Suzuki calls “Mind” itself. This is neither subjective nor objective, since it is the condition by which both the subject and the object become possible in the first place. This Mind (with the big M) is not an individual mind, nor is it the case that ordinary things are made up of it in the Berkeleian sense. It is that the conception of the subject and the object itself owes its dependence to this primordial being which is self existing and has no beginning. Thus, when it is said in the Sutra that every individual objects are projection of the Mind, it should be understood as a projection of this universal, individual-transcending Mind, and not as individual minds in the Berkeleian sense. In Sanskrit the subject-object transcending Mind is the Alayavijnana and the individual, discriminating and conceptualizing mind is the manas.

Let us look rather closely at the text itself. On page 40 of the Suzuki version, which is on Section IX of Chapter Two, the Blessed One is speaking to the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Mahamati thus:

Then the Blessed One again speaking to Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva said thus: The reasons whereby the eye-consciousness arises are four. What are they? They are: (1) The clinging to an external world, not knowing that it is of Mind itself; (2) The attaching to form and habit-energy accumulated since beginningless time by false reasoning and erroneous views; (3) the self-nature inherent in the Vijnaya; (4) The eagerness for multiple forms and appearances. By these four reasons, Mahamati, the waves of the evolving Vijnanas are stirred on the Alayavijnana which resembesl the waters of a flood. The same [can be said of the other sense-consciousnesses] as of the eye-consciouness. This consciousness arises at once or by degrees in every sense organ including its atoms and pores of the skin; the sense-field is apprehended like a mirror reflecting objects, like the ocean swepa over by a wind. Mahamati, similarly the waves of the mind-ocean are stirred, uninterruptedly by the wind of objectivity; cause, deed, and appearance condition one another inseparably; the functioning Vijnanas and the original Vijnana are thus inextricably bound-up together; and because the self-nature of form, etc., is not comprehended, Mahamati, the system of the five consciousnesses (vijnanas) comes to function. Along with this system of the five Vijnanas, there is what is known as Manovijnana [i.e., the thinking function of consciousness], whereby the objective world is distinguished and individual appearances are distinctly determined, and in this the physical body has its genesis. But the Manovijnana and other Vijnanas have no thought that they are mutually conditioned and that they grow out of their attachment to the discrimination which is applied to the projections of Mind itself. Thus the Vijnanas go on functioning mutually related in a most intimate manner and discriminating a world of representation.

The basic idea is that the physical things arise (this is only a metaphorical speaking, for the Sutra does not say that the individual mind has the power to create physical things ex nihilo) because of the discriminating and conceptualizing function of the five sense consciousnesses and one mental, discriminating consciousness. What is really important is that the consciousnesses or the vijnanas here are mutually dependence on each other. There can be no recognition and conceptualization of this as, say, a table without the conceptualizing mind or consciousness, and this conceptualizing mind itself would have no object to conceptualize if there were no object for it to do that. So both the mind (ordinary one) and object do indeed depend on each other. Without the mind, no object is even possible, and without the object, the mind has no content, which then means that it ceases to function as what it is, namely as a conceptualizing mind.

Tammy Lost to Defending Champ

Yesterday Tammy lost to the defending Wimbledon champion Venus Williams, 6-4 6-3 and ended her tournament run at the quarter final. Still it is a very remarkable achievement. She made all Thais proud.

Buddha Nature

It has been a few days since Phakchok Rinpoche gave his teaching on Gampopa’s Jewel Ornament of Liberation on June 21 and 22 at the Forum Park Hotel in Bangkok. He began by talking about who Gampopa was, how he was an ordained monk, studying with Atisha, and how he eventually submitted himself and become a disciple of the great Milarepa. Then he talked about the work itself, which is a kind of a manual for attaining Liberation, starting from the basics and then develop further and further.

Rinpoche began by explaining the title of the work in Tibetan, which he translated word by word, at first saying that he might disagree with the standard translation, but in end accepted it as all right. I was thinking of the Sanskrit words for “Jewel Ornament of Liberation,” which are “Bodhiratnalankara”. I reflected on the meeaning of the title and tears welled up in my eyes when I did that. The meaning of the title was so profound. “Bodhi” means “Being awakened” or “Liberation”; “ratna” means “jewel,” something very precious, and “Alankara” means “ornament,” i.e., something that makes a thing very beautiful. Thus, “Bodhiratnalankara” means an elaboration or adornment of the greatly precious Liberation. Gampopa was presenting the Buddha’s teaching in a rather concise format. “Bodhi” is indeed a jewel; it leads us away from the ocean of samsara and toward the shore of freedom.

The first topic that Rinpoche talked about was Buddha nature. This was a difficult topic, especially considering that the majority of his audience at the hotel were Thai Theravada Buddhists, who would not have heard anything about this topic before in their Dharma studies with Theravada monks. Basically put, “Buddha nature” refers to a jewel inside the mind of each and everyone of us, which makes it possible that we eventually become a Buddha.

This is very important and when we realize this we all have the confidence that is needed for embarking on the journey. Furthermore, not only do human beings have Buddha nature, all beings in samsara have it too. This is logical because essentially all beings in samsara are one and the same. We may be human beings now, but perhaps a god or an animal in the next. It only depends on our practice and our true understanding of the nature of reality that will let the inherent Buddha nature shine forth.

Shantideva said that among the ordinary beings such as you and me, sometimes the light of Liberaton shines forth like a flash of lightning, enabling us to see things as they really are. This is only possible because of the Buddha nature. Sometimes we are awakened. Sometimes we see that things that we instinctively hold to be so substantial and permanent are not so. Everything just melts together, including our own sense of ‘me’. In that flash of moment, the Buddha inside of us is speaking to us. The goal of meditation is to expand this vision so that it become more than just brief flashes.

Tammy Won the Second Set and the Match

Now Tammy has just beated the world’s number two Jelena Jankkovic, 6-3, 6-2 to book her place in the quarter final for the first time ever at Wimbledon. Her next opponent will be the reigning champion Venus Williams, the seventh seed. As always, Tammy will be the underdog.

Actually I am not much of a tennis fan. That is to say, I don’t stay up all night to watch a match or anything like that. But this run of victories by Tammy is really a history in the making. I have known her for a long time and admired her work ethic and her personality. She never shows bad emotions on the court, and watching her play against Jankovic, she was very focused and very sharp. She hit the ground strokes like a bullet.

Jankovic, on the other hand, never found her rhythm. She let Tammy dictating her moves since the game one. Tammy took the ball very early and made difficult angles for her so that she had to cover much more of the court than Tammy did. And she made much more unforced errors. It is amazing to see how Tammy actually made a short work of Jankovic, beating her in less than an hour. Considering that Jankovic was a semi finalist at Australian Open and French Open, this is truly amazing, and as I said, a history that is unfolding before our very eyes.

So I will watch the next match against Venus Williams, who has won Wimbledon maybe three times already. But now anything can happen….

Tammy Won First Set

Right now I am watching Tammy Tanasugarn play against Jenena Jankovic. She won the first set handily 6-3 with a series of precision ground strokes that kept Jankovic wrong footed. Jankovic is seeded number 2 in this tournament.

Thai Politics in the Eyes of the PAD

Now the demonstration in Bangkok led by the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has dragged on for more than a month. It is rather doubtful what they have achieved. They started out at first against the motion for amending the constitution, but after that motion was dropped they kept on going, and changed their objective to the resignation of the Prime Minister. And now that the Prime Minister and several of his cabinet members are being grilled in Parliament in the hands of the opposition Democrats, they changed their objective again.

It is this new objective that is the most startling. In the attempt to distance themselves from the Democrats, they said that their ultimate objective is a new kind of political system where the representatives of the people have much less power and less role to play in governing the country. Instead, they are proposing that the majority of Parliament consist of appointed members. I am not making this up — appointed members.

So the essence of the PAD’s proposal is that they want to move the power from the hands of the people to the only handful of powerful elites who can appoint members of Parliament. Their latest proposal is that there be 70 percent of appointed members against 30 percent of elected members. This can be interpreted in no way other than than the people have only 30 percent of the power, and the elites 70 percent.

I cannot by any imaginative extension see how this is going to be a democratic institution at all. Surely the PAD might propose an elaborate system of searching and appointing MP’s, but in the end the power rests in the hand of the search committee, who will certainly consist mostly of senior government officials. Now government officials — judges, military officers, high ranking officials in various ministries, technocrats, etc. — are supposed to be civil servants. They are supposed to serve the people rather than lording over them.

The PAD’s main argument for this anachronistic proposal is that they feel that representative democracy has no future in Thailand. But that is a tired old argument. As true representative democracy has been given no chance to grow and settled in the past 70 years in Thailand, then how could one expect it to be strong? The PAD’s argument, in fact, has been in the air for much longer than the actual democratic system in Thailand. It was very often said that Thai people were not ready for democracy yet because some unscrupulous personalities would manipulate the system and gain power to themselves.

But aren’t the Thai elites the ones who have manipulated the system and gained power for themselves all these years? When will the people be given a chance? When will the cycle of dependence stop? When will Thai people be truly free? I don’t think the PAD’s proposal will start toward providing any satisfactory answers to these questions.

Regardless of the demonstrations, mass mobilization, and the rhetoric, the PAD is making a philosophical argument. Their core idea is that they distrust democracy. They don’t believe that democracy will work. But let us think what would be their alternative. Selection and appointment of MP’s by a limited number of elites. For them this works better. But what about those who died for democracy in Thailand in 1973, 1976 and 1992? What did they really want? Did they really want the kind of system being proposed by the PAD?

Perhaps the only strongest argument against a democratic form of government is one made, implicitly at least, by the Singaporean government. They seem to be saying: Look at what we have achieved. We have lifted a tiny country of 3 million from a third-world, developing country status to first-world, fully developed status in just a few decades. Look at our gleaming office buildings and clean, tree-lined streets. Look at how affluent and well educated the people are. Would all these have been achievable if not for the guiding hands of the People’s Action Party? What need there is for diversity of opinions and opposition parties and oppositional politics? Do you really want that?

But even the strongest argument is not strong enough for refusing democracy. But more on that later. What I want to say here is that the PAD is not envisioning Thailand to be another Singapore either. It is absolutely unclear what they really envision Thailand to be like except for getting rid of Thaksin. If representational democracy stands in the way because the people are so attached to him, then get rid of representational democracy. This is like throwing the baby with the bathwater.

Perhaps their distrust is stronger and deeper than just getting rid of a former Prime Minister. I think their distrust of democracy runs deep. It seems that representational democracy would just breed another Thaksin in the future. So getting rid of one would not solve the problem. The root cause has to be eliminated. But Thailand has experienced autocratic or oligarchical rules for so long in the past, so long that we know what it is like. The basic question is that where is the guarantee that those who are entrusted with power will be a “morally upright” one? Do we really want the fate of our country to be dependent on the character of some individuals only? Didn’t we learn about this kind of experience in our collective past?

So let us summarize the PAD’s argument as follows:

Democracy gives rise to corrupt ’strongmen’ who manipulate the system and gain power to themselves.

Therefore the only way to stop the strongmen is got rid of is to eliminate democracy.

But that argument is fallacious because it is very far from certain that democracy will necessarily breed the strongmen. This might be the case if there is a lack of rule of law and an independent judiciary, but Thailand is at least strong on the judiciary, and the PAD themselves acknowledge that. So it is quite difficult to understand how their argument could be valid.

The PAD might counter that the ’strongman’ in question was none other than Thaksin Shinawatra himself. But the rise of Thaksin could be explained through various factors, including the 1997 Constitution, which strictly separates the legislative from the executive branch, which I think did the most damage among all the factors. Freed from the scrutiny of the legislative branch, Thaksin thought that he could do anything without there being any power above him. The Parliament then became a mere decorative item. And there are of course many other factors, all of which contributed to Thaksin’s arrogance and his eventual downfall.

But that is not a sufficient reason for arguing that we should stop having democracy. All these are factors internal to a democratic system itself which can be updated and tweaked, certainly not shutting the whole thing down. So in the end there has to be an argument for the intrinsic value of democracy itself, one that is based on the rights and dignity of people, and on the fact that people are generally liable to faults and weaknesses. Perhaps I’ll do this in later posts.

Tammy won Third Round

By now all you Tammy fans will have known already that Tammy has already beaten New Zealand’s Marina Erakovic in the 3rd round, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4. Her run is impressive indeed, considering that she is now 31 years old, which makes her perhaps the most senior in the women’s competition at Wimbledon this year.

Tammy has made the 4th round at Wimbledon seven times already in her career. Her next opponent in Serbia’s Jelena Jankovic. Go! Go! Tammy!

Tammy Again!

Now this blog threatens to become a Tammy fan club blog! But this is something amazing, considering that Tammy is now 31 years old and she is playing like she’s 17 To update, Tammy just entered the third round of Wimbledon  after beating Vera Zvonareva from Russia, 7-6, 4-6, 6-3. Moreover, she teams up with her partner Yaroslava Shvedova, also from Russia and the team beat Su-wei Hsieh and Mashona Washington in Ladies’ Doubles match. So double celebrations for Tammy!

Zvonareva is seeded 13 in the tournament, and Tammy is ranked an outside 83 entering Wimbledon. Any match that she faces will be against players ranked higher, so any win for her since the 1st round will be upsets. All of Thailand is now rooting for Tammy. Go! Go! Tammy.

Here is match statistics.

Tammy at Wimbledon

Now Tammy Tanasugarn has defeated Petra Cetkovska from the Czech Republic 6-4, 6-3 at the first round of Wimbledon. Congratulations! The match statistics can be seen here.