Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Huseng
Former staff member
Posts: 6336
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm

Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Huseng »

This is something I recently wrote. See the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (type 'guest' for username, no password), especially to see entries for items linked to the Chinese characters.


Taimitsu 台密. The esoteric practices and teachings of the Japanese Tendai school 天台 associated with Enryaku-ji 延曆寺 at Mount Hiei 比叡山 and Onjō-ji 園城寺, which stands in contrast to that of Shingon 真言 as transmitted by Kūkai 空海, called Tōmitsu 東密, which is associated with Tōji 東寺.

Tendai is comprised of four primary elements including those of Chinese Tiantai 台, the esoteric 密, Chan 禪 and the vinaya 律. The esoteric teachings were initially brought over by Saichō 最澄 and thereafter Ennin 圓仁 and Enchin 圓珍 in the ninth century before being consolidated by Annen 安然. Saichō (in China 804-805) received the vajra and garbha maṇḍalas 金胎兩部 from Shunxiao 順曉 at Lingyan-si 靈巖寺 in China, thereafter establishing Tendai upon returning to Japan. In 805 at Takaosan-ji 高雄山寺 he carried out the first initiation 灌頂 (abhiṣeka) in Japan. The following year he established a training program utilizing shikan 止觀 (the complete teachings of Tiantai 天台圓教) and shana 遮那 (esoteric teachings 密教) as detailed in his Sange gakushō shiki 山家学生式 (818-819). Ennin was in China between 838-847 and received teachings, texts and initiations from figures Quanya 全雅, Yuanzheng 元政, Zhen'a 真阿 and Faquan 法全. Enchin likewise went to China between 853-858, studying under *Prajñātra 般若怛羅, Prajñācakra 智慧輪 and Faquan. His views differed from Saichō and Ennin in that he taught a difference between the complete and esoteric teachings, favoring the esoteric over the exoteric. Annen (born 841), a disciple of Ennin, formulated a systematic vision of Taimitsu while refuting Kūkai and other schools.

Taimitsu is organized around the whole of Buddhadharma, called the 'union of the complete and esoteric teachings' 圓密一致 where Mahāyāna sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka-sūtra 華嚴經 (T 279) and Lotus Sūtra 法華經 (T 262) are regarded as 'esoteric in principle' while scriptures such as the Mahāvairocana-sūtra 大日經 (T 848), Vajraśekhara-sūtra 金剛頂經 (T 874) and Susiddhi-tantra 蘇悉地經 (T 893) are regarded as 'fully esoteric in principle and practice'. Tōmitsu in contrast strictly differentiates between the esoteric and exoteric 密顯, regarding the former as superior to the latter. Taimitsu comprises all three aforementioned esoteric texts plus the Putichang suoshuo Yizi ding lunwang jing 菩提場所說一字頂輪王經 (T 950) and Yuqi jing 瑜祇經 (T 867) – altogether called go bu mikyō 五部祕經 – whereas Tōmitsu focuses on only the first two. Taimitsu regards Mahāvairocana 大日如來 as the dharmakāya 法身 of Śākyamuni Buddha 釋迦牟尼, whereas Tōmitsu regards them as different. Taimitsu advocates the doxography 教判 of Chinese Tiantai where the three teachings 天台三教 (the Tripiṭaka doctrine 藏, intermediate 通 and differentiated 別) are regarded as exoteric with the complete teachings 圓教 in principle being esoteric. In contrast, Kūkai's ten mental stages 十住心 list nine exoteric stages and one esoteric. As to commentaries on the Mahāvairocana-sūtra 大日經 (T 848), Taimitsu is based on the Darijing yishi 大日經義釋 [Z.36.507ff] while Tōmitsu the Darijing shu 大日經疏 (T 1796). Taimitsu's other key commentaries include Ennin's Kongōchō kyō sho 金剛頂經疏 and Soshitchi kyō sho 蘇悉地經疏, Enchin's Bodaijō kyō ryakugi shaku 菩提場經略義釋 and Annen's Yugi kyō gyōhō ki 瑜祇經行法記, together called the five great commentaries 五大疏.

Taimitsu flourished in the Heian 平安 period (794-1185), though late in it it fractured into the thirteen currents of Taimitsu 台密十三流. Three originally from the three who went to the Tang: Konhon-daishi-ryū 根本大師流 (Saichō), Jikaku-daishi-ryū 慈覺大師流 (Ennin) and Chishō-daishi 智證大師 (Enchin). Within the Jikaku-daishi-ryū there formed the Renge-ryū 蓮華流, Inson-ryū 院尊流, Sanmai-ryū 三昧流, Bucchō-ryū 佛頂流, Ajioka-ryū 味岡流, Chisen-ryū 智泉流, Anou 穴太流, Hōman-ryū 法曼流, Kudoku-ryū 功徳流 and Nashi no Moto-ryū 梨本流.


For detailed history of early Tendai, see Stanley Weinstein. "Aristocratic Buddhism." The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 2 Heian Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
User avatar
Konchog1
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Konchog1 »

I can't think of Enryaku-ji without thinking of Oda Nobunaga.
Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

-Paraphrase of Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel citing the Guhyasamaja Tantra

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

-Ra Lotsawa, All-pervading Melodious Drumbeats
Huseng
Former staff member
Posts: 6336
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Huseng »

Needless to say, the Tendai of that era was quite different from when Saicho, Ennin and Enchin were around.

I've always appreciated Ennin's journey and his travelogue. He was quite sincere and unassuming, judging from his travelogue.

https://sites.google.com/site/dharmadep ... nd-journey" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
GDPR_Anonymized001
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:13 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by GDPR_Anonymized001 »

Dear Indrajala,
Interesting post. I do, however, find parts of it confusing. I look forward to a rewarding discussion.
Indrajala wrote: Saichō (in China 804-805) received the vajra and garbha maṇḍalas 金胎兩部 from Shunxiao 順曉 at Lingyan-si 靈巖寺 in China, thereafter establishing Tendai upon returning to Japan.
I suggest you consider Abe’s “Saicho and Kukai” article, specifically pages 105-106 which provide some interesting insight into Saicho’s time in China. The abhiseka Saicho received in China is a bit confused, as records suggest he received the diamond mandala transmission but that Shun-hsiao’s lineage appears to have only been in the Matrix mandala. Further scholarship suggests he received a syncretic Chinese transmission. There is no need for me to go into detail on this point here, other than to suggest that some might wish to explore Ryuichi Abe’s article in some detail. Link: https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2562" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"
Indrajala wrote:Taimitsu is organized around the whole of Buddhadharma, called the 'union of the complete and esoteric teachings' 圓密一致 where Mahāyāna sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka-sūtra 華嚴經 (T 279) andLotus Sūtra 法華經 (T 262) are regarded as 'esoteric in principle' while scriptures such as theMahāvairocana-sūtra 大日經 (T 848), Vajraśekhara-sūtra 金剛頂經 (T 874) and Susiddhi-tantra 蘇悉地經 (T 893) are regarded as 'fully esoteric in principle and practice'. Tōmitsu in contrast strictly differentiates between the esoteric and exoteric 密顯, regarding the former as superior to the latter.
I simply do not understand how you can substantiate this claim that Shingon strictly differentiates between esoteric and exoteric because it is contrary to nearly everything Kukai wrote and lived. Kukai taught and firmly believed that the all sutra were the teachings of the Buddha and never claimed that some teachings were superior to other teachings. How can truth be superior to truth?

A quote of Kukai’s that I really appreciate comes from his “Secret Key to the Heart Sutra” (translation by Eijo Dreitlein, Koyasan University) which reads:
“The eyes of a great physician see [the plants growing by] the wayside each as medicine [where others see only weeds]. A man who knows gemstones sees jewels [where others see only] rocks and stones. …[Whether the content of a text is] exoteric or esoteric depends on the [discriminative ability of] the reader.”

This is an important point and should be considered when reading Kukai’s “ten mental stages.” I would suggest that it is not a ranking of the teachings but an exploration of the capacity of the practitioner. Shingon-shu does not say teachings are superior to other teachings but it is the capacity to perceive the medicine in the weeds, the gems in the stones, and the esoteric within the exoteric. This is a superior capacity. Kukai’s treatment of exoteric teachings and his respect for the Buddhadharma is one of the many reasons he was so successful with the Nara clergy of his day. For what it's worth, Kukai also wrote quite a bit on the Lotus Sutra as well.
Indrajala wrote:Taimitsu comprises all three aforementioned esoteric texts plus the Putichang suoshuo Yizi ding lunwang jing 菩提場所說一字頂輪王經 (T 950) and Yuqi jing 瑜祇經 (T 867) – altogether called go bu mikyō 五部祕經 – whereas Tōmitsu focuses on only the first two.
Again, I would ask that you elaborate on this point because I’ve read no such thing.
Indrajala wrote:Taimitsu regards Mahāvairocana 大日如來 as the dharmakāya 法身 of Śākyamuni Buddha 釋迦牟尼, whereas Tōmitsu regards them as different.
Respectfully, this simply makes no sense. What would give you the idea that Shingon-shu views Shakyamuni as different than Mahavairocana and not as one of the infinite number of manifestations of Mahavairocana’s perfect enlightenment, aka the universe?

Perhaps you are saying that Shingon considers the Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra was taught by Mahavairocana and not by Shakyamuni whereas Tendai posits that it was taught by Sakyamuni? (If so, would love to hear more on this because the MVT clearly states the former).

Over the past year or so I’ve read a number of short articles or pamphlets written about Tendai that will, for some unfathomable reason, raise points about Shingon. Frankly, this is something I simply don’t understand. Why write about a cat’s diet when defining a dog?

Thank you for writing the post and I look forward to your answers...and other's as well!
Huseng
Former staff member
Posts: 6336
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Huseng »

jake wrote: There is no need for me to go into detail on this point here, other than to suggest that some might wish to explore Ryuichi Abe’s article in some detail.
This is worth noting, I agree, but for a brief dictionary entry it can be omitted.
I simply do not understand how you can substantiate this claim that Shingon strictly differentiates between esoteric and exoteric ...
Kūkai wrote a work entitled Ben kenmitsu nikyō ron 辯顯密二教論 or Comparing Exoteric and Esoteric Discourse. Iain Sinclair summarizes the text as follows:
  • (1) the exoteric is characterized by literalism 顯 and omission 略逗機, while the esoteric is hidden 密 and final 全. (2) exoteric discourse originates in ostensibly real or historical figures 應身, while esoteric discourse is revealed by universal entities for their own pleasure 自受法樂. (3) 'Esoteric' refers to the concealed original nature of sentient beings and the inner realization 內證 of the Tathāgata; 'exoteric' refers to the concealment of inner realization in expedient teachings.
See Digital Dictionary of Buddhism: http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xp ... 9%E8%AB%96" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is clear that Kūkai drew a strict distinction between the esoteric and exoteric. In addition, Kūkai's doxography places Mikkyō at the pinnacle of Buddhist teachings with all exoteric teachings beneath it. For example, in his ten mental stages, which you mention, he regards the esoteric as the unparalleled superior state. See Charles Muller's translation:
  • 異生羝羊心 an unenlightened man or sheep. The lowest type of existence, in which the mind is concerned only with satisfying desires and has no moral awareness.
    愚童持齋心 a foolish child trying to keep precepts. This includes Confucian social morality and the Buddhist precepts.
    嬰童無畏心 the boldness of a child. One who seeks rebirth in heaven, having turned his back on this world.
    唯蘊無我心 one who believes that there are only aggregates and no self—the śrāvaka.
    拔業因種心 one who seeks to pull out the seeds of karma. One who contemplates the twelve links of dependent arising—a pratyekabuddha.
    他緣大乘心 the Great Vehicle practitioner who contemplates the other-dependent nature. A Yogâcāra practitioner.
    覺心不生心 one who cultivates awareness of the mind being unarisen—a Madhyamaka.
    一道無爲心 unconditioned mind of the single path — a follower of Tiantai.
    極無自性心 one who fathoms the teaching of no self-nature—a Huayan master.
    祕密莊嚴心 one who has attained the secret teaching—a follower of esoteric Buddhism.
Digital Dictionary of Buddhism: http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xp ... ?53.xml+id(%27b5341-4f4f-5fc3%27" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

In the case of Taimitsu, there were different opinions. Annen for example expanded on Enchin's position on the superiority of the esoteric teachings, arguing that the Mahāvairocana-sūtra was superior to the Lotus Sūtra, whereas Ennin, contrary to Saichō, classified the Lotus Sūtra as Mikkyō. He suggested this for two reasons. Firstly, the Lotus Sūtra teaches Ekayāna (the Single Vehicle, which asserts all beings inevitably can and must achieve buddhahood), which according to him is a primary condition in defining what constitutes Mikkyō. Śākyamuni Buddha in the latter part of the sūtra also reveals himself to be the eternal Buddha, which should be understood as Mahāvairocana Buddha in his opinion. Hence, while it is a Mikkyō scripture, it is not "pure" like the Mahāvairocana-sūtra and Vajraśekhara-sūtra, where secretive mantras, mudras and maṇḍala initiations are provided. Consequently, the Lotus Sūtra was considered only "esoteric in doctrine" 理密, still ranking below "pure Mikkyō".

See Stanley Weinstein, "Aristocratic Buddhism" in The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 2 Heian Japan (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 479-485.

I would suggest that it is not a ranking of the teachings but an exploration of the capacity of the practitioner.
This is not how traditional Japanese scholars past and present have generally understood this.

Kukai’s treatment of exoteric teachings and his respect for the Buddhadharma is one of the many reasons he was so successful with the Nara clergy of his day. For what it's worth, Kukai also wrote quite a bit on the Lotus Sutra as well.
I would never suggest he didn't respect exoteric scriptures, but it seems he did believe the esoteric was far more efficacious. For example, in the Sokushin jōbutsu gi 即身成佛義, he does cite esoteric scriptures to argue for buddhahood in this lifetime in contrast to the three kalpas required as stated in exoteric Mahāyāna.


Indrajala wrote:Taimitsu comprises all three aforementioned esoteric texts plus the Putichang suoshuo Yizi ding lunwang jing 菩提場所說一字頂輪王經 (T 950) and Yuqi jing 瑜祇經 (T 867) – altogether called go bu mikyō 五部祕經 – whereas Tōmitsu focuses on only the first two.
Again, I would ask that you elaborate on this point because I’ve read no such thing.
Shingon generally focuses on the two maṇḍala-s: the vajradhātu maṇḍala 金剛界曼荼羅 and the garbhadhātu maṇḍala 胎藏界曼荼羅. Taimitsu additionally employs the Susiddhi-tantra 蘇悉地經, as Ennin had received this while Kūkai had not.

Indrajala wrote:Taimitsu regards Mahāvairocana 大日如來 as the dharmakāya 法身 of Śākyamuni Buddha 釋迦牟尼, whereas Tōmitsu regards them as different.
Respectfully, this simply makes no sense. What would give you the idea that Shingon-shu views Shakyamuni as different than Mahavairocana and not as one of the infinite number of manifestations of Mahavairocana’s perfect enlightenment, aka the universe?
This is a difference highlighted by modern scholarship. If you read Chinese see the following:

http://buddhaspace.org/dict/index.php?k ... 0%E5%AF%86" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Over the past year or so I’ve read a number of short articles or pamphlets written about Tendai that will, for some unfathomable reason, raise points about Shingon. Frankly, this is something I simply don’t understand. Why write about a cat’s diet when defining a dog?
Taimitsu was developed and defined in contrast to Tōmitsu, especially under figures like Annen who were attempting to establish their own unique identity. Comparisons must be made to understand those differences.
GDPR_Anonymized001
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:13 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by GDPR_Anonymized001 »

Indrajala wrote:
jake wrote:I simply do not understand how you can substantiate this claim that Shingon strictly differentiates between esoteric and exoteric ...
Kūkai wrote a work entitled Ben kenmitsu nikyō ron 辯顯密二教論 or Comparing Exoteric and Esoteric Discourse...It is clear that Kūkai drew a strict distinction between the esoteric and exoteric.
Perhaps we have differing understandings of the English “strict distinction between.” I still don’t see how what you claim can be supported through the writings of Kukai. I do not have the Iain Sinclair work you mention but in Alex Wayman’s text “The Enlightenment of Vairocana” page 244 of the 1st Indian Edition it states:

“According to the doctrine of popular or exoteric Buddhism (KENGYO), the Dharmakaya otherwise described as the reality of the eternal and unconditional Buddha, does not preach the Dharma; but according to the esoteric doctrine the Dharmakaya itself, possessing form and act, explains the Dharma. Kobo daishi insists on this difference in his Ben-kemmitsu-nikyo-ron…. Exoteric Buddhism, says he, is preached by the Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya; the esoteric Buddhism has been taught by the Dharmakaya . Then he explains in detail the difference between the two doctrines. His thesis may be thus summed up: The exoteric Buddhism is a collection of superficial doctrines which Shakyamuni has revealed with the purpose of converting all beings, just as different medicines are administered to different patients.”

Further, in one of Eijo’s excellent publications we find: “Kukai writes in his Konshoo-kyo himitsu kada: ‘The teachings of the Tathagata always have both superficial exoteric and deep esoteric meanings.’” (from An Annotated Translation of Kukai’s Secret Key to the Heart Sutra)

How do you read this as a strict distinction between the esoteric and exoteric when he clearly states the teachings always have both?
Perhaps I have misunderstood your claim and you are instead arguing that Shingon , in clear distinction from other traditions, like Tendai(though I don’t know if this is the case, Jikan?), the Dharmakaya does indeed preach the Dharma. This claim, I think, could be supported by the writings of Shingon and the teachings of other schools of Buddhism but I am unsure if this is the claim you are making?
Indrajala wrote:In addition, Kūkai's doxography places Mikkyō at the pinnacle of Buddhist teachings with all exoteric teachings beneath it. For example, in his ten mental stages, which you mention, he regards the esoteric as the unparalleled superior state. See Charles Muller's translation
Before commenting I should ask you to clarify what you mean by the “pinnacle of Buddhist teachings” as it is not sufficiently clear by what metric you are ranking. I continue to posit that the ten stages of mind is not a comparison of the quality (superiority) of the teachings in relation to the others listed among the ten categories but it is instead representative of their outcomes. Ibuprofen treats headaches but not athlete’s foot . This does not mean Advil is superior to “Tough-Acting Tinactin.”
Indrajala wrote:
jake wrote:I would suggest that it is not a ranking of the teachings but an exploration of the capacity of the practitioner.
This is not how traditional Japanese scholars past and present have generally understood this.
Well, I encourage those who have studied on Mt. Koya to speak up here. Until then, the words of Rev. Wu Ming await: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 09#p253554" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"
Indrajala wrote:Taimitsu regards Mahāvairocana 大日如來 as the dharmakāya 法身 of Śākyamuni Buddha 釋迦牟尼, whereas Tōmitsu regards them as different.
Respectfully, this simply makes no sense. What would give you the idea that Shingon-shu views Shakyamuni as different than Mahavairocana and not as one of the infinite number of manifestations of Mahavairocana’s perfect enlightenment, aka the universe?

This is a difference highlighted by modern scholarship. If you read Chinese see the following
Unfortunately I do not read Chinese, perhaps there is something available in English, French or German? Or, if you have time, you can summarize, it would be most welcome.
Indrajala wrote:
Over the past year or so I’ve read a number of short articles or pamphlets written about Tendai that will, for some unfathomable reason, raise points about Shingon. Frankly, this is something I simply don’t understand. Why write about a cat’s diet when defining a dog?
Taimitsu was developed and defined in contrast to Tōmitsu, especially under figures like Annen who were attempting to establish their own unique identity. Comparisons must be made to understand those differences.
Interesting answer, thank you. In this specific case, the dictionary entry isn’t “Differences between Tendai and Shingon” but is a specific entry on “Taimitsu.” Where you include a great deal of information on Tendai. This really was only a minor observation and not one I intended on discussing at length but do appreciate the response.

*Please note I typed the quotes from hardcopy sources so errors are most likely my own. -edited to fix quote issue.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by DGA »

jake wrote:How do you read this as a strict distinction between the esoteric and exoteric when he clearly states the teachings always have both?
Perhaps I have misunderstood your claim and you are instead arguing that Shingon , in clear distinction from other traditions, like Tendai(though I don’t know if this is the case, Jikan?), the Dharmakaya does indeed preach the Dharma. This claim, I think, could be supported by the writings of Shingon and the teachings of other schools of Buddhism but I am unsure if this is the claim you are making?
No comment from me until Indrajala clarifies his meaning here (usually I don't comment at all in esoteric threads on DW or elsewhere, for my own reasons).

One quick comment, though: isn't it possible for anything to always carry two aspects that are distinct but inseparable, pace form/emptiness in the Prajnaparamita? Perhaps I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make here. To claim that the teachings always have an esoteric & an exoteric aspect to them, and that the distinction is clear or "strict," is not incoherent (bracketing the question of whether Kukai holds that view or not--I don't have a pony in that race).
Huseng
Former staff member
Posts: 6336
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Huseng »

jake wrote: How do you read this as a strict distinction between the esoteric and exoteric when he clearly states the teachings always have both?
He clearly makes a distinction between the two and his ten stages of mind is clearly a value judgement, especially when the first is described as being like a sheep in contrast to the tenth which is esoteric Buddhadharma.

This is how modern scholarship, both in Chinese and Japanese so far as I've read, also understands his doxography.
I continue to posit that the ten stages of mind is not a comparison of the quality (superiority) of the teachings in relation to the others listed among the ten categories but it is instead representative of their outcomes. Ibuprofen treats headaches but not athlete’s foot . This does not mean Advil is superior to “Tough-Acting Tinactin.”
This is your own interpretation of Kūkai's writings. If you read them in the original Chinese, you will see there is a clear value judgement involved.
User avatar
WuMing
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 6:13 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by WuMing »

Indrajala wrote:He clearly makes a distinction between the two and his ten stages of mind is clearly a value judgement, especially when the first is described as being like a sheep in contrast to the tenth which is esoteric Buddhadharma.

This is how modern scholarship, both in Chinese and Japanese so far as I've read, also understands his doxography.
From what I understand, Kūkai did not draw such a sharp distinction between kengyō and mikkyō as you express it here.
"The sea of Dharma has but a single taste. It seems shallow or profound depending on our own capacities."
Kūkai: Shōrai mokuroku in Takagi & Dreitlein - Kūkai on the Philosophy of Language, p. 208
"To prove the superiority of Esoteric Buddhism, Kūkai starts by
1. assuming antagonism and incompatibility between it and all other Buddhist schools.
2. Next, in order to demonstrate the universality of Esoteric Buddhism, he shows that the Exoteric sutras contain Esoteric elements which have previously gone unnoticed. These two viewpoints stand out clearly in the writings of his early forties.
3. Then finally in 830, at the age of fifty-seven, Kūkai reaches the third viewpoint in The Ten Stages of the Development of Mind and its abridged edition, The Precious Key to the Secret Treasury . That is, that Esoteric Buddhism contains in itself all Exoteric teachings and, without losing its own identity, synthesizes them from a higher and more comprehensive standpoint."
Hakeda – Kūkai: Major Works, p. 62
and again from Hakeda, p. 66:
"Shingon Buddhism, the most profound teaching of all, embraced all others, however imperfect, as integral parts of itself. Kūkai's final viewpoint was that the other varieties of Buddhism were as steps ascending toward the final, exalted level of Shingon, which, though including all within its ample scope, remained aloof and independent. …. the doctrines of the Exoteric sects render explicit the samadhi of certain Bodhisattvas …"
Kūkai writes in the Ten Stages in the opening lines of the discussion of the tenth stage: "These are the stages of development of mind through which the dark goatish mind [which thinks of satisfying the instincts only] advances higher, leaving darkness behind and seeking after light."
Hakeda, p. 68
p. 69:
"From this [third] stage on to the ninth, Kūkai in the Ten Stages adds an Esoteric interpretation to the end of the discussion of each stage, identifying each stage as corresponding to the levels of development of the religious mind in Shingon."
From these few quotes it should be clear that his Ten Stages is certainly not a value judgement but rather a model/presentation of a "development of the religious mind in Shingon." and here Shingon isn't necessarily understood as a certain school of Buddhism only.

In his Ten Stages model there might be some critique to the Buddhism practiced during his time in Japan, but that wasn't surely his main reason why his presented his Ten Stages model.
"He was convinced that the study of Buddhism without the practice of meditation was fruitless and that meditation not grounded in the synthetic view was rash."
Hakeda, p. 64
But I guess this discussion is far too off topic from the original topic of this thread, but I will leave that to the moderators.
Life is great and death has to be just as great as life.
- Mike Tyson
People not only don't know what's happening to them, they don't even know that they don't know.
- Noam Chomsky
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Queequeg »

Nothing much here except a comment from the peanut gallery...

I think its possible that there's merit to both Indrajala's and Jake's views...

My reading of Kukai - in translation by Hakeda coincides with Jake's arguments. That said, based on my knowledge of medieval sectarian rhetoric, at least from the Tendai side, Kukai's 10 Stages was certainly interpreted as a judgment of the relative merit of the various sutras, with an unmistakable bias attributed in favor of the esoteric books. I'll add, though, Kukai seems to have been walking a very fine line...

I suspect that modern scholarship on Kukai may not coincide with the manner in which he was interpreted by Shingon sectarians in the past. Japanese medieval sectarianism in general, especially when aristocratic patronage was on the line, drew out the worst in everybody. The almighty ¥ has a way of causing us to degrade ourselves... Is that better or worse than pride and attachment to one's creed? I haven't been able to parse that one out yet. (trying to lighten the mood, boys.)
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote:Nothing much here except a comment from the peanut gallery...

I think its possible that there's merit to both Indrajala's and Jake's views...

My reading of Kukai - in translation by Hakeda coincides with Jake's arguments. That said, based on my knowledge of medieval sectarian rhetoric, at least from the Tendai side, Kukai's 10 Stages was certainly interpreted as a judgment of the relative merit of the various sutras, with an unmistakable bias attributed in favor of the esoteric books. I'll add, though, Kukai seems to have been walking a very fine line...

I suspect that modern scholarship on Kukai may not coincide with the manner in which he was interpreted by Shingon sectarians in the past. Japanese medieval sectarianism in general, especially when aristocratic patronage was on the line, drew out the worst in everybody. The almighty ¥ has a way of causing us to degrade ourselves... Is that better or worse than pride and attachment to one's creed? I haven't been able to parse that one out yet. (trying to lighten the mood, boys.)
I don't agree. Kobo Daishi was clearly an advocate of the superiority of Mantrayāna.
User avatar
WuMing
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 6:13 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by WuMing »

Malcolm wrote:.... Kobo Daishi was clearly an advocate of the superiority of Mantrayāna.
Very much so, that's where he came from and he did read scriptures other than the esoteric ones from that point of view.
Life is great and death has to be just as great as life.
- Mike Tyson
People not only don't know what's happening to them, they don't even know that they don't know.
- Noam Chomsky
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:Nothing much here except a comment from the peanut gallery...

I think its possible that there's merit to both Indrajala's and Jake's views...

My reading of Kukai - in translation by Hakeda coincides with Jake's arguments. That said, based on my knowledge of medieval sectarian rhetoric, at least from the Tendai side, Kukai's 10 Stages was certainly interpreted as a judgment of the relative merit of the various sutras, with an unmistakable bias attributed in favor of the esoteric books. I'll add, though, Kukai seems to have been walking a very fine line...

I suspect that modern scholarship on Kukai may not coincide with the manner in which he was interpreted by Shingon sectarians in the past. Japanese medieval sectarianism in general, especially when aristocratic patronage was on the line, drew out the worst in everybody. The almighty ¥ has a way of causing us to degrade ourselves... Is that better or worse than pride and attachment to one's creed? I haven't been able to parse that one out yet. (trying to lighten the mood, boys.)
I don't agree. Kobo Daishi was clearly an advocate of the superiority of Mantrayāna.
LOL. You mind elaborating on exactly what you disagree with? So, you're saying Jake's wrong? Or that Tendai did not interpret Kukai as passing judgment. Or that you disagree with my suspicion...?
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:Nothing much here except a comment from the peanut gallery...

I think its possible that there's merit to both Indrajala's and Jake's views...

My reading of Kukai - in translation by Hakeda coincides with Jake's arguments. That said, based on my knowledge of medieval sectarian rhetoric, at least from the Tendai side, Kukai's 10 Stages was certainly interpreted as a judgment of the relative merit of the various sutras, with an unmistakable bias attributed in favor of the esoteric books. I'll add, though, Kukai seems to have been walking a very fine line...

I suspect that modern scholarship on Kukai may not coincide with the manner in which he was interpreted by Shingon sectarians in the past. Japanese medieval sectarianism in general, especially when aristocratic patronage was on the line, drew out the worst in everybody. The almighty ¥ has a way of causing us to degrade ourselves... Is that better or worse than pride and attachment to one's creed? I haven't been able to parse that one out yet. (trying to lighten the mood, boys.)
I don't agree. Kobo Daishi was clearly an advocate of the superiority of Mantrayāna.
LOL. You mind elaborating on exactly what you disagree with? So, you're saying Jake's wrong? Or that Tendai did not interpret Kukai as passing judgment. Or that you disagree with my suspicion...?
I don't agree with Jake's arguments.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Queequeg »

Ah.

I'm curious - my reading of this is that there isn't any disagreement about Kukai's views on esoteric v. exoteric paths. However, there is a question about the relative merit of the various teachings of the Buddha themselves ie. are we to read Kukai's 10 stages as asserting relative merit of the texts associated with the various states of Mind? Or does Kukai's judgment stop short of that?
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote:Ah.

I'm curious - my reading of this is that there isn't any disagreement about Kukai's views on esoteric v. exoteric paths. However, there is a question about the relative merit of the various teachings of the Buddha themselves ie. are we to read Kukai's 10 stages as asserting relative merit of the texts associated with the various states of Mind? Or does Kukai's judgment stop short of that?

As I understand his texts, he basically an argues that only Mantrayāna leads to Buddhahood in this very body, a position also maintained in Tibetan Buddhism.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:Ah.

I'm curious - my reading of this is that there isn't any disagreement about Kukai's views on esoteric v. exoteric paths. However, there is a question about the relative merit of the various teachings of the Buddha themselves ie. are we to read Kukai's 10 stages as asserting relative merit of the texts associated with the various states of Mind? Or does Kukai's judgment stop short of that?

As I understand his texts, he basically an argues that only Mantrayāna leads to Buddhahood in this very body, a position also maintained in Tibetan Buddhism.
I've got more questions about this but what I know of Mantrayana, I know this will go down a much more involved vortex that I'm just not prepared for right now. Thanks, Malcolm.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by DGA »

I'm still trying to figure out what the stakes are in this discussion (and on this point, I agree with jake). Are we trying to understand Kobo Daishi better in order to better understand Tendai-shu's understanding of its own practices better, which are somehow defined in contradistinction to Shingon-shu practices?
Huseng
Former staff member
Posts: 6336
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by Huseng »

Jikan wrote:I'm still trying to figure out what the stakes are in this discussion (and on this point, I agree with jake). Are we trying to understand Kobo Daishi better in order to better understand Tendai-shu's understanding of its own practices better, which are somehow defined in contradistinction to Shingon-shu practices?
Taimitsu is quite relevant to Shingon because those who formulated the former were constantly reading the works of the latter and defining themselves as different.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu

Post by DGA »

Indrajala wrote:
Jikan wrote:I'm still trying to figure out what the stakes are in this discussion (and on this point, I agree with jake). Are we trying to understand Kobo Daishi better in order to better understand Tendai-shu's understanding of its own practices better, which are somehow defined in contradistinction to Shingon-shu practices?
Taimitsu is quite relevant to Shingon because those who formulated the former were constantly reading the works of the latter and defining themselves as different.
I think that's accurate, but I'd put it slightly differently: by the time of Ryogen, Tendai-shu was definitely appealing to the lineage of Jikaku Daishi to demonstrate to the powers that be that Tendai practice was stronger and made a better social contribution on the basis of Taimitsu (than Shingon-shu). Groner's biography of Ryogen documents this.

So I'd say that Shingon is very relevant to Taimitsu's understanding of itself and shaping of itself historically. I don't know if the reverse is true.
Post Reply

Return to “Tendai”