Response to Lou Nordstrom's Review of "The Twilight Language: Explorations in Buddhist
Meditation and Symbolism"
Author(s): Roderick Bucknell and Martin Stuart-Fox
Source:
Philosophy East and West,
Vol. 39, No. 2 (Apr., 1989), pp. 191-196
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1399377
Accessed: 09-01-2019 23:36 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
University of Hawai'i Press
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to
Philosophy East and West
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 23:36:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Comment and Discussion
Roderick Bucknell and Martin Stuart-Fox Response to Lou Nordstrom's
review of The Twilight Language: Explorations in Buddhist Meditation and
Symbolism
In his review of our book (Philosophy East and West, volume 39, no. 1), Lou
Nordstrom rightly focuses on our discussion of meditation, since this consti-
tutes the real kernel of the work. His appraisal of that discussion is generally
critical, and we welcome this opportunity to respond to it, believing it to
be based on an imperfect understanding of certain key aspects of our argu-
ment. To provide the factual basis necessary for our response, we begin by
briefly summarizing the main thrust of the book, in particular the section on
meditation.
In The Twilight Language, our principal aim is to elucidate the higher
stages of meditative practice culminating in enlightenment, as these are de-
scribed in early Buddhist texts. This ambitious project entails, among other
things, the following: an examination of textual descriptions of enlightenment
and the stages immediately preceding its attainment; a survey of current
meditative practices, particularly those believed to lead to insight; and a con-
sideration of the conditions that probably prevailed within the Buddhist Sang-
ha throughout the first few centuries of its history, with particular attention to
the question whether there may have existed an esoteric transmission of
knowledge regarding the higher stages of meditative practice. Our conclusion
is that such a transmission did exist, which leads us into an analysis of the
"Twilight Language." This is an elaborate system of Tantric symbolism (well
exemplified in the dhyani Buddha mandala and the cakras), widely con-
sidered to have been used as a secretive medium of communication by adept
meditators within an exclusive line of transmission originating from the Bud-
dha Gotama himself. We analyze this symbolic system, trace the major stages
in its development, and arrive at a decipherment of its principal components.
Our approach is objective and historical. On the nature of enlightenment,
we take as our main textual source the first four Nikayas of the Pali Sutta-
Pitaka. This corpus, though certainly not an infallible record of Gotama's
original teaching, is the best available, and more likely to be reliable than
historically later tests. We point our that the account of meditation con-
tained in these texts is apparently incomplete: of the two broad types of
meditation recognized by Gotama-tranquility meditation (concentration)
and insight meditation-only the former is described in any detail. Explicit
instructions for the practice of insight meditation are lacking, which poses a
problem both for scholars and for practicing meditators.
By systematically comparing parallel lists of stages, we demonstrate that
insight meditation is to be equated with the "three knowledges," a set of
supernormal attainments frequently mentioned in the texts as intervening be-
tween the perfection of concentration and the final attainment of enlighten-
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 23:36:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
192 Bucknell and Stuart-Fox
ment. While this is a significant step toward clarifying the nature of insight
meditation, it is in itself of little actual value to meditators because the three
knowledges, as described, seem to make little sense in practical terms.
We seek a solution to this problem by considering the possibility that the
description is to be interpreted symbolically-more specifically, that the tex-
tual account of the three knowledges may be a symbolic description of three
meditative techniques, handed down in the time-honored Indian fashion by
adept masters to their practicing disciples. Pursuing this line of reasoning, we
survey a selection of currently practiced meditative techniques that could be
classified as "insight meditation." This is not meant to be an exhaustive sur-
vey of Buddhist meditative practices; indeed, as we point out (p. 75), many
recognized Buddhist practices are ignored as having no insight component,
while on the other hand the three insight techniques that we single out for
particular attention are not usually considered Buddhist practices at all.
We then demonstrate a close one-to-one correspondence between these
three insight techniques and the three knowledges as described in the texts.
We show that this correspondence becomes virtual identity if one adopts a
symbolic interpretation of certain key terms in the account of the three knowl-
edges. We point out that such an interpretation accords well with the notion,
implicit in the world view prevailing in India at the time of the Buddha, that
the macrocosmic divine world was a reflection of the microcosmic human
world and could be manipulated by the proper performance of ritual (micro-
cosmic) action. We also point out that the perfection of the third of these
three insight techniques could appropriately be termed "enlightenment," and
we argue, on the basis of numerous detailed correspondences, that the attain-
ment of such perfection was, for Gotama, the microcosmic action that would
effect macrocosmic liberation from samsdra. The perfection of the third tech-
nique would in any case be a superlatively worthwhile attainment, regardless
of one's world view. We interpret the close correspondence between the three
knowledges and the three insight techniques as evidence that the for-
mer constitute a cryptically worded account of the latter.
Our interpretation is put to the test as we proceed to analyze other sym-
bolic aspects of the early Pali texts, and to elucidate certain components of
the Twilight Language of Tantric Buddhism. After disentangling a number
of basic symbol sets from the confused mass of Tantric symbolism, we pre-
sent a detailed case for identifying those sets as representations of advanced
meditative practices, in particular the three insight techniques. However,
that section of our book need not be detailed here, as it is not touched
on in Dr. Nordstrom's review.
Dr. Nordstrom, while expressing himself generally satisfied with the quality
of our research and argumentation, claims to find two major flaws in our
work. The first is a bias toward Theravada: according to the reviewer, our
interpretation of the three knowledges takes into account only "Theravada
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 23:36:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
193
Buddhist insight meditation" and "unjustifiably excludes Mahiayna and
Vajrayana forms of meditation."
Unfortunately Dr. Nordstrom does not explain what he means by "Ther-
avada Buddhist insight meditation." We are forced to assume he is referring
either to practices going by the name "insight meditation" such as are current-
ly taught and applied in Theravada meditation centers, or to insight practices
described or referred to in Theravada meditation manuals, classical or
modern.
Either way, we have difficulty seeing any basis for the criticism. In our book
we interpret the three knowledges not in terms of "Theravada Buddhist in-
sight meditation," but in terms of a set of three little-known meditation tech-
niques, none of which is, as far as we are aware, known or practiced by Ther-
avadins. When we seek (in chapter 4) to demonstrate that our three insight
techniques have parallels in certain existing recognized Buddhist practices
and are referred to obliquely in certain Buddhist texts, it is almost always
from Mahayana or Vajrayana that we draw our evidence. For example, we
point out probable connections with the k6an practice of Rinzai Zen and with
the visualization practices advocated in Tibetan sects, while finding no such
connections on the Theravada side (pp. 57-58). Again, in our discussion of
the historical implications of our findings, we conclude that the practices we
describe are likely to have been best preserved in the Tibetan Vajrayana
tradition (pp. 189-190). We find it puzzling that Dr. Nordstrom should see in
this a "special pleading" for Theravada practice at the expense of Mahayana
and Vajrayana.
In alleging that our interpretation neglects non-Theravada meditation prac-
tices, Dr. Nordstrom points specifically to our view (shared by both Therava-
da and Mahayana authorities, whom we quote, on pp. 49-50) that deep con-
centration is an obstacle to insight practice; and he claims that this effectively
excludes "Zen Buddhist meditation (zazen)" from the practices that might be
considered in interpreting the three knowledges. He declares that Zen
meditation (as well as other Mahayana and Vajrayana forms) is "perfectly
legitimate Buddhist meditation practice" and charges that we unjustifiably
accept only insight meditation as "legitimate."
In pointing out that deep concentration and insight cannot coexist simul-
taneously (a proposition that Dr. Nordstrom appears to accept), we are not
denying that concentration is "legitimate" Buddhist practice. What we are
doing is seeking to differentiate the roles of these two distinct kinds of prac-
tice. Far from excluding concentration, we devote an entire chapter to it
(chapter 3), and we point out its value in providing a foundation for the subse-
quent development of insight (p. 53). At no point do we exclude, as Dr.
Nordstrom alleges, any current practices by advancing a "stipulative defini-
tion" of what constitutes "Buddhist meditation."
What appears to disturb Dr. Nordstrom (though he does not say so explicit-
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 23:36:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
194 Bucknell and Stuart-Fox
ly) is the suggestion that Gotama may have taught a second, more advanced
form of practice (insight meditation), to be taken up once concentration has
been perfected. Our reviewer seems to assume that concentration is all there
is to Buddhist meditation, and that once this has been mastered, insight will
arise of its own accord. If so, then he is in good company because, as we point
out, many present-day meditation masters, including many Theravadins,
share this view (p. 49). We maintain, however, that the evidence indicates
this view is mistaken-at least to the extent that the perfection of concentra-
tion was not the end of the meditative path taught by the Buddha. We claim
to have demonstrated that concentration was, for Gotama and his immediate
disciples, no more than a preparation for an altogether different kind of prac-
tice termed "insight meditation"; and we claim, furthermore, to have iden-
tified the three techniques that constitute this insight meditation.
We account for the present lack of knowledge of Gotama's insight practices
as due to a gradual dying out of the secretive oral transmission by means of
which this higher knowledge was passed on. We maintain that as a result,
meditation became increasingly limited to concentration, which, incidentally,
is not a specifically Buddhist practice, but one shared by most Indian religious
traditions. If Dr. Nordstrom wishes to refute the proposition that the Buddha
taught another, more advanced form of meditation, he must do more than
merely point out that most present-day Buddhist schools teach only concen-
tration. He must attempt to overturn our argument (based on strong textual
and symbolic evidence) that these higher meditative practices were taught,
but were subsequently forgotten.
In view of the above, it is odd that Dr. Nordstrom should accuse us of
assuming just "one 'Buddhist meditation"' and of forcing on Buddhism "a
specious semblance of ... oneness." In fact the picture we present of Bud-
dhist meditation and of Buddhism as a whole is considerably less simple than
that implicitly accepted by Dr. Nordstrom and indeed by most scholars and
practicing Buddhists. Our interpretation supposes an entire area of medita-
tive practice, and an entire line of transmission (the elite meditative tradi-
tion), additional to those normally recognized, as well as supposing various
historical processes of change that are incompatible with the notion of "one
self-consistent 'Buddhism."' Contrary to what Dr. Nordstrom implies, we
highlight the divergences within Buddhism, and consider how some of them
may be accounted for historically. For example, we attribute to probable Hin-
du influence the development of a Mahayana path of practice leading to pra-
jnfi, which was "similar to the Hindu 'path of knowledge' (jfiina-yoga)"
(p. 187). (Incidentally, Dr. Nordstrom misrepresents us when he speaks of
this observation regarding the similarity of the two paths as a "mistaken clas-
sification of prajfnia ... as 'Hindu'.")
The second major flaw that Dr. Nordstrom claims to find in our interpreta-
tion is that we "psychologize" meditation and the three knowledges. Our
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 23:36:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
195
recognition of the importance of ancient Indian ideas on macrocosm/
microcosm parallelism leads us to distinguish terminology relating to the mac-
rocosmic realm (the physical world as understood by Gotama, including the
realms of gods, demons, and so forth) from that relating to the microcosmic
realm (the human mind, as it can be known through systematic introspec-
tion). This, Dr. Nordstrom says, is a grave error because it conflicts with what
he calls "the fact of the Buddha's realization of oneness." He makes much of
this "fact," and implies that "realization of the primordial oneness of non-
duality" should be recognized as the essence of enlightenment. When there is
realization of oneness or nonduality, he says, the distinction between macro-
cosm and microcosm ceases to exist. It follows that we are in error in resting
our case on this distinction, and still more so in according primacy to the
microcosmic side, that is, in "psychologizing" doctrine and practice.
That our interpretation of enlightenment says nothing about realizing one-
ness will constitute a genuine flaw only if it can be shown that such realization
really has the status Dr. Nordstrom ascribes to it. In effect Dr. Nordstrom is
opting for an alternative and supposedly better (more canonical? more widely
accepted?) interpretation of enlightenment. But before his criticism of our
work can be taken seriously, he must argue for this alternative interpretation,
showing in what ways it is superior to ours. It will not do merely to cite the
views and practices of a Japanese sect that is historically far removed from the
origins of Buddhism and bears a strong Taoist imprint. To carry conviction,
an interpretation of enlightenment as the realization of oneness should at the
least be supported by (1) a clear account of the nature of "oneness" and of the
mental state that constitutes its realization; (2) a convincing argument that
such realization would be a supremely worthwhile attainment, characteriz-
able as "ultimate liberation"; and (3) evidence, based on the earliest available
Buddhist texts, that this attainment was indeed what Gotama Buddha
achieved and taught. We challenge our reviewer to justify his position in this
way because it is on precisely such rigorous criteria that we have proceeded in
arriving at our own interpretation of enlightenment. Without such rigor, in-
terpretation is likely to degenerate into fuzzy, ahistorical, intuition-based
guesswork.
Dr. Nordstrom's concern at our failure to deal adequately with oneness
may well be linked to his concern at our evaluation of concentration practice.
One of the many striking subjective effects characterizing the state of mental
one-pointedness that results from concentration practice is a sense of having
"become 'one with all things"' (p. 40). As we point out in our chapter on
concentration, this experience in its fully developed form can be so powerful
and impressive as to convince a naive meditator that he or she is already on
the verge of the final attainment. Perhaps it is this experience that Dr. Nord-
strom means by "realization of oneness." If so, then we beg to disagree with
his identification of it as the goal of the Buddhist path. (For a simple psycho-
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 23:36:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
196 Bucknell and Stuart-Fox
logical explanation of the experience, see pp. 40, 74.) If, however, Dr. Nord-
strom has something else in mind in speaking of "realization of oneness,"
then he must tell us more precisely what it is so that we can respond
adequately.
Our reason for basing our interpretation on introspective psychology is that
in our view all the evidence points unmistakably in that direction. The
teaching presented in the Nikayas is predominantly psychological in orien-
tation, and the preoccupation with psychology that is so evident in the
Abhidhamma literature indicates that this orientation was maintained during
at least the first few centuries after the Buddha's death.
One of Dr. Nordstrom's principal grounds for rejecting our "psychologiz-
ing" is that the gains it brings in terms of intelligibility and relevance appear
to him not to justify the seemingly drastic diminution in scope of the Buddha's
achievement and teaching that it entails: to gain psychological "enlighten-
ment" at the expense of what he calls "that extraordinary sense of triumph
and victory that is the Buddha's realization/liberation" is not worth it; "the
price ... is just too high."
We can appreciate Dr. Nordstrom's feelings on this point, but we cannot
accept them as a basis for evaluating our thesis. We reaffirm the stand we take
in The Twilight Language, that the message of an Indian sage of the sixth
century B.C., expressed in terms of an archaic world view in which the notion
of macrocosm/microcosm parallelism is implicit, cannot be genuinely intelligi-
ble and useful for modern humankind unless it is translated into the modern
scientific idiom-in this case predominantly the idiom of psychology. Our
terminology is different from that of Gotama, but, we argue, the realities
referred to are the same. In any case, we suspect that Dr. Nordstrom is being
a little hasty in judging our "continuous unobscured insight into the workings
of one's own mind" as inferior to his "realization of primordial oneness." It
goes without saying that an assessment of the two competing claims can carry
little weight unless it is supported by actual experience with the relevant
meditative techniques.
As will be evident from the above, we are not at all persuaded that Dr.
Nordstrom's criticisms of The Twilight Language are valid. We are dis-
appointed that his review offers no positive suggestions as to how we, or any-
one else, might either improve on the interpretation presented in The Twi-
light Language or develop an alternative to it. As we point out in our final
chapter, our interpretation is only a first attempt and is in many respects
incomplete. We would welcome further scholarly discussion of the issues it
addresses, in the interests of improved understanding of Buddhist doctrine
and meditative practice