Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra (D.T. Suzuki)
One-Of-A Kind Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra
[My 4-star Amazon review of “Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra” by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki.]
If you’re interested in scholarly studies in the Lankavatara Sutra (LS), you’ll want to get this book, because if there are any other LS studies that impress, I haven’t encountered them. Various well-known Buddhism authors, such as Florin Giripescu Sutton, Dan Lusthaus, and Red Pine (see my reviews of their books), have attempted to hermeneutically decipher the cryptic LS – and they have failed miserably. Hence, we are left with the iconic D.T. Suzuki’s studies on the subject, which, though flawed, are a quantum leap better than anyone else’s in the Buddhist mainstream.
This text should be read either in tandem with or after Dr. Suzuki’s translation of and commentary on the Lankavatara Sutra. Dr. Suzuki’s writing is clear, concise, and elucidating. But this isn’t surprising, given his status as a Buddhist scholar for the ages.
What separates Dr. Suzuki’s studies from those of other LS exegetes is his understanding of LS’s Cittamatra philosophy. Unlike other authors on the said subject, he groks the distinctions between the Yogacara Cittamatra of the LS and the Yogacara Vijnaptimatra/Vijnanavada of Asanga, Vasubandu, and others. Most importantly, he understands that the LS is about a single, absolute, universal Mind that has become everything. Per this philosophy, all existents are manifestations of this universal Mind, and not projections of one’s individual mind, as other Yogacara schools have it.
Dr. Suzuki makes the important point that the LS does not represent an end point in the development of Yogacara philosophy, but rather a transitional one. For example, he informs us that “the Trikaya is not yet systematized in the Lankavatara Sutra.” Regarding the LS’s stage of development, he writes:
“The Lankavatara Sutra is not a systematized treatise devoted to the exposition of a definite set of doctrines, but a mine containing all assorts of metals still in the state of requiring analysisis and synthesis. It is full of suggestive thought which must have been fermenting at the time in Mahayana thinkers’ minds and hearts. The two great schools of Mahyana Buddhism, the Madhyamika and the Yogacara, lie here in an incipient stage of development and differentiation.”
If D.T. Suzuki were still with us, I would contact him and clarify for him what some terms in this text, such as “Lankavatara” and “Dharmamegha,” really mean. I would also point out that he mentions “Buddhas baptizing Bodhisattavas” in his translation/commentary of the LS, but doesn’t elaborate upon this in this text. Most importantly, I would let him know that to more deeply explicate the LS, one would need to consider it in the contexts of Tibetan Dzogchen and Hindu Kashmir Shaivism.
Just as the LS does not represent a final stage in the evolution of Yogacara, likewise Suzuki’s “Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra” does not represent the final word on the LS -- and Suzuki himself would be the first to admit this. But despite its flaws, which I would further elaborate if I were writing an article on the subject, this is an important, one-of-a-kind text for serious students of Yogacara and the Lankavatara Sutra.
[My 4-star Amazon review of “Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra” by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki.]
If you’re interested in scholarly studies in the Lankavatara Sutra (LS), you’ll want to get this book, because if there are any other LS studies that impress, I haven’t encountered them. Various well-known Buddhism authors, such as Florin Giripescu Sutton, Dan Lusthaus, and Red Pine (see my reviews of their books), have attempted to hermeneutically decipher the cryptic LS – and they have failed miserably. Hence, we are left with the iconic D.T. Suzuki’s studies on the subject, which, though flawed, are a quantum leap better than anyone else’s in the Buddhist mainstream.
This text should be read either in tandem with or after Dr. Suzuki’s translation of and commentary on the Lankavatara Sutra. Dr. Suzuki’s writing is clear, concise, and elucidating. But this isn’t surprising, given his status as a Buddhist scholar for the ages.
What separates Dr. Suzuki’s studies from those of other LS exegetes is his understanding of LS’s Cittamatra philosophy. Unlike other authors on the said subject, he groks the distinctions between the Yogacara Cittamatra of the LS and the Yogacara Vijnaptimatra/Vijnanavada of Asanga, Vasubandu, and others. Most importantly, he understands that the LS is about a single, absolute, universal Mind that has become everything. Per this philosophy, all existents are manifestations of this universal Mind, and not projections of one’s individual mind, as other Yogacara schools have it.
Dr. Suzuki makes the important point that the LS does not represent an end point in the development of Yogacara philosophy, but rather a transitional one. For example, he informs us that “the Trikaya is not yet systematized in the Lankavatara Sutra.” Regarding the LS’s stage of development, he writes:
“The Lankavatara Sutra is not a systematized treatise devoted to the exposition of a definite set of doctrines, but a mine containing all assorts of metals still in the state of requiring analysisis and synthesis. It is full of suggestive thought which must have been fermenting at the time in Mahayana thinkers’ minds and hearts. The two great schools of Mahyana Buddhism, the Madhyamika and the Yogacara, lie here in an incipient stage of development and differentiation.”
If D.T. Suzuki were still with us, I would contact him and clarify for him what some terms in this text, such as “Lankavatara” and “Dharmamegha,” really mean. I would also point out that he mentions “Buddhas baptizing Bodhisattavas” in his translation/commentary of the LS, but doesn’t elaborate upon this in this text. Most importantly, I would let him know that to more deeply explicate the LS, one would need to consider it in the contexts of Tibetan Dzogchen and Hindu Kashmir Shaivism.
Just as the LS does not represent a final stage in the evolution of Yogacara, likewise Suzuki’s “Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra” does not represent the final word on the LS -- and Suzuki himself would be the first to admit this. But despite its flaws, which I would further elaborate if I were writing an article on the subject, this is an important, one-of-a-kind text for serious students of Yogacara and the Lankavatara Sutra.
