Normative Texts and Multiple Meanings Rescuing Alternative Voices in Origen’s and Tsong kha pa’s Approaches to Scriptural Interpretation Thomas Cattoi Abstract: The author explores theological and spiritual foundations of scriptural exegesis in the writings of Origen, a leading thinker of the early Christian period, and of the Tibetan master Tsong kha pa (1357–1419), the author of some of the most important speculative syntheses of Vajrayana Buddhism and the founder of the Gelugpa school. A comparative exploration of these two authors will cast light on the numerous points of contact between their worldviews, as well as on the irreducible differences between their construals of textual normativity reflecting their distinct assumptions about subjectivity, soteriology, and the natural order.
T
he figures of Origen of Alexandria (185–254) and Tsong kha pa (1357–1419) belong to radically different cultural and intellectual worlds. Origen lived in Egypt and Palestine at a time when the power of the Roman Empire had reached its apogee and Hellenist culture was in full bloom, even as the different Christian churches did not share any doctrinal or institutional consensus and they were still subject to recurrent persecutions. Tsong kha pa lived and worked in Tibet during the ascendancy of the Phagmodrupa dynasty (1354–1435), which, following a period of effective Mongol domination over Tibet, succeeded in reestablishing autochthonous rule over the country, leading to a period of cultural and religious renaissance. Both figures were very well known in their lifetimes, and even as some of Origen’s teachings were later condemned, his writings, no less than those of Tsong kha pa in Tibet, played a major role in shaping the development of their two respective traditions.
62
Religion East & West
Normative Texts and Multiple Meanings
The goal of this paper is to explore how Origen and Tsong kha pa approached scriptural exegesis. Both authors sought to develop a hermeneutic strategy that would hold together elements of their tradition which at first sight might appear incompatible: the New and the Old Testament for Origen, scriptures upholding the teaching of emptiness and scriptures stressing the role of conventional reality for Tsong kha pa. In both cases, one of the two elements—the New Testament for Origen and the teaching of emptiness for Tsong kha pa—provided the normative benchmark against which the significance and relevance of alternative texts—or alternative positions within these texts—ought to be assessed. Both authors argued that the normativity of one text did not exclude the continued validity of positions expressed in other writings, provided that the latter were read through particular hermeneutic lenses, such as the incarnation of the Son of God for Origen and the relationship of ultimate and conventional reality for Tsong kha pa. This essay will outline the position of these two authors and offer a few final considerations as to the points of contact, as well as the fundamental differences, that characterize their understandings of exegesis. In his Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius of Caesarea (263–339) tells us that Origen was born in Alexandria and that he revived the theological academy that Clement (ca. 150–215) had established in the same city.1 Already during the earlier part of his life in Alexandria, Origen became deeply interested in scriptural exegesis, and tradition has it that in order to deepen his understanding of the Biblical text, he immersed himself in the study of Hebrew and of rabbinic exegesis. Around the year 230, during a visit to Caesarea in Palestine, Origen received priestly orders, but the decision to do so outside the jurisdiction of the bishop of Alexandria resulted in his permanent exile from his native city. Having settled permanently in Caesarea, Origen continued to teach and write until his death following torture in a persecution.2 Epiphanios’ Adversus Haereses ascribes over 6,000 works to Origen,3 but most of them are now lost, including the Hexapla—a comparative study of different translations of the Old Testament—which for centuries would be an important work of reference for commentators and scholars. It is likely that Origen composed homilies on virtually the whole of scripture, but, again, only a few have survived to the present.4 Of his more extensive commentaries written for a more scholarly audience, the most significant are the commentaries on Matthew’s Gospel and on John’s Gospel, though even these two have not survived in their entirety.5 Yet Origen’s preoccupation with scriptural hermeneutics is not confined to his exegetical exercises; more systematic reflection on the task of the exegete can be Issue 11, October 2012
63
Thomas Cattoi
traced in other of his writings, such as the Contra Celsum and his most comprehensive systematic work, De Principiis, where the fourth book is entirely taken up with this topic. As mentioned at the outset, Origen’s fundamental concern is the enduring significance of the Old Testament after the coming of Christ. As noted by Daniélou in his seminal overview of Origen’s theology,6 the early Church found itself at issue with the Jews, who upheld the literal meaning of the Old Testament and continued to observe the Mosaic commandments, as well as with the various Gnostic movements, who associated the Old Testament with the same lower deity that was the author of material creation but was nonetheless subordinate to the “higher” God of the New Testament.7 While Origen saw the New Jewish exegesis did assert the legitimacy of a variety of interpretations of scripture, these distinct readings were Testament as an encompassed within an oppositional hermeneutic horizon that could only reject the New Testament as utterly advance on the Old. incompatible with the Law of Moses. In a similar manner, different Gnostic sects offered divergent interpretations of the new covenant established in Christ but agreed in viewing the Old Testament as the expression of a “carnal” worldview that was incompatible with the Gospels. In both cases, the establishment of one text as normative ensures that another is seen as threatening and thereby should be regarded as illegitimate. Where Origen’s view differs from these positions is that for him the New Testament is not the absolute negation or antithesis of the Old, but rather constituted an advance on it. The Law of Moses and the Prophets had a function to fulfill, but this function was to prefigure the New Testament, laying the ground for the coming of Christ. As noted in the fourth book of De Principiis, many have strayed from the right path because they have failed to find the right way to handle the scriptures.8 Origen then sets out to refute three different hermeneutic strategies that prevent one from grasping the true import of the Old Testament. Origen argues that the first mistake, commonly made by Jews, is to stick to the literal meaning of the prophecies. Isaiah had written that in the Messianic times captives would be set free, the Jewish people would eat milk and honey, and the lamb and the wolf would feed together.9 Similarly, Zechariah had foretold the reestablishment of the city of God and the destruction of Israel’s enemies, typified by the chariots of Ephraim.10 As the Jews did not see this happen, they refused to accept Jesus as the Savior, but for Origen, the very fact that the prophecies had not been fulfilled literally indicates that the Holy Spirit intended them
64
Religion East & West
Normative Texts and Multiple Meanings
to be fulfilled on a spiritual plane.11 The Gnostics, for their part, focused on passages of the Old Testament that ascribed feelings of anger or repentance to the Godhead, such as Deut. 22, 22 (“My wrath shall be like a raging fire”) or Ex. 20, 5 (“I, your God, am jealous in my love”). De Principiis 4 notes that the Gnostics never questioned the divine origins of scripture, but they came to believe that statements such as these had to be ascribed to a lower deity—the demiurge—whom they associated with the Jews.12 Origen returns to this theme in other writings, such as the Commentary on John or the Homilies on Luke, where he observes that even the New Testament contains statements that cannot reasonably be taken literally.13 In his Commentary on Matthew, Origen notes that Marcion, who had rejected the Old Testament entirely, regarded these passages as interpolations and effectively called for their excision.14 Finally, Origen notes that there is a third group of people—“the simpler members of the church”—who take everything they read in scripture as literally true and therefore imagine God as more cruel that the most unjust men.15 The mistake shared by these three groups of people is that they view the sacred text univocally, as carrying only one literal meaning, and they fail to grasp the role of spiritual interpretation.16 The result is that Jews, Gnostics, and Christians without learning develop a notion of the divine nature that is incompatible with its infinite perfection. What they need are different hermeneutic lenses, which would enable them to see the spiritual import of the text and discern its deeper congruence with the New Testament. In the Homilies on the Song of Songs, Origen uses the dialogue between the bride and the groom in this most tantalizingly mysterious text to outline how the Old Testament retains a purpose even as it has been superseded. Origen views the text as describing the courtship between Christ and the Church, explaining that in the first times of the old dispensation, Christ was utterly hidden from his bride, who was sitting indoors, fully taken, as it were, by the study of the Mosaic Law. Later on, Christ chose to become partially visible in the writings of the Prophets, symbolized by the lattice of the windows. At this point, Christ is inviting the bride to come out to join him in the open, leaving behind the letter of the law to attain a spiritual union with him. Union with Christ therefore takes place outside the house that symbolizes the old covenant, but also in the depths of the house, where a cellar preserves the wine of mystical knowledge.17 This dual metaphor—where union is attained both outside the house and within its depths—is what enables Origen to assert that the old dispensation has been superseded (hence, it must be left behind); and yet one can still find a deeper meaning in the old dispensation (hence, Issue 11, October 2012
65
Thomas Cattoi
the secret cellar), provided that the master (i.e., Christ) opens its door to the soul. This interpretive stratagem allows one to assert the normativity and hermeneutic primacy of the New Testament while asserting the continued significance of the Old. The Commentary on Matthew offers a different example, yet one that also seeks to justify the continued propaedeutic purpose of the Mosaic Law after the coming of Christ. Origen cites Paul’s admonition in the letter to the Galatians: when one is a child, one is in need of a tutor, so that one is trained in all necessary discipline until the time comes when one is called to bear the burden of one’s inheritance.18 He then turns to Matthew’s image of the pearl of great price, whose inestimable value justifies selling all of one’s possessions to be able to purchase it.19 Clearly, the Law and the Prophets are the possessions that one has to “give away” to receive the good news of the Gospel; and yet without them the Gospel would forever be beyond reach. In this perspective, the Old Testament has a propaedeutic import, but if one is reluctant to move on and embrace the fullness of the truth, one will attract God’s punishment upon oneself. Indeed, Origen is convinced that the course of human history, as recorded by scripture as well as by other texts, can only confirm the correct nature of such observations. Indeed, for Origen, history is also a text, where the literal meaning of the events conceals a deeper, spiritual dimension. In his Homilies on Joshua, reflecting on the military campaigns that in this book of the Old Testament pit the Hebrews against different Palestinian peoples, Origen offers a variety of allegorical readings that reinterpret these conflicts as symbolizing Christ’s cosmic battle against death, as well as the struggle of the individual against sin. In this perspective, the distribution of the land of Israel among the different tribes foreshadows the distribution of glory that will take place in heaven according to the merits of different individuals. For Origen, this indicates that “the reality was in heaven, the shadow and image of the reality was on earth.” The earthly Israel, with its towns and villages but especially with the city of Jerusalem and the sacrificial liturgies that took place in its temple, were only a preparation for the coming of Christ. It was thus part of God’s plan that they should be taken away, and when Jews go to Jerusalem and cry because they find the city in ruins, they do so because they are like children who do not understand their father’s plan. Rather, Origen concludes, they should look up to heaven, and there they will find the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the inheritance awaiting us at the end of our earthly life.20 It is clear therefore that, for Origen, scriptural hermeneutics and theology of history go hand in hand, and indeed complement each other
66
Religion East & West
Normative Texts and Multiple Meanings
in an inexhaustible dialectic exchange. On one hand, Origen was deeply influenced by Platonism and its view of a perfect, unchanging world of ideas beyond a dour, fallen, impermanent world; as such, he was insistent that the divine plan for the universe was set from all eternity and was never subject to change. On the other hand, he was too committed a Christian not to realize that scripture presents human history as the stage where God’s plan for humanity unfolds: after the coming of Christ, an irreversible change has happened, whereby the “old man” typified by Adam is superseded by the “new man” typified by Christ. As a result, human history unfolds at two simultaneous levels: on one hand, we have the history of humanity of which the history of the Israelites recounted in scripture is the culmination and the core; on the other hand, we have the unchanging Godhead that oversees The New Man, typified this process and yet is eternally equal to itself. In the coming of Christ these two levels come together, so by Christ, supersedes that the historical events of the Old Testament can now be seen for what they really are, namely an intithe Old Man, typified mation of the divine plan for the universe. The Jews and the Marcionites, and all those unable or unwilling to accept the value of a spiritual reading of scripture, by Adam. usually commit the same error when they pause to consider the course of human history: they are unable to see its deeper, transcendental meaning, and as a result they refuse to accept that the events of the Old Testament have now acquired a different meaning in virtue of the incarnation of the eternal Word. Origen’s hermeneutic is thus fundamentally Christological, inasmuch as the dialectic of literal and spiritual meaning finds its lynchpin in the cosmic events of Christ’s own passion, death, and resurrection. How scriptural exegesis and theology of history come together at the foot of the cross emerges clearly when we read Origen’s reflections on the passion in the Commentary on Matthew. When Christ was condemned to death and scourged at the pillar, the city and the temple of Jerusalem were still standing, the high priests still ruled over the people, and the Israelites had not yet been scattered over the Earth. And yet for Origen once Christ was crucified and risen, all those who had given Him over to death were themselves judged wanting, and the old sacrificial system was discontinued. Indeed, “when the real High Priest came, the figurative one ceased to exist, and when the real sacrifices for sin were offered, the symbolic ones were suppressed.”21 Those who reject the spiritual meaning of scripture, therefore, are effectively sentencing Christ over and over again to be crucified. For Origen, the Jews kept the lamp of prophetic Issue 11, October 2012
67
Thomas Cattoi
knowledge burning throughout the centuries, but when the true light came, they did not recognize it, while the Gentiles who were walking in utter darkness came to embrace it. The rejection of the allegorical meaning of the Old Testament amounts to a continued rejection of Christ, so that those who limit themselves to the literal meaning, even if they are Christians, “have no vision and do not avoid the leaven of the Pharisees.”22 Yet, as Origen insists in De Principiis, this does not mean that the Law and the Prophets have no more value and should be put aside; when Christ provides the interpretive key in the New Testament, the blessings hidden in the Old Testament are finally revealed.23 Commenting on the Gospel parable of the treasure hidden in the field, Origen applies it to scripture, claiming that the treasure is the endless surge of meanings that are hidden in the Old Testament, but are normally hidden by the literal meaning.24 Later, in the seventh century, Maximos the Confessor—an author who was very critical of Origen’s cosmology and Christology, but was at the same time deeply influenced by his theology of the spiritual life—would turn to the Transfiguration narrative to make a similar point. The garments of Christ represent the world of nature as well as the world of scripture, and they signify that the eternal Word of God is found hidden in both and that there can be no contradiction between them. The light of Mount Tabor, wherein Christ appears in the company of Moses and Elijah and is revealed in the fullness of His divinity, is the light that guides us in our reading of scripture, helping us to discern the Word of God scattered throughout the Old and the New Testament.25 The ability to discern scripture’s multiple meanings is thus a grace that is given to us by Christ, who is the new lawgiver, and who at the same time reveals the true meaning of the new law. It is not in a Gospel commentary but in his Homilies on Joshua that Origen makes this point clear, juxtaposing Joshua’s giving of the law to the Israelites (Josh. 24) with the well-known story of Jesus’ encounter with two unnamed disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24).26 Joshua is of course seen as a type of Jesus, an identification made easier by the fact that the Septuagint uses the name Iēsous for Joshua as well. While Joshua hands the law to the Israelites after the latter renounce idolatry, Jesus reveals the secrets of the Law to the disciples at Emmaus so that the veil of the letter is lifted and the spiritual nature of the law is finally revealed. Indeed, Origen observes, “We who belong to the universal church do not view the Law of Moses with contempt; indeed we still accept it, provided that Jesus reads it to us.”27 As such, the Christological interpretation of the law is what guarantees its enduring relevance even after the establishment of the new covenant.
68
Religion East & West
Normative Texts and Multiple Meanings
T
welve centuries later, Tsong kha pa was born on the Tibetan plateau during a period of relative stability after the end of Mongol political domination. Tsong kha pa was a scholar and monastic who is regarded as the major inspiration, if not as the actual founder, of the Gelugpa movement, one of the four Tibetan monastic orders and the one which, through the person of the Dalai Lama, virtually ruled over Tibet from 1642 until the Chinese occupation in the modern era. Tsong kha pa authored a number of speculative works in the tradition of Madhyamaka philosophy, dealing with a variety of issues ranging from different approaches to spiritual practice—such as The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment (Lam rim chen mo)—to specific disputes in the field of textual hermeneutics—such as The Essence of True Eloquence (Drang nges legs bshad snying po). It is this latter text that offers us the most extensive overview of Tsong kha pa’s reflections on hermeneutics as well as the springboard for a comparison with the exegetical strategy developed by Origen.28 The original title of this second work is actually The Essence of True Eloquence, Distinguishing the Interpretable and the Definitive Meanings of All the Scriptures of the Victor, where Victor is a term that is used to indicate the Buddha. In the prologue of the treatise, Tsong kha pa notes that the goal of spiritual practice is of course a realization of the utter emptiness of reality (śūnyatā), and thus practitioners should exert themselves in the various dialectical and philosophical techniques geared to this purpose. Tsong kha pa’s argument goes on, however, to claim that the realization of emptiness hinges on the discrimination between the interpretable (neyartha) meaning and the definitive (nītārtha) meaning within the corpus of Buddhist teachings. It is reason, rather than self-referential appeals to scriptural passages, that should guide us in our discrimination between what is to be definitively held and what is only a provisional, or instrumental, truth.29 While this distinction between two levels of truth is grounded in the traditional Madhyamaka distinction between conventional and ultimate reality, Tsong kha pa’s argument in this particular work centers on an epistemological rather than ontological dimension, focusing on the process of inner intellectual purification and effectively taking for granted the extrinsic dialectic between the impermanent ground of phenomena and the empty ground of being. Later on, in the second chapter, Tsong kha pa cites Asanga’s authority to bolster the claim that mistaken views that hinge on “reification,” by which he means the tendency to ascribe an intrinsic, permanent identity to elements of phenomenal reality. Correct views, on the contrary, hinge on the “repudiation” of such positions, whereby one acknowledges that such intrinsic realities do not exist. This is the case even as Tsong kha pa Issue 11, October 2012
69
Thomas Cattoi
appears to share Asanga’s view that there is an underpinning inexpressible ground (the Buddha nature) that serves as support for linguistic expressions used in everyday life. The realization of the impermanence of conventional reality is expressed via deliberately self-contradictory statements such as “the ultimately existent is not existent.”30 Yet the fact that conventional reality is fundamentally empty does not deprive it of meaning and purpose. Indeed, Tsong kha pa dismisses such claims as a form of nihilism. As he argues at great length in The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, the pursuit of wisdom and compassion—the two pillars of Mahayana as well as of Vajrayana practice—can only take place within the framework of That reality is empty conventional reality, which gives us the opportunity to purify our passions and cultivate the six virtues (pāramitā).31 does not mean it is If “designation” (prajñapti)—the use of linguistic labels to describe aspects of phenomenal reality—is dismissed as without purpose. incompatible with an insight into emptiness, the mechanism of conventional cause and effect that sustains spiritual progress can no longer be appreciated in its full soteriological import. The fundamental mistake is thus to repudiate both reality and designation; without designation, spiritual practice becomes impossible. Quoting Asanga again, Tsong kha pa notes that only rejecting the extremes of reification and nihilism is it possible to attain “nonduality,” which is the “unexcelled” way of Madhyamaka. For Tsong kha pa, therefore, practitioners must learn that only texts teaching this approach to conventional and ultimate reality may be considered to be definitive (nītārtha) texts, whereas all other texts are merely interpretable (neyartha). Calling upon Nāgārjuna’s authority, Tsong kha pa references the sutra known as “The Teaching of Akshayamati,” which states that scriptures “teaching superficial realities” are “interpretable in meaning,” whereas “those teaching the profound, the difficult to see, and the difficult to understand” are definitive. Examples of neyartha are scriptures “teaching words and letters,” by which the sutra indicates philosophical schools incompatible with the Dharma, as well as texts that teach as if there were such a thing as a self, using terms such as self, living being, soul, and agent. Examples of nītārtha are scriptures that teach “the emptiness of things,” “non-production,” “creationlessness,” “personlessness,” and so on. The passage cited by Tsong kha pa ends with the warning “Rely on the latter and not on the former.”32 Yet this does not mean that neyartha statements are devoid of value, since interpretable statements actually educate, or “lead” disciples, as the literal meaning of the text is “led” to a different meaning.33 The process, whereby individuals discern
70
Religion East & West
Normative Texts and Multiple Meanings
the deeper significance of interpretable texts in the light of the teaching of definitive texts, is part and parcel of spiritual practice. In the same section of The Essence of True Eloquence, Tsong kha pa offers two examples of neyartha statements, showing how reflection on their deeper meaning offer spiritual nourishment. A first type of interpretable claim arises “when a statement is obviously figurative”: for instance, when a sutra contains a statement such as “having killed both father and mother” and then presents this as a praiseworthy act. In this case, “father” must be interpreted as “evolutionary entanglement,” and “mother” as “craving.” A second type of interpretable claim stems instead from confusion about conventional and ultimate reality: for instance, when a statement on the mechanism of cause and effect such as “from bad to good actions arise the effects of suffering and happiness” is read as if this mechanism functioned at the ultimate level as well.34 It is important to note, however, that certain statements that are interpretable for more advanced practitioners may in fact be definitive for those who are not yet advanced on the path. For instance, in line with Tsong kha pa’s own remarks about “nihilists,” the sutra known as “Elucidation of Intention” acknowledges the rejection of conventional reality on the part of some people who accept the teaching of emptiness. Tsong kha pa observes that the Buddha was not talking about all those who attain enlightenment, but only about those who “lack superior intelligence.” If we find passages in the writings of the Buddha that seem to intimate such a position, it is because in this particular circumstance the Buddha was adapting his words to “the mental capacities of his disciples” and was not expressing “his own belief.” Individuals of superior ability know that any scripture referring to causes is a neyartha text, and yet for the “less than superior” disciple such text may actually be nītārtha. Indeed, other authors suggest that if the notion of selflessness induces beginners to lag behind in the pursuit of wisdom and compassion, it is actually “better to teach ‘self’ than selflessness.” For Tsong kha pa, statements from certain Yogācāra authors that would seem to negate “external” reality and reduce everything to the mind are also interpretable statements: their goal is to eliminate the “fear of emptiness” of the naïve. The Buddha is likened to a grammarian who tailors his assignments to the ability of his disciples, starting from the basic admonition to abstain from vice and to practice virtue, moving on to engage the conventional world, and finally to appreciate the fullness of the teaching of the Dharma concerning the two truths.35 It is clear then that emptiness can encompass an infinite plurality of conventional meanings in line with the circumstances of the recipient. Issue 11, October 2012
71
Thomas Cattoi
Tsong kha pa is adamant that Madhyamaka philosophy cannot in any be reduced to a set of propositions and that all verbal statements necessarily belong to the conventional realm. His support for a radically apophatic form of Madhyamaka (known as prasangika Madhyamaka) sets Tsong kha pa aside from other supporters of this school who are open to a verbal articulation of the ultimate insight (svatantrika Madhyamaka). In fact, Tsong kha pa would probably view adherents of this second form of Madhyamaka as unable to move beyond conventional reality, or perhaps as guilty of trying to force the ultimate into the conventional. The fundamental error of svatantrika would be to put a limit or draw a boundary to the reality of emptiness, which in virtue of its groundlessness is potentially compatible with an infinite number of conventional interpretations.36
I
f we consider how Origen and Tsong kha pa develop their exegetical strategy, it is clear that both of them inhabit an epistemological horizon where a particular set of unquestioned truths provides structure and meaning to theological discourse. Origen lives in a world that is shaped by deep familiarity with the Biblical narrative, where the old covenant between God and the Hebrews laid the foundation for the relationship between God and humanity but the incarnation of the Son of God inaugurated a new era in the history of the cosmos. In this eminently supersessionist perspective, the old covenant is no more; the destruction of Jerusalem and the cessation after centuries of the practice of animal sacrifices confirms that the Church is the new Israel, God’s new partner in a new covenant. Tsong kha pa, for his part, does not view the manifestation of the Buddha as accomplishing an ontological shift of cosmic proportions. Rather, the teaching of the Buddha in the writings of the Mahayana tradition merely reveals a set of truths about reality that have always been present and that now have merely become accessible to those who practice the Dharma. In this fundamentally “atemporal” perspective, nothing can modify the ultimate emptiness of reality or the fact that the flux of phenomena regulated by the mechanism of cause and effect belongs merely to the conventional realm. It is this deeper dialectic that shapes Tsong kha pa’s world, and as a result historical events—and the very notion of dispensation—lose any ultimate importance. For Origen, the interpretive key is an event that happened at a particular place and time in history; for Tsong kha pa, it is a teaching that possesses eternal validity. The contrast of literal and spiritual meaning in one author, and of neyartha and nītārtha in the other, offers the structure whereby textual
72
Religion East & West
Normative Texts and Multiple Meanings
analysis becomes a tool for spiritual progress. The Mosaic Law and the Prophets do contain the eternal Word within themselves, in the same way as the events and characters that one encounters in the historical books of the Old Testament are in many cases intimations of the person and the work of Christ. The attentive reader is called to find Christ within these texts, and thereby he or she will grasp how the history of God’s pact with the Hebrews was a preparation for the eternal covenant established in Christ. The literal meaning is thus voided and at the same time it acquires a new spiritual value; those who cling to the old literal meaning fail to intuit the spiritual dimension of the scriptures and are left with an empty shell of a text. The extent to which a reader of the Old Testament will grasp the spiritual meaning of the text will of course depend on his or her degree of spiritual development; For Tsong kha pa, at the time of the old dispensations, it would have been appropriate to stop at the literal meaning of the text the teaching has and advance no more, but this is no longer the case. Lectio divina is thus a movement through history and eternal validity. time, no less than through different levels of meaning; the deeper our relationship with God in Christ, the more can we penetrate into the layers of meaning that are already hidden in the text. To echo Origen’s already mentioned reading of the Song of Songs, those who enter the realm of spiritual interpretation are those who drink ever more deeply of the mystical drought concealed in the cellar of their beloved.37 Tsong kha pa’s argument is not framed in relational terms, since his primary concern is not the development of a personal relationship with the Buddha, but rather an appropriation of his teaching. As he explains in great detail in The Great Treatise on the Path to Enlightenment, the mechanism of causality that structures conventional reality is what enables one to pursue wisdom and compassion in such a way that one can eventually attain enlightenment. Texts dealing with conventional reality did not acquire a deeper meaning after the coming of the Buddha; rather, this meaning was already present, albeit hidden to the eyes of most. In this perspective, there are no historical dispensations that succeed each other, and the deeper meaning of neyartha statements is independent of any specific historical events. Meditation on the sutras and the commentarial tradition helps individual practitioners ground their practice in an awareness of emptiness, while at the same time appreciating the role of the natural order in the pursuit of the pāramitās. While more advanced practitioners will be able to rest in their insight into emptiness, beginners will concentrate on the more conventional Issue 11, October 2012
73
Thomas Cattoi
meaning, with effectively an infinite possibility of meanings in line with the level of spiritual development of the practitioner. Given that Tsong kha pa views emptiness as allowing for a countless number of interpretations, it becomes virtually impossible to assert that any conventional statement is per se incorrect. The only exception would be if anyone were to regard a conventional statement as conveying an ultimate truth: and this is the error of svatantrika Madhyamaka, which according to Tsong kha pa’s prasangika version of Madhyamaka is effectively misconstruing the distinction between conventional and ultimate reality. For Tsong kha pa, what is normative is any text that affirms the groundlessness of reality, so that any assertion or opinion about reality that does not challenge this fundamental assumption is regarded as legitimate, as long as it is conducive to spiritual progress. Given the virtually endless number of sentient beings that exist throughout the cosmos, this also allows for an endless number of interpretations of the Dharma that suits their level of development. Origen, for his part, views the eternal Word of God as offering the hermeneutic key discriminating between normative and alternative, or perhaps subordinate texts. The Gospel narratives that recount the coming of the Messiah are the benchmark against which Old Testament texts must be evaluated. Quite likely, Tsong kha pa would accuse Origen of being a svatantrika: for Origen, the eternal Logos and his coming in the flesh are what gives meaning to the universe, so that everyone is actually called to accept the incarnation as the key salvific event. As such, the Mosaic Law and the Prophets retain validity, provided that they are interpreted through the correct interpretive lenses; and consequently, whether an interpretation is correct or incorrect hinges on whether it is compatible with Origen’s fundamental Christological vision. Tsong kha pa’s world is one of emptiness, where the Dharma helps practitioners work their way up from the conventional realm to an insight into śūnyatā; Origen’s world is one of plenitude, where the Logos scattered in the pages of Old and New Testament helps readers develop a personal relationship with Christ. This overview of Origen’s and Tsong kha pa’s exegetical strategies reveals how these two authors developed analogous approaches to interpret sacred texts, even as each of the two was almost certainly unaware of the existence of the religious tradition of the other. In both cases, an active engagement of the text and the discernment of its deeper meaning play a crucial role in the spiritual growth of the individual. Origen’s hermeneutic, however, presupposes a theist perspective, as well as a notion of historically developing revelation, resulting in an explicit Christological criterion discriminating between correct and incorrect views.
74
Religion East & West
Normative Texts and Multiple Meanings
Tsong kha pa’s radical apophaticism, for its part, allows for virtually countless alternative voices within sacred texts, as long as they do not question the ultimate quality of the emptiness that undergirds reality. Notes 1. Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 6, In Eusebius, The History of the Church, trans. R. Williamson (London and New York: Penguin, 2004). 2. As with many figures of the early Church, biographic information about Origen is often tinged with either hagiographic or condemnatory overtones. For a contemporary overview of Origen’s life, see Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen (New York: Routledge, 1998). 3. Epiphanios of Salamis, Adversus Haereses (Panarion), XLIV, 63, in The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, trans. Frank Williams (Leiden: Brill, 1987, 1994). 4. The extant homilies are on Genesis (17), Exodus (13), Leviticus (18), Numbers (28), Joshua (16), Judges (9), First Samuel (2), Psalms 36-38 (9), Song of Songs (2), Isaiah (9), Jeremiah (7 in Greek, 2 in Latin, and 12 in both Greek and Latin), Ezekiel (14), and Luke (39). 5 Of the Commentarium in Johannem, only Books I, II, X, XIII, a fragment of XIX, XX, XXVIII, and XXXII have been preserved. Of the Commentarium in Matthaeum, we have eight books, though even they may only be a shorter version of an ever more extensive work. 6. Jean Daniélou, Origen, trans. Walter Mitchell (London and New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955). 7. Daniélou, 140. 8. Origen, De Principiis 4, 2 (PG 11, 345–6). 9. Is. 7, 22; 51, 1; 55, 25 10. Zech. 9, 10. 11. Origen, Contra Celsum, 7, 18 (PG 11, 1445–1448). 12. Origen, De Principiis 4, 1, 1–4 (PG 11, 341–350). 13. Origen, Comm. In Joh 1, 13; 2, 30 (PG 14, 45–46; 181–184); Hom Luc. 16 (PG 13, 1839–1842). One of such New Testament passages is “This child is destined to bring about the ruin of many and the rise of many in Israel” (Luke 2, 34). 14. Origen, Comm. Matt. 15, 3 (PG 13, 1257–1262). 15. Origen, De Principiis 4 1, 1-4 (PG 11, 341–350). 16. Readers familiar with Jewish exegesis know very well how the Rabbinic tradition is very open to a plurality of scriptural interpretations and how in fact allegory plays an important role in many Jewish exegetical traditions (such as Kabbalism in later centuries). See for instance Gershom Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Shocken Books, 1996). From Origen’s perspective, however, all these different interpretations would still reflect a mistaken attachment to the literal meaning. 17. Origen, Hom. Cant. 3 (PG 13, 179–180). 18. Gal 3, 18-29: 4, 1–7. 19. Matt. 13, 46. 20. Origen, Hom Jos. 17, 1 (PG 12, 909–910). 21. Origen, Comm. Matt. 12, 10 (PG 13, 995–999).
Issue 11, October 2012
75
Thomas Cattoi 22. Ibid., 5 (PG 13, 985–988). 23. Origen, De Principiis 4, 1, 6 (PG 11, 351–354). 24. Origen, Comm. Matt. 10, 5 (PG 13, 843–846). 25. Maximos the Confessor, Amb. 10 (PG 91, 1127d–1133a). 26. Origen, Hom. Jos. 9, 8 (PG 12, 876–7). 27. Ibid. 28. See Tsongkhapa, Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 2001); for The Essence of True Eloquence, see Robert A. F. Thurman, The Central Philosophy of Tibet: A Study and Translation of Jey Tsong Khapa’s ‘Essence of True Eloquence’ (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984). The term Central philosophy refers of course to Madhyamaka. 29. Thurman, 189. 30. Ibid., 210–8. 31. See Tsongkhapa, Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, vol. 2. This section of the Lam rim chen mo text contains an extensive discussion of the six pāramitās in a way that echoes earlier Mahāyāna texts such as Śantideva’s classic Bodhicharyavatāra. See Padmakara Translation Group, The Way of the Bodhisattva, rev. ed. (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2006). 32. See The Teaching of Akshayamati, 5–9, in Thurman, 253. 33. Tsong kha pa is playing on the etymology of the term neyartha, where neya is the gerundive of the verb “to lead.” 34. Thurman, 254–5. 35. Ibid., 258–9. 36. For an extensive discussion of the significance of this debate, see Georges B. J. Dreyfus and Sara L. McClintock (eds.), The Svatantrika-Prasangika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make? (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2003). 37. Origen, Hom. Cant. 3 (PG 13, 179–80).
76
Religion East & West