An exegesis of Sudhana’s Encounter with Vasumitra

Whenever someone makes the uninformed and presumptuous assertion that all Buddhism is life-hating and negative and pessimistic and impractical and all that claptrap, I introduce them to the reality of ‘erroneous/mistaken/malicious translations’. What does this mean? It means that throughout Buddhism’s history in the West, whether on part of ignorance, mistakes or malevolent intent, the second of the Four Noble Truths have been too often translated as ‘Suffering is caused by desire’. Anti-Buddhists always use this translation to make a case against it… nevermind the fact that the First Truth states that life is characterized by suffering, which is something hard to argue against since it’s neither pessimistic or optimistic, and the Third Truth negates the previous two by asserting there’s a way of getting out of this suffering! I guarantee you that anti-Buddhists will never, ever mention the Third Truth, lest it demolish their illusion of Buddhism as pessimistic!

But going back to the Second Truth. Why is this a mistaken translation? Well, the English speakers haven’t taken into account that the English language only has one word - ‘desire’ - for ‘desire’, whereas Sanskrit has a slew of them, the most common being ‘karuna‘ and ‘tanha‘ (thirst). Time and again it is tanha that is warned against in the early and later Buddhist scriptures since tanha is, guess what, the negative word for ‘desire’, whereas we can never have too much karuna, ever. Therefore ‘Suffering is caused by negative desire/craving/thirst’ is a much better translation and thankfully this seems to be the norm translation nowadays, because the ‘Suffering is caused by desire’ translation not only stinks of poor scholarship or even malevolent intent, but also trivializes the potential of English translators and insults the depth and wisdom of the sacred languages of Pali and Sanskrit.

My favourite thing to pull out, however, is the message of the Mahayana movement. To date I have yet to encounter someone who, while discussing with me about the principles and presuppositions of the Mahayana, denounced its premises as somehow unethical, unfounded, illogical, or life-hating. In fact, while a couple have been pleasantly neutral, many have expressed interest and admiration for it (I do have an agenda when I am defending Buddhist principles, since I am acting as a defender of the tradition, but as Buddhism is no missionary religion, I merely react and offer, not preach or play apologist). Among my philosophical arsenal is the narrative of Sudhana’s meeting with Vasumitra, the 25th teacher out of the 52 Sudhana must learn under. She is a bodhisattva who also happens to be a prostitute. Now that’s hot. That she is one of the 52 grand masters who guide Sudhana in the epic ‘Entry into the Realm of Reality’ of the Avatamsaka Sutra (or on its own, is known as the Gandavyuha Sutra), along with many other teachers such as feminine divinities, city goddesses, night goddesses, and Buddha’s own female relations, is speaking of the greatness held to women as an essential part of Sudhana’s own journey, a microcosm of the mystic totality recorded in the Avatamsaka Sutra. As part of my own commentary on this passage, Vasumitra possibly represents the Hua-yen attitude towards women and how their roles in society could play a part in helping sentient beings attain enlightenment - after all, in the Mahayana vision, there is no being left behind in the grand project of collective liberation.

Basically, Sudhana is directed to Vasumitra, and encounters some people who look only on the surface and see her as nothing but a physical slut or a purely sensual woman who is anathema to noble monks. They urge him not to see her:

‘…what have you to do with Vasumitra? You should not have any lust for her, your head should not be turned by her, you should not have any such impure thoughts, you should not be ravaged by such desires, you should not be under the power of a woman, you should not be so bewitched, you should not enter the realm of temptation, you should not sink into the mire of sensuality, you should not be bound by the snares of the devil, you should not do what should not be done.’ (1270-1271)

Others direct him to her house north of the town plaza, saying that Sudhana would surely learn from Vasumitra’s virtue and scope of knowledge. So he goes. Her house is stunning - it is surrounded by ten jewel walls, ten circles of jewel trees, and ten moats filled with fragrant water. The house has chambers and towers made of all kinds of precious substances, high arched doorways, and circular windows draped with nets and blazing with jewels. Finally, the house is perfumed with all kinds of fragrant oils, and adorned with sprays of jewel flowers.

But the house cannot compare to Vasumitra herself. She’s a courtesan with great powers of seduction. ‘There he saw Vasumitra, who was beautiful, with golden skin and black hair, her limbs and body well-proportioned, more beautiful in form than all celestial and human beings in the realm of desire, her voice finer even than that of the god Brahma.’ (1271) Her body, emanating blissful, refreshing, rapturous light, illuminates the entire house. Like all the 52 masters, she is knowledgable in all the arts and sciences, and as a bodhisattva, she has mastered all aspects of the expedient means so important in Mahayana Buddhism. As if that doesn’t make hetero men perk up enough, Vasumitra has a large retinue of women like herself, all with the same virtues, the same practice, and the same vow.

How does she teach? She transmutes passion into dispassion, animalistic drives into Bodhisattva motivation, physical lust into wondrous love. ‘All who come to me with minds full of passion, I teach them so that they become free of passion.’ (1272) She teaches sentient beings who come to her full of lust by embracing that lust, because, as a bodhisattva prostitute, she rejects no one. Those who wanted only to ravish her body now attain a serenity and quiet peace they never could have imagined getting from a whore: “Some attain dispassion just by embracing me, and achieve an enlightening concentration called ‘womb receiving all sentient beings without rejection.” Some attain dispassion just by kissing me, and attain an enlightening concentration called “contact with the treasury of virtue of all beings.”‘ (1272)

Therefore, she teaches by utilizing the physical, primeval, sensuous human touch - through kissing, embracing, and sex. Can anyone now seriously deny the presence of a powerful teaching within Mahayana that embraces all aspects of life?? Can anyone say that Buddhism forcibly suppresses all desires, all motivations? Let’s refer to the commentary by Li Tongxuan:

‘The name of Vasumitra means “Friend of the World”, meaning that she was a teacher and friend to people. Her femaleness represents being in the absolute without being absorbed by it, while being in the midst of bondage without being affected by it. She gave the appearance of impassioned behaviour, yet her heart was dispassionate. She appeared to be a woman, yet in ultimate reality is neither male nor female; she is just portrayed as a female to represent the compassion of the real universe.’ (1599)

And finally, her teaching style.

‘Vasumitra went on to speak of holding her hand, getting up on her couch, gazing at her, embracing her, and kissing her. Holding her hand means seeking salvation. Getting up on her couch means ascendancy of formless knowledge. Gazing at her means seeing truth, embracing her means not departing from it. Kissing her means receiving instruction… This illustrates how all who come near enter a door of total knowledge, unlike those who only seek to get out of bondage and do not arrive at the ultimate dispassion — supreme knowledge of the real universe that remains in the polluted world without being defiled, freely helping the living, neither bound nor freed.’ (1600)

The commentary does not clearly state whether or not Sudhana actually has sex with Vasumitra, but it is likely that he did, so that she could transmit her knowledge to him. Nevertheless, this is open to question since the Sutra passage itself is silent about this and Li Tongxuan only hints at the lovemaking they might or might not have shared. But to achieve dispassion by an encounter with passion and thereby attain great knowledge is not a completely unfamiliar idea, and is proof of the all-encompassing ‘expedient means’ teachings of Buddhism.

This story, among many others, is why the Avatamsaka sutra is my favourite Buddhist scripture, and also why my own copy of Thomas Cleary’s translation is my most precious book in my entire collection. It is what keeps Buddhism in tune with the human condition, whilst ultimately transcending it, as Vasumitra’s teaching method does. If my philosophical arsenal can be metaphor-ized as such, this narrative is a tactical nuke.