Creating vs. Destroying the World: Comparisons between Mimamsa and Mahayana Traditions

(I am a trifle busy, so I am skipping my usual practice of careful citation. The concepts discussed within are from the first two chapters of More than Imagination and the sutras devoted to Valmakirti). 



This week I wish to draw attention to what I have observed as a significant difference between our discussion of Mahayana traditions and Dr. Shulman's arguments about Mimamsa concepts of creative imagination. Mahayana traditions carry on the idea of the Buddhist concept of the ultimate nothinglessness of the world--the world is real and not real, the mind is real and not real, all life and experiences are ultimately illusion. The primary way to divest oneself of the parasitic attachment to insubstantial life is through intense mental experiences, such as meditation after extreme austerities, memorization, and teaching. Realization of nonreality is a mental experience.

However, despite the focus on noncreation, the element of the Buddhafields persists. These are paradises that exist in real ways, as opposed to the world, beautiful and created from the nature of the Buddha. The concept of the Buddhafield resonates with the examples in the book, More Than Imagination, where Dr. Shulman discusses multiple mental constructs that are viewed with validity compared to earthy objects. A mental temple is more worthy than one of wood and stone, an imaged face on a painting is more lifelike that the real drawing, and an imagined paramour is more faithful than a real one. In all of these examples, unless I miss my interpretation, the mental objects are valid without ever being physically manifested.

This reveals a commonality between Mimamsa thought and, at least, the thought in the Mahayana sutras devoted to Valmakirti. Pure mental effort can create something more perfect than physical objects, and is worthy of great dedication and effort. Despite the Mimamsa concepts of using rituals to make current and future worlds more pleasant, and their general increased focus on matters of the world as opposed to the Buddhist objective of using teaching and thought to escape them, they share a common appreciation of the significance of intense thought.