Interdependence, Not Independence Part II
We can understand what Buddhism observes about phenomena with an ontological distinction: the difference between pure being (which must be unchanging) and relative being, which can be said to only participates in being (and as such, it is shown to be subject to change and decay). The divergence between the two is vast. What participates in being is what is said to be empty, because it lacks inherent being. That which inherently exists would be independent in its existence: it would have to be its own cause, and, by definition, it could have no beginning or end.
In order to make claims about phenomena, Buddhism developed a sophisticated approach with which it used to analyze them. Indeed, it had to point out that what is described in convention to exist cannot be said, on an absolute level, to actually be. That is, any given phenomenon we describe cannot really be found. For when we examine a given phenomenon, it is composite in form, and each of its parts, when separated from the phenomenon, could not be said, by itself, to be that phenomenon. Any part, when looked at in this way, is shown not to be the phenomenon, and yet, when put together, we state the phenomenon is there. We cannot find the phenomenon, as a thing in itself, only when its parts are contingently put together to form it does it come to be. For this reason, phenomena are said to be conventions, not realities. Because the phenomenon can not be found in any of its parts, and is only conventionally said to exist when all its parts are brought together, Mahayanists deny absolute value to phenomena. Absolute truth can only be what is unchanging and necessarily true, something which phenomena cannot be said to be.
For Buddhism, this kind of analysis is of special importance when dealing with the human individual. We are more aware of our own self than we are to anything else. The notion of the self, which is one of self-identity and self-understanding, is quite important to a given individual, for without that notion, the individual could not exist. But, because there is a kind of imputation going on to describe the self, a phenomenon like any other, that self cannot be said, in absolute sense, to exist. Thus Buddhist philosophers ask us to take a good look at ourselves, and to see if there is anything we find which we could say, “That is me, that is who I am, and nothing else.” Whatever we might suggest as to being our true self is put under a matrix of questions and investigated to see if it can truly be said to be who we are. But, as with any other phenomenon, Buddhism will end up denying it really represents the self as a whole; it is not who we are, and, if it is taken by itself, outside of the rest of our being, we will find we have lost much of what it is to be ourselves. Various suggestions have been given by Buddhists as to what we might want to suggest as being who we are; some of them, indeed, are quite humorous (are we our nose?), although it seems to me this humor is done on purpose, and it is trying to show us how ridiculous it is to try to find the self. That is, by going to extreme absurdity, a kind of reductio ad absurdum is being done. In the end we are to discover that our self is made from a composition of many parts; they all relate to each other, and when grouped together, in a proper formation, our self is said to be found. Yet because that self is established through these contingent elements, our self is shown have no inherent existence, like all other phenomena. Our identity is shown to be relative, and our own very self is shown to be empty of a real, non-changing core. Our physical and spiritual constituents, when they are combined, are what we identify as our self, but each of them alone is not sufficient to be considered that self.
Our self is the phenomenon we are most familiar with, and by examining it and seeing how it is really a combination of specific aggregates, we can use what we have learned to help us to understand the dependent relationship that all phenomena have with each other. When we look at our own self, when we try to find it, we discover it does not have independent existence, and as such, we do not have independent existence. The self is shown to be a relative phenomenon. Since the self is the core of our own “existence,” we can come to understand our own emptiness, that is, our own lack of inherent being. We can find nothing within ourselves to establish that independent existence. All the constituents or aggregates of our person, when examined individually, are all seen to have nothing that possesses our selfhood. The existence of our self depends upon these aggregates joining together to form who we are. When we examine these aggregates on their own, we can find out that that they also are made of different parts, and depend upon several contingent factors for their existence as well. Their existence is not self-subsisting, and so, depends upon the world at large. Thus we have a self which depends upon various aggregates to exist, and these aggregates are themselves made of parts which are related to factors that transcend what we would normally identify as ourselves. Since we depend upon these aggregates, we depend upon that which is outside of what we conventionally think ourselves to be.
…we depend on that which is outside of what we conventionally think ourselves to be.
I think this is true. The self is not wholly separate from the other, and therefore to know the self we must go through the other, so to speak. The path to self-knowledge requires a continuous hermeneutic detour through another and back to what we call the self.
Kyle — right, which is a major theme of the essay, and becomes center focus in part 3. While I am editing it , Iam trying to fix up a few things here and there, but in doing so, I am still keeping it to what I was trying to say a few years ago when I originally outlined my ideas (and the more I edit it, the more rough I find I was — not in concepts, but in style).
Very good stuff!
Mahayanists deny absolute value to phenomena. Absolute truth can only be what is unchanging and necessarily true, something which phenomena cannot be said to be.
How do thoughts like this, if applied to Christianity (as I think they legitimately can and should be) affect how we perceive Dogmatic statements of the Church? Can we as finite, aggregate, empty beings ever claim to describe the absolute Truth, or an aspect of the absolute Truth absolutely? What dogmatic formulations must we cling to? Person and Nature? Transubstantiation? Which can we or ought we reformulate in order to translate the truth of the traditional formulations for the modern hearer of the word? How can this be responsibly, effectively, accurately?
Should we even have dogmatic statements? Perhaps those saints who express the Truth in love poems to God are expressing it more faithfully than dogmatic statements?
What do you think?
“Perhaps those saints who express the Truth in love poems to God are expressing it more faithfully than dogmatic statements?”
That’s an easy one :) One should never adopt, but rather adapt. Those most strictly adhering to paragraphs 1-92012 tend to be the ones who think a war of choice is just dandy, as long as one doesn’t have to fill contraception prescriptions. The rule-cult is a trap in any system. I love the “vague” character of esp. Zen – fuzzy and crystal clear. It’s hard to capture in words. I do recommend looking into the Tao as well, given its close relationship to Zen. Definitely an expansion of thinking for Westerners.
Should we even have dogmatic statements? Perhaps those saints who express the Truth in love poems to God are expressing it more faithfully than dogmatic statements?
JB,
Imagine a highly educated Catholic going back in a time machine a few years after the death of Jesus and trying to explain Catholic doctrine to the surviving apostles and early Christians. Would it make any sense at all to them?
JB
Should we have doctrines/dogmatics? Certainly. But we should also understand that they are human expressions which point to something beyond themselves and why you can engage doctrines in complementary ways, which might, on the most literal level (if you engage the words that way) which seem contradictory while they lead to and show the truth — the paradox of conventions. But one can certainly say something is false (a rabbit with horns, for example, is not in the world of phenomena), while on the other hand, realize that the convention used to express that phenomena, while truth, is not the fullness of truth and must be ready to move way for something more…. which is why I like Nicholas of Cusa and his “coincidence of the opposites” or, as we find here, Madhyamika Buddhism with its “two truths” (Yogacara makes it more complicated and talks about the three truths, and I sometimes switch between the two and the three, not here, but in my thoughts, though I see the two-truths as easier to discuss and ultimately accepable). The two truths being conventions and absolute truth.
Gerald:
The Tao is interesting, but, as one can expect, its history is filled with a long range of traditions, and, like Buddhism, not always “peaceful” – the notion that one can gain immortality through the Tao also includes using others for that immortality. On the philosophical level, it has much to offer – and indeed, “Logos” is associated with “Tao” in China.
I find a quilt fascinating – it all comes together (when all is one and one is all, to be a rock and not to roll – Led Zeppelin, heh) and it all is different. Of course it’s called, I think, syncretism. But, the combined, accumulated wisdom seems to be superior than one approach. Buddhist thinking is both open to all kinds of strands and provides discipline.
I do think that poetry, aphorisms, vignettes, koans, jokes can convey things better than rulebooks. Not that institutional Buddhism is free from ossification of course, that’s just human nature, to try and pin everything down. Control is an attempt to stave off fear.
Religion has always been syncretistic, if one looks at its evolution; no matter which tradition, those which survive take from and learn from other traditions, some which also survive, some which are over-come by this adaptation. Christianity with its engagement of Hellenism shows one example of this, Buddhism with its incorporation of the Tao with the Zen tradition shows another. It is indeed quite interesting. The difficulty is in such engagement, to be honest with what you are doing, and not over-simplify or ignore the differences, or what is being rejected as you adapt. That way it is not simplistic, which is the problem of bad adaptations.
“Religion has always been syncretistic”
Shhhhhhh. I know, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but I’d be careful. It blogs these days :-P
I think Catholicism could benefit a lot from a more abstract approach and seeing some things as “legendary”. It’s not so much whether something happened, or who wrote it, but what the message is. Catholicism suffers under its own accumulated weight. In addition, all religions and ideologies draw people who can turn the most exhilarating experience into a nightmare. Would the Catholic Church be less “successful” if it “relaxed” ? It might. Of course, most people who go to church are “relaxed” already. Granted, it’d be less of a draw for the more fanatical. As Bertrand Russell said, they don’t celebrate their faith, they mourn it. On the other hand, the non-fire-brand denominations like Episcopalian seem to face a greater “blood loss”. It always help to get people excited over something to be against.
Protect marriage! Restore marriage! Protect our children! (Lewis Black: “Roving bands of gay bandidos move through the neighborhoods, breaking into people’s homes and **** each other in the family livingroom(….). And another American family is destroyed !”) A collection of resentments is often what is called piety. Crazies simply care more. They are the ones bombarding chanceries with complaints.
Apart from seeing reality rather than an illusion, focus is also a main issue. The suffering of others ought to be more important than gay marriage, “under God”, the “war on Christmas” etc. But guess what – it ain’t with that crowd. A trifecta of error – illusion, lack of compassion and misplaced focus. I do remember playing the “abortion card” like a joker – it trumps everythang ! Because of some pointless distinction of “evils”. And because it’s the most convenient position to adopt. It requires nothing.
“Social justice people” certainly get it wrong a LOT (failing to see reality, blinded by good intentions and false views of society/people), but to mock every attempt per se (“oh, they’re “social justice Catholics” – as opposed to what ? “F*** you all” Catholics ?) would seem to be worse. Not to mention, what good is a faith without works ? Nobody profits from someone else firmly believing every dogma. It’s a self-contained (independent, not interdependent) system. It produces nothing. Well, maybe a religious war. When religion mainly consists of being against things, it just means that it’s “Get off my lawn!” with incense.
Another case of self-delusion is the Iraq War. Viewing a people as just waiting for us to enlighten them. (Lewis Black “Here’s a civics book, you $#%#!. There’ll be a test next Thursday.”) Then the notion of “supporting our troops” by virtue of supporting the war. Uhhh. Then the notion that opposition to the war means supporting the enemy. Then the notion that one cannot stop the war now, because otherwise the people would have died in vain. Apparently, MORE people need the chance to die in vain. Then the delusion that there are only dead Americans. The others are, at best, an afterthought. One may here about dead opponents, but mainly to brag. The people who got collaterally damaged, and the ones who get murdered by the very people the war caused to pop up (or, as it were, to freakin’ move there – terror tourism), who cares ? Bush is pro-life. No pill for you. Three cheers.
Everything delusional can be torn down via the Zen approach. Of course, euphemisms are far more convenient, from “pro life” to “pro choice” to “pro family” to “collateral damage” to “final solution” to “concentration camp”. On the other hand, the delusional pejoratives. “Just a Jew”. “Enemy of the people”, “Klassenfeind” (class enemy), “Untermensch”, “Heretic”. Reducing people to one feature – “Sodomite”, “Nigger”.
It takes the removal of people’s humanity – again an illusion – to enable (regular) people to treat them as un-human. It’s ok to kill him because he’s just a (take your pick). On a lesser level, say, it’s ok to deny them the right to get married because they’re just a bunch of fags. Which is what the whole natural law argument comes down to. Hating the sin, loving the sinner – another popular delusion and convenient excuse.
The “sanctity of marriage” really means “these people are unholy”. Another denial of reality is the unbelievably idiotic statement that gays have the right to get married – they can marry someone of the other sex, after all. One can pick any topic and reveal the non-reality-based BS it’s mired in. “They hate us because we’re free”. “Defense of Marriage Act”, “Separate but equal”, “imminent threat”. Heck, one can run a whole Zen class just taking apart the 8 years of the Bush BS. The song “Let’s impeach the president” by Neil Young has this Bush audio clip. In it, he says that no WMDs had been found and added “But no one can now doubt the word of America.” Wrap your brain around THAT. That IS psychotic. So is his *$£!* grin when he talks about war, New Orleans, you name it. It’s called discrepancy between affect and thought content. It’s also part of borderline personality. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to be on medication. He probably trusts his favorite philosopher, Jesus, “because he changed my heart”. If true, that’d be a serious case of malpractice.
Of course, we’re all psychotic (although few can hope to reach the Bush level) – for psychosis means to see reality in unrealistic manner. Reaching enlightenment (which should be called awareness, to avoid the freakin’ “Grasshopper” caricature) means to reduce it step by step.
A lot of my blogging fury was directed at aesthetical issues – liturgy, music, architecture. This lead to some misunderstandings, conclusions that I’d be for xyz, too. The unfortunate thing (in the USA) is that good music frequently comes with a desire to dig up Generalissimo Franco (who’s still dead). Music is used for ideological more so than aestethical purposes, which makes it a sad hostage. (and again not seen/heard for what it is, but recruited for non-musical purposes) Not so much a problem in Europe, there are few fanatics left.
Buddhism, grosso modo, has a more relaxed approach. Heck, even, and in particular, the Buddha is “insulted” for teaching-moment purposes. Critical thinking is paramount, not accepting anything on the authority of others. Mythology also is not a problem. As far as art goes, the idea of emptiness and growing versus making is fascinating. Emptiness being confused with nihilism is unfortunate. As I’ve said before, music is what happens between the notes. There is silence in music and music in silence. These are quotes from Westerners, yet perfectly correspond to Buddhism. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness.
Michelangelo also comes to mind. Asked about “David”, Michelangelo claimed the masterpiece was already in the rock, he simply removed the excess stone to liberate “David”. He called it an image of the heart, the vision of the finished work.
Japanese art and Jazz fit this concept of growth versus creation. This is also why a creator he-man god isn’t really something feasible in this way of thinking.
“to be honest with what you are doing”
The hardest task – not because one necessarily lies but because one prefers the illusion. It helps that the voices in my head are now Lewis Black and Denis Leary ;-)
An important lesson is that everyone can teach you something, even, maybe especially, an “enemy”.