Buddha asks Subhuti a question which seems to lead nowhere. If one were to grind a huge number of galaxies into atoms, would there be a lot of atoms? Subhuti says yes, even though atoms and galaxies are provisional concepts. Unlike some previous times, Buddha doesn't go on to use the answer itself to develop his point, but rather uses Subhuti's provisos to develop his point. "Yes, indeed, Subhuti, attachment to an entity, such as a galaxy or an atom, is neither dharma nor a dharma, incomprehensible and inexpressible."
The subdivision process is related to the holistic conception of reality. The universe is made of atoms, so it is not fully unified, but on the other hand the atoms cannot exist apart from the universe, so they are not fully individual. My concept of a door is inaccurate, and the door itself has no self-nature. It cannot exist apart from the trees that were cut down to make it. It cannot exist apart from human culture. My personal concept of the door cannot exist apart from me. The door could not exist without the door frame. It can't hang in midair. But the doorframe cannot exist without the wall, else it wouldn't really be a door in the usual sense. If I were to conceive of a door in a doorframe without a wall, such as might exist after a tornado demolished most of the house, this would merely point to the fluid nature of the concept of door. It is not solid and fixed, but changing. However, despite all of these ways in which the `door' is empty, if I were to attempt to walk through it without opening it, I would fail. Just as the atoms referred to above have some individual existence, so does the door. The empty nature of reality does not mean reality does not exist.
In a similar vein, we can never fully understand the mind of another person. (In fact we can never understand our own mind.) But that doesn't mean we should ignore people, or that we need not be compassionate. Indeed, it means quite the opposite. All boundaries are illusory, the dividing line between me and another person is artificial. I am part of the human organism. I am part of the body of the natural world. As a result, I want to be compassionate and helpful toward others. On the other hand, I am not the leader of the human organism or the natural world, just a small cell in the complex whole. As a result, I am not responsible for the actions of another. I cannot change anyone else, nor can I force them to do anything. They are their own people. Complex individuals with a universe full of atoms of their own. (Several commentators took the start of Chapter Thirty to be metephorical for the mind (the universe) and its thoughts (the atoms).) We are all one, but we are all many. We have incomprehensible diversity and complexity.
2 comments:
Bishop Berkeley's sentiment expressed here is like Subhuti's understanding at the beginning of the Sutra. He understands that reality is empty. He and Bishop Berkeley have the prajna eye. Beyond this comes the dharma eye, the eye which sees that there is something out there, and in particular other beings who need help. Melding the two perspectives is the Buddha eye, which realizes that both perspectives are true.
"Indeed, Subhuti," Buddha said, "this 'seizing upon a material object' is a convention of language, an expression devoid of real content. It is neither dharma nor adharma...
Thanks for the multiple translations. It often happens that a couple of them will seem obscurte to me while one comes thrugh clear and true.
Post a Comment