Before the text of the heart sutra constinues, the commentary has a chapter on interpreting emptiness, which I'd like to quote from. Tomorrow, we'll get back to the text of the heart sutra!
In this chapter, the Dalai Lama examines various perspectives on the meaning of emptiness. The Mind-Only School "rejects the reality of a self and rejects the reality of an external, obbjective material reality, [but] it nonetheless maintains that subjective experience--that is to say, the mind, does have substantial reality." "From a practical perspective, this view is very useful: it is not hard to see how recognizing that the qualities we perceive in objects are merely aspects of our own mind could have a dramatic impact on reducing our attachment to those external objects." However, this is not the most refined view, that of the "Middle Way school," which we'll hear more about in a bit.
Earlier we observed that one of the principal features of the Buddha's teachings is that they were spoken to accord with the varying spiritual and mental needs and dispositions of the listeners.
And, speaking of interpreting Buddha's words critically:
The need for such an approach is found in the Buddha's own sutras. There is a verse in which Buddha urges his followers to take his words as they might accept from a jeweler a metal that appears to be gold: only after seeing the metal does not tarnish when burned, can be easily sut, and can be polished to a bright shine should the metal be accepted as gold. Thus, the Buddha gives us his permission to critically examine even his own teachings. Buddha suggests we make a thorough inquiry into the truth of his words and verify them for ourselves, and only then "accept them, but not out of reverence."
These words are wonderful! It is related to the Buddhist tradition of the four reliances.
Do not rely merely on the person, but on the words;
Do not rely merely on the words, but on their meaning;
Do not rely merely on the provisional meaning, but on the definitive meaning; and
Do not rely merely on intellectual understanding, but on direct experience.
Okay, as promised, on to the Middle Way.
Unless one is able to recognize the emptiness of the internal world as well, one may become attached to such experiences as tranquility or bliss, and averse to such experiences as sadness or fear.
This touches on an idea I think is very important. Sadness and fear need not be regarded with sadness or fear. I am pretty attached to tranquility at the moment, but not as much as I was. For example, I am less bothered now if my meditation does not proceed "smoothly," or an event happens in the day to disturb my emotional equilibrium. In fact, when my meditation does not go smoothly, it is a good thing, as it alerts me to a troubled state of mind, I may not even have been consciously aware of.
Finally, a summary on the meaning of emptiness:
This very fact, that things and events can only be understood in relation to, or in dependence upon, other factors, suggests that they do not exist by means of an intrinisic nature.
4 comments:
I'd like to pose a question. There is a school of thought that all of our thoughts are social constructs. If a different culture develops a mathematics in which 2+2=5, then there is no objective sense in which they are wrong. I have always strongly disagreed with this viewpoint. It seems to me that there are certain objective truths, such as those arising from logic and mathematics. How does this jibe with the idea of emptiness? I suppose one could say that "2+2=4" has no self-nature because it depends on a surrounding cloud of concepts, such as the meanings of the symbols, the logical framework in which they sit, and perhaps the use to which they're put. So if another culture comes up with "2+2=5" one has to ask whether it sits in the same context. Do the symbols mean the same thing? Is it applied in the same way? I don't know. The philosophy of mathematics has always been a confusing morass for me. I suppose I will content myself with saying that "2+2=4" has no self-nature, and maybe I'll understand this sort of thing better in the future.
An easier question is whether or not someone can be wrong. If reality is an illusion, can our opinions about it be incorrect? The answer is that reality is not an illusion, it is real, but cannot be accurately conceptualized. Hence all of our opinions about it are wrong, but some are truer than others.
Now where does mathematics fit into this? I can clearly perceive that the conceptualization of what exactly mathematics is and how it fits in to reality is a hard problem. :)
Take two models of engines.
One is of an internal combustion engine, and allows an observer to conceptualize how such an engine works. If the model is detailed enough, it might allow an observer to build the real thing.
The second is of a Seussian engine, with flimfloos and spinwhizzles. An observor is unable to deduce anything from it besides its aesthetic value. It does not allow her to understand or build an engine.
The second is called an engine but does not work. It seems to me that this is analogous to the 2 + 2 = 5 construction.
It does seem analogous.
Post a Comment