Using "infinity" as defined by Stace will help to answer some perplexing questions about the language of the Aṣṭa. What does it mean for beings to have no "own-being"? Why are all dharmas ultimately the same? Why are words such as "existence" problematic? Why are words as a whole problematic? It seems that questions such as these would all need, and deserve, their own separate treatment and analysis. However, I believe that they can all be successfully answered when armed with our definition of infinity.
The Aṣṭa uses many different words for the non-dual Absolute. Suchness, dharma, inexhaustibleness, emptiness, endless, and boundless all seem to be interchangeable synonyms for one another. I have chosen the word "Suchness" to encompass all of these other words for the sake of simplicity and also because the Aṣṭa itself seems to favor this term, using it when expounding on the non-dual nature of the Tathāgata and of all things at the beginning of Chapter Sixteen. This perfection itself, the Perfection of Wisdom, is said to be "the perfection of the Suchness of the Tathāgata." The Aṣṭa also instructs bodhisattvas to place their own self into Suchness so that they may then place all beings into Suchness. Suchness is "immutable and unchangeable, indiscriminate and undifferentiated." It is unproduced and it has gone beyond all opposites. Most importantly, Suchness is described as having no counterpart because it is without a second.
This sort of definition of Suchness is striking because it is identical to Stace's definition of infinity. Before going further, however, I need to take a moment to explain why it is so important to use the term "infinity", to single it out from other terms found in the Aṣṭa and to apply to it a specific kind of definition. Infinity, as a word and a concept, is not absent from the Aṣṭa. You might wonder then, why I am bringing it to the forefront if it is just one of many terms used to describe Suchness or used as an synonym for Suchness. This is because I believe that the common conception of infinity is not infinite enough. Infinity is often thought of as spatially infinite (something without borders, something that goes on forever), or temporally infinite (something eternal). These problematic conceptions of infinity keep us stuck in the common, conventional world. Individual entities could be present within infinite space, and some kind of individual entity could perhaps be temporally eternal. The problem is that thinking of infinity this way still allows us to use concepts because it still allows us to posit distinct beings.
 | |||||||
| The Prajnaparamita Personified/Picture taken by Gunawan Kartapranata |
The Aṣṭa considers all beings and all dharmas to be unreal, to be totally devoid of own-being. The Buddha makes this clear when he says to Subhuti that, "nothing real is meant by the word 'Bodhisattva.'"Conze also touches on this point when he argues that all Prajñāpāramitā literature can be summed up in two sentences: 1) that "one should become a Bodhisattva", and 2) that "there is no such thing as a Bodhisattva." Words such as "Arhatship" or "Tathāgatahood" also do not mean anything real. Not a single dharma can be apprehended as real, and neither can any separate individual being. The reason for this is because it is only Suchness which is truly real, and that which is truly real is unequalled, incomparable, and without measure In other words, the truly real is infinite in the sense that we have defined it here. Suchness has no other, and so there can be no Tathāgatas or bodhisattvas or any other beings of any sort. Even the Perfection of Wisdom itself has no own being, because there can not truly be any such thing as a separate and distinct Perfection of Wisdom, either as an oral or physical text, or even as a teaching.
Stace, though he uses the word "God" in reference to the Ultimate, comes to exactly the same conclusion. God (Suchness), "is not this kind of being nor that kind of being." If there is no being outside of the infinite, if there is nothing at all outside of the infinite, then the world and everything in it can be said to be "nothing." This is precisely what is being done in the Aṣṭa through the denial own-being and the assertion that all beings and dharmas are not truly real. The Aṣṭa makes clear that it is a mistake to perceive the truly real in what is not truly real. It is a mistake to make signs and discriminations and to believe that anything at all, including Parinirvāṇa, can be discriminated from true Suchness.
Both the authors of the Aṣṭa and Stace came to the conclusion that language cannot adequately do the job, that it can in no way "capture" Suchness. Why is this so? Once again Stace provides us with a valuable insight by noting that the infinite is not "a difference of degree but a difference of kind." What this means is that there is no way to "know" the infinite by simply amassing more and more knowledge and hoping one day to understand it. Concepts cannot be used to make infinity intelligible because infinity is of an entirely different kind, it does not belong to the world of the senses and the mind. The difference in kind lies in the fact that we are finite, and the finite can never truly be infinite. We live in a finite world surrounded by finite objects, using finite ideas and conceptions. No matter how much is added to it, the finite can never be infinite. This is why nothing can ever be said about Suchness, because it is infinite.
This is essentially what Conze means when he says that "there is a qualitative difference between the highest rank of the spiritually awakened and the ordinary run of mankind." The highest rank of the spiritually awakened are those that have awakened to true Suchness. They have not simply added more quantity of knowledge or skill to however much they possessed already, their difference is not one of degree. They are now of a completely different quality, or kind. Stace illustrates this point by quoting the ancient philosopher Polonius, who remarked that, "when you cease to be finite you become one with the infinite." Only that which has ceased to be finite can be infinite. Finite words, ideas, and conceptions cannot hope to capture it.
Realizing this, we can turn our attention to one of the most beguiling sections of the Aṣṭa. The following passage displays a systematic disavowal of any attempts to apply finite conceptions to Suchness:
If we take such statements as - 'The Tathāgata continues to exist after death,' 'The Tathāgata does not continue to exist after death,' 'The Tathāgata does and does not continue to exist after death,' 'The Tathāgata neither does nor does not continue to exist after death' - then these statements refer to the skandhas only [and they have no basis in the true reality of the Tathāgata].
Source: Paul Nylander
Stace provides a perfect and simple summary of the above passage when he remarks that, "Suchness is above existence or non-existence or both or neither." This statement matches up flawlessly with the above passage. Suchness does not exist, because "existence" is a concept that is born from and applies strictly to the finite world. If the infinite was existent then it would lack non-existence, and as we know, the infinite cannot lack anything. Likewise "non-existence" is a concept that is born from and applies strictly to the finite world, and if the infinite was non-existent then it would lack existence. One might now be compelled to say that the infinite is both existent and non-existent at the same time. But since we have established that both ideas come from our finite and conditioned world, it stands to reason these two terms, neither of which are true of the infinite, will not suddenly be true of the infinite just because they are used together. If existence and non-existence could apply to Suchness, then we would still be "othering" anything that is neither. This is why Suchness cannot be "both/and" or "neither/nor" existent and non-existent.
Suchness is beyond any words or concepts that our finite minds can think of. The concepts refer "to the skandhas only," according to the above passage. What are the skandhas? They are the five aggregates of form, feeling, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness. It does not seem to be a far stretch to equate the skandhas with Stace's "finite world." The skandhas are finite, momentary, passing and impermanent. Any statements that refer to them cannot refer to the infinite, to the "reality of the Tathāgata." I believe that The Aṣṭa would agree with my equation of the skandhas with the finite world, for the Buddha himself explains that, "the five skandhas are reckoned as the 'world'."
Infinity can never be "got-at." According to Stace it is by definition "unattainable." The only way to "get anywhere" at all is by a constant stream of negations. This is why the Perfection of Wisdom in One Letter is simply the letter "A". The Sanskrit letter A is used as a prefix to negate the meaning of a word. For example, the word svabhāva (essence) becomes asvabhāva (no essence/without essence). The word loka (world) would become aloka (no world). The teachings of the Prajñāpāramitā literature can then ultimately be distilled into one single negation applied to absolutely everything we see in the world, reinforcing the idea that the infinite can never be reached from the finite. To stress the extent to which everything must be negated, Conze notes that even emptiness itself, which is a large part of the Aṣṭa, must ultimately also be acknowledged to not exist. Conze writes that, "the emptiness of all dharmas is empty of that emptiness." "The Void", the negation of all affirmations of finite reality, is a way of revealing the infinite. However, the Aṣṭa does not stop here.
There is one last important point that needs to be touched on. We have established that nothing can be said about Suchness because it is different in kind from the finite world, and so finite language cannot adequately capture it. Nevertheless, the Aṣṭa does try to convey Suchness in words, even if it acknowledges that this can never truly be done. Up to this point we have only discussed negative ways to speak about Suchness, noting that it cannot be identical to any finite thing. The Aṣṭa, and the Prajñāpāramitā literature as a whole, do seem to prefer coming at the paradox from the negative direction (as exemplified by the Perfection of Wisdom in One Letter). What needs to be stressed, however, is that the Aṣṭa does employs the use of paradox, and so it not only uses negative language but positive language as well. Positive language must be used and cannot be ignored because to truly be infinite, Suchness must somehow be identical to everything, to all beings and to all dharmas. Suchness must be that chair, as well as that table, book, Arhat, and Tathāgata, because none of these beings can be other to it.
This "positive" side does not mean that suddenly all beings are endowed with real own-being. That would not be true infinite Suchness, it would just be a collection of finite things. Rather, the Aṣṭa enforces the ultimate sameness of all beings and dharmas. It does this most strongly when Subhuti explains that his own Suchness is identical to the Suchness of the Tathāgata, which is identical to the Suchness of all dharmas. The Buddha also says that he can know the thoughts of all beings because they are all completely the same in ultimate Sameness. He explains that he is able to do this precisely because all beings have no real, separate existence. With this one statement we find ourselves having traversed one great, big, philosophical and existential circle.
We now find that it is precisely because beings are empty and devoid of own-being that they can be identical to Suchness. Being identical to Suchness must therefore mean that all beings and all dharmas are infinite, that they are without a second, that they have no other. This is why the Buddha speaks not only of knowing the minds of all beings, but of knowing their infinite and inexhaustible minds. This language is very positive compared to the language that we encountered earlier. In fact, one could not get any more positive than calling the minds of beings "infinite." All dharmas are also described by the Buddha as being inexhaustible because they are empty. "What is emptiness, that is also immeasurableness," says the Buddha. These two ideas necessarily go hand in hand. If something is empty of own-being than it is Suchness, because there is nothing other than Suchness.
Suchness must be spoken of in this paradoxical way because it is infinite, and if infinity has no other than it is not any finite thing. Yet all finite things must somehow be infinite, because if they are not then they would be an "other" to the infinite, which, as we have just established, cannot be the case. As Stace remarks, Prajñāpāramitā literature leaves us with the most extreme form of non-duality than is found in almost every other religion - it leaves us with the idea that there really is no difference between nirvāṇa and samsara, between the finite and the infinite. It is only Mahāyāna Buddhism, according to him, that "carries that paradox through to the last possible degree of conceivable or inconceivable paradoxicality." The Aṣṭa says exactly this by insisting that all dharmas have already attained nirvāṇa because Suchness is everywhere the same.
The selfness of individual beings dissolves away the moment you see infinity in them, the moment you see their Suchness. This is what the Perfection of Wisdom is. This is why, when the bodhisattva leads countless beings to Nirvāṇa, there is actually nobody led to nirvāṇa and no one who led them. Because the Suchness of all beings is equal to infinity, it is impossible - in absolute terms - to count them as "beings" at all. This idea is reminiscent of a poem by William Blake called Auguries of Innocence where he speaks of "seeing the world in a grain of sand." The grain of sand is no longer just a grain of sand. If the whole world is shining through it, how can it have an own-being that is identical to a grain of sand? In the same way, once we realize that all beings are the same in absolute sameness, that they are Suchness itself, then there can no longer be any beings or dharmas. If everything is non-dual, boundless, inexhaustible, infinite Suchness then words such as "bodhisattva" and "Tathāgata" are rendered completely meaningless. This is why Conze writes that the final stage in the tradition of the Prajñāpāramitā requires the transcendence of all paradoxes, leaving us in a silence where nothing at all can be said. This is ultimately what the Aṣṭa points to, to silence as the only true possibility in the face of Suchness. Nevertheless, the Aṣṭa does speak. It speaks with language that is subtle, paradoxical, confusing, beguiling, and contradictory. This is because it is attempting to speak about the infinite from a finite point of view.
Suchness is beyond any words or concepts that our finite minds can think of. The concepts refer "to the skandhas only," according to the above passage. What are the skandhas? They are the five aggregates of form, feeling, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness. It does not seem to be a far stretch to equate the skandhas with Stace's "finite world." The skandhas are finite, momentary, passing and impermanent. Any statements that refer to them cannot refer to the infinite, to the "reality of the Tathāgata." I believe that The Aṣṭa would agree with my equation of the skandhas with the finite world, for the Buddha himself explains that, "the five skandhas are reckoned as the 'world'."
Infinity can never be "got-at." According to Stace it is by definition "unattainable." The only way to "get anywhere" at all is by a constant stream of negations. This is why the Perfection of Wisdom in One Letter is simply the letter "A". The Sanskrit letter A is used as a prefix to negate the meaning of a word. For example, the word svabhāva (essence) becomes asvabhāva (no essence/without essence). The word loka (world) would become aloka (no world). The teachings of the Prajñāpāramitā literature can then ultimately be distilled into one single negation applied to absolutely everything we see in the world, reinforcing the idea that the infinite can never be reached from the finite. To stress the extent to which everything must be negated, Conze notes that even emptiness itself, which is a large part of the Aṣṭa, must ultimately also be acknowledged to not exist. Conze writes that, "the emptiness of all dharmas is empty of that emptiness." "The Void", the negation of all affirmations of finite reality, is a way of revealing the infinite. However, the Aṣṭa does not stop here.
There is one last important point that needs to be touched on. We have established that nothing can be said about Suchness because it is different in kind from the finite world, and so finite language cannot adequately capture it. Nevertheless, the Aṣṭa does try to convey Suchness in words, even if it acknowledges that this can never truly be done. Up to this point we have only discussed negative ways to speak about Suchness, noting that it cannot be identical to any finite thing. The Aṣṭa, and the Prajñāpāramitā literature as a whole, do seem to prefer coming at the paradox from the negative direction (as exemplified by the Perfection of Wisdom in One Letter). What needs to be stressed, however, is that the Aṣṭa does employs the use of paradox, and so it not only uses negative language but positive language as well. Positive language must be used and cannot be ignored because to truly be infinite, Suchness must somehow be identical to everything, to all beings and to all dharmas. Suchness must be that chair, as well as that table, book, Arhat, and Tathāgata, because none of these beings can be other to it.
This "positive" side does not mean that suddenly all beings are endowed with real own-being. That would not be true infinite Suchness, it would just be a collection of finite things. Rather, the Aṣṭa enforces the ultimate sameness of all beings and dharmas. It does this most strongly when Subhuti explains that his own Suchness is identical to the Suchness of the Tathāgata, which is identical to the Suchness of all dharmas. The Buddha also says that he can know the thoughts of all beings because they are all completely the same in ultimate Sameness. He explains that he is able to do this precisely because all beings have no real, separate existence. With this one statement we find ourselves having traversed one great, big, philosophical and existential circle.
We now find that it is precisely because beings are empty and devoid of own-being that they can be identical to Suchness. Being identical to Suchness must therefore mean that all beings and all dharmas are infinite, that they are without a second, that they have no other. This is why the Buddha speaks not only of knowing the minds of all beings, but of knowing their infinite and inexhaustible minds. This language is very positive compared to the language that we encountered earlier. In fact, one could not get any more positive than calling the minds of beings "infinite." All dharmas are also described by the Buddha as being inexhaustible because they are empty. "What is emptiness, that is also immeasurableness," says the Buddha. These two ideas necessarily go hand in hand. If something is empty of own-being than it is Suchness, because there is nothing other than Suchness.
Suchness must be spoken of in this paradoxical way because it is infinite, and if infinity has no other than it is not any finite thing. Yet all finite things must somehow be infinite, because if they are not then they would be an "other" to the infinite, which, as we have just established, cannot be the case. As Stace remarks, Prajñāpāramitā literature leaves us with the most extreme form of non-duality than is found in almost every other religion - it leaves us with the idea that there really is no difference between nirvāṇa and samsara, between the finite and the infinite. It is only Mahāyāna Buddhism, according to him, that "carries that paradox through to the last possible degree of conceivable or inconceivable paradoxicality." The Aṣṭa says exactly this by insisting that all dharmas have already attained nirvāṇa because Suchness is everywhere the same. The selfness of individual beings dissolves away the moment you see infinity in them, the moment you see their Suchness. This is what the Perfection of Wisdom is. This is why, when the bodhisattva leads countless beings to Nirvāṇa, there is actually nobody led to nirvāṇa and no one who led them. Because the Suchness of all beings is equal to infinity, it is impossible - in absolute terms - to count them as "beings" at all. This idea is reminiscent of a poem by William Blake called Auguries of Innocence where he speaks of "seeing the world in a grain of sand." The grain of sand is no longer just a grain of sand. If the whole world is shining through it, how can it have an own-being that is identical to a grain of sand? In the same way, once we realize that all beings are the same in absolute sameness, that they are Suchness itself, then there can no longer be any beings or dharmas. If everything is non-dual, boundless, inexhaustible, infinite Suchness then words such as "bodhisattva" and "Tathāgata" are rendered completely meaningless. This is why Conze writes that the final stage in the tradition of the Prajñāpāramitā requires the transcendence of all paradoxes, leaving us in a silence where nothing at all can be said. This is ultimately what the Aṣṭa points to, to silence as the only true possibility in the face of Suchness. Nevertheless, the Aṣṭa does speak. It speaks with language that is subtle, paradoxical, confusing, beguiling, and contradictory. This is because it is attempting to speak about the infinite from a finite point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment