BHÛTATATHÂTÂ (SUCHNESS).
{99}
/From/ the ontological point of view, Paramârtha-satya or Pariniṣpanna
(transcendental truth) is called Bhûtatathâtâ, which literally means
“suchness of existence.” As Buddhism does not separate being from
thought nor thought from being, what is suchness in the objective
world, is transcendental truth in the subjective world, and _vice
versa_ Bhûtatathâtâ, then, is the Godhead of Buddhism, and it marks
the consummation of all our mental efforts to reach the highest
principle, which unifies all possible contradictions and spontaneously
directs the course of world-events. In short, it is the ultimate
postulate of existence. Like Paramârtha-satya, as above stated, it
does not belong to the domain of demonstrative knowledge or sensuous
experience; it is unknowable by the ordinary processes of
intellectuation, which the natural sciences use in the formulation of
general laws; and it is grasped, declare the Buddhists, only by the
minds that are capable of exercising what might be called religious
intuition.
Açvaghoṣa argues, in his _Awakening of Faith_ for the indefinability
of this first principle. When we say it is çûnya or empty, on account
of its being independent {100} of all the thinkable qualities, which
we attribute to things relative and conditional, people would take it
for the nothingness of absolute void. But when we define it as a real
reality, as it stands above the evanescence of phenomena, they would
imagine that there is something individual and existing outside the
pale of this universe, which, though as concrete as we ourselves are,
lives an eternal life. It is like describing to the blind what an
elephant looks like; each one of them gets but a very indistinct and
imperfect conception of the huge creature, yet every one of them
thinks he has a true and most comprehensive idea of it.[42]
Açvaghoṣa, thus, wishes to eschew all definite statements concerning
the ultimate nature of being, but as language is the only mode with
which we mortals can express our ideas and communicate them to others,
he thinks the best expression that can be given to it is Bhûtatathâtâ,
i.e., “suchness of existence,” or simply, “suchness.”
Bhûtatathâtâ (suchness), thus absolutely viewed, does not fall under
the category of being and non-being; and minds which are kept within
the narrow circle of contrasts, must be said to be incapable of
grasping it as it truly is. Says Nâgârjuna in his Çâstra (Ch. XV.):
“Between thisness (_svabhâva_) and thatness (_parabhâva_),
Between being and non-being,
Who discriminates,
The truth of Buddhism he perceives not.”[43]
{101}
Or,
“To think ‘it is’, is eternalism,
To think ‘it is not’, is nihilism:
Being and non-being,
The wise cling not to either.”[44]
Again,
“The dualism of ‘to be’ and ‘not to be,’
The dualism of pure and not-pure:
Such dualism having abandoned,
The wise stand not even in the middle.”[45]
To quote, again, from the _Awakening of Faith_ (pp. 58-59): “In its
metaphysical origin, Bhûtatathâtâ has nothing to do with things
defiled, i.e., conditional: it is free from all signs of
individualisation, such as exist in phenomenal objects: it is
independent of an unreal, particularising consciousness.”
_Indefinability._
Absolute Suchness from its very nature thus defies all definitions. We
cannot even say that it is, for everything that is presupposes that
which is not: existence and non-existence are relative terms as much
as subject and object, mind and matter, this and that, one and other:
one cannot be conceived {102} without the other. “It is not so (_na
iti_)[46],” therefore, may be the only way our imperfect human tongue
can express it. So the Mahâyânists generally designate absolute
Suchness as Çûnyatâ or void.
But when this most significant word, çûnyatâ, is to be more fully
interpreted, we would say with Açvaghoṣa that “Suchness is neither
that which is existence nor that which is non-existence; neither that
which is at once existence and non-existence, nor that which is not at
once existence and non-existence; it is neither that which is unity
nor that which is plurality; neither that which is at once unity and
plurality, nor that which is not at once unity and plurality.”[47]
{103}
Nâgârjuna’s famous doctrine of “The Middle Path of Eight No’s”
breathes the same spirit, which declares:
“There is no death, no birth, no destruction, no persistence,
No oneness, no manyness, no coming, no departing,”[48]
Elsewhere, he expresses the same idea in a somewhat paradoxical
manner, making the historical Buddha a real concrete manifestation of
Suchness:
“After his passing, deem not thus:
‘The Buddha still is here,’
He is above all contrasts,
To be and not to be.
“While living, deem not thus:
‘The Buddha is now here.’
He is above all contrasts,
To be and not to be.”[49]
This view of Suchness as no-ness abounds in the literature of the
Dhyâna school of Mahâyânism. To cite one instance: When
Bodhi-Dharma[50], the founder {104} of the Dhyâna sect, saw Emperor
Wu of Liang dynasty (A.D. 502-556), he was asked what the first
principle of the Holy Doctrine was, he did not give any lengthy,
periphrastic statement after the manner of a philosopher, but
laconically replied, “Vast emptiness and nothing holy.” The Emperor
was bewildered and did not know how to take the words of his holy
adviser. Naturally, he did not expect such an abrupt answer, and,
being greatly disappointed, ventured another question: “Who is he,
then, that stands before me?” By this he meant to repudiate the
doctrine of absolute Suchness. His line of argument being this: If
there is nothing in the ultimate nature of things that distinguishes
between holiness and sinfulness, why this world of contrasts, where
some are revered as holy, for instance, Bodhi-Dharma who is at this
very moment standing in front of him with the mission of propagating
the holy teachings of Buddha? Bodhi-Dharma, however, was a mystic and
was fully convinced of the insufficiency of the human tongue to
express the highest truth which is revealed only {105} intuitively to
the religious consciousness. His conclusive answer was, “I do not
know”.[51]
This “I do not know” is not to be understood in the spirit of
agnosticism, but in the sense of “God when understood is no God,” for
_in se est et per se conceptur_. This way of describing Suchness by
negative terms only, excluding all differences of name and form
(_nâmarûpa_) to reach a higher kind of affirmation, seems to be the
most appropriate one, inasmuch as the human understanding is limited
in so many respects; but, nevertheless, it has caused much
misinterpretation even among Buddhists themselves, not to mention
those Christian Buddhist scholars of to-day, who sometimes appear
almost wilfully to misconstrue the significance of the çûnyatâ
philosophy. It was to avoid these unfortunate misinterpretations that
the Mahâyânists frequently made the paradoxical assertion that
absolute Suchness is empty and not empty, çûnya and açunya, being
and non-being, sat and asat, one and many, this and that.
_The “Thundrous Silence.”_
There yet remains another mode of explaining absolute Suchness, which
though most practical and most effective for the religiously disposed
minds, may prove very inadequate to a sceptical intellect. {106} It is
the “thundrous silence” of Vimalakîrti in response to an inquiry
concerning the nature of Suchness or the “Dharma of Non-duality,” as
it is termed in the Sûtra.[52]
Bodhisattva Vimalakîrti once asked a host of Bodhisattvas led by
Mañjuçri, who came to visit him, to express their views as to how to
enter into the Dharma of Non-duality. Some replied, “Birth and death
are two, but the Dharma itself was never born and will never die.
Those who understand this are said to enter into the Dharma of
Non-duality.” Some said, “‘I’ and ‘mine’ are two. Because I think ‘I
am’ there are things called ‘mine.’ But as there is no ‘I am’ where
shall we look for things ‘mine’? By thus reflecting we enter into the
Dharma of Non-duality.” Some replied, “Samsâra and Nirvâna are two.
But when we understand the ultimate nature of Samsâra, Samsâra
vanishes from our consciousness, and there is neither bondage nor
release, neither birth nor death. By thus reflecting we enter into the
Dharma of Non-duality”. Others said, “Ignorance and enlightenment are
two. No ignorance, no enlightenment, and there is no dualism. Why?
Because those who have entered a meditation in which there is no
sense-impression, no cogitation, are free from ignorance as well as
from enlightenment. This holds true with all the other dualistic
categories. Those who enter thus into the thought of sameness are
{107} said to enter into the Dharma of Non-duality.” Still others
answered, “To long for Nirvâna and to shun worldliness are of dualism.
Long not for Nirvâna, shun not worldliness, and we are free from
dualism. Why? Because bondage and release are relative terms, and when
there is no bondage from the beginning, who wishes to be released? No
bondage, no release, and therefore no longing, no shunning: this is
called the entering into the Dharma of Non-duality.”
Many more answers of similar nature came forth from all the
Bodhisattvas in the assembly except the leader Mañjuçri. Vimalakîrti
now requested him to give his own view, and to this Mañjuçri
responded, “What I think may be stated thus: That which is in all
beings wordless, speechless, shows no signs, is not possible of
cognisance, and is above all questionings and answerings,--to know
this is said to enter into the Dharma of Non-duality.”
Finally, the host Vimalakîrti himself was demanded by Mañjuçri to
express his idea of Non-duality, but he kept completely silent and
uttered not a word. Thereupon, Mañjuçri admiringly exclaimed, “Well
done, well done! The Dharma of Non-duality is truly above letters and
words!”[53]
{108}
Now, of this Suchness, the Mahâyânists distinguish two aspects, as
it is comprehended by our consciousness, which are conditional and
non-conditional, or the phenomenal world of causality and the
transcendental realm of absolute freedom. This distinction corresponds
to that, in the field of knowledge, of relative truth and
transcendental truth.[54]
{109}
_Suchness Conditioned._
Absolute transcendental Suchness defying all means of characterisation
does not, as long as it so remains, have any direct significance in
the phenomenal world and human life. When it does, it must become
conditional Suchness as _Gesetzmässigkeit_ in nature and as ethical
order in our practical life. Suchness as absolute is too remote, too
abstract, and may have only a metaphysical value. Its existence or
non-existence seems not to affect us in our daily social life,
inasmuch as it is transcendental. In order to enter into our limited
consciousness, to become the norm of our conscious activities, to
regulate the course of the evolutionary tide in nature, Suchness must
surrender its “splendid isolation,” must abandon its absoluteness.
When Suchness thus comes down from its sovereign-seat in the realm of
unthinkability, we have this universe unfolded before our eyes in all
its diversity and magnificence. Twinkling stars inlaid in the vaulted
sky; the planet elaborately decorated with verdant meadows, towering
mountains, and rolling waves; the birds cheerfully singing in the
woods; the beasts wildly running through the thickets; the summer
heavens ornamented with white fleecy clouds and on {110} earth all
branches and leaves growing in abundant luxury; the winter prairie
destitute of all animation, only with naked trees here and there
trembling in the dreary north winds; all these manifestations, not
varying a hair’s breadth of deviation from their mathematical,
astronomical, physical, chemical, and biological laws, are naught else
than the work of conditional Suchness in nature.
When we turn to human life and history, we have the work of
conditional Suchness manifested in all forms of activity as passions,
aspirations, imaginations, intellectual efforts, etc. It makes us
desire to eat when hungry, and to drink when thirsty; it makes the man
long for the woman, and the woman for the man; it keeps children in
merriment and frolic; it braces men and women bravely to carry the
burden of life. When we are oppressed, it causes us to cry, “Let us
have liberty or die”; when we are treated with injustice, it leads us
even to murder and fire and revolution; when our noble sentiments are
aroused to the highest pitch, it makes us ready to sacrifice all that
is most dear to us. In brief, all the kaleidoscopic changes of this
phenomenal world, subjective as well as objective, come from the
playing hands of conditional Suchness It not only constitutes the
goodness and blessings of life, but the sins, crimes, and misery which
the flesh is heir to.[55]
{111}
Açvaghoṣa in his _Awakening of Faith_ speaks of the Heart (_hṛdaya_)
of Suchness and of the Heart of Birth-and-Death. By the Heart of
Suchness he means the absolute and by the Heart of Birth-and-Death a
manifestation of the absolute in this world of particulars. “They are
not separate,” however, says he, but they are one, for the Heart of
{112} Suchness is the Heart of Birth-and-Death. It is on account of
our limited senses and finite mind that we have a world of particulars,
which, as it is, is no more than a fragment of the absolute
Bhûtatathâtâ. And yet it is through this fragmentary manifestation
that we are finally enabled to reach the fundamental nature of being
in its entirety. Says Açvaghoṣa, “Depending on the Tathâgata-garbha,
there evolves the Heart of Birth-and-Death. What is immortal and what
is mortal are harmoniously blended, for they are not one, nor are they
separate..... Herein all things are organised. Hereby all things are
created.”
The above is from the ontological standpoint. When viewed
psychologically, the Heart of Suchness is enlightenment, for Buddhism
makes no distinction between being and thought, world and mind. The
ultimate nature of the two is considered to be absolutely one. Now,
speaking of the nature of enlightenment, Açvaghoṣa says: “It is like
the emptiness of space and the brightness of the mirror in that it is
true, and real, and great. It completes and perfects all things. It is
free from the condition of destructibility. In it is reflected every
phase of life and activity in the world. Nothing goes out of it,
nothing enters into it, nothing is annihilated, nothing is destroyed.
It is one eternal soul, no forms of defilement can defile it. It is
the essence of intelligence. By reason of its numerous immaculate
virtues which inhere in it, it perfumes the hearts of all beings.”
Thus, the Heart of Suchness, which is enlightenment and {113} the
essence of intelligence, constantly works in and through the hearts of
all human beings, that is, in and through our finite minds. In this
sense, Buddhism declares that truth is not to be sought in highly
abstract philosophical formulæ, but in the phenomena of our everyday
life such as eating, dressing, walking, sleeping, etc. The Heart of
Suchness acts and does not abstract; it synthesises and does not
“dissect to murder.”
_Questions Defying Solution._
Speaking of the world as a manifestation of Suchness, we are here
beset with the most puzzling questions that have baffled the best
minds ever since the dawn of intellect. They are: Why did Suchness
ever leave its abode in the mysterious realm of transcendentality and
descend on earth where every form of misery greets us on all sides?
What inherent necessity was there for it to mingle in the dust of
worldliness while it could enjoy the unspeakable bliss of its own
absoluteness? In other words, why did absolute Suchness ever become
conditional Suchness? To dispose of these questions as not concerning
human interests is the creed of agnosticism and positivism; but the
fact is, they are not questions whimsically framed by the human mind
when it was in the mood of playing with itself. They are queries of
the most vital importance ever put to us, and the significance of life
entirely hangs on our interpretation of them.
{114}
Buddhism confesses that the mystery is unsolvable purely by the human
mind, for it is absolutely beyond the region of finite intellect and
the power of a logical demonstrability. The mystery can only be solved
in a practical way when we attain the highest spiritual enlightenment
of Buddhahood, in which the Bodhi with its unimpeded supernatural
light directly looks into the very abyss of Suchness. The Bodhi or
Intelligence which constitutes the kernel of our being, is a partial
realisation in us of Suchness. When this intelligence is merged and
expands in the Body of Suchness, as the water in a vessel poured into
the waters of the boundless ocean, it at once perceives and realises
its nature, its destiny, and its significance in life.
Buddhism is a religion and leaves many topics of metaphysics unsolved,
at least logically. Though it is more intellectual and philosophical
than any other religion, it does not pretend to build a complete
system of speculation. As far as theorisation is concerned, Buddhism
is dogmatic and assumes many propositions without revealing their
dialectical processes. But they are all necessary and fundamental
hypotheses of the religious consciousness; they are the ultimate
demands of the human soul. Religion has no positive obligation to
prove its propositions after the fashion of the natural sciences. It
is enough for religion to state the facts as they are, and the
intellect, though hampered by limitations inherent in it, has to try
her best to put them together in a coherent system.
{115}
The solution, then, by Buddhism of those queries stated above cannot
be said to be very logical and free from serious difficulties, but
practically it serves all required purposes and is conducive to
religious discipline. By this I mean the Buddhist theory of Nescience
or Ignorance (_avidyâ_).
_Theory of Ignorance._
The theory of nescience or ignorance (_avidyâ_) is an attempt by
Buddhists to solve the relation between the one and the many, between
absolute Suchness and conditional Suchness, between Dharmakâya and
Sarvasattva, between wisdom (_bodhi_) and sin (_kleça_), between
Nirvâna and Samsâra. But Buddhism does not give us any systematic
exposition of the doctrine. What it says is categorical and dogmatic.
“This universe is really the Dharmadhâtu;[56] it is characterised by
sameness (_samatâ_); there is no differentiation (_visama_) in it; it
is even emptiness itself (_çûnyatâ_); all things have no _pudgala_
(self). But, because of nescience, there are four or six _mahâbhûta_
(elements), five _skandha_ (aggregates), six (or eight) _vijñâna_
(senses), and twelve _nidâna_ (chains of causation). All these names
and forms (_nâmarûpa_) are of nescience or ignorance.” Or, according
to Açvaghoṣa, “The Heart of Suchness is the vast All of one
Dharmadhâtu; it is the essence of all doctrines. The ultimate nature
does not perish, nor does it {116} decay. All particular objects exist
because of confused subjectivity (_smṛti_).[57] Independent of
confused subjectivity, there is no outside world to be perceived and
discriminated.” “Everything that is subject to the law of birth and
death exists only because of ignorance and karma.” Such statements as
these are found almost everywhere in the Buddhist literature; but as
to the question how and why this negative principle of ignorance came
to assert itself in the body of Suchness, we are at a loss where to
find an authoritative and definite answer to it.
One thing, however, is certain, which is this: Ignorance (_avidyâ_)
is principium individium, that creates the multitudinousness of
phenomena in the absolute oneness of being, that tosses up the roaring
billows of existence in the eternal ocean of Suchness, that breaks the
silence of Nirvâna and starts the wheel of metempsychosis perpetually
rolling, that, veiling the transpicuous mirror of Bodhi, affects the
reflection of Suchness therein, that transforms the sameness (_samatâ_)
of Suchness to the duality of thisness and thatness and leads many
confused minds to egoism with all its pernicious corollaries.
Perhaps, the best way to attack the problem of ignorance is to
understand that Buddhism is a thoroughly idealistic doctrine as every
true religion should be, and that psychologically, and not
ontologically, {117} should Suchness be conceived, and further, that
nescience is inherent in Suchness, though only hypothetically,
illusively, apparently, and not really in any sense.
According to Brahmanism, there was in the beginning only one being;
and this being willed to be two; which naturally resulted in the
differentiation of subject and object, mind and nature. In Buddhism,
however, Suchness is not explicitly stated as having had any desire to
be other than itself, at least when it is purely metaphysically
conceived. But as Buddhism interprets this world of particularisation
as a manifestation of Suchness conditioned by the principle of
ignorance, ignorance must be considered, however illusory in its
ultimate nature, to have potentially or rather negatively existed in
the being of Suchness; and when Suchness, by its transcendental
freedom of will, affirmed itself, it did so by negating itself, that
is, by permitting itself to be conditioned by the principle of
ignorance or individuation. The latter, as is expressly stated
everywhere in Buddhist sûtras and çâstras, is no more than an illusion
and a negative quantity, it is merely the veil of Mâya. This chimerical
nature of ignorance preserves the essential absoluteness of the first
principle and makes the monism of the Mahâyâna doctrine thoroughly
consistent. What is to be noted here, however, is this: Buddhism does
not necessarily regard this world of particulars as altogether
evanescent and dream-like. When ignorance alone is taken notice {118}
of and the presence of Suchness in all this multitudinousness of
things is denied, this existence is positively declared to be void.
But when an enlightened mind perceives Suchness even in the midst of
the utter darkness of ignorance, this life assumes an entirely new
aspect, and we come to realise the illusiveness of all evils.
To return to the subject, ignorance or nescience is defined by
Açvaghoṣa as a spark of consciousness[58] that spontaneously flashes
from the unfathomable depths of Suchness. According to this, ignorance
and consciousness are interchangeable terms, though with different
shades of meaning. Ignorance is, so to speak, the _raison d’être_ of
consciousness, is that which makes the appearance of the latter
possible, while ignorance itself is in turn an illusive emanation of
Suchness. It is then evident that the awakening of consciousness marks
the first step toward the rising of this universe from the abyss of
the self-identity of Suchness. For the unfolding of consciousness
implies the separation of the perceiving and the perceived, the
_viṣayin_ and the _viṣaya_, of subject and object, mind and nature.
The eternal abyss of Suchness, so called, is the point where
subjectivity and objectivity are merged in absolute oneness. It is the
time, though strictly {119} speaking chronology does not apply here,
when all “the ten thousand things” of the world have not yet been
differentiated and even when the God who “created the heaven and
earth” has not yet made his debut. To use psychological terms, it is
a state of transcendental or transmarginal consciousness, where all
sense-perceptions and conceptual images vanish, and where we are in a
state of absolute unconsciousness. This sounds mystical; but it is an
established fact that in the field of our mental activities there is
an abyss where consciousness sometimes suddenly disappears. This
region beyond the threshold of awaredness, though often a trysting
place for psychical abnormalities, has a great religious significance,
which cannot be ignored by superficial scientific arguments. Here is
the region where the consciousness of subject and object is completely
annihilated, but here we do not have the silence and darkness of a
grave, nor is it a state of absolute nothingness. The self is here
lost in the presence of something indescribable, or better, it expands
so as to embrace the world-all within itself, and is not conscious of
any egoistic elation or arrogance; but it merely feels the fulness of
reality and a touch of celestial joy that cannot be imparted to others
by anything human. The most convincing spiritual insight into the
nature of being comes from this source. Enlightenment is the name
given by Buddhists to the actual gaining of this insight. Bodhi or
Prajñâ or intelligence is the term for the {120} spiritual power that
brings about this enlightenment.
When the mind emerges from this state of sameness, consciousness
spontaneously comes back as it vanished before, retaining the memory
of the experience so unique and now confronting the world of contrasts
and mutual dependence, in which our empirical ego moves. The transition
from one state to the other is like a flash of lightning scintilating
from behind the clouds; though the two, the subliminal and the
superficial consciousness, seem to be one continuous form of activity,
permitting no hiatus between them. At any rate, this awakening of
subjectivity and the leaving behind of transmarginal consciousness
marks the start of ignorance. Therefore, psychologically speaking,
ignorance must be considered synonymous with the awakening of
consciousness in a sentient being.
Here we have the most mysterious fact that baffles all our
intellectual efforts to unravel, which is: How and why has ignorance,
or what is tantamount, consciousness, ever been awakened from the
absolute calmness (_çānti_) of being? How and why have the waves of
mentation ever been stirred up in the ocean of eternal tranquillity?
Açvaghoṣa simply says, “spontaneously.” This by no means explains
anything, or at least it is not in the line with our so-called
scientific interpretations, nor does it give us any reason why.
Nevertheless, religiously and practically viewed, “spontaneous” is the
most graphic and vigorous term there is for describing the actual
state of things {121} as they pass before our mental eye. In fact,
there is always something vague and indefinite in all our psychological
experiences. With whatever scientific accuracy, with whatever
objective precision we may describe the phenomena that take place in
the mind, there is always something that eludes our scrutiny, is too
slippery, as it were, to take hold of; so that after all our strenuous
intellectual efforts to be exact and perspicuous in our expositions,
we are still compelled to leave much to the imagination of the reader.
In case he happens to be lacking in the experience which we have
endeavored to describe we shall vainly hope to awaken in him the said
impression with the same degree of intensity and realness.
It is for this reason that Açvaghoṣa and other Mahâyânists declare
that the rising of consciousness out of the abysmal depths of Suchness
is _felt_ by Buddhas and other enlightened minds only that have
actually gone through the experience. The why of ignorance nobody can
explain as much as the why of Suchness. But when we personally
experience this spiritual fact, we no more feel the need of harboring
any doubt about how or why. Everything becomes transparent, and the
rays of supernatural enlightenment shine like a halo round our
spiritual personality. We move as dictated by the behest of Suchness,
i.e., by the Dharmakâya, and in which we feel infinite bliss and
satisfaction. This religious experience is the most unique phenomenon
in the life of a sentient being.
{122}
_Dualism and Moral Evil._
As we cannot think that the essence of the external world to be other
than that of our own mind, that is to say, as we cannot think subject
and object to be different in their ultimate nature, our conclusion
naturally is that the same principle of Ignorance which gathers the
clouds of subjectivity, calls up the multitudinousness of phenomena in
the world-mind of Suchness. The universe in its entirety is an
infinite mind, and our limited mind with its transmarginal
consciousness is a microcosm. What the finite mind feels in its inmost
self, must also be what the cosmic mind feels; nay, we can go one step
further, and say that when the human mind enters the region lying
beyond the border of subjectivity and objectivity, it is in communion
with the heart of the universe, whose secrets are revealed here
without reserve. Therefore, Buddhism does not make any distinction
between knowing and being, enlightenment and Suchness. When the mind
is free from ignorance and no more clings to things particular, it is
said to be in harmony and even one with Suchness.
We must, however, remember that ignorance as the principle of
individuation and a spontaneous expression of Suchness, is no moral
evil. The awakening of subjectivity or the dawn of consciousness forms
part of the necessary cosmic process. The separation of subject and
object, or the appearance of a phenomenal world, is nothing but a
realisation {123} of the cosmic mind (Dharmakâya). As such Ignorance
performs an essential function in the evolution of the world-totality.
Ignorance is inherent in Buddhas as well as in all sentient beings.
Every one of us cannot help perceiving an external world (_viṣaya_)
and forming conceptions and reasoning and feeling and willing. We do
not see any moral fault here. If there is really anything morally
wrong, then we cannot do anything with it, we are utterly helpless
before it, for it is not our fault, but that of the cosmic soul from
which and in which we have our being.
Ignorance has produced everywhere a state of relativity and reciprocal
dependence. Birth is inseparably linked with death, congregation with
segregation, evolution with involution, attraction with repulsion, the
centripetal with the centrifugal force, the spring with the fall, the
tide with the ebb, joy with sorrow, God with Satan, Adam with Eve,
Buddha with Devadatta, etc., etc., _ad infinitum_. These are necessary
conditions of existence; and if existence is an evil, they must be
abolished, and with their abolition the very reason of existence is
abolished, which means absolute nothingness, an impossibility as long
as we exist. The work of ignorance in the world of conditional
Suchness is quite innocent, and Buddhists do not recognise any fault
in its existence, if not contaminated by confused subjectivity. Those
who speak of the curse of existence, or those who conceive Nirvâna to
be the abode of non-existence {124} and the happiness of absolute
annihilation, are considered by Buddhists to be unable to understand
the significance of Ignorance.
Is there then no fault to be found with Ignorance? Not in Ignorance
itself, but in our defiled attachment to it, that is, when we are
ignorant of Ignorance. It is wrong to cling to the dualism of subject
and object as final and act accordingly. It is wrong to take the work
of ignorance as ultimate and to forget the foundation on which it
stands. It is wrong, thinking that the awakening of consciousness
reveals the whole world, to ignore the existence of unseen realities.
In short, evils quickly follow our steps when we try to realise the
conclusions of ignorance without knowing its true relation to Suchness.
Egoism is the most fundamental of all errors and evils.
When we speak of ignorance as hindering the light of intelligence from
penetrating to the bottom of reality, we usually understand the term
ignorance not in the philosophical sense of principium individuum, but
in the sense of confused subjectivity, which conceives the work of
Ignorance as the final reality culminating in egoism. So, we might say
that while the principle of Ignorance is philosophically justified,
its unenlightened actualisation in our practical life is altogether
unwarranted and brings on us a series of dire calamities.