ENLIGHTENMENT
1. Enlightenment is beyond Description and Analysis.
In the foregoing chapters we have had several occasions to refer to
the central problem of Zen or Enlightenment, whose content it is
futile to attempt to explain or analyze. We must not explain or
analyze it, because by doing so we cannot but mislead the reader. We
can as well represent Enlightenment by means of explanation or
analysis as we do personality by snapshots or by anatomical
operations. As our inner life, directly experienced within us, is
anything but the shape of the head, or the features of the face, or
the posture of the body, so Enlightenment experienced by Zenists at
the moment of their highest Samadhi[FN#178] is anything but the
psychological analysis of mental process, or the epistemological
explanation of cognition, or the philosophical generalization of
concepts. Enlightenment can be realized only by the Enlightened, and
baffles every attempt to describe it, even by the Enlightened
themselves. The effort of the confused to guess at Enlightenment is
often likened by the Zenists to the effort of the blind who feel an
elephant to know what it looks like. Some of them who happen to feel
the trunk would declare it is like a rope, but those who happen to
feel the belly would declare it is like a huge drum; while those who
happen to feel the feet would declare it is like the trunk of a tree.
But none of these conjectures can approach the living elephant.
[FN#178] Abstract Contemplation, which the Zenists distinguish from
Samadhi, practised by the Brahmins. The author of 'An Outline of
Buddhist Sects' points out the distinction, saying: "Contemplation of
outside religionists is practised with the heterodox view that the
lower worlds (the worlds for men, beasts, etc.) are disgusting, but
the upper worlds (the worlds for Devas) are desirable; Contemplation
of common people (ordinary lay believers of Buddhism) is practised
with the belief in the law of Karma, and also with disgust (for the
lower worlds) and desire (for the upper worlds); Contemplation of
Hinayana is practised with an insight into the truth of Anatman
(non-soul); Contemplation of Mahayana is practised with an insight of
Unreality of Atman (soul) as well as of Dharma (thing); Contemplation
of the highest perfection is practised with the view that Mind is
pure in its nature, it is endowed with unpolluted wisdom, free from
passion, and it is no other than Buddha himself."
2. Enlightenment implies an Insight into the Nature of Self.
We cannot pass over, however, this weighty problem without saying a
word. We shall try in this chapter to present Enlightenment before
the reader in a roundabout way, just as the painter gives the
fragmentary sketches of a beautiful city, being unable to give even a
bird's-eye view of it. Enlightenment, first of all, implies an
insight into the nature of Self. It is an emancipation of mind from
illusion concerning Self. All kinds of sin take root deep in the
misconception of Self, and putting forth the branches of lust, anger,
and folly, throw dark shadows on life. To extirpate this
misconception Buddhism[FN#179] strongly denies the existence of the
individual soul as conceived by common sense-that is, that unchanging
spiritual entity provided with sight, hearing, touch, smell, feeling,
thought, imagination, aspiration, etc., which survives the body. It
teaches us that there is no such thing as soul, and that the notion
of soul is a gross illusion. It treats of body as a temporal
material form of life doomed to be destroyed by death and reduced to
its elements again. It maintains that mind is also a temporal
spiritual form of life, behind which there is no immutable soul.
[FN#179] Both Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhism teach the doctrine of
Anatman, or Non-self. It is the denial of soul as conceived by
common sense, and of Atman as conceived by Indian heterodox thinkers.
Some Mahayanists believe in the existence of real Self instead of
individual self, as we see in Mahaparinirvana-sutra, whose author
says: "There is real self in non-self." It is worthy of note that
the Hinayanists set forth Purity, Pleasure, Atman, and Eternity, as
the four great misconceptions about life, while the same author
regards them as the four great attributes of Nirvana itself.
An illusory mind tends either to regard body as Self and to yearn
after its material interests, or to believe mind dependent on soul as
Ego. Those who are given to sensual pleasures, consciously or
unconsciously, bold body to be the Self, and remain the life-long
slave to the objects of sense. Those who regard mind as dependent on
soul as the Self, on the other hand, undervalue body as a mere tool
with which the soul works, and are inclined to denounce life as if
unworthy of living. We must not undervalue body, nor must we
overestimate mind. There is no mind isolated from body, nor is there
any body separated from mind. Every activity of mind produces
chemical and physiological changes in the nerve-centres, in the
organs, and eventually in the whole body; while every activity of
body is sure to bring out the corresponding change in the mental
function, and eventually in the whole personality. We have the
inward experience of sorrow when we have simultaneously the outward
appearance of tears and of pallor; when we have the outward
appearance of the fiery eyes and short breath, we have simultaneously
the inward feeling of anger. Thus body is mind observed outwardly in
its relation to the senses; mind is body inwardly experienced in its
relation to introspection. Who can draw a strict line of demarcation
between mind and body? We should admit, so far as our present
knowledge is concerned, that mind, the intangible, has been formed to
don a garment of matter in order to become an intelligible existence
at all; matter, the solid, has faded under examination into
formlessness, as that of mind. Zen believes in the identification of
mind and body, as Do-gen[FN#180] says: "Body is identical with mind;
appearance and reality are one and the same thing."
Bergson denies the identification of mind and body, saying:[FN#181]
"It (experience) shows us the interdependence of the mental and the
physical, the necessity of a certain cerebral substratum for the
psychical state-nothing more. From the fact that two things are
mutually dependent, it does not follow that they are equivalent.
Because a certain screw is necessary for a certain machine, because
the machine works when the screw is there and stops when the screw is
taken away, we do not say that the screw is equivalent of the
machine." Bergson's simile of a screw and a machine is quite
inadequate to show the interdependence of mind and body, because the
screw does cause the machine to work, but the machine does not cause
the screw to work; so that their relation is not interdependence. On
the contrary, body causes mind to work, and at the same time mind
causes body to work; so that their relation is perfectly
interdependent, and the relation is not that of an addition of mind
to body, or of body to mind, as the screw is added to the machine.
Bergson must have compared the working of the machine with mind, and
the machine itself with body, if be wanted to show the real fact.
Moreover, he is not right in asserting that "from the fact that two
things are mutually dependent, it does not follow that they are
equivalent," because there are several kinds of interdependence, in
some of which two things can be equivalent. For instance, bricks,
mutually dependent in their forming an arch, cannot be equivalent one
with another; but water and waves, being mutually dependent, can be
identified. In like manner fire and heat, air and wind, a machine
and its working, mind and body.[FN#182]
[FN#180] The master strongly condemns the immortality of the soul as
the heterodox doctrine in his Sho-bo-gen-zo. The same argument is
found in Mu-chu-mon-do, by Mu-so Koku-shi.
[FN#181] 'Creative Evolution,' pp. 354, 355.
[FN#182] Bergson, arguing against the dependence of the mind on
brain, says: "That there is a close connection between a state of
consciousness and the brain we do not dispute. But there is also a
close connection between a coat and the nail on which it hangs, for
if the nail is pulled out, the coat will fall to the ground. Shall
we say, then, that the shape of the nail gave the shape of the coat,
or in any way corresponds to it? No more are we entitled to
conclude, because the psychical fact is hung on to a cerebral state,
that there is any parallelism between the two series, psychical and
physiological." We have to ask, in what respects does the
interrelation between mind and body resemble the relation between a
coat and a nail?
3. The Irrationality of the Belief of Immortality.
Occidental minds believe in a mysterious entity under the name of
soul, just as Indian thinkers believe in the so-called subtle body
entirely distinct from the gross body of flesh and blood. Soul,
according to this belief, is an active principle that unites body and
mind so as to form an harmonious whole of mental as well as bodily
activities. And it acts through the instrumentality of the mind and
body in the present life, and enjoys an eternal life beyond the
grave. It is on this soul that individual immortality is based. It
is immortal Self.
Now, to say nothing of the origin of soul, this long-entertained
belief is hardly good for anything. In the first place, it throws no
light upon the relation of mind and body, because soul is an empty
name for the unity of mind and body, and serves to explain nothing.
On the contrary, it adds another mystery to the already mysterious
relationships between matter and spirit. Secondly, soul should be
conceived as a psychical individual, subject to spacial
determinations--but since it has to be deprived by death of its body
which individualizes it, it will cease to be individuality after
death, to the disappointment of the believer. How could you think
anything purely spiritual and formless existing without blending
together with other things? Thirdly, it fails to gratify the desire,
cherished by the believer, of enjoying eternal life, because soul has
to lose its body, the sole important medium through which it may
enjoy life. Fourthly, soul is taken as a subject matter to receive
in the future life the reward or the punishment from God for our
actions in this life; but the very idea of eternal punishment is
inconsistent with the boundless love of God. Fifthly, it is beyond
all doubt that soul is conceived as an entity, which unifies various
mental faculties and exists as the foundation of individual
personality. But the existence of such soul is quite incompatible
with the well-known pathological fact that it is possible for the
individual to have double or treble or multiple personalities. Thus
the belief in the existence of soul conceived by the common sense
turns out not only to be irrational, but a useless encumbrance on the
religious mind. Therefore Zen declares that there is no such thing
as soul, and that mind and body are one. Hwui Chung (Ye-chu), a
famous disciple of the Sixth Patriarch in China, to quote an example,
one day asked a monk: "Where did you come from?" "I came, sir, from
the South," replied the man. "What doctrine do the masters of the
South teach?" asked Hwui Chung again. "They teach, sir, that body is
mortal, but mind is immortal," was the answer. "That," said the
master, "is the heterodox doctrine of the Atman!" "How do you, sir,"
questioned the monk, "teach about that?" "I teach that the body and
mind are one," was the reply.[FN#183]
[FN#183] For further explanation, see Sho-bo-gen-zo and
Mu-chu-mon-do.
Fiske, [FN#184] in his argument against materialism, blames the
denial of immortality, saying: "The materialistic assumption that
there is no such state of things, and that the life of the soul ends
accordingly with the life of the body, is perhaps the most colossal
instance of baseless assumption that is known to the history of
philosophy." But we can say with equal force that the common-sense
assumption that the life of soul continues beyond the grave is,
perhaps, the most colossal instance of baseless assumption that is
known to the history of thought, because, there being no scientific
evidences that give countenance to the assumption, even the
spiritualists themselves hesitate to assert the existence of a ghost
or soul. Again he[FN#185] says: "With this illegitimate hypothesis
of annihilation the materialist transgresses the bounds of experience
quite as widely as the poet who sings of the New Jerusalem with its
river of life and its street of gold. Scientifically speaking, there
is not a particle of evidence for either view." This is as much as
to say there is not a particle of evidence, scientifically speaking,
for the common-sense view of soul, because the poet's description of
the New Jerusalem is nothing but the result of the common-sense
belief of immortality.
[FN#184] 'The Destiny of Man,' p. 110.
[FN#185] 'The Destiny of Man,' pp. 110, 111.
4. The Examination of the Notion of Self.
The belief in immortality is based on the strong instinct of
self-preservation that calls forth an insatiable longing for
longevity. It is another form of egoism, one of the relics of our
brute forefathers. We must bear in mind that this illusion of the
individual Self is the foundation on which every form of immorality
has its being. I challenge my readers to find in the whole history
of mankind any crime not based on egoism. Evil-doers have been as a
rule pleasure-hunters, money-seekers, seekers after self-interests,
characterized by lust, folly, and cruelty. Has there been anyone who
committed theft that he might further the interests of his villagers?
Has there been any paramour who disgraced himself that lie might
help his neighbours? Has there been any traitor who performed the
ignoble conduct to promote the welfare of his own country or society
at large?
To get Enlightened, therefore, we have to correct, first of all, our
notions concerning Self. Individual body and mind are not the only
important constituents of Self. There are many other indispensable
elements in the notion of Self. For instance, I have come into
existence as another form of my parents. I am theirs, and may justly
be called the reincarnation of them. And again, my father is another
form of his parents; my mother of hers; his and her parents of
theirs; and ad infinitum. In brief, all my forefathers live and have
their being in me. I cannot help, therefore, thinking that my
physical state is the result of the sum total of my good and bad
actions in the past lives I led in the persons of my forefathers, and
of the influence I received therein;[FN#186] and that my psychical
state is the result of that which I received, felt, imagined,
conceived, experienced, and thought in my past existences in the
persons of my ancestors.
[FN#186] This is the law of Karma.
Besides this, my brothers, my sisters, my neighbours--nay, all my
follow-men and fellow-women are no other than the reincarnation of
their parents and forefathers, who are also mine. The same blood
invigorated the king as well as the beggar; the same nerve energized
the white as well as the black men; the same consciousness vitalized
the wise as well as the unwise. Impossible it is to conceive myself
independent of my fellow-men and fellow-women, for they are mine and
I am theirs--that is, I live and move in them, and they live and move
in me.
It is bare nonsense to say that I go to school, not to be educated as
a member of society, but simply to gratify my individual desire for
knowledge; or that I make a fortune, not to lead the life of a
well-to-do in society, but to satisfy my individual money-loving
instinct; or that I seek after truth, neither to do good to my
contemporaries nor to the future generations, but only for my
individual curiosity or that I live neither to live with my family
nor with my friends nor with anyone else, but to live my individual
life. It is as gross absurdity to say that I am an individual
absolutely independent of society as to say I am a husband with no
wife, or I am a son to no parents. Whatever I do directly or
indirectly I contribute to the common fortune of man; whatever anyone
else does directly or indirectly determines my fate. Therefore we
must realize that our Selves necessarily include other members of the
community, while other members' Selves necessarily comprehend us.
5. Nature is the Mother of All Things.
Furthermore, man has come into existence out of Nature. He is her
child. She provided him food, raiment, and shelter. She nourishes
him, strengthens him, and vitalizes him. At the same time she
disciplines, punishes, and instructs him. His body is of her own
formation, his knowledge is of her own laws, and his activities are
the responses to her own addresses to him. Modern civilization is
said by some to be the conquest of man over Nature; but, in fact, it
is his faithful obedience to her. "Bacon truly said," says
Eucken,[FN#187] "that to rule nature man must first serve her. He
forgot to add that, as her ruler, he is still destined to go on
serving her." She can never be attacked by any being unless he acts
in strict conformity to her laws. To accomplish anything against her
law is as impossible as to catch fishes in a forest, or to make bread
of rock. How many species of animals have perished owing to their
inability to follow her steps! How immense fortunes have been lost
in vain from man's ignorance of her order! How many human beings
disappeared on earth from their disobedience to her unbending will!
She is, nevertheless, true to those who obey her rules. Has not
science proved that she is truthful? Has not art found that she is
beautiful?
[FN#187] Eucken's 'Philosophy of Life,' by W. R. Royce Gibbon, p. 51.
Has not philosophy announced that she is spiritual? Has not religion
proclaimed that she is good? At all events, she is the mother of all
beings. She lives in all things and they live in her. All that she
possesses is theirs, and all that they want she supplies. Her life
is the same vitality that stirs all sentient beings. Chwang
Tsz[FN#188] (So-shi) is right when he says: "Heaven, Earth, and I
were produced together, and all things and I are one." And again:
"If all things be regarded with love, Heaven and Earth are one with
me." Sang Chao (So-jo) also says: "Heaven and Earth are of the same
root as we. All things in the world are of one substance with
Me."[FN#189]
[FN#188] Chwang Tsz, vol. i., p. 20.
[FN#189] This is a favourite subject of discussion by Zenists.
6. Real Self.
If there be no individual soul either in mind or body, where does
personality lie? What is Real Self? How does it differ from soul?
Self is living entity, not immutable like soul, but mutable and
ever-changing life, which is body when observed by senses, and which
is mind when experienced by introspection. It is not an entity lying
behind mind and body, but life existent as the union of body and
mind. It existed in our forefathers in the past, is existing in the
present, and will exist in the future generations. It also discloses
itself to some measure in vegetables and animals, and shadows itself
forth in inorganic nature. It is Cosmic life and Cosmic spirit, and
at the same time individual life and individual spirit. It is one
and the same life which embraces men and nature. It is the
self-existent, creative, universal principle that moves on from
eternity to eternity. As such it is called Mind or Self by Zenists.
Pan Shan (Ban-zan) says: "The moon of mind comprehends all the
universe in its light." A man asked Chang Sha (Cho-sha): "How can
you turn the phenomenal universe into Self ?" "How can you turn Self
into the phenomenal universe?" returned the master.
When we get the insight into this Self, we are able to have the open
sesame to the mysteries of the universe, because to know the nature
of a drop of water is to know the nature of the river, the lake, and
the ocean--nay, even of vapour, mist, and cloud; in other words, to
get an insight into individual life is the key to the secret of
Universal Life. We must not confine Self within the poor little
person called body. That is the root of the poorest and most
miserable egoism. We should expand that egoism into family-egoism,
then into nation-egoism, then into race-egoism, then into
human-egoism, then into living-being-egoism, and lastly into
universe-egoism, which is not egoism at all. Thus we deny the
immortality of soul as conceived by common sense, but assume
immortality of the Great Soul, which animates, vitalizes, and
spiritualizes all sentient beings. It is Hinayana Buddhism that
first denied the existence of atman or Self so emphatically
inculcated in the Upanisads, and paved the way for the general
conception of Universal Self, with the eulogies of which almost every
page of Mahayana books is filled.
7. The Awakening of the Innermost Wisdom.
Having set ourselves free from the misconception of Self, next we
must awaken our innermost wisdom, pure and divine, called the Mind of
Buddha,[FN#190] or Bodhi,[FN#191] or Prajnya[FN#192] by Zen masters.
It is the divine light, the inner heaven, the key to all moral
treasures, the centre of thought and consciousness, the source of all
influence and power, the seat of kindness, justice, sympathy,
impartial love, humanity, and mercy, the measure of all things. When
this innermost wisdom is fully awakened, we are able to realize that
each and everyone of us is identical in spirit, in essence, in nature
with the universal life or Buddha, that each ever lives face to face
with Buddha, that each is beset by the abundant grace of the Blessed
One, that He arouses his moral nature, that He opens his spiritual
eyes, that He unfolds his new capacity, that He appoints his mission,
and that life is not an ocean of birth, disease, old age, and death,
nor the vale of tears, but the holy temple of Buddha, the Pure
Land,[FN#193] where be can enjoy the bliss of Nirvana.
[FN#190] Zen is often called the Sect of Buddha-mind, as it lays
stress on the awakening of the Mind of Buddha. The words 'the Mind
of Buddha' were taken from a passage in Lankavatara-sutra.
[FN#191] That knowledge by which one becomes enlightened.
[FN#192] Supreme wisdom.
[FN#193] Sukhavati, or the land of bliss.
Then our minds go through an entire revolution. We are no more
troubled by anger and hatred, no more bitten by envy and ambition, no
more stung by sorrow and chagrin, no more overwhelmed by melancholy
and despair. Not that we become passionless or simply intellectual,
but that we have purified passions, which, instead of troubling us,
inspire us with noble aspirations, such as anger and hatred against
injustice, cruelty, and dishonesty, sorrow and lamentation for human
frailty, mirth and joy for the welfare of follow-beings, pity and
sympathy for suffering creatures. The same change purifies our
intellect. Scepticism and sophistry give way to firm conviction;
criticism and hypothesis to right judgment; and inference and
argument to realization.
What we merely observed before we now touch with heart as well. What
we knew in relation of difference before we now understand in
relation of unity as well. How things happen was our chief concern
before, but now we consider as well bow much value they have. What
was outside us before now comes within us. What was dead and
indifferent before grows now alive and lovable to us. What was
insignificant and empty before becomes now important, and has
profound meaning. Wherever we go we find beauty; whomever we meet we
find good; whatever we get we receive with gratitude. This is the
reason why the Zenists not only regarded all their fellow-beings as
their benefactors, but felt gratitude even towards fuel and water.
The present writer knows a contemporary Zenist who would not drink
even a cup of water without first making a salutation to it. Such an
attitude of Zen toward things may well be illustrated by the
following example: Sueh Fung (Sep-po) and Kin Shan (Kin-zan), once
travelling through a mountainous district, saw a leaf of the rape
floating down the stream. Thereon Kin Shan said: "Let us go up, dear
brother, along the stream that we may find a sage living up on the
mountain. I hope we shall find a good teacher in him." "No,"
replied Sueh Fung, "for he cannot be a sage who wastes even a leaf of
the rape. He will be no good teacher for us."
8. Zen is not Nihilistic.
Zen judged from ancient Zen masters' aphorisms may seem, at the first
sight, to be idealistic in an extreme form, as they say: "Mind is
Buddha" or, "Buddha is Mind," or, "There is nothing outside mind,"
or, "Three worlds are of but one mind." And it may also appear to be
nihilistic, as they say: "There has been nothing since all eternity,"
"By illusion you see the castle of the Three Worlds"; "by
Enlightenment you see but emptiness in ten directions."[FN#194] In
reality, however, Zen[FN#195] is neither idealistic nor nihilistic.
Zen makes use of the nihilistic idea of Hinayana Buddhism, and calls
its students' attention to the change and evanescence of life and of
the world, first to destroy the error of immutation, next to dispel
the attachment to the sensual objects.
[FN#194] These words were repeatedly uttered by Chinese and Japanese
Zenists of all ages. Chwen Hih (Fu-dai-shi) expressed this very idea
in his Sin Wang Ming (Shin-o-mei) at the time of Bodhidharma.
[FN#195] The Rin-zai teachers mostly make use of the doctrine of
unreality of all things, as taught in Prajnya-paramita-sutras. We
have to note that there are some differences between the Mahayana
doctrine of unreality and the Hinayana doctrine of unreality.
It is a misleading tendency of our intellect to conceive things as if
they were immutable and constant. It often leaves changing and
concrete individual objects out of consideration, and lays stress on
the general, abstract, unchanging aspect of things. It is inclined
to be given to generalization and abstraction. It often looks not at
this thing or at that thing, but at things in general. It loves to
think not of a good thing nor of a bad thing, but of bad and good in
the abstract. This intellectual tendency hardens and petrifies the
living and growing world, and leads us to take the universe as a
thing dead, inert, and standing still. This error of immutation can
be corrected by the doctrine of Transcience taught by Hinayana
Buddhism. But as medicine taken in an undue quantity turns into
poison, so the doctrine of Transcience drove the Hinayanists to the
suicidal conclusion of nihilism. A well-known scholar and believer
of Zen, Kwei Fung (Kei-ha) says in his refutation of nihilism:[FN#196]
"If mind as well as external objects be unreal, who is it that knows
they are so? Again, if there be nothing real in the universe, what
is it that causes unreal objects to appear? We stand witness to the
fact that there is no one of the unreal things on earth that is not
made to appear by something real. If there be no water of unchanging
fluidity, how can there be the unreal and temporary forms of waves?
If there be no unchanging mirror, bright and clean, bow can there be
the various images, unreal and temporary, reflected in it? If mind
as well as external objects be nothing at all, no one can tell what
it is that causes these unreal appearances. Therefore this doctrine
(of the unreality of all things) can never clearly disclose spiritual
Reality. So that Mahabheri-harakaparivarta-sutra says: " All the
sutras that teach the unreality of things belong to the imperfect
doctrine " (of the Shakya Muni). Mahaprajnya-paramita-sutra says The
doctrine of unreality is the entrance-gate of Mahayana."
[FN#196] See the appendix, chap. ii., 'The Mahayana Doctrine of
Nihilism.'
9. Zen and Idealism.
Next Zen makes use of Idealism as explained by the Dharmalaksana
School of Mahayana Buddhism.[FN#197] For instance, the Fourth
Patriarch says: "Hundreds and thousands of laws originate with mind.
Innumerable mysterious virtues proceed from the mental source." Niu
Teu (Go-zu) also says: "When mind arises, various things arise; when
mind ceases to exist, various things cease to exist." Tsao Shan
(So-zan) carried the point so far that he cried out, on hearing the
bell: "It hurts, it pains." Then an attendant of his asked "What is
the matter?" "It is my mind," said he, that is struck."[FN#198]
[FN#197] Appendix, chap. ii., 'The Mahayana Doctrine of
Dharmalaksana.'
[FN#198] Zen-rin-rui-shu.
We acknowledge the truth of the following considerations: There
exists no colour, nor sound, nor odour in the objective world, but
there are the vibrations of ether, or the undulations of the air, or
the stimuli of the sensory nerves of smell. Colour is nothing but
the translation of the stimuli into sensation by the optical nerves,
so also sounds by the auditory, and odours by the smelling.
Therefore nothing exists objectively exactly as it is perceived by
the senses, but all are subjective. Take electricity, for example,
it appears as light when perceived through the eye; it appears as
sound when perceived through the ear; it appears as taste when
perceived through the tongue; but electricity in reality is not
light, nor sound, nor taste. Similarly, the mountain is not high nor
low; the river is not deep nor shallow; the house is not large nor
small; the day is not long nor short; but they seem so through
comparison. It is not objective reality that displays the phenomenal
universe before us, but it is our mind that plays an important part.
Suppose that we have but one sense organ, the eye, then the whole
universe should consist of colours and of colours only. If we
suppose we were endowed with the sixth sense, which entirely
contradicts our five senses, then the whole world would be otherwise.
Besides, it is our reason that finds the law of cause and effect in
the objective world, that discovered the law of uniformity in Nature,
and that discloses scientific laws in the universe so as to form a
cosmos. Some scholars maintain that we cannot think of non-existence
of space, even if we can leave out all objects in it; nor can we
doubt the existence of time, for the existence of mind itself
presupposes time. Their very argument, however, proves the
subjectivity of time and space, because, if they were objective, we
should be able to think them non-existent, as we do with other
external objects. Even space and time, therefore are no more than
subjective.
10. Idealism is a Potent Medicine for Self-created Mental Disease.
In so far as Buddhist idealism refers to the world of sense, in so
far as it does not assume that to to be known is identical with to
be, in so far as it does not assert that the phenomenal universe is a
dream and a vision, we may admit it as true. On the one hand, it
serves us as a purifier of our hearts polluted with materialistic
desires, and uplifts us above the plain of sensualism; on the other
hand, it destroys superstitions which as a rule arise from ignorance
and want of the idealistic conception of things.
It is a lamentable fact that every country is full of such
superstitions people as described by one of the New Thought writers:
'Tens of thousands of women in this country believe that if two
people look in a mirror at the same time, or if one thanks the other
for a pin, or if one gives a knife or a sharp instrument to a friend,
it will break up friendship. If a young lady is presented with a
thimble, she will be an old maid. Some people think that after
leaving a house it is unlucky to go back after any article which has
been forgotten, and, if one is obliged to do so, one should sit down
in a chair before going out again; that if a broom touches a person
while someone is sweeping, bad luck will follow; and that it is
unlucky to change one's place at a table. A man took an opal to a
New York jeweller and asked him to buy it. He said that it had
brought him nothing but bad luck, that since it had come into his
possession he had failed in business, that there bad been much
sickness in his family, and all sorts of misfortune had befallen him.
He refused to keep the cursed thing any longer. The jeweller
examined the stone, and found that it was not an opal after all, but
an imitation.'
Idealism is a most potent medicine for these self-created mental
diseases. It will successfully drive away devils and spirits that
frequent ignorant minds, just as Jesus did in the old days. Zen
makes use of moral idealism to extirpate, root and branch, all such
idle dreams and phantasmagoria of illusion and opens the way to
Enlightenment.
11. Idealistic Scepticism concerning Objective Reality.
But extreme Idealism identifies 'to be' with 'to be known,' and
assumes all phenomena to be ideas as illustrated in
Mahayana-vidyamatra-siddhi-tridaca-castra[FN#199] and
Vidyamatra-vincati-castra,[FN#200] by Vasubandhu. Then it
necessarily parts company with Zen, which believes in Universal Life
existing in everything instead of behind it. Idealism shows us its
dark side in three sceptic views: (1) scepticism respecting objective
reality; (2) scepticism respecting religion; (3) scepticism
respecting morality.
[FN#199] A philosophical work on Buddhist idealism by Vasubandhu,
translated into Chinese by Hiuen Tsang in A.D. 648. There exists a
famous commentary on it, compiled by Dharmapala, translated into
Chinese by Hiuen Tsang in A.D. 659. See Nanjo's Catalogue, Nos. 1197
and 1125.
[FN#200] A simpler work on Idealism, translated into Chinese by
Hiuen Tsang in A.D. 661. See Nanjo's Catalogue, Nos. 1238, 1239, and
1240.
First it assumes that things exist in so far as they are known by us.
It is as a matter of course that if a tree exists at all, it is
known as having a trunk long or short, branches large or small,
leaves green or yellow, flowers yellow or purple, etc., all of which
are ideas. But it does not imply in the least that 'to be known' is
equivalent to 'to be existent.' Rather we should say that to be
known presupposes to be existent, for we cannot know anything
non-existent, even if we admit that the axioms of logic subsist.
Again, a tree may stand as ideas to a knower, but it can stand at the
same time as a shelter in relation to some birds, as food in relation
to some insects, as a world in relation to some minute worms, as a
kindred organism to other vegetables. How could you say that its
relation to a knower is the only and fundamental relation for the
existence of the tree? The disappearance of its knower no more
affects the tree than of its feeder; nor the appearance of its knower
affects the tree any more than that of kindred vegetables.
Extreme idealism erroneously concludes that what is really existent,
or what is directly proved to be existent, is only our sensations,
ideas, thoughts; that the external world is nothing but the images
reflected on the mirror of the mind, and that therefore objective
reality of things is doubtful-nay, more, they are unreal, illusory,
and dreams. If so, we can no longer distinguish the real from the
visionary; the waking from the dreaming; the sane from the insane;
the true from the untrue. Whether life is real or an empty dream, we
are at a loss to understand.
12. Idealistic Scepticism concerning Religion and Morality.
Similarly, it is the case with religion and morality. If we admit
extreme idealism as true, there can be nothing objectively real. God
is little more than a mental image. He must be a creature of mind
instead of a Creator. He has no objective reality. He is when we
think He is. He is not when we think He is not. He is at the mercy
of our thought. How much more unreal the world must be, which is
supposed to have been created by an unreal God! Providence,
salvation, and divine grace--what are they? A bare dream dreamed in
a dream!
What is morality, then? It is subjective. It has no objective
validity. A moral conduct highly valued by our fathers is now held
to be immoral by us. Immoral acts now strongly denounced by us may
be regarded as moral by our posterity. Good deeds of the savage are
not necessarily good in the eyes of the civilized, nor evil acts of
the Orientals are necessarily evil before the face of the
Occidentals. It follows, then, that there is no definite standard of
morality in any place at any time.
If morality be merely subjective, and there be no objective standard,
how can you distinguish evil from good? How can you single out
angels from among devils? Was not Socrates a criminal? Was not
Jesus also a criminal? How could you know Him to be a Divine man
different from other criminals who were crucified with Him? What you
honour may I not denounce as disgrace? What you hold as duty may I
not condemn as sin? Every form of idealism is doomed, after all, to
end in such confusion and scepticism. We cannot embrace radical
idealism, which holds these threefold sceptical views in her womb.
13. An Illusion concerning Appearance and Reality.
To get Enlightened we must next dispel an illusion respecting
appearance and reality. According. to certain religionists, all the
phenomena of the universe are to succumb to change. Worldly things
one and all are evanescent. They are nought in the long run.
Snowcapped mountains may sink into the bottom of the deep, while the
sands in the fathomless ocean may soar into the azure sky at some
time or other. Blooming flowers are destined to fade and to bloom
again in the next year. So destined are growing trees, rising
generations, prospering nations, glowing suns, moons, and stars.
This, they would say, is only the case with phenomena or appearances,
but not with reality. Growth and decay, birth and death, rise and
fall, all these are the ebb and flow of appearances in the ocean of
reality, which is always the same. Flowers may fade and be reduced
to dust, yet out of that dust come flowers. Trees may die out, yet
they are reproduced somewhere else. The time may come when the earth
will become a dead sphere quite unsuitable for human habitation, and
the whole of mankind will perish; yet who knows that whether another
earth may not be produced as man's home? The sun might have its
beginning and end, stars, moons, theirs as well; yet an infinite
universe would have no beginning nor end.
Again, they say, mutation is of the world of sense or phenomenal
appearances, but not of reality. The former are the phases of the
latter shown to our senses. Accordingly they are always limited and
modified by our senses, just as images are always limited and
modified by the mirror in which they are reflected. On this account
appearances are subject to limitations, while reality is limitless.
And it follows that the former are imperfect, while the latter is
perfect; that the former is transient, while the latter is eternal;
that the former is relative, while the latter is absolute; that the
former is worldly, while the latter is holy; that the former is
knowable, while the latter is unknowable.
These considerations naturally lead us to an assertion that the world
of appearances is valueless, as it is limited, short-lived,
imperfect, painful, sinful, hopeless, and miserable; while the realm
of reality is to be aspired for, as it is eternal, perfect,
comfortable, full of hope, joy, and peace-hence the eternal divorce
of appearance and reality. Such a view of life tends to make one
minimize the value of man, to neglect the present existence, and to
yearn after the future.
Some religionists tell us that we men are helpless, sinful, hopeless,
and miserable creatures. Worldly riches, temporal honours, and
social positions-nay, even sublimities and beauties of the present
existence, are to be ignored and despised. We have no need of caring
for those things that pass away in a twinkling moment. We must
prepare for the future life which is eternal. We must accumulate
wealth for that existence. We must endeavour to hold rank in it. We
must aspire for the sublimity and beauty and glory of that realm.
14. Where does the Root of the Illusion Lie?
Now let us examine where illusion lies hidden from the view of these
religionists. It lies deeply rooted in the misconstruction of
reality, grows up into the illusive ideas of appearances, and throws
its dark shadow on life. The most fundamental error lies in their
construing reality as something unknowable existing behind
appearances.
According to their opinion, all that we know, or perceive, or feel,
or imagine about the world, is appearances or phenomena, but not
reality itself. Appearances are 'things known as,' but not 'things
as they are.' Thing-in-itself, or reality, lies behind appearances
permanently beyond our ken. This is probably the most profound
metaphysical pit into which philosophical minds have ever fallen in
their way of speculation. Things appear, they would say, as we see
them through our limited senses; but they must present entirely
different aspects to those that differ from ours, just as the
vibration of ether appears to us as colours, yet it presents quite
different aspects to the colour-blind or to the purblind. The
phenomenal universe is what appears to the human mind, and in case
our mental constitution undergoes change, it would be completely
otherwise.
This argument, however, is far from proving that the reality is
unknowable, or that it lies hidden behind appearances or
presentations. Take, for instance, a reality which appears as a ray
of the sun. When it goes through a pane of glass it appears to be
colourless, but it exhibits a beautiful spectrum when it passes
through a prism. Therefore you assume that a reality appearing as
the rays of the sun is neither colourless nor coloured in itself,
since these appearances are wholly due to the difference that obtains
between the pane of glass and the prism.
We contend, however, that the fact does not prove the existence of
the reality named the sun's ray beyond or behind the white light, nor
its existence beyond or behind the spectrum. It is evident that the
reality exists in white light, and that it is known as the white
light when it goes through a pane of glass; and that the same reality
exists in the spectrum, and is known as the spectrum when it goes
through the prism. The reality is known as the white light on the
one hand, and as the spectrum on the other. It is not unknowable,
but knowable.
Suppose that one and the same reality exhibits one aspect when it
stands in relation to another object; two aspects when it stands in
relation in two different objects; three aspects when it stands in
relation to three different objects. The reality of one aspect never
proves the unreality of another aspect, for all these three aspects
can be equally real. A tree appears to us as a vegetable; it appears
to some birds as a shelter; and it appears to some worms as a food.
The reality of its aspect as a vegetable never proves the unreality
of its aspect as food, nor the reality of its aspect as food
disproves the reality of its aspect as shelter. The real tree does
not exist beyond or behind the vegetable. We can rely upon its
reality, and make use of it to a fruitful result. At the same time,
the birds can rely on its reality as a shelter, and build their nests
in it; the worms, too, can rely on its reality as food, and eat it-to
their satisfaction. A reality which appears to me as my wife must
appear to my son as his mother, and never as his wife. But the same
real woman is in the wife and in the mother; neither is unreal.
15. Thing-in-Itself means Thing-Knowerless.
How, then, did philosophers come to consider reality to be unknowable
and hidden behind or beyond appearances? They investigated all the
possible presentations in different relationships, and put them all
aside as appearances, and brooded on the thing-in-itself, shut out
from all possible relationship, and declared it unknowable.
Thing-in-itself means thing cut off from all possible relationships.
To, put it in another way: thing-in-itself means thing deprived of
its relation to its knower--that is to say, thing-knower-less. So
that to declare thing-in-itself unknowable is as much as to declare
thing-unknowable unknowable; there is no doubt about it, but what
does it prove?
Deprive yourself of all the possible relationships, and see what you
are. Suppose you are not a son to your parents, nor the husband to
your wife, nor the father to your children, nor a relative to your
kindred, nor a friend to your acquaintances, nor a teacher to your
students, nor a citizen to your country, nor an individual member to
your society, nor a creature to your God, then you get
you-in-yourself. Now ask yourself what is you-in-yourself? You can
never answer the question. It is unknowable, just because it is cut
off from all knowable relations. Can you thus prove that
you-in-yourself exist beyond or behind you?
In like manner our universe appears to us human beings as the
phenomenal world or presentation. It might appear to other creatures
of a different mental constitution as something else. We cannot
ascertain how it might seem to Devas, to Asuras, to angels, and to
the Almighty, if there be such beings. However different it might
seem to these beings, it does not imply that the phenomenal world is
unreal, nor that the realm of reality is unknowable.
'Water,' the Indian tradition has it, 'seems to man as a drink, as
emerald to Devas, as bloody pus to Pretas, as houses to fishes.'
Water is not a whit less real because of its seeming as houses to
fishes, and fishes' houses are not less real because of its seeming
as emerald to Devas. There is nothing that proves the unreality of
it. It is a gross illusion to conceive reality as transcendental to
appearances. Reality exists as appearances, and appearances are
reality known to human beings. You cannot separate appearances from
reality, and hold out the latter as the object of aspiration at the
cost of the former. You must acknowledge that the so-called realm of
reality which you aspire after, and which you seek for outside or
behind the phenomenal universe, exists here on earth. Let Zen
teachers tell you that "the world of birth and death is the realm of
Nirvana"; "the earth is the pure land of Buddha."
16. The Four Alternatives and the Five Categories.
There are, according to Zen, the four classes of religious and
philosophical views, technically called the Four
Alternatives,[FN#201] of life and of the world. The first is 'the
deprivation of subject and the non-deprivation of object' that is to
say, the denial of subject, or mind, or Atman, or soul, and the
non-denial of object, or matter, or things--a view which denies the
reality of mind and asserts the existence of things. Such a view was
held by a certain school of Hinayanism, called Sarvastivada, and
still is held by some philosophers called materialists or
naturalists. The second is the 'deprivation of object and the
non-deprivation of subject'--that is to say, the denial of object, or
matter, or things, and the non-denial of subject, or mind, or
spirit-a view which denies the reality of material object, and
asserts the existence of spirit or ideas. Such a view was held by
the Dharmalaksana School of Mahayanism, and is still held by some
philosophers called idealists. The third is 'the deprivation of both
subject and object'--that is to say, the denial of both subject or
spirit, and of object or matter-a view which denies the reality of
both physical and mental phenomena, and asserts the existence of
reality that transcends the phenomenal universe. Such a view was
held by the Madhyamika School of Mahayanism, and is still held by
some religionists and philosophers of the present day. The fourth is
'the non-deprivation of both subject and object'--that is to say, the
non-denial of subject and object--a view which holds mind and body as
one and the same reality. Mind, according to this view, is reality
experienced inwardly by introspection, and body is the selfsame
reality observed outwardly by senses. They are one reality and one
life. There also exist other persons and other beings belonging to
the same life and reality; consequently all things share in one
reality, and life in common with each other. This reality or life is
not transcendental to mind and body, or to spirit and matter, but is
the unity of them. In other words, this phenomenal world of ours is
the realm of reality. This view was held by the Avatamsaka School of
Mahayanism, and is still held by Zenists. Thus Zen is not
materialistic, nor idealistic, nor nihilistic, but realistic and
monistic in its view of the world.
[FN#201] Shi-rya-ken in Japanese, the classification mostly made use
of by masters of the Rin Zai School of Zen. For the details, see
Ki-gai-kwan, by K. Watanabe.
There are some scholars that erroneously maintain that Zen is based
on the doctrine of unreality of all things expounded by Kumarajiva
and his followers. Ko-ben,[FN#202] known as Myo-ye Sho-nin, said 600
years ago: "Yang Shan (Kyo-zan) asked Wei Shan (I-san): 'What shall
we do when hundreds, thousands, and millions of things beset us all
at once?' 'The blue are not the yellow,' replied Wei Shan, 'the long
are not the short. Everything is in its own place. It has no
business with you.' Wei Shan was a great Zen master. He did not
teach the unreality of all things. Who can say that Zen is
nihilistic?"
[FN#202] A well-known scholar (1173-1232) of the Anatamsaka School
of Mahayanism.
Besides the Four Alternatives, Zen uses the Five Categories[FN#203]
in order to explain the relation between reality and phenomena. The
first is 'Relativity in Absolute,' which means that the universe
appears to be consisting in relativities, owing to our relative
knowledge; but these relativities are based on absolute reality. The
second is 'Absolute in Relativity,' which means Absolute Reality does
not remain inactive, but manifests itself as relative phenomena. The
third is 'Relativity out of Absolute,' which means Absolute Reality
is all in all, and relative phenomena come out of it as its secondary
and subordinate forms. The fourth is 'Absolute up to Relativity,'
which means relative phenomena always play an important part on the
stage of the world; it is through these phenomena that Absolute
Reality comes to be understood. The fifth is the 'Union of both
Absolute and Relativity,' which means Absolute Reality is not
fundamental or essential to relative phenomena, nor relative
phenomena subordinate or secondary to Absolute Reality--that is to
say, they are one and the same cosmic life, Absolute Reality being
that life experienced inwardly by intuition, while relative phenomena
are the same life outwardly observed by senses. The first four
Categories are taught to prepare the student's mind for the
acceptance of the last one, which reveals the most profound truth.
[FN#203] Go-i in Japanese, mostly used by the So-To School of Zen.
The detailed explanation is given in Go-i-ken-ketsu.
17. Personalism of B. P. Bowne.
B. P. Bowne[FN#204] says: They (phenomena) are not phantoms or
illusions, nor are they masks of a back-lying reality which is trying
to peer through them." "The antithesis," he continues,[FN#205] "of
phenomena and noumena rests on the fancy that there is something that
rests behind phenomena which we ought to perceive but cannot, because
the masking phenomena thrusts itself between the reality and us."
Just so far we agree with Bowne, but we think he is mistaken in
sharply distinguishing between body and self, saying:[FN#206] "We
ourselves are invisible. The physical organism is only an instrument
for expressing and manifesting the inner life, but the living self is
never seen." "Human form," he argues,[FN#207] "as an object in space
apart from our experience of it as the instrument and expression of
personal life, would have little beauty or attraction; and when it is
described in anatomical terms, there is nothing in it that we should
desire it. The secret of its beauty and its value lies in the
invisible realm." "The same is true," he says again, "of literature.
It does not exist in space, or in time, or in books, or in libraries
. . . all that could be found there would be black marks on a white
paper, and collections of these bound together in various forms,
which would be all the eyes could see. But this would not be
literature, for literature has its existence only in mind and for
mind as an expression of mind, and it is simply impossible and
meaningless in abstraction from mind." "Our human history"--he gives
another illustration[FN#208]--"never existed in space, and never
could so exist. If some visitor from Mars should come to the earth
and look at all that goes on in space in connection with human
beings, he would never get any hint of its real significance. He
would be confined to integrations and dissipations of matter and
motion. He could describe the masses and grouping of material
things, but in all this be would get no suggestion of the inner life
which gives significance to it all. As conceivably a bird might sit
on a telegraph instrument and become fully aware of the clicks of the
machine without any suspicion of the existence or meaning of the
message, or a dog could see all that eye can see in a book yet
without any hint of its meaning, or a savage could gaze at the
printed score of an opera without ever suspecting its musical import,
so this supposed visitor would be absolutely cut off by an impassable
gulf from the real seat and significance of human history. The great
drama of life, with its likes and dislikes, its loves and hates, its
ambitions and strivings, and manifold ideas, inspirations,
aspirations, is absolutely foreign to space, and could never in any
way be discovered in space. So human history has its seat in the
invisible."
[FN#204] 'Personalism,' p. 94.
[FN#205] Ibid., p. 95.
[FN#206] Ibid., p. 268.
[FN#207] Ibid., p. 271.
[FN#208] 'Personalism,' pp. 272, 273.
In the first place, Bowne's conception of the physical organism as
but an instrument for the expression of the inner, personal life,
just as the telegraphic apparatus is the instrument for the
expression of messages, is erroneous, because body is not a mere
instrument of inner personal life, but an essential constituent of
it. Who can deny that one's physical conditions determine one's
character or personality? Who can overlook the fact that one's
bodily conditions positively act upon one's personal life? There is
no physical organism which remains as a mere passive mechanical
instrument of inner life within the world of experience. Moreover,
individuality, or personality, or self, or inner life, whatever you
may call it, conceived as absolutely independent of physical
condition, is sheer abstraction. There is no such concrete
personality or individuality within our experience.
In the second place, he conceives the physical organism simply as a
mark or symbol, and inner personal life as the thing marked or
symbolized; so he compares physical forms with paper, types, books,
and libraries, and inner life, with literature. In so doing he
overlooks the essential and inseparable connection between the
physical organism and inner life, because there is no essential
inseparable connection between a mark or symbol and the thing marked
or symbolized. The thing may adopt any other mark or symbol. The
black marks on the white paper, to use his figure, are not essential
to literature. Literature may be expressed by singing, or by speech,
or by a series of pictures. But is there inner life expressed, or
possible to be expressed, in any other form save physical organism?
We must therefore acknowledge that inner life is identical with
physical organism, and that reality is one and the same as appearance.
18. All the Worlds in Ten Directions are Buddha's Holy Land.
We are to resume this problem in the following chapter. Suffice it
to say for the present it is the law of Universal Life that
manifoldness is in unity, and unity is in manifoldness; difference is
in agreement, and agreement in difference; confliction is in harmony,
and harmony in confliction; parts are in the whole, and the whole is
in parts; constancy is in change, and change in constancy; good is in
bad, and bad in good; integration is in disintegration, and
disintegration is in integration; peace is in disturbance, and
disturbance in peace. We can find something celestial among the
earthly. We can notice something glorious in the midst of the base
and degenerated.
'There are nettles everywhere, but are not smooth, green grasses more
common still?' Can you recognize something awe-inspiring in the rise
and fall of nations? Can you not recognize something undisturbed and
peaceful among disturbance and trouble? Has not even grass some
meaning? Does not even a stone tell the mystery of Life? Does not
the immutable law of good sway over human affairs after all, as
Tennyson says-
"I can but trust that good shall fall
At last-far off-at last, to all."
Has not each of us a light within him, whatever degrees of lustre
there may be? Was Washington in the wrong when he said: "Labour to
keep alive in your heart that little spark of celestial fire called
conscience."
We are sure that we can realize the celestial bliss in this very
world, if we keep alive the Enlightened Consciousness, of which
Bodhidharma and his followers showed the example. 'All the worlds in
ten directions are Buddha's Holy Lands!' That Land of Bliss and
Glory exists above us, under us, around us, within us, without us, if
we open our eyes to see. 'Nirvana is in life itself,' if we enjoy it
with admiration and love. "Life and death are the life of Buddha,"
says Do-gen. Everywhere the Elysian gates stand open, if we do not
shut them up by ourselves. Shall we starve ourselves refusing to
accept the rich bounty which the Blessed Life offers to us? Shall we
perish in the darkness of scepticism, shutting our eyes to the light
of Tathagata? Shall we suffer from innumerable pains in the
self-created hell where remorse, jealousy, and hatred feed the fire
of anger? Let us pray to Buddha, not in word only, but in the deed
of generosity and tolerance, in the character noble and loving, and
in the personality sublime and good. Let us pray to Buddha to save
us from the hell of greed and folly, to deliver us from the thraldom
of temptation. Let us 'enter the Holy of Holies in admiration and
wonder.'