Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. What on earth is one to make of that statement? One of the central texts of the Zen school is the Heart Sutra. The Heart Sutra is a condensation, or the "heart," of all the Prajna Paramita (perfection of perfect wisdom) literature which originally appeared between 200 b.c. and 400a.d. In Buddhism, the term "sutra" refers generally to canonical scriptures that are regarded as records of the oral teachings of Gautama Buddha.
The Heart Sutra deals with the non-duality of form and emptiness, which for the basis of almost every Zen koan. It is the placing of things into categories and assigning positive and negative value to them which can give rise to suffering in the mind. Butterflies are beautiful but cockroaches are bad, that sort of thing. The Tibetans, as usual, have come up with a good analysis for how the mind sorts and assigns value to objects and ideas. They have defined something known as the "feeling aggregate" which is defined as 'an omnipresent factor of the mind which labels experiences into three categories: pleasant, unpleasant or neutral' When the label of pleasant is given to an object, we develop an attachment to it. When the label of unpleasant is given to an object, we develop aversion, and sometimes even anger or hatred. When the label of neutral is given to an object, we often don't care about the object or even ignore it.
Once we have established the opinion that something is pleasant or unpleasant, it takes an awful lot of evidence before we are willing to change our mind about it, if we are prepared to change our mind at all. Remember the saying, “there's only one chance to make a first impression” We become very attached to our perceptions and our labels. When we perceive something, a person or an object, the mind immediately splits into inner and outer, self and other, subject and object. In simply perceiving the object, there is no problem. But we can't leave well enough alone. Not only do we categorize but we begin to judge and assign value.
Of course much of this is grounded in our egos. We are so sure of out opinions that we can’t accept the idea that we might be wrong, or that we might be holding an opinion for reasons that have nothing to do with anything operating in our minds on a conscious level. How could we possibly be wrong? They’re OUR opinions. Again ego begets suffering.
Do you see the inherent problem with being attached to something as ephemeral and subjective as our opinions in a world where nothing is permanent? The very ideas of "good" and "bad" are completely subjective creations of our minds. These opinions are often founded on nothing more than a first glance and an almost automatic labeling process. Engaging in this sort of classifying and judging is known in Buddhism as dualistic thinking.
Buddhism in general and the Heart Sutra in particular, try to point out the Karmic consequences of living within this duality of right and wrong. As well as pointing the way out of this mental state through the use of meditation and koan study, for example. It should be pointed out that technically there can be no such thing as a nondual perspective only a realization of or nonduality. One cannot accurately claim to experience nonduality, because the concept of experience depends on a subject-object distinction, which is, alas, itself a duality.
This is a very simplistic discussion of non-duality and will need to be expounded on in the weeks ahead.
The Heart Sutra deals with the non-duality of form and emptiness, which for the basis of almost every Zen koan. It is the placing of things into categories and assigning positive and negative value to them which can give rise to suffering in the mind. Butterflies are beautiful but cockroaches are bad, that sort of thing. The Tibetans, as usual, have come up with a good analysis for how the mind sorts and assigns value to objects and ideas. They have defined something known as the "feeling aggregate" which is defined as 'an omnipresent factor of the mind which labels experiences into three categories: pleasant, unpleasant or neutral' When the label of pleasant is given to an object, we develop an attachment to it. When the label of unpleasant is given to an object, we develop aversion, and sometimes even anger or hatred. When the label of neutral is given to an object, we often don't care about the object or even ignore it.
Once we have established the opinion that something is pleasant or unpleasant, it takes an awful lot of evidence before we are willing to change our mind about it, if we are prepared to change our mind at all. Remember the saying, “there's only one chance to make a first impression” We become very attached to our perceptions and our labels. When we perceive something, a person or an object, the mind immediately splits into inner and outer, self and other, subject and object. In simply perceiving the object, there is no problem. But we can't leave well enough alone. Not only do we categorize but we begin to judge and assign value.
Of course much of this is grounded in our egos. We are so sure of out opinions that we can’t accept the idea that we might be wrong, or that we might be holding an opinion for reasons that have nothing to do with anything operating in our minds on a conscious level. How could we possibly be wrong? They’re OUR opinions. Again ego begets suffering.
Do you see the inherent problem with being attached to something as ephemeral and subjective as our opinions in a world where nothing is permanent? The very ideas of "good" and "bad" are completely subjective creations of our minds. These opinions are often founded on nothing more than a first glance and an almost automatic labeling process. Engaging in this sort of classifying and judging is known in Buddhism as dualistic thinking.
Buddhism in general and the Heart Sutra in particular, try to point out the Karmic consequences of living within this duality of right and wrong. As well as pointing the way out of this mental state through the use of meditation and koan study, for example. It should be pointed out that technically there can be no such thing as a nondual perspective only a realization of or nonduality. One cannot accurately claim to experience nonduality, because the concept of experience depends on a subject-object distinction, which is, alas, itself a duality.
This is a very simplistic discussion of non-duality and will need to be expounded on in the weeks ahead.
2 comments:
good posts. check this [Beartrice Bruteau] out when u get a chance:
http://www.wie.org/j34/bruteau.asp
"Complex Nondualism"
WIE: Many Eastern traditions describe the pinnacle of human potential as the realization of nonduality. Is the union you are speaking about analogous to this definition of enlightenment?
Bruteau: Yes, but it’s a nondualism that doesn’t reduce to a monism. That is to say, our personal energies do not merge or become submerged in some amorphous whole. We do not acquire a kind of oceanic sense of being swallowed up in a great All. Quite the contrary: subjectively, it feels rather like an intensification of individuality —Self-consciousness or Self-realization. Perhaps we might call it “complex nondualism.”
WIE: Do you think that some philosophies of nondualism might be antithetical to an evolutionary perspective? For example, the traditional Eastern definition of enlightenment is final cessation, or the end of all becoming. What is the relationship between enlightenment, as it’s traditionally conceived, and your view of spiritual awakening as the foundation for an evolutionary progression toward ever-higher expressions of integration?
Bruteau: The answer to that brings together two things I’ve been speaking about. When you find the I AM in the center of your self, that’s the cessation part. And having found it, you discover that its intention is toward becoming, and that’s the evolution part.
WIE: So could the traditional definition of enlightenment as the end of becoming actually be an obstacle to the realization of our evolutionary potential?
Bruteau: If we really think that that’s the final goal and there’s nothing beyond it, then it might be.
WIE: A lot of spiritual teachers do think that way. We often hear it said that when you wake up, you realize that this world is only an illusion and therefore nothing of this world matters!
Bruteau: Oh yes, I know. But if you really wake up, you should discover from the experience itself that it is not the end. In fact, I believe it was the Indian philosopher and sage Sri Aurobindo who said that Shankara told only half the story. Traditional Vedanta says that this world is really Brahman, or the Absolute, but it appears as Maya, or illusion. Now where Aurobindo felt that Shankara had stopped short was that Shankara did not pursue this and say, “Well, what Brahman is doing is manifesting as world. And that means that the world is holy and the world needs to be encouraged to manifest further.” What we’re looking at is the creative activity of the Brahman. There is the Absolute, and the Absolute manifests itself in terms of the relative. Both the relative and the Absolute are real. Both the Infinite and the finite are real. You are a miniature of the same structure. The deep Self in you is the Absolute, the Infinite, the Eternal, the Divine, and it’s manifesting as the particular human being that you’re embodied as, at the present time. So I would say there are two poles. There is a mystical pole, which is what Shankara invites us to, and then there is the creative pole, which is this whole evolutionary movement...
mind-blowing stuff...
peace,
your texas temp lawyer friend
I would take issue with the eastern definition of enlightenment as final secession. Buddhism considers enlightenment as an awakening, or shift in perception. We don't merge with the whole, we realize that we and the whole have always been one.
Post a Comment