What is beyond "no"?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Religion, Faith, and Spirituality
ShinrinyokuYuugenShoganai — 9 years ago(February 16, 2017 12:19 AM)
We have all heard that Reality-as-such is beyond any duality, beyond any affirmation or denial. It is often said that emptiness is not "no," but what is it exactly? The fact that we're so frequently discouraged in Zen from asking questions with presumptuous words like "what" makes it all the more pressing that we try to find a way forward.
Let's turn to its logical formulation for a second. What this amounts to goes by many names, but in the West it usually goes by "apophatic" or "negative" theology. It's an idea you find in a lot of cultures, and it seems pretty clear to me that this is the driving factor behind why so many holy texts are filled with mountains of negations. The idea behind it is pretty simple: it's more accurate to say what Reality isn't than what it is. This is motivated by metaphysical technicalities that I won't get into in my OP, but it can be said that our project is basically trying to put Boundless Reality into a limited, bounded explanation, and for this reason it's difficult to speak about Reality-as-such. The ink-blood of many minds has been spilled over the relationship between language and metaphysics, and I won't try to solve it here.
Anyway, the idea is just simple negation. However, Reality is beyond yes and no, being wholly inclusive (it being contradiction in terms for a real thing not to be included in Truth). So Wu/Mu () is not just "no", since it indicates reality.
Negation isn't the whole picture. I want to try, with all of you, to speak more clearly about what is. Particularly, is there a logical form that's closer than mere negation? At some point I expect this to break down since Reality-as-such is beyond individuation and affirmation/denial, the two foundations of logic, but I think it can be taken a little further.
Perhaps Zhuangzi's wordplay with is relevant here: when paired with , the pair indicates affirmation and denial. When paired with 彼, they indicate "this" and "that" (i.e. individuation).
What is interesting here is the link between these two concept (which happen to be the foundation of logic) being . Zhuangzi sees that there is a fundamental relationship between, if I may put it this way, where one stands (perspective) and what one sees (what one affirms/denies). I affirm this and not that because I am this way.
It is like this: on an indefinitely large plane, any point can be taken as the center; but you must pick a center in order to start making measurements. (This seems to be the idea behind rational coming from ratio: that rationality is from comparing things.) In order to say anything, I need a place to stand, so to speak. But as soon as I have a place to stand Reality is /this/ way and not /that/ way. So when I tried to say something about it I had to get my hands messy and join the fray! I couldn't say anything about Reality "objectively", but had to hop right in in order to speak.
This project seems self-defeating, since every time we try to get closer to Reality than "no", we are met with "abandon individuation and affirmation/denial, for they are unreal." But these appear to be the very foundations of language and logic, of sayability! So must we rethink saying? How can something closer than "no" be said? Try as you might, the question stubbornly refuses to go away despite our pulling the rug out from under it.
So, in trying to go beyond "no", there appears to be this radical affirmation of limitedness. I keep coming back to the saying:
Before enlightenment, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers.
During enlightenment, mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers.
After enlightenment, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers.
I think the individuality of a thing is being affirmed as its Reality. But this "individuality" must not be construed the way we usually do.
So we are pulled in two directions, neither affirming it nor denying it are fully "it." But "no" says something crucial, and when we look closely at this "no" we find a radical affirmation of the Reality of the individual-as-such.
f this is completely obscure to you, why don't you read up on "emptiness", "dependent (co)origination/arising", and "expedient means" in Buddhism in the meantime? It'll make this whole "emptiness is not 'no'" business a lot clearer. The Diamond Sutra in particular is good for teaching this, and the basic form in it is "x is not x (being empty), therefore we talk about 'x'" The Lotus Sutra has a couple of chapters early on expedient means, which is CRUCIAL to understanding Buddhism (and why it is slander to say that the Buddha taught anything, according to Buddha himself).
The important thing to keep in mind is what things are empty OF: inherent, separate existence. "Essences."
So the way I see it, a large part of what makes Zen so weird is the extent to which they take two concepts: UPAYA and PRATITYASAMUTPADA/SHUNYATA.
PRATITYASAMUTPADA ("dependent origination/arising") - This is simply the teaching of relativity. Things -
-