The Fundamental Tenets of Buddhism Concerning Reality – Part 2 of 3
“Where there is birth, age and death necessarily follow. This realm (of causal nexus) is perpetual, regardless of the Tathāgata’s appearing or not appearing (in this world); and the stability of truth and the order of truth follow their necessary and natural concatenation. The Tathāgata has comprehended this and penetrated into the Truth; having comprehended and penetrated into it, he announces and preaches it, makes it known, establishes and reveals it, and makes it clear and visible.”
(Samyutta, 12. 20.)
Herein is a point of great importance, which gave rise to two opposite interpretations of Buddha’s teachings. One school understood in this thesis the permanent stability of the Dharma, meaning thereby external existence, while the other interpreted the stability of truth as existing in our own mind. The difference may be stated thus: The school which emphasized the objective import of the Dharma ran to an extreme verging on materialism, asserting the reality of the external order, and denying the mind, on the ground of the doctrine of non-ego. The opposite direction was taken by the other school, which saw no meaning in what is usually spoken of as the objective world, apart from its significance as a manifestation of the universal Dharmatā. The consequence was that the truth of existence was to be realized only in the enlightened mind of a Buddha, and that, therefore, reality belonged, not to the world of visible diversity, but to the realm of transcendental unity. The former tendency was represented by the Sarvāstivādins, the men who asserted that “all exists”; who were opposed by nearly all others, though the extreme transcendental view was not universally accepted. Before taking up the opposition, we must inquire what Buddha’s own position was.
Buddha always explicitly repudiated the two extremes, the Permanence-view (Sassata-vāda) and the Nihilistic view (Uccheda-vāda), that is, the views which either assert or deny the reality of the external world per se. He once said to his great disciple, Kaccāna:
“The world, for the most part, holds either to a belief in being or to a belief in non-being. But for one who, in the light of the perfect insight, considers how the world arises, belief in the non-being of the world passes away. And for one who, in the light of the perfect insight, considers how the world ceases, belief in the being of the world passes away. … That all is existent is one extreme; that all is non-existent is another extreme. The Tathāgata, avoiding the two extremes, preaches his truth, which is the Middle Path.”
(Samyutta, 12. 15; Warren, p. 165.)
The former view is that of common-sense realism, which Buddha refuted by showing how change and decay actually go on before our eyes. Buddha opposed this kind of realism, not by denying reality altogether, but by demanding a change in the conception of reality, a transfer of the idea of reality from the conception of permanent external existence to that of becoming ruled by the law of causation. On the other hand, the nihilistic theory differs from Buddha’s position in a very subtle manner, because Buddha rejects the idea of permanence, yet sees reality in things and processes; both being Dharmas by virtue of the same law. He accepts the assertion that nothing exists in the sense that nothing persists by itself; but he rejects the same assertion by making a counter-affirmation that reality consists in the stability and order of truth, of the law of causation. This is what he called the Middle Path, as he preached the Middle Path in his ethics, rejecting both the hedonistic life and ascetic self-mortification.
The Buddhist realism above referred to was in fact not so materialistic as it was believed to be by the opposing schools. Yet it concentrated its effort upon an analysis of the Dharmas, as if they were merely external existences, and neglected the significance of Buddha’s Tathāgataship, which consisted in his having grasped the truth of existence in his enlightened mind. The realists missed the point in their conception of Dharma because they proceeded to its analysis, apart from the ideal interpretation of the Dharmas as given by Buddha himself. Thus, this school of realists was controverted by adducing the personal example of Buddha, and by emphasizing the significance of faith in him as the Tathāgata, in the conception and interpretation of reality. In other words, the opposition took the orthodox course of never separating the conception of Dharma from the personality of Buddha as the Truth-winner and Truth-revealer.
Now, not speaking of the extreme transcendentalism, the orthodox theory of the Middle Path may be formulated in the following way:
Buddha has unquestionably said that the truth-order exists and works, regardless of whether a Tathāgata appears, or not. But, who among Buddhists could, without his revelation of Dharma, have realized that truth? In fact, the external-realist asserts the truth-order in consequence of Buddha’s teaching; and Buddha taught this because the truth was grasped by him. This we say, not merely in the sense that Buddha is our authority in this matter, but in the sense that the truth-order would remain a meaningless entity or process, unless there were at least one man who had realized it and interpreted its meaning. Undoubtedly, the truth-order may be working, even while you or I do not realize it. Yet it has become known to us through Buddha’s revelation, and then in our own enlightenment. Enlightenment and revelation are the essential factors in the nature of the truth-order because the conception truth-order does not mean a dead entity, nor a merely external order, but implies a realization of its import in the enlightened mind, which represents the ideal order of existence.
Otherwise expressed, the world, the realm of truths (dharmadhātu), as a whole, is the stage on which the beings in the world attain their own Dharmatā; and therefore, the world, subsisting by itself, but without knowing its own meaning – its own truth-order – is an imperfect manifestation of its real nature. Only a half, and the inferior half, of reality, of the real nature of existence, is rightly to be conceived as the merely external existence; the other half, the essential and integral half, is first revealed to us when we bring to light our own real nature. It is a realization of the Dharmatā, on my part or yours; this is, however, not a merely individual work, but the enlightenment of an individual mind as a part of the world, nay, as the key to the revelation and realization of its real nature. Reality (Sanskrit, dharma-tathatā, dharma-svabhāva) is nothing but a full realization of the true nature; and in the true nature of the world, the ideal interpretation plays no less part than what is erroneously called external existence. The conception of reality becomes meaningless, unless an integral part, or aspect, is realized through at least one individual. What then is the significance of enlightenment on the part of an individual?
Here is conspicuously shown the significance of Buddha’s attainment and revelation, by which he plays an integral part in the world’s truth-order, and herein lies the importance of his personality as the Truth-winner and Truth-revealer. It is in his person that the real import of existence has come to light; it is in his enlightenment in the fundamental nature (dharmatā) of the world that the cosmos has found its own mouthpiece, the representative, the embodiment, of its truth-order; it is through his revelation that the world, including ourselves and many other beings of different sorts, has gained the key to the interpretation and comprehension of its real meaning. Knowing and seeing, enlightenment and revelation – all are nothing but the essential nature of the truth-order, by which the meaning of existence, and therefore of reality, is made explicit, or can be evolved. Wherefore it is said:
“The Exalted One knows knowing, sees seeing; he is the One who has become the eyes (of the world); he is the One who has become knowledge (or enlightenment); he is the One who has become truth; he is the One who has become Brahmā (the highest deity of Brahmanism); he is the instructor, the revealer, the One who pours out good, the One who gives immortality; the Lord of Dharma, that is the Tathāgata.” (Samyutta, 35. 116, etc.)
Buddha, the Tathāgata, is the prototypical representative of the seer, of the knower, of the one who has realized his own true nature, together with that of the whole world. In short, Buddha’s enlightenment is the interpretation of the world, which means not simply a process in an individual mind but plays an integral part in the existence of the world, being a revelation of its own meaning – a self-realization of the world, so to speak. This is the view of the Middle Path.