화엄불교: 인드라의 보석망 - 프랜시스 쿡 Full text 5
Full text of "hua-yen-buddhism-the-jewel-net-of-indra"
Hua-yen Buddhism the Jewel Net of Indra
Francis H. Cook 1977
==
Contents
Preface
- The Jewel Net of Indra
- The Hua-yen School
- The Indian Background of Hua-yen
- Identity
- Intercausality
- The Part and the Whole
- Vairocan
- Living in the Net of Indra
Notes
Glossary
Index
===
===
Intercausality
The single dharma which was examined in the preceding chapter by means of
the analogy of ten coins is not completely autonomous 1n its ability to create
the result. Looked at in isolation, purely from the standpoint of its own causal
efficacy, it is true that it has the total power to create the result. What 1s ee
by this is indicated by Fa-tsang’s statement to the effect that the result 1s not able
to be formed in the absence of the single dharma. Since all dharmas share the
same power, they are said to be identical in essence. In looking at them in a
manner, there 1s no question of the uniqueness and particularity of the dharma;
it is, so to speak, a faceless center of causal efficacy. But this is not the whole
truth. The dharma is an individual in the strict sense; it 1s unique, Possessing a
form not exactly like any other form, and it also has a function which 1s different
from the functions of other, dissimilar individuals. As an individual, it thus
necessarily interacts dynamically with other individuals. Now there is atecogh:
tion of the pure facticity of the individual, and consequently a recognition of its
dynamic nature. A commentary on Fa-tsang’s Treatise says,
Different essence 1s the topic of the mutual difference of [dharmas of] con-
ditioned arising. This means that within the inexhaustibly great [network of]
conditioned arising, all conditions, seen from the standpoint of theit moter
relationship, are each different in essence and function and are not intermixed
or confused. Therefore, they are said to be different.*
The cause, then, in its identity with other causes, 1s able to create the result
totally out of its ability to be a cause, and as such does not differ on any other
cause. This same dharma also has a different essence because of its particular form
and essence; as such, it is not able to create the result without the alcok other
exterior conditions working in cooperation with it. “Different essence in fact,
means that it requires the help of these conditions. A simple example will illustrate
68 Hua-yen Buddhism
this. A wheat seed is considered to be the main cause of the new plant, but in
order to produce the plant, it needs the aid of sun, water, and soil. The seed has
1ts Own essence or nature, while the sun has the nature of heat, the water has the
nature of wetness, and the soil has a nutritive and supporting nature. Thus all the
elements which participate in the production of the new plant are different in
their natures. All must work together, for the seed alone lacks the natures of the
other conditions and cannot produce the resulting plant alone. It is different
from them.
It is this need for supporting conditions by each causal dharma which results
in a universally pervasive intercausality which is of the nature of interpenetration
of dharma and dharma. Here it should be noted that although the title of this
chapter is “‘intercausality,”’ this intercausality involves the interpenetration of one
thing with another, and Fa-tsang’s two major categories of discussion are, in
fact, identity and interpenetration. While not ignoring the latter aspect, I have
chosen to discuss this part of the system in terms of intercausality in the belief
that it would be clearer. By “interpenetration,” Fa-tsang means that a dharma
considered to be the cause includes within it, by a kind of borrowing or usurpa-
tion, the qualities possessed by the contributing conditions. In the above analogy
of the seed, the seed is said to borrow, and include within itself, the qualities or
natures of water, sun, and soil, and only by embracing these qualities in this
manner is it able to produce its result. Since any dharma, seen from the standpoint
of itself, possesses the qualities of all the aiding conditions within itself, and since
everything in existence is a condition aiding the one dharma, then there is an
infinite interpenetration of all dharmas.
The analogy of the seed is not completely effective here, because there is
umdirectional (or apparently unidirectional) flow of cause from the seed to the
result. However, in the more general area of causation, which 1s the whole
universe, the causal flow 1s multidirectional, and, unlike the seed and the new
plant, what is a cause from one standpoint 1s a result from another, and vice versa.
Therefore, the one dharma which acts as a cause for the whole 1s at the same time,
as a part of the whole, the result of another cause. What is more, the conditions
which aid the cause in producing the result are themselves the result of the causal
dharma, and these conditions-cum-result are in turn the cause of the causal dharma.
Interpenetration results from a situation in which the cause includes the conditions
within itself while at the same time, being a result itself of other causes, its qualities
are being absorbed into the other. Abstractly speaking, the part includes the
whole while the whole includes the part. Finally, the whole which is included
in the one part 1s already a whole which includes the part, so that the inter-
penetration of dharma and dharma is repeated over and over, infinitely.
Intercausality 69
It will be recalled that in the analogy of the ten coins, identity of dharma with
dharma was established on the basis of the possession of each dharma of the qualities
of emptiness and existence. Here, the issue is not identity but the synomic
interaction among these same dharmas. Intercausality and interpenetration peat
from the possession of each dharma of the traits of possessing power and not possessing
power to create the result. When we speak of a dharma functioning as cause by
absorbing the power of the conditions within itself, the cause is then said to
possess causal power while the conditions which are absorbed mn it are said to be
lacking in power. This obviously is simply a way of emphasizing the centrality
and importance of the one dharma in the nexus of cause and result, because the
same dharma 1s also said to be without power, and this means that from another
standpoint, this one dharma 1s also the result of another cause or many causes.
The new cause has power while the dharma previously considered to be a cause 1s
without power, and this is because the cause 1s now being seen from a new
standpoint. In short, a dharma-both possesses power and lacks power, depending
on whether it 1s being considered as the cause or, from a different angle, part of
the result of another cause. .
A concrete example of this may be seen in the twelve-linked cham of inter-
dependence, which was used earlier to demonstrate the identity of the twelve
links. It 13 a good example, because traditionally the twelve ines have been
interpreted as existing simultaneously and interdependently. Nom in terms of
power and lack of power, if we start (purely arbitrarily) with avidya, and con-
sider 1t to be the cause of the entire twelve dharmas as a totality, then first it
must be said that it is entirely different from the other eleven dharmas. - com~
mentary on the Treatise says, ‘‘avidya has blindness for its essence, samskara
doing for its essence, .. . and old-age and death has termination for us essence.
If we now examine the relationship of avidya to the total structure in terms of
cause and result, then because avidya 1s a different sort of thing from the other
eleven, in order for it to form the result, it must enlist the aid of these latter
dharmas. As Fa-tsang says, the qualities of the other dharmas are borrowed by the
one dharma, included in it as its own qualities, and in this way achieves its result.
If avidya could create the resultant totality without the aid of these other dharma-
conditions, the totality itself would be nothing but avidya, in the same way that
if my body could be formed solely by my nose, my body would be only 2 nose.
When avidya absorbs these other qualities within itself, it is ae to function as
avidya and form the result. On the other hand, since avidya ele is created from
other dharmas, 1ts qualities are also absorbed into them, and interpenetration
results from the absorption of all qualities into all twelve dharmas. In short, any:
thing possesses the qualities of all other things. Also, since avidya is part of the
Scene.
70 Hua-yen Buddhism
result as well as a cause for the result, its usurpation of the power of the other
eleven dharmas must in part mean that it 1s able to be avidya and to function as
such only because it is given that nature and function through the creative and
supportive power of those other dharmas.
This picture of a totality which is self-causative, in which each object is always
simultaneously exerting power and having its power usurped by other objects,
1s one in which the usual understanding of such terms as “‘cause,’’ “‘condition,”’
and ‘‘result’’ 1s not at all conventional. There are, 1n fact, no strict boundaries for
these categories, each one being applicable to any object depending on the point
of view. Not only does causal power not flow in one direction only, from past
to present and present to future, but there is no single locus of causal efficacy.
These traditional apprehensions may have some basis, for there 1s, even in Hua-
yen, an acceptance of the fact that the present 1s a product of the past, and along
with a recognition of the temporal nature of one kind of causation, there 1s a
recognition that the seed causes the plant and not vice versa. However, along
with more common, “‘vertical,” perceptions of causation there 1s another, and
more important, conception of cause as being a “horizontal’’ relationship
between simultaneously existing things. In this matrix of interdependence,
there is no one center of causation; it may be said with equal truth that cause is
everywhere and constant, for everything is a cause for everything else.
Fa-tsang’s categories of power and lack of power serve no other reason than
to rationalize the mutuality of causal power. Looked at from the point of view
of a single dharma acting as cause for the whole, the conditions (which are also
the result) which aid it in forming the result must be considered to be without
causal power 1n order to indicate the ability of this one dharma to act as the sole
cause for the whole. In other words, the possession of power by the one part
shows its absolute necessity in the formation of the whole. A concrete example
will make this clearer. In the creation of a totality such as a building, there must
be a particular part called a rafter in order for the whole building to exist.
Obviously, there must also be other rafters, nails, roof tiles, and so on, all inte-
grated together for there to be a building, but to emphasize the complete necessity
of the one rafter for the existence of the building, it is said to possess the causal
power to achieve its result. From the standpoint of this rafter, the nails, tiles, and
other parts, which act as conditions that aid the rafter, are lacking in power.
Their powerlessness, which 1s their absorption into the causal rafter, highlights
the function of the rafter. Only when we turn to the same crucial causal function
ofa roof tile is the rafter in question now envisioned as without power.
It should not be forgotten in this discussion of the identity and interpenetration
of dharmas that all these categories—emptiness and existence, power and lack of
Lcinmrehnnncneisatnitinpansale
spogeau neuer epee yess nbs
Intercausality 71
power, requiring conditions and not requiring conditions, and re) on—belong
to any entity and to all collectively. It 1s the one thing, a coin, a rafter, a link
in the twelve-linked chain of mterdependence, which 1s all these things at any
given instant of time. In fact, there is a startling sameness of qualities and attributes,
even in the distinct and different appearances and functions of things. The
accompanying diagram will show this clearly. It should be mentioned that the
dharma X
identical essence different essence
is not interdependent 1s interdependent
(i.e., does not need conditions) (i.e., requires conditions)
NS ie ~
interpenetration identity interpenetration identity
empty and existent has power and lacks power
usurps the qualities and
power of the conditions
innately contains
all qualities
dharma both in its identical essence and different essence 1s identical with all
other dharmas and interpenetrates with them, as the diagram shows. The reason
for the exact symmetry of qualities 1s, of course, that whatever the category, the
reference is always to one single dharma. While the details vary slightly when
discussing the category of interpenetration with regard to identical essence, I
have dealt with identity in terms of identical essence, and interpenetration with
regard to different essence, 1n accordance with what Fa-tsang and the commen-
taries themselves say. A noted scholar of Hua-yen, Yusugi Ryoei, says,
All dharmas possess essence and characteristics. Therefore, if you relate
dharma to dharma, as far as essence is concerned, since there are the categories
of emptiness and existence, there 1s the concept of identity. As far as function
is concerned, because there are the two categories of possessing power and
not possessing power, there 1s the concept of interpenetration. Taking them
together, identical essence and different essence are common to both
identity and interpenetration. Taking them separately, identity is related to
identical essence, and interpenetration is related to different essence.?
The numerous and various qualities and functions of this one dharma are
72 Aua-yen Buddhism
mtended for no other reason than to attempt to show how things are identical
and interpenetrate. Much of any confusion arising from so many categories can
be eliminated if 1t 1s remembered that Fa-tsang 1s always talking about the
qualities of a dharma which enable it to interact with other dharmas in such a way
as to create the web of interdependency mentioned so often in the preceding
chapters.
Therefore, when a dharma is said to have an essence both identical with the
essences of other dharmas and different from those of other dharmas, all that 1s
meant is that from the standpoint of causal essence, this one entity is able to
produce the cause. For example, the twelve-linked cycle of interdependent
being cannot exist without the causal power of karmic preconditions. There 1s
no question of the cooperation of the cause with the other conditions; 1t 1s
simply a matter of the ability of the one dharma to be a cause. However, this is
ultimately only half the truth, for the result—the whole cycle—comes into being
only when the other eleven dharmas assist karmic preconditions. As was mentioned
earlier, this is only a recognition of the fact that karmic preconditions have
their own unique essence, which 1s different from that of any of the other eleven
elements, and in order for the whole cycle to exist, there must be other elements
contributing to the whole. That 1s to say, karmic preconditions alone cannot
produce the whole cycle. Consequently, karmic preconditions have the causal
power to produce the result, but this creative function is achieved only when
itis aided by the other conditions. However, the fluidity of such terms as ‘‘cause,”’
“condition,” and “result” becomes clear when it is realized that the so-called
result is also the various conditions which aid the cause, and, of course, from
another point of view, the result-cum-conditions is the cause for what was
previously considered to be the cause. Finally, the full interdependent situation
is clarified by the interesting fact that the cause which produces the result is given
its causal:power by the very result 1t creates. For instance, in the next chapter,
in the analogy of the rafter and the barn of which it is a part, the rafter which
creates the barn-result is given its “‘rafterness’”—1.e., its causal power as a distinct
and different part—by the barn which it brings into being. Thisis the real meaning
of interdependence.
Finally, to speak of the identity and interdependence of dharmas 1s really only a
linguistic convention born of necessity, for “identity” and “interdependence”
are simply two expressions for the same phenomenon. The primary, fundamental
category of emptiness—if emptiness can be considered a category—as at the base
of both these categories. That is, looked at purely from the standpoint of essence,
dharmas are identical in their emptiness, but from the standpoint of function, this
identity in emptiness is itself nothing other than the conditioned, dependent
nature of each dharma. To use terms from earlier chapters, dharmas are said to be
Intercausality 73
identical when examined in their static nature, and to imterpenetrate when
examined in their dynamic nature. .
Essentially, things mteract, exerting influences which create and maintain, and
in turn are the subject of these same influences. To exist means to function in this
manner, and Whitehead’s statement to the effect that to exist means to exert
causal influence is closely paralleled in the Hua-yen vision of a universe where
everything, from an atom to the universe itself, functions as the cause or kae
thing else.* In Buddhist terminology, this is the emptiness of things, and if t =
were anything which is not empty, which 1s to say anything that is not causa
in this manner, then it is really a nonentity. Emptiness does not at all se meistence
of its vitality and color, rather, the full, round, solid form of the object and its
vigorous life of activity are 1n reality precisely its emptiness. Its concbersies
discreteness, and true individuality are indeed realities of the most vivid kind,
and it is only the manner in which this object exists that is an issue, not these
eae the picture of things which Fa-tsang has painted for us. Whether it is
an accurate picture is not for us to say, because the source of the picture, which
is advanced meditation, 1s not accessible to most of us. It 1s the product, that is)
ofa samadhi, and not just any samadhi, but the sagara-mudra samadhi, the “samadhi
which 1s like the images in the ocean,” which was the samadhi in which ue newly
enlightened Buddha beheld the entire universe as one living organism of Sanne:
and interdependent parts. It would be well here to reemphasize the teaching 0
Fa-tsang and his tradition, which is that the Hua-yen philosophy, as the fullest
and truest form of the Buddha’s own teaching, is completely based on this
samadhi. It is the special and unique features of this samadhi which in fact establishes
the Hua-yen tradition as the best of all traditions, according to the Hua-yen
masters. .
It is said that during the second seven days of the long period during which
the newly enlightened Buddha sat beneath the bodhi tree, after he had made his
famous discovery as to the nature of sentient existence, he entered a samadhi. In
this samadhi he beheld with the “universal eye” the cosmos which has been
described here. While he was still in this state of mind, he taught the truth of
identity and interdependence. The point 1s that the ruth, the teaching of ine
Hua-yen tradition, was taught during the actual samadhi, and not after emerging
from it, as in all other sutras. Consequently, while the partial, incomplete
teachings of these other traditions and sutras were the attempt to fit the truth to
the feeble faculties of his listeners, and were merely upaya, or skillful means, the
Hua-yen teachings were uttered in the brilliant clarity of samadhi. They are thus
complete, full, and direct.
The samadhi in question 1s a very special one to the Hua-yen tradition because
74 Hua-yen Buddhism
of its unique (or presumably umique) ability to reveal the truth of identity and
interdependence. Whether in fact only this samadhi is able to serve in this capacity
is perhaps a matter for debate. Are the various samadhis mentioned in various
Mahayana sutras different, with different contents, or is there only one samadhi,
which receives different names in conformity with rhetorical needs? This 1s not
at all clear, nor is even the matter of what Buddhists like Fa-tsang meant by
samadhi. This is not the place to attempt to settle these questions. According to
Fa-tsang, the sdgara-mudra samadhi is special in its ability to reveal the whole truth.
We have this truth because the Buddha taught it in its fullness while he was
immersed in it.
The nature of the samadhi, as well as its ability to reveal a truth normally hidden
from us, 1s indicated by the name, which is figurative and meant to indicate its
nature. It 1s said in the Avatarnsaka Sitra and several other scriptures that when
the surface of the great ocean is completely still, unruffled by the wind, all things
can be revealed as images on its surface. One text says, “It is just as when the wind
blows, waves arise in the great ocean, but when the wind stops, the water becomes
clear and still, and there is nota single image which 1s not revealed on its surface,”
Another text says that the forms of the Asuras dwelling in the sky are all revealed
on its surface. It 1s a simile for this particular samadhi because when the acttvities
of the “normally” functioning mind are stilled, like the waves in the ocean, then
all things are revealed to the meditator in brilliant clarity. Since in order to
perceive the identity and interdependence of everything demands an extremely
radical disruption of the normal categorizing, conceptualizing, symbolizing
mechanisms of the human mind, obviously the sdgara-mudra samadhi is understood
to be an exceptionally profound state of meditation. I have translated the Sanskrit
name (hai-in san-mei, in Chinese) as “‘the samadhi which is like the images in the
ocean,” or “samadhi which is like the impressions in the ocean,’
"in conformity
with the simile. Mudra is sometimes translated as ‘
‘seal,”” which 1s inaccurate in
this context because of the connotations it has in some Indian and Tibetan forms
of Buddhism.”
Thus the Hua-yen teaching derives, according to Fa-tsang, from the Buddha’s
samadhi. However, the samadhi also belongs to the Bodhisattva of advanced status,
for his own activities, which are those of a Buddha, must grow out of his own
vision, in sagara-mudra samadhi, of a universe of identical things interpenetrating
infinitely. This is why the Hua-yen vision 1s not available to most of us, who rely
for information on sources of knowledge which Buddhism criticizes as erroneous
and conducive to anxiety and turmoil. If we wish to share the Hua-yen vision,
we need only cultivate the samadhi which is like the images of the ocean. That
means to become Buddha-like.
i
\
|
!
i
4
