The Nature Of Things
Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.
What are we to make of such a
statement? On one hand we might be inclined to interpret it from a post-modern,
image-saturated perspective such as: “if you’ve seen one rose you’ve seen them
all.” Ah, but would a poet really endeavor to convey such a jaded sentiment? Quite
to the contrary, I think that Gertrude Stein is striving with this line in Sacred Emily to deepen our understanding
of the nature of the rose, its
essence of being, its roseness. The
rose is what it is, fully and completely. It is not like anything. It is not like
something red; it is red. It is not like something beautifully scented; it is beautifully scented. It is not like something that is pleasing in form,
or delicate, or fleeting; it simply is
all of those things. But to say that a rose is
all of those things might tend to imply that it is simply a collection of
attributes, the totality of which somehow add up to roseness. No, roseness
precedes and transcends any definition of its attributes. Rose is a rose is a
rose is a rose.
Furthermore, to say that one rose
is like another is to miss seeing the
rose altogether. To even say that one is looking at a rose is to miss seeing it
altogether. To call a rose a rose, after all, is to compare what one is seeing
with a memory of something previously seen; and once comparison has begun true
seeing has ceased. Thus, the very act of calling a rose a rose removes us from
the experience of roseness. What I am
calling roseness, then, is something
that the rose can’t help but actualize, but which we, with our incessantly
conceptualizing minds, so easily miss. What I am calling roseness can only be experienced by one who has either never seen a
flower before or one who has trained the mind to see only what is – without
associations and conceptualizations.
This ‘seeing without associations
and conceptualizations’ is of utmost importance to Zen practitioners (and all
Buddhists for that matter), and can perhaps be most easily conveyed by
discussing the Japanese word, nen,
meaning “thought impulse” (Sekida, 1985, p. 257). Cognition is comprised of
either first, second, or third nen activity, or combinations thereof. Sekida
(1985) expounds upon these three nen by discussing what happens as one’s hand
comes into contact with a cup sitting on the table:
In pure cognition
[first nen] there is no subjectivity and no objectivity. Think of the moment
your hand touches the cup: there is only touch. The next moment you recognize
that you felt the touch [second nen]…. Then there arise subjectivity and
objectivity [third nen], and one says, “There is a cup on the table.” (p. 176)
Sojun Mel Weitzman (2000) similarly
states:
There are
different kinds or degrees of nen. There
is the nen of this moment and there is the nen, which takes a step back and
contemplates. The first nen is one with activity, without reflection, just
direct perception. The second nen is when we reflect on something and try to
identify it by thought or think about it. And the third nen is taking another
step back and developing what the second nen has thought about the first nen.
All these nen thoughts are important, but when we sit zazen, we are
concentrated in the first nen, just direct perception moment by moment.
And so it is that the experience of
roseness is in the realm of first-nen
cognition – the realm in which so many of the characters of Zen stories and
legends dwell. However, to imply that the experience of roseness merely requires training “your” mind so that “you” can relinquish
third and second-nen cognition at will for the sake of utilizing “your”
capacity for and powers of pure cognition is to imply that we can experience roseness as we might experience some
parlor trick optical illusion. No, the roseness
spoken of here is not amenable to such deconstruction. The roseness spoken of here is of infinite depth, encompassing all
things, a manifestation of what is commonly referred to as suchness.
According to Schuhmacher and
Woerner (1994), suchness is the
“central notion of Mahayana [Buddhism] referring to the absolute, the true
nature of all things” (p. 364). Suchness
is experienced, according to Conze (1959), “when things are seen such as they
are, in their bare being, without any distortion” (p. 249). Worthy of noting
here is the fact that the Sanskrit word, tathata
– which is usually translated as suchness,
but which might also be translated as thusness
– is related to the term, tathagata, meaning
“he who has thus come,” the name by which the Buddha referred to himself
(Conze, 1959, p. 249). And so it is that Schuhmacher and Woerner (1994) go on
to say that “[t]athata as the thus-being of things and their nonduality is
perceived through the realization of the identity of subject and object in the
awakening of supreme enlightenment” (p. 364).
Thomas Cleary (1993), in his
commentary on the Avatamsaka Sutra,
or Flower Ornament Scripture, speaks
of thusness and suchness as follows:
The implication of
the terms “thus” or “such” [is] that no specific notion can truly define being
as it really is; the term “thusness” hence can refer specifically to the
inconceivable real nature of things, which is also called “emptiness” to allude
to the lack of intrinsic meaning of signs and names by which particular things
are discriminated and defined. (p. 1527)
But thusness is not a term that is used only for things “out there”; it
can be applied to “in here” as well. Cleary continues:
[T]husness can
refer to the pure nature of mind; when the mind is clear and this inherently
pure nature is unobscured, reality as it is becomes apparent. (p. 1527)
The Avatamsaka Sutra is one of the most influential of all Mahayana
texts, and Fa Tsang (643-712) was one of the foremost teachers during the
period in which the insights contained therein were being promulgated. Fa Tsang
recommends six kinds of contemplation to anyone seeking to understand the Avatamsaka. As translated by Conze
(1980) these are:
1. To look into
the serenity of Mind to which all things return;
2. To realize that
the world of particulars exists because of the One Mind;
3. To observe the
perfect and mysterious interpenetration of all things;
4. To observe that
there is nothing but Suchness;
5. To observe that
the mirror of Sameness reflects the images of all things, which thereby do not
obstruct each other;
6. To observe
that, when one particular object is picked up, all the others are picked up
with it. (p. 76)
We might be well-served by
considering an alternative translation for a couple of these points. D. T.
Suzuki (1953) offers us the following:
(4) [T]o observe
that there is nothing but Suchness where all the shadowy existences cast their
reflections,
(5) [T]o observe
that the mirror of identity holds in it images of all things without
obstructing others…. (pp. 72-73)
My reading of Fa Tsang’s advice is
that he is advocating: 1. Zazen; 2. An understanding of dependent origination; 3. An experience of emptiness, sunyata; and, 4.
An experience of that which is being referred to as suchness, one that seems also to be predicated upon the experience
of and profound insight into the first three of these points. Fa Tsang’s 5th
and 6th points are actually expository points related to the
previous ones. Both points can be understood within the context of the Avatamsaka’s
metaphor of Indra's Net, an infinite net covering all of space with a perfect
crystal or jewel at each knot. Each crystal reflects all other crystals and the
movement of any one of them is reflected by all others.
Now that we have a little bit
stronger foundation, let me return to Cleary’s commentary. I have added the underlining
for the sake of clarity and the bracketed notes for the sake of integrating it
with the previous material:
Thusness is
sometimes spoken of as “pure” and “defiled,” or “unchanging” and
“going along with conditions;” the first term of each pair refers to the unique
real nature which is equal in everything, or emptiness,
inconceivability [note the use of the words “sameness” and “identity” in the two translations of Fa
Tsang’s aforementioned 5th point, as well as the fact that each
crystal of Indra’s Net is of the same “stuff”], while the second refers to
apparent reality, the realm of myriad differentiations [recall the two levels of truth]. Thusness is also equated with “Buddha-nature”
and the “realm of reality,” which includes both absolute and ordinary reality.
(p. 1527)
Let me close this post of many flower
references by recalling a “talk” that the Buddha is purported to have given
which has come to be known as the Flower
Sermon. It is said that a group of followers of the Buddha had gathered to
hear him speak. Rather than actually speak, though, the Buddha simply held up a
lotus flower. As the story goes, there was only one other individual present, Kasyapa,
who, by smiling, conveyed his understanding of this most profound of teachings –
presumably related in some way to the experience of this thing we’ve been
calling suchness. (See Albert Welter (1996) The
Disputed Place of "A Special Transmission Outside the Scriptures" in
Ch’an if you’d like to place this story within a scholarly context.)
Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.
It is difficult to know precisely
what Gertrude Stein meant when she uttered these words. I hope that she would
approve of this interpretation, but even if she were to disapprove I am deeply
indebted to her regardless for having provided such a perfect vehicle for the
introduction of that which I have called roseness
and that which is referred to as suchness.
Roseness, then, is suchness manifested within the realm of
ordinary reality, a single crystal of Indra’s Net reflecting everything in the
universe even as it transcends “thingness” altogether (and we along with it)
and allows “us” to see directly into the seamlessness of ultimate reality.
References
Cleary, T.
(1993). The Flower Ornament Scripture: A translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra.
Shambhala Publications, Inc.
Conze, E.
(1980). Buddhism: a short history. A Oneworld Publication, Oxford
Schuhmacher,
S., Woerner, G. (1994). The encyclopedia of Eastern philosophy and religion.
Shambhala Publications, Inc.
Sekida, K.
(1985). Zen training: methods and philosophy. Published by Weatherhill, Inc.
Suzuki, D.
T. (1971). Essays in Zen Buddhism: Third series. Rider and Company, London (Reprinted in: Sangharakshita (1980). A survey
of Buddhism. Shambhala, Boulder, in association with Windhorse, London.)
Weitzman,
M. (2000). Commentary on the Enmei Jukko Kannon Gyo. Berkeley Zen
Center
Welter, A. (1996).
The disputed place of "a special transmission outside the scriptures"
in Ch’an. http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/HistoricalZen/A_Special_Transmission.htm
Image Credits
Small Red Rose via:
Mahakasyapa image manipulted by Maku using Photoshop. Source image by Joshua Jonathan via:
Roserose by Erixson via:
Copyright 2012 by Maku Mark Frank
Comments
Post a Comment