The "Lifing" of the Universe
Alan Watts, erstwhile Episcopal
priest and Buddhist scholar, died at the relatively young age of 58, prior to ever
seeing the Buddhist teachings that he helped disseminate in the West reach the level
of acceptance and maturity that we know them to have today. I have the sense
that people of about my chronological age represent the last generation of spiritual
explorers to see his writings on bookstore shelves with any regularity. Regardless
of your familiarity with Watts, however, you will almost certainly enjoy a very
delightful, and delightfully animated, lecture snippet of his referred to as The Earth is People-ing (animated by
Chris Brion and Todd Benson).
The
Earth is People-ing challenges us to move beyond our usual way of thinking
about the arrival of intelligent life here on earth in order to reflect upon
the possibility that the intelligence that resides in people is actually a
manifestation OF the Earth and not merely a characteristic of the beings
that now happen to live ON the Earth. In this lecture, Watts states that
when we think of the arrival of life ON Earth “we are thinking in a way
that disconnects the intelligence from the rocks [the Earth].” I hope you’ll
take a moment to check out The Earth is People-ing on YouTube.
Intriguing, eh, this idea that
rocks might embody some sort of intelligence? But where might such an idea come
from? Before any further speculation on that point, let’s consider how Watts’
view fits in with other views regarding the development of life here on Earth.
While we’re at it, why don’t we also very briefly consider some of the benefits
and drawbacks to the holder of each of these views?
The Guiding Creator of Life
Some divine entity most commonly
referred to as God created this rock
of the Earth and then all life residing hereon, such as with a literal reading
of the book of Genesis. We might use the term dualistic in reference to the relationship between the creator and
the created in stories such as this. We might also use the term dualistic in reference to the relationship
between and amongst the earth and the distinct beings residing upon it. Note
that holders of this type of view might still have differences of opinion as to
how much the presumed creator continues to intervene in the unfolding of the creation,
but the creator’s ability to intervene is without doubt.
Benefits: The benefit of holding such a view is that everything
is explained, including the believer’s part in the grand plan devised by the
creator. Such belief is comforting to the extent that it can be sustained.
Drawbacks: Unfortunately, belief in such a view is difficult
to sustain given the fact that it does not correspond with rational thought and
emerging scientific discovery. This battle between science and belief is one of
the major social dilemmas of our time.
The Clockmaking Creator of Life
Some divine entity most commonly
referred to as God created this universe
as a clockmaker builds a clock to continue keeping time subsequent to the act
of creation. The universe was “wound up” at the time of its creation (the
so-called big bang, if you will) and it now proceeds to “tick away” according
to plan – including the evolution of life – albeit without any subsequent
intervention. This is essentially the Deist
point of view of the Age of Enlightenment,
a view held by some of the Founding Fathers of the United States. It is worthy
of note that even some of the foremost scientists of rationalist modern times
still leave at least some room in their thinking for such a concept of God. Albert Einstein, for instance, in
contemplating the apparently chaotic and indeterminate nature of quantum
mechanics, is famously reported to have remarked that “God doesn't play dice
with the world.”
Benefits: This view meshes well with science in that the
deity can be invoked to explain that which science cannot, but the two need not
be in conflict with each other.
Drawbacks: The psychological and emotional comfort imparted
by belief in a more continually “hands-on” God
might be less readily enjoyed to the extent that one feels that the creator has
taken leave of the creation.
The Unity of Creator and Creation
The life that exists on Earth is a
manifestation of some inherent “intelligence” permeating all of space and time,
intelligence that has somehow been actualized, or has actualized “itself”, in
material form. We might think in even less dualistic terms by saying that this
intelligence spoken of IS all of space and time, and everything herein. This
intelligence permeating all of space and time and everything herein might be
what some progressive Christians think of when they think of God. Mahayana Buddhists, on the other
hand, might speak in terms of the Dharmakaya,
“the cosmic consciousness, the unified existence that lies beyond all concepts…
out of which all animate and inanimate forms… arise…” (Schuhmacher &
Woerner, 1994, p. 387).
Benefits: This view also meshes well with science in that
whatever science discovers can be considered to be a manifestation of the
underlying “intelligence” of God, Dharmakaya, etc. This view also addresses
the questions related to the how and why of life in the universe, at least in some
fashion.
Drawbacks: Depending upon how one fleshes out the details of
such a view, it might tend to drift further away from the psychological and
emotional benefits of a more “personal” God,
leaving one to perhaps question his or her role in the grand plan of the
universe.
The Inevitability of Life
The life that exists on this Earth
is an outgrowth of a confluence of causes and conditions that is inevitable
given the incredible variability of causes and conditions manifested within
this vast universe and the incredibly vast time frame within which such
variability might manifest. No inherent “intelligence” is required. While some
might consider the confluence of life-yielding causes and conditions such as
those that exist here on Earth to be so rare as to prompt thoughts of a “divine
plan”, others will invoke the knowledge made possible by NASA's Kepler spacecraft: that there might be as many as 40 billion planets in the so-called “Goldilocks zone”, with orbits close enough to being circular, and with proximities to
reasonably sized suns such that terrestrial temperatures allow for the liquid
water necessary for the formation of a life-yielding “primordial soup”. Oh, and
that is just in this Milky Way galaxy; there are untold numbers of other
galaxies for which we have not been able to make such a scientific inference.
Is the potential for life, then, so rare that intentionality must be the
explanation, or is the potential for life, in fact, so common that the
likelihood of its spontaneous biochemical assembly is a foregone conclusion?
Benefits: Holders of such a view are freed from the tyranny
of imposed or misguided belief and the threat of the ramifications of
inadequate faith.
Drawbacks: The psychological and emotional benefits of
religious belief are absent; the individual is left to discover meaning on his
or her own, or wrestle with the lack thereof. Questions regarding the how and
why of the universe remain unanswered. After all, an entire universe can’t just
pop into existence without first cause, can it? I’ll have to save that question
for a future post!
At this point, let’s return to
Watts’ lecture snippet and the aforementioned entities of God and the Dharmakaya. It
seems pretty clear that the view that comes closest to what Watts is talking
about is the one related to the unity of creator and creation. But is he really
implying that we are the result of some consciousness-seeking intentionality
inherent in those rocks, or is he simply urging us to think of ourselves and
our home in a less dualistic fashion, in a fashion more in keeping with the
Buddhist principle of emptiness, sunyata – as in the Heart Sutra’s
teaching that form is emptiness and emptiness is form? Are his remarks more
of a spiritual interpretation of evolution, or is he, in fact, speaking of –
without specific reference – his understanding of God or the Dharmakaya, or
both? I’ll begin again, then, with a
discussion of the Dharmakaya, in
order that we might better understand where Watts is coming from.
Dharmakaya
is part of the Mahayana Buddhist doctrine of the Trikaya. According to Trikaya
doctrine, the Buddha has three bodies. There is the physical body that
lived and died and delivered the earliest teachings that have become part of Buddhist
scripture; this is the Nirmanakaya.
There is also the celestial Buddha whose appearance and activity is spoken of
in the more fantastical Buddhist texts such as the Lotus Sutra; this is the Sambhogakaya. Lastly, there is the body
that is unified with the eternal and transcendent reality [the emptiness of sunyata] that “lies beyond all dualities and conceptions”; this is the
Dharmakaya (Snelling, 1991, p. 85).
As Watts (1957) himself stated:
The Nirmanakaya includes, in principle, the
entire universe of form. There is next the Sambhogakaya,
or “Body of Enjoyment.” This is the sphere of prajna, wisdom, and karuna,
compassion, the latter looking down to the world of form, and the former
looking up to the realm of the void [emptiness,
sunyata]. Sambhogakaya might also be called the “Body of Enjoyment” since it
is in this “body” that a Buddha realizes that he is a Buddha. Finally there is
the Dharmakaya, the “Dharma Body,”
which is the void, the sunya itself.
Thus, in Mahayana Buddhist thought we
do indeed have some sort of “intelligence” that is one with eternal and
transcendent reality even as it manifests in the world of form. This sounds an
awful lot like a description of God,
doesn’t it? In fact, At the risk of broad-brushing over any differences, it
would seem that the three bodies referred to in Trikaya doctrine bear at least a
passing resemblance to, respectively, the earthly form of Jesus, the risen Son
that dwells in Heaven with the Father, and God
– the uncreated creator.
In addition to the aforementioned
similarities in the doctrines of the Trikaya
and the Trinity themselves, there is
similarity in their evolution as well. Just as Jesus did not teach us about the
Trinity of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit, neither did Buddha teach us about the Trikaya. Sangharakshita (1980) notes that the doctrine of the Trikaya gradually evolved as the Mahayanists
“penetrated deeper into the transcendental reality behind the mundane
appearance [of things]” (p. 240). What are we to make of such striking
similarities between two completely independently derived descriptions of the
relationship between physical and metaphysical reality? Have Christianity and
Mahayana Buddhism both tapped into a “truth by two different names”, or is it actually
the case that the independent development of the Trinity and the Trikaya
exposes some underlying structure of the way we humans think about our place in
the universe? If the latter is a truer statement, then this passage from Sangharakshita
(1980) reveals a little bit of this structure:
According to [the
Madhyamikas (a sect within Mahayana)], the Dharmakaya
of the Buddha consists chiefly of Prajna
[wisdom]. In other words, His personality is ultimately identical with the
Cognition of Reality, or, since on the transcendental plane no distinction can
be made between the subject and the object of knowledge, identical with Reality
Itself. (p. 243)
Of the Dharmakaya, Murti (1970) writes:
The Prajna-paramita texts [of which the
Heart Sutra is one part, by the way] repeatedly ask us to consider Buddha as
Dharmakaya, and not in the overt form which appears to us. Dharmakaya is the
essence, the reality of the universe. It is completely free from every trace of
duality. It is the very nature of the universe… It would be, however, not
exactly correct to take the Dharmakaya to be the abstract metaphysical
principle [which is the emptiness of sunyata]. The Dharmakaya is still a
Person, and innumerable merits and powers etc. are ascribed to him. (p. 285)
So, what about the “people-ing” of
the Earth? What about the “Lifing” of the universe? Is it a creation that
stands apart from the creator? Is Life the result of some intelligence or
intentionality inherent in the very stuff of creation, as Watts suggests, or
does it just happen? Which of the four types of views comes closest to your way
of thinking about the mysterious nature of our existence? Can you understand
why someone might gravitate to one of the other views? At any rate, I hope this post helps
promote mutual respect amongst all who are wrestling with the most profound
questions related to how it is we are here, and why.
References
Murti, T. R. (1970). The central
philosophy of Buddhism – A study of the Madhyamika system. George Allen and
Unwin Ltd.
Sangharakshita (1980). A survey of
Buddhism. Shambhala Publications, in association with Windhorse.
Schuhmacher, S., Woerner, G. (1994).
The encyclopedia of Eastern philosophy and religion. Shambhala Publications,
Inc.
Snelling, J. (1991). The Buddhist
handbook: A complete guide to Buddhist schools, teaching, practice, and
history. Barnes and Noble, Inc. by arrangement with Inner Traditions
International.
Watts, A. (1957). The way of Zen.
Vintage Spiritual Classics, Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, Inc.
Image Credits
Closeup
of Michelangelo’s depiction of God via:
Image
of clockworks filtered by the author from the original obtained via:
Milky
Way and open road courtesy of National Geographic via:
All
other images courtesy of the author.
Copyright
2014 by Mark Frank
Comments
Post a Comment