When it comes to Buddhism and critiques of what's often labeled as eternalism — e.g., the existence of an unconditioned consciousness in Theravada, certain forms of Buddhist traditions in the Mind-only school, other traditions like Advaita Vedanta, etc. — a key question that arises is, How can something eternal be known by a human mind, which is limited in space and time? It's a good question with lots of possible answers.
One possibility is that our everyday, sensory consciousness (vinnana) that we're normally familiar with is conditioned, limited. It's the arising of awareness when a sense organ contacts a sense object, i.e., sights, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations, thoughts (SN 25.4). This form of consciousness, following the traditional understanding, arises and ceases according to causes and conditions and is therefore conditioned, inconstant. But it's possible there's an aspect of consciousness that's fundamental, primordial, a consciousness without feature (vinnanam anidassanam) that's obscured by defilements and the process of becoming, and this consciousness isn't so much eternal as it lies outside of space and time (MN 49, DN 11, AN 1.49-52).
Our sensory consciousness is similar (per Spinoza "the human mind is part of the infinite intellect of God; thus when we say, that the human mind perceives this or that, we make the assertion, that God has this or that idea, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is displayed through the nature of the human mind, or in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind"), but instead of being without feature — being tied to or an aspect of mind-body — it lands and grows where there's passion, delight, craving, and wherever it lands, it grows and nurtures its own becoming (SN 12.64). (E.g., think about how a radio receives radio waves). But without that passion, delight, craving, consciousness doesn't land or grow and is in a sense boundless, timeless, like rays of light from the sun that are unobstructed by anything (photons travel at the speed of light and are essentially timeless and don't experience the rest of the universe even though the universe experiences them and the two obviously interact).
And through the practice of the eightfold path, one can reach a point of fulling letting go of what isn't me or mine (SN 35.101), reach the cessation of passion, delight, craving, nibbana, where all becoming, all intention and fabrication temporarily ceases, and perhaps at this point sensory consciousness falls away and one is able to touch the deathless and catch a glimpse of consciousness without feature which doesn't land and grow, an experience of pure awareness itself not arising or ceasing, not landing and growing, not bound by becoming or time. It's the point where the conditioned world of our senses ends, revealing that dimension "where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support [mental object]" (Ud 8.1).
But because we possess this mind-body, the fuel of the results of the stream of past kamma continues (Iti 44), sensory consciousness resumes and obscures this again, although its realization is unshakable as are its fruits until the final dissolution of our mind-body (MN 29). After that, who knows what happens?
Of course, this may not be the case, but it's the opinion of some that nibbana/awakening isn't just the cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion and experience, but the experience of something underlying it or beyond it. There are certainly many good objections to this based on teachings in the Pali Canon, and there are numerous ways to answer them. However, I personally think that this POV makes the most sense when viewed from a Spinozan POV if his Substance = consciousness, not unlike in some Mind-only traditions or Brahman in Vedanta.
In his Ethics, Spinoza reasons the underlying unity of existence in a radical way, which isn't something that's easily experienceable or obvious, but which is a perception that can be reasoned and which has effects on how we perceive, experience, and relate to any of the conditioned phenomena we come into contact with, including other beings and our own emotions. I see in his God, Nature, or Substance (and much of the Buddha's Dhamma+nibbana) the same concept as Thich Nhat Hanh's interbeing or Paul Tillich's ground of existence due to his arguments about the singularity of the Substance.
Spinoza argues that there's ultimately one Substance, that this Substance is infinite, and that it has infinite attributes. The infinite attributes, as far as I currently understand it, ties into the existence of conditioned phenomena itself and how we can have a causally deterministic world that itself is part of a singular, infinite whole. It's very much like the metaphysics of quantum mechanics and uncertainty and probabilities vs. our level of experiences and observations. And eventually, his reasoning seems to lead to a Buddhist or even Stoic-like psychology and sense of equanimity.
So in my panentheistic reading, if my understanding of Spinoza is accurate:
Substance = self-existing, being/ground of being.
Attributes = the ways intellect perceive Substance, which, while infinite, are limited to 2 knowables in human experience: thought and extension, mind and body. That said, God, Nature, Substance isn't limited to those and can be said to be both immanent and transcendent as well as outside of space and time, the latter of which falling into the realm of attributes and modes/modification (i.e., samsara).
Mode/modification = conditioned phenomena, affected by causes and conditions, modes of Substance that make up the variety of finite things in the universe and what's experienced of it via thought and extension.
Furthermore, if we allow that the fundamental nature of Spinoza's God, Nature, Substance, or whatever else we want to call it doesn't necessarily have to be material but immaterial or neither material nor nonmaterial (a la neutral monism), then his God, Nature, Substance can certainly lead into panentheistic territory (our conditioned world+something beyond it, which we can label the absolute, the transcendent, ultimate reality, etc). And if Substance = consciousness, then it's ultimately just Substance realizing its own nature via its modes/modifications, with various sentient beings having various levels of conscious experience. And whereas Spinoza argues you can use reason to glimpse ultimate reality/unity, perhaps what the Buddha is suggesting is that you can actually experience it.
No comments:
Post a Comment