The Buddhist Aesthetic nature

·期刊原文
The Buddhist Aesthetic nature: A challenge to rationalism and empiricism

by Kenneth K. Inada
Asian Philosophy

Vol. 4 No. 2 1994

Pp.139-150

Copyright by Asian Philosophy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me begin with the description of the makings of a surf. Out in the
ocean we see the choppy waves suddenly swell and form into a singular wave.
As the winds send it close to the reef, it grows into a full size surf with
white foamy crests. It picks up speed as it heads for the shores and
consumes everything in its wake, but no sooner has it encountered the
shallows than it dramatically drops its speed and quickly dissolves itself
on the sandy beaches. All this is most relaxing and easy on the eyes.

The point that ought to be made here is that the phenomenon of the surf is
a near facsimile of what happens in our ordinary perception of things. We
observe the surf in the making and follow it until it dissipates on the
beaches. But all this is mere surface observation as we are unmindful of
what goes on beneath the surface. Indeed, the dynamics of the surf is such
that what we observe are only external manifestations of the total dynamics
at play. Ironically though, what is unobserved is ignored or omitted and
yet it is responsible for much of the true makings of the surf. We have
reduced ourselves to creatures of tangible manifestations.

Our perception and understanding of things are, then, influenced greatly,
if not totally, by the observable elements. As they are repeatedly
observed, they become so-called grist for the perceptual and rational
mills. We literally live in, for and by these elements of perception and
remain unmindful of the fact that this is shallow myopic perception.
Unfortunately, it becomes standard and continues unabated.

The failure to become aware of this myopic perception has been the bane of
ordinary existence. On this point, the East has always been wary of this
type of perception and has from the outset taken any experience to be full
and rounded, without any element, part or aspect being emphasized or
dominating. In such hyphenated conceptions as Atman-Brahman,
Samsara-Nirvana, yu-wu, yin-yang, etc., there is no strict mutually
exclusive dichotomy in the metaphysical scheme of things. This is truly one
of the marvelous and unique features of Eastern metaphysics and yet,
paradoxically, it has been the source of the false epithet 'mysterious
East'. In this vein, for example, negations in Buddhism are used not as
metaphysical nullities but merely to exhibit the limits of rational or
logical function. The Buddhist anatman doctrine is a classic case in point.
This doctrine, if anything, reveals the open and wider nature of existence,
though that is not known by the term itself. Anatman is not simply the
logical opposite of atman, nor is the negation of atman the negation of the
self or being.

The narrow concept of the self or atman, according to Buddhist thought, is
the result of the attachment to our passions and desires, i.e. to the
so-called 'surface' elements of perceptions. With this attachment,
perception itself has become soiled or defiled. I could easily refer to
this as our poor habits of perception, habits which are germane to the
ordinary perception of things. The phrase, habits of perception, was first
used by David Hume, I believe, in conjunction with his search for the
nature of causality. Being an empiricist, however, his search was limited
and ended in frustration. He also was not a strict metaphysician who
pursued the full nature of experiential reality; indeed, he despised
metaphysicians and metaphysics in general and his empirical leanings placed
more emphasis on and credence to passions and feelings than to reason. He
did not, however, place any emphasis on the nature of intuition, especially
as it might bear on some resolution of the causal dilemma he had
confronted. It is here that Buddhism from early on had gone deeper in the
analysis of ordinary experience than any other thinker. Indeed, much of the
explorations made by Buddhism still remain relatively untouched, although
we are already exposed to the various doctrines proffered by Buddhism over
the centuries. It is at this point that I would like to move forward and
present a novel interpretation of Buddhist doctrines so as to bring the
dialogue between East and West to some focus and perhaps fruitfulness.

Buddhist Reality

The foregoing discussion has brought us to focus on reality in terms of our
experiences. Each of us has our own experience and thus each thrives on our
own experiential reality. This, I believe, is true for both East and West,
but the difference arises in terms of how that reality is treated when it
manifests itself as ordinary experience. Though relative to the selfsame
ground of existence, there are many ways in which the same experience is
dissected and analyzed.

The West in general has analyzed experience under the rubric of either
rationalism or empiricism. Somehow these two became polarized conceptions
early on and Western thinkers have thereby suffered in such a way that they
have not been able to completely resolve the divide between them, if that
is at all possible. It would seem that the empiricist cannot be a complete
empiricist without somehow extending into the mental aspect of things and,
likewise, the rationalist cannot be a complete rationalist without touching
the physical nature of things. Both are, in their failure, certainly
victims of Gilbert Ryle's category mistake. To cut a long story short, the
basic schism in the subject-object epistemic framework has compelled a
rather curious static analysis of elements at play in both empiricism and
rationalism. Perhaps this can be traced back to Plato's sharp demarcation
between being and becoming, but where the choice had clearly been in favour
of being. Inasmuch as Plato's contribution to and influence on Western
epistemology is unsurpassed, it is difficult indeed to criticize him or his
philosophy. However, for the sake of comparative philosophy, I believe
there is sufficient justification to question any and all forms of Western
epistemology, Plato's not excepted. We are emboldened in our quest for a
better view of reality thanks to the quality and uniqueness of thought
available from the East. First of all, we find that the East has a
characteristically different view of the nature and function of being and
becoming, the most basic concepts of metaphysics, and it has not been
burdened by these concepts in one way or another simply because it did not
take them as mutually exclusive realities. Where the West thrived on schism
and dichotomy, the East, contrariwise, took these concepts to be flexible
enough to act in complementary or supplementary roles and the goal is
always directed towards harmony and the unity of things.

The West has always been resistant to the notion of nothing or nothingness
and has a judged it inconsequential to life's function. The West in short
adhered to the nature of being, and anything opposing this nature, such as
non-being, was immediately ruled out of place. It represented a total
substance-view of reality, starting and ending with being. This is the
Platonic legacy.

Even with the advent of modern science, with such thinkers as Kepler,
Galileo and Newton, the philosophy of being did not completely loosen its
hold on human minds. It is true that the Ptolemaic world was replaced by
the Copernican, but the Western mind still continued to frame everything in
accordance with a substance-view of the world and its components. Newton's
view of the universe still had resort to absolute time and space which are
relatively easy references for the mind to grasp. But it took the West a
few more centuries to witness a dramatic turn in the view of reality, i.e.
in terms of Einsteinian physics.

Reality is now on the move and rather than conditioned or burdened by the
concept of being, it has taken a dramatic leap into the nature of becoming,
a concept which had been set aside for so long that it has now become too
heady for the average mind to cope with. For surely the concept of dynamic
relativity is not the easiest thing to comprehend, nor is it easy to
incorporate it into one's life. Indeed, nearly a century has gone by since
Einstein's earth-shattering pronouncement and yet so little progress has
been made in terms of changing our view and understanding of reality. In
brief, we still live, by and large, in a Newtonjan world for its simplicity
and convenience, although in the scientific community the Einsteinian world
is an accomplished fact. My point, however, is that the scientific world
has greatly outdistanced the Western humanistic world and the gap is
widening rapidly. Here enters our concern. As humanists, it behooves us to
take a good hard look at what is happening around us. Already from the vast
devastated ecosystem, we have abundant evidence that points to the ill
consequences awaiting us. Isn't it an opportune time for us to salvage what
can be salvaged in the world of thought? The power of an idea or ideas
cannot be underestimated; it is the power that can reshape or remold matter
and reality. Here is where comparative thought or philosophy is profoundly
meaningful.

As stated earlier, Eastern thought has avoided a strict dichotomous
treatment of being and becoming. The sphere of human experience is always
taken to be larger than that of reason. As such, it informs reason much
more than reason informs it. This is a simple fact but we normally do not
pay any attention to it because our habits of perception place a premium on
mental function. But the discussion here is not meant to place sense
faculties or human experience above reason at all. Indeed, were that the
intent, then the argument would be as faulty as placing reason over the
senses. No, the point is that there is no priority either way. What kind of
a reality, then, is the East referring to?

The Eastern view of reality is always focused on experiential reality which
is of the nature of becoming. It should be noted that the nature of
becoming can accommodate being but being cannot return the compliment. It
underscores the fact that becoming is not only dynamic but open and
incorporative of all elements at play. On this point, both Buddhism and
Chinese philosophy are at one; indeed, I sincerely believe that on account
of this crucial point Buddhism was able to mesh with indigenous Chinese
thought, i.e. despite the presence and influence of Confucianism and
Taoism, both of which are based securely on the fundamental philosophy of
I-Ching, the foundation of fluidity and all changes.

I shall leave aside Chinese thought and concentrate on Buddhism. Buddhism
refers to the dynamic experiential reality in terms of its most profound
concept of relational or dependent origination (pratuya-samutpada). The
concept depicts the fact that the occurring of an event or moment is
related to or conditioned by various factors. But the basic point is that
dependent origination is in flux, taking place in moment-to-moment
evolution in an overlapping sense. This conforms to one of the so-called
principles of Buddhism, impermanence (anitya), or the transitory nature of
life. The other two principles of Buddhism are the universal nature of
suffering (duhkha) and nature of non-self (anatman), all three of which
mutually define or support each other in the existentially penetrative
sense.

Philosophically, the most important principle is impermanence or
momentariness. Although it is the key to understanding human experience, so
little attention has been given to it. Much of our understanding of it
comes by way of a post-analysis of experience, i.e. we become aware of
impermanence or momentariness only after the passage of an event or
experience and much of this results from replicated experiences. But
impermanence has little, if anything, to do with post-consciousness, for it
is part and parcel of the very experience one is going through. Since it is
the very process of experience we are concerned with, any reference to it
cannot be made wholly by resorting to reason, however clear and precise it
may be. Moreover, clarity and precision are delusory in that reference by
way of reason is an indirection which has no direct contact with
experiential reality. Again, the aforementioned bias we entertain with
respect to the power of reason seems to control our thinking and consequent
understanding; but reason is a tool, one of the sense faculties, at least
from the Buddhist standpoint, that merely aids in referential analysis.
Thus to attribute total authority to reason would be to distort not only
its function but also the dynamic nature of experiential reality.

As we concentrate on the nature of dynamic experiential reality, we must
also be cognizant of the fact that this dynamic reality is an extremely
microscopic phenomenon, the dimensions of which defy ordinary perception.
Recalling the simile of the surf delineated at the beginning of this essay,
it can be noted that our perception, as it functions in momentary
existence, is similar to the surf that builds up and rushes toward the
shores. But once again, similar to the surf, much of the phenomena of
momentary perception lie hidden beneath the surface manifestation. How can
we approach and understand what is hidden? This is a most crucial question.
Here, I believe, we can only speculate and reasonably infer certain traits
or characteristics as they are related to (or even suggested by) the
surface manifestation of our perception.

Short of any yogis type of skill in perceiving bodily functions, we are
helpless and usually tempted to infer that our momentariness is merely a
linear blob of existence. But this is too simplistic and naive. The
Buddhist has always seen the flow or flux of existence in circular, not
linear, terms. So that in the case of the aforementioned surf or our
perception, the hidden aspect informs us that rather than a simple linear
formation a circular, rolling feature seems to manifest the process. Or,
looked at from another standpoint, the surface manifestation seems to come
from a deeper source which has at least three aspects: the first is a
potential for the dynamic movement, second, the trait of continuity of
certain content and third, the openness of the process whereby novel
elements are incorporated by the already existing content. Other aspects or
features of the hidden are obviously present but suffice it to say that the
above three aspects help us to understand a dynamic experiential reality
which is the central focus of Buddhism.

Perhaps, it would be more correct to view the process as a series of
interpenetrating and interlocking moments. Elsewhere I have discussed
momentariness (ksana-vada) in its reflexive nature. [1] That is to say,
each moment of existence is meaningful and significant only to the extent
that it is related to other moments or events in the continuum and that,
fundamentally, in the relational context of existence, paradoxical as it
might seem, the moment describes the context just as much as the context
describes the moment. This is the basic premise of reflexive nature
inherent to experiential reality, but as this nature goes on with such
rapidity it escapes our total perception. Here the mind obviously lacks the
requisite power, merely glossing over this nature, because of its basic
dualistic function, i.e. a function based on the separation of the
subjective and objective components of existence. The mind, in essence, has
taken on what I call the lighthouse effect, i.e. it perceives only what
comes within the purview of the beacon light and neglects or ignores what
does not. This is the root of dichotomy and its consequent attachment, for
there is no attachment without dichotomy (separation) and, vice versa, no
dichotomy without attachment. Both are partners in an interminable process
but, from the Buddhist standpoint, we can terminate this partnership by
enlightenment. In this respect, the Buddhist has always disdained dichotomy
as the bane of existence, the root-cause of suffering (duhkha).

In sum, then, Buddhist reality is coterminous with our momentary existence
but it has not been probed fully in the past because of its subtlety and
complexity. It remains however a most rich and fertile ground for
understanding the dynamics of the life process, East and West. And so we
follow the Buddhist lead and explore further the nature of momentariness.

Momentariness and the Aesthetic Nature

The reflexive nature of momentary existence adds new dimensions to the
erstwhile linear one-dimensional flow framed within the ordinary temporal
context of past-pre-sent-future. The content of each present moment, to be
sure, came predominantly from the past but the present is not wholly
conditioned or controlled by the past, for in its reflexivity it is always
open and comes into play with the past content with novel elements and
conditions. The keen observer will notice that the reflexive nature is in
accord with the nature of Buddhist karma, which does not describe an
absolute determinism in the linear sense of causality. Buddhist karma is
always focused on the makings of momentary existence, i.e. from the making
of the present moment to the future moment and never in terms of accepting
passively the force of the past moment on to the present. There is no
element of fatalism in this respect. As a matter of fact, it would be
proper to assert that 'as one sows so does one reap', so long as the
orientation is in the present makings of the moment. This orientation is
rather difficult to delineate, as are all other Buddhist doctrines, because
of the dynamic nature of our experience. And as stated earlier, the dynamic
nature is expanded into what has been referred to as the circular movement
with a multifaceted character, i.e. the interpenetrating and interlocking
phenomenon. This was delineated as the surf phenomenon, or our apparent
sense perception. of reality of existence, we must delve deeper into its
nature. Herein lies the key, I sincerely believe, to a universal discourse
or dialogue we are searching for. But the search is not easy for two
reasons: (1) it has a dynamically elusive character, and (2) we have not
been aware of this nature fully because of our prejudice for mere physical
and mental accountability. The prejudice unfortunately exists in both the
Eastern and Western traditions. But we must scale this prejudice in order
to get at the bottom of momentary perception. Here I would like to expand
on this circular nature by stating that our ordinary perception has
actually two vital dimensions: the symmetric and asymmetric characters. The
former, symmetric, is what we normally take to be the ordinary nature of
perception. It is dimensional, spatial, temporal, unidirectional and
causal. It is all that is relatable in the oft-framed subject-object
perception and guided wholly by the empirical and rational structure of
things. It obviously has its limitations in that only what matters in the
perception can be framed with the perception based on the senses and the
mind. This is of course the accustomed way of life, but in our analysis, it
is entirely inadequate. For the fullness of perception to occur, we need to
get to know the existence of another dimension in perception which we have
not been aware of for the simple reason that it escaped the great minds who
focused on empiricism and rationalism. The novel dimension is the
asymmetric character. It is unseen, to be sure, and its presence can only
be inferred by way of the seen or ordinary perception. Ironically, ordinary
perception needs the asymmetric nature in terms of being what it is, or
more properly, the asymmetric complements the symmetric in two ways: (1) it
provides continuity to ordinary perception; otherwise, each perception
would be a separate act; and (2) it provides substance to ordinary
perception; otherwise, each perception would be hollow and without basis.
So on both counts, formal and substantive, asymmetric nature is vitally
related to the symmetric to round out the perception of things. From the
symmetric side, indeed, it can be said that for its part it feeds the
asymmetricin the circular dynamic flow. In brief, both are mutually
interpenetrating and interlocking but one must always keep in mind the
reflexive nature of the moment which prevents any separation or dichotomous
treatment.

Before going any further in the analysis of the symmetric-asymmetric
dynamics, I wish to recall a few profound remarks made by the great
thinker, Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947). Although he was far from being
a mystic, his philosophy bordered on certain mystical strains. He possessed
a rare synoptic vision of things, a vision that reminds us of Buddhist
prajna, which is wisdom or rare insight that goes beyond mere empirical,
logical and rational clarity. At one point he made the following profound
statement:

But we are conscious of more than clarity. The importance of clarity
does not arise until we have interpreted it in terms of the vast
issues vaguely haunting the fullness of existence. It is here that the
prominent epistemology of modern centuries has been so weak. It has
interpreted the totality of experience as a mere reaction to an
initial clarity of sensa. [2]

Whitehead was unafraid to go beyond conventional knowledge to seek the
fullness of existence. One of his great insights is his accommodation of
the aesthetic nature with logic. He said cryptically: "the analogy between
aesthetic and logic is one of the undeveloped topics of philosophy". [3] He
considered the distinction between them to be a matter of degrees of
abstraction involved. They are at 'the two extremes of dilemma of finite
mentality in its partial penetration of the infinite'. [4] That is to say,
they start in opposite directions, logic starts from the particular and
moves towards abstractions and aesthetics stars from the whole and moves
towards details. [5] Regardless of whether or not the above analysis is
correct, Whitehead envisioned great possibilities in bringing aesthetics
and logic within a holistic cosmology but, unfortunately, he did not pursue
this matter fully. Still, his focus on penetrating the realms of reason
(logic) and senses (aesthetics) must be applauded. In a way, I believe, his
closeness to the Platonic cosmology of being prevented him from envisioning
other aspects of experience. He could not, in short, venture beyond the
nature of being (i.e. actual entities, eternal objects, etc.) and
consequently could not accept, much less accommodate, any notion of vacuous
existence. The logic of things would not permit this, to be sure, but
perhaps the nature of aesthetics may be the key to further probes and
accommodation of the realm vacated by being, e.g. the possibility of novel
interpretation of the notion of non-being. It is here that Eastern thought
is not only helpful but insightful. In order to appreciate this point, I
shall return to the nature of momentariness and its components of symmetric
and asymmetric relationship.

I have yet to see in the West a serious discussion on the dynamics of being
and non-being. A basic reason for the lack of discussion probably lies in
the dichotomous ways in which we treat the concepts. As dichotomised
concepts, they are mutually distinct, having categorical differences, and
consequently they could not be discussed within the same realm, much less
involved with each other. Again, being dichotomised, non-being is quickly
identified as a non-entity, the opposite of being, and thus it could not
become a part of the rational or logical function. Simply put, it took on
an irrational or illogical nature and thereby ruled itself out of
existence. We must of course rid ourselves of the 'out of sight, out of
mind' mentality. This was not the case, however, in the Eastern tradition.

Being and non-being, in Buddhism in particular, [6] were actively involved
in human experience. This can best be seen by returning to the nature of
momentariness. Each moment has two components or phases, symmetric and
asymmetric as related earlier, but now, how they are constituted in a
particular moment is a most difficult and crucial question, especially as
they are interlined internally as well as externally. That is, internally,
in the manner in which the symmetric-asymmetric relationship contains in a
moment and, externally, in the manner in which a moment so internally
related is also linked to other moments in the continuum of momentariness.
It should be noted that the internal and external linkages are another way
of delineating the interpenetrative and interlocking phenomena of
momentariness. They underline the fact that the microscopic moment goes
beyond empirical display.

Taking up the internal linkage, it can be said that the
symmetric-asymmetric relationship is similar to the nature and content of a
surf in both the seen and unseen aspects. While the seen aspect generally
refers to the symmetric and the unseen to the asymmetric, this reference
admittedly cannot strictly be maintained. Again, generally speaking, the
symmetric refers to the tangible and manipulable side of the moment--thus
all the empirical and rational elements that we are familiar with. This
aspect is the result of dichotomy and attachment to the dichotomised
elements. But if the symmetric nature were taken to be the whole story of
perception, as it invariably is in ordinary perception, our understanding
would surely be partial and grossly limited. To remedy this condition, we
must proceed to understand the role and function of the asymmetric nature.

If the symmetric nature depicts the so-called forward thrust in ordinary
perception, the asymmetric nature, contrariwise, depicts a backward thrust,
but here the nature of the thrust is significantly different in that it is
without an act of dichotomy and consequent attachment. In this sense, the
asymmetric represents the 'pure' content as contrasted with the 'impure'
content of the symmetric. The purity and impurity are conditioned by
whether or not there is attachment (upadana) to the elements of being. [7]
In its non-attached nature, the asymmetric is not only pure but also open.
And so in its backward thrust, it absorbs and accommodates everything
including the content of the past as it gives way to the forward thrust of
the symmetric. But prior to giving way to the symmetric, the open and pure
asymmetric thrust has already incorporated fresh new grounds which will be
taken over by the symmetric forward thrust. The asymmetric serves then as
the pure potential in momentariness, i.e. the moment in its full
realisation, steps back, so to speak, before stepping forward. In this way,
the symmetric-asymmetric relationship is a continuum of cyclic phenomena, a
unique pulsation of interlocked momentariness.

The crucial question now is: wherein lies the aesthetic nature? The answer
must obviously come from within the cyclic phenomena. Although the details
must still be worked out, the aesthetic nature can be treated in two ways.
The first is within the symmetric nature whose dichotomous function relates
to all empirical and rational elements. It goes without saying that this is
always appealing and attractive and has been the basis for the whole series
of aesthetic theories from the simple sensual to the voluntaristic nature
of things. The second is within the symmetric-asymmetric relationship where
the emphasis is on the whole experience. In this respect, pragmatic
theories, especially John Dewey's, [8] come close to the Buddhist view, but
he did not go deeper into the metaphysics of experience as did the
Buddhist. The Buddhist aesthetic nature is realized in the capture of the
proper function of the symmetric-asymmetric dynamics. This dynamics is
extremely subtle and naturally requires more than the involvement of
empirical and rational elements and their perfection. We must probe into
the very nature of the existence of the elements themselves, a probe we
have simply overlooked or ignored in ordinary perception. There has to be a
reaching for the total grounds of the perceived elements for, analogously,
is it not true that an island does not exist alone but finds itself
surrounded by water? Our habits of perception have conditioned us so much
that we naively focus merely on the island as if it is an independent
existent. Furthermore, there has to be a feel for the basis of change
itself apart from the elements that accompany change. For after all, we do
have private access to our perceptual process (changes) but, unfortunately,
we pay much more attention to the elements than to the process or change
itself. This is a clear case of perceptual stasis over process. The
Buddhist would go a step further to remind us quickly that this perception
is a simple case of placing the cart before the horse. This has been the
bane of ordinary perception but little, if any, effort is placed an
overcoming it.

The accent is on the wholeness of experiential reality or on the
ever-widening perception of things rather than narrowing the field and
concentrating on the finite or fragmentary nature of things. It is a
glimpse of what we casually refer to as infinity; it is touching base, so
to speak, with infinity in momentariness or infinity on the move. For this
reason, the momentariness of Buddhist experiential reality is an open
moving ontology framed within the matrix of symmetric-asymmetric dynamics.
As a way of expanding on this dynamics, we move on to some important
implications derived from it. This should further clarify and amplify the
nature and value of aesthetics.

Implications of the Symmetric-Asymmetric Dynamics

A fundamental implication of the symmetric-asymmetric dynamics is the
interplay of being and non-being, the latter of which is not in any way
antithetical to being, as stated earlier. They interplay in complementary
ways to constitute a moment but each moment must give way to the overriding
force of continuity. This is the nature of momentariness, the so-called
life-continuum. Where being is represented by the symmetric nature in which
all empirical and rational elements are generated and accommodated,
non-being is reflected by the asymmetric nature wherein all empirical and
rational elements cease to assert themselves. Thus, on the one hand, there
are karmic forces in function wherein dichotomous action and the consequent
attachment to the elements so dichotomised reign, and on the other hand,
all karmic forces cease to function and thus nothing shows up or stands
out. Non-being, in a sense, is the carryover of being without any form
whatsoever. Perhaps it could be stated here mat the asymmetric nature in
its non-being characterization refers to what the Zen Buddhist would call
the 'formless form', where 'form' is no longer form in the ordinary sense.
[9] This would amount to the capture of the form of the moment without
being attracted to or ensnared by the display of tangible elements of
being. I take this to be the foundation of Buddhist aesthetics. In more
technical terms, the asymmetric prominence over the symmetric is the
realisation of sunyata or emptiness. It is the voidness of being with the
qualification that the elements representing the symmetric remain as they
are and do not obstruct or interfere with momentariness. It is indeed an
odd way of describing an experiential phenomenon but emptiness or the
voidness of being has proved to be a boon to the development of Far Eastern
cultural arts. Let me say further that the asymmetric nature does not in
any way cancel out nor eradicate the symmetric nature and its elements. The
karma-free nature of the asymmetric means that this aspect of the moment
does not constitute or 'carve out' anything. This does not mean inaction or
mere passivity but it does point to the incipient nature of what the Buddha
referred to as the perception of things as they are (yathibhutam), a
perception which I believe is the foundation of naturalism, at least in the
Eastern sense of the term.

Let us expand on the concept of emptiness. When the legendary Bodhidharma
told Empress Wu of China that there were no merits to her collection of
meritorious deeds (e.g. building bridges, schools, hospitals, roads, dams,
etc. for the country), he did not mean to deny the deeds themselves. Rather
he wanted her to know that the deeds, in and of themselves as attached
phenomena, were really nothing to speak of or were simply meaningless; they
do, however, take on meaning and significance as they are perceived within
the total realm of emptiness (sunyata), hence Bodhidharma's famous remark:
'All is in vast emptiness'. Whether she understood this remark is highly
questionable. In our analysis, all her deeds fall in the symmetric realm
(aspect of being) and the nature of emptiness belongs to the asymmetric
(aspect of non-being).

As the above example reveals, the dynamics of symmetry and asymmetry
exhibits a powerful force nascent to momentariness and it could also become
a powerful 'tool' in the experiential sense. By this is meant that the
dynamics could be a most effective aesthetic tool, especially in terms of
creating new art forms, from ordinary paintings to the performing arts. The
interplay of elements within the realm of no elements seems strange and
novel but, much to our chagrin, it has always been present in our
experiences, although the fact of the matter is that we have not been
conscious of it nor have we sensed and developed it to any appreciable
degree. Here is an area where East-West mutual exchanges could be
meaningful.

It should be noted that the relationship between being and non-being has no
chronological or temporal priority, in either direction. Normally, priority
is assigned to non~being, i.e. we assume that it is natural that non-being
produces being or, vice versa, being comes from non-being. This assignment
of priority is not only faulty but also groundless. It is similar to the
creation ex nihil argument. The search for priority would fall into the
dark trap of seeking causal connections. Although for analysis' sake we
resort to the temporal nature of things and seek after cosmological
beginnings, in so doing, we invariably return to elements relative to the
symmetric realm. As we are bounded by these elements, any resolution would
be limited to the so-called bounded realities. But the dynamics as such is
unbounded by spatial and temporal dimensions; indeed, these dimensional
restrictions pale into indistinction through contact with the asymmetric
nature.

In a sense, the dynamics is the reflexive nature of momentariness where the
symmetric-asymmetric relationship shows up traits of fluidity and
malleability. These traits are important not only for the adjustment and
accommodation of one's momentariness with the external realm of existence
but, internally, they characterize the fusing phenomenon of the symmetric
and asymmetric natures. Despite the inclination towards the symmetric, the
presence of the asymmetric nature tones down or dampens that action. It has
already been said that the symmetric tends towards the finite nature of
things and the asymmetric towards the infinite but the latter's precise
role is subtle. Indeed, to understand its role fully and to implement it in
one's momentariness are goals realizable by only a few. These few, like the
yogis and masters of the arts, are able to realize the deeper and wider
sense of dynamic existence and translate it into creative works of art.

The asymmetric, moreover, in its open and extensive nature is the source
for the rise of emptiness. And emptiness, in turn, is the basis for the
existence of all (non-empty) elements, paradoxical as it may seem, because
these elements are not mere existent but part and parcel of the sea of
ontological emptiness, figuratively speaking. In the same vein, it is
possible to assert that the symmetric realm is sustained by the presence of
the asymmetric. Thus all activities relative to the symmetric, e.g.
dualistic thinking, are made possible within the nature of the asymmetric.
Dualism of all sorts, Platonic or Cartesian for example, fall within this
scheme of things and, in consequence, they all amount to ontological
restrictions and limitations imposed by our own epistemological quests
which, in turn, have relied upon contrived metaphysical assumptions.
Turning to the East, however, we witness the advantage (beauty) of Buddhist
thought which accepts dualities and dualistic thinking on the conventional
(metaphysical) level but sheds them on the non-conventional
(non-metaphysical) level. [10]

The discussion has finally brought us to the great Buddhist insight that
the conventional and non-conventional realms of existence are really
functioning within the selfsame sphere. We are all too familiar with the
famous identity: Samsara is Nirvana and Nirvana is Samsara. [11] The
identity is easily misunderstood for its utter simplicity but we must
credit it with being one of the greatest ideological forces in the
dissemination of Mahayana Buddhism. Unfortunately, the mechanics of this
identity has not been worked out, for the usual prescription to
understanding or experiencing it has been a resort to meditative
discipline. My analysis, hopefully, gives a closer glimpse at the workings
of the conventional and non-conventional realms. For instance, while the
dominance of the symmetric aspect relates to all happenings in the
conventional realm, the dominance of the asymmetric, without completely
ruling out the symmetric elements, relates to perception of the
non-conventional realm. From the foregoing discussion, it is an easy
extension to the Buddhist two-truth theory of conventional truth
(samvrti-sat) and non-conventional (absolute) truth (paramartha-sat). The
technical term, samvrti, can be translated as pointing at an overall
covered nature of the truth of existence, i.e. the symmetric with its
dualistic elements hinders or obstructs a clear, full perception of things.
The other technical term, paramartha, refers to crossing the bar of
hindrance or obstacle to achieve the aim of clear, full perception. The
Buddhist lives with both truths, but is always mindful that the
non-conventional truth is greatly superior and more auspicious for living
than the conventional.

The implications of the symmetric-asymmetric dynamics are inexhaustible.
[12] However, the main concern here is to indicate that the dynamics are
the grounds in which the aesthetic nature is experienced. This aesthetic
nature which arises from a vibrant balance of the symmetric and asymmetric
natures is a common property in any experience; yet we gloss over it
because we are not accustomed to its presence nor do we have an inkling of
knowledge of it. We dichotomise, for example, without sensing the fact that
there is a non-dichotomous realm in which the dichotomous function goes on.
This is not to say of course that the non-dichotomous realm acts as a
counterforce or a foil. Far from that, it merely means that the dichotomous
function requires to be rounded out in the total ambience of momentary
existence.

In another sense, it can be said that the dichotomous function creates
so-called vacuous (independent) existents, i.e. the dichotomous nature of
the subjective and objective components invariably brings on pockets of
existents within the total flow of existence. In other words, although our
momentariness is a dynamic plenum of existence which should not be
truncated in any way, nevertheless our karmically distorted or skewed
perceptions vitiate against the natural fullness of momentary existence.

It might be added here that relative nature cannot incorporate the
absolute, total and unified nature of things. But the absolute could and
indeed does incorporate and perceive the relative to the extent that the
absolute is based on the asymmetric realm. The reason for this is that
where the relative is in the nature of the contrived, manipulative and
karmic, the absolute has no such nature. Obviously, our conventional lives
require the symmetric realm and are dominated by it, but in order to
acquire the plenum of existence, it would require more than the symmetric,
i.e. the effort to 'uncover' the nascently present asymmetric realm.

The plenum of existence is moreover open at all times. Without this
openness, new spheres of creativity will not be possible at all since the
creativeness is based on novel concrescence of all conditions within the
matrix of the symmetric-asymmetric dynamics. The aesthetic balance,
so-called, becomes the ground for the concrescence. As one could readily
see, the aesthetic nature is not a static feature lodged in some object or
condition of the perceiver but one which is fluid and refers to the very
makings of any object or condition of the perceiver, without arbitrarily
imputing such a nature to anything. In this sense, the aesthetic nature is
the basis of all creative acts and does not refer to any feature of a
finished product of whatever kind. But certainly it will be admitted that
the appreciation of a certain art form entails intimacy with the aesthetic
nature since appreciation itself is a series of dynamic events.

Though always open, the plenum of existence is never a nondescript and
passive undifferentiated continuum, nor is it a complete void. Here it is
important to distinguish between (1) metaphysics of the first principle
type and (2) metaphysics that describes experiential reality. The first
refers to umbrella concepts that rule over or govern all reality in every
respect, such as the concept of a supreme being with absolute attributes.
The second refers to descriptive concepts derivable from the attainment of
and intimacy with the truth of existence. [13]

The truth of existence is a holistic plenum wherein the perceptual and
non-perceptual realms coincide, although unknown to the ordinary perceiver.
This is where the differentiated harmoniously blends with the
undifferentiated. It is but another way of elaborating on the nature of the
Net of Indra or Huayen metaphysics, the discussion of which will have to
wait another occasion.

In sum, then, the truth of existence is another way of revealing the
aesthetic nature which normally lies hidden or is simply crushed under the
weight of the symmetric. The penchant for and grip of the symmetric is
overpowering, to say the least, just as we are constantly reminded of the
relentless universal nature of suffering (duhkha). Indeed, duhkha and
symmetric are by and large cognate terms.

Meditative discipline, finally, is the sine qua non for the realisation of
the truth of existence or for enlightenment. The Satipatthanasutta expands
on the meditative exercise of samatha-vipassana, the cult of tranquility or
rest and of insight or the clear holistic perception of things. Insight
does not arise without first achieving tranquillity or rest. This is so
rudimentary and yet so many do not understand the significance and value of
developing tranquillity or rest. The problem lies, I believe, in the
inability to understand that the nature of tranquillity and rest exists
potentially in one's own momentariness and consequent failure to implement
it. To expand, the cult of tranquillity and rest involves the realisation
of the presence of the symmetric elements within the asymmetric nature. It
is a realisation of the differentiated within the undifferentiated and not
the reverse--the undifferentiated within the differentiated--as some are
wont to assert. As the differentiated seeks an abode in the
undifferentiated, all that it represents becomes 'pacified' and remains
silent. Silence is golden because there is now an intimation with the
aesthetic nature which opens up the way to a clear holistic perception of
things as they are. We are awakened to the deep silence of the forest as we
hear the songbird or the painful cries of the cicada but the moment of
silence and sound reveals the vibrant aesthetic balance of things.

NOTES

[1] INADA, KENNETH K. (1992) The reflexive nature of momentariness
(ksana-vada), in DAVID LEE MILLER & RAMAKRISHNA PULIGANDLA (Eds) Buddhism
and the Emerging World Civilization (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press) 1992

[2] WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH, (1938) Modes of Thought (New York: The
MacMillan Company) p. 148

[3] Ibid., p. 84

[4] Ibid.

[5]Ibid., p. 85

[6] It should be noted that Chinese thought, especially Taoism, maintains
the dynamics of being (yu) and non-being (wu), based on the philosophy of
change (yi). The cosmology of human experience as well as of the world is
best exemplified by the constant yin-yang mutual penetration.

[7] The doctrine of non-self (anatman) immediately comes to mind. The
doctrine of impermanence does not permit attachment, which is after all a
form of permanence or staticity, and yet in our daily experiences we
invariably set up a dichotomous subject-object perception of things. The
notion of a self-oriented perception is not possible within the context of
impermanence or the transitory nature of existence. The Buddhist has
demonstrated that the self is an organic aggregation of the five components
(rupa, vedana, samjna, samskara, vijnana). The aggregation is not permanent
but short-lived within the fluidity of things.

[8] DEWEY, JOHN (1958) Art As Experience (New York: G. P. Putnam).

[9] My good friend, Dr. Richard DeMartino, a Zen enthusiast, coined a
phrase which I like very much, 'nondual dualism'. He used it to refer to
the unique Zen experience of satori. His thinking is definitely along my
lines of the symmetric-asymmetric dynamics.

[10] It was the Buddha's original insight that the rise and cessation of
suffering take place in the same realm, comparably to illness and health
occurring in the same body.

[11] Nagarjuna (c. 150 AD) crystallised this thought in his
Malamadhyamakakarika (Verses on the Fundamental Middle Way Doctrine), XXV,
19, 20.

[12] For example, time does not permit me to discuss such important
conceptions as the conduct of the Bodhisattva, the practice of Buddhist
precepts--especially the brahmavihara (loving kindness, compassion,
sympathetic love, equanimity)--and the exercise of meditative discipline.
All of these could be expanded within the nature of the symmetric
asymmetric dynamics.

[13] It is necessary to distinguish between the truth of existence and the
existence of truth. This is not a play on words. Where the former refers to
the quest for the pure enlightened nature of things, the latter refers to
the quest for empirical and rational truths. The latter focuses on
objective and relative matters and thereby thrives on plurality and
variety, all of which have the makings of conventional truths.