The Challenge of Buddho-Taoist Metaphysics of Experience

·期刊原文
The Challenge of Buddho-Taoist Metaphysics of Experience
Kenneth K. Inada
Journal of Chinese Philosophy 21 (1994)
P.24-47
Copyright@ 1994 by Dialogue Publishing Company, Honolulu,
Hawaii, U.S.A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

P.27

I begin by relating the interesting anecdote of Queen`s
Bridge in Queens College, Cambridge Universiry, England The
bridge is a rather nondescript, ordinary looking arched
wooden bridge bolted together and spanning the small Came
River that runs through Queens College campus, hence its
name. As the tour guide began to relate the story behind the
bridge, it immediately struck me how ironic things can be. On
the one hand, a most felicitous gesture in East-West
relationship invorlving two diverse countries and, on the
other, the difficulty in cultural exchange and understanding.
The story goes as follow. The Ching Government, as a
friendship gesture, dispatched a team of engineers and
carpenters to Cambridge in late 19th century (1870`s)to build
an arched wooden bridge. The bridge was built in a relatively
short period of time and immediately attacted visitors from
all over England because of its novelty of construction,
i.e., a bridge built without the use or nails, nuts and
bolts! It was a simple dovetailed wooden bridge.
The most curious ones were the group or scientists at
Cambridge University. They studied the structure of the
bridge very carefully, analyzing the stresses and strains of
each of the dovetailed pieces that made up the whole bridge,
but they could not fathom the basis of its strength, nor how
it is pieced together Some time later, someone had a
brilliant idea: Why not dismantle it piece by piece and
photograph and analyze each piece in the process. And so
after consultation with the authorities, they received
permission to dismantle the bridge and study it for the sole
purpose of advancing scientific knowledge.
The scientists engaged themselves in the work with relish
and utmost

P.28

confidence that the so-called secrets of the dovetailed
wooden bridge will soon be aired. The dismantling process
went on very smoothly without any problem: each piece was
pholo-graphed and labelled meticulously with pertinent
informtion. The whole job was done with utmost care and
finesse.
Now came the time to assemble the bridge in reverse
order, As the scientists began to assemble the larger pieces
and sections together, they were completely stymied by the
fact that the sections would not hold up in and of
themselves, much less when any weight was placed on them.
They tried countless times from different angles and
perspectives but to no avail. The assemblage of the bridge,
spanning about 50 feet, loomed to end in failure. Indeed,
short of any breakthrough, it seemed to be a disaster and the
scientists admitted as much. Having exhausted all resources,
they finally decided to assemble the pieces and sections with
nuts and bolts, the standby material of the scientific age.
That is the story behind the Queen's Bridge as it stands
there today, straining itself very unnaturally to transport
students across the narrow bend of Cams River. It is
interesting to note that the great minds of Cambridge. which
produced such luminaries as Sir Isaac Newton and Earl
Bertrand Russell, could not unravel this particular Chinese
puzzle.
But the story does not end here. Indeed, it cannot end at
all for it has become a poignant symbol for further East-West
dialogues The implications of the story are legion.
First of all, why didn't the Cambridge scientists consult
the original Chinese builders of the bridge? That would have
been the easiest solution. Was it hubris, stubbornness, shame
or ignorance that prevented the inquiry?
Obviously, the scientists did not go beyond the realm of
technology to probe the matter: they should have sensed that
life is not confined to the nature of science and scientific
methodology In defeat, they simply closed the doors that
would have led them to peer into the remarkable Chinese
cultural tradition. Perhaps, we who are not directly involved
in the field of hard sciences may have a greater role to
fulfill than normally thougllt of. To expand on the matter,
the solution to the problem actually lies in the simple
philosophy of life based on a thoroughgoing

P.29

form of naturalism. The Chinese school of thought most
important and influential here is of course Taoism. Its basic
ideas or doctrines are, for example, nonbeing (wu)(a),vacuity
(hsu) (b), change (hua) (c), reversal (fan) (d), nonaction
(wu-wei)(e), correlative dynamics (yin, yang)(f), uncarved
block (p'u)(g) and, in sum, simply the way of nature
(Tao)(h).
What the Cambrdige scientists overlooked was the role and
function of the Tao in terms of its dynamics as displayed in
the man-earth-heaven harmonious triadic relationship. This
dynamics is actually the unique function of being in
nonbeing. I would like to refer to this type of function as
"Oriental dynamics" Oriental dynamics is novel in the sense
that it does not negate nor limit anything but brings into
play everything within the comprehensive scheme of thing, It
depicts a "comprehensive harmony", the classic expression of
Chinese way of life by the late Theme H. Fang.
How do we understand and realize comprehensive harmony?
This is a crucial challenge, an experiential challenge based
on the nature of nonontological borders. In order to meet the
challenge headon, we must first of all reorder our
metaphysical priorities, for up to now our priorities have
been either too clear or too vague. Too clear, in the sense
that we have accepted things without questioning the very
foundations of epistemology based largely on the methodology
of empirical and rational nature of things. We have amassed
such a huge stock of information by reliance on these methods
that we do not question the status of our conventional
knowledge nor do we question the manner in which such
knowledge had been amassed; this in turn has promoted
over-confidence and unchecked supremacy of our ordinary
epistemological quests. Too vague, on the other hand, in the
sense that we have been overwhelmed by tangible and
manipulable elements such that our source and methods of
perception have been dulled and skewed to the point of
inaccuracy and inadequacy. We must correct the situation.
Thus, this essay will set out to bring out the problematics
of the situation and the contribution (that can come from
understanding the dynamics of Buddho-Taoist metaphysics of
experience.
The concepts of being and becoming are basic to our perception
and understanding..They are pillar metaphysical concepts in
which our modes of perception are framed. Yet, interesting
enough, it has not occurred

P.30

to many that these concepts do not exhaust the categories in
which we structure our epistemology. One of the basic factors
that prevents us from moving out of this limited metaphysical
orientation may be traced back to the Greek tradition where
Plato argued cogently for the absolute nature of things,
i.e., the nature of being over becoming. His arguments were
quite persuasive. to say the least, since anyone is
enthralled by the characteristics of permanence and
absolutism in contrast to impermanence and relativisrn. So
from the outset, a metaphysics based on the concept of being
became the guide to all empirical, rational and logical
understanding; at the same time, the concept of becoming or
change was relegated to a secondary position because of its
relative and dependent nature. Thus the bifurcation of
nature, being and becoming or, more precisely, being over
becoming, began early in the Western tradition and has
continued to the present without arousing serious questions
concerning its function and value. Along the way, thinkers
were given free reign to concentrate on the permanent and
enduring entities with which the empirico-rational modes of
perception could function effectively. The results have been
dramatic, especially in tire scientific and related fields.
It is interesting to note that, on the whole, we still
think and act Platonically owing to the fact that Platonic
metaphysics lends itself readily to scientific methodology.
Time moves on, however, and we have already witnessed great
strides made in all quarters, including perceptual changes,
occurring over the centuries The modern period began with a
great cosmological shift from the Ptolemaic to Copernican
theory. It was a huge break for science in general as it
engendered new insights and discoveries. One of these
insights led to the development of Newtonian physics which in
turn opened further doors. And in this century, the doors
opened to another momentous development in the form of
Einsteinian physics The movement from Newtonian to
Einsteinian physics is not only remarkable but dramatic since
it now caused a real shift in our perceptual orientation,
from the nature of being to becoming or from absolutism to
relativity. Einsteinian physics opened the doors to a truly
dynamic world but, ironically, the public was ill-prepared to
accept and accommodate it. Indeed, our ordinary perception of
things, both in the microscopic and macroscopic realms,

P.31

is still anchored in a Newtonian world. We still perceive and
understand things on the basis of absolute, permanent and
enduring entities within a set spatio-temporal context. The
reason for this is not hard to find. The Newtonian world is
far easier to grasp and implement than the Einsteinian and it
readily conforms to our ordinary rational and logical
analysis of things. Moreover, our ordinary perception easily
adapts to such analysis The Einsteinian world, on the other
hand, seems too abstract, relative and dynamic for the
average mind to cope with it. Simply put, it does not blend
with ordinary perception of things despite its universal
appeal and acceptance by the scientific community. We are, in
short, burdened by a historical lag in that a mode of
perception steeped in substance-orientation refuses to
completely harmonize with and adapt to the constantly
changing conditions (process)which is the stuff of nature. We
therefore find ourselves in a bind or quandary. We face a
dilemma so long as we maintain the strict dichotomy of being
and becoming or being over becoming. How can we resolve the
dilemma? Or, how can we reverse the order of perception from
being to becoming to take on a more inclusive nature? A shift
to the Eastern sector would reveal a refreshingly new and
different realm of existence.
The Buddhists and Taoists, in many respects, had
anticipated an Einsteinian world for centuries and they had
gone on to incorporate the realm of becoming in ordinary
experience. The basic principles and doctrines attached to
becoming were spawned simultaneously in the Indian and
Chinese civilizations and although in recent centuries they
have fallen behind the West in science and technology, their
cultural achievements and consequent impact on humankind are
inestimable. What is the metaphysical grounding for the rise
of a special mode of perception? In seeking an answer, we
must go back to Buddhist and Taoist fundamentals. These
systems have molded a large segment of the Asiatic mind by
their incomparable metaphysical basis of experiential reality
and since both focus on and function from similar
experiential grounds, I have grouped them together in
delineating a Buddho-Taoist metaphysics, althouglt admittedly
any scholar would be wary, and rightly so, of identifying
them in the strictest sense.
It should be noted at the outset that Asiatic metaphysics
is not

P.32

limited to the concepts of being and becoming for it also
involves a third important member, nonbeing. To the
uninitiated, the concept of nonbeing is not taken seriously,
if not dismissed summarily; to the Asiatic, however, it is a
pivotal concept of existence,the true underpinning of all
experiences. As stated earlier, the Asiatics were
Einsteinians in the sense that they maintained becoming to be
the most basic and primitive nature of experience.
Experiences take place as a becoming process, never in static
terms, and that should any substantive accounting of
experience ever take place, it would be relegated to
secondary characteristics. superficial and abstractive in
nature. So with becoming as the experiential basis, being and
nonbeing become two rubrics of the function of becoming.
Where the Eest expanded and envisioned becoming in terms of
the nature of being, the East took becoming to be essentially
in the nature of nonbeing which is the locus of any discourse
on being. The difference is indeed great but the consequences
of which have not been fully under-stood nor appreciated in
the West so far. We need to take a bold step and engage in a
radical interpretation of our perceptual apparatus and the
consequent understanding of things derived by way of its
function.
The nature of becoming in Buddhism is represented by the
concept of impermanence (anitya) or momentariness(k.sa.nikatva)
and in Taoism by the general concept of change (yi)(i)or
transformation (hua).In China, the text. Yi-ching(j)(Book of
Changes), has been most influential in molding the Chinese
mind. Even Confucius did not deviate from the concept of
change in developing his philosophy as, for example, he
emphasized the timeliness of action. Taoist thinkers earnestly
took off with the concept and wholeheartedly utilized the
dynamics of yin-yang to delineate the subtle movements of the
Tao.
Our ordinary experiences have contents which are much
fuller and deeper than what are reported by way of our
senses. including the mind. We have taken for granted that
perception and perceptual data are always in proper order and
function, and are reliable in everyday living.(1)But all this
is mere "surface" perception. We need to probe deeper into
the makings of perceptions themselves in order to appreciate
their total holistic nature. Like being enthralled by the
nature of the proverbial "tip of the iceberg", we gloss over
the wider and deeper nature of experi-

P.33

ence.
The so-called "depth metaphysics" intimated by the
Easterner reveals a new dimension to experiential reality
which is at once subtle and novel. As stated earlier, the
essential nature of experience is nonbeing. In the West,
however, nonbeing is used in opposition to the concept of
being, the former with a negative connotation and the latter
positive. If this were all that can be said of nonbeing, then
unfortunately we would inadvertently fall into the trap of
dichotomy. Indeed, the Western understanding of nonbeing does
not fully describe the Buddhist and Taoist notions relative
to the subtle dimension of experiential reality. Technically,
the Buddhist notion in Sanskrit is `suunyataa which is
variously translated as emptiness, nothingness, voidness,
etc., and the Taoist notion is wu, variously translated as
nothingness, vacuity, nonentity, etc. Wu and `suunyata are
not identical, to be sure, but they are quite similar in
terms of playing the role of effectuating or achieving the
holistic unbounded nature or grounds of experiential reality.
In this respect, they deny any primacy and prominence to the
concept of being. But, on the other hand, they penetrate and
absorb the realm of being. This inner dynamics of being in
the realm of wu or `suunyataa has always been the starting
point as well as the end of all experiences. The Chinese,
over the centuries of Buddhist influence, were able to
understand the true import of `suunyataa and incorporate it
into their own Taoist concept of wu. In consequence, wu and
`suunyata (Chinese k'ung)(k) became interchangeable concepts
but the Chinese by and large preferred to express the true
holistic experience by wu. For our discussion, I shall revert
to the currently used term, nonbeing, with the understanding
that hereafter it refers specifically to the deep
metaphysical dimension of Buddhist and Taoist experience.
A rough sketch in the accompanying page (Diagranl 1)
exhibits the two routes taken, common and uncommon, in our
perception of things. Both start with the nature of becoming,
the experiential locus. but where one side quickly frames
everything within the nature of being, the other side begins
and ends with the nature of nonbeing. The implications are
legion. One side thrives on the finitude of things but the
other on the non-finitude of things. Both sides manifest but
in different ways. Where one side indulges in the analysis of
perceptual data due to the

P.34

P.35

concentration on the finitude of things, the other side
probes the very foundation of such data in order to manifest
the fuller nature of their existence. In other words, where
the common route explains and understands the manifested data
in terms of our empirical and rational faculties, the
uncommon route based on nonbeing sees the alleged
"manifestations" as reference to conventional (relative) and
nonconventional (nonrelative or abaolute) realms of truth.
The realm of conventional truth, naturally, is elaborated by
ordinary empirical and rational analysis but the
nonconventional realm does not lend itself to any analysis
because there are no tangible data existing independently or
separated from experiential nature. Moreover. the
nonconventional realms is the ground for the highest form of
knowledge-knowledge or no-knowledge in Taoism or simply
ming(1) (illumination) and knowledge of nonattachment or
nondiscrimination (praj~naa) or simply nirvana in Buddhism.
nondiscrimination (prajnaa) or simply nirvana in Buddhism.
These are odd assertions, to be sure, but they depict the
primary nature of knowledge prior to the rise of any form of
dichotomy.(2)
It should be noted that no amount of clarifying or
refining the common route with empirical and rational
analysis will ever bring forth commensurability with the
uncommon route. There are various reasons for this but the
most basic is the fact that the concept of being with its
delimiting nature cannot incorporate nor implicate the realm
of nonbeing The reverse however is a distinct possibility,
i.e.. the nature of nonbeing can and does incorporate the
realm of being because of its wider. deeper. resilient and
open character. Indeed. the incorporation of being by
nonbeing is the principal reason for the name, depth
metaphysics. It is yet another way of pointing to the truth
of things as a phenomenon in which beings are nestled in the
nature of nonbeing. In consequence. paradoxical as it might
seem, commensurability is a concept applicable not from the
nature of being but from nonbeing. So unless the radical
metaphysical posture of nonbeing becomes the center of all
experiences. the consequences would be inconclusive, narrow,
limited and truncated
Let us return to Diagram 1. The difference between being
and nonbeing as well as their dynamic nature can be
illustrated by resort to the classical use of so-called Zen
logic.(3) A is A is the normal way our minds function. But
the Zen master is quick to point out that this is

P.36

ordinary thinking based on the concept of being.4 He wants us
to go beyond such thinking because the true nature of
thinking is more extensive, i.e., covers more "ground", than
the merely clearly defined but delimiting results derived in
ordinary thinking. Thus he introduces the seemingly absurd
statmeent, "A is not A." This is done only to advance the
fact that A is A should be seen or perceived within the
larger and deeper context of nonbeing Or, put another way, A
is A makes sense only when the beingness of A is seen from
the aspect of its nonbeingness, i.e., the negation or denial
of its in -dependent status would immediately open up the
more-than-A-dimension of existence. In a graphic sense, the A
is seen like an embossed letter which is shaded to accent its
appearance but knowing full well that its shaded areas are
basic to, indeed they are part and parcel of, the reality of
experience.
It is important to note that the uncommon route
ultimately ends in the noncnventional truth which expressed
itself in paradoxes, e.g., nonbeing of being or formless
form. In the language of the Zen master, this is expressed as
"A is A " in quotes in contrast to simple A is A. Here "A is
A" is known from the aspect of nonbeing or emptiness
(`suunyataa or wu) of things, a befuddling knowledge because
our habits of perception are deeply rooted in the strictly
empirical and rational scheme of things or a combination of
both. In this condition, the results are definitely confined
to conceptualization of the manifested data, hence conceptual
realities. Indeed, for the most part, we are satisfied with
the conceptual process and go about unconcernedly to
perpetuate our habits of perception.
Our common understanding, based on conceptual realities,
is entrenched in conventionality and relativity.(5) As indicated
in the common route of Diagram 1, we have uncritically
accepted the empirical and rational realm as the firm basis
of truth. From this realm we diagress even further into the
various forms of truth, such as, coherence, correspondence
and pragmatic or their combination. These forms have been
quite attractive and appealing but it is at this point that
the Easterner would pause to caution against facile
acceptance of any truth without exploring the real basis. of
things or without perceiving the holistic realm from which
all entities arise. We usually attach ourselves to the
relative

P.37

nature of things as if the holistic (absolute) nature does
not exist at all, just as in the classic metaphor one
confuses the trees for the forest. Although our experiences
are much fuller (holistic) than normally taken to be, we are
carried away by simple perceptions that feed on the relative
nature of things without knowing that such perceptions are
really engaging in an abstractive process. But, surely, at
this point questions on the wholeness of perceptual process
will arise. How can the whole coexist with the particular?
Or, how can the particular leave the whole intact and still
engage in the perceptual process? In brief, what is the
status of the absolute and relative?
These questions bring us to the problem of accommodating
the functions of epistemology and metaphysics. Their
functions are actually an intimate involvement of each other.
For example, each epistemological function is an instance of
its involvement in a metaphysical entity and, vice versa,
each metaphysical entity is the result of its involvement in
an epistemological function. Both are vitally and dynamically
involved in an interpenetrative sense(6) but, generally, we
split them into neat. welldefined disciplines without being
mindful of both basically constituting an experiential unity.
Cartesian meditations would here be interpreted as instances
of refining both the epistemological and metaphysical nature
of things but at the expense of the basic experiential unity.
The derived cogito (I think) is actually not ergo sum
(threfore, I exist) but the reverse, i.e., I exist, therefore
I think. In other words, the existential grounds are always
greater than and prior to the thinking grounds. What can be
thought, certainly, can be thought, but it is not necessarily
the case that what cannot be thought cannot exist. Indeed,
paradoxical as it may seem, what cannot be thought could very
well be the basis of what can be thought. This kind of
reasoning (or situation) has not had the chance of being
implemented in ordinary logic. But in Eastern ways of
thinking, it is common knowledge that what cannot be thought,
e.g., focus on the nature of nonbeing, is constantly
implemented in dealing with manifested entities and, in this
sense, any epistemological function at once involves the
total metaphysical grounding of experience. Put another way,
for the Easterner the epistemic nature always presupposes and
implicates the nature of nonbeing. In this way, the
being-nonbeing dynamics is secured

P.38

but, unfortunately, we are unaware of the presence of this
dynamics, nor are we knowledgeable about how to implement it.
The Easterner is naturally keen about the presence of
being-nonbeing dynamics although in everyday living process
he or she does not directly refer to it as such, nor speak of
it in clearly defined terms. In a fundamental sense, it
cannot be delineated simply because the unity of experience
defies logical analysis or precision. To expand on this
point, we return to Diagram 1.
The Buddhist and Taoist have, respectively, Iabelled
being as dharma and yu.(m) A dharma has been variously
translated as "element of existence." "element of being,"
"factor of experience, " "phenomenon." "perceptual datum,
" and "perceptual reality." It carries a special meaning in
Buddhism as contrasted with its standard usage by the Hindu
and Jain who depict it as a norm of behavior or value
attached to ethical conduct of the highest order. The
Buddhist did not of course lose sight of this norm of
behavior in that the term, dharma, was also used for the true
nature of existence, the Dharma in capitalized form. In this
sense, the Dharma constitutes one of the triads of Buddhist
Treasures, i.e., Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. That the same
term is used to describe two entirely different phenomena is
truly an unique feature and a singular contribution of
Buddhist thought. This feature is well taken as we hark back
to the being-nonbeing dynamics where dharmas are, in the
final analysis, absconded in the total nature of enlightened
existence. Thus a dharmaDharma functional scheme was
developed early on in Buddhism by the Abhidharma schools
which postulated from 75 to 100 dharmas. There is no, time to
elaborate on these dharmas but suffice it to say that the
scheme made a categorical distinction between the "created or
manipulated" (somsk.rta) dharmas and the "uncreated or
nonmanipulated" (asamsk.rta) dharmas, the latter of which
made way for the enlightened realm of existence because of
its contact with the nature of nonbeing or `suunyataa.
Consequently, a parallel can easily be seen in the
being-nonbeing and dharma-Dharma dynamics.(7)
In many respects, the Abhidharmic thinkers were the first
to come to grips with an elaborate psycho-physical scheme to
analyze the multiple factors or phases of our experiences but
at the same time they did not lose sight of the fact that
these factors or phases all belong to, indeed

P.39

interact within, the total holistic nature of existence The
whole Mahaayaana movement did not drastically deviate from
this dharma-Dharma dynamics. If anything, it made very good
use of the dynamics as seen in the development from the
Praj~naapaaramitaa through Madhyamika and Vij~naanavaada
thinkers. Hua-yen (Avta.msaka) thought is another example of
how the dynamic functions in mutually identifying and
penetrating ways. Subsequent developments in Tibet, China.
Korea and Japan all worked within the dynamics, albeit
modifying and crystallizing the epistemic nature of things
framed within their respective cultural backgrounds. Variant
forms of Buddhism existing in the world today, I believe,
attest to and confirm its resilient strength,fluidity and
continuity.
In a similar vein, we find Taoist dynamics involving
being (yu) and nonbeing (wu) revealing its uniqueness
of experience. For example, the first verse of the Tao Te
Ching(n) which is a digest of Taoist thought, states:(8)

The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The Named is the mother of all things.
Therefore, let there always be nonbeing so we may see their subtlety,
And let there always be being so we may see their outcome.
The two are the same,
But after they are produced, they have different names.

The two, being and nonbeing, are intricately interwoven;
one side is visible ("outcome") the other invisible
("subtlety") . But both make up the total realm of
experiential reality, although in different ways. Yet, it
seems that our dichdotomizing nature quickly divides that
reality into clearly defind categorical conceptions and
maintains them as such throughout our ordinary perception of
things. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are united in focusing on the
basic concept of change (yi or hua) rather than on being and
nonbeing in and of themselves. For example, Chuang Tzu's
famous dream of the butterfly ends thus:(9) "Between Chou and
the butterfly, there must be some distinction. This is called
the transformation of things." Even in the subtle realm of
dreaming, the dynamics of change involving being and nonbeing
is every functioning and Taoism

P.40

simply challenges us to explore the deeper nature of the
dynamics itself
So now it is time to probe further into Eastern depth
metaphysics. We must be bold and radical enough to speculate
on the nature of becoming prior to the split into the common
and uncommon routes. For in many respects we have taken for
granted that the split occurred in a natural way but we must
be critical and go beyond mere surface manifestations. The
nature of becoming or momentariness, in brief, must be
diagnosed more closely in their incipient natures so as to
gain a better glimpse at the subterranean workings of
becomingness.
We therefore propose here certain features or dimensions
inherent in becoming. These features or dimensions, for want
of better terms, will be designated as symmetric and
asymmetric components. They are the dynamical aspects of
becoming and constitute the basis for the beginnings of the
realms of being and nonbeing. Diagram 2 in the accompanying
page indicates where these two components reside. Actually,
they depict the correlative dynamics of becoming and are
graphically shown to be circular, overlapping natures to
exhibit the flow of the dynamical phenomena. In Buddhism,
this is the nature of relational origination
(pratitya-samut-pada) which has been illustrated early on as
the the wheel of life and in Taoism, it is comparable to the
flow of Taoism in its yin-yang dynamics or simply transformation
(hua) . The introduction of symmetric and asymmetric components,
moreover, should enable us to envisiion more clearly the now
of ordinary experience. So let us expand on them.
The symmetric is what we normally take to be the ordinary
nature of perception. It is dimensional, spatial, temporal,
quantifiable. orderly, finite and causal. It is all that is
relatable in the oft-framed subject-object perception of
things and focused wholly on the empirical and rational
constructs. Obviously. it has its limitations in that what
matters in the perception are only what can be framed by the
faculties of the senses and the mind. This is of course the
accepted and accustomed way of ordinary existence but in our
analysis, it is entirely inadequate.
For the fullness of perception to occur, we need to know
the existence of another dimension in perception which we have
been unaware of for the simple reason that it has escaped the
great minds who had focused on the tangible elements relative
to empiricism and rationalism

P.41

P.42

The novel dimension is the asymmetric component. It is the
unseen component, to be sure, and its presence can only be
inferred by way of the seen or by elements of ordinary
perception. If we were to characterize it, it would be in
terms of the non-dimensional, non-spatial, non-temporal,
nonquantifiable, non-orderly, infinite, openness and
non-causal.
Ironically, ordinary perception requires the asymmetric
nature in terms of being what it is or, more precisely, the
asymmetric complements the symmetric in two ways: (1) it
provides the 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 without a basis for being what it is. So on
both counts, the asymmetric nature is vitally related to the
symmetric to round out the perception of things. From the
symmetric side, it can be said that, on its part, it feeds
the asymmetric component in the circular dynamic karmic
flow.(10) In sum, both components are mutually interpenetrating
and interlocking but one must always keep in mind that each
becomingness has an inherent reflexive nature which prevents
any strict separation or dichotomy. The symmetric-asymmetric
relationship underlines the fact that the microscopic moment
goes beyond empirical display.
Taking up the internal linkage further, 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
aspect. 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 belong here.
Still, if the symmetric nature were taken to be the whole
story of perception, as it invariably is in ordinary
existence. our understanding would surely be partial and
grossly limited. To remedy this condition, we must proceed to
analyze the role and function of the asymmetric component.
If the symmetric component depicts the so- called forward
thrust in ordinary perception as is the case of the surf, the
asymmetric component. contrariwise, depicts a backward thrust
but here the nature of the thrust is significantly different
in that it acts without dichotomy and

P.43

consequent attachment. In a sense, the asymmetric represents
the "pure" flow of content as contrasted with the "impure"
content of the symmetric. The purity and impurity are
conditioned by whether or not there is a karmic attachment
relative to the perceptual moment. In its non-attached
nature, the asymmetric is not only pure but also wide 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 carried over by the symmetric forward thrust. The
asymmetric then serves as the so-called pure potential in
momentariness, i.e., the moment in its full realization,
steps back potently, 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, quite similar to the surf charging
toward the shores. In a more technical sense, it can be
asserted that momentariness is an open, moving ontology
framed within the matrix of symmetric- asymmetric dynamics.
A word on aesthetic nature. For the Buddhist and Taoist
the aesthetic nature is the realization of the proper
function or balance of the symmetric-asymmetric dynamics.
This furetion or balance is very subtle. From the manifested
realm of being and nonbeing (Diagram 1), it is to capture the
rhythmic balance between the two without allowing the
symmetric or being side to overwhelm or dictate any analysis
by common or conventional aesthetic elements we are
accustomed to introduce. Too many aesthetic theories nin the
past have focused on, indeed framed within, the exclusive
symmetric nature of things. As stated earlier. being resides
in nonbeing for the Easterner, which is but another way of
saying that the balance should be kept at all times. There is
no time lo discuss in detail any of the Oriental arts, but
suffice it to say that all Oriental cultural forms engage in
the creation of formless forms, the vibrant presence of the
symmetric (being) within the asymmetric (nonbeing) nature of
things. Without this qualified presence or balance. any
artwork would be unnatural, disharmonious, static and
truncated.
An example of the unique fluid phenomenon of symmetric-asymme

P.44

tric dynamics can be seen in the famous painting,
"Persimmons." ascribed to Mu-ch'i (late 13th century). Here
one cannot help but be overwhelmed by the harmonious blend of
black and white shades among the individual persimmons. No
two are alike and each, in its own right, exhibits subtle
aspects of the dynamics, the dark (symmetric) strokes
emptying quietly into the potently nascent (asymmetric)
nature of things. The whole scene delineates the soft
rhythmic pulsation of becomingness or transformatiun (hua).
It is a moving feast of fruits.
The implications of the symmmetric-asymmetric dynamics
are inexhaustible" We have principally concerned ourselves
with the metaphysical basis of experience but it could very
well be extended to other realms, such as. the aesthetic
nature we have lust briefly covered, and the larger and more
important area of ethics. Human conduct. afterall. is the
central issue for all and it must necessarily rest upon or be
grounded in firm meta-physical dynamics. It cannot he denied
that the metaphysical grounds of experience is the key factor
in any discourse and this essay has brought forth the unique
contributions of Buddhisln and Taoism by their tranquil
but dynamic philosophy of experience.

NOTES

1. In general,we still maintain the legacy of the British
empirical tradition where perception begins and ends
with the subject-object relationship. We still do not
question seriously the existential (ontological) nature
of the subject and object, including both in
conjunction, because of our reliance on being rather than
becoming. Two and a half millenia ago, the Buddha
objected to this empirical tradition because neither the
nor the objected persists permanently within the
impermanent nature of things (anitya). This prompted him
to enunicate the famous non-self doctrine (anatman). On
close examination, the Buddha's position is quite sound
and supported by contemporary science or Einsteinian phy-
sics.

2. It should be noted that being and becoming do not oppose
nor contradict

P.45

each other. They do not constitute a dichotomy in the
sense that being and not-being (not nonbeing) do.
Experientially, it is obvious that becoming rather than
being discloses the dynamic nature. In this respect,
becoming is the basic metaphysical concept from which
everything emerges including any traits or aspects of
being.
3. To my knowledge, Daisetz T. Suzuki was the first to
recall the Chinese Zen masters' use of so-called Zen
logic in terms of Western syllogism. A is A, A is not A,
therefore A is A. In our discussion, however, I have used
quotes, e.g. "A is not A" and "A is A", to indicate 1
deeper nature and meaning based on nonbeing.
4. Ordinary thinking functions on the basis of Aristotelian
Three Laws (Principles) of Logic, i.c, Identity,
Noncontradiction and Excluded Middle. These are also
self-evident "truths" in Eastern ways of thinking.
However, with the nature of expericnce based on nonbeing.
the logic of being or entity is expanded to or supplanted
by the logic of nonbeing to take on what seems to be a
contradic tory or illogical nature, to wit "A is not A."
This logic of nonbeing can also be called the logic of
unity.
5. In Mahayana Buddhism, especially in Madhyamika thought.
Nagarjuna (c.150-250 A.D.) clearly enunciated the twofold
nature of truth. conventional or relative (samvrti-sat)
and nonconventional or absolute (paramartha-sat), to
exhibit the comprehensive manner in which perceptions
function. (Mula-madhyamakakarika, XXIV, 8). In early
Buddhism, too, a twofold nature of knowledge was granted.
(a) knowledge in accordance with convention or ordinary
perception (anubodha) and (b) penetrative insight into
the nature of things (pativedha). (Walpola Rahula, What
the Buddha Taught. New York: Grove Press, 1974. p. 44)
6. Interpenetration does not mean that sparate entitles,for
example, x and y, merely penetrate each other to form a
unity but that they are mutually involving each other in
virtue of the already existing unity of things. This is
the foundation of Thome H Fang's unique philosophy of
comprehensive harmony. See his The Chinese View of Life
(Hongkong: The Union Press, 1956). This is also in
accordance with what I have already referred to as the
logic of unity or logic of nonbeing.
7. Once again, it seems quite clear that the dynamics
involves a dual aspect within becoming in order to
preserve the nature of interpenetration, holism and
harmony. In this way, both the created and uncreated
aspects do not clash but penetrate and perpetuate the
becomingness of things. It also means that ordinary
perceptions could take on the character of open, wider
and deeper perspectivcs.
8. Wing-tsit Chan, Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton:
Princeton Uiniversity Press, 1965) P. 139

P.46

The yu and wu dynamics naturally reminds us of the more
popularly known dynamics of yin-yang, but both dynamics,
though not equal or identical, still function in similar
fashion within the becomingness of things.
9. Ibid.;p.l90
Chuang Tzu, like Lao Tzu, was fascinated with the
dynamics of chang on both the microscopic and macroscopic
levels, changes that are as feeting as the galloping
horse. In the final analysis, however, all things that
change are equalized or evened within the grand process
or the Tao, just as the distinction "between Chou and the
butterfly" blur into indistinction in the becomingness of
things. Thus I have interpreted Chuang Tzu`s statement as
pointing to the deeper and holistic nature of becoming.
10. The circular dynamic flow is karmic in the sense that
each momentary perception is an instance of an act
(action) which has "carved out" a portion of the flow,
albeit in terms of a clinging phenomenon or attachment to
the elements of perception. As all this is in the nature
of the symmetric, the asymmetric component meanwhile
nascently resides as an opening to a detached realm or
existence and, at the same time, forms the basis of the
karmic act itself.
11. In previous papers, "The Aesthetic Nature as a Dialogical
Bridge, " presented at the Cambridge University
Conference on Buddhiam and Modern Thought, July 3-5,
1992, and "Buddhist Precepts and the Scientific
Challenge,"
presented at the Chung Hwa Buddhist Institute Conference
on Traditional Buddhist Precepts and the Modern World,
July 18-21. 1992 (Taipei), I have probed further into the
nature of becoming and the symmetric-asymmetric
dynamics. Needless to say, much remains to be done in the
area.

P.47