The significance of paradoxical language in Hua-yen Buddhism

·期刊原文
The significance of paradoxical language in Hua-yen Buddhism

BY Dale S. Wright
Philosophy East and West
vol. 32, no.3(July, 1982)
P325-338

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

P325

As to illuminating what is difficult to think, this
refers to the fact that although one does not
destroy an object's small capacity, yet it
penetrates everywhere in the ten directions, and is
revealed as universally including everything in its
midst. This is because measure is nonmeasure, and
lack of capacity is capacity.(1)

In the above passage, Hua-yen(a) master Fa-tsang(b)
has described the referent of his discussion as
being "difficult to think" (nan-ssu(c) ) .
Nevertheless, he has expressed his thoughts on the
matter, thoughts which, here and in numerous other
similar passages, culminate in blatantly paradoxical
language. "...measure is nonmeasure, and lack of
capacity is capacity." What possible meaning can be
derived from this sort of language, and how can
"thinking" such as this, which violates the logical
rule of non-contradiction, be heralded as the high
point of Chinese Buddhist philosophy?(2) If this
passage has a meaningful referent at all, if it
means something about something, then why aren't
statements made logically and directly toward that
object of reference? And, given the extreme
difficulty of this matter for thought, why are we
continually enjoined to "think it" (ssu chih(d))
when no logical instructions are given for how to
accomplish this? What possible interpretation of the
significance of this kind of paradoxical language
in Hua-yen texts can open these texts to meaningful
exegesis?

This article arises both from a systematic attempt
to follow this line of questioning and from the
perplexity that emerged in an initial attempt to
read and understand Hua-yen Buddhist texts. My
overall goal will be to articulate an interpretation
of the significance of paradoxical language in
Hua-yen texts that will serve to render the language
of these texts meaningful and understandable.(3)
This essay is based upon an analysis of paradoxical
statements which seeks to understand these
statements in terms of the fundamental structures
and goals of Hua-yen Buddhist thought. The principle
method of interpretation, then, will be to uncover
the relationships that obtain between various types
of paradoxical assertions and Hua-yen thought as a
whole. It is believed that this hermeneutical
procedure will help to clarify and to shed light on
these paradoxical assertions and on Hua-yen Buddhist
thought, both of which present formidable obstacles
to understanding.

The interpretive task is made difficult at the
outset, however, by the fact that none of the
Hua-yen patriarchs explicitly address the issue of
paradox. Nowhere is it explained why paradoxical
expressions are used and why all profound doctrinal
issues eventually culminate in paradox. Paradoxical
assertions are simply displayed before the reader as
one of the most prominent and visible aspects of
Hua-yen texts. No attempt is made to avoid,
eliminate, or to rationally solve paradoxical
elements in the texts. There are, however,
implications and clues in the system of thought
itself which do point toward answers to our
questions.
-------------------------
Dale S. Wright is Assistant Professor in the
Department of Religious Studies at Occidental
College, Los Angeles, California.

P326

The use of paradoxical language is not unique to
Hua-yen as a particular form of Buddhism, nor to
Buddhism itself. It is a relatively common
religio-philosophical phenomenon that can be found
in various contexts in many different cultures. What
is unique about paradox in Hua-yen texts, at least
within the sphere of Buddhist thought, is that it is
here that systematic cultivation of formal
philosophical paradox reaches its climax and final
point of development. After the decline of Hua-yen
in China, paradoxical language continues to be
significant in Buddhist thought and is developed
further, but not in the domain of formal
philosophical and religious thought. Paradox is
taken directly into the sphere of practice in the
Ch'an(e) and Zen schools. It seems to me that in
Ch'an and Zen, the theoretical development of
paradox in Hua-yen and earlier forms of Buddhism
comes to fruition in the perfection of the
soteriological function of paradoxical language.(4)
The value of the present attempt to examine
paradoxical language specifically in Hua-yen texts
is that the theological and philosophical
structures, which in later Ch'an and Zen texts are
hidden by the overwhelming emphasis on practice, are
still explicit and manifest. Here paradox is present
in a clear doctrinal form and is therefore open to
analysis.

The abundance of paradoxical language in Hua-yen
texts attests to its importance in that school of
thought. Very few Hua-yen texts and very few
passages within these texts do not, at some crucial
point, come to culmination in paradoxical language.
"Paradox" here will mean, first, in its most basic
and etymological sense, something that is contrary
to ordinary expectation, a startling statement that
is literally "against the opinion" of conventional
thought. But in a more technical sense, paradox will
denote a unity of two contrary elements that in the
order of conventional experience cannot be logically
united. This author's examination of Hua-yen texts
has yielded three distinct types of paradox, each
deriving from different doctrinal structures.

The first type of paradox is modeled after
paradoxical assertions found in many early Mahayana
texts that emphasize the concept emptiness
(k'ung(f)/'suunyataa). Beginning with the assertion
that a phenomenon, X, is empty (k'ung/'suunyaa)
(that is, since X originates dependently, it is
empty of own-being), one moves to the further
paradoxical implication that X is not X. An example
from Fa-tsang is the assertion that "when one
understands that origination is without self-nature,
then there is no origination."(5)

A second type of paradox is derived from two
doctrinal sources: the Hua-yen concept of "true
emptiness" (chen-k'ung(g) ) and the Hua-yen
interpretation of the dialectic of the One Mind
(i-hsin(h)) in the Awakening of Faith. Whereas the
first type of paradox worked with the negative
assertion that phenomenal form is empty and
nonexistent (wu so yu(i)), the second type reverses
that claim by asserting that any empty phenomenon is
an expression of, and the medium for, the ultimate
truth of emptiness. The union of opposites effected
here is the

P327

identity between conditioned, relative reality and
the ultimate truth of suchness (chen-ju(j)/tathataa) .
Fa-tsang's paradoxical assertion illustrates this
second type. "When the great wisdom of perfect
clarity gazes upon a minute hair, the universal sea
of nature, the true source, is clearly manifest."(6)

The third variation of paradox is grounded in the
Hua-yen doctrine of the "nonobstruction of all
phenomena" (shih shih wu-ai(k)). According to this
doctrine, when the ultimate truth of emptiness
becomes manifest to the viewer, each phenomenon is
paradoxically perceived as interpenetrating with and
containing all others. This paradoxical violation of
the conventional order of time and space is best
exemplified by Fa-tsang's famous Essay on the Golden
Lion.

In each and every hair [of the lion] there is the
golden lion. All of the lions contained in each and
every hair simultaneously and suddenly penetrate
into one hair. [Therefore], within each and every
hair there are unlimited lions.(7)

The common element in all three types of paradox is
that they originate in the tension between the two
truths, between conventional truth (su-ti(l)
/sa.mv.rtisatya) and ultimate truth (chen-ti(m)
/paramaarthasatya). Our task of interpreting the
significance of paradoxical language in Hua-yen
texts, therefore, will begin by working out an
initial interpretation of the two truths and the
relation between them.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUA-YEN PARADOX

In the Hua-yen system of thought, paradoxical
expressions issue from the discontinuity between
ordinary awareness or conventional truth and
enlightened awareness or ultimate truth. The
discontinuity becomes manifest and paradox begins to
emerge wherever and whenever a human being who
participates in conventional truth begins to seek
ultimate truth. According to this analysis, the
conventional mode of awareness into which all human
beings are born is structured to function in terms
of the basic opposition between subject (neng(n))
and object (so(o) ) . Conventional consciousness
separates itself out from the world so that it deals
with everything as an object over against itself as
subject. In addition to objectifying, conventional
consciousness differentiates the objective into
discrete and autonomous entities, each of which is
grasped in terms of its distinct form or self-nature
(tzu-hsing(p)). These processes, which constitute
conventional knowing, are all informed and governed
by one's participation in language, the basis of
conventional truth.

"Suchness" (chen-ju/tathataa) and "true emptiness"
(chen-k'ung/'suunyataa) are two synonyms for the
ultimate truth that is revealed (hsien(q) ) to
awareness in sudden realization (tun-chueh(r)). Both
of these symbols seek to indicate that ultimate
truth is not conditioned by any positive, graspable
content. It is "such as it is," empty of all
graspable form. It is unconditioned (wu-wei(s)) in
the sense that it is neither subjective nor
objective, nor is it conditioned by any particular
form. When ultimate truth is realized, there is
"nothing" (wu so yu) that is known.

P328

On this basis a definite hiatus or discontinuity
emerges between the two truths. Given the fact that
ultimate truth is ungraspable, one's quest to know
or grasp that truth moves toward paradoxical
consequences. Human consciousness grasps only
conditioned forms; ultimate truth, which is what
consciousness attempts to grasp, is unconditioned
and has no distinct form. All efforts to grasp
ultimate truth appear to be self-defeating and
paradoxical because they inevitably condition and
objectify that truth.

All statements about ultimate truth are necessarily
paradoxical because in attempting to express it,
they violate it by making it what it is not. Whereas
the ultimate truth of suchness precedes the
subject/object split, any statement about "it"
(including this one) implies that split because the
subject/object dichotomy is presupposed in the
structure of language. For this reason no assertion
about ultimate truth directly corresponds to that
truth. Therefore all attempts in Hua-yen texts to
bring ultimate truth into the conventional forms of
language yield paradoxical statements. By
paradoxically uniting an assertion with its own
denial, or any other set of contradictory elements,
they attempt to address the problem of the
objectifying feature of all language. Hua-yen texts
characteristically unite affirmative and negative
elements in references to ultimate truth, thus
maintaining the awareness of human inability to make
that reference directly.

The paradoxical nature of assertions about ultimate
truth has another basis beside the fact that such
references cannot be made directly within the limits
of the linguistic structure of conventional truth.
Not only are statements about ultimate truth
paradoxical, but the way in which this truth makes
its appearance is also paradoxical. The paradox lies
not simply in the thinking subject, but in the way
ultimate truth becomes manifest to the subject. The
unconditional truth of suchness becomes known only
through conditioned form (hsiang(t) ), a paradoxical
manifestation. The experience of ultimate truth is
paradoxical in that it is revealed through the
medium of conventional truth. Any particular, empty
form (for example, object, concept, dharma,
etcetera) can be a symbol or medium through which
the ultimate truth of emptiness is revealed. When
the symbolic(8) capacity in any form is activated,
Fa-tsang calls this the "illuminating cause"
(liao-yin(u) ) of ultimate truth.

The experience of the actualization of the symbolic
potential in an object is the experience of the sudden
breakthrough of "true emptiness" (chen-k'ung).In an
ecstatic experience the rigid differentiation
between subject and object is broken down along with
the reified distinction between all forms of
experience. But in "true emptiness, " the
interrelation of all form is illuminated (liao(v))
without destroying either subject or object. Both
subject and object are paradoxically negated and
affirmed in an experience that illuminates ultimate
truth.

In this experience, ultimate truth makes its
appearance through an object of conventional
experience. However, in this experience, the object
that becomes symbolic of ultimate truth is
experienced in a contradictory and paradoxical
manner. The object is revealed as the presence of
ultimate truth, yet, simul-

P329

taneously, its own ultimacy is denied or negated.
The object is experienced as being empty (k'ung/'suunyaa)
in its own-nature (tzu-hsing/svabhaava) while
simultaneously manifesting the fullness of ultimate
truth. Ultimate truth, therefore, becomes manifest
in the form of a paradox in which both affirmation
and negation are simultaneously united without
obstruction (wu-ai(w)).

The paradox cannot be resolved or eliminated since
it is essential to the experience of ultimate truth.
If, on the one hand, there is no object symbolizing
ultimate truth, then that truth is not available to
human experience. On the other hand, if the symbolic
object is taken to be ultimate truth in itself, then
that act of grasping or attachment denies the
presence of that truth since the manifestation of
true emptiness is what enables the elimination of
all such attachment. Symbolic form is negated
(min(x))(9) in order to point beyond itself to the
ultimate truth that it symbolizes. The symbolic
object is revealed as being empty in itself so that
it is evident that its true significance is not
itself but rather its referent, ultimate truth. The
object is affirmed as the medium for the ultimate
truth of emptiness and as a participant in
emptiness, but it is also simultaneously negated in
view of its referent. The object itself is
conditioned and empty. It is not itself ultimate
truth but rather the locus for the manifestation of
that truth.

The symbol emptiness (k'ung) is the norm and the
model for the paradoxical character of all Buddhist
symbols for ultimate truth because it denies the
inherent ultimate truth of all symbols. Emptiness
symbolizes the relativity of symbols as such,
including itself. In its self-negation, the symbol
emptiness denies its own ultimacy (svabhaava) as a
symbol, and precisely in that activity refers beyond
itself to the ultimate truth. In the self-denial of
the symbol, its referent may be evoked.

The structure of the symbol emptiness (k'ung/
'suunyataa) is inherently paradoxical; it is a
negation that is simultaneously an affirmation.
Ultimate truth becomes manifest only to the extent
that the symbol in which it becomes manifest negates
itself. True emptiness is affirmatively revealed in
the negation of emptiness. When, in his commentary
on the Heart Suutra, Fa-tsang says, "One cannot
grasp emptiness by means of emptiness,"(10) he is
repeating the denial that is contained in the symbol
itself and is referring to its paradoxical
character. Emptiness (the concept/symbol) is not
emptiness (the referent, that is, ultimate truth).

Precisely what is negated (min) and what revealed
(hsien) in the paradoxical union of affirmation and
negation can be clarified by reference to the
Hua-yen interpretation of the doctrine of the One
Mind (i-hsin). The Hua-yen patriarchs' understanding
of this important doctrine was based primarily on
their reading of the Treatise on the Awakening of
Faith in the Mahaayaana (Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin
lun(ad)).(11) The Awakening of Faith describes the
basic structure of the One Mind (i-hsin) as follows:

On the basis of the Dharma of the One Mind, there
are two aspects. What are these two? The first
aspect is Mind as true suchness. The second aspect
is Mind as origination and cessation [sheng-szu(ae)/
sa.msaara]. These two aspects each universally
include all dharmas.(12)

P330

The Hua-yen interpretation of this passage, as
established in Fa-tsang's commentary on the
Awakening of Faith,(13) understands reality in terms
of a dialectical pattern. The One Mind comes forth
(lai(af) ) from its unconditioned identity in
creating (tso(ag) ) the human experience of
sa.msaara, or conventional truth, and returns
(kuei(ah) ) to itself in the experience of
enlightenment or ultimate truth. The elements or
moments in this dialectical pattern are the One Mind
and its two aspects as set forth in the Awakening of
Faith.

The origin of the dialectic is the One Mind in its
permanent (pu-pien(ai) ), nondual (wu-erh(aj) ) ,
unconditioned (wu-wei) identity. It is nondual and
unconditioned in that the One Mind as primal
emptiness is the prereflective, original awareness
(pen-chiao(ak) ) that underlies or grounds all
subsequent, reflective awareness. It is a
fundamental awareness that precedes all
differentiation that arises in language and thought.

The first of two aspects that arise on the basis of
the One Mind is the differentiation of Mind from its
original, unconditioned state. This second moment in
the dialectic of the One Mind is "Mind as
origination and cessation." This refers to the
differentiation and movement of Mind in which the
forms of conventional awareness are created. Under
the influence of the "winds of ignorance,"(14) the
One Mind expresses (piao(al)) itself in creating the
conventional world of birth and death, the continual
origination and cessation of phenomena or form. In
this activity, unconditioned Mind appears in the
form of conditioned phenomena that arise and cease,
dependent on conditions (yuan-ch'i(am) ) . The
origination of distinct, objective phenomena is
coterminous with the rise of language and thought
and is the basis of conventional truth and
existential suffering. Although the One Mind is the
foundation from which all distinct form arises, the
appearance of differentiated phenomena obscures its
underlying presence. This is also to say that
ultimate truth is present and presupposed in any
conventional truth in spite of the fact that one who
participates in conventional truth remains unaware
of it.

The third and final moment in the dialectic of the
One Mind is the realization of ultimate truth and
enlightenment. According to Hua-yen texts,
enlightenment is the process in which one "returns
to the source" (kuei-yuan(an)) of the One Mind from
one's alienation in the world of conventional truth
and sa.msaara.(15) As discussed in an earlier
context, this is the sudden manifestation of
ultimate truth within the forms of conventional
truth; emptiness is revealed within form. Having
differentiated itself from itself in sa.msaara, the
One Mind returns to an awareness of its original
unity and identity, an original unity and identity
that was always present although in an unreflective,
unconscious state.

The final "return" (kuei) of the One Mind to itself
in sudden enlightenment is not a complete return to
the first element in the dialectical pattern, a
formless identity. Mind returns to itself
through its differentiation. True emptiness is
realized through the symbolic forms in which it
expresses itself. This is simply to say that
enlightenment is not the total obliteration of the
forms of ordinary

P331

awareness. On the contrary, the "ordinary" is
illuminated in the realization of the dialectical
identity between Mind and its differentiation,
emptiness and form, ultimate and conventional truth.
Realization of this identity brings out the
realization of the interrelatedness (that is, true
emptiness) of all phenomena, and eliminates any
static notion of autonomous (tzu-hsing/svabhaava)
form.

Expressions of paradoxical language, we can now see,
begin to emerge at the point where one realizes
ultimate truth and the dialectical identity of all
phenomena with the One Mind. All phenomena are
expressions of ultimate truth.

Mind is not separate from the appearance of birth
and death. Therefore, as to the appearance of birth
and death, there are none that are not absolute
truth. Sa.msaara is not separate from the
characteristics of Mind. If it is not separated in
this way, then it is called united.(16)

The Hua-yen masters were fully aware of the fact
that when one says that ultimate truth is the
emptiness of form, that means that ultimate truth
includes both form and its negation in emptiness.
Reality includes both elements in any polarity, both
affirmation and negation, in such a way that the
strictly logical exclusion and separation of
opposites perceives only isolated fragments of
conventional truth. For one who dwells in the
presence of form and emptiness, phenomena and their
source in the One Mind, paradoxical language
expresses the fullness of truth where opposites are
dialectically united without obstruction (wu-ai).

Although there is two, yet there is not two.
Nonduality is identical with duality. This is the
dharmadhaatu (fa-chieh(ao)).(17)

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PARADOX

Thus far we have seen that the foundations of
paradox lie in the discontinuity between the two
truths and in the fact that the two truths both have
their basis in one source, true emptiness or
suchness. If we now restate these foundations
emphasizing the human existential situation within
this overall ontological structure, it will be
possible to make several suggestions concerning the
significance of paradoxical language. According to
the Hua-yen system of thought, the human existential
situation is one of alienation from the source and
ground of human existence. This can be formulated in
a variety of ways, but within the framework of the
present discussion, we can say that human beings are
bound by the structures of conventional truth and
thereby alienated from ultimate truth, and that in
the self-negation and differentiation of the One
Mind, alienated human awareness emerges. The One
Mind eternally negates itself in the act of creating
(tso) the realm of birth and death
(sheng-ssu/sa.msaara). The realm of birth and death
is the realm of conventional truth and human
awareness. Human awareness takes form as the world
is differentiated and divided. Reflexive awareness
emerges as one differentiates oneself from what is
other than oneself. This division between subject
and object becomes fully reified as the activity of
the

P332

rational mind further differentiates the world into
individual beings, each of which is considered to be
essentially autonomous (tzu-hsing/svabhaava) and
permanently distinct. All aspects of human existence
including thinking and knowing take place
presupposing this foundation in differentiation and
conventional truth.

This process of separation and alienation is the
basis of human existential suffering (ku(ap)/
du.hkha). Human beings cannot, within the limits of
the conventional structure of existence, come to
know the source (yuan(aq) ) or ground (pen(ar)) of
that existence since the source, One Mind, suchness,
or ultimate truth, is not governed and constituted
by the rational structures through which knowing
takes place. Suchness (chen-ju/tathataa) is not
simply one object within existence that can be known
by conventional means. Individual consciousness
(shih(as) ) is therefore powerless to terminate its
alienation from its original foundation in the One
Mind.

The significance of paradoxical thought is that in
this form of thought it may be possible for thinking
to direct itself in such a way that it remains open
to what lies beyond the domain of thought. Although
thinking has no alternative but to proceed in terms
of the conventional structure of language and logic,
there is no rule of logic that requires that truth
must appear within the logical structures of
conventional truth. If rational thought entertains
the possibility that ultimate truth may appear in a
manner that transcends conventional truth and
rationality, then that form of thought is one that
remains open to the manifestation of what lies
beyond thought. Paradoxical thinking, then, is
thinking that remains aware of the limits of
conventional thought, and, on that basis, is open
and receptive to its own sublation in the immediate
presence of that which is other than thought and
conventional truth.

Hua-yen paradoxical language can, therefore, be
interpreted as a mode of thinking that functions to
direct one beyond the realm constituted and
structured by conventional truth. This use of
paradox expresses the emptiness of the
subject/object split, of objectification and static
differentiation, and of all conventional, logical
structures, and in this process it points to what is
beyond and not limited by those forms of
conventional truth. Paradoxical thinking is a
receptive mode of thought that simultaneously
employs and denies the forms of conventional
thought. It employs them because that is the
inescapable basis of thought and experience itself,
and it denies them because the forms of conventional
thought are inherently incapable of grasping the
ultimate truth that they seek. Paradoxical thinking,
therefore, is a form of thought that, even though it
cannot grasp ultimate truth, nevertheless remains
open and receptive to the possibility of its
appearance.

But, as stated earlier, paradoxical language is not
simply an expression of the orientation of the
subject toward ultimate truth and reality; paradox
is also the form of the manifestation of that truth.
True emptiness (chen-k'ung) makes its appearance in
a paradoxical way by simultaneously affirming and
negating the

P333

school, kung-an are "public cases" of paradoxical
utterances emerging from the enlightened awareness
of Ch'an masters. These utterances are typically
responses that contradict conventional expectations
by uniting two elements (often a question and an
answer) that cannot be united within the limits of
conventional truth, that is, our definition of
paradox. Kung-an may be understood as immediate
human responses to the awareness of ultimate truth;
they emerge spontaneously from the mind of the
master without conceptual premeditation.

In the latter history of the Ch'an school, these
ecstatic utterances were compiled and recorded to be
employed as a skillful means to evoke the experience
from which they originally emerged. They were used
as meditative or contemplative devices by means of
which one could exhaust the structures of
conventional truth and thereby come into view of
that which is beyond conventional truth. As with our
interpretation of paradoxical assertions in Hua-yen
texts, the self-negation of thought to which one may
arrive in systematic contemplation of a kung-an is
precisely the point at which thought is open and
receptive to what is beyond the realm of thought.

In both the Hua-yen and Ch'an schools, the break-
through of ultimate truth that might be
elicited by means of a paradoxical contemplation
(kuan) or a "public case" (kung-an) occurs in a
sudden realization (tun-chueh). Neither the Hua-yen
paradox nor the kung-an is conceptually resolvable,
but is efficacious in an immediate intuition.
Intuition here is understood as the breaking into
awareness and existence of that which cannot be
logically derived from existence or grasped in
conventional awareness. One is suddenly and
paradoxically aware of ultimate truth within the
structures of conventional truth both affirming and
negating those same structures.

The sudden breakthrough that is the culminating
goal of the paradoxical kuan and the kung-an is
experienced as an ecstatic state in which the
separation and autonomy of both subject and object
are overcome. The bodhisattva is immediately
conscious of the unconditioned foundation of all
conditioned reality in true emptiness. Hua-yen texts
describe this as the experience of the
interdependently originating dharmadhaatu (fa-chieh
yuan-ch'i(ay) ) . All phenomena or forms of
conventional awareness are perceived as
intrinsically interrelated and interpenetrating so
that no entity is independent and autonomous
(tzu-hsing) , the relative existence of each
symbolizing and revealing the ultimate truth of
suchness (chen-ju/tathataa).

True emptiness is experienced not just objectively
in the world, but subjectively as well, and in such
a way that that distinction itself is relativized.
In the awareness of suchness one fully realizes
one's own situation within the intricate web of
interrelations. In this realization the alienation
of the subject from the objective world is overcome
without destroying their conventional separation.

In Hua-yen texts the enlightened awareness of
"self' (wo(az)) is described as being inherently
paradoxical. The realization of true emptiness
involves the paradoxical awareness that one's
personal thoughts and activities do not derive

P334

simply from oneself as an individual subject. On the
contrary, without destroying individual subjectivity,
one experiences one's own thoughts and activities as
those of the One Mind within oneself. In individual
enlightenment, the One Mind returns to itself in
reflexive awareness. In the contemplation of a
paradoxical kuan or a kung-an, one attempts to grasp
the ultimate truth of emptiness through the paradox.
However, if the meditative technique is truly
efficacious, the situation is reversed. The
experience is one of being grasped by or taken up
into true emptiness. The Hua-yen patriarchs refer to
this experience as the arising of nature (hsing(ba))
or the tathaagatagarbha (ju-lai tsang(bb)). This is
the experience of the Buddha becoming manifest
within oneself, breaking down the barriers and
limitations of the self.(18)

PARADOX, LOGIC, AND TRUTH

The initial concern of this final section is to ask
how paradox is related to logic and conventional
rationality. The most obvious response is that
paradox violates conventional logic. Paradoxical
assertions involve one in blatant self-contradiction
so that the essential structure of logic, the
principle of noncontradiction, is violated. One
justification that was given for this violation is
that by means of the negation or denial of logic,
paradox directs one beyond the domain of logic and
conventional rationality. But this justification
hides the true significance of conventional logic
and truth. It is crucial for an understanding of
Hua-yen thought to note the important roles that
logic and language do play in paradoxical assertions
and in references to ultimate truth. Although
paradoxical assertions fulfill their significance
precisely in the violation of the logical rule of
noncontradiction, they also necessarily presuppose
and rely on that logical basis. The principle of non
contradiction is presupposed in that it constitutes
the conventional expectation or mode of awareness
against which a paradoxical assertion is made. For a
paradoxical statement to be paradoxical at all one
must assume that it arises only within the
framework, and on the foundation of, the rational,
logical structure of conventional truth. Paradoxical
language in Buddhist texts must not be considered a
new or different kind of logic that emerges in a
different cultural milieu. For paradoxical language
to be effective it must arise within the context of
conventional logic and it must fully contradict that
logic.

On this basis it has been maintained that parado-
xical language in Hua-yen texts entails a
dialectical negation of rational thought that
functions to direct one through and beyond thought
and the domain of logic to the unconditioned,
"translogical" ground of conventional awareness in
the One Mind or emptiness. However, in the negation
or denial of rational thought, logic and thought are
simultaneously affirmed. Language and logic, the
bases of conventional truth and awareness, are
affirmed as the medium for, and only means of access
to, ultimate truth. In a different mode of
expression this is to say that emptiness is present
to consciousness only as it exists in form.
Conventional logic and

P335

conventional form through which it appears.
Objectively, paradox is the form of the appearance
of true emptiness; subjectively, paradox is the form
of thought that corresponds to that appearance.
Paradox is the form through which ultimate truth
becomes manifest, and the form through which it is
apprehended. When one's receptivity in paradoxical
thinking corresponds to the paradoxical
manifestation of true emptiness, then that is the
occasion for the experience of ultimate truth.

Paradoxical language in Hua-yen texts can be
understood both as an expression emerging from the
experience of ultimate truth and as a means to
elicit that experience in the reader or hearer.
Paradox can function as a skillful means
(fang-pien(at)/upaaya) to evoke the experience of
ultimate truth because, as we have seen, paradoxical
thinking is thought that has attained an appropriate
openness and receptivity to what lies beyond the
limits (chi(au)) of conventional truth. Although
paradoxical language is found throughout Hua-yen
texts, one common form of its use is as a climax and
conclusion to short, meditative passages called
"contemplations" (kuan(av) /vispa'syanaa) . These
contemplative passages typically conclude by
paradoxically uniting an affirmative and a negative
point which cannot be united within the order of
conventional logic. Rather than concluding with a
solution to the contradiction, the two polar
elements are simply played off against each other in
blatantly paradoxical assertions. By maintaining the
tension between the two opposites rather than
resolving the paradox, Hua-yen texts encourage and
elicit an appropriate openness to the presence of
ultimate truth. In these paradoxical contemplations
(kuan) the Hua-yen masters attempted to evoke a mode
of being in the world that is open to, and in
awareness of, true emptiness (chen-k'ung). This mode
of being cannot be maintained by adherence to either
one or the other pole in the opposition; neither the
affirmation nor the negation of conventional truth
is the proper stance for the bodhisattva. Rather,
the bodhisattva must attain a paradoxical
receptivity to ultimate truth, which may be
perceptible in the unity of the two opposites beyond
the logical structure of conventional truth.

The skillful means that is involved in the soter-
iological use of paradox is the capacity to use
language fluidly and dynamically so that one
"settles down" in neither pole of the opposition,
neither affirmation nor negation, but remains open
to their common ground (pen) which lies between
them. Since it is not existentially possible to
grasp ultimate truth in thought, one must think
ultimate truth in a paradoxical way, thus
maintaining receptivity to its sudden manifestation
(tun-hsien(aw)). This means that the bodhisattva
must use concepts in such a way that they remove or
deny themselves and thus refer beyond themselves to
the nonconceptual basis of all concepts, true
emptiness.

This soteriological function of paradox bears
great resemblance to the use of the kung-an(ax)
(koan) in the Ch'an (Zen) school of Buddhism.
Certainly, the origins of the kung-an in the Ch'an
school can be traced to paradoxical language in
Hua-yen texts as well as in other lines of Mahayana
thought. In the Ch'an

P336

language are necessary conditions for the
possibility of enlightenment, so that apart from the
differentiating, logical character of conventional
truth, ultimate truth cannot be known.

Hua-yen texts maintain the relativity of all lang-
uage and logic by situating conventional truth
within the perspective of emptiness and the
dialectic of the One Mind. Conventional truth and
awareness, that is, language and logic, emerge in
the initial creative negation of the One Mind. This
negation constitutes a functional alienation so that
all human thought and experience proceed unconscious
of their foundations in the One Mind or emptiness.
Enlightenment or the awareness of emptiness then,
dawns in the dialectical negation of rational
thought as is expressed in paradoxical language.
However, as the paradoxical union of affirmation and
negation in enlightened awareness shows, this does
not involve the complete denial of language and
logic. The Hua-yen masters were not advocating the
return to an unconscious state of preknowing where
no distinctions obtain. Rather, Hua-yen texts can be
seen as the attempt to point to the unconditioned
ground of all knowledge within conditioned forms of
knowing, that is, within the logical, linguistic
structures of conventional experience. The
experience of the manifestation of ultimate truth is
referred to as a "return to the source" (kuei-yuan)
because it is through a second, dialectical, or
"returning" negation that it takes place.
Conventional truth, which is the negation of the One
Mind, is itself dialectically negated in such a way
that one sees through conventional truth to its
source and ground in the One Mind.

Without language and conventional forms of aware-
ness there would be no conscious experience of the
ultimate truth of emptiness. Conventional truth is
the medium through which that experience takes
place. Where emptiness is interpreted as complete
formlessness, any experience or awareness of it at
all is denied. Emptiness becomes available to
experience only within the forms of experience,
although, in its manifestation, these forms are also
denied. Language and logic, therefore, are not
simply negated in the enlightening experience, but
are paradoxically negated and affirmed at the same
time. They are negated because they are not ultimate
truth in themselves (tzu-hsing/svabhaava), and they
are affirmed as expressions of ultimate truth and as
the medium through which ultimate truth comes to
awareness.

For Hua-yen Buddhists, the sudden breakthrough of
enlightenment does not entail the revelation of any
absolute doctrines or principles. The experience of
emptiness is one which precludes any positive,
graspable content. Ultimate truth is not conditioned
by any form or conceptual structure. Religious
doctrines and symbols that are illuminated in the
experience are illuminated precisely in their
emptiness, that is, no doctrine or symbol is
absolute or permanent. In fact, the enlightened mode
or being makes possible the capacity to exist freely
without attachment to any form at