Suppose there are the phenomena A, B, and C, and each of them is itself without any self-nature, yet they are all related. Consequently, the existence of A as "A" is determined by its relation to B and C and all other phenomena. Everything is related to everything; nothing can be considered apart from its relatedness to the whole.Although A is without self-nature, still it is A because of its relationship to everything else. In short, the inner structure of A includes everything else in hidden or "powerless" form. And by such relationship A is A, not B or C.
The entire universe supports the existence of any single thing, and absolutely nothing exists as an individual particular by itself alone. All things continually and simultaneously manifest themselves together as a whole. The philosophy of the Hua-yen calls this ontological reality "Interdependent Origination."
As no "individual" can exist in itself alone, it exists by the support of everything other than itself.
Suppose there are entities A, B, and C, each differing from the other. Each in turn, according to Hua-yen, is constituted by an indefinite number of the same ontological elements, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, ..., even though A, B, and C differ. If we use semantic thinking, the signifier is always everything (a, b, c ...), whereas the significants differ, like A, B, C.
In order to explain this enigma, Hua-yen employs the aspects "powerful" and "powerless." "Powerful" designates the presence of a positive, manifest, self-asserting, and controlling element; "powerless" denotes the opposite: passive, seclusive, self-negating, and subservient. Among the infinite elements, one of them - a, l, or x, perhaps - becomes "powerful," while the rest of them are understood to be "powerless". Then, as A, L, or X, they are recognized in the daily world as different things [...] At any one moment, the powerful element is not necessarily the only one; and it changes in relation to the whole over time.
In our daily life, only the "powerful" element manifests, so we human beings cannot resist focusing on differences; that means not noticing the "powerless" elements, though they are essential to the depth-structure of A, for instance, and support its manifestation.
Suppose that "I," for example, consist of a, b, c ... an infinite number of elements; and, among them, factors b, f, and k are "powerful" elements to make "I" express "my" eachness. So, if I exert those powerful factors actively, I may cause my existence to stand out, and, by so doing, I may be able to control others.
But if I think it through a little more, then actually I may die without being aware of my other infinite "powerless" elements. But if I were to live my eachness fully, I would be receptive, reclusively waiting. Then, when my "powerless" elements became activated, I would discover an eachness that is different from what I had known about myself until then.
In short, I would appreciate with surprise the autonomous emergence of eachness. This has quite a different feeling from creating one's individual nature by one's own effort.
In individualism, it seems quite reasonable that one develops individuality by following one's own intentions. However, little possibility exists to develop in a direction unexpected from what one already knows about oneself, as I have explained in relation to the "powerless" elements. Such development is active and positive, to be sure, but you would have to say that it is restricted by the ego's judgment. In comparison, the Buddhist approach seems to be fulfilled if your path opens up in an unexpected direction.
[Hayao Kawai]
Buddhism and the Art of Psychotherapy, p.101-3, 109
Related posts:-
World of Phenomena/World of Principle
Emptiness
Holding the Conflict Within
Why are you so sure?
The Value of Uncertainty
1 comments: