Nagarjuna's Doctrine of the Middle Way, the Madhyamika, which is referred to throughout Shinran's writings, including his Shoshinge, affirms that the only absolute reality or truth is that of interdependence. In other words: all existence is relative and everything is void of self-nature. Hence everything neither arises nor does not arise. In fact, the question whether something arises or not is meaningless in the first place from the absolute viewpoint.
Thus from the viewpoint of ultimate truth, which is that of a Perfectly Enlightened Being, all ontological distinctions - including that between Nirvana and Samsara - are irrelevant. This in-difference is what enables the Buddha to be a "bi-ped", i.e. to be on the Other Shore (Nirvana) and, at the same time, to come to the rescue of ordinary unenlightened beings which are stranded on This Shore (Samsara). It is this in-difference which is also alluded to in the phrase "mugeko" when referring to Amida Buddha: the Light of Amida's Wisdom is Un-limited in the sense of making no difference between Nirvana and Samsara.
Now, while Nirvana and Samsara, the Unconditioned and Interdependence, are the Same for the Perfectly Enlightened One, they are still separate from the relative viewpoint of a bombu, save maybe some rare moments of insight (kensho), which are not tantamount to ultimate enlightenment. Also, from the relative perspective of us ordinary beings who are still stuck in duality, the distinction between existence and non-existence remains valid.
To say it bluntly: even Amida Buddha as Dharmakaya of Compassionate Means is ultimately void of self-nature. This is just (Mahayana) Buddhism 101. However, it is important to point out that voidness is not the same as fictionality. Furthermore, for the bombu who entrusts him/her-self to Amida's Vow, desiring to be born in His Pure Land in order to realize Buddhahood, nothing could be more real than Amida Buddha.
With respect to the metaphor of names as pointing fingers, T'an Luan, one of the Chinese Patriarchs of the Pure Land Tradition and a Madhyamikan to boot, made the following important exception for names of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas:
Question: A name is, as it were a finger to point at an object, as when we point at the sun. If recitation of the Buddha's name is capable of fulfilling one's aspirations, the finger which points at the sun should be able to remove darkness. But the finger cannot remove darkness; how could mere recitation of the Buddha's name fulfil one's aspirations ?
Answer: There are thousands of different things in the world, about which you cannot make a sweeping statement. In some cases, names and things are exactly identical, and in others, they are different. Some examples of the former are the names of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, the word 'Prajnâpâramitâ', dhârânis, spells and some other [mystic] phrases. (...)"
Hisao Inagaki (1988). Ôjôronchû: T'an-Luan's Commentary on Vasubandhu's Discourse on the Pure Land. A Study and Translation. Kyoto: Nagado Bunshodo. Fascicle Two, Chapter 2, section 52: pp. 210--211.
Hence there is no problem in Madhyamika to affirm the identity of the Buddha of Infinite Light and His Name, and that Shinjin results from the direct encounter with Amida under the aspect of:
0 comments:
Post a Comment