Dichotomies

Enter the void: thus begins one’s journey into Buddhism, for the first of the worldly illusions, or mara, to be destroyed is the dichotomic, or dialectic, essence which underpins all of human perception and conception. It is the application of the alchemical Alkahest, the looking through the lens of the “Equalizing Assessment of All Things”:

All experience is preceded by mind,
Led by mind,
Made by mind. (Buddha 3)

Here, translator Fronsdal notes that “experience” and “mind” are rough translations of dhamma and mano respectively. Dhamma, or experience, relates to phenomenology. It is the world in which we subjectively inhabit, the shadows one the walls by which we blindly navigate. Mano, or mind, might be better described as consciousness. It is conceived of as a sixth sense in Buddhism, a window through which the light of truth passes through before entering our phenomenological experience.

With a better understanding of these two concepts together, the short excerpt above becomes meaningful. It explains that all of our subjective experiences in life are a consequence of our conscious interpretation of the world-in-itself; therefore, there is no difference between the source of agony and that of happiness. Either experience flows as a consequence of the orientation of the mind:

Speak or act with a corrupted mind,
And suffering follows
As the wagon wheel follows the hoof of the ox. . . .

Speak or act with a peaceful mind,
And happiness follows
Like a never-departing shadow. (3)

For those who might struggle to follow the significance of this claim, let it be clarified that it is as reality shaking as the Taoist realization that the binary logic on which all human thinking is predicated is at best a heuristic falsehood. This is the post-modern problem realized millennia prior to the modern era for which it is conventionally named. It is likewise the revelation which drives many intellectuals into gnostic mysticism, for it is the realization that human nature is a dialectic prison, a set of constraints which bind the will through limitations of the body, society, time, and place.

However, unlike the ideological neo-political-religions, Buddhism, like Taoism, provides an answer to this post-modern problem. One might conceive of this answer as the dichotomy between left (inclusive/progressive) and right (exclusive/conservative) post-modernism.

In the former case of leftwing post-modern thought, because our experience of the world is mediated by consciousness, one then concludes that experience is really all there is and that it is infinitely malleable. In the progressive post-modern view, mankind are gods who have yet to realize themselves as such, but through proper application of consciousness, man can wake himself up and know himself to be his own creators, thereby freeing his will from the constraints of human nature and the external world.

In the case of the rightwing post-modern view, the idea of an essential universe is retained. This is true of Buddhism as well as of nearly all ancient religeous and philosophical traditions. In The Dhammapada, the teachings of the Buddha warn:

Those who consider the inessential to be essential
And see the essential as inessential
Don’t reach the essential,
Living in the field of wrong intention.

Those who know the essential to be essential
And the inessential as inessential
Reach the essential
Living in the field of right intention. (5)

The very notions of essentialism and right-or-wrong intention are by their nature exclusive concepts. Their presence so early in the Buddhist text flies in the face of the Nietzschean conception of the ancient Indian religion as being life-denying—though, one might say the same of Christianity in the wake of such sophisticated religious thinkers such as Dr. Jordan Peterson; and it should also be noted that Nietzsche himself laid the groundwork for Jung’s and Peterson’s religious interpretations in his book ironically titled, The Antichrist.

Nietzsche aside, one can read for himself the Buddhist conception that there is an essence to the universe and therefore being itself. It is that essence which we experience through the lens of consciousness, and depending on our conscious orientation or attitude toward the world, our experience of being produces one of two dichotomies:

“He abused me, attacked me,
Defeated me, robbed me!”
For those carrying on like this,
Hatred does not end.

“She abused me, attacked me,
Defeated me, robbed me!”
For those not carrying on like this,
Hatred ends. (3-4)

Those veteran readers of these Meditations will recognize this common ground. It is the crossroads of life-affirmation and life-denial. In Taoism, it was the choice to walk in accord with the Great Course that is life. In Confucianism, it was the embracing of responsibility and propriety by sincerely accepting the duties imposed on one by the conditions of his life. And here, in Buddhism, we see the same call to acceptance and forgiveness which naturally give birth to tranquility and benevolence:

Hatred never ends through hatred.
By non-hate alone does it end.
This is an ancient truth.

Many do not realize that
We here must die.
For those who realize this,
Quarrels end. (4)

So is it argued to what extent human consciousness can alter our experiences—a great deal along the lines of value judgements, along the metrics of suffering and happiness. But what is really meant by orienting one’s attitude or consciousness? It is even fair to ask if willful determination of such things as values is even possible. Would one not need to be an übermensch to accomplish such a feat?

Jung believed that Nietzsche was mistaken on this account. A man can not willfully decide his values in the way described by the ancient Greek Stoics. He could, however, according to Jung, discover new reaches within a potential range of values inherited from his ancestors—i.e. the will is not free, for it is embodied. That leaves open the question, “How does one achieve his potential?”

The answer: through voluntary exploration of the unknown. Spiritual growth is a practice, not merely a mindset. One does not find his Way nor begin his journey merely by planning for it. He must first step in the direction he believes he ought to go. Surely, his particular Path which he lays for himself will be out of accord with the Great Course, but through sincerity—honesty with himself—he can course-correct as he advances. In this way, a single step with right intentions, persistently practiced over time, can bring one into his potential Way of being. It is the raising of the Aristotelian continent man to being a virtuous one. So, too, does the Buddha say:

One who recites many teachings
But, being negligent, doesn’t act accordingly,
Like a cowherd counting others’ cows,
Does not attain the benefits of the contemplative life.

One who recites but a few teachings
Yet lives according to the Dharma,
Abandoning passion, ill will, and delusion,
Aware and with mind well freed,
Not clinging in this life or the next,
Attains the benefits of the contemplative life. (6-7)

Buddha Siddhartha Gautama. The Dhammapada; Teachings of the Buddha, translated by Gil Fronsdal, Shambala Publications Inc, 2008.