24.12.2012 Views

Common Ground - Islam and Buddhism

Common Ground - Islam and Buddhism

Common Ground - Islam and Buddhism

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

c o m m o n g r o u n d between i s l a m a n d b u d d h i s m<br />

are sustained only by the reality of God, not by their own existence.<br />

This whole doctrine derives its Qur’ānic orthodoxy from, among<br />

others, the verse cited earlier: Everything thereon is passing away<br />

(fān); <strong>and</strong> there subsists (yabqā) only the Face of your Lord, Owner<br />

of Majesty <strong>and</strong> Glory (55:26–27). The mystic who has undergone<br />

extinction has, by that very fact, also concretely realized the nonexistence<br />

of all things other than God, all things that are in a state of<br />

‘passing away’ even while apparently subsisting. Having died to his<br />

own illusory existence, it is God’s ‘Face’, alone, that subsists; <strong>and</strong> it<br />

is through that subsistence that the individual himself subsists—his<br />

‘face’ or essence being in reality not ‘his’ but God’s: nothing exists,<br />

as we saw earlier, apart from God <strong>and</strong> the Face/Essence of God,<br />

which shines through all things.<br />

In this light, it is possible to see why it is that, on the one h<strong>and</strong>,<br />

the Buddha states that he has ‘known’ the Dharma, <strong>and</strong> on the other,<br />

that it cannot be grasped, talked about, <strong>and</strong> that in fact it is ‘neither<br />

a dharma nor a no-dharma’: insofar as all such characterizations of<br />

the Absolute derive from the individual st<strong>and</strong>-point, <strong>and</strong> insofar as<br />

the individual’s existence is strictly illusory on its own account, all<br />

such characterizations of the Absolute cannot but assume the nature<br />

of an illusion, or at best a ‘provisional means’ (upāya) of expressing<br />

the inexpressible. In the Diamond Sutra we read the paradox that the<br />

truth declared by the Buddha is neither real nor unreal:<br />

Subhuti, the Tathāgata is he who declares that which is true,<br />

he who declares that which is fundamental, he who declares<br />

that which is ultimate … Subhuti, that truth to which the<br />

Tathāgata has attained is neither real nor unreal. 41<br />

The ‘truth’ which can be defined in terms of a polarity constituted<br />

by reality versus unreality cannot be the ultimate truth. That alone is<br />

truth which transcends the domain in which such dualistic notions<br />

can be posited. It is not a truth which can be qualified as real, for its<br />

very truth must be absolutely one with reality: its own ‘suchness’<br />

must be its entire truth <strong>and</strong> reality, <strong>and</strong> cannot be known as ‘real’ or<br />

‘true’ in any final sense except by itself.<br />

The following dialogue between the same disciple, Subhuti, <strong>and</strong><br />

the Buddha brings home the paradox of this Absolute that can only<br />

be known by itself, by its own ‘Suchness’ (tathatā):<br />

41. The Diamond Sutra <strong>and</strong> the Sutra of Hui-Neng, op. cit., p. 32.<br />

52

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!