Common Ground - Islam and Buddhism
Common Ground - Islam and Buddhism
Common Ground - Islam and Buddhism
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