Through a Glass Darkly

 This morning while on the bus to work, I was reading a passage from Wen Haiming's fine introduction, Chinese Philosophy, where he was talking about Guo Xiang's discussion on being and non-being (p.81). Guo Xiang notes a delicate balance between the notions of 'being' and 'non-being'. While things and people do have these peculiar characteristics which give them a certain 'isolation' form each other, they also interact in novel ways all the time. Essentially, however, Guo Xiang sees all things as having a certain amount of solitude from each other, and spontaneously arise from their own nature. Hence, Haiming remarks:

Existentially, the beings of living reality are left in seclusion, and people  are forced to confront a transforming world of nothingness. Guo Xiang portrays the myriad things as changing both naturally and independently, but he does not extrapolate in regard to the feeling one would hold toward the world. (p.82)

What does it mean that beings are in relative seclusion? What I think it means is that beings come into this world with destinies that are not immediate or apparent in our surroundings. One particular view in education, for instance, that is popular these days is that children are blank slates who are waiting to be filled with new information. Any simple observation of children would show that they are very different and possess unique talents, characteristics and challenges. This isn't to say that children cannot change or don't change (they do, in fact), but I think GuoXiang's philosophy suggests or hints toward the mysterious process of coming to unfold our true selves. To be 'left in seclusion' is somewhat like saying: each person has this unique destiny that nobody else can fill.
    Guo Xiang''s notion of destiny somewhat falls in line with the Buddhist notion of cause and condition. This notion does not state that sentient beings are bound to one way of being, but, rather, destiny is constantly in a state of flux or change. This is why Guo Xiang characterizes destiny as 'contingent' and subject to constant change through new encounters. In a sense, this also accounts for why he is suggesting that beings develop in 'solitude'. If I am always encountering completely new or unfamiliar situations that are not subject to reasoning or explanation, I am in essence alone to understand the situation. There is never a point in time where I fully understand the true 'reasons' for things, because encounters are contingent (accidental somewhat) and subject to spontaneous and new creation.
        I think this in essence is similar to Buddhist teachings, where we accept the previous conditions but are also capable of seeing that new conditions are continually being created. Buddhists do not need to feel that their karma from the past binds them to being the same way over and over again into the future. Rather, because things are subject to constant interaction and change, there is never a full point of resolution for any being. Guo Xiang's philosophy also reminds me of Sartre, who was also experimenting with the ideas of freedom (spontaneity) and contingency. For both philosophers, the experience of being cannot be reproduced or replicated in any way--hence, its solitude. Even choices cannot be replicated or systematized, since consciousness is always the result of spontaneous encounter that is not hardwired into the brain or genes.

Haiming, Wen, (2010)  Chinese Philosophy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press