One and Many

 Reading Master Sheng Yen's Chapter in Chan And Enlightenment , I came across the following sentence: "When one's practices reach a certain level one realizes that all dharmas are no treal, and that the true buddha is not without but within--a pure mind is buddha. When one reaches this level, it is to returnn to oneness from the myriad dharmas [phenomena], from the external to the buddha-nature within." (p.238) Today, when I was reflecting on this passage, I had a question. My question was, does the view of 'buddha nature within' mean that one denies the existence of 'other beings'  or other minds? How might this view be different from solipsism, which declares that there is only 'one' mind that exists, 'my own mind'?

I guess, like most things, the answer is not so easy to understand, especially with the intellect. For example, Master Sheng Yen points out in the same chapter that Chan saying, "All dharmas return to one; to where does the one return?" (p.236) I believe this is suggesting that practitioners don't just stop at the view of 'one' mind, because this 'one' anything already limits us to a concept of unity. Master Sheng Yen uses the example of drawing a circle on a blackboard (p.237) to show that even if I were to try to include everything in the circle, there would still be something assumed as outside of it. So even if I conclude that there is 'one mind' I still need to question, who is experiencing 'oneness'? Another way of asking it would be, is the mind limited to a unified experience of all things? If so, how would mind be able to grasp individual things within that unity? It seems best not to attach to either one nor many.

Another way of thinking of it might be to say: if I start to have an experience of all things being unified, there is always a hidden tension in that experience. For example, a person who has a deep experience of all living things being 'harmonized' in one view (such as a God), might start to fear the intrusion of some chaotic element. How often has a person felt unified in body and environment, only to be startled by the sound of a voice yelling? There is always an opportunity for unity to be punctured by the 'disunity' that it entails. On the other hand, if mind makes no discrimination between what seems 'unified' and what seems 'dis-unified' then there is no reason at that point to try to go in the direction of unity or disunity. The two can be experienced equally with an even mind, as cause and conditions. But as soon as I get hooked on one of these polarities, I will for sure feel vexed when the other half intrudes on my reality.

I think there were two philosophers in the nineteenth century who might have exemplified "one" and "many". Hegel was a philosopher who, in my opinion, exemplifies a philosopher of the 'one'. Hegel tried to create a unified view of the world and society, to show that society was slowly progressing toward an evolved totality that mirrors the reasoning mind. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, seems to have been a philosopher of the 'many'. Kierkegaard rejected systems building, and he felt that the only way to truth would be through a totally subjective experience of one's relation to God. One person's experience, according to Kierkegaard, could not be reduced to another, or to a system understanding. While Hegel was aiming for more order, I think Kierkegaard was trying to problematize order, to show that the more unified things seem, the more superficial or inauthentic is one's relation to true reality.

If a person can stand over these viewpoints and see their potential shortcomings, then one is perhaps choosing a middle path, and not getting attached to either One or Many. In that sense, people can let go of the temptation to seek simplistic answers. It might also encourage people to see things as already perfect in themselves, not needing a system or a philosophy to 'make' them perfect or mold them into something they are not.

Master Sheng Yen (2014), Chan and Enlightenment. New York: Dharma Drum Publishing.