Not One and Not Two

 I found this interesting quote from Master Sheng Yen in his article "A Second Moon" from Until We Reach Buddhahood", which talks about the question of whether there is one-ness or separation between people. He remarks: "Are the 'I'-that which sees-and the object--that which is seen--one or separate things? If they were one, then there would be no way to distinguish between what sees and what is seen. If they are two separate things, they would exist in and of themselves, and there would be no relation between them. The answer is, then, that what sees and what is seen cannot be said to be one thing and cannot be said to be two." (p.108)

Master Sheng Yen goes on to suggest that deeply contemplating this principle would lead to seeing "how pointless quarrels are between couples, fights between brothers, or the ending of friendships. A husband would consider a quarrel between his wife and himself as his own right foot stepping on his left. It would be like him biting his own tongue." (p.109).

I think there are many layers to unpack in this chapter, which I would like to explore more deeply. The first is the commonplace notion that there is always a division between 'knower' and 'known'. As Sheng Yen suggests, this is a problematic view. After all, people are evolved from both physical and mental aspects. Schools condition people by teaching them specific concepts, while the body itself is evolved to do things in certain ways. It's hard to posit a completely 'objective' knower when even the eye is adapted to fixate on certain kinds of stimulus, such as movement or sharp edges. Yes, whenever a person sees something, they might have this thought, 'I' see 'you', and then divide the experience into these two. But Sheng Yen asks his readers to go deeper than this: to see that the experience of subject and object is a totality. He thus remarks, "That which is seen by the self cannot be separate from the material, from matter. I can only sense or perceive a spiritual existence through interaction with matter." (p.105)

This sounds as though Master Sheng Yen is saying 'we are all one', which echoes a lot of spiritual teachings which describe the unification of mind. But in fact there is another layer to this. If I think there is this 'one reality' that is ultimate, I am only describing what I think to be the 'true moon' (not the reflection), when it too is just an appearance of mind. Similarly, while everything I see and feel is part of my overall experience, paradoxically, this is not an 'ultimate' experience, because it can be seen from endless points of view. And yet, the only view that we can really see is the one that is uniquely one's own. This is such a strange paradox because it admits the diversity of viewpoints while sanctioning the uniqueness of one's experience.

How does this play out in one's life? To give an example: if I think that 'my view' is the only 'right view' among a group of people, who am I to say which is 'mine' and which is ultimate truth? Both 'mine' and 'ultimate truth' are just concepts. On the other hand, it's impossible for me to know anything besides this immediate experience, since nothing is outside of it. For example, I cannot say that what I do 'affects' someone else outside the mind, since the only being I know are coming into my experience. Sheng Yen is referring to two common mistakes that I believe people make. The first is to assume that their view is the 'correct view' and others' views 'less' (thus attaching to self). This view ignores the fact that others are just part of my experience, and are not separate from it. The second mistake is to believe that what I do affects others as separate beings. This also isn't quite true, because again, the only experience I have access to is what is unfolding in this present moment. So it is somewhat pointless to contemplate what is happening to 'someone else' was though they were separate from this experience I am having now.

This is to say that I need to respect that others are just as much a part of me as the 'me' I think I am. But I have to admit that this concept still eludes me. I think that the only way I can describe it is by saying that there is only one mind interacting at any given moment, almost with itself (though this is another subject object split). And when I fully understand this I can start to relax and focus on how things are really known and encountered by mind rather than projecting duality into whatever I experience. This kind of approach would definitely lead to less of a sense of reacting as though there were separate beings around me. But I have to say that there is a long way for me to go to reach depth in this insight.