Converging within this simple object- a cup of water- are numerous realms: they co-exist with one another in very mysterious manner. On the one hand, they 'live quietly', each within its own sphere, without jumping out of bounds; and on the other hand, they 'live harmoniously together' without creating the slightest hindrance or interference with other realms. (p.18)
Chang is suggesting that things don't necessarily interfere with other things. It would be presumptuous to think that the actions of microorganisms have any affect on how we drink water, because the two operate in different realms. But it's interesting that throughout history of ideas, there is a tendency to want to reduce one realm to another. For example, some thinkers say that human beings are a very advanced type of animal, but not much more than that. It makes me wonder, when is it a good idea to resort to one realm to enrich one's understanding of another realm? And when is it best not to confuse the realms?
I think that this question hinges on the role that exploring different realms can play, and how tricky it is to try to understand different realms without trying to reduce them to others. An example might be something like psychoanalysis. I remember reading a book called the Spiritual Life of Children by Robert Coles, and it talks about how children explore their spirituality and what it looks like. The author used a lot of interviews with the children to understand their perspectives, and he seemed to respectfully refrain from adding his own interpretation to what the children were doing or saying. But the project then made me wonder: is this act of compiling children's stories a subtle way of trying to classify things according to their similarities? Does it sometimes potentially (though unintentionally) lead to the view that spiritual life is but a kind of "stage" in psychological development that all people go through at a certain age? At times, the attempt to find commonalities across stories has a way of flattening them, even though there is much to say about the psychological perspective. I mean to suggest that one should not be lulled into thinking that everything can be reduced to neat stages or biologically timed developments. But models have a way of sometimes doing this, inadvertently.
Perhaps a different way of looking at realms is to see that one particular realm can never fully explain all the others. At best, realms can cross with other realms or briefly interact with others so that they can create new combinations or enrich each other. But they are not meant to dominate or limit the perspective of others. A person in education can try to look toward psychology or sociology to enrich their understanding of what goes on in her or his classroom. But if that becomes the center, it sometimes takes away from other insights gained when someone is in the classroom, not using these different lenses.
Taking a non-confrontational approach toward realms seems to be the best way to get the most from them. If I try to say that a social way of looking is superior to a psychological or literary way, I am limiting possibilities. I am also limiting the ability to partner different realms, such as when an academic uses art to illustrate a science based theory. It isn't that realms exist in a hierarchy but perhaps more that they co-exist, and can create very new dynamics if they are combined in a skilful way. I don't need to see one function of being as threatening the other or 'superior' to another. In this way, it's possible not to see the contradictions between realms as in need of correction.
Chang, Garma C. C. (1971) The Buddhist Teaching of Totality: The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press
Coles, Robert (1990), The Spiritual Life of Children. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
No comments:
Post a Comment