The Tree of Enlightenment
An Introduction to the Major Traditions of Buddhism
by Peter Della Santina
---o0o---
Part Four
The Abidharma
---o0o---
Chapter Thirty-Two
Methodology
In this chapter I will discuss the methods through which the Abhidharma
investigates
our personalities and our relations to the
world around us.
There are two ways to depict a given person and his relation
to the
world around him:
deductively and inductively. The rational
or deductive method begins
with an abstract
idea and applies that
idea to one's experience. The empirical or
inductive method begins
with the facts we encounter in experience; through observing and
analyzing, interpreting
and understanding these facts, we build up a
picture of ourselves and
the world around us.
In short, the rational
method begins with the abstract and tries to
apply it to the
concrete,
whereas the inductive method begins with the concreteand builds up a
picture of reality
gradually and
progressively.
The inductive method, which is the one used in the
Abhidharmic system,
is quite close to
the method of science,
except that in science the focus of the
inductive process is outward
and in the Abhidharmic system the focus is inward, on the mind.
This is
why the
Abhidharmic method is sometimes called
introspection or, to use a
traditional term,
meditation.
When we say that the Abhidharmic method is empirical and
inductive, we
mean that it
has to do primarily with mental
experience. Sometimes we say that
meditation is like
internal or
mental microscopy: it is a way of investigating very
closely the facts
of
experience. The Abhidharmic method of introspection yields
results
because it manages,
through meditation, to slow down
mental processes to a point where we
can see and
understand
them. In this respect there is a remarkable parallel between
the
Abhidharmic
method and the scientific method. In science, when
we want to find out
how a certain
transformation actually takes
place, we slow down the process or speed
it up. In
Abhidharmic meditation, too, we can slow down mental processes so that
we can see
what is actually happening, or we can speed things up. If
we could see
our human life,
from birth to death, within the space
of five minutes, it would give us
great insight into
the nature of life.However, because this is usually not possible, we
slow things
down.
This is the basis of Abhidharmic meditation.
The lists of mental factors and the like in the books of the
Abhidharma
may appear
tedious and speculative at first glance, but
in fact they are just the
written form of the data
we find in this very
careful investigation of experience. Far from
being speculative, the
Abhidharma is the result of careful and close introspective analysis
of
experience. That
said, you may question the use of studying the
Abhidharma at all,
thinking that it is surely
more useful to sit in
meditation and reproduce the Abhidharmic
experience of reality in
one's own meditation. This is true to the extent that, as in all
aspects of Buddhist
teaching, direct as well as indirect
acquaintance is required.
With the Abhidharmic view of the elements, the picture we get
when we
analyze
experience is certainly much more effective if it is
a direct picture
achieved through our
own meditation. But even if it
is an indirect picture gained through
study, it is still of use
to us,
because when we sit down to meditate we will already have some
intellectual
acquaintance with the general outline of the picture we
are trying to
bring into focus. In
this sense studying the Abhidharma
can be useful in bringing about an
indirect
understanding of
ourselves and the world around us in Abhidharmic
terms.
There are two ways Abhidharmic investigation works: (1)
through
analysis, and (2)
through synthesis, or relation. The basic
structure of these two
methods is given in the
first and last books of
the Abhidharma Pitaka, the Dhammasangani
(Classification of
Factors) and the Patthana (Book of Causal Relations),
respectively.
These are the two
most important books of the
Abhidharma. It is through the analytical
method and the
synthetic or
relational method that the Abhidharma arrives at a basic
understanding of
not-self and emptiness.
Let us look first at the
analytical method and then at the relational
method; finally, we
will
combine the two, as, indeed, we must to reap the full benefit of
the
Abhidharmic
method of investigation. In The Questions of King
Milinda (Milinda
Panha), it is said that
the Buddha has
accomplished a very difficult task: 'If a man,' Nagasena
says in
reply to
King Milinda, 'were to take a boat out to the sea, and if he
were to
take a handful of sea
water and were then able to tell you
that in it this much water is from
the Ganges, this
much from the
Yamuna, and this much from the other great rivers of
India, this
would
certainly be a very difficult thing to accomplish. In the same
way, the
Buddha has
analyzed a single conscious moment of
experience--for instance, the
experience of
seeing a form--into its
various component parts: matter, feeling,
perception, volition, andconsciousness.'
Analysis is the dissection of an apparently unitary,
homogeneous whole
into its
component parts. This analysis can be
applied not only to the self, as
we find in the
analysis of personal
experience, but also to external objects: just as
we can break down
the personality into the five aggregates, so we can break down
external
phenomena into
their component parts. For example, we
can break down a table into its
legs, its top, and
so forth, and, even
further, into the molecules and atoms of various
elements that
compose the table.
The purpose of dissecting an apparent whole is to uproot
attachment to
internal and
external phenomena. Once we recognize
that this apparently homogeneous
self is really
just a collection of
components, our attachment to the notion of the
self is weakened;
similarly, once we realize that external phenomena are just
collections
of individual
smaller components, our attachment to
external objects is weakened.
What do we have as
a result of our
analytical process? Internally, we are left with
moments of
consciousness;
externally, we are left with atoms. If we consider
the two together, we
are left with
elements, or factors of
experience.
The mental and material elements of experience do not in themselves
bring us to the
ultimate understanding of reality because we are left with moments of
consciousness and
atoms of matter--elements of experience. These elements remain
irreducible no matter
how long and how far we go in our process of dissection. Although we
come up with
smaller and smaller parts, we are left with a picture of reality that
is broken up into little
bits and pieces as a result of dissection. This in itself is not an
accurate and complete
picture of reality.
To arrive at the ultimate picture of reality, we need to couple the
analytical approach with
the synthetic or relational approach.
That is why a great Buddhist
scholar and saint,
Nagarjuna, once
expressed his reverence for the Buddha as 'the teacher
of
interdependent
origination.' The truth of interdependent origination
pacifies and
calms the agitation of
thought-construction. This is an
indication of the importance of
relation, interdependence,
or
conditionality in understanding the real nature of things. It is
also
why scholars have
focused on the Book of Causal Relations, which
supplies the other half
of the
Abhidharmic method of investigation.
Just as, through analysis, we arrive at the insubstantiality of
personality and phenomena
(because we see that they are made up
of component parts), so, through
the process of
relational
investigation, we arrive at the emptiness of personality and
phenomena
(because we see that the component parts which
constitute them are all
conditioned by
and relative to each other).
We arrive at this insubstantiality and
emptiness by focusing
on the
teaching of interdependent origination.
We can see how, within a
given thing--be it the personality or an
external object--the
component parts depend on one another for their existence. For
instance, within a single
phenomenon, such as an apparently unitary
table, there are several
component parts (the
legs, the top, and so
forth) that depend on each other for their
existence as part of a
table.
Similarly, the table depends on its antecedent causes (the
wood, the
iron, and action of
the craftsman who put it together)
and also on proximate conditions
(like the floor on
which it stands).
We can also explore the idea of interdependence in relation to
three
dimensions: time,
space, and karma. For instance, the table is
dependent in terms of time
in the sense that,
prior to the table
existing, a series of events occurred--the cutting
of lumber, the
construction of the table, and so forth. This sequence of events led
to
the arising of the
table. Similarly, the table is dependent in terms
of space in the sense
that it stands on the
floor, and so forth. The
third dimension of conditionality operates
beyond time and space.
This dimension is explained by karma, because karma has its effects
depending on time
and space, yet it is not directly apparent in time and space. Because
of karma, an action
done at a very distant point in time and space can have its effects
here and now.
Conditionality is therefore not only temporal and spatial, but also has
a karmic
dimension.
Let us take two examples to establish more firmly what we mean by the
analytical
approach and the relational approach. Take a chariot, which is a
phenomenon, an
identifiable entity. We apply the analytical approach to the chariot by
breaking it down
into its component parts: the wheels, axle, body, shaft, and so forth.
Application of the
synthetic method looks at the same chariot in terms of the lumber that
goes to it, the
action of the builders who put it together, and so forth.
Alternatively, we can take the
classical examples of the flame in an oil lamp, which exists dependent
on the oil and the
wick, and the sprout, which depends on a seed, soil, sunlight, and so
forth.
The analytical and the relational methods together yield the ultimate
picture of things as
they really are. They yield this ultimate picture through careful
investigation. We use the
analytical method to break things up into the component parts of an
apparent whole; then
we use the relational method to show that these component parts do not
exist
independently and separately but depend on other factors for their
existence.
There are many places in the Buddha's teaching where methods of
investigation are used
singly and then in combination. For example, we apply mindfulness first
to internal
phenomena, then to external phenomena, and finally both to internal and
external
phenomena. By using analysis and relation together, we overcome many
problems. Not
only do we overcome the idea of self, substance, and personality, we
also overcome the
problems that result if we believe in the independent existence of
separate factors and
ideas like existence and nonexistence, identity and difference.
The analytical and the synthetic approaches are actually reflected in
the chemistry of the
brain. Neurologists have discovered that the brain is divided into two
hemispheres, one
whose function is analytical and one whose function is synthetic. If
these two functions
are not in harmony, not in balance, personality disturbances result.
Someone who is too
analytical tends to overlook the more intuitive, dynamic, fluid aspects
of life, while
someone who is too relational tends to lack precision, clarity, and
focus. Thus even in our
personal lives we need to combine analytical and relational thinking.
The psychological and neurological dimensions of these two approaches
are also clear in
the development of western philosophy and science. Philosophies in
which the analytical
approach is predominant have left us with realistic, pluralistic, and
atomistic systems like
the philosophy of Bertrand Russell. By the same token, in the latest
developments of
science, such as quantum theory, we find a more relational view of
reality gaining
ground. When we look at the history of philosophy and science in the
West, we can see
that each of these two approaches to investigation has been dominant at
one time or
another.
Perhaps we are reaching a point where we can combine the two even in
western science
and philosophy. Perhaps we can arrive at a view of reality not too
different from the one
that the Abhidharma arrives at through the experience of introspective
meditation--a
view of reality that is both analytical (in that it rejects the idea of
a homogeneous whole)
and relational (in that it rejects the idea of independent, separately
existing bits and pieces
of reality). We would then have a very fluid and open view of reality
in which experience
saturated by suffering could be dynamically transformed into experience
free from all
suffering.
---o0o---
Contents
|
01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11
| 12 | 13
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41
---o0o---
Layout: Nhi Tuong
Update : 11-05-2002
