Author Archives: tetsukoizumi

Seven Interbeings

Posted on by
Reply

Tetsunori Koizumi, Director

“Interbeing” is a new word invented by Thich Nhat Hanh, which he employs to explain the interconnectedness of all things in the universe. A sheet of paper, for example, is an interbeing as it is connected with a cloud through a chain of relationships. “Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper,” Thay wrote in The Heart of Understanding: Commentaries on the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra. Things that appear, to most people, totally unconnected—a sheet of paper and a cloud in this example—become connected with each other in a relationship which Thay calls “inter-are”.

Technically speaking, “interbeing” can be regarded as what mathematicians call a “binary relation”, a relationship established on a set of elements by pair-wise comparison of them, defined in this case on the set of all things in the universe, including our consciousness. It is not difficult to see that the binary relation of interbeing satisfies the three laws of reflexivity, commutativity, and transitivity. First of all, it is obvious that anything “inter-is” with itself, albeit in a trivial sense of that word. Thus, the binary relation of “interbeing” satisfies the law of reflexivity, namely, xRx, where the symbol R designates the binary relation of “interbeing”.

The binary relation of “interbeing” also satisfies the law of commutativity, namely, xRy implies yRx, for if one thing “inter-is” with some other thing, then the second thing “inter-is” with the first. By bringing three things into consideration now and examining the applicability of “interbeing” among the three pairs of two things that result from them, we can see that the binary relation of “interbeing” further satisfies the law of transitivity; namely, xRy and yRz imply xRz. In the above example, a cloud “inter-is” with rain and rain “inter-is” with trees, implying that a cloud “inter-is” with trees.

Given that the binary relation of “interbeing” satisfies the three laws of reflexivity, commutativity, and transitivity, it becomes a matter of logical exercise, aided by a modicum of poetic insight, to establish the interconnectedness of all things in the universe. Thus, roses and garbage “inter-are”, another favorite example used by Thay to illustrate the concept of interbeing. We can also appeal to P. B. Shelley (1792-1822) who employs poetic insight to express the same binary relation of “interbeing” in a poem entitled “Music”:

Rose leaves, when the rose is dead,
Are heaped for the beloved’s bed.

And that beloved’s bed, as we know, is the soil from which a new rose tree grows with a new set of rose leaves and flowers!

The genius of Thay as a teacher of Buddhist thought becomes quite evident when he skillfully employs the concept of interbeing to explain the idea of sunyata, or emptiness, which is probably the most profound teaching of the Buddha on the nature of reality in the world around us. In terms of the binary relation of “interbeing” introduced above, the Buddha’s words as recorded in Samyukta Agama—“the Middle Way says that this is, because that is; this is not, because that is not”—can be expressed as follows: that x exists in M, or the manifest world, implies that there exists y, different from x, such that xRy; x does not exist in M if there does not exist y, different from x, such that xRy.

By applying this binary relation of “interbeing” repeatedly to all the other elements that connect a sheet of paper to a cloud, we derive another of Thay’s favorite expressions: “A sheet of paper is made of non-paper elements.” This can be expressed as: xR(~x), where x stands for a sheet of paper, and (~x) for non-paper elements. A natural conclusion that follows from this logical exercise is that a sheet of paper—indeed any thing for that matter—does not exist as a separate and independent entity, and is therefore inherently empty.

The term “interbeing”, although it appears to designate something that lies in between being and non-being, is actually a word Thay invented to expound the Buddhist idea of the Middle Way. We must go beyond the concepts of both being and non-being if we are to understand the idea of emptiness. As he puts it in Beyond the Self: Teachings on the Middle Way: “The Middle Way goes beyond ideas of being and nonbeing, birth and death, one and many, coming and going, same and different.”

By going beyond our dualistic way of seeing things (either “something exists” or “something does not exist”), we are able to develop the right view to see things, not in the lokadhatu, or the manifest world where things appear to be born and to die and to exist independently of one another, but in the dharmadhatu, or the ultimate realm of things as they are. As we learn to see things as they are, it will become clear to us that there is neither being nor nonbeing, neither birth nor death.

Let us now go back in time—as time is conceived in classical physics—to 1798 when Wordsworth (1770-1850) wrote a delightful poem titled “We Are Seven”. In this poem, Wordsworth writes about his encounter with an eight-year-old cottage girl:

A simple child,
That lightly draws its breath,
And feels its life in every limb,
What should it know of death? 

Asked by the poet how many sisters and brothers she has, this little girl answers: “Seven boys and girls are we;/ Two of us in the church-yard lie,/ Beneath the church-yard tree.” The answer confounds the poet because two of the seven brothers and sisters are already dead and buried in the churchyard. To the poet who reminds her that only five boys and girls are left if two are buried in the churchyard, the little girl answers emphatically, “O Master! We are seven.” As far as this little cottage girl is concerned, two of the seven brothers and sisters who are buried beneath the churchyard tree are not dead, as she daily plays with them in the churchyard.

Can we reject this little cottage girl’s answer as a reflection of her ignorance and concur with Wordsworth that she knew nothing of death? What is more intriguing for us is to speculate how Wordsworth would have responded had she answered, “O Master! We are seven—seven interbeings.” The poet, to be sure, would have been even more confounded by this answer. On the other hand, we can easily imagine how Thay would nod approvingly with a smile on his face. It was this cottage girl with her innocence of a simple child, not the poet with his knowledge of a mature adult, who was able to see things as they are.

* Written in appreciation of Thay’s inspiring and insightful dharma talks he gave during the 21-day retreat, ‘The Science of the Buddha’, held at Plum Village, June 1 - June 21, 2012.

Three Conceptions of Self

Posted on by
Reply

Tetsunori Koizumi, Director

The question of “who I am”, or “self”, has been one of the central concerns in the history of thought. A wide array of answers provided by various thinkers can be grouped into three conceptions representing the three traditions of thought on this question: (1) self as an autonomous being, (2) self as a relational being, and (3) self as an illusionary being.

(1) Self as an autonomous being: The idea that “self” is an autonomous being, not only with a separate body and mind from others but also with a distinct and unique personality, can be found in the traditions of Judaism, Protestantism, Greek philosophy, and humanism. Judaism, starting out as it did with a communal religion of a specific people, is known for the idea of a chosen people. However, it was Ezekiel who emphasized that each individual, rather than the people as a collective, would be judged for his or her acts and rewarded, or punished, accordingly.1 The individual conception of the chosen in the Judeo-Christian tradition was revived by Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther (1483-1546) and Jean Calvin (1509-1564), who asserted that questions of faith and salvation are matters to be decided by each individual in his or her personal relationship to God.

To the Greek philosophers, man was a special animal endowed with the power of reason. Aristotle, for example, viewed man as possessing three souls—the nutritive soul which he shares with plants, the sensitive soul which he shares with animals, and the rational soul which is peculiar and unique to man and man only. The Greek conception of “self as an autonomous being”, revived by Renaissance humanists, would find its clearest formulation as an organizing principle of political life by such revolutionary humanists as John Locke (1632-1704) and Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) in their conception of a liberal democratic society.

(2) Self as a relational being: Unlike Protestants, Catholics give importance to the idea that the Church of Rome has the sole authority in interpreting matters of faith and salvation, and thus plays the function of the sole agent in performing such sacraments as baptism, communion, and holy matrimony. To the extent that the Church serves this function, the conception of “self” appropriate for Catholics is defined in the context of interaction among themselves as they participate in sacramental and other communal activities.

Hinduism considers man as going through the four stages of life: brahmacharya (student), grihastha (householder), vanaprastha (forest dweller), and sannyasa (hermit). The first two stages conceive “self” in its communal aspect. However, these stages are, in a way, preparations for the final goal of accomplishing moksa, or “liberation”, which is to be attained by every individual Hindi.

Establishing social order was the primary concern of Confucius, who saw two possible paths towards social order: the path that relies on jen, or the “ethics of aspiration”, i.e., man’s willingness to become the “superior person” or the “gentleman”, and the path that relies on li, or the “ethics of restraint”, i.e., various forms of social constraints. While the “superior person” served as an ideal, Confucius was well aware that most people would belong to the category of the “inferior person” or the “small man”, who, in contrast to the “superior person”, is concerned with small things in life and, therefore, needs to be supervised with the ethics of restraint. The purpose of li is to guide people into the right frame of mind, with a detailed set of instructions as to how they ought to conduct themselves towards one another, as represented by the five relations—the ruler-subjects relation, the husband-wife relation, the parent-child relation, the older sibling-younger sibling relation, and the older friend-younger friend relation. In his conception of the five relations, Confucius’ thought represents the conception of “self as a relational being” in its strictest form.3

(3) Self as an illusionary being: Those who advocate the conception of “self as an illusionary being” may be said to be a minority in the history of thought, as this concept is asserted by only a handful of thinkers, such as Lao Tsu and the Buddha. Moreover, the realization that “self” is an illusion comes only as a result of enlightenment. As Lao Tsu put it, “To understand others is to be wise, but to understand one’s self is to be illuminated. One who overcomes others is strong, but he who overcomes himself is mighty.”4

The Buddha is known to have gone furthest in the conception of “self as an illusionary being”. For the Buddha, a human being, like everything else, is a composite entity, or an aggregate, composed of many interacting elements. That man is an aggregate of interacting elements implies that there is no such thing as a constant and unchanging “self”. “Self” is, thus, an illusion: “For this atman, this self, this ego in the ‘I say’ and in the ‘I will’ is an illusion.”5 Represented by the concept of anatta, the Buddha’s conception of “self” is actually “no-self”, which naturally follows from his idea of paticca-samuppada, or “dependent origination”, as the fundamental principle that regulates all the manifest phenomena in the world around us.

Self in the world of global interdependence: What is the appropriate conception of “self” in the world of global interdependence that is evolving around us? With the pervading sense of confusion among individuals who appear to be lost in the vast space of global transactions of goods, services, and information, it is obvious that the world of global interdependence needs a new conception of “self” if individuals are to regain the sense of stability and security that their ancestors used to enjoy in their communal life in neighborhoods, villages, and small towns.

The conception of “self as an autonomous being” is no longer appropriate, especially when it is applied to the economic arena where “economic man/woman”, with his/her rational calculation in pursuit of his/her self-interest, has converted the world economy into a global casino, with growing inequalities among individuals and nations, and has caused the destruction of the Earth, upon which our existence depends. The conception of “self as a relational being”, while appealing if we are to establish any semblance of order in the world as a social system, fails as an organizing principle of social life in the world of global interdependence characterized by an expanding network of diverse, convoluted interactions and transactions among individuals and social groups. The conception of “self as an illusionary being”, while no doubt true in the world of ultimate reality, also fails as an organizing principle of social life in the world of conventional reality unless it helps us to succeed in transcending the desire to have a secure sense of “who I am” in that expanding network of diverse, convoluted interactions and transactions among individuals and social groups.

If no single conception of “self” is appropriate, what is needed may perhaps be the conception of “self as a composite being” that combines the three conceptions of “self”, each of which has prevailed in a specific society in a specific age. The conception of “self as an autonomous being” has its place in the world of global interdependence, for it is important to have a sense of autonomy in the face of all kinds of diverse and conflicting pieces of information that bombard us every second, every minute, every hour, and every day through the media and the internet. On the other hand, the same information and communications technologies that confound us make it possible to develop the conception of “self as a relational being”, by making us aware of the interconnectedness of all individuals and societies in the world and the need for responsible behavior in that interconnected world. And we would have to transcend both “self as an autonomous being” and “self as a relational being” when we realize that we—and indeed all entities in the universe—are, after all, composite entities that are constantly formed and dissolved. The conception of “self as an illusionary being” will help us develop the sense of humility and modesty in our relationships not only to our fellow human beings but also to all the other sentient and non-sentient beings in the universe.

  1. For the origin and development of Judaism, see, for example, Rosenberg, Roy A., The Concise Guide to Judaism, New York: Meridian, 1994.
  2. For a concise discussion of Hinduism, see, for example, Sen, K.M., Hinduism, London: Penguin Books, 1991.
  3. See Confucius, The Analects, London: Penguin Books, 1979.
  4. Lao Tsu, Tao-Te Ching, New York: Modern Library, 1993, Chapter 33.
  5. Carus, Paul, The Gospel of Buddha, Oxford: Oneworld, 1994, p. 33.