And, not Or

Here’s something to ponder: What would a series of notes without rests between them sound like? What would written words look like if there werenospacesbetweenthem? Would there be any use for the concept of “bright” without there being “dark?” What’s the inhale without the exhale? Each of them relies on its counterpart, not in opposition to its counterpart. They aren’t opposites, they’re inextricably part of each other. Notes without rests is noise, music requires both. The two seemingly separate elements are in reality the dialectic of “and,” not “or.”

The teachings of Nagarjuna of Middle Path challenge the notion of an independent cause and effect:

 “Neither from itself nor from another,
   Nor from both,
   Nor without a cause,
   Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.”

The Middle Path between light & dark isn’t grey. It’s the inclusion of both—neither of which has an independent self-nature. They’re totally intertwined with each other. Since all they’re empty of an independent nature, any cause & effect do not involve independent phenomena either. They are interdependent, and require their counterpart to be anything. Nagarjuna says that everything arises dependently, without attaining self-nature, or resulting from an independent self-natured object. Empty phenomena don’t come out of nowhere, and don’t exist as separate entities. And all phenomena are characterized by emptiness.

In 21^st Century America, and world-wide, there seems to be a lot of not realizing that “this” is going to lead to “that,” and both “this” and “that” are interdependent. But here is no pre-destined “that” which is a result of “this.” It might be as simple as thinking that we are all independent, solely responsible for our own fate, capable of going it alone as an intrepid pioneer as in days of yore, and then wondering why things don’t work out as we’d planned.

The Bodhisattva doesn’t “crush the competition;” (s)he would see that as leading to a self-perpetuating wheel of competition and crushing, resulting in suffering. A Bodhisattva wouldn’t be greedy when running a business, hoarding all the profits; some being penniless while others are wealthy isn’t the Middle Path. And what does this scenario breed? Greed, clinging, resentment, the overconfidence of “self” and the desperation of “self.” The wealthy Deva better beware of the Hungry Ghost; sometimes their desperation leads to revolution, and revolutions aren’t put down by creating more revolutionaries. And yet even these phenomena are interdependent—would we notice poverty except in reference to wealth? Bondage without freedom?

Due to the Buddha’s teaching of the 12 Nidanas (links of dependent origination), we start out as born into a state of ignorance and trying to grope our way through life, creating karma, and the resultant subsequent rebirth into that cycle of ignorance/try and figure things out/not quite nail it/whoops, here we go again. The optimist might say, “Great, another chance!” The pessimist might say, “Oh hell, not this again…” Maybe with practice we tend toward the middle. The bodhisattva says, “Another opportunity to save all beings!”

Part of being “in the middle” is taking steps to not trip on the Twelve Steps of dependent origination, to realize that when “this” comes to exist, “that” results. When “this” doesn’t come to be, neither does “that.” We all think we know about cause and effect, and yet sometimes we act really surprised when “this” causes “that.” It’s just that the “this” that leads to that ”that” may not be obvious or even connected at all.

The bodhisattva accepts the dialectic of this/that, light/dark, but doesn’t have to settle for it. We can help to eliminate the reference points that create unwholesome, unhelpful phenomena, and do what we can to save all sentient beings. The bodhisattva’s “this” may not immediately result in “that,” but we try to eliminate the suffering that can be caused by the reference points that bring suffering.