Chapter 6 On Buddhist Metaphysics

Jean-François - I don't think it's time to circle around the subject anymore.Should arrive at the central point of Buddhism and mainly answer the famous question: Is Buddhism a philosophy?Or a religion?Or is it a kind of metaphysics?In Buddhism, what is at the heart of both the description of the world, and the human condition that explains all these mental behaviors and mental skills that we mentioned in the previous talk? Mathieu - I cannot fail to quote André Migo here, who, I think, perfectly answers this question in his book "Buddha". "There is a lot of debate about whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy, and the question is never settled. The question, posed in such terms, makes sense only to a Westerner. Only in the West is philosophy like Mathematics, like botany, is a simple branch of knowledge, and a philosopher is a 'sir', usually a professor, who studies some doctrine in his courses, but who, when he returns to his own home, is exactly like his He lives like a notary or a dentist, and the doctrines he imparts have no influence on his behavior in life. Only in the West, religion is a small room in the mind of most believers, and people live on certain days, at certain hours or at certain times. This little room is opened on strictly definite occasions, but one closes it carefully without waiting for action. If there are some professors of philosophy in the East, a philosopher in the East is a spiritual master who lives according to his teachings. , surrounded by a group of students who wanted to emulate his life. His teachings were never mere intellectual curiosity; It is a way, a way of salvation, the way that led the Buddha to Eveil; it is a method, a means of liberation through intense psychological and spiritual labor."

So I think that if we want to define Buddhism in the simplest way, we should first think of it as a way.The purpose of this path is to achieve what is called "perfection", ultimate realization, awakening, or in technical terms "Buddha's state". Jean-François—that is, what one achieves through successive existences? Mathieu – yes, but it is clearly realized in a specific existence, like Shakyamuni Buddha, whose awakening is sometimes called "enlightenment", which represents the development of knowledge, love The pinnacle of many lives contributed with compassion and compassion.

Jean-François—but when a man has at last attained this discovery of perfect knowledge, is he dead? Mathieu - why do you say that?who diedOn the contrary, by attaining awakening and fulfilling his own goodness, the Buddha began to display a vast activity to help others, to educate others, to show others the way.His teachings are a direct expression of his own spiritual realization, like some kind of guide to lead others on the path he himself has walked. Jean-François—then his own ego has not been annihilated? Mathieu - The only thing that is eliminated, and completely eliminated, is ignorance.Yet attachment to self-existence is one of the chief manifestations of ignorance.So, this wrong thought of an "I" also disappears.Buddhahood (bouddheite) is the awakening to the ultimate nature of things.This is not a manufacturing process, but an actualization process.The basic idea is actually that every existence has the nature of Buddha itself.This capacity for ultimate knowledge, this potential for inner transformation, is present in every being, like a nugget of natural gold, even if it is encased in gangue or buried in the ground, its purity It is also immutable.In beings in general, this perfection, this buddhahood, is veiled by layers of negative psychological factors of which we have spoken, arising from attachment to the "I" and the intrinsic reality of phenomena.Therefore, the "way" is to remove all things that obscure this true nature, so that you can see the true face of this nature.So if we don't have this potential, trying to achieve Buddhahood is like trying to turn a piece of coal white.The Buddha's path is thus a rediscovery.

Jean-François - This brings to mind especially the reminiscence of Plato's teachings.For Socrates, learning is recalling what has been forgotten. Mathieu—From another point of view, this is also a process of purification, not from a kind of original sin (Peche original) or basic impurity, but from some external veil that obscures our deep nature.When we look at an airplane piercing through the clouds, the sky is gray and foggy to us, as if the sun is no longer there.And yet—and this is always a spectacular sight—just being yourself in an airplane emerging from the clouds is enough to find once again the sun shining in all its splendor in an unalterable sky.The path to becoming a Buddha is similar to this.

Jean-François-Socrates' teachings on this point are presented in various talks, notably in the Menon.In fact, according to Socrates, we can literally learn nothing.When we are learning, we are actually remembering.Every individual possesses within himself a knowledge which was present in his mind before his birth.An innate knowledge.And what happens in the process of being is that misperceptions, opinions, artificial mental states cover up what you call the nugget of the center.To prove that learning is actually memory, Socrates called a young slave named Meno and asked the master of the house: "Are you really sure that this slave was born in your family and never received any education?" He then caused the slave to rediscover a demonstration of a theorem of geometry by scratching the sand with a stick, asking the slave only questions, without giving any hints at all.Hence the Socratic method of education through questioning, which teaches nothing and leaves the student to rediscover what he already knew but was not aware of.It is, therefore, to think that every man possesses knowledge in himself, but needs only to be placed in conditions which will make this wealth manifest.In Buddhism, however, there is, after all, a complementary assumption.I am curious about Buddhism.There's something I don't understand but I want to understand: Does Buddhism teach that beings go from one incarnation to another and that the ultimate goal of happiness is to finally not be reincarnated, finally to be free from this chain of reincarnations Come out and melt into the impersonal things of the universe?

Mathieu - not melting into a extinction, but discovering in himself a final realization.The purpose is not to "leave" the world, but to be unfettered by it.The world itself is not bad, but the way we perceive it is wrong.A Buddhist teacher said: "It is not all kinds of appearances that enslave you, but your attachment to various appearances enslaves you." Sustained by ignorance, as we are endlessly propelled by the force of our actions—what we call “karma”—to wander in this cycle of samsara, a world of misery and confusion.This "karma" is different from the "destiny" we usually understand.It is not a divine will like in Hinduism, nor is it by chance, it is the fruit of our actions.Man reaps only what he sows.Nothing constrains a being to reincarnate in one way or another, except the ultimate constituents of his behaviour, which we understand as thoughts, words and physical actions, positive or negative.This is also the equivalent of good and evil, but it must be remembered that good and evil here are not absolute concepts: our thoughts and words are regarded as good or bad according to their motives—good or bad. Harmful, and their consequences - pain or happiness for self and others.

Jean-François – we're back to ethics. Mathieu - We can call this morality or ethics, but it is really the function of happiness or pain.We experience the results of our past actions every moment and shape our future with our present thoughts, words and actions.At the moment of death, the summary of our behavior determines the pattern of our next survival.The seeds we plant germinate and grow into flowers or hemlock.We also use the example of a bird that has fallen to the ground: its shadow, that is to say its karma, which had been invisible until now, is now suddenly and clearly shown.To take a more modern image as an analogy, at the moment of death one unrolls a roll of film that one has been photographing throughout our lifetime, and that film also holds everything photographed in all previous existences.

Jean-François - all previous existences? Mathieu – In the process of ending this present existence, one can change this karma by adding or removing some positive or negative behavior, or purifying or intensifying it.After death comes a temporary state known as the bardo, in which the state of the next existence is formed and defined.In this bardo, consciousness is carried away like a feather in the wind according to the combined force of our actions, positive or negative, and the result will be a happy or unhappy existence, or a mixture of both.In fact, this enables us to adopt a very healthy attitude in relation to everything we encounter: only we are to blame for our present, we are the result of our past, while at the same time the future is in our hands.

① In Tibetan Buddhism, the state of the soul during the period after physical death until immediately before reincarnation is called bardo. Jean-François - So there is indeed a notion of a plurality of many existences and many reincarnations? Mathieu - Once done, actions bring about their results and push us to other states of existence.So, if people don't use the method of self-liberation, this circle of existence is actually endless.As we continually perform a jumble of negative and positive behaviors, we swing from one state of existence to another, now happy and now unhappy, like the wheels of a bucket wheel going up and down incessantly Same.In the conditioned world as total phenomena, it is said, there is neither beginning nor end, but each being as an individual has a flow through which his consciousness is purified.Possibility to break the ring by attaining awakening.He is thus freed from the ring of rebirth.That is to say he ended suffering for various reasons.To achieve this result, it is necessary to cut off the root of the problem, which is the attachment to the "I" and the ignorance that is the cause of this attachment.

Jean-François—do you agree, then, with the writer Alfred Fouche, whom we have already mentioned, when he compares the Christian and Buddhist ideas of the immortality and immortality of the soul: "In the Christian In the heart, the hope of salvation and immortality is the hope of continuing to live after death. In the hearts of Buddhists, it is the hope of death." Mathieu—it should be said that it is the hope of not being born again. Jean-François - he said "death". Mathieu - that word is incorrect.Such old ideas are always accepted about Buddhism regarded as a kind of nihilism!Buddhism is called the "middle way" because it tends neither to nihilism nor to eternity.What perishes is ignorance, attachment to the "I," but the infinite quality of awakening is still in full force.It is true that man is no longer reborn under the influence of negative karma, but by the force of compassion he continues to manifest himself in the conditioned world for the well-being of all beings, but without being bound by it.Nirvana translated into Tibetan means "beyond suffering".If there is one thing that goes out, it is pain and the chaos that produces it.

Jean-François - so karma...samsara...nirvana...are not Tibetan words? Mathieu—these are some Sanskrit words, and people in the West use these same Tibetan words rather than their corresponding Tibetan words, because Westerners are more accustomed to Sanskrit pronunciation than Tibetan pronunciation. Jean-François – Yes, it is an Indo-European language. Mathieu—and Tibetan belongs to the Tibeto-Burman language family.So, in the translations that one sees until the middle of the twentieth century, Western translators often talk about Nirvana as if they were talking about an extinction finale.Dahlmann speaks of an "abime datheisme et de nihilisme" (abime datheisme et de nihilisme), Burneuf speaks of an "annihilation" (aneantissement), Hegel and Schopenhauer speak of a "neant" .According to Mahayana Buddhism - Tibetan Buddhism is part of Mahayana Buddhism - one who attains the state of Buddha lives neither in samsara nor in Nirvana, both of which are called "extreme."He does not live in samsara because he has been delivered from ignorance, from the karma that guides him to endless rebirth.Nor does he remain in the peace of Nirvana because of the infinite compassion he feels for those who continue to suffer. Jean-François - so what does he do? Mathieu - who fulfilled his vow at the dawn of awakening to continue to manifest himself consciously - not under the constraints of karma, but through the power of his compassion - until no longer in samsara. No more pain.To put it another way, as long as there is a man who is the captive of ignorance, he will always reveal himself.So, he is free from samsara, but he does not remain in Nirvana.That is why people speak of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, who manifest themselves in various forms in order to accomplish the happiness of beings and lead them on the path of enlightenment.People also count those fully realized masters as Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Jean-François - When, how and why did Theravada Buddhism diverge from Mahayana Buddhism according to history? Mathieu - The proponents of Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism obviously have no exact agreement on this point.The Hinayana teachings are all included in the Mahayana, and the Mahayana adds a supplementary attribute to it.This latter point has stirred up much debate within Buddhism.According to adherents of the Mahayana, the Buddha taught both vehicles during his lifetime.However, since the Buddha taught according to each person's natural ability, if he taught both vehicles, he would only teach the Mahayana to those who had the open mind necessary to understand it.This is not to say that there is one type of esoteric teaching—there is certainly esoteric teaching in Buddhism—but there are different levels of education, although in the time of the Buddha, these levels were nominally not clearly distinguished.Mahayana insists on the fact that merely liberating oneself from suffering is too limited a purpose.At the same time as committing himself to the path of enlightenment, one should have the will to attain the Buddhahood for the happiness of all.People transform themselves in order to be able to help others to free themselves from suffering.Each of us represents only one individual, and there are countless others, so that what happens to us, whether good or bad, happiness or pain, is nothing compared to the happiness or pain of all others. Insignificant.The profundity of Mahayana lies in its insights about emptiness, about absolute truth.This emptiness has nothing to do with nothingness, but to understand that phenomena do not have inherent existence.Hinayana disciples certainly refute this view of things and the reliability of Mahayana education.Mention should also be made of a third vehicle, which, like the other two, was born in India but which spread especially widely in Tibet. This is the Vajravana, or Vehicule Adamantin, which adds many paths of contemplation to the Mahayana esoteric skills. Jean-François - When Buddhists talk about suffering, I think they simply mean suffering caused by negative thoughts like jealousy, hatred, despair caused by desire for power and some other ecstasy, Power desire and ecstasy inevitably lead to despair, failure, resentment, and resignation to some negative state of mind.All in all, the problem is simply the pain caused by our own shortcomings, mistakes, weaknesses and excessive pride.But there are many other causes of suffering!This is physical misery, this is starvation, this is being killed and tortured by tyrants, killed by hostile populace... We are the victims of these sufferings, not the responsible ones. Mathieu – Once the situation gets out of hand, and even then, lasting peace can only come with a change of attitude, one has to resort to some practical treatments.But above all it should not be forgotten that the origin of suffering and war is still hatred, the origin of conquest is still greed, and both hatred and greed arise from the intensification of individualism and the strengthening of attachment to "I".Until now we have emphasized these causes—malice, lust, pride, and so on.However, most of the other misfortunes that make us suffer are generated from these negative psychological factors and are their continuation. With regard to those sufferings for which we are not ostensibly responsible, those caused by other people's inflicted pain, by natural disasters, by disease, we have already mentioned the way of understanding them: these misfortunes are not attributable to not to a divine will, not to an inevitable fate, not to chance, but to the consequences of our own actions.This is where some of the arrows we shoot come back to ourselves.Thus, according to Buddhism, short life, sickness, and persecution are all due to people killing other beings in a previous life.So we have no reason to resist what we encounter, but we should not adopt an attitude of submission, because we now have the possibility to correct the situation.So, the key is to recognize what to do and what to avoid in order to build our happiness and avoid pain.As it has been said, "It is vain to try to escape the burn as long as you keep your hand in the fire." Jean-François—Yes, but there are also natural pains, such as old age, death. Mathieu - In his original sermons, the Buddha proclaimed what is known as the "Four Noble Truths": the truth about suffering in the conditioned world, the origin of suffering (i.e. ignorance and the various negative emotions that constitute karma) the truth of the possibility of an end to suffering, and the truth of the way to that end.This pain certainly includes birth pain, old age pain, disease pain and death pain.And the pain of meeting an enemy, the pain of losing a loved one... ① That is the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, or the Four Noble Truths: Suffering Truth, Collection Truth, Extinction Truth, and Taoist Truth. Jean-François—that is, suffering linked to the fate of beings, human, animal, or whatever? Mathieu - The concept of pain includes all past pains of past lives and future pains of future lives for all kinds of beings. Jean-François - But these basic pains, such as birth, throughout a life intertwined with every negative action and useless emotion imaginable, disease, death, can be borne under more or less tragic conditions .One can accuse the scientific, technological and materialistic West of losing its sense of certain values, but when I look at the spectacle of everyday life in the streets of Mahatmad Temandu, despite the many failures of the Western economy, Huge unemployment rate etc, an unemployed man in France is still a millionaire compared to a worker in Nepal!Five hundred francs a month is considered a good wage in Nepal, and two hundred francs is the usual wage.The human condition of life in Western society, with all its inadequacies, ultimately eliminates - even among what we call the "excluded" - certain forms of suffering, depravity, rooting cruel physical misfortunes, which continue to exist and grow in the East.I still feel that the concept of "practical" healing is somewhat neglected in Buddhism.In fact, in a philosophical sense, the fate of mankind is the fate of mankind.It is well known that an American millionaire can be psychologically less fortunate than a Nepalese porter.One can be already a Rothschild and commit suicide in despair, as one saw in 1996.But everyday pain and happiness, for most people, still depend on many, many other factors than metaphysical ones. ①It is a Jewish financial family originating from Germany. The members of this family are distributed in Britain, France, Germany and other countries, and they have dominated European finance for two hundred years.On July 8, 1996, 41-year-old Amschel Rothschild, one of the important leadership members of Bank NMR Rothschild & Sons in the UK (Amschel Rothschild) was found dead in a hotel room in Paris.On July 11, the French police determined that Amschel Rothschild committed suicide.Previously, some analysts believed that Amschel Rothschild was very likely to succeed Sir Evelyn de Rothschild as the chairman of the bank.The suicide of Amschel Rothschild caused quite a stir in Western Europe. Mathieu - Care should be taken in making hasty judgments about the well-known and regrettably filthy streets of Kathmandu.Like many Eastern cities, Kathmandu is suffering from an anarchic proliferation, partly due to the growing impoverishment of the countryside associated with a booming population, and partly due to the - of course Often deceived - hope for a better life in the city.Poverty in India or Nepal certainly shocks our sensibilities, but at the same time as making such an all in all rather mediocre demonstration, one is often quite possibly ignorant of the progress that has been made in the last fifty years.India, in particular, has instituted for itself a democracy in which many lower-caste Indians can not only be educated, but rise to occupations hitherto reserved for persons of higher caste origin.There are still many poor people in India, but a quarter of the population now has a comfortable life.It should not be forgotten that the social gains you refer to our fellow Westerners are a recent phenomenon, beginning between the two world wars.For countries as poor as Nepal and India, it is inconceivable that such costly social benefits will be extended to the entire population, which is growing at an alarming pace, in the near future.These countries simply do not have the financial resources to do so.Paris and London were rubbish dumps in the days of Louis XIV, but spirituality is not to blame either.I don't think Buddhism ignores practical cures, but because of geographical, climatic and demographic conditions, in the East, there is a greater struggle against poverty. As for the pain of war, the pain of the tormented, the oppressed, this is the pain that people unfortunately experience almost every day.They are the result, the unfortunate fruit of ignorance.In the face of them, every Buddhist, every Christian, every human being who respects himself—religious or not—has an obligation to help others to the best of his ability.For a believer, this belongs to the application of spiritual life in daily life, while for a non-religious person, it is the natural expression of the noble qualities of the mind.A being imprinted with kindness in his heart will give food to the hungry, shelter to the cold, medicine to the afflicted, and so on, as much as possible.To do otherwise is to lack all human responsibility. Jean-François - So we come back to the question of morality: what you have just described is a highly admirable behavior which, I think, is characteristic of the behavior of saints and do-gooders in the West in the Middle Ages. The characteristics are somewhat similar.Those people, supported by the affection of Christian love, although surrounded by a sea of ​​poverty and misery, and their own living standards are very low, do everything possible to alleviate the poor, beggars, and sick.The pain of the lepers, do what you can to alleviate their misery.The other idea, that of the West, is that the system itself should be reformed, creating a new form of society in which this misfortune is annihilated and no longer simply subordinated to a certain individual for this Or that individual benevolence.In Buddhism, for a human being, the main cause of suffering seems to be the loss of control of his own mind.But there are still objective pains which come for no reason at all. Mathieu - of course, and we just talked about other forms of pain.But how does a war begin if it is not from hostile and hateful thoughts? Jean-François – yes, I totally agree. Mathieu - and why do people say that Tibetans are generally a peaceful people? Jean-François - of course. Mathieu - precisely because, fundamentally, besides war; there are other means of settling disputes, and these other means have a visible influence in a society or a country. Jean-François - Exactly right about that. Mathieu—this is the practical consequence of a particular way of looking at things, of a particular conception of existence. Jean-François – yes, however, the poverty that governs South Asia is not due to war alone, it is due to a certain lack of development; due to the fact that people do not have control over the economic structure, And people may also ignore the technical applications of science.The science of the object is despised by the science of the mind.Much suffering disappears in Western society because people apply objective science to objective reality.Let's take diseases as an example.It is indisputable that in the West the increasing length of human life is due to diseases being better and better treated.The fact that the sick, no matter how poor, are protected by a whole package of social security, which is costly, proves that solidarity and humanity are also Western virtues.These social guarantees do not depend on the decisions or benevolence of an individual; they form a system that automatically kicks in when someone gets sick.Technology, the fruit of science, also helps to alleviate physical and mental suffering.The misfortune of illness also brings some intense mental anguish.So here one speaks of disease in terms of its palpable, that is, external reality. Mathieu - I believe that no Buddhist can doubt the benefits of medical advances, humanitarian aid agencies, social aid, material and scientific advances, when they help to alleviate suffering.To give you an example of the attitude of the Buddhist community, I mention Sri Lanka, a majority Buddhist country with the highest literacy rate in South Asia and an impressive medical facility.Sri Lanka is also the only South Asian country that has been able to control population expansion through birth control.These advances were made by a secular government, but the majority of its members were Buddhists.In Thailand, some Buddhist monks have played a very active role in the fight against drug disasters and AIDS. In some of their monasteries, they have taken in some drug addicts and HIV-infected people who were abandoned by their families.Bhutan, a fully Buddhist nation, spends 30 percent of its budget on education, perhaps the highest percentage of any country.It is also one of the few countries in the world that implements very strict environmental protection programs before the environment is destroyed.Hunting and fishing are completely prohibited here, as is deforestation. So one should not fall into any extreme.It is absurd to deny or belittle material progress when it helps to cure suffering like this.But the opposite extreme is also very unhealthy.Neglecting internal development for a purely external development has, in the long run, some more pernicious consequences, for this breeds intolerance and belligerence, hence war; Then there is dissatisfaction, which gives birth to the pursuit of power, so there is egoism.The ideal is to use material progress wisely and not allow it to invade our spirit and our actions, while prioritizing the internal development that makes us better human beings. The most important reason for poverty in India is not that people value spiritual values!Poverty is so widespread here because there are 950 million inhabitants, and to this overpopulation is added a particularly harsh climate!In Europe, people don't suffer from droughts every year, followed by catastrophic floods! Jean-François - that's exactly right.However, let's come back to the Buddhist doctrine and metaphysics.People tell me that the Pope wants to attend a new ecumenical conference, but this time he will only attend with representatives of monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.Buddhism will not be represented.Is this because there is no main god in Buddhism at all? Mathieu - The revelation of Jesus Christ is a revelation of love, and one meaning of the word "Islam" is "peace".Violence and blackmail in the name of religion, and the use of religion to exacerbate divisions among nations, can only be deviations.People can convince others with the power of truth, but they should not force the truth on others.In other words, no real truth affirms itself with violence. Jean-François – Deviations are constant, this is the last thing people can say... Turning to the question of doctrine, Buddhism cannot be considered a monotheistic religion. Mathieu - No, because, as I have already mentioned, it does not think about the concept of a creator god who created the world and the beings.But if by God we understand Absolute Truth, the ultimate reality of Etre, infinite love, then it is only a matter of words. Jean-François – In the history of religion, there is a very big difference between polytheism and monotheism. Mathieu - Buddhism is not polytheism.One finds many representations of divinities in the Tibetan tradition, but these divinities have nothing to do with the "gods" (dieux) who are regarded as inherently independent entities.What is involved here are paradigms of awareness, compassion, altruism, etc., objects of contemplation that help us realize these within ourselves through techniques of visualization - and I will come back to these techniques. quality. Jean-François—then this is not a polytheism either.In the history of religion as it is known, monotheism is considered a great advance over polytheism, which seems to manifest various forms of superstition.And I feel that the great monotheistic religions, both present and past, contain a large number of taboos, rituals and edicts which I consider absurd, and practices which I regard as downright superstitious!So, I don't see any advantage of monotheism over polytheism.Quite the opposite!I would rather say polytheism is more tolerant than monotheism. Mathieu - it always has been.Polytheism still exists in India and Nepal. Jean-François - Intolerance was born chiefly with monotheism.As soon as someone dares to say, "There is only one true God, and that is my God, and therefore I have the right to destroy anyone who does not believe in him," we enter a cycle of intolerance and religious wars. Mathieu - that's a sad thing to say. Jean-François – but this is a historical fact, an evil that continues to thrive in our age where people only talk about tolerance and pluralism.When it comes to theological and cosmological aspects, all these religions share an original myth about the creation of the world.Obviously the ones people are most familiar with are the myths told in the Bible Genesis, but there are others, such as Demiurge the creator in Plato's Timaeus.He is the creator of the world.这种世界创造的思想是在无数宗教包括多神教中都能遇到的一种思想。而一神教则包含这样的思想，即有一个看见一切、监督一切的人格化的上帝，这种思想是犹太教徒、基督教徒和穆斯林所共有的，并且古代的那些伟大哲学家也采用这种思想。因为全知的、全能的、创造世界、创造永恒真理（正如笛卡尔所说）、解释一切实在性的上帝，出现于亚里土多德的著名的第十一卷①里以及后来那些伟大的古典哲学家的著作中，特别是在笛卡尔和莱布尼茨的著作中。那么，我们在佛教中就找不到这种观念吗？佛教中没有世界创造吗？佛教中就没有眼睛和耳朵监督着全体人类的人格化上帝吗？ ①亚里士多德的系按希腊字母顺序分卷，第十一卷即原书所标A卷。 马蒂厄——没有，我在前面已经提到过那些先行的证据，以证明一个持久的、全能的和独立的实体，如果不丧失其持久性和全能性，就不能创造出任何事物。世界完全是受因果律和相互依赖规律支配的。 说到最终的实在性，我想根据佛教的精神就此说几句。人们事实上区分出两个侧面。由我们所感知的现象构成的世界，属于相对真理。事物的最终本质，它超越了所有关于存在与非存在、出现与终止、运动与不动、一与众多的概念，属于绝对的真理。绝对真理，即是空的实现，觉醒的实现，非二元性的实现，它只能通过静观体验（experience contemplative）而不是通过分析思想（pensee analytique）而理解。 让-弗朗索瓦——你说的空是指什么？它是不是无（neant）？ 马蒂厄——“空”的概念使某些人困惑，甚至能使他们恐惧。他们认为什么也不能从这个空中出现，因而什么也不能“运行”，任何规律，例如因果律，都不能在这个“空”中发生作用。他们认为，空本身不具有丝毫表现的潜能，因而他们对此有一种苦恼的感觉。这是将佛教意义的空混同于无。在无中什么也没有，而“空”实际上恰恰与无相反：这是“普遍的可能性”、宇宙、一切存在、运动、意识。全部的外在表现如果其最终本质不是空就不可能产生。同样，这只是一幅图像，如果没有空间，可见世界就不可能展开。如果空间就内在本质而言是坚固持久的，则任何表现、任何改造都是不可能的。正是因为此，佛经说：“既然有了空，一切便都能存在。”空就是这样本身具有所有的可能，并且这些可能是相互依赖的。 让-弗朗索瓦——这有点像是文字游戏。你在这里，不再是在取消自我意识的意义上，而是在注定要被实在性填充的空间的意义上使用空这个概念。 马蒂厄——不，并不完全是这样。使得世界能够形成的空间，这种例子只是一幅图像，意在指出任何事物都不是坚固、持久、在现象世界中固有存在的，不论是它自身还是外部世界。正是这种本身存在的缺乏使各种现象能够无限地表现。所以空不是像容器的空间，而是容器的性质本身以及容器所包容的事物的性质本身。 为什么区分相对真理和绝对真理如此重要？只要还存在着现象的最终形态和表面形态的混乱，只要我们还认为现象本身具有一个存在，我们的精神就受到无以计数的思想与种种积极和消极情绪的侵犯。人固然能够试图对他的每一种情绪都施用一种专门的反毒剂，比方说以好感来对付嫉妒。然而，任何一个这种反毒剂都不能独自斩断无知的根，也就是我们对于现象的实在性的眷恋。为了斩断这种眷恋，就有必要认识到现象的最终本质，也就是我们所称的空。对于一个达到了佛陀的全知境界的男人或女人来说，不再有事物的表面形态与最终形态之间的二元性。对于表面现象的感知还继续存在，但这种感知已不再被无知扭曲，无知意在将这些现象当成是一些固有存在的实体。它们的最终形态、空，也在同时被感知。 让-弗朗索瓦——怎么会是这样？ 马蒂厄——空与现象并无不同，它正是这些现象的本质。在相对真理的领域，佛教关于世界的设想与佛教诞生的时代的科学知识对自然的认识是接近的。根据佛教宇宙观，世界首先是由“空间微粒”的连续开始形成的，空间微粒聚集起来并变成构成另四种元素或本原的微粒，这些元素就是组合成世界的水、土、火、风。人们接下来说有一片广阔的原始海洋，它被风像搅黄油一样地“搅拌”着，创造出一种乳酪，这种乳酪在凝固自己的时候而形成了大洲、群山等等。整个过程服从于一些因果关系。佛教说世界没有“开始”，我们其实不能够说在时间中有一个开端，因为在表现中永远必须有一个前导的原因，在表现之前，时间的概念毫无意义。时间只不过是人们给予被一个观察者感知的一连串瞬间的一个观念。时间没有固有的存在，因为我们不能体会到一个与它的所有时刻相分离的时间。时间和空间只是相对于一些特别的参照系统和我们的经验才存在。 让-弗朗索瓦——这与康德学说有点相似：时间本身没有存在，它是人类对于现象的一种理解方式。 马蒂厄——时间不存在于现象之外。没有了现象，时间能以什么方式存在？过去的瞬间已经死了，未来的瞬间还没有诞生，而在当前瞬间，时间的流动是不能被感知的。在佛教形而上学中，人们还谈到“第四个时间”，它超越了另外三个时间，即过去、当前、未来，而代表着不变的绝对。 让-弗朗索瓦——一种不变的时间？这有点矛盾。 马蒂厄——不矛盾，这个“第四时间”不是一种真正的时间，它只是一种符号性的表达，意思是绝对存在者（Labsolu）超出了时间，而时间属于现象世界的相对真理。佛教宇宙论也思考各种循环。一个宇宙的循环由四个时期组成：形成的时期、宇宙继续维持的时期、毁灭的时期和一个无表现的时期①。然后又表现为一次新的循环。 ①此处所说的“宇宙的循环”即佛教中的“劫”。四个时期即一劫的四个阶段：成劫、住劫、坏劫、空劫。 让-弗朗索瓦——斯多葛派学者坚持宇宙历史的连续不断重新开始（recommencement perpetuel）的论点，认为宇宙历史始于一个周期性回返的、并且是以巨大灾变为标志的“零年”。 马蒂厄——这里的问题不是同样事物的永久的重新开始，因没有任何意义，而是按照因果律即羯磨而进行的表现（mauifestation）的无限展示。 让-弗朗索瓦——那么，除了它的古老词语，佛教宇宙论是不是一种与科学发现根本对立的教条？ 马蒂厄——当然不是，因为这种宇宙论属于相对真理即常规真理的范畴，这种真理根据人们在不同的历史时刻的普遍认识而改变。然而与意识起源的科学理论有着一个重要的区别。正如我在前面的一次谈话中提到过的，根据佛教，有意识物（conscient）不能从无生命物（inanime）中诞生。目前意识的瞬间本身是由先前意识的一个瞬间启发的，它又启发紧接着的意识的一个瞬间。我们已经说过世界在时间之中没有真正的开始，意识也是如此。根据同样的道理，人们认为，在受孕的时刻，赋予一个新的存在者以生命的意识火花，其原因只能是一个同样性质的事件，也就是有意识物，即使这个意识火花就像阿米巴①身上的意识火花一样原始，也仍然如此，如果我们想像阿米巴也具有意识的话。 ①为最微小和原始的动物细胞。 让-弗朗索瓦——根据传统的形而上学观念，属于意识范畴的事物只能从有意识者中诞生，物质只能从物质中诞生。人们也将这一说法上溯到柏拉图，并且在十七世纪的古典哲学和笛卡尔的一段陈述中也能找到它，这段陈述意思是说：在结果中的东西不可能比在原因中更多。但这样一来，整个的现代科学，它以一些并非完全不存在和值得轻视的经验和观察为基础，恰恰揭示了相反的情况。这正是你的导师雅克·莫诺在《偶然与必然》中特别提出的论点。也就是说：生物存在者（bioloqique）从物质中诞生，而意识又从生物存在者中诞生。因此，就有了这种演变过程：由物质开始的生命诞生，然后是物种的进化，这进化渐渐地导致意识和语言。应该说这是为当今科学普遍接受的模式。 马蒂厄——佛教的基本目的之一，即是要认识事物的真实本质。没有任何事物与对这样一个事实的观察相对立，这个事实就是，神经系统组织与生命形式的渐趋复杂是与智能的发展同时进行的。但是，根据佛教，一个即使是非常初级的生命形式也具备了一种意识形式，虽然极其原始，但与纯物质还是有区别的。意识的功能顺着动物发展的阶梯变得越来越有用、深刻和完善，直至达到人类智慧。所以，意识就这样在各种不同的载体和不同的条件之下表现出一种可变的幅度。 让-弗朗索瓦——存在一种动物心理现象，这一事实已经被接受。只有笛卡尔否认这个存在。今天，有许多关于动物心理学的书籍。显然，存在一种动物意识。但对于那些初级生命形式来说，就不会是一种对自我的意识，不是深思熟虑的意识。 马蒂厄——当然，但不管怎么说，这是些动物存在者。至于说到高等动物，我在想，那些仍然认为根本不存在动物“智慧”的人是不是还在不自觉地受着拒绝承认动物有“灵魂”的犹太基督教文化的影响。不要忘了仅仅几个世纪前，一次主教公会甚至谈论妇女是否有灵魂！ 让-弗朗索瓦——那么，如果有动物灵魂，则这种意识，即使是在一个微小动物身上的非常原始的意识，又来自何处？ 马蒂厄——对于这个问题，佛教回答说，它依照与物质世界中能量守恒相似的“意识守恒”原则，来自一次先前的生存。 让-弗朗索瓦——当然，这完全不是科学的观点。科学将人视为众多动物中的一种动物，在这个动物身上，感觉意识的某种属性由于大脑的发达而尤其得到发展。然而肯定的是，现代科学观点的巨大奥秘，或者不如说是巨大跳跃，乃是从物质向生命的过渡。当人们自问在别的太阳系中，别的星系中，在火星上，是不是有生命时，人们实际上总是在想，所有那些在物质中引起制造生命的化学反应的因素，在别的星球上，在别的太阳系中，别的星系中，是不是也会产生。但是，从动物或植物生命经由生物种类的演变而向意识的过渡也许还不像从物质到生命的过渡那样神秘。 马蒂厄——在这种对照中我们几乎不能向前更加展开，因为，如果说佛教不否定向着越来越复杂的生命形式、向着越来越精致的智慧形式的进化过程，再说一遍，它认为意识不能从无生命物中产生。科学认为，随着细胞分子获得一种越来越复杂的结构，细胞便以越来越有效的方式对外部刺激进行反作用，这种不断增大的复杂性可能最终导致意识。对于佛教而言，意识不能从化学反应中诞生，不论这反应是复杂的还是简单的。 让-弗朗索瓦——这说法简洁明白。但我们再来谈谈你所称的绝对真理，空的概念。 马蒂厄——空既不是无，也不是一个与现象相分离的或是外在于现象的空间。它就是各种现象的本质。正是因为这个缘故，佛教的一部基础经典说：“空就是形式，形式就是空。”①从一个绝对的角度来说，世界没有丝毫真实或具体的存在。所以说，其相对的面，就是现象世界；而其绝对的面，则是空。 ①即佛教中常说的：“色即是空，空即是色。” 让-弗朗索瓦——但现象的面完全是具体和可触及的！ 马蒂厄——我认为从观念上说，这与那句惯用语并没有多大差别：“物质即是能量，能量即是物质。”我们不否认我们对于现象的通常的感知，但是我们否认这个世界拥有一个最终意义上的固有的实在性。正如在现代物理学中质量（masse）被视为能量一样。如果原子不是东西，我们且再采取海森伯格的惯用语，那么它们中的很大一部分——即可见的现象——又怎么能变成“东西”？ 让-弗朗索瓦——然而，佛教不是教导人们说，世界本身并不具有存在，因为它只不过是我们感知的产物？这不正是在西方认识理论中人们所称的绝对唯心主义吗？ 马蒂厄——确实有一个被称为“唯识论”的佛教学派，它肯定说：“最终，只有意识存在，其他的一切都是意识的一种投影。”这种一元论就是在佛教内部也遭到了驳斥。 让-弗朗索瓦——这正是在西方认识理论中人们所称的绝对唯心论。这是贝克莱或奥克塔夫·哈姆林①的理论。 ①生于一八五六年，卒于一九○七年。法国哲学家。其唯心主义学说受勒努维尔的新批评主义和黑格尔辨证法启发，试图综合地建立经验的各种普遍关系的体系，以最终达到一种具有神性的人身的哲学。著有《关于再现的普遍因素》、《笛卡尔体系》、《亚里士多德体系》等。 马蒂厄——对于这种说法，佛教的其他派别回答说，对于现象世界的感知当然必须经过感官并被理解这些感官信号的意识瞬间所解释。所以，人们感知的世界不是它本身的样子。人们感知的只是反映在人们意识中的图像。 让-弗朗索瓦——这是埃马努埃尔·康德的所谓“先验”唯心论。 马蒂厄——一个客体被一百个不同的人看见，就像在一百面镜子中的一百个映象。 让-弗朗索瓦——这不是同一个客体吗？ 马蒂厄——是同一个客体，但是它能够被不同的存在者以完全不同的方式感知，就像我们在前面所举的一杯水的例子中所看到的那样。只有达到了觉醒的人才认识到客体的最终本质：即明显的、然而是脱离了固有存在的客体的最终本质。佛教的最后态度乃是“折中路线”的态度：世界不是我们精神的投影，但它也不完全独立于我们的精神，因为一个独特的，固定的，不受任何观念、任何智力活动、任何观察者支配的实在性，是几乎没有意义的。存在着各种事物的相互依存。佛教就是这样避免堕入虚无论或永恒论之中。各种现象从原因与条件相互依存的过程中出现，但是任何事物都不本身存在或是通过自己而存在。最终，对于绝对真理的直接静观超越所有的理智观念、所有在主体与客体之间的二元论。 让-弗朗索瓦——我们大概可以同时称这个是佛教的宇宙学、物理学和认识理论。我并不想就这些分析和这些学说的独创性提出质疑，既然它们比西方哲学要更加早，但是，我还是为我们找到共同点之多而惊讶，这不是在总体上与某一个西方学说的共同，而是与从塔莱斯①到康德的西方哲学演变过程中时而这一时期时而那一时期的共同。 ①希腊哲学家和数学家，生于约公元前六四○年，卒于约公元前五四七年，属伊奥尼亚学派。 马蒂厄——我要补充一下，佛教并不认为只有自己才掌握真理，也不认为自己是一种“新颖”。问题并不是要建立一种教条，而是在于一种精神科学，它同时导致一种人身的改造和事物最终本质的静观实现。 让-弗朗索瓦——无论如何，佛教比我列举的那些学说都早，因为它比希腊哲学的所有开端都要早。所以我们不能说有任何的借用。当人们思考什么是现实、什么是意识、什么是真理以及解释世界的方式时，他们所有人都在眼前排列了一批可能的假设，这看起来非常有趣。在严格意义上的实验科学进行于预之前，人们如此长时间地满足于思考和制订可能和尚合情理的对于现实的解释、意识与现实的关系以及管理人类命运的最好手段，我们发现值得考虑的答案之数量并不是无限的。一些相隔遥远的、几乎不可能相互间有影响的文化，竟看到了一些同样的假设。佛教对于西方有一些影响，而西方对于佛教的起源则不可能有任何影响。人类的精神就这样被引导来考虑数量相当有限的一系列假设。 马蒂厄——人们事实上预料到一些真正的沉思传统会得到一些一致的结果。 让-弗朗索瓦——说到我们在一开始提出的问题——宗教还是哲学——我要说，在我看来，回答现在是清楚的。佛教是一种哲学，而不是一种宗教。这是一种具有一种非常重要的形而上学属性的哲学，但它又仅仅是一种从属于哲学的形而上学，而不是属于宗教启示的范畴，尽管这种形而上学带有许多与宗教实践相似的仪式外表。而我们在古代的一些哲学中也看到有这类仪式外表，如在新柏拉图哲学中。 马蒂厄——既然我们终于来进行类比，在你的《哲学史》中你援引了亚里士多德对于基督纪元前六世纪，与佛陀同时代的埃利亚派哲学①的概括：“任何当前存在的事物都不会变为存在者或者消失，因为已变为存在者的东西必须有其起源或者要始于已存在物，或者要始于不存在之物。而这两个过程都是不可能的。存在之物不会变化，因为它已经存在，而任何东西又不可能来自不存在之物。”我现在跳到一段谈论存在者与非存在者的佛经上：“对于已存在的东西，原因有什么用？而如果一个东西并不存在，则原因又能有什么用？即使有数十亿的原因也不会使无改变。无不可能变为存在而不丧失其本质。可是又有别的什么东西能变为存在吗？当实在性与非实在性都不再出现在心灵中时，这便没有了任何别的可能步骤，从种种观念中解放出来的心灵，便得到平静。” ①埃利亚派哲学家主要有色诺芬尼（XenoPhanes）、巴门尼德（Parmendes）、埃利亚的芝诺（Zenon dElee）和梅里索（Melissos）等。 让-弗朗索瓦——这两段引语非常美，但是巴门尼德的哲学所要说的与佛教恰恰相反。巴门尼德所要证明的是，变化是不可能的。发展是不可能的。动是不可能的。如果你同意，这与赫拉克里特的理论正相反。巴门尼德的存在是一劳永逸地已定的、不可动的！而在佛教中，存在是一条持久的流。埃利亚的芝诺的那些著名的“停论”旨在驳斥运动的存在。箭从来不移动，因为如果人们在其射出轨道的每个瞬间观察它，它在这一瞬间里是静止的。同样，兔子永远追不上乌龟，因为每一次它向前朝乌龟走，它总是还有一半的距离要走，即使是这个一半变得越来越短小。因此，所有这些“悖论”都是为了将运动分解开来，以证明没有运动。 马蒂厄——勒内·盖农在其《微积分原则》一书中说芝诺的悖论仅仅是想要证明，如果不考虑延续性的概念，就不会有可能的运动，极限不属于变量的一系列连续的值：它是在这个系列之外，并且向极限的过渡要求有一个不连续性。佛教使用了一些与芝诺的推论相类似的推论，以证明从相对真理的角度来看，那种看上去像是因果作用的事物没有任何真实的存在。因此，从绝对的角度来看，一切事物都不可能有诞生、真实存在、停止。目的不是要否定我们所感知的现象世界——也就是佛教所称的“常规真理”——而是要证明世界并不像人们所相信的那样真实。到达存在似乎确实是不可能的，因为，我再重申一遍，存在者不能从无中诞生，而如果这存在者已经存在，则它就没有诞生的需要。同时，它也不“停止”，因为它从来也没有达到存在。正是这一点使得佛教说世界“像”一场梦或一个幻觉。它不说世界“是”一个幻觉或一场梦，因为那样一来，人们就有可能堕入虚无论。根据这种“折中道路”，各种表象都是空，从空中诞生出表象。 让-弗朗索瓦——即使我们承认现象世界的相对实在性，根据这种设想，世界就像是一个幻觉，这也就是说，它其实没有任何存在？ 马蒂厄——它没有本身的、真实的、独立的存在。 让-弗朗索瓦——这是不是导向一种无所事事的哲学？何必作用于一个不存在的事物？ 马蒂厄——完全不是这样！相反，它导向一个更加巨大的行动自由和向他人的开放，因为我们不再受到对于自我和对于现象的牢固性的眷恋的束缚。某些印度教的哲学实际上已经用你刚刚提出的论据来反对佛教：如果一切都像是一场梦，如果你们的痛苦就像是一场梦，则何必要试图从痛苦中将你们自己解救出来？何必要试图达到觉醒境界？回答是：既然一切存在者都体会到了痛苦，那就应当驱散这痛苦，即使它是虚幻的。如果你的与印度教哲学论据相同的论据是有价值的，人们完全能够将它应用到科学中：既然我们是由“不是东西”的、而且无论如何也不是“我们”的原子和微粒构成的，则何必要行动呢？