Buddhist Emptiness and

Christian Trinity
E S S A Y S A ND E X P L O R A T I O N
edited by
R o g e r C o r l e s s
and
P a u l F. K n i t t e r
PAULI ST PRESS
New York/Mahwah, N. J .
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T :
Excerpts f rom D o e s G o d E x i s t ? by Ha ns Kng. Co p y r i ght 1978, 1979, 1980 by Do ubl e -
day, a di v i s i o n o f Ba n t a m Do ubl e da y De l l P ubl i s hi ng G r o u p , I nc. R e p r i n t e d by per mi ssi on
o f the publ i sher.
Copyr i ght 1990 by Ro ge r Cor l ess and P a ul F. K n i t t e r
A l l rights reserved. No part o f thi s book may be r epr oduced or t r ans mi t t e d i n any f orm or by
any means, el ect roni c o r me c ha ni c a l , i n c l u d i n g pho t o c o py i ng, r e c o r di ng o r by any i nf or-
mat i o n storage and r et r i eval System wi t hout pe r mi s s i on i n wr i t i n g f r om the Publ i sher.
L i br a r y o f Congress Ca t a l o gi ng- i n- P ubl i c a t i o n Da t a
Buddhi st empti ness a nd C h r i s t i a n t r i ni t y : essays a nd expl orat i ons/edi t ed by Roger Corl ess
and Paul F. K ni t t e r ,
p. c m.
Includes bi bl i o gr a phi c a l references.
I S B N 0-8091-3131-5
1. Chr i s t i ani t y a n d ot her r e l i gi o n s B u d d h i s m. 2. B u d d h i s mR e l a t i o n s C h r i s -
t i ani t y. 3. Shnyat. 4. T r i n i t y . I. Corl ess, Roger. II. K n i t t e r , P a u l F.
B R I 28. B 8B 83 4 1990
23 1 dc20 89-38420
CTP
Publ i shed by Paul i st Press
997 Ma c a r t hur Bo ul e v ar d
Ma h wa h , Ne w Jersey 0 743 0
Pr i nt e d and bo und i n the
U n i t e d States o f A me r i c a
C o n t e n t s
I nt r oduct i on 1
R o g e r C o r l e s s
Ke no s i s and Empt i ness 5
M a s a o Abe
G o d ' s S el f - Renunci at i on and Buddhi st Empti ness:
A C hr i s t i a n Response to Masao A be 26
H a n s K n g
Buddhi s t Shnyat and the Chr i s t i an T r i ni t y :
T he E me r gi ng Hol i s t i c Paradi gm 44
M i c h a e l vo n Br c k
Buddhi s t Shnyat and the Chr i s t i a n T r i ni t y :
A Response to Mi c ha e l von Brck 67
P a u l O, I n g r a m
C a n Empt i ness Wi l l ? 75
R o g e r G r e g o r y- T a s h i C o r l e s s
C a n W i l l Be Predi cated of Empti ness?
A Response to Roger Corless 97
D u r w o o d Fo s t e r
Bi bl i ogr aphi c al References 103
Not es o n the Cont r i but or s 108
i i i
B u d d h i s t Sh n ya t a n d
t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y :
T h e E m e r g i n g H o l i s t i c P a r a d i g m
M i c h a e l v o n Brck
./ P a r a d i gm shifts are f undament al changes i n a c ul t ur al pattern. Today
we are i n the mi dst of a paradi gm shift. It is characteri zed by the emergi ng
awareness that life is a whol e and that terms, or words, cannot convey this
wholeness. Wor ds are onl y fragmented images whi c h usual l y al l ow onl y a
fragmented experience. T he current paradi gm change seeks to over come
f ragmentati on on al l levels o f real i ty, precisely at the moment when the
results o f f ragmentati on are becomi ng disastrous.
Pr esumi ng and af f i rmi ng thi s concer n to offset f ragment at i on, 1 shal l
try i n thi s essay to l ook back i nt o history i n order to find si t uat i ons,
expressions and Symbols that mi ght hel p us understand and pr omot e the
present paradi gm shift. M y approach wi l l be cross-cul tural and i nt er r el i -
gious, and i n four ma i n parts:
Fi rst , I wi l l discuss the paradi gm shift f rom Hi na y a na to Ma h a y a n a
i n the history o f Bud d h i s m, and compare it wi t h the emerging par adi gm
shift i n the moder n West;
Secondl y, because it is onl y i n Symbols that we perceive real i ty crea-
ti vel y, I wi l l exami ne the symbol i c representation o f reality wi t h respect
to these paradi gm shifts;
T h i r d l y , I wi l l expl ore two t r adi t i onal Symbols that can pr ovi de the
needed hel p to overcome fragmentati on and promot e the wholeness that
is central to the emergi ng paradi gm shift: the Buddhi st Sh n ya t a nd the
Chr i s t i a n T r i n i t y ;
Fo ur t hl y , usi ng the Symbols o f Sh n ya t and T r i n i t y , I wi l l offer a
44
Bu d d h i s t Sh u n ya t a a n d t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y 45
hol i st i c image o f reality that describes the Who l e as interrelatedness and
resonance.
Paradigm Shifts
B u d d h i s m
It is di f f i cul t, i f not i mpossi bl e, to arri ve at a clear pi cture o f the
paradi gm shift i n Bud d hi s m that l ed to the Systems o f Hi na y a na and
Ma ha y a na .
1
We are s i mpl y unabl e to reconstruct or i gi nal Bud d hi s m.
Nevertheless, what has emerged as the two great Systemsor better,
par adi gms i s wel l document ed. In order to show how a paradi gm shift
d i d take place i n Bud d h i s m, I wo ul d l i ke to focus on a few poi nt s of
difference between the two Systems.
Hi n a y a n a represents a rat i onal i st i c paradi gm (Conze, 1962: 28ff).
T he basic atti tude is psychol ogi cal , and the means o f i nvesti gati on are the
classical pr a m n a s (ways o f knowi ng) whi c h are regarded as more or less
val i d (Stcherbatsky, 1978: 2:43ff; Co nze , 1962: 28). Ma ha y a na , o n the
other hand, represents a supra-rati onal i sti c paradi gm. T he basic attitude
is met aphysi cal , or even cosmol ogi cal , i nsof ar as a uni versal sal vati on is
the focus o f practi ce. T he pr a m n a s are not v al i d concer ni ng ul t i mat e
r eal i zat i on, whi c h is attai ned onl y by means o f a transpersonal i nt ui t i ve
experience {pr a jn ).
In Hi n a y a n a one seeks to overcome suffering. In Ma ha y a na one
takes on suffering for the sake o f al l sentient beings ( Go v i nda , 1979: 45).
T hi s , essenti al l y, is the difference between the A r ha t (the Hi na y a na ideal)
and the Bodhi sat t va (the Ma ha y a na ideal).
In Hi n a y a n a , Stcherbatsky says, we find an ont ol ogi cal pl ur al i s m.
T he i ndependent d h a r m a s (the i mmedi at e consti tuents o f al l reality) are
real . The y are structured elements o f e mpi r i c al reality that do not have
any further cause. Real i t y i s the network o f phenomena consti tuted by
the mut ua l c o nd i t i o ni ng o f the d h a r m a s . In Ma ha y a na we find, accord-
i ng to Stcherbatsky, a k i n d o f mo n i s m, or a c o s m o t h e i s t i c model , that
transcends any differentiated ontol ogy. Real i t y is one. Differences are
epi st emi cbased o n the way we kno w real i ty. Wh i l e Hi na y a na expl ai ns
the basic pr o bl e m o f causal i ty by denyi ng causal i ty and af f i rmi ng a coor-
di nat i o n between the i ndependentl y exi st i ng elements, Ma ha y a na follows
the mi ddl e way of " ne i t he r - no r ." One has to transcend the very concept
o f causal i t y, for it is based o n the dual i t y o f cause and effect. Fo r the
enl i ghtened mi n d , cause and effect are one. T hat is why i n Hi na y a na
46 M I C H A E L V O N B R C K
a n i t ya (i mpermanence) is the c r uc i al poi nt , whereas i n Ma ha y a na it is
s h n ya t (emptiness) ( Mu r t i , 1960: 86).
These abstract differences l ead to more pract i cal and more si gni f i -
cant concl usi ons. In Hi na y a na , ni r v ana somehow has an existence apart
f rom the d h a r m a s i.e., f r om the finite wo r l d. T h i s i mpl i es a k i n d o f
dua l i s m. In Ma ha y a na , ni r v ana is not at al l different f r om samsarat hat
is, the phenomenal wo r l d: the difference between ni r v ana and samsara is
epi stemi c, not ont ol ogi cal . Ma ha y a na , therefore, represents a shift f r om
Hi n a y a n a t oward a hol i st i c paradi gm. T he basis for thi s shift is the M a -
hayanist equat i on between pr a t ya s a m u t pd a (the dependent coor i gi na-
t i o n and interrelatedness o f al l reality) and s h n ya t , whi c h i mpl i es the
equat i on between ni r v ana and samsara.
T h e Mo d e r n We s t
T hi s sketch o f the paradi gm shift i n Bud d hi s m shoul d be sufficient to
i l l ustrate the si mi l ar i t i es between it and the paradi gm shift i n our cont em-
porary wo r l d. Si nce t hi s moder n shift is st i l l i n process, it escapes fll and
adequate descr i pt i on. Y e t some o f its basic qual i t i es can be cl earl y and
profi tabl y focused. They are amazi ngl y s i mi l ar to the shift f rom H i n a -
yana to Ma ha y a na .
Some of the most i mpor t ant aspects of the emergi ng paradi gm are
the f ol l owi ng:
1. science is l i mi t e d and it i tsel f is becomi ng aware o f its l i mi t s ;
2. the universe is an i nterrel ated wholeness;
3. the observer plays a c r uc i al part i n the process o f knowi ng.
A c c o r d i ng to the emergi ng par adi gm, " ma t t e r " and " c ons c i ous ne s s "
no longer seem to be essentially different. T h i s opens a new avenue for
underst andi ng consciousness. One o f the most chal l engi ng di mensi ons o f
thi s deeper underst andi ng is the quest i on o f whether altered states o f
consciousness offer us a v al i d, perhaps more comprehensi ve, pi cture o f
reality. Different levels o f consciousness disclose different levels of real i ty.
T o l i mi t knowledge onl y to the products o f the r at i onal mi n d w h i c h is
the rati onal i sti c-sci enti f i c paradi gm that emerged i n the seventeenth Cen-
t ury and has since domi nat e d Western c ul t ur e i s not hi ng eise t han a
f or m o f r educt i oni sm, t hough an extremel y successful one f rom the poi nt
o f view o f technol ogy.
A s is evi dent, the emergi ng paradi gm offers an arena for a di al ogue
between myst i ci sm and science. Da v i d Bhm, speaki ng as a sober and
bal anced scientist, Cl ai ms that i f one takes the findings o f the new physics
Bu d d h i s t Sh u n ya t a a n d t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y 47
to be reliable, one has no j ust i f i cat i on for a fragmented worl dvi ew. Bhm
is not c l a i mi ng that physics can or shoul d prove that the Claims o f the
mysti cs are true (whi ch is i mpossi bl e since myst i ci sm and science are
wo r ki ng o n different levels o f reality). Y e t , i n urgi ng the over comi ng o f
f ragmentati on, bot h scientists and mysti cs are advocat i ng one o f the
clearest and most i mpor t ant aspects o f the emergi ng paradi gm.
The Symbolic Representation of Reality
I n order to understand the mystery o f real i ty, we need not onl y
reflection or thought, but v i s i o nt he v i s i on o f the whol e. T hi s , however,
is not possible wi t hout i magi nat i on, the abi l i t y to re-create reality i n the
image o f our deepest experience. Wi t ho ut t hi s creative faculty, our mi n d
is onl y a weak reflection o f fleeting sense-impressions. Creat i ve i magi na-
t i o n is the mot or , the mo v i ng power; reason is the steering and restri cti ng
faculty, whi c h di sti ngui shes between the pot ent i al and the act ual , the
probabl e and the possible ( Go v i nd a , 1981: 4).
It is i n Symbols that we perceive reality creati vel y. T he Symbol ,
therefore, is the meeti ng poi nt o f experi enci ng consciousnesses; it is the
place where real i ty becomes aware o f itself, mi r r or s itself, and injects its
o wn reflection back i nt o the sea o f real i ty. By the power of Symbols we
share i n the creative process o f real i ty.
I f we want to understand the wholeness o f reality, we have to search
for a s ymbol that re-presents and parti ci pates i n thi s wholeness.
I n Ma h a y a n a Bud d h i s m, especially i n the Ma d h y a mi k a school , the
key to underst andi ng reality is the s ymbol o f s h n ya t usually trans-
l ated i nt o E ngl i sh as Empt i ness. Sh n ya t , as Buddhi st s announce and
Westerners often fail to hear, has not hi ng to do wi t h n i h i l i s m. No r is it a
concept, for it is not meant to det ermi ne anyt hi ng. Sh n ya t is a symbol
o f non- det er mi nat i on. It does not denote some f or m of Observation but
i s, rather, the very essence o f a specific experience. The experiencer and
the experi enced become one i n a State o f mi n d and State of reality cal l ed
s h n ya t . Because o f this oneness a nd the part i ci pat ory act o f establish-
i ng s h n ya t , we have to c al l it a s y mbol .
One o f the most t al ked about Symbols o f reality bei ng proposed by
moder n physi ci sts is Da v i d Bo hm' s h o l o m o v e m e n t . It is muc h more t han
a sci enti fi c t er m or def i ni t i on, for i t is not definable. It Stands for the
mystery o f real i ty that underl i es al l o ur possible observati ons and expres-
si ons o f real i t y. Dr a wi ng a di s t i nc t i on between the i mpl i cat e and e xpl i -
cate Orders, Bhm states:
48 M I C H A E L V O N B R C K
T o generalize so as to emphasi ze undi v i de d wholeness, we shal l
say that what " c a r r i e s " an i mpl i cat e order is the h o l o m o v e m e n t ,
wh i c h is an unbr oke n and undi v i de d t ot al i t y. In certai n cases,
we can abstract par t i cul ar aspects o f the hol omovement (e.g.,
l i ght, electrons, sound, etc.), but more generally, al l forms o f the
hol omov e me nt merge and are inseparable. T hus , i n its t ot al i t y,
the hol omovement is not l i mi t e d i n any specifiable way at a l l . It
is not requi red to c onf or m to any par t i cul ar order, or to be
bounded by any par t i cul ar measure. T hus , the h o l o m o v e m e n t i s
u n d e f i n a bl e a n d i m m e a s u r a bl e (Bhm, 1981: 151).
T hr o ugh the powerf ul symbol o f the h o l o m o v e m e n t , therefore, mo d -
ern science is referring to a real i ty that is beyond al l det er mi nat i on. Wha t
we see and kno w is onl y the expl i cate order. T he expl i cate, however, is
l i ke a condensat i on o f a vast sea o f energy. T he expl i cate is i n the i mp l i -
cate l i ke the ripple i n the ocean or the c l o ud i n the ai r. T hus , metaphors
l i ke ai r and ocean are used to poi nt to reality that is as it is: undeter-
mi nabl e .
T o solve the pr obl em o f how the ripple or the c l o ud can be ex-
pl ai ne d, some scientists speak o f a f ormati ve pr i nci pl e or a f ormati ve
energy. Bot h physi ci st Da v i d Bhm and bi ol ogi st Ruper t Shel drake sug-
gest a f ormati ve energy that mi ght be responsible for the mul t i pl i c i t y on
the expl i cate l evel . They use the image o f a radi o that receives its energy
f r om the wal l socket. T he t i ny amount o f energy f rom the radi o wave
f o r m s t hi s vast basic energy (whi ch wo ul d correspond wi t h the sea o f
r eal i t ypot ent i al i t y o n whi c h the ripple is a f ormat i on). Fo r Bhm this is
how the more subtle i mpl i cat e energy field acts upon and forms the gross
expl i cate phenomena (Bhm and Shel drake, 1982: 44). But i t is not a
f or m i mposed on somet hi ng f rom the outsi de; it is " r at he r an o r d e r e d a n d
s t r u c t u r e d i n n e r m o ve m e n t t h a t i s e s s e n t i a l t o w h a t t h i n g s a r e " (Bhm,
1981: 12).
Real i t y, we can summar i ze, is a whol e and, as such, undifferentiated.
It has the pr i nci pl e o f f ormati ve di f f erenti ati on i n itself. A l l o f thi s can be
expressed or suggested onl y t hrough Symbols.
A no t he r symbol for thi s same hol i st i c i nsi ght i nt o reality is offered
by the Ma d h y a mi k a not i on o f s h n ya t .
L i k e the phi l osophi cal insights o f mode r n physi cs, the Ma d h y a mi k a
phi l osophy can be seen as a new i nt erpret at i on o f r eal i t yi .e., different
bot h f r om Ve dant i c subst ant i al i sm and the pl ur al i s m o f earlier B u d -
d hi s m ( M u r t i , 1960: 121ff). T ho ugh early Bud d hi s m d i d deny perma-
Bu d d h i s t Sh u n ya t a a n d t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y 49
nence and c ont i nui t y i n the debate on causati on, it stressed a
c o o r di nat i o n o f bei ng a nd becomi ng o f separate d h a r m a s . T h i s was a
permanent pr i nc i pl e and was therefore deni ed by the Ma d hy a mi k a s .
Nagarj una, the pr i nc i pa l phi l osopher o f the Ma d h y a mi k a school , i nsi sted
on t ot al rel at i vi t y and therefore cr i t i ci zed al l substance-views as we l l as
model -vi ews. He i denti f i ed s h n ya t wi t h pr a t ya - s a m u t pd a (depen-
dent co- ori gi nat i on): al l f orms were empt yempt i ness was al l f orms.
T h i s means that real i ty i s , but is also beyond al l possible const r uc-
t i ons o f o ur mi n d . T h i n k i n g falls i nt o cont radi ct i ons when it tries to
approach real i ty as a whol e. The real is devoi d (s h n ya ) o f det er mi na-
t i o ns t ha t is, it is not accessible to reason. It i s u s i n g our r at i onal
t e r ms ne i t he r existent no r non-existent. It has to be expressed i n
Symbols.
A c c o r d i n g to the emergi ng hol i st i c paradi gm, we are part o f real i ty.
Wh e n consciousness operates and discloses somethi ng, there is a change
i n real i ty. I n other words, kn o w l e d g e i s a c r e a t i ve a c t , epi st emol ogi cal l y as
wel l as ont ol ogi cal l y (i n the f i nal analysis, the two cannot be separated). It
is i n symbol s that such creative or transf ormati ve knowledge is avai l abl e
and c o mmuni c a bl e . S ymbol s i ndi cate our creative par t i ci pat i on i n
changi ng real i ty. But to wor k this way, symbol s have to be reexperi enced
and rei nterpreted accor di ng to the present " habi t - s t r uc t ur e " or " k a r m i c "
ci rcumst ances or new paradi gms. T hat is why I now want to focus atten-
t i o n o n the cent ral s y mbo l o f Ma ha y a na Buddhi sms h n ya t and o f
C h r i s t i a n i t y t h e T r i n i t y .
Shnyat and the Trinity
Sh n ya t
T he M a d h y a mi k a texts use the t erm s h n ya t i n two different
senses, whi c h have t o be di sti ngui shed t hough not separated ( R a ma n a n ,
1978: 253f f ). Fi r st , s h n ya t refers to the interrelatedness of real i ty. Here
it has the same meani ng as pr a t ya - s a m u t pd a and is pr i mar i l y a matter
o f phenomenol ogi cal Observation and Interpretation. A s we have seen,
science, especi al l y the new physi cs, gives evidence that al l phe nome nal
real i ty is act ual l y a net o f causal connect i ons or total interrelatedness.
(Physi cs is t hus c ont r i but i ng to a new ecol ogi cal paradigm.) No t h i n g
exists i ndependent l y or can have existence on its own (s va bh va ). In
other words, everyt hi ng is empt y o f self-existencethat is, everyt hi ng is
s h n ya .
50 M I C H A E L V O N B R C K
Second, s h n ya t also refers to a level beyond al l phenomenal real -
i ty. It poi nt s t oward the transcendent mystery o f real i ty. It is total
be yo n d n e s s . T he i nterrel ated whol e as sum o f al l parts is not the Who l e .
T he Who l e is o f a different qual i t y altogether. A l l potenti al i ti es, as wel l as
al l actual i ti es, o f real i ty are not n i r va n a or s h n ya t , whi c h is precisely
beyond the di f f erenti ati on i nt o pot ent i al and act ual , or part and whol e.
T a t h a t , ni r v ana, s h n ya t do not mean onl y interrelatedness, but
beyondness.
T hi s qual i t y o f beyondness is often forgotten by those who try to
relate Bud d hi s m and moder n science. K e n Wi l be r wams against the
prevalent mi stake o f i dent i f yi ng the interrelatedness that physi cs has di s-
covered wi t h the beyondness expressed by s h n ya t . T he i mpl i cat e order
is not the Absol ut e or G o d . It is j ust the interrelatedness o f phenomenal
reality. What rel i gi ons cal l " G o d " is beyond t hi s dual i t y o f i mpl i c a t i o n
and expl i cat i on and is devoi d o f such det ermi nat i ons (Wi l ber , 1982: 251).
But what about Nagarj una' s famous equat i on o f ni r v ana and sam-
sara? T hi s i dent i f i cat i on can be properl y understood onl y on the basis o f
the f undament al epi stemol ogi cal pr i nci pl e i n M a d h y a mi k a phi l osophy
t h e di st i nct i on between a relative vi ewpoi nt (s a m vr t i - s a t ya ) and an
absolute Standpoint (pa r a m r t h a - s a t ya ). Fr o m the relative or pheno-
menol ogi cal Standpoi nt, samsara is o f course not ni r v ana. T he equat i on
is v al i d onl y f rom the absolute vi ewpoi nt that transcends a l l di st i nct i ons.
But such an insight is not possible on the basis o f r at i onal i t y alone. No
rat i onal argument, therefore, can affirm or deny t hi s poi nt of uni t y. It
requires pr a jn insight i nt o real i ty as it really is, wi t hout the l i mi t i ng
and c o ndi t i o ni ng defilements o f the mi n d .
So, al t hough s h n ya t i n no way i ntends to affirm non-existence, it
does deny the dogmat i c af f i rmati on o f or knowledge o f existence ( Mu r t i ,
1960: 97). It denies essenti al i sm. Thi ngs i n t hei r real nature are devoi d o f
essence (n i h s va bh va ). T he entities ma k i ng up the wo r l d are related by
nature and not j ust by acci dent. T he y are t a t h a t , beyond bot h transi to-
riness and i mmut a bi l i t y . Nagarj una does not deny real i ty, he does deny
the accessibility o f real i ty to reason ( Mu r t i , 1960: 126).
Nagarj una' s insights must be consi dered a real paradi gm shift. He
d i d not si mpl y correct or clarify previ ous views. Rat her, he deni ed the
accessibility o f the Re a l to reason a nd proved it by hi s di al ect i cal met hod.
T h i s does not mean that he became an agnostic. He f ound a different
level o f knowledgepr a jn that gave an empower i ng i nsi ght and new
way of " k n o w i n g" real i ty.
So far, we have onl y said what s h n ya t is not. It is muc h more
Bu d d h i s t Sh u n ya t a a n d t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y 51
di f f i cul t to State what it is. T o do so adequately is i mpossi bl e since State-
ments have to obey r a t i o na l i t y a nd s h n ya t by its very nature pierces
t hrough the rat i onal level i nt o the beyond.
I woul d l i ke to try to poi nt t owar d (not describe) the posi ti ve nature
o f s h n ya t by quot i ng an ext raordi nary and pr of ound Statement by D.T .
S u z u k i :
It is not the nature o f pr a jn (myst i cal i nt ui t i on) to r emai n i n a
State of s h n ya t (the voi d) absol utel y moti onl ess. It demands
o f itself that it differentiates i tsel f unl i mi t e dl y , and at the same
t i me it desires to r emai n i n itself. T h i s is why s h n ya t is sai d to
be a reservoir o f i nf i ni te possi bi l i ti es, and not j ust a State o f mere
emptiness. Di f f erenti ati ng i tsel f and yet r e mai ni ng i tsel f undi f -
ferentiated, and thus to go on eternal l y i n the wor k o f creati on
. . . we can say that it is creat i on out o f not hi ng. Sh n ya t is not
to be concei ved stati cal l y but dy nami c al l y , or better, as at once
static and d y n a mi c .
3
T hi s is probabl y the deepest insight i nt o reality one can have and
express on the basis o f M a d h y a mi k a a n d even on the basis o f Chr i s t i a n
experience, as I wi l l try to expl ai n later. I n t ranscendi ng the concepts o f
voidness and fullness, S uz uk i unifies t hem i n experi encet hat is, i n the
experience o f reality as a dy na mi c pattern, as a uni quel y differentiated
wholeness.
Sh n ya t is, as L a ma G o v i n d a cal l s i t, p l e n u m - v o i d ( Go v i nd a , 1979:
36). It is the nature o f al l thi ngs, oneness i n di f f erenti ati on. " Di f f er ent i a-
t i o n is as muc h an expression o f reality as oneness, and f or m is as i mpo r -
tant as empt i ness" ( Go v i nd a , 1976: 52). Sh n ya t is the uni f i ed
awareness that comprehends and transcends bot h oneness and differen-
t i at i on. G o v i n d a therefore translates s h n ya t , si mpl y yet appropri atel y,
as t r a n s pa r e n c y ( Go v i nd a , 1976: 51). T h i s t ransl at i on fits amazi ngl y wel l
i nt o Da v i d Bo h m' s model o f real i ty: s h n ya t is the nature o f the hol o-
movement , for the expl i cate order is transparent to the i mpl i cat e order
and the other way ar o und. T he f ol l owi ng step may be t aken though
Bhm hi msel f does not take it since i t is beyond the reach o f science:
Ul t i ma t e l y bot h Orders poi nt t owar d a transcendent gr ound and are
therefore transparent i n a c ont i nuous process o f " t r ans par e nt i at i o n,"
whi c h i mpl i es our perspectives or cogni ti ve processes as wel l .
I n Buddhi st terms, al l t hi s means that ni r v ana does not add anyt hi ng
t o s a m s a r a but is its very nature; yet o n the level o f sense-perception and
52 M I C H A E L V O N B R C K
r at i onal i t y, we do not realize thi s i dent i t y ( Mu r t i , 1960: 162). The differ-
ence between ni r v ana and samsara is not ont ol ogi cal ; it is, rather, a
difference i n our way of l ooki ng, a change o f percept i on, an e pi s t e m i c
d i f f e r e n c e ( Mu r t i , 1960: 163). We must remember, however, that i n the
final analysis the epi stemi c process is i tsel f a movement i n the Who l e ,
thus pa r a m r t h i ka (from an ul t i mat e poi nt o f vi ew)t here is not differ-
ence at al l between the ont ol ogi cal and epi st i mol ogi cal r eal m.
Interestingly, T . R . V . M u r t i adopts, i n a sl i ghtl y less comprehensi ve
sense, the t ermi nol ogy o f Da v i d Bhm to describe the Buddhi st vi ew o f
real i ty, before Bhm f ormul at ed the terms. M u r t i expl ai ns that the A b-
solute is i m pl i c a t e i n al l things:
The A bsol ut e, it is true, is not k n o wn i n the way that part i cul ar
phenomena are k no wn. A s thei r real i ty, however, it is kno wn as
the i mpl i cat e, the n o r m o f al l things. T he absolute does not
possess any attri bute o f its o wn; but its presence can be i n d i -
c a t e d even by an ascri bed mar k (s a m r o pt ) ( Mu r t i , 1960:
231f ).
L i k e Bo hm' s i mpl i cat e order, the Absol ut e for M u r t i is i mpl i cat e i n
the explicate order. T he Absol ut e is the Real i t y o f the real (d h a r m n m
d h a r m a t ). It is the Bei ng o f bei ng.
T he classical text for this uni versal vi ewpoi nt is M a d h y a m i k a
K r i k X X V , 9. Stcherbatsky' s t ransl at i on bri ngs out the poi nt most
cl earl y:
Coor di nat ed here or caused are separate thi ngs.
We cal l thi s wo r l d phenomenal
But j ust the same is cal l ed Ni r v a n a ,
Wh e n viewed wi t hout causal i ty, wi t hout C o o r d i na t i o n
(Stcherbatsky, 1978: 206).
We already referred to Mu r t i ' s expl anat i on o f thi s text above when we
discussed the pr obl em o f percept i on.
A f undament al pr obl em is how to disregard causes and condi t i ons i n
order to arri ve at the Whol e . C a n the Bei ng o f bei ng or the i mpl i cat e
order be, as M u r t i Cl ai ms, the Absol ut e, s h n ya t ? I f the Absol ut e is the
n o r m of al l thi ngs, it is not al l thi ngs. Hence, it is beyond the differentia-
t i o n between bei ng and the Bei ng o f al l beings, or between nor m and its
act ual i zat i on. Mu r t i ' s expl anat i on, therefore, does not adequately express
Bu d d h i s t Sh u n ya t a a n d t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y 53
the be yo n d n e s s o f s h n ya t , whi c h, by vi rtue o f its beyondness, can and
does i ncl ude the phenomenal wo r l d. I a m af rai d that M u r t i reverted back
to Ve dant i c r educt i oni sm regarding the rel at i on between the Absol ut e
and the finite.
I f the Real i t y o f the real , as an i mpl i cat e order, is i denti f i ed wi t h the
A bs ol ut e or s h n ya t , we wo ul d st i l l be caught i n a subtle dual i t y be-
tween the Real i t y o f the real (i mpl i cate) and the phenomenon as expres-
si on o f thi s reality (explicate).
Sh n ya t is not the first o f t wo Orders (i mpl i cat e/expl i cat e)al -
t hough thi s is i mpl i e d. In the first meani ng we quot ed above it is a l s o the
pr i nc i pl e o f " ? ? ? " and i n this sense the i mpl i cat e. But it is more. Sh n ya t
must be empt i ed o f al l dual i t y. It is beyond di f f erenti ati on i nt o i mpl i cat e
and expl i cate. It is beyondness. It is empt i ed empti ness. T hi s , o f course,
does not mean that it is spati al l y or t empor al l y beyond phenomena. It
transcends spati al i ty and t emporal i t y i n such a way that it i ncl udes t he m.
I f t hi s were not so, we wo ul d not have a real a d va i t a (non- dual i t y), or a
genui ne pol ari t y const i t ut i ng oneness. T hi s , by the way, is the pr obl em
wi t h Shankara' s view o f the many as m ythat is, as an i l l us i o n. He
views the phenomenal many as less real t han the Absol ut e Br a hma n and
as not t aken up i nt o a higher order o f dy na mi c oneness. Fo r this reason,
S hankar a has probl ems i nt el l i gi bl y expl ai ni ng the rel at i onshi p between
m y and m yi n or between n i r g u n a Br a h m a n (the formless Absol ut e)
and the r eal m o f m y, as I have argued elsewhere.
I t hi nk that Nagarj una solves t hi s pr obl e m o f the rel at i on between
the A bs ol ut e and the finite i n a mu c h more genui nel y a d va i t a - w a y. I
wo ul d suggest that for h i m, s h n ya t is a rel at i onshi p i n itself, devoi di ng
i tsel f const ant l y of essentiality o f substance as it constitutes i tsel f as u n i -
versal rel at i onshi p. T hi s i nt erpret at i on is act ual l y a reflection o f S uz uki ' s
cent ral Statement quot ed above; we wi l l expl ore it further below. Ho w-
ever we try to concept ual i ze the non- dual nature o f the Absol ut e, the fact
r emai ns, as M u r t i r emi nds us, that we kno w the A bsol ut e i n a non- dual
i n t u i t i o n , pr a jn . In fact, " I t (the Absol ut e) is thi s i nt ui t i o n i t s e l f "
( M u r t i , 1960: 236).
A n et ymol ogi cal perspective o n thi s pr obl emat i c nature o f s h n ya t
can be hel pf ul and reveal i ng. Sh n ya t comes f rom the root Vsvz or V s va .
T he verb deri ved f rom thi s root is s va ya t i , whi c h means " t o swel l , grow,
i ncr ease." A s far as I know, Stcherbatsky was the first among recent
schol ars to refer to thi s i nteresti ng ho r i z o n o f meani ng (Stcherbatsky,
1978: 206). There is another famous Sanskri t root wi t h the same meani ng
" t o grow, or i n c r e a s e " ^ br h , f r om whi c h Br a hma n, the H i n d u wor d for
54 M I C H A E L V O N B R C K
the Absol ut e, is deri ved. Et ymol ogi cal l y, the root me ani ng o f s h n ya t
and Br a h m a n are i dent i cal !
S uch consi derati ons t hr ow conf i rmat ory l i ght on the i nterpretati on
o f s h n ya t we have been suggesting. Sh n ya t is a pot ent i al i n actual i ty,
an energetic process. Sh n ya t , therefore, does not i mp l y that there is no
absolute reality, but it does mean that this real i ty is n o t an essential
sameness. It is a process that requires di st i nct i ons, i.e., growt h.
S i mi l ar l y , a n t m a n (not-self) does not mean that there is not hi ng
ul t i mat e i n the huma n being. It does mean, t hough, that thi s ul t i mat e
reality is not a static sameness, but growth. Mor e ov e r , a n t m a n was
i nt r oduced by the Buddha probabl y because the t m a n or " s e i f concept
o f Hi n d u i s m at that t i me meant the ego. An t m a n therefore means ego-
lessness. Vedant a' s later myst i cal i dent i f i cat i on o f a t ma n- Br a hma n devel -
oped al ong very s i mi l ar l i nes, but wi t h opposed concept ual expressions
( Go v i nda , 1979: 39).
O f course, different schools o f Buddhi st phi l osophy interpreted
s h n ya t i n qui t e different ways. T h i s is onl y n o r ma l , for s h n ya t is
more t han a defined concept. It is a s ymbol . It is not possible or necessary
to enter i nt o the details of thi s rather compl ex hi story o f i nterpretati on.
We can summar i ze the ma i n content of the s y mbol o f s h n ya t .
Nagarj una' s Ma d h y a mi k a phi l osophy suggests the equat i on o f s h n ya t
and pr a t ya - s a m u t pd a . T hi s i mpl i es two concl usi ons:
Fi r st , reality is a non- dual c o n t i n u u mt h a t is, the Absol ut e and the
phenomenal are perspectives or aspects, and not separate ont ol ogi cal
realms.
Second, this one reality is an i nterrel ated Who l e , somet hi ng l i ke a
cont i nuous process or self-movement.
T r i n i t y
The symbol of the T r i ni t y has its roots i n a dual experience. O n the
one hand, persons have experienced the presence of Jesus Chri st as i ncar-
nate Ul t i mat e Real i ty. In an overwhel mi ng way, Chr i st represents to his
followers the really Real . O n the other hand, there is the experience of this
presence as an e m po w e r i n g presence; it does not al l ow persons to be ob-
servers but empowers them to rise to a higher level of reality themselves.
T hi s is what they have called the Ho l y Spi ri t. Since both these experiences
convey the Ul t i mat e, they have been interpreted as experiences of G o d the
Father (i n Jewish termi nol ogy). Hence, we have a T r i ni t a r i a n pattern and
symbol i sm for the interpretation o f Chr i st i an experience.
Bu d d h i s t Sh u n ya t a a n d t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y 55
Persons di scover the S pi r i t o f G o d as t hei r i nnermost bei ng. Dwe l l -
i ng wi t hi n t hem, the Spi r i t o f G o d is not, however, to be confused wi t h
the e mpi r i c al ego, whi c h arranges and usual l y defiles al l psychi c and
ment al faculties. The S pi r i t raises persons beyond thei r ego, as He
dwel l ed i n Chr i st enabl i ng H i r n to be i n the Father and the Father i n
H i r n . A l l beings share i n thi s oneness as they are one among themselves i n
the Fat her and S on. I wi l l later urge that thi s advai t i c " i n " o f John' s
Go s pe l is significant for bot h a proper hol i st i c i nt erpret at i on o f reality, as
wel l as for a clear underst andi ng o f s h n ya t .
A n approach s i mi l ar to the one we suggested for i nt erpret i ng
s h n ya t can help us grasp the depths o f T r i ni t a r i a n s y mbol i s m. T hi s
appr oach stresses (1) the interrelatedness o f real i ty and (2) the transcen-
dent mystery beyond reality.
Before appl yi ng thi s approach to the T r i n i t y , we must bear i n mi n d
that t hi s two-level f ramework poi nt s up a paradox wi t hi n al l language
that tries to express the nature o f the Absol ut e. A s K e n Wi l be r expresses
i t , G o d is at the same t i me and under the same condi t i ons bot h the
g r o u n d and g o a l of reality (Wi l ber , 1982: 254ff). Real i t y mi ght be c o m-
pared to a ladder o f cosmi c e v ol ut i on. T he Absol ut e wo ul d be bot h the
highest r ung as wel l as the mat er i al out o f whi c h the l adder is made,
i n c l ud i n g its formati ve pattern. T he A bsol ut e or G o d wo ul d be bot h the
highest l evel of reality (goal) and the true nature o f every l evel o f reality
(ground). In the strictest sense, thi s is a paradox.
In Bud d h i s m, a s i mi l ar paradox occurs i n t r yi ng to understand the
Buddha- nat ur e. A l r eady and al l the t i me, we a r e the Buddha- nat ure, and
yet we have to r e a l i z e it t hrough practi ce. T h i s was Dogen Zenj i ' s great
pr o bl e m o f ori gi nal enl i ghtenment (h o n g a ku ) and acqui red enl i ghten-
ment (s h i ka ku ); Dogen finally sol ved it i n a practi ce based o n or i gi nal
enl i ght enment (Sh bg e n z , " Be n d w a " ).
Fo r reason al one, thi s uni t y is di ffi cul t to grasp, yet it is cl earl y
experi enced when i n actual practi ce the ego-subject is overcome and
filled by t h e Subject ( Go d , Buddha- nat ure, Chr i st i n us, the Spi ri t ): my
spi ri t is t aken up i nt o the Ho l y S pi r i t , and the Ho l y Spi r i t reflects and
merges i nt o my spi ri t. T he t wo become t ot al l y uni t ed, but accor di ng to
C hr i s t i a n experience, they do not become a lifeless i dent i t y. T h i s u n i f yi n g
pr o c e s s i n the Spi ri t t h r o u g h the S on t o w a r d the Fat her is the Chr i s t i an
T r i n i t a r i a n experience. It is what Chr i st i ans c o ul d cal l enl i ghtenment as a
process o f part i ci pat i ng i n the Di v i n e .
Fi r st o f a l l , the T r i n i t y means t h e i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s o f r e a l i t y. What is
i mpl i c at e i n the Father becomes expl i cate i n the S on and unites i n a
56 M I C H A E L V O N B R C K
process o f creative resonance i n the S pi r i t . Insofar as G o d is the gr ound o f
the uni verse, thi s T r i ni t a r i a n pattern expresses the d y n a mi c oneness i n
di versi ty or a d va i t a (non-dual i t y) o f i nd i v i d ua t i o n and uni f i cat i on ex-
pressed and manifested on a l l levels o f real i ty. It mi r r or s also the spi r i t ual
path that is the real i zat i on o f the ret urn to the source i n a t ransf ormat i on
o f bei ng. G o d is above (e pi ), t hrough ( d i a ) and i n (e n ) al l ( E ph 4:6) i n a
p e r i c h o r e t i c u n i o n .
P e r i c h r e s i s is the dance, the c o n t i n u u m o f sel f -movement or the
dy na mi c self-existence o f thi s i nterrel ated Tri uneness. J o h n o f Damascus
finds thi s met aphor a most appropri ate descri pt i on o f the threefold i nter-
relatedness wi t hi n Di v i n i t y {D e F i d e O r t h o d o x a , P G 789-1228). G o d is
not a moni st i c pr i nci pl e, but a di fferenti ati ng uni t yt her ef or e, always
differentiated as a c o n t i n uum o f oneness. Wha t we experience as the
phenomenal or created wor l d parti ci pates i n the di v i ne interrelatedness,
i.e., i n G o d ' s knowledge and l ove.
T he way t o or f r o m the source t h r o u g h the t r ansf or mat i on o f the
i ndi vi duat ed real i ty i n part i ci pat i ng i n the mystery o f the di v i ne dance
can perhaps be i l l ustrated l i ke thi s:
T O / FR O M
(Father, Source, Gr o un d )
T H R O U G H I N
(Son, personal trust) (Spi ri t, myst i cal part i ci pat i on)
E ac h moment o f the process i mpl i es the other two. T he three per-
sons o f the T r i n i t y relate to each other i n perfect ke n s i s . E ac h empties
i tsel f i nt o the other. T he symbol o f the c r o s s is act ual l y the expression o f
the i nner rel at i onshi p o f the T r i n i t y . E ac h person i s onl y i nsofar as it is
rel at i onshi p and self-emptying.
T h i s rel at i onal oneness is most cl earl y experi enced i n love and
knowledge, both o f whi c h depend o n the mergi ng o f t wo i nt o one c o n-
sciousness wi t hout col l apsi ng i nt o i dent i t y. Consci ousness becomes
aware o f itself onl y when it realizes what it is consci ous of. A l t ho ugh it is
uni f i ed i n itself, it is so onl y o n the basis o f a di s t i nc t i o n. Even pure
consciousness, i nsofar as it is awareness, has thi s dy na mi c , rel ati onal
aspect.
T h i s is also the case when two consciousnesses meet and share each
Bu d d h i s t Sh n ya t a n d t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y 57
other i n a perfect uni o n o f synchr oni zed and uni t ed acti vi ti es. They are
i ndi v i duat e d a n d i ncl ude each other not onl y as the other' s object, but as
subjects of each other' s i dent i t y. T h i s rel at i onshi p is real i zed and feit i n
deep experiences o f prayer and medi t at i on, as Beatri ce Br ut eau has c o n-
v i nc i ngl y shown. She observes that " t h i s enteri ng i nt o, and shari ng the
consciousness of, another seif is the most characteri sti c act o f a seif.
Du a l i s m has passed over i nt o no ndua l i s m, by the very i ntensi ty o f its own
dual i st i c energy. By desi ri ng the other more and more, one has obl i ged
ul t i mat el y to enter i nt o the very life o f the o t he r " (Brut eau, 1983: 306). It
is an enteri ng i nt o the other' s r hy t hmi c pattern, a bei ng i n phase wi t h
hi m/her, as it were, a real pe r i c h r e s i s . Dr . Br ut eau also applies thi s
pattern o f cont empl at i ve prayer t o the r hy t hmi c uni t y o f the T r i n i t y i n
order to expl ai n T r i ni t a r i a n di st i nct i ons:
T h i s di st i nct i on arises f r om the exi stenti al reality o f the aut on-
omous acts o f kno wi ng and l o v i ng whi c h also consti tute the
uni t y. So the pl ur al i t y and the uni t y are bot h referred to the
same act, and that act is characteri sti c o f the highest consci ous
sel fhood. If Ul t i mat e Real i t y is o f the nature o f selfhood, it must
be a compl ex uni t y o f thi s s o r t . . . . T h i s di s t i nc t i on is not due to
a di stance between Cr eat or and creature, but is the same k i n d o f
di s t i nc t i on that prevai l s i nsi de the Go dhe a d i tsel f (Brut eau,
1983: 309).
If, t hen, the T r i n i t y is first o f a l l the interrelatedness o f real i ty, t hen,
secondl y, thi s inexpressible i nne r - T r i ni t a r i a n rel at i onshi p is also a t r a n s -
p h e n o m e n a l u n i t y w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e e x pl i c a t e m a n i f e s t a t i o n . A s thi s
uni t y it is always beyond any possible phenomenal State, since the phe-
no me nal wo ul d be defined by what it is not. Fi r st we saw that the T r i n i t y
is the gr ound o f reality (the mat eri al out o f whi c h the l adder is made).
No w we see the second poi nt : the T r i n i t y as the goal o f the universe (the
highest rung). Whatever reality is, it is not yet what it is, because the
T r i n i t a r i a n peri choreti c movement is creati vi ty. T he expl i cat i on o f the
source i n the i ncarnate Son and its rei nj ecti on i nt o the gr ound t hrough
the S pi r i t is an evol ut i on or graded mani f estati on o f awareness. It is the
r eal i zat i on o f the T r i ni t a r i a n pe r i c h r e s i s . T he T r i n i t y is the very nature
(or pattern) o f consciousness that realizes real i ty is not outside reality but
is the highest level of real i ty itself. Because thi s is so, any consci ous act is a
sel f -real i zati on o f reality. It is a mani f est at i on o f the gr ound o f Bei ng that
58 M I C H A E L V O N B R C K
explicates bei ng as a creative insight i nt o itself. T hi s , t hen, is why Spi ri t ual
awareness, as achi eved by i ndi v i dual s and by h u ma n k i n d i n general, is o f
utmost i mpor t ance: it is a par t i ci pat i on i n the di v i ne d y n a mi s m.
A s P a ul T i l l i c h mai nt ai ns, the nature o f such par t i c i pat i on o f the
creature i n T r i ni t a r i a n life can be understood onl y i n some k i n d o f no n-
dual model or context ( T i l l i c h , 1969: 70ff). T o parti ci pate i mpl i e s bot h
i dent i t y and non- i dent i t y. A part o f the whol e is not i dent i cal wi t h the
whol e, and yet the whol e cannot be what it is wi t hout the part. T i l l i c h ,
therefore, attempts to t hi nk not i n terms o f substances but o f dy na mi c
bei ng that is shared by al l i ndi v i dual s ( T i l l i c h, 1969: 73). T he i dent i t y
i mpl i e d i n par t i ci pat i on is grounded i n thi s d y na mi s m o f bei ng. In this
way, the d y na mi s m o f the i ndi v i dua l is a real i zat i on o f the d y na mi s m o f
al l that is not thi s i nd i v i d ua l , and vi ce versa. T hi s is exactl y what the
pe r i c h r e s i s o f the T r i n i t y expresses. T he compl exi t y o f real i ty i s the
di v i ne d y na mi s m i n a cont i nuous process o f uni f i c at i on; a nd t hi s process
is consti tuted by the power o f consciousness.
I can summar i ze these remarks o n the non- dual i t y o f the T r i n i t y
4
by
poi nt i ng out three basic insights that the T r i n i t a r i a n s y mbol seeks to
express:
1. T he Ul t i ma t e is at the same t i me both be yo n d as wel l as i n al l
experiences. T he real i zat i on of thi s paradox depends o n the i ntensi ty o f
one' s awareness o f or par t i ci pat i on i n G o d . T he A bsol ut e is i n a l l experi -
ences because there is not hi ng that is not an expl i cat i on or mani f estati on
o f what we cal l the Absol ut e. It is be yo n d any possible experience since, as
the goal o f al l reality, it transcends bot h the condi t i oned a nd the unc o n-
di t i oned, and al l other possible dual i ti es that make up experience. T he
Absol ut e is never the sum o f al l parti al i ti es but the uni f i cat i on o f part and
whol e i n a dy na mi c process.
2. T he Ul t i ma t e is expressed i n and t hrough al l mat eri al as wel l as
spi r i t ual processes. The U n i t y o f the T r i n i t y suggests a non- dual i st i c
rel at i onshi p o f s i s t e n c e (Father), e k- s i s t e n c e (Son), a nd i n - s i s t e n c e
(Spi ri t); thi s threefold di vi ne process integrates al l part i al processes occur-
ring on different levels o f reality. Si nce the gr ound o f real i ty is seif or
consciousness, we can infer that al l manifested real i ty shares i n thi s q ua l -
i ty o f the gr ound, o f course i n different degrees. A n y dua l i s m between
matter and spi ri t therefore becomes meaningless. We s ho ul d instead see
real i ty as a graded mani f estati on o f consciousness. T he degree o f interac-
t i o n between " p a r t s " or " i n d i v i d u a l s " t h a t is, the degree o f "bei ng-one-
i n - a n o t h e r " ma r k s the degree o f real i zat i on o f consci ousness.
3. T he Ul t i ma t e can be k no wn t hrough the act o f par t i ci pat i ng i n its
Bu d d h i s t Sh u n ya t a a n d t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y 59
very nature. T hi s nature is pe r i c h r e s i s that is, un i o n i n di versi ty, or the
process o f unf i cati on of compl exi t i es. I n thi s process, the Go dhe a d has its
oneness. Godhe ad, therefore, is beyond t i me; it never collapses i nt o a
mot i onl ess sameness. Different beings parti ci pate i n different ways and
degrees i n the T r i ni t a r i a n mov e me nt t hat is, they are on different levels
o f real i zat i on o f thei r true nature. T he i r true nature is k e n o t i c a process
o f constant self-emptying and bei ng filled by other beings. A s finite beings
become aware of thei r true nature, they tune i nt o the T r i ni t a r i a n dance or
resonate wi t h the dy nami c nature o f the T r i n i t y .
Reality as Interrelatedness or Resonance
Sh n ya t and T r i ni t y
T o relate, as we have done, the emergi ng hol i st i c paradi gm to the
symbol s of s h n ya t and T r i n i t y is to expl ore more cl earl y and more
chal l engi ngl y the meani ng o f what is presently goi ng on i n the spi r i t ual
hi story o f humani t y. T he mul t i di me ns i o na l symbol s of s h n ya t
and T r i n i t y, i f properl y i nterpreted and c o mmuni c at e d, can work as
powerf ul agents i n over comi ng the f ragmentati on that threatens our
moder n wor l d.
The moder n Si tuati on calls for a cross-cul t ural effort to grasp and
l i ve the meani ng o f s h n ya t and T r i ni t y . We mi ght say, usi ng a si mi l e
f r om acoustics, that the two symbol s r e s o n a t e wi t h each other. We can
i magi ne our effort to relate s h n ya t and T r i n i t y as a matter o f pl aci ng
one symbol i n the Vi brat i on rnge o f the other and o f observi ng its
resonance. The resonance pattern wi l l enable us to know the specific k i n d
o f i nt errel at i onshi p we are expl or i ng. T hi s image o f resonance is not
merel y a personal wh i m or preference o f mi ne ; it is a key symbol used by
Dogen Ze nj i to express the meani ng o f s h n ya t i.e., the i nterrel ated-
ness and transcendence o f Real i t y.
We have already heard S uzuki ' s ext raordi nary Statement on the na-
ture of the experience o f pr a jn that is, the experience o f Ul t i ma t e
T r u t h . He stated that s h n ya t remai ns i n itself, though i n a process o f
di f f erenti ati on. Sh n ya t is the reservoir o f i nf i ni t e compl exi t y compre-
hendi ng al l actual and possible mani festati ons. Therefore, it creates out
o f no t hi ng i n a process o f di f f erenti ati on, whi l e r e mai ni ng beyond differ-
e nt i at i on. Beyond the di s t i nc t i on o f static and dy nami c , it i ncl udes bot h.
Sh n ya t therefore can be t ermed bot h static and dy nami c , one and
mu l t i p l e o r pe r i c h r e s i s .
60 M I C H A E L V O N B R C K
I cannot i magi ne a more pr of ound phi l osophi cal i nt erpret at i on o f
the T r i n i t y . T he T r i n i t y is thi s reservoir o f i nf i ni t e possi bi l i ti es, differen-
t i at i ng itself eternal l y i n three persons, and yet r e mai ni ng one. It is a
differentiated onenessnot mo n i s m, but a d va i t a . Ad va i t a is a category
t ranscendi ng l ogi cal di st i nct i ons, therefore out o f the reach o f concepts
a n d neat def i ni ti ons. So we have to create paradoxes i n order to poi nt
t owar d t a t h a t or to express the experience o f par t i ci pat i ng i n the T r i n i t y .
T h e Bi bl e and Chr i s t i a n myst i cal l i terature are fll o f such paradoxes,
a nd i n Ze n Bud d hi s m they are deliberately used as propaedeuti cal ai ds.
U s i n g J o h n Damascene' s image o f the dance (pe r i c h r e s i s ) agai n, we
c an acqui re a feeling for what these symbol s convey. T he dance is a dance
o nl y i nsof ar as it retains the same structure or f or m. But thi s oneness or
sameness is differentiated. It bri ngs f orth differences const ant l y, i n the
creat i vi t y o f its movement . T he dance is a t ot al l y i nterrel ated wholeness.
I n ot her words, each movement o f the dance has its meani ng and f or m
o nl y i nsof ar as it realizes i tsel f i n the cont i nuous expl i cat i on of the differ-
ent " s t e ps ."
I n later Buddhi s t phi l osophy, the dy na mi c , mut ual l y i nt errel at i ng
aspect o f s h n ya t was beauti f ul l y extol l ed by Dogen Ze nj i (1200- 1252),
especi al l y i n hi s investigations i nt o Buddha- nat ure (Sanskri t: bu d d h a t ;
Japanese: bu s s h ) ( K i m , 1980: 160ff). I n Dogen' s t i me, Buddha- nat ure
was underst ood as some k i n d o f pot ent i al i t y for sentient beings i n the six
real ms. Dogen had to modi f y thi s vi ew when he di scovered that bu s s h is
absol ute i ncl usi veness for al l beings or for whatever is generated by the
f unct i onal interdependence o f condi t i ons and f orms i n the universe. In
t hi s way, Dogen overcame an ant hropocent ri c or bi ocent ri c vi ew-
po i nt , and avoi ded the i mp l i c a t i o n o f a subtle dual i s m o f actual i ty a nd
pot ent i al i t y.
Buddha- nat ur e is therefore not a receptacle that cont ai ns everythi ng.
E a c h f or m, rather, is perfect i n its suchness and i n no need of bei ng
c ont ai ne d i n anyt hi ng eise. Real l y, t hen, t a t h a t (suchness) is i dent i cal
wi t h bu d d h a t (Buddha-nat ure). Dogen c o ul d say that al l sentient beings
are the true body o f the enti re universe (Sh bg e n z , " S e ngai - y ui s hi n" ) .
I n t hi s view, the Buddha- nat ure is not permanence as opposed to an
i mpe r mane nt wo r l d o f forms. I n transcendi ng each existence, the
Buddha- nat ur e bears the negative wi t hi n itself. T h i s aspect o f the n o n -
existence of the Buddha- nat ur e (m u - bu s s h ) is not an antithesis to exis-
tence, but one o f the poles i n a non- dual i st i c structure. It poi nts to the
" l i be r a t i ng and t ranscendi ng powers i nherent i n the Buddha-nat ure
Bu d d h i s t Sh u n ya t a a n d t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y 61
whi c h liberate fixation and the part i cul ari t i es o f exi st ence" ( K i m ,
1980: 169).
Dogen' s m u - bu s s h recognizes a d y na mi s m i n the Ul t i ma t e that
expresses an experience s i mi l ar to that whi c h a Chr i s t i a n mi ght c a l l
ke n s i s or the Cross. It is an i nt ui t i ve experience o f personhood that
realizes that one gains one' s i dent i t y by t ot al l y devoi di ng or desubstan-
t i a l i z i ng onesel f ont o the other. T h i s is the mystery of l ove!
Fur t he r mor e , " T h e Buddha- nat ure actualizes itself not i n such ways
as f r om pot ent i al i t y to act ual i t y, f r om the not-yet to the already, f r om the
l ower to the higher, f rom the hi dden to the manifest, but coeval a n d
coessential wi t h what persons act out i n t hei r acti vi ti es and expr essi ons"
( K i m , 1980: 179).
I n Chr i s t i a n terms thi s is the experience o f the a n t h r o po s p n e u m a t -
i ko s , the spi r i t ual person, whose spi ri t resonates wi t h and i n the S pi r i t o f
G o d (as opposed to the a n t h r o po s ps yc h i ko s , the ego-centered person) (1
C o r 2:14; 15:44, 46; Jude 19). T hi s resonance i n the Spi r i t is a uni f i c at i on
not onl y o f wi l l s but also, and especially, of awarenesses, a uni t y that
transf orms one' s whol e bei ng. One becomes aware of a pr i mar y a nd
c os mi c t r ut ht ha t l o ve , as symbol i zed i n the i nner t r i ni t ar i an r e l at i on-
shi p, is the ul t i mat e nature of Real i t y.
Wh e n G o d ' s Spi r i t works i n us and is uni t ed wi t h our spi ri t , a nd
when our spi ri t is t uned to G o d ' s presence, we know. We resonate. T h i s is
anot her way o f saying, as Ni c ho l as o f Cus a says o f G o d , that Re al i t y is
c o i n c i d e n t i a o ppo s i t o r u m . It is an attempt to t hi nk wholeness whi c h H i n -
d u i s m, Bu d d h i s m and Chr i s t i ani t y cannot neglect.
T o experience and describe reality as bot h static and d y na mi c , as
does S u z u k i , is part o f the or i gi nal core o f Bud d h i s m. T he early Y o ga -
char i ns t r i ed to di vi de the D h a r m a kya their s ymbol for Ul t i ma t e R e -
a l i t y i n t o a pol ari t y that wo ul d express its si mul t aneousl y static a nd
d y na mi c char act er t hat is, its s va bh va kya ("essential bo dy " ) a nd its
jn n a - kya ( " wi sdom bo dy " ) . A c c o r d i ng to Stcherbatsky, " t he first is
the mot i onl ess ( n i t y a ) substance o f the uni verse, the second is a n i t y a
that i s, changi ng, l i v i n g" (Stcherbatsky, 1978: 2:195, n. 3). Bo t h are
D h a r m a kya . Change and the unchangeable are one.
T h e pol ar dy na mi s m that the Y ogachar a and other schools o f B u d -
d hi s m find i n the Ul t i ma t e is also cont ai ned, perhaps even more emphat -
i cal l y, i n Nagarj una' s equat i on o f pr a t ya - s a m u t pd a and s h n ya t . T h i s
equat i on o f Empt i ness and process, as proposed by Nagarj una, Do ge n,
S u z u k i , a nd others, comes mu c h closer to the T r i ni t a r i a n pe r i c h r e s i s
62 M I C H A E L V O N B R C K
t han does the muc h discussed Ma ha y a na theory o f T r i kya or the " T hr e e
Bo di e s ."
T he three bodies designate different aspects or " l evel s o f appear-
a nc e " (or " mani f est at i ons" ) o f the Absol ut e Real i t y. Wha t " l evel s o f
appear ance" actual l y means is subject to controversy i n different B u d -
dhi st school s. D h a r m a kya (the body o f d h a r m d ) is wi t hout any at t r i -
butes. It is a oneness c ompr i s i ng everythi ng whi c h al l Buddhas have i n
c o mmo n . It is absolute beyondness. Sa m bh o g a kya (the body o f enjoy-
ment) is a subtle real m whi c h can be experi enced spi r i t ual l y. T he differ-
ent Buddhas of medi t at i on have different qual i ti es refering to different
aspects o f this subtle reality. Ni r m n a kya (the body o f manifest being)
refers to the hi st ori cal Buddhas who appear i n physi cal f or m. G a u t a ma
S ha ky a muni was one o f t hem. They are i ncarnat i ons o f the Absol ut e.
T he T r i k a y a doct ri ne has often been compar ed to the T r i n i t y ; the
c ompar i s on is warranted insofar as T r i kya poi nt s to the undi v i de d
wholeness that is mani f esti ng i tsel f o n al l three levels o f real i ty or, better,
that is const i t ut i ng al l levels o f real i ty through its sel f -mani f estati on.
Sh n ya t , however, is a more basic, far-reaching s y mbol and therefore
more appropri atel y compared to the T r i ni t y , for it expresses not onl y the
manifest aspect of the Absol ut e (somethi ng l i ke the e c o no mi c al T r i ni t y ) ,
but the very n a t u r e o f Real i t y as interrelatedness i n i tsel f (the i mmane nt
T r i n i t y ) .
5
L a ma G o v i n d a strongly affirms thi s coi nherence o f finite and I nfi -
ni te, one and many. He mai nt ai ns that i ndi v i dua t i o n (what perhaps can
be cal l ed the f ormati ve pri nci pl e) is j ust as i mpor t ant as uni versal one-
ness. Fo r h i m, i ndi v i dual i t y is one o f the focal poi nts o f the universe. It is
not conf i ned to l i mi t s , but " i s rather a focal poi nt o f r adi at i on whi ch
cont ai ns the whol e uni v e r s e " ( Go v i nda , 1979: 30). Theref ore, i nd i v i d ua l -
ity is not cont radi ct ory to uni versal i ty, nor is pl ur al i t y to oneness. Such a
vi ew does not excl ude a hi erarchi cal i nterpretati on o f the T r i k a y a doc-
t ri ne (establishing oneness across different levels), but it does affirm the
hol oar chi c model (establishing total interrelatedness wi t hi n each level) as
equal l y v al i d. A l l concepts have to be transcended. E v e n s h n ya t and
ni r v ana as concepts, model s, or symbol s are open and " a l l o w us to pro-
ceed," as G o v i n d a says. They i nvi t e us to parti ci pate i n e mpt yi ng empt i -
ness or i n shari ng i n peri choreti c l ove.
T hi s peri choreti c l ove is a cont i nuous i ntegrati ng o f al l levels o f
reality i nt o the Whol e . The Whol e is, as it were, c ont i nuous l y bei ng bui l t
up. Refusal to integrate or to resonate i n the r hyt hm o f thi s uni t y- i n- di s-
Bu d d h i s t Sh u n ya t a a n d t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y 63
t i nc t i on is what one can c al l s i n. S i n is based o n i ner t i a or i gnorance. Bo t h
are forces of Separation.
T he emerging paradi gm we have been di scussi ng seeks to overcome
thi s history and cont i nued threat o f f ragmentati on. Whet her it wi l l suc-
ceed or not is the quest i on that frightens and challenges our present
generation. A necessary c o ndi t i o n for ov e r c omi ng Separation and for
bui l di ng a new, uni t ed wo r l d is that more and more people tune i nt o a nd
work wi t h Real i t y as it really i s R e a l i t y as differentiated oneness or as
the s h n ya t o f the T r i n i t y or the T r i n i t y o f s h n ya t . T o tune to Real i t y
is to l i ve and promot e the d y na mi s m o f uni t y and compl exi t y that mar k
" t he way things ar e ," or as Dogen wrote about the One a nd the many:
Though not i dent i cal , they are not different.
Though not different, they are not one;
Though not one, they are not many ( K i m , 1980: 164).
Ho l o mo v e me nt and Cr eat i vi t y
Wi t h i n the emergi ng hol i st i c par adi gm, Da v i d Bhm, Ruper t Shel -
drake, and others are very concerned about the quest i on o f creati vi ty.
Just what is the " p o we r " or energy that accounts for the irregulr, the
novel , the never-before seen or de e me dand for the new and transcausal
(or trans-karmi c) freedom that bounds beyond the l i mi t s o f the given?
We must, I t hi nk, assume a transcendent suchness that is neither
f orm nor formlessness but bot h. Wha t makes real i ty a c o n t i n u u m and
gives it its uni t y is thi s " o r de r l y series o f stages o f enf ol dment and u n -
f o l dme nt " that cannot be l ocal i zed but penetrates al l that we cal l space
(Bhm, 1981: 184). Bhm expl ai ns the c ont i nui t y of existence as a very
r api d recurrence of s i mi l ar f orms, very mu c h l i ke a r api dl y spi nni ng
bi cycl e wheel that gives the i mpr essi on o f a sol i d di sc rather t han o f a
sequence o f rotati ng spokes, whi c h wo ul d be separate entities (Bhm,
1981: 183). T hi s image comes very close, o f course, to the Buddhi st
i nt ui t i o n o f interdependent or i gi nat i on or d h a r m a factors. It sees c ont i -
nui t y and sameness i n a dy na mi c pattern o f rel at i onshi p, muc h l i ke the
T r i n i t y (the three persons are not separate entities either). A si mi l ar i t y o f
order is preserved i n the pattern o f the unf ol di ng- enf ol di ng movement .
T hi s is also how consciousness works. It is not a mere t uni ng i nt o the past
(memory), nor ant i ci pat i on o f possi bi l i ti es, but a di rect resonance wi t h
what is goi ng on on al l levels o f movement . Si nce there is no dual i t y, we
can describe consciousness as real i ty and real i ty as consciousness.
64 M I C H A E L V O N B R C K
T he recogni t i on of an under l yi ng c ont i nui t y or uni t y is also f ound i n
the Buddhi st not i on o f i mper manence (a n i t ya ). A c c o r d i n g t o the a n i t ya
doct ri ne, or i gi nat i on and decay are si mul t aneous happeni ngs o f one
movement . They are aspects. There is no c ont i nui t y wi t hout change. But
nei ther is there change that does not repeat the subtle pattern o f i nterre-
lated wholeness. A s the new physics teils us, y o u cannot observe a parti cl e
wi t hout changi ng i t t ha t is, wi t hout changi ng finally the enti re universe,
for each parti cl e is related to al l other particles. But thi s change o f the
universe is not chaot i c; rather, it responds to an o r d e r e d unde r l yi ng
structure and f or m.
Fo r Dogen, t i me is the absolute now ( n i k o r i ) , r eal i zi ng past, present,
and future i n a Single event o f awareness. M u t u a l i dent i t y o f existences
and mut ua l i nterpenetrati on (s o s o ku s o n y) is his f o r mul a for af f i rmi ng
si mul t anei t y as the central expression o f the Buddha- nat ur e, whi c h is the
actual i ty o f the present. T he " pr e s e nt " is not a pi l ed- up past but the
awareness o f a l l t i me (Sh bg e n z , " U j i " ) . " ' C o n t i n u i t y ' i n thi s view is
not so muc h the matter o f a succession or cont i gui t y o f i nter-epochal
wholes as that o f the d yn a m i c e x pe r i e n c e o f a n i n t r a - e po c h a l w h o l e o f t h e
a bs o l u t e n o w i n whi c h the selective memor y o f the past and the projected
ant i ci pat i on o f the future are subjectively appropri at ed i n a uni que
ma n n e r " ( K i m , 1980: 208ff). C o n t i n ui t y is the d y n a mi s m o f mu l t i -
di me ns i onal t i me that moves " h o r i z o n t a l l y " as wel l as " v e r t i c a l l y "
(Sh bg e n z , " U j i " ) . Fr o m the perspective o f the Ul t i ma t e , accor d-
i ng to Dogen, there is not evol ut i on but pe r i c h r e s i s ( i f we may use a
Chr i s t i a n term).
A c c o r d i ng to bot h Dogen and Bhm, reality can be seen as a reso-
nance pattern wi t hi n the phases o f unf ol dment - enf ol dment . I wo ul d l i ke
to suggest that these " pha s e s " can be i nterpreted, symbol i cal l y, as the
" per i chor et i c Steps": Father, S o n, and S pi r i t .
T he Who l e is the movement o f i nt egrat i on, the " d a n c i n g" wholeness that
is never integrated but is i n the pr o c e s s o f i ntegrati ng itself. Fr o m thi s
perspective, I suggest that what Bhm is t r yi ng to express wi t h his image
o f " u n d i v i d e d whol eness" mi ght be more aptl y i ndi cat ed by " i nt egr at i ng
whol eness."
T he interrelatedness between i mpl i cat e and expl i cate i n the actual i ty
o f resonance al l ows an i nf i ni te i nt er act i on; and thi s is what we can c al l
Father
(I mpl i cate)
S on
(Expl i cate)
S pi r i t
(Integration)
Bu d d h i s t Sh u n ya t a a n d t h e C h r i s t i a n T r i n i t y 65
c r e a t i vi t y. Ne w wholes are generated constantl y o n al l levels of reality.
Bot h Bohm' s not i on o f i mpl i cat e i ntel l i gence and Shel drake' s proposal
for " mo r p h i c resonance" (Bhm and Shel drake, 1982: 47) (or a process
o f l earni ng that al l ows change o f habi t) try to image the regeneration
constantl y t aki ng place i n the creative i nterpl ay between expl i cate and
i mpl i cat e Orders (and the transcendent ground/goal). T he mut ua l ejec-
t i o n and i nj ect i on releases creative i mpul ses that take shape i n new,
concrete acts/events/things/thoughts.
Creat i vi t y and stabi l i ty consti tute a pol ari t y. It is necessary to have
bot h openness toward the beyond and rel ati vel y fixed forms (the past).
T he pol ari ty pi vots on the need for each generated or ejected t hi ng to
become a no- t hi ng agai nt hat i s, to be injected once more i nt o the
i mpl i cat e order or the gr ound. Otherwi se, the process bogs do wn because
o f i nert i a, a counter-tendency opposed to creat i vi t y; we are t al ki ng about
s i n, or non-response, or non-resonance. T he i mpor t ance o f the Cross,
what gives it uni versal significance, is that it poi nt s up the necessity and
value o f becomi ng a no- t hi ng. T he cross symbol i zes the devoi di ng or
transcendi ng t ur n i nt o the other and finally i nt o the Whol e .
T he Who l e is devoi d (s h n ya t ) o f det er mi nat i on. There are no
" k n o t s " i n the T r i ni t a r i a n net (this wo ul d be t ri t hei sm). The Who l e is
more than and cannot be reduced to the evol ut i onar y process, yet the
Who l e cont ai ns an evol ut i ve phase. T he phases are beyond any o f the
Orders but are reflected i n al l possible Orders. T hus , the Fat her is not the
i mpl i cat e order but is manifest i n al l Orders. Li kewi se wi t h the other
persons o f the T r i ni t y .
Real i t y is a process o f "di f f erent i at i ng i tsel f and yet r e mai ni ng i n
i tsel f undi f f erent i at ed" (Suzuki ). T h i s is what Bud d h i s m calls s h n ya t
and what Chr i s t i ani t y experiences as the T r i n i t y . We parti ci pate t ot al l y i n
thi s dy na mi s m, whi c h is the Ul t i ma t e , G o d . We are eternally mergi ng
i nt o G o d and G o d i nt o us, but we are never sucked up i nt o an undifFer-
entiated i denti ty.
We mi ght envi si on this paradoxi cal uni t y o f di f f erenti ati on and u n -
di f f erenti ati on as a symphony that unf ol ds i n c ont i nuous resonance wi t h
i tsel f across and beyond t i me. T he whol e is there i n each part, but it
unf ol ds i n t i me. E ach par t i cul ar note has its specific meani ng and qual i t y
f rom the i mpl i cat e structure o f the whol e, and the whol e si mul t aneousl y
i n as wel l as be yo n d each musi cal phrase. A genius (l i ke Mo z a r t , as it has
been reported) can hear the whol e di rect l y i n an i nt ui t i ve percepti on
beyond the t i me- bound sequence. A n d yet, t i me is cont ai ned i n the
whol e; it is i mpl i cat e. T he whol e resonates i n the parts; and the parts'
66 M I C H A E L V O N B R C K
suchness is to resonate as the whol e. It is the same wi t h dance, and that is
why the T r i ni t a r i a n pe r i c h r e s i s is such a pr of ound mo de l .
Conclusion
T he emergi ng hol i st i c paradi gm seeks to overcome f ragmentati on.
T hi s is its exi stenti al concer n, one whi c h, today, is vi t al l y i mpor t ant .
What I have t ri ed to show is that thi s new par adi gm, wi t h its concerns,
has deep, anci ent roots. O u r creative task is to regenerate the o l d so as to
bui l d the new more soundl y and pr omi si ngl y.
A c c o r d i n g to Chr i s t i ani t y and, i f my analysis o f s h n ya t is v al i d,
accor di ng to at least some schools o f Bud d h i s m, the deepest, final experi -
ence of h u ma n k i n d does not poi nt toward a moti onl ess substance, but
toward c r e a t i ve pa r t i c i pa t i o n i n the p l e n u m - v o i d , whi c h is r e s o n a n c e and
therefore pe r i c h r e s i s or s h n ya t .
Not es
1. E d i t o r ' s n o t e : V on Brck is here adopting the Mahayana view of Buddhist
history. The reader should clearly understand that, despite some superficial
similarities, Hinayana cannot be identified with Theravada. Hinayana is an
extinct form of Buddhism to which Mahayana sees itself as a correction.
Theravada is a living S y s t e m which continues i n d e p e n d e n t l y of Mahayana.
2. Two particles separated in space influence each other's spin. If there were a
connection understood in the usual terms of causality, the signal would travel
faster than the speed of light which Einstein rejected. Hence, the particle seems
to " know" what the other one is doing simultaneously. The y might refer to a
" common ground. "
3. D. T. Suzuki, E s s a y s i n E a s t - W e s t P h i l o s o p h y , Charles A. Moore , ed. ( Hono-
l u l u , 1951), as quoted by W. T. Stace, M ys t i s m a n d P h i l o s o p h y ( London:
Macmil l an, 1961), pp. 176ff.
4. For a detailed study of the a d v a i t a of the Trinity, see Michae l von Brck,
A d v a i t a u n d T r i n i t a e t : I n d i s c h e u n d c h r i s t l i c h e G o t t e s e r f a h r u n g i m D i a l o g d e r
R e l i g i o n e n (unpublished H a b i l i t a t i o n - t h e s i s , Rostock University, 1980);
idem, "Advai t a and Trinity: Reflections on the Vedantic and Christian Expe-
rience of Go d with Reference to Buddhist- N on- Dual ism, " I n d i a n T h e o l o g i c a l
S t u d i e s , V ol X X (1983) 37- 60.
5. The problem with the Trikaya is that either D h a r m a kya or even a higher or
more abstract principle is often considered to be t a t h a t or s h n ya t But this
is questionable since according to Suzuki' s interpretation of s h n ya t , reality
in its interplay within the Trikaya should be suchness and nothing eise. O t h-
erwise, the door is open to a new form of dualism, a problem not seen clearly
enough by Murt i (1980: 284ff).