Fana and Sunyata
Though we need to explore the depth of the other party’s religion in its every aspect, we could start from the apparent similarity between each other. Though sunyata has been mainly interpreted as absolute negation of any reality, there have been also other interpretations of it. The importance of such interpretations should not be neglected. In fact, modern secularization of Western Europe has influenced Buddhists negatively in their consideration of them. Nietzsche’s declaration about the death of God has influenced not only Western intellectuals but also East Asian intellectuals. Many Buddhists came to emphasize excessively the similarity between modernity and Buddhism in their negation of God. They did not recognize the danger of Western modernization.1
In fact, sunyata is not purely negative. Nagarjuna (AD 150-250), the representative proponent of sunyata in India, was not only a theoretician but also a mystic practitione r.2 He was a faithful person. His treatises about Sunyata are not only a theoretical works but also guides for the liberation of our soul from the attachment to the material world. His adoption of Buddhism really occurs after his repentance about his own guilty deeds. Before he became a Buddhist, he was an arrogant hedonist, enjoying mischievous pleasures. After sudden killing of his mischievous comrades on their committing crimes 1 Ryu Jei-dong, God and Dharma; A Study on Wilfred Cantwell Smith's View of Buddhism and its Application to a reinterpretation of the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana (Doctoral dissertation at Sogang University in Seoul, 2004).
2 Ian Mabbett, “The Problem of the Historical Nagarjuna Revisited.” (The Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 118. issue:3. American Oriental Society, 1998.), p. 332. by a king’s army, he came to realize that he had pursued worldly pleasures vainly. Though he escaped from the king’s army, he came to repent his previous criminal acts.3 In such a situation, he came to consider the possibility of his own identity. If he has a fixed self-identity, he thought, he could not avoid or stop his hedonistic life style. In fact, we are ourselves sometimes sorrowful about our own identity not only in our own physical appearance and intellectual ability but also in our bad habits such as smoking and drinking. Can a sinner become a good person? Can a culprit become a good citizen? Can a serial killer transform into a respectable citizen? If we cannot avoid or stop our destiny fixed by our own set identity, we have only to despair about our life. In his days, not only Hindu Brahmins but also some Buddhist monks (Sarvastivadins, who proclaimed that our past, present, and future are already fixed) argued that there is an unchangeable element in the world that prevents us from having the possibility of changing our destiny.
In fact, Buddhism began as a religion rebelling against the Hindu theory of fixed self-identity. Hindu caste system was based upon such a theory, coercing ordinary people to accept their own destiny without any hope to live a better life in this world. Buddha taught that there is no fixed self. He proclaimed that we can become good or bad according to our own efforts. Our self has an enormous possibility which cannot be limited to a fixed destiny.
In his day, however, Nagarjuna was surrounded by pervert Buddhists who asserted that there is fixed elements in us in spite of their apparent attempt to abide by Buddha’s teaching about no self. They did not recognize that no self theory is necessary for our liberation from fixed destiny. Of course, their assertions should be understood in our basic instinct to seek stability. However, they did not recognize that stability is good only in the state of happiness. A sinner cannot have satisfactory feelings about their destiny. In such a context, Nagarjuna needed to attack those Buddhists’ theory of fixed 3 Jay L. Garfield,
The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika – translation and commentary by Jay L. Garfield, (Oxford University Press, 1995). elements. He taught that there is absolutely no fixed element in the world. Therefore, a sinner can become a Buddha. If there is fixed element in us which prompts us to commit crimes again and again, we cannot hope to become a Buddha. Since there is no fixed self, we can become enlightened Buddhas. That is, he taught that there is not only no self in our identity but also no self in the elements constituting our self. For him, this argument was not just a proposition but a liberating truth, enabling sinful persons to hope a better life.
However, we should also recognize that Buddhists have traditionally hesitated in saying positively about the state of Buddha. The Sarvastivadins’ error in their assertions should be considered in such a context. Such attempts to assert something positive have continuously formed a part of the history of Buddhist thought in spite of their failing to become a major part of Buddhism in India.
In fact, Nagarjuna himself does express sunyata somewhat positively as dependent arising, that is, interdependence. The concept of dependent arising was originally applied negatively to our experience of suffering and sinfulness. If our suffering has any fixed reality, we cannot stop it. Since it arises dependent upon conditional situations, we can change our destiny and escape from suffering by changing those situations. However, there was yet no starkly positive role conceived about the concept of dependent arising until the appearance of Nagarjuna. He clearly asserted that dependent arising enables us to become Buddhas. In other words, dependent arising enables us to be transformed from sinners into Buddhas. Here we clearly see the radical thought of Nagarjuna. In the early period of Buddhism, Buddhists emphasized the impermanence of our suffering, which enables us to stop it. Then, Nagarjuna emphasizes no self in every thing, which enables us to become Buddhas. Here we see the budding of positive thinking in Nagarjuna’s assertions.
However, properly speaking, we should find somewhere else to find really positive conception about our states. In Buddhist tradition, there has been a continuous trend to emphasize the pureness of our mind, which is to form a major role not in India but in North East Asia including China, Korea, and Japan, with the thought of tathagata-garbha (the womb or fetus of tathagata, that is, the womb or fetus of Buddha). In short, we can become Buddhas because we have the seed of Buddha in us. This thought recognizes a positive element in us, though it has posed somewhat unsolvable questions to many Buddhist scholars. Some Buddhist scholars even assert strongly that the thought of tathagata-garbha should not be regarded as belonging to Buddhist thought. I think that their assertions are due to the influence of Western modernization trend.4 The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana is a representative work showing a harmonious synthesis between the thought of Sunyata and the thought of Tathagata-garbha. It is a work of sixth century A.D., though it was traditionally attributed to Aśvaghosha, who is supposed to have lived as a philosopher and poet in India in the second century A.D. It is not yet uncertain where it was written.
Here we are ready to explore the Korean representative Buddhist scholar Wonyo’s interpretation of The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana attributed to Aśvaghosha, which is appreciated among many modern Buddhist scholars as one of the most important scriptural works in North East Asian Buddhism.
According to Wonhyo’s Commentary on The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana, it is a scripture where the One Mind as Mahayana awakens faith in human beings. In this scripture, Dharma as Mahayana appears as One Mind in the form of Tathāgata Garbha within the sentient beings. One Mind is the ultimate reality which induces the sentient beings to the insight of transcendence beyond the secular world and to the practical response toward the transcendent reality. Due to the Tathāgata Garbha, sentient beings do not see the secular world as not only secular but also representing transcendent truths. They feel comfort and seek salvation under the transcendent governance of One Mind as tathātā. That is, through the guidance of One Mind, the sentient beings transcend eternally the secular world, transforming their own and their neighbors' lives into better lives through the construction of a better universe. In such a sense, One 4 Shunkyo Katsumata, A Study of The Citta-vijnana Thought in Buddhism, (Sankibo-Busshorin, 1961). Mind is rightfully comparable to the Muslim concept of God as the ultimate and transcendent reality.
If we rightly understand the meaning of sunyata (emptiness), we are assured of the proper justification of our existence. Why is it possible? If sunyata is just sunyata, we just cannot be assured of the proper justification of our existence. However, since this sunyata is empty of its own fixed identity, we can be assured of the proper justification of our existence.5 Here Wonhyo focuses on the emptiness of sunyata itself. Sunyata cannot be fixed down into a limited definition. Any conception about sunyata is wrong if it is argued to be the only meaning of sunyata excluding the other meanings of it. The conception of sunyata is similar to the conception of God in that both conceptions defy and transcend our petty definitions. As God is above our conceptions of him, sunyata is above our conceptions of it.
Thus we are not denied of our existence even if we accept the truthfulness of sunyata. Rather, we are free to pursue our happiness in spite of our limited and distorted present states. We are not bound to the past or present affairs that occurred to us, even though we cannot deny the enormous power of those conditions. Here some one may say that this freedom can threaten the transcendence of ultimate reality, that is, God. If we are absolutely free, there cannot be any difference between God as ultimate reality and ourselves. In fact, we sometimes feel a subtle arrogance from some Buddhist monks or nuns. Some of them have such a conviction about their experienced truth that they disregard other opinions proposed about ultimate truth. However, I think that any religious people, if they are mature enough, are just humble before the ultimate truth. We human beings are only allowed of just glimpses of a certain aspects of ultimate reality. As any Christian or Muslim cannot be sure that they know every thing about God, any monk with mature intellect cannot be sure that they 5 Hangukbulgyojeonseo, vol.1, p. 742b.
know every meaning of sunyata. Wonhyo says clearly of this truth that “even a Bodhisattva at a higher stage can attain just a small portion of the proper meaning of sunyata’s emptiness.”6 His humble attitude can be seen in his pen name “Soseong Geosa,” which means an “outcaste.” The more he was enlightened to the depth of sunyata’s truthfulness, the more he came to become humble as well as happy. He shows vividly what a genuine saint is. The more he came to know the meaning of sunyata, the more he came to mingle with ordinary people without any arrogance, working for their happiness and liberation from various sufferings. Such interpretation of Wonhyo can be ascertained and corroborated by Yoshito S. Hakeda, a recent translator of the Awakening Faith in Mahayana, whose English translation is regarded as the standard translation of this scripture.
Yoshito S. Hakeda says as following. ...there is room to present Suchness, if it is done symbolically, as eternal, permanent, immutable, etc. "Emptiness" does not mean "nonexistence" literally; it is usually used in the sense of "empty of or devoid of a distinct, absolute, independent, permanent, individual entity or being as an irreducible component in a pluralistic world," or of "empty of all predications." According to this way of thinking, even "nonbeing" is a "being," as it is contingent upon "being." The term "empty" results from a dialectic consciousness of transcending this dichotomy of "being" and "nonbeing."
In order to prevent the danger of interpreting "emptiness" as nonbeing or as an advocation of nihilism, Nāgārjuna says: "Emptiness (śūnyatā), ill conceived, destroys a stupid man, as would a snake when handled improperly, or a spell badly executed."7 Though Hakeda’s explanation is rather easy for us to understand than Wonhyo’s, since he is a modern scholar, they are saying the same thing. In other words, they are saying that sunyata is not altogether a purely negative concept. That is, we can say that sunyata is a symbolic expression of transcendent reality, whose experience can be said to be a blissful one. 6 Hangukbulgyojeonseo, vol.1, p. 742b.
7 Yoshito S. Hakeda, The Awakening of Faith, Attributed to Asvaghosha, (Columbia University Press, 1967). As we have seen, fana and sunyata are mutually understandable in that they both teaches us the need of transcending our smaller self and moving upward towards ultimately transcendent reality. In this context, dependent arising begins to have a newer meaning. Previously we saw that we can overcome our sufferings because of their impermanence. Here we can say that we can overcome our sufferings because we can depend on One Mind as ultimate reality.
Sunyata as dependent arising now means our dependence upon One Mind as ultimate reality. This perspective is compared to Muslims’ perspective of fana and baqa. The annihilation of our petty self is meaningful because of the afterward guidance of God. Without any reliable reality, there is only despair and nihilism. As fana is meaningful only with baqa, sunyata is meaningful when it is properly understood in the context of its positive role in the lives of Buddhists including, for example, Dalai Lama. Wonhyo showed its positive meaning with his conception of One Mind, which leads us to compare rather easily various conceptions of Buddhism and Islam.
This understanding is expected to enable Buddhists and Muslims alike to enter into serious and deep dialogues as mutually enriching partners in really meaningful dimensions of ultimate significance beyond superficial dimensions of exterior matters.
요약 파나(fana)와 공 — 이슬람과 불교의 만남의 가능성에 관하여 원효의 대승기신론소를 중심으로 — 류제동 (서강대학교 종교학과 강사) 불교와 이슬람이 한국에서 평화롭게 공존해야 한다는 것은 받아들여야 하는 사실이 다. 한국의 역사 자체가 그 초기부터 불교를 제외하고는 거론할 수가 없거니와, 오늘날 에도 불교는 명시적으로는 한국인들의 4분의 1에 이르는 구성원들이 속해 있는 종교이 고, 현대 한국의 언어, 문화, 예술 등 온갖 방면에 깊은 영향을 미치고 있다. 이슬람 또 한 세계종교로서 아직은 한국 내의 신자 수가 많은 편은 아니지만, 타국 노동자들의 유 입과 함께 그 수가 급격히 늘어나고 있는 형편이다. 서로에 대해서 이해하고 배우지 않 으면 안 되는 상황에 있는 것이다. 그러나 그러한 상황적 요구와는 달리, 한국 내에서 무슬림과 불자의 대화는 아직 요 원한 단계에 있다. 이는 비단 한국 내에서만의 상황은 아니다. 세계적으로도 그리스도 교와 이슬람의 대화 혹은 그리스도교와 불자의 대화 내지 상호 이해는 그래도 다소의 진척이 있는 반면에 불교와 이슬람의 대화는 요원한 편이다. 인도에서 불교가 소멸하 게 된 배경 가운데 하나로 이슬람 세력의 인도 침입을 거론하는 학자들도 더러 있거니 와, 몇 년 전에 있었던 아프가니스탄 탈레반 정권에 의한 바미얀 석불 파괴 사건은 불 자들을 경악하게 만들었다. 이러한 서로 간의 몰이해에는 불교에 있어서 우선 겉으로 보이는 측면에 있어서 오 해를 낳을 가능성이 있다는 데에 있다. 이슬람은 우상 숭배를 철저히 금지하고, 독신생 활을 반대하며 결혼을 신성한 것으로 여기는 데 반하여, 불교는 독신 수도자들이 지도 적 엘리트층을 형성하고 있으며 불교의 건물들은 불상과 보살상을 비롯해서 온갖 상들 이 안치되어 있는 것이다. 이러한 형식적인 면에 더하여, 교리상에 있어서도 이슬람에 서는 유일신에 대한 숭배를 철저하게 강조하는 데 반하여, 불교에서는 무신론 내지는 다신론을 가르치는 것으로 보이는 측면이 문제를 더 복잡하게 만든다. 그러한 가운데에서도 두 종교의 사상사를 조망하면서 일치점 내지 유사점을 찾아나 가는 방향으로 탐색해가다보면, 우리의 눈에 우선적으로 띄는 것은 수피즘이라고 하는 이슬람 신비주의와 불교의 공사상 간의 유사성이다. 수피즘에서 언급되는 파나(fana)에 서의 세상적 자아의 소멸이나 불교의 공사상에서 이야기하는 무아(無我)는 매우 유사 한 면모를 보이는 것이다. 물론 여기에서도 겉으로 보기에는 만나기 어려운 점이 있다고 할 수밖에 없다. 수피 즘은 근본적으로 유일신 하느님을 만나고자 하는 추구를 중심으로 이루어지는 신비주 의이며, 불교의 공사상은 모든 것을 부정해버리는 차원에 서 있다고 일컬어지기 때문 이다. 불교의 공사상은 심지어 공사상 그 자체마저 부정해야 한다고까지 이야기한다. 불교 자체의 사상가들조차 일각에서는 그러한 공사상의 철저한 부정의 정신을 이야기 하면서 그러한 정신이 없는 유신론적 전통들과는 근본적으로 일치하기 어려운 점이 있 다는 것을 이야기하고 있기도 하다. 그러나 불교는 수 천 년의 역사를 경과하면서 끊임없는 재해석과 함께 다양한 사상 과 실천의 양태를 보여 왔으며 오늘날에도 계속해서 사상의 새로운 발전의 면모를 보 여주고 있다. 특히 한국 불교사에 있어서 가장 존경받는 학승인 원효는 당시 불교의 가 장 중요한 논서로 꼽히는 대승기신론에 대한 주석을 통하여, 그렇게 일방적으로 부 정적이기만 한 공사상을 펼치기보다는 그러한 부정의 요소와 함께 새로운 차원에서 열 리는 긍정의 세계를 그의 일심(一心) 사상을 중심으로 적극적으로 이야기하고 있다. 이 러한 원효의 가르침은 수피즘에서 파나(fana)를 이야기함과 동시에 하느님 안에서의 머 무름으로써 바카(baqa)를 이야기하는 것과 매우 유사한 측면을 보여주고 있다. 원효가 강조하는 일심(一心)은 이슬람의 수피즘에서의 하느님 개념에 놀라울 정도로 유사한 측면을 보여주고 있는 것이다. 이러한 원효의 가르침은 한국에 있어서 이슬람과 불교 의 만남의 가능성을 밝게 해준다고 하겠다. [주제어] fana, 공, 원효, 대승기신론
Fana and Sunyata
What relationship can be formed between Buddhism and Islam in Korea? Can Muslims form a constructive relationship with Buddhists in Korea? If Buddhists are really atheists or idolaters, then there will never be any constructive communication between Buddhists and Muslims. Apparently, many Buddhists bow down before statues of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Some of them also often assert expressly that they do not recognize any absolute God. Such attitudes have often been interpreted as idolatrous or nihilistic attitudes. Our superficial observation, however, should not deceive us. Buddhism is a very sophisticated religion. Even Buddha himself hesitated to teach anything because of the difficulty in communicating his own enlightenment. He and his followers have been very cautious so that their doctrines may not be misunderstood. They have thought that any conceivable object can only obscure the nature of the ultimate reality.
Their negative descriptions of the ultimate reality should be understood in such a context. However, they also considered that many people without keen intelligence should not be neglected in their pursuit of truth. Ordinary people could not think directly of transcendent reality. They needed help in being awakened to the ultimate reality. Buddha and his elite disciples thought that drawings and statues can be of help to them in spite of there necessarily being dangerous elements in such mediums. Fana (annihilation of self) and sunyata (emptiness of self) are similar in their negation of our ordinary self. Many scholars focus on their similarity in such a point. But some scholars object to this in that Fana cannot be understood without baqa (survival in God), while sunyata is regarded by some Buddhists as absolute negation of any existent reality.
Then, is Buddhism absolute nihilism which negates any positive reality? Any one who has met Buddhist monks or nuns would never agree to such an argument. Buddhist monks and nuns live their celibate life happily. Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, once said that his lifelong pursuit was absolute happiness without any shadow of sorrow. He professed that he attained such happiness through the experience of nirvana. How can we harmonize those Buddhists’ negation of any existent reality and their happy life? If you have ever seen the smiling face of Dalai Lama, you cannot negate that Buddhism is a religion of happiness. How can they smile after negating everything? They even seem to negate the existence of their own self, which is the essential point of sunyata.
In Islam, of course, we can still find a corresponding thought in the concept of fana, though we should postpone the conclusion that fana and sunyata are really similar. Fana also negates our ordinary self. However, is that all? Is there only a small portion of similarity between Islam and Buddhism with ultimate difference between them? As we observed above, Buddhists also pursue happiness in their life. Is it possible to pursue happiness without positing any positive reality? This question has been posed not only by outside scholars but also inside members of Buddhism, which constitutes a major discussion in the history of Buddhist thought. Nowadays, however, there is a general consensus within Korean Buddhist scholars that Buddhism still negates any positive reality. What does their negation mean? Should we accept their negation literally as an objection to theistic argument of Islam or Christianity or Judaism? [Key Words] fana, sunyata, Wonhyo, The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana </poem>