Indra´s Net
After reading a recent post, “Reality and Illusion”, by a fellow member of MomenTech, I was sitting and reminded of two things, the first connected to a haiku by Koboyashi Issa (1762 – 1826), which in Japanese reads:
tsuyu no yo wa
tsuyu no yo nagara
sari nagara
Donald Keene’s translation:
The world of dew
Is a world of dew, and yet
And yet…
Following the stream, Issa’s hiaku in turn reminded me of the Buddhist concept of Indra’s Net: a visual image for the idea that all phenomena are intimately connected. In “Vermeer’s Hat”, a history book by Timothy Brook, he describes it.
“When Indra fashioned the world, he made it as a web, and at every knot in the web is tied a pearl. Everything that exists, or has ever existed, every idea that can be thought about, every datum that is true—every dharma, in the language of Indian philosophy—is a pearl in Indra’s net. Not only is every pearl tied to every other pearl by virtue of the web on which they hang, but on the surface of every pearl is reflected every other jewel on the net. Everything that exists in Indra’s web implies all else that exists.“
In one sense, Indra’s Net appears a perfect metaphor for the idea that reality is an illusion since nothing actually exists without everything else. Self is illusory as is all else that appears permanent or stable. Quotes like these from the Buddha “A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, so he escapes the suffering” seem to affirm this. At the same time, seen from a different perspective, Indra’s Net also expresses something entirely opposite: that the world is not an illusion and that escaping suffering is not possible. I will explain.
I first heard of Indra’s Net from a teacher who did not use the image of a pearl, at every node, but of a dewdrop. She said that each dewdrop could be thought of as a person; and that if you looked closely at each dewdrop, you could see tiny reflections of all the surrounding dewdrops (others); looking still closer, you could see all the reflections within reflections, to infinity, of all the dewdrops that exist. The same was true for the cosmos.
And so I return to Issa who wrote “The world of dew” after his daughter, Sato, died of smallpox when she was just over a year old. Knowing the poem’s context, the meaning changes.
The world of dew
Is a world of dew, and yet
And yet…
This leads me to think that the idea that the world is an illusion is only one interpretation that comes from the idea that the self is an illusion and that everything is connected, concepts that arise mutually. Seen from a different perspective, the world is very real. This is because as long as there are people or animals suffering in the world, so are we. Not because we feel their pain but because we are them, much like a hall of mirrors. The same could be said for the planet as a whole. When a forest or ecosystem die, so does a part of us since like Indra’s Net all of life is woven together. This feeling / understanding is what motivates activists worldwide. It is also what allows us to understand our greif when we lose someone or something we love.
Importantly, these two ways of seeing the world are not in contradiction. They even compliment one another. In one sense, the world is deeply real. But in another, it is very much an illusion. Balance is knowing the difference.
Maciej wrote on Jan 6:
As it is often we touched a hot subject. There is a remarkable essay in New Yorker Dec 23-30 2013 titled The Intelligent Plant. It present the most recent update on science of plants.
"More likely, in the scientists’ view, intelligence in plants resembles that exhibited in insect colonies, where it is thought to be an emergent property of a great many mindless individuals organized in a network. Much of the research on plant intelligence has been inspired by the new science of networks, distributed computing, and swarm behavior, which has demonstrated some of the ways in which remarkably brainy behavior can emerge in the absence of actual brains".
"Our “fetishization” of neurons, as well as our tendency to equate behavior with mobility, keeps us from appreciating what plants can do. For instance, since plants can’t run away and frequently get eaten, it serves them well not to have any irreplaceable organs. “A plant has a modular design, so it can lose up to ninety per cent of its body without being killed,” he said. “There’s nothing like that in the animal world. It creates a resilience.”
"One of the most productive areas of plant research in recent years has been plant signalling. Perhaps the cleverest instance of plant signalling involves two insect species, the first in the role of pest and the second as its exterminator. Several species, including corn and lima beans, emit a chemical distress call when attacked by caterpillars. Parasitic wasps some distance away lock in on that scent, follow it to the afflicted plant, and proceed to slowly destroy the caterpillars. Scientists call these insects “plant bodyguards.”
"The hypothesis that intelligent behavior in plants may be an emergent property of cells exchanging signals in a network might sound far-fetched, yet the way that intelligence emerges from a network of neurons may not be very different. Most neuroscientists would agree that, while brains considered as a whole function as centralized command centers for most animals, within the brain there doesn’t appear to be any command post; rather, one finds a leaderless network. That sense we get when we think about what might govern a plant–that there is no there there, no wizard behind the curtain pulling the levers–may apply equally well to our brains."
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=1
shinobu wrote on Jan 2:
plus, plants taste WAY better than animals - I know it by heart as I was born and raised in Japan. No kidding
Lilith wrote on Dec 18:
Anonymous is correct. It is impossible to tell what an eaten apple feels. However, it is possible to tell what an animal feels when you kill it. We know that and that is why there is a big difference.
anonymous wrote on Dec 18:
How possiibly any one can tell what eaten apple felt while being eaten alive and coated with stomach acid?
We are the part of ONE realm. We are not divided into humans, animals, plants, planets, galaxies, etc. This is the essence of the Eastern thought.
Rory wrote on Dec 18:
Gandhi's famous quote is "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Not "the way its fruits and vegetables are treated."
Lilith wrote on Dec 17:
Plants don't feel pain. Animals do. Big difference. Easy to draw the line...
Frances wrote on Dec 17:
Plants and animals are very different in terms of morality and ethics. In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Any sentient being (this does not include plants) is entitled, at a minimum, to the right not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering. It is a very simple moral concept.
anonymous wrote on Dec 17:
Yes, the world is very real indeed. I experienced it today while eating apple. My teeth tearing into crunchy green matter only to be swallowed down to the black hole of stomach, where it was attacked by acid. Just like aliens. We don't need to be afraid of them, because we are the Aliens.
Empathy towards animals is correct. But what about fruit and vegetables?
Where do we put a dividing line what to eat and not? Meat, fish, plants, water is all alive. It is morally and conceptually risky to be only content while refusing meat .
All the spiritual systems promise a white open space full of light. However according to my insights it is often a feeling of being a part of boiling chunk of matter moving in a space. Destination unknown. Being so highly manufactured as species, we loose perspective. We built our own illusions to stay sane.
Living in comfort zone not much different than our hero from the movie Truman Show.