6th International Whitehead Conference, July 3-6, 2006)
A Theological Encounter with Chinul’s Buddhist Thought on the True Mind
Sung Jin Song (Methodist Theological Seminary in Seoul)
This paper is an attempt at a theological encounter between process theology and Chinul’s Buddhism. Although some people, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, view Buddhism as an atheistic religion, I doubt that Buddhism is really an atheistic religion. I agree with Charles Hartshorne when he objects to the characterization of Buddhism as “atheistic.” Hartshorne understands Buddhism as “a form of intuitionism” and suggests that it can be conceptualized appropriately through process theism (Hartshorne, 1979: 419 f.).
Buddhism has developed diverse traditions throughout its long history. Son(Chin. Chan, Jap. Zen) Buddhism is one of the prevalent traditions throughout East Asia. Chinul is called the founder of the native Korean Son tradition. The key expression that summarily points to Chinul’s Son Buddhist thought is “chin sim.” “chin” means “true,” “sim” means “mind.” Therefore, “chin sim” literally means “true mind.” In my view, Chinul’s “chin sim” is used to refer both the strictly ultimate reality and a true human being (Buswell: 163 f./Shim: 245 f.; Buswell: 1777/Shim: 315; Buswell: 179-182/Shim: 329 f337). Chinul calls the strictly ultimate reality chin sim because it is absolutely true. Chinul also calls an authentic human existence chin sim because that existence is characterized by its participation in and manifestation of the cosmic chin sim, the True One Mind. True human existence consists in conformation to the perfect truthfulness of the ultimate reality. In order to know what Chinul precisely means by “chin sim,” the ultimate reality or authentic human existence, in a text under consideration, a careful interpretation is essential when examining his writing. In case when the ultimate reality is meant by chin sim, I translate it into “True Mind” (in upper case). In a case when Chinul uses the term in reference to authentic human existence, I translate it “true mind” (in lower case). Although Robert Buswell took great pains to translate most of Chinul’s works into English, he does not distinguish between two different meanings of chin sim. In all cases, he translates chin sim uniformly as “true mind” (in lower case). Therefore “true mind” in Buswell’s translation can mean either a finite true human being or the cosmic True Mind.
The main thesis in this paper is that there are profound points of agreement between process theology and Chinul’s Buddhist thought on chin sim. This paper consists of two parts. In the first part, I will attempt a theological interpretation of Chinul’s True Mind. I will try to make the point that Chinul’s thought about the mutual immanence between the True Mind and the world is theistic, especially panentheistic. In the second part, my theological encounter with Chinul will focus on the relationship between the True Mind and humans and on its soteriological implications.
I
Process theologians agree about the mutual immanence between God and the world. Classical theists understand the relationship between God and the world as one-sided. According to classical theism, God is immanent in the word, but the world is not immanent in God. God affects the world but the world does not affect God. In contrast, neo-classical theists see the God-world relationship in terms of mutuality. According to Whitehead, God in His/Her primordial nature is immanent in the world, and the world is immanent in God in His/Her consequent nature (Whitehead, 1978: 344-351). God’s immanence in the world means “incarnation of God” in the world (Whitehead, 1960: 149). The world’s immanence in God means its taking on “objective immortality” there (Whitehead, 1978: 351). For Hartshorne, God is inclusive of the world and also is included by the world (Hartshorne, 1970: 100). For process theology, there is a mutual interaction between God and the world (Hartshorne, 1969: 157 ff.)
How does Chinul conceive of the relationship between the ultimate reality and the world? It is to be noted that Chinul uses many terms to refer to the ultimate reality. In addition to “True Mind,” he also employs ” “One Thing,” “One Mind,” “Dharmakaya,” “the Buddha of Unmoving Wisdom,” “Universal Brightness Buddha,” “Vairocana Buddha” (Buswell:140/Shim:165, Buswell:147/Shim:191; Buswell: 168/Shim: 271; Buswell: 203/Shim: 355) etc. to refer to the ultimate reality. “The Numinous Awareness,” “the Unmoving Wisdom,” “the Fundamental Wisdom,” “the Wisdom of Universal Brightness,” (Buswell: 184/Shim: 343; Buswell: 203/Shim: 355) also refer to the ultimate reality, especially with regard to its intelligence.
Chinul dose not address the subject of the relationship between the ultimate reality and the world systematically with a sophisticated conceptuality. He often expresses his vision of reality in terms of “one and many.” For instance, Chinul quotes following verse from a sutra.
The myriads in the universe,
Are marked by one dharma (Buswell: 211/Shim: 386),
What is the “one dharma” here? Chinul agrees with Fa-tsang in interpreting the “one dharma” as the One Mind. The One Mind is said to mark “the myriads in the universe” in the sense that It “embraces all mundane and supramundane dharmas” (Buswell: 211/Shim: 386). The meaning of the One Mind’s embracing all mundane and supramundane dharmas again can mean either that the One Mind is immanent in all worldly beings or that all worldly beings are immanent in the One Mind. One point is clear at least. The One Mind and the many worldly beings are inseparably interconnected. The many things in the universe are unified through their common relationship with the One Mind. Let us also consider the following statement by Chinul.
One Thing is eternally numinous and covers heaven and earth (Buswell: 140/Shim: 165).
The One Thing refers to the One Mind. To say that the One Thing “covers heaven and earth” is to say that without exception, the One Thing is related to all beings in the universe. The mode of the relation can be either the One Thing’s immanence in all beings in the universe or Its inclusion of them all. Chinul’s following statements also affirm an intimate connection between the ultimate reality and all worldly beings.
The mountains, the rivers, and the great earth are all discovered to be the [T]rue [M]ind. Hence it is impossible that there could be any other refuge apart from this [T]rue [M]ind….All the worlds in the ten directions are only this [O]ne [T]rue [M]ind (Buswell: 183/Shim: 342).
Chinul and process theologians share the belief that the ultimate reality and the world are inseparably connected to each other.
There are at least two alternative ways in which we can conceive the connection between the ultimate reality and the world. According to one view, the ultimate reality and the world are connected to one another through a one-way relationship. The ultimate affects the world, but is not affected by it. The ultimate reality is the cause of the world, but it is not the effect of the world. The ultimate reality is immanent in the world, but the world is not immanent in it. The ultimate reality is connected to the world only as its creator. According to another view, the ultimate reality and the world are connected to one another through a two-way relationship. The ultimate reality is not only the cause of the world, but also the effect of the world. Not only is the ultimate reality is immanent in the world. The world is also immanent in the ultimate reality. The ultimate reality is connected to the world not only as its creator but also as its redeemer.
Which of the two is Chinul’s vision of reality? In my view, Chinul has a conception of the two-way relationship between the ultimate reality and the world. Let us consider Chinul’s following statement.
Since the measure of the [Mind]’s own wisdom of universal brightness is equal to the dharmadhatu and the whole of space, that wisdom’s forms and functions are by nature free: they may be one or many, great or small, sentient beings or Buddhas, oneself or others, apparent or concealed, contracted or expanded, adverse or favorable, good or bad, tainted or pure. This inscrutable store of great brightness contains all dharmas and is the source of the myriads of transformations (Buswell: 208/Shim: 373 f.)
Dharmadhatu literally means “realm of dharma.” It is the “totality in which all phenomena arise, dwell, and pass way” (Fischer-Schreiber, Ehrhard and Diener: 54). According to Chinul, the dharmadhatu is the world with myriads of sentient beings in it, to which the One Mind is related in two ways. On the one hand, the One Mind becomes the cosmic “inscrutable store” for the world. The One Mind in this aspect “contains all dharmas,” that is, all beings in the world. The One Mind who “contains all dharmas” is similar to what Hartshorne calls “the one ultimate receptacle of all achievement, the life of God” (Hartshorne, 1948: 128). The One Mind as the cosmic “inscrutable store” is the locus where the world is immanent. On the other hand, the One Mind becomes for the world “the source of the myriads of transformation.” The One Mind as “the source of the myriads of transformations” is immanent in the world. The One Mind in this respect is close to God the creator as understood by process theology. Chinul’s following quotation from a patriarch also supports his thought about the mutual immanence between the One Mind and the world.
When expanded, it contains all of the dharmadhatu; when contracted, it exists within one minute particle of dust (Buswell: 167/Shim: 263).
It seems to me that the dharmadhatu is analogous to the basileia of God in the New Testament. Basileia is a Greek term, meaning either “the kingly reign” or “the realm reigned.” The essence of God’s kingly rule is love. Therefore the basileia of God means either the reign of God’s love for the world or the realm where God’s love reigns. The reign of God’s love is omnipresent. The whole world is the realm of God’s reign. The dharmadhtu or the basileia is the whole world in the dual relationship of immanence and inclusion with the ultimate reality
Chinul quotes a beautiful poem by Chinese Buddhist master Yung-chia Chen-chueh. The poem also expresses the idea of the mutual immanence between the ultimate reality and the world.
The shining of the mirrorlike [M]ind is unimpeded in its brightness.
Its bright lustre radiates throughout the worlds as numerous as grains of sand.
All phenomena in creation reflect within it;
In the one ray of perfect light there is neither inside nor outside.
One nature completely penetrates all natures,
One dharma fully contains all other dharmas.
One moon universally appears in all bodies of water,
All the moons appearing in those waters are merged in that one moon.
The dharmakaya of all the Buddhas enters into my own nature,
And my nature reunites with that of all the tathagatas (Buswell: 212 f./Shim: 394).
One the one hand, the One Mind “penetrates all natures.” The One Mind penetrating all natures is the ultimate reality who is immanent all beings of the world. On the other hand, the One Mind “fully contains all other dharmas.” The One Mind containing all other beings is the ultimate reality in whom the world is immanent. Chinul’s idea of the mutual relationship between the One Mind and the world can find its analogue in process theology. The above poem by Yung-chia Chen-chueh is congenial to Whitehead’s inspiring verses in the last chapter of Process and Reality.
It is true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the world is one and God many….
It is true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World….
It is true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God (Whitehead, 1978: 348).
It seems to me that Chinul and Yung-chia’s Buddhist thought and the Whiteheadian process thought at least share the vision of the mutual immanence between the ultimate reality and the world, although we cannot preclude some possible divergences between them
Up to now, we have seen that, for both Chinul and process theologians, the ultimate reality and the world are connected to one another through a mutual relationship. Next I would like to deal with the question about the uniqueness of the ultimate reality. Is there anything unique about the ultimate reality? If there is, what is it? Process theology believes that, while God and the world are inseparably connected to one another, there are still important distinctions between them. According to Hartshorne, God has the character of “dual transcendence.” By dual transcendence, Hartshorne means that God is exalted above all others in both poles of the ultimate contraries such as subject and object, inclusion and immanence, effect and cause (Hartshorne, 1970: ch. 11). According to Hartshorne, God has the unique status of “object-for-all-subjects” as well as the unique status of “subject-for-all-objects (Hartshorne, 1948: 70). God in the former status means that God is omnipresent, immanent in all beings in the whole universe. God in the latter status means that God is omniscient. God’s knowledge “covers the whole actuality with certainty and ideal clarity” (Hartshorne, 1969: 164).
Is the One Mind also unique in a similar way? As seen above, Chinul agrees with process theology in conceiving the ultimate reality as supreme in both poles of inclusion and immanence. The One Mind’s inclusion of, and immanence in, other beings are cosmic and supreme. There is no being that the One Mind does not “penetrate,” no being from whom the One Mind is absent. As immanent in all beings, the One Mind becomes “the source of the myriads of transformations.” Likewise, the One Mind “fully contains all other dharmas.” The One Mind is the ultimate reality in whom the world is immanent. Thus Chinul agrees with process theologians in conceiving the ultimate reality as “the chief causative principle and the ultimate recipient of what takes place in the cosmos” (Pittenger: 245).
If the ultimate reality does not exist necessarily, it is not dependable. Process theologians and Chinul also share the idea of the necessary existence of the ultimate reality. All theists, together with Hartshorne, believe that God is “a being who ‘exists necessarily,’ whose existence is so utterly secure that his nonexistence expresses neither a fact nor even so much a possibility” (Hartshorne and Reese: 8). While all creatures come into being and perish, God does not begin to exist nor cease to exist. God’s existence is absolute, although God’s actuality or the concrete divine state changes moment by moment due to God’s ongoing experiences of the world. The One Mind also exists necessarily. Chinul says:
[T]he original essence of the [T]rue [M]ind transcends cause and effect. It connects past and present….It neither arises nor ceases; [I]t neither exists nor does not exist. It is unmoving and unshakable; [I]t is still and constantly abiding (Buswell: 165/ Shim: 255).
The absolute existence of the One True Mind is distinguished in principle from the relative existence of other creatures. Therefore Chinul says, “[I]t neither exists nor does not exist.”
II
In this section, I will propose a theological interpretation of Chinul’s soteriology of true mind. Chinul’s soteriology centers on the union of the Cosmic True Mind and the finite human mind. It is comparable to St. John of the Cross’ Christian soteriology of the union between God and human beings. According to St. John of the Cross, there are two kinds of union between God and human beings. One is “the essential or substantial union,” and the other one “the union of likeness” (St. John of the Cross: 116). The essential union with God is ontological. It is not a matter of choice. Every man or woman just as a human being is ontologically united with God. In contrast, the union of likeness with God is existential. It is realized “when God’s will and the soul’s are in conformity, so that nothing in the one is repugnant to the other” (St. John of the Cross: 116). The person to whom the union of likeness is realized comes to resemble and manifest God who is love. He or she becomes an “image of God” or a “shadow of God.” St. John of the cross says:
Having been made one with God, the soul is somehow God through participation. Although it is not God as perfectly as it will be in the next life, it is like the shadow of God. Being the shadow of God through this substantial transformation, it performs in this measure in God and through God what He through Himself does in it. For the will of the two is one will, and thus God’s operation and the soul’s is one (St. John of the Cross: 641).
Incarnation of God and sanctification of the human being coincide in the union of likeness. God who is already ontologically united with all humans also calls them to realize the union of likeness and manifest God’s glory in the world.
Chinul’s conception of relationship between the One Mind and humans is analogous to St. John of the Cross’ conception of two kinds of union between God and humans. Chinul talks about an original presence of the One Mind in the depth of every human being and also about the necessity of being awakened to this original fact.
The primordial fact of the immanence of the One True Mind in the finite human being gives rise to an original true human nature. What Chinul calls ja sung (one’s real nature), or bon sung (original nature), or chin sung (true nature) refers to “the perfectly bright purity of the original true nature of sentient beings which abides in pollution but is not stained, which is cultivated but becomes no purer” (Buswell: 216/Shim: 408). There is no human being in whom the True Mind is not immanent. Therefore all human beings without exception are provided with the original true nature. As grounded in the True Mind’s immanence in the finite humans, the original true human nature takes on the character of participating in the nature of the True Mind as far as possible. Thus Chinul cites Hui-neng’s saying that “The self-nature contains the three bodies; Its discovery perfects the four wisdoms” (Buswell: 242/Shim: 460).
In the aspect of the original true nature that is present in the depth dimension of every human being, there exists an original union between every human being and the True Mind. And the True Mind is originally the ultimate true self of every human self. The True Mind becomes the true self of every human self once again when he or she is existentially awakened to this original union. Chinul says, “As the fundamental wisdom is the Buddha of my own mind, it is not the case that some alien fruits are residing in me” (my translation in English/Shim: 434.).
As the original true human nature in itself is ontologically grounded on the immanence of the True Mind in human beings, it is in the form of being awakened to or seeing the original human nature that the existential union with the True Mind is realized. To realize the existential union with the One Mind is to become a Buddha. Chinul says:
If in one thought he then follows back the light [of his mind to its source] and sees his own original nature, he will discover that the ground of this nature is innately free of defilement, and that he himself is originally endowed with the non-outflow wisdom-nature which is not a hair’s breadth different from that of all the Buddha’s. Hence it is called sudden-awakening (Buswell: 144/Shim: 181).
A Buddha participates in and conforms to the True Mind who is the transcendent cosmic Buddha. The attainment of Buddhahood is “like an ornate royal seal; once it is stamped, all sections of the pattern are printed simultaneously” (Buswell: 220/Shim: 419).
The existential union between the True Mind and a finite mind does not mean that the human self disappears. An authentic human self exists as one transformed by its union with the True Mind. “When the deluded mind is extinguished, the true mind appears” (Buswell: 174/Shim: 306). The true mind has returned to “its source” (Buswell: 146/Shim: 188). And the human true mind manifests the Cosmic True Mind. To employ Christian terms, the true minds are “incarnations” of the True Mind. They are embodiments of wisdom and compassion.
Wisdom and compassion belong to the essential nature of the One Mind. To be existentially united with the One Mind through enlightenment means is “to make use of great compassion and wisdom (Buswell: 117/Shim: 118). Bodhisattvas Samantabhadra and Manjusri are the representative embodiments of the great wisdom of the One Mind. Bodhisattva Avalokidesvara is the representative embodiment of the great compassion of the One Mind (Buswell: 205/Shim: 363). And wisdom and compassion cannot be separated from one another. Compassion means living in accordance with wisdom or the right vision of the way things are. Wisdom sees the world as the dharmadhatu, the one realm of the One Mind, “the realm of that original [W]isdom which completely contains both sentient beings and Buddhas and is free within both identity and difference” (Buswell: 210/Shim: 381). All beings are unified in their common relation to the One Mind who is immanent in, and inclusive of, all beings. In accordance with this truth, the true minds of compassion “benefit” and “rescue all sentient beings” (Buswell: 205/Shim: 363).
The appearance of the true mind is by way of “no-mind.” The true mind comes to exist when the mind empties itself for the True Mind who is originally there within the mind as the One Supreme Buddha. Chinul says:
When I said no-mind, I did not mean that there is no mind-essence. It is only when there are no thoughts in the mind that we use the term no-mind. It is like speaking of an empty bottle: we mean that there is no thing in the bottle, not that there is no bottle…..Accordingly, we refer to the absence of the deluded mind, not to the absence of the true mind’s sublime functioning (Buswell: 169/Shim: 277 f.).
Buddhist concept of no-mind is analogous to the Christian concept of “the poor in spirit.” Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Matthew says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:3).
The dipolarity of immanence and inclusion in the relationship between the ultimate reality and human beings needs to be reflected in any adequate soteriology. An adequate soteriology will be comprised of both redemption or some concept analogous to it in due consideration of our immanence in the ultimate reality and sanctification or some concept analogous to it in due consideration of the ultimate reality’s immanence in us. Although St. John of the Cross’ thought of “the essential union” and “the union of likeness” tends to be more oriented to the idea of God’s immanence in us rather than the idea of our immanence in God, he still has a room for soteriologically appropriating the aspect of our immanence in God as well. For example, concerning divine-human union of love he says, “in the union and transformation of love each gives possession of self to the other, and each leaves and exchanges self for the other” (St. John of the Cross: 455). Chinul also, in his soteriological reflection, gives more consideration to the aspect of the One Mind’s immanence in us rather than to the aspect of our immanence in the One Mind. Therefore Chinul’s emphasis falls upon our awakening to the Wisdom of Universal Brightness in us rather than offering ourselves to the One Mind.
In conclusion, the essential point of Chinul’s soteriology of true mind consists in an existential union with the divine reality called the One Mind who is immanent in, and inclusive of, all sentient beings. The human life united with the One Mind is always manifested as a life of love for fellow sentient beings. The true mind is necessarily involved in some worldly activities for fellow sentient beings, because the One True Mind that the finite true mind wishes to resemble is involved in reciprocal communion with all sentient beings and cares for them. The ultimate reality, whether it is called the One Mind or God, is love and inspires us to love one another.
Works Consulted
Robert Buswell, tr., 1983. The Korean Approach to Zen: The Collected
Works of Chinul, tr. Robert E. Buswell, Jr. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Charles Hartshorne, 1948. The Divine Relativity. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press.
___________________, 1969. “The God of Religion and the God of
Philosophy.” In Talk of God, ed. Vesey. London: Macmillan.
___________________, 1970. Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method.
LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court.
___________________, 1979. “’Emptiness’ and Fullness in Asiatic and Western Thought.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 6: 411-420.
Charles Hartshorne and William L. Reese, 1953. Philosophers Speak of God. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
St. John of the Cross, 1979. The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross tr. Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. and Otilio Rodriguez, O.C.D. Washington, D. C.: ICS Publications.
Norman Pittenger, 1977. “Beauty in a World in Process.” Andover Newton Quarterly, 17/4: 243-249.
Ingrid Fischer-Schreiber, Franz-Karl Ehrhard and Michael S. Diener, 1991. The Shambhala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen. Boston: Shambhala.
Jae Yul Shim, tr., 1986. Haesul Pojo Pobo. Seoul: Bosung Munwhasa.
Alfred North Whitehead, 1960 [1926]. Religion in the Making.
Cleveland: Meridian Books.
_________________________,1978 [1929]. Process and Reality, Corrected
Edition, edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne.
New York: The Free Press.
