I've been reading Foucault's Archeology of Knowledge today, and it got me thinking about the nature of discourse and semantics again. I had written this paper last fall in my Buddhist philosophy class, and I thought it was worth sharing (I did the crime, and I did the time!). Why hoard all the gold for myself?
FORWARD!!!
The Heart Sutra as Proto-Deconstructionist Text
by Jim Marlowe In his work
Of Grammatology, Derrida discusses the ways in which binary oppositions are not merely structural, but are also relations of power with one term holding a favored position over the other. The Heart Sutra is in some ways a proto-deconstructionist text that seeks to subvert the implicit power structures at work in binary oppositions in order to restructure the hierarchy of power and favored positions in language. According to cultural theorist John Storey, the dominance of a term in relation to another isn’t a ‘natural’ occurrence, but is produced according to the way the relationship of the terms is constructed. It does no good to neutralize the binary oppositions as one of the two terms still controls the other through a superior or privileged position. In order to fully deconstruct the opposition, the implicit hierarchy must be overthrown by showing that it’s held in place by a certain set of dubious assumptions (Storey 127-128). The Dialectic of Emptiness is then an attempt at a convergence (synthesis) between the mutually dependent thesis and antithesis in order to revaluate the experiencing individual’s reality model. In this paper I plan to use Derrida’s concept of binary opposition in order to evaluate and discuss the Heart Sutra’s subversion of traditionally held linguistic power structures for the goal of transcending the problems of human experience.
The nature of the Dialectic of Emptiness is one of contradiction. In the first stage, the reader is presented with a series statements in which the antithetical nouns take turns being flipped around. As Edward Conze describes it “A is what A is not,” or “what A is not, that is A” (Heart Sutra 90).
“Here, O Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness (Heart Sutra 86).
The language of this section implies an interconnectedness in all things, no matter how antithetical they may seem at first. What looks to be completely separate and in no way connected, we learn is in fact an inseparable component of its negation. The negation becomes equally as important as its opposite, both relying on the absent other for meaning. The power structure of the binary opposition is then in a constant state of flux from one term to the other, though the power is never equally divided between the different terms. Once again, one of the terms is always in a position of power over the other due to the way in which the language is constructed, and through whichever term it is that we come to see as its antithesis. Derrida referred to this as différance, (to defer and differ) a conception of terms that makes meaning dependent on both structure and temporal relationship. The signifier always produces its opposite upon appearing, meaning that one has always has the effect of conjuring its other. This in turn produces a tension between the terms that causes one to be in a position of power over the other. By presenting terms that are usually in opposition with one another (form and emptiness) as being not only mutually dependent, but also one and the same, The Heart Sutra causes the signifier and signified to become jumbled. The terms are still able to function even though the relationship between the signifier and the signified seems to have been partially severed because of their location within the discourse. No matter what happens to the words, something of their meaning is retained because of the specificity of their function within the larger discourse of the sutra.
The signifier (form) and what is signified (physical or material reality) is thus divorced from its traditional context and assigned the same attributes as that of emptiness (the converse of form), and is seen to be no different. As Conze says, “The emptiness which is envisaged here is not empty of that which it excludes, but includes it, is identical with it, is full of it” (Conze 91). The sutra reshuffles the signifier and the signified to achieve a synthesis that is beyond the meaning of either – in other words, the Sutra is forced to use language as a launching pad to get beyond language. This seems to necessarily mutate into a revaluation of concepts that have been ingrained into culture, and therefore effects the foundation of the way an individual goes about experiencing on a day-to-day basis.
Conze says “the identity of Yes and No is the secret of emptiness” (Heart Sutra 90). This statement appears to be a realization of the mutual interdependence of terms upon one another. The terms yes and no are then reliant on one another for meaning, therefore making the terms inseparable from one another – the two terms endlessly circling one another, each reflecting the other at all moments (bringing to mind the Mahayana concept of Indra’s net: an infinitely repeated reflection of mutual relations). Conze says, “At one stage of self-discipline it is useful to differentiate Nirvana from this world. On another level of spiritual awareness Nirvana may reveal itself as the same as this world” (Conze 88). This seems to be the same thing as the secret identities of Yes and No, Nirvana and Samsara are seen (within the discourse of the Dialectic of Emptiness) to be seen as one and the same.
The first stage of the dialectic was made of the five skandhas that constitute our personality (Heart Sutra 88). The second stage of the dialectic expands outwards to include unconditioned dharmas - events, happenings, facts or facts that are understood as ultimately real (Heart Sutra 90). “Here, O Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete” (Hear Sutra 91). Beyond ourselves, the events of our reality too, are marked by a synthesis of thesis and antithesis in which they are revealed to be of an unbroken continuum. In other words, all events are the same as emptiness or non-events. The negation is seen to be inextricable from its converse meaning thus disrupting the relationship between the two. Conze continues on to say,
“Some reflection will show that ‘to be marked with emptiness’ is the same as ‘to be empty of all that could mark off a separate existence for each one of them; i.e. they have no separate existence. And as this is their one and only characteristic, and there is no other, one can say that it is their mark not only to be ‘empty’ but to be ‘emptiness’ itself” (Heart Sutra 93).
By presenting the dharmas as full of emptiness, the meaning becomes a self-oscillating feedback loop: an echo of the other, which in turn, is an echo of the term itself. As soon as the structural/temporal power structure starts, it immediately collapses upon itself, rebuilds, and collapses again
ad infinitum. Conze says that, “Consciousness is the awareness of something. It implies a separation of subject and object, and a discrimination between object and object” (Heart Sutra 88). Consciousness then, for Buddhists, is something that needs to be overcome. If Consciousness creates a separation between the subject and the object, then what we perceive as consciousness (according to Buddhist doctrine) is false. The dialectic of emptiness says that there is no difference between the subject and the object, especially as the two are inseparable from one another. The goal of Buddhism is to get past the conditioned events that are impermanent in order to achieve Nirvana. So according to Conze, consciousness is the underlying factor that generates the relationship between the signifier and the signified. If we accept Conze’s statement as a working definition of consciousness, there is a separation between the subject and the object already at work in the primary mode of experiencing (perceiving someone/thing as an other). The very fact that we perceive of an other as something outside of ourselves creates a power structure that, according to Buddhist principles must be overcome in order to attain transcendence. The Heart Sutra attempts to deconstruct this power structure through the utilization of the power structure itself: language.
“[A deconstructive] reading must always aim at a certain relationship, unperceived by the writer, between what he commands and what he does not command of the patterns of language that he uses. This relationship is… a signifying structure that critical reading should produce…[That is, a] production [which] attempts to make the not seen accessible to sight” (Storey 128).
The language of the Heart Sutra is therefore purposefully paradoxical and made to disrupt the somnambulant linguistic conditions that we accept on a daily basis. By synthesizing logical contradictions, the two terms that were once in opposition with one another (form and emptiness) are shown to be of the same dharma. Conze says “that this opposition between deficiency and completeness arises [from] the idea of a separate selfhood for different dharmas” (Hear Sutra 96) - the idea being that none of the dharmas are separate from one another. Conze describes the emptiness of which the third dialectic discusses as being all inclusive emptiness. He says, “The emptiness which is envisaged here is not empty of that which it excludes, but it includes it, is identical with it, is full of it” (Heart Sutra 91).
“Therefore, O Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness; No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or objects of mind; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to: No mind-consciousness element; There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to: there is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path. There is no cognition, no attainment and no nonattainment” (Heart Sutra 97).
The third stage of the dialectics of emptiness is therefore “shown to be all comprehensive” of the “Full Emptiness” (Heart Sutra 97). The signifier and the signified are not so much severed from one another, but are fully enmeshed in the identity of the other. There is no sundering of the terms, but a unification or turning inwards in order to create a amalgamation between the thesis and antithesis. This, once again, seems to be the secret of emptiness – a disruption of the dichotomous nature of language that results in a synthesis of contradictory terms.
“[…] by an oblique and always perilous movement, constantly risking falling back within what is being deconstructed, it is necessary to surround the critical concepts with a careful and thorough discourse – to mark the conditions, the medium, and the limits of their effectiveness and to designate rigorously their intimate relationship to the machine whose deconstruction they permit” (Derrida 14).
This deconstructive reading is always in danger of being re-absorbed into that which it seeks to take apart. The ability of the contradictory terms to be synthesized without reverting into another state of binary opposition is only able to manifest due to the discourse surrounding the terms. The Buddhist doctrine seems to imply, as Conze makes explicit that, “Logical asserting and denying cannot be regarded as ultimately valid operations where true reality is concerned” (Conze 90). True reality then seems to be the throwing off of consciousness in order to be full of emptiness (or unconditioned dharmas).
The Heart Sutra then is a means to get beyond language through the use of language. The synthesis of contradictory terms becomes a tool for the actualizing of linguistic unification. By taking terms that are in binary opposition, the sutra synthesizes their meanings, fusing the two terms into a single object that is unable to be pulled apart. The Heart Sutra then serves as a not only a neutralizing force, but a deconstructionist one that makes clear the implicit power hierarchy at work in language and therefore in the way we structure our beliefs and views. Conze says, “[…] the insight into the oneness of all is the great goal, and only by contradiction can it be attained” (Conze 91). This contradiction turns into a synthesis of mutually interdependent terms whose identity is enmeshed in the absent/deferred, but never solitary
other.
