Saturday, February 27, 2021

Understanding One Thing is to Understand Everything

Although not always expressed the same way, here is an idea I heard reference to from time to time through the years I lived in Japan:

The Zen Perspective

The words above are attributed to Suzuki Shunryu, a Zen monk and teacher who helped popularize Zen Buddhism in the United States. In 1962 Suzuki (1904~71) founded the San Francisco Zen Center, which was the first Zen monastery outside Asia.

Suzuki was also the author of Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind, and last year the 50th anniversary edition of that book was published.

Fifty years ago when I first heard the idea encapsulated in Suzuki’s words, I didn’t know they were rooted in a Zen concept. But perhaps that helps explain the use made of koans in Zen. To understand one thing, such as a koan, leads to satori (enlightenment), that is, understanding everything.

Granted, there are lingering problems here; still, it is an interesting perspective.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s Perspective

I have long liked, and often quoted, the widely known words of poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning:  

Seeing depth, or transcendence, in the ordinary is what Barrett Browning was emphasizing, and that is likely true for Suzuki also. The problem, and shame, is that there are so many who are content to just pluck blackberries, never seeing more than the obvious.

In this connection, I recently happened to read this important statement by Henri Nouwen: “. . . the whole of nature is a sacrament pointing to a reality far beyond itself” (Seeds of Hope, 1989, p. 100). Unfortunately, so many people don’t see the sacramental nature of the universe.

When we don’t fully see/understand “one thing,” we are unable to see/understand “everything.”

Gifty’s Perspective

Originally, I planned to write this whole blog article about Gifty, the precocious central character of Yaa Gyasi’s fascinating novel Transcendent Kingdom (2020). Gifty, like the author, was born to Ghanaian parents and grew up in Huntsville, Alabama.

But unlike author Gyasi (b. 1989), who has an MFA degree, Gifty is a sixth-year Ph.D. candidate in neuroscience at the Stanford University School of Medicine studying reward-seeking behavior in mice and the neural circuits of depression and addiction.

In her experiments on the brains of mice, Gifty realized that in the case of humans, at least, there is something more to human consciousness than just the physical brain.

For example, Gifty asks, “ . . . if the brain can’t account for things like reason and emotion, then what can? If the brain makes it possible for ‘us’ to feel and think then what is ‘us’?” (p. 197).

At the very end of the novel, Gifty says, “I’ve seen enough in a mouse to understand transcendence, holiness, redemption.”

Gifty likely didn’t know anything about Barrett Browning’s poems nor much, if anything, about Zen. But she seemed to intuit that to understand one thing is to understand everything.

What about us, now?

12 comments:

  1. Just now received the first comment on this post; it was from a local Thinking Friend who sent me this on Facebook Messenger:

    "Your post today reminded me of my post on yesterday’s walk noticing the persistent green of the moss at the tree’s base. Until yesterday, I had just passed by picking blackberries!”

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here are lengthy, and erudite, comments from my esteemed local Thinking Friend Vern Barnet:

    "A comment on Shunryu Suzuki's 'When you understand one thing though and through, you understand everything.' According to some histories, Zen (Chan, Chinese; dhyana, Sanskrit ) was the practice of the theory of Huayen, and early patriarchs were masters of both. Fazang (643–712) is especially noted for his systematic exposition of the doctrine, based on the Huayen Sutra (Avatamsaka, Sanskrit).

    "One way of expressing this teaching is that anything implies everything else, and that the whole implies each part. This is related to the doctrine of pratitya-samutpada, mutually dependent arising, a notion contrary to the Western conception of a Creator god. In the words of Nagarjuna, 'Things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves.' This insight of mutual interdependence is found in the West in strong and weak forms. Here are several besides your citation of EB Browning:

    "'You can never do merely one thing.' --ecologist Garrett Hardin

    "'All things are interdependent.' --Meister Eckhart

    "'The Universe is an interconnected whole in which no part is any more fundamental than any other, so that the properties of one part are determined by those of all the other.' -- physicist Fritjof Capra

    "'To see a World in a Grain of Sand
    And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
    Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
    And Eternity in an hour' -- William Blake

    "'Flower in the crannied wall,
    I pluck you out of the crannies,
    I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
    Little flower—but if I could understand
    What you are, root and all, and all in all,
    I should know what God and man is.' -- Alfred Tennyson

    "'We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.' -- Martin Luther King Jr."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much, Vern, for adding so much to my post. I knew that if anyone would be able to understand and to amplify what I was trying to get at, you would be that person.

      Blake's poem is certainly relevant to this discussion, but I particularly like the poem by Tennyson--and wonder why I didn't think of it and include it in my article.

      Seeing these references to Blake and Tennyson makes me wonder if there was influence of Blake on Browning and Browning on Tennyson. Blake died in 1827, so Browning (1806~61) certainly could have known his poem when she wrote "Aurora Leigh" (1856). Then Tennyson's poem was written in 1863 two years after Browning's death, so perhaps he wrote that in reflecting upon her work. What do you think?

      Regardless, ". . . if I could understand / What you are, root and all, and all in all, / I should know what God and man is" is the central idea I have about understanding one thing is to understand everything of the greatest importance.

      Delete
  3. This was a marvelous blog today. Thanks for it. I appreciate your linking of Suzuki, Browning and Gyasi's novel. I also appreciate Vern's additions. This transcendental one-in-all-and-all-in-one insight might just be, if we were ranking, the most important and most fundamental insight not only in religious experience but also in the natural and social sciences. It's interesting, too, that Gyasi's novel takes this up as an issue of the relationship of the brain to consciousness--a philosophical and scientific problem that continues to earn a lot of ink. The argument among philosophers and natural scientists is basically whether consciousness can be reduced to and explained by processes in the brain or not (the mind-body problem). Some, of course, come down on one side (materialist) or the other (dualism). But there are some who simply throw up their hands before the issue. On the origin of consciousness, philosopher Ray Tallis said, "There is nothing, in short, that will explain why matter in a certain form will go ‘mental’.” Philosopher Colin McGinn concluded that we suffer from “‘cognitive closure’ with respect to the mind-body problem." He goes on to say "maybe the human species cannot be expected to understand how the universe contains mind and matter in combination. Isn't it really a preposterous overconfidence on our part to think that our species--so recent, so contingent, so limited in many ways--can nevertheless unlock every secret of the natural world?" Vern commented that "This is related to the doctrine of pratitya-samutpada, mutually dependent arising, a notion contrary to the Western conception of a Creator god." It seems to me that the transcendental one-in-all-all-in-one sentiment does render the Western concept of a creator God who is not also everything there is probably irretrievably unsustainable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for posting substantial comments here [on the blogsite], Anton. In addition to Vern, you are the other Thinking Friend with whom I expected today's blog post to resonate most.

      I wish I knew more about the mind-body problem; I am not familiar with the philosophers you mentioned, but I have long been interested in this issue. When I was in graduate school, Dr. Eric Rust was working on his book "Science and Faith: Towards a Theological Understanding of Nature," which was published on the first day of 1967. He told us students in one of his seminars that the most difficult problem he had to deal with in his book was the relationship between brain and mind. Even though it was a novel, I found the way that issue was an underlying theme of Gyasi's "Transcendent Kingdom" quite interesting.

      With reference to your concluding point, I concede that there is a problem with many traditional ways Creation has been explained. But I find no problem affirming God as Creator by also holding a panentheistic view of the universe, such as is found in Paul Tillich's theology and more recently in Richard's Rohr's "The Universal Christ."

      Delete
  4. Here we are again with a connecting insight that evokes 19th century nature transcendentalism, creation-centered spirituality, panentheism, cosmic Christ, etc.
    So here are some lines from a couple of my poet- evocators (not already mentioned).

    Whitman:

    I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
    And what I assume you shall assume,
    For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

    Yeats:

    Labor is blossoming or dancing where
    The body is not bruised to pleasure soul,
    Nor beauty born out of its own despair,
    Nor blear-eyed wisdom out of midnight oil.
    O chestnut-tree, great-rooted blossomer,
    Are you the leaf, the blossom or the bole?
    O body swayed to music, O brightening glance,
    How can we know the dancer from the dance?

    Connected through and through!

    Shalom, Dick

    ReplyDelete
  5. Poetry is not only beautiful, but necessary as well. However, I believe a humbling irony rests at the heart of seeing all in the smallest part; we have faith that the connection exists, we can see part of the trail, yet none of us know such a thing.

    Einstein gave the world both quantum mechanics and general relativity, explaining much about the very smallest and the very largest in the universe. Over and over the equations have been verified. Still, in a black hole, where both claim jurisdiction, they create contradiction instead. So generations of physicists, starting with Einstein himself, have sought the grand unified theory. So we are back to the poets, wondering why there is something rather than nothing; why there is so much we can understand, only to have that very understanding take us to the precipice of ignorance.

    My Sunday School class is reading "Metaphors We Live By" as we explore how humans pile metaphor upon metaphor to reach some semblance of understanding. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson have laid out quite a path for us. God, soul, good and evil are all metaphors we seek to explore, even as we realize they are not objects we can seize and control. We come to poetry because there we find the home of metaphors. There we can tame some of our ignorance, if we are so interested.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Leroy:
    I am ashamed to confess that this blog and the responses is over my understanding. It did remind me of an incident that took place in Springfield, MO in the basement of my maternal grandparents house when I was six or seven years old. I don't remember this incident but my aunt remembered it for me and has told the story several times. It seems I was going to preach a sermon and several relatives had gathered to be my audience. I stood up in front of them on a platform, like my father did when he preached, and I held a Montgomery Ward catalogue opened up in my hands. Everyone was silent and looked expectantly at the little "preacher." He look down at his "Bible" and said to the audience, "I know there is something good in here if I could just find it." (That' the best I can do today, Leroy, but thanks for streaching my mind a little more today)

    Truett

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing the anecdote from your childhood, Truett.

      I'm not sure I understand all that was in the erudite responses to this post--or even everything I quoted in the post! But the EB Browning quote perhaps is related to a statement of Jesus that you and I know well: "Consider the lilies of the field." Maybe there is a connection between Jesus' words there and "understanding one thing."

      Delete
  7. Bro. Leroy,
    Like Bro. Truett I am left a bit in the dust by responses to your blog. It does remind me of a couple of things: one is John Donne's reference to our connectedness in life with each other, "The bell tolleth for thee." The other is the scene in which Jesus asks Simon the Pharisee if he sees the woman weeping at the feet of Jesus (Luke 7:44). If Simon saw the woman the way Jesus saw her, it would have been a happier meal. If we all saw our fellow man the way Jesus desires, then we would see our needs as being the same as that of our brother and sister. The world would be a happier place. We each are unique, but we cannot escape our commonality and connectedness, our interdependence.

    ReplyDelete
  8. こんにち。深くは知りませんが、禅には興味があります。西田幾多郎著「善の研究」を読んだことがあります。座禅を組みに一度寺に行ったことがありますが、心身一体となるということが禅の良いところだと思います。先生は、禅に興味を持っておられるのですか。禅は体験だと思います。

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 柴田先生、再びコメントして下さって、ありがとうございました。座禅を組む経験はありませんが、確かに禅に興味を持っています。京都市外にある一灯園へ行き、西田天香氏のキリスト教と禅宗の組み合わせることは興味深かったのでした。また、以前、上智大学のルベン・アビト教授の著書は、キリスト教と禅に関して有意義な本ですが、残念ながら英文のみみたいです。カトリックの司祭でしたが、今はアメリカに住み、禅の老師のようです。

      Delete