|
The Buddha as Zero Man
Tom, Dick, Harry and the Buddha
The Tathagata (later renamed the
Buddha) took no fixed position (to wit, opinion) in
relation to any formation, be it physical, emotional perceptual, mental (i.e.
as an opinion or view) or of consciousness. In short, if
‘positions’ are represented (hence identified) by numbers, then he operated
as the zero (and which as no own (or self); if represented by playing cards,
then he functioned as the joker. Neither the zero in maths nor the joker in a
game of cards actually belong to the game, though they do not - not
(Sanskrit: neti neti) belong to the game.
Tom, Dick and Harry represent, indeed, believe
themselves to be fixed positions (i.e. having true real, substantive
‘selves’). Note the white point at their core. What the Tathatgata
did in relation to a fixed position was to relativise it. First he showed
that every fixed position happens as after-affect of an uncontrollable
(because not own) cluster of ever changing conditions. In other words, the
holder of the position (in fact, fixation), and who reifies it as a real
thing/self, neither owns the cluster, nor does the cluster last. The
consequence of clinging to something one does not own and which does not last
results in pain (Pali: dukkha). Basically the Tathagata operated as a spoiler. He
demonstrated the futility of attachment to something that wasn’t one’s own
and didn’t last. He did not actually take a position himself,
though sometimes he made his non-position look life one for tactical reasons.
That is why he, the Tathagata (indeed all Tathagatas), could not be grasped.
Nor did he make any comment about the origin of the temporary cluster that
appeared as a fixed position (allowing its ‘owner’ (actually only a temporary
user) to say of it: ‘This is I, this is mine, this is own (to me)’). In a word, the Tathagata operated like a smart
defence lawyer. He did not need to prove his case (i.e. my client is
innocent, i.e. ‘there is something (one can) own (i.e. is atta) and that is
not impermanent, and this is it’). All he needed to do was to show that the
prosecution had no case (i.e. that the presented form (or identity) is
neither ‘own’ (usually misrepresented as ‘self’, sometimes even as ‘soul’)
nor permanent, hence should (like the his client) be ‘let go’). Since the Tathagata took no position, since he
operated as a zero man, he could not be ‘bested’. And since he could not be
‘bested’, he was ‘fearless’. Once Gautama intruded his personal beliefs (i.e.
as fixed positions) into his ‘content free’ deconstruction operation he
ceased to function as a Tathagata, but become a great religious leader. Understanding the meanings of the ‘name’ Tathagata |
