Open Secret

Part V

Part V Dialogues between Ego and Alter-Ego What i s non-objective relation ? Wherever there are others there is a self, Wherever there are no others there can be no self, Wherever there is no self there are no others, Because In the absence of self I am all others. That i s non-objective relation . *53 j2. Dialogues The Pure Land Is IT possible to be rid of the concept of 'other' without at the same time being rid of the concept of'/', or to be rid of the concept of T without at the same time being rid of the concept of 'other'? It is not possible. With which should one begin? With neither . A n identifie d subjec t canno t ri d itsel f of either concept . That is news, bad news! I thought that was what is required of us? As well be required t o scoop up the moon by balin g its reflection ou t of a puddle! What then? Until a n identifie d subjec t know s wha t h e is , h e cannot b e expecte d t o realis e what h e i s not . Cannot I say also that until he knows what he is not, he cannot realise what he is? You can . You should. You must . There seems to be no way out! That i s why we are not al l Buddhas. I f it seemed t o be possibl e shoul d w e not hav e don e i t lon g ago? But there must be a way out! There i s no 'way' , an d nothin g 'out' . I t i s here an d now. Then what is it? What it is—is quite obvious. Not to me. If yo u can' t find i t b y looking—don' t look , i f yo u can't find i t b y thinking—don' t think ! I t i s where ther e i s no looking, and no thinking. Because it cannot either be seen or thought? Not at all. *54 OPEN SECRE T Why, then? Not because it cannot be seen or thought, but because there is no 'one' to look or to think! Then what does one do? 'One' does not do. 'One' does not even cease to do. And so? It is better for you to tell me. Is what your identifie d subject is—anythin g he can know? Surely not. Is what h e is—anythin g h e ca n not-know ? What he is—is not likely to be an object of knowledge. Can he see, know, or find what he is or what he is not? I do not think so. Why is that? Probably because what he is looking for,trying to know, seeking to find,is what is looking, trying, seeking? Exactly. That is the answer. But is it an answer? It i s th e onl y answer . Findin g n o 'thing' , h e finds that he is what he is, which is also what he is not. So that what he is not is what he is? In s o far a s words ca n suggest it . But does that answer my question? You aske d m e ho w t o b e ri d o f th e interdependen t concepts o f 'other ' an d T . The y hav e bee n mutuall y abolished. So that. . . ? No 'other' , n o T . And what I am is also what I am not, and what I am not is also what I am! No room for self, no room for otherthan -self! Is that not a definition of Nirvana or of the Pure Land? It is also a definition o f the Kingdom of Heaven. 72-1. DIALOGUE S * 15 5 Is there a historical precedent for such an approach? There ar e many . Fo r instanc e whe n Hu i K' o ha d 'his' supposed mind tranquillised by Bodhidharma, by being unable t o find it—tha t wa s not th e resul t o f his having n o mind to find, but because there was no 'he' to have anything. The min d wa s no t missing : i t wa s h e tha t coul d no t b...