a dialogical meditation of time and space. on zen and buber.

    time and space are not impermanent. time and space are both everlasting and also limitless, except that they are not two but one and the same. to be impermanent a being must have a beginning and then a subsequent end. but nothing that exists has a beginning nor an end. in other words: no being in space nor any event in time has had a beginning ex-nihilo, nor will it ever end ad-nihilum. we have no human knowledge or experience of any creation from nothingness, nor of any obliteration into nothingness.
    but this is of the essence: everlastingness is not the same as eternity and limitlessness is not the same as infinity. eternity and infinity are not attributes of time and space, they are deeds we do in time and space. we confer eternity to time and infinity to space through our deeds of i-thou embrace. and the actual duration of time and the length of space is of no consequence. in other words: the essential distinction of which all enlightenment depends is the understanding of the dialogical essence of eternity and infinity. that is to say, everlastingness is not the same as eternity. eternity is not a quantity of time, it is a quality in time. eternity is not a measure of the duration of time, but an awakening to the quality of a moment's ineffable presence. duration is a quantity embedded in time, but eternity is a quality we create in time. we measure quantity, but we confer eternity. we confer eternity to time when we create a between of an i and a thou, for it is in the realm of relationship that time becomes eternal, irrespective of its duration. unending space is not the same as infinity. infinity is not a quantity of space, it is a quality in space. infinite space is not a measure of its length, but an awakening to the quality of a place's poetic presence. length is embedded in space, but infinity is a quality we create in space. we measure length, but we confer infinity. irrespective as to physical constrictions, we can confer to space the quality of infinity. we confer infinity to space every time we say thou to a being with whom we share a particular place of encounter. 

    the poet machado said: everything passes and everything remains, but for us, it is to pass. that is to say: there is a meeting in a realm of the-between, where permanence and impermanence make love to each other and give birth to a moment of present time and a segment of precise space. single events in time can be said to be impermanent, but only if we draw around them artificial boundaries of beginnings and endings. likewise, single objects in space can be said to be impermanent, but only if we draw around them artificial boundaries of creation and destruction.
    zen master thich nhat hanh speaks of interbeing. interbeing is a variation of the buddhist concept of dependent co-arising. with spinoza we can say that if we observe the inter-being processes of cause and effect, it is merely arbitrary to delineate discreet objects in space and discreet events in time. we do not know when any given event in time begins or ends, nor what the precise physical boundaries of any object in space are. no event in time and no object in space can be regarded as being strictly a beginning or an end, as all that exists is connected with everything else that exists, sentient and insentient, in the continuum dialogical process of the whole-of-being. 

    from a dialogical perspective, cause and effect, as is the buddhist concept of karma, is not a deterministic process of preordained events, but rather a mode of relationship between beings of existence. karma is the deep contemplation of the events in our lives, but it is not karmic unless the contemplation results in transformative deeds, both at the personal and the social realms of existence. in other words: karma is a deed we do. with martin buber we can say that despite the ontological reality of the oneness of being, our existential reality is that we live our lives as the encounter of one being with another. the ontology of the oneness of being can only be actualized in life in the existential practice of dialogue. in buber's words: all real life is meeting. 

       for we are always in relationship, and when we enter the realm of the between of i and thou, space becomes infinite and time becomes eternal. within the realms of the non-between, that is, when we say "it" to each other rather than "thou", space will always remain unending, but it will never be infinite, and time will always remain everlasting, but it will never become eternal. it is not to permanence or impermanence that we seek to awake, but to the eternity and the infinity imbued in the embrace of a being. it is the will and grace of the sacraments of the neighbor

    spinoza spoke of natura-naturata and natura-naturans. that is, nature as begotten and nature as unfolding. in other words, all life is both permanent and impermanent at the same time and in the same place. begotten time and space are as we find them at this present moment and at this single space, and unfolding time and space are as they might become, eternal and infinite. time and space are equally real in both their begotten and their unfolding realms of being, but the will and grace of life is that it is given to us to take this time and this space as they are right here and right now, and transform both to what they might and ought to be.

    like moses knew in the land of bondage: sometimes, to be here and now, we must leave and go. or as dogen would say: it is true that air is everywhere, but we must do the deed of breathing. this is the nature of awakening: we realize that the true nature of space is to be infinite, and the true nature of time is to be eternal.

    zen master dogen speaks of the single moment in time as being wholly complete in itself. there is only the present-time, and regardless as to how we define the extent of its span, in this one present-moment in time there is no past and there is no future, there is only this immediate awareness of presence and there is only the presence of immediate awareness. dogen writes that wood is wood and ashes are ashes, and neither was, is, or ever will be the other. this awareness of the wholeness of each phenomenon is the entirety of enlightenment, and that enlightenment is what dogen refers to as "intimacy with all beings". in other words, it is the relationship.

    since time and space are not independent of each other, the dharma of enlightenment is in time and it is also in the ten thousand things. dharma is all beings. that being the case, dogen asks: if we cannot find enlightenment in this one place and time, where else do we expect we would? nothing needs to be different in terms of space and time, as enlightenment is in this one place and this one moment. for dogen, existence is the present-time and present place, as-is, therefore nothing we wish to attain in life was in the past, or it will be in the future, nor it was somewhere else, or will it ever be elsewhere. all possible freedoms are here and now. enlightenment does not depend on consecrated moments in time or sacred places in space, but it wholly emerges from the ways of our relationship with any moment in time and any place in space. enlightenment therefore is the complete recognition that there is nothing behind, nothing within, nothing above nor bellow the phenomenons of life. what we face now as time and here as space is the totality of existence, and once we truly grasp this fact, as a whole-being existential fact, the peace of wisdom becomes our only lot. but it is essential to understand that this awareness is actualized in deeds, as it originates in deeds. in other words: it is in the i-thou dialogue with time and space that we become aware of the reality of being, and that awareness becomes flesh. 

    thich nhat hanh speaks of every moment in time and every place in space as containing within themselves all the pasts that have converged to actualize them as they are in the present time. he writes that this one sheet of paper includes within itself the clouds, the rain and the tree whence it came. that being the case, time and space are one and the same, therefore, when embraced with our whole-beings, this place is all places and this moment is all moments. the future time and all future places are also included within the presence embedded within this one moment in time and this place in space, only this future needs to be actualized in the praxis of existence. and that is the definition of enlightenment. these principles of awareness constitute hanh's foundations for his teaching of interbeing. and this we need to understand fully: this embrace we seek is not an intellectual or an intuitive change of perceptions: it is that too, but the embrace is primarily a way of relationship with all beings. it is for this reason that hanh calls this practice inter-being. it is not no-being, or trans-being, or no-being, it is the inter-relationships between beings. interbeing is a deed of relationship with the ten thousand things. in other words, dharma is everything and everywhere and always, but it is a process of embrace, for without the practices of interbeing it will be nowhere and never. like dogen's story of master pao ch'e of mount ma-ku's, the deed of fanning air from his hand-held fan does not contradict the fact that air is everywhere. this is where tao becomes buddhism. 

    dogen's and hanh's teachings are dialogical-ecology at their existential core. dogen speaks of intimacy with all things. he writes of dropping the self that is a manifestation of our unawakened state of delusion. but we need to make this essential dialogical distinction: the self is not the same as the ego. the ego arises from our i-it transactions with the world, and that is the unawakened state of delusion. the self, in contrast, arises from our i-thou relationships with the world, and that is the practice of enlightenment. what dogen is dropping is the ego, and in that space of emptiness, it is the self that emergence to full fruition. following hanh's insights, we drop this unenlightened self in order to awaken our true-self, and we awaken our true self by engaging in the practices of interbeing. in other words: awakening of the enlightened self is actualized in present-times and current-places as we enter into dialogical relationships with all sentient and insentient beings. therefore, as dogen writes, dharma practice is of both the body and the mind, or in buber's dialogical terms, it is of the whole-being. 

    this is dogen's and thich nhat hanh's fundamental teaching: the practice of this intimacy with all things is itself the actualization of the life of enlightenment. nothing comes before nor after, but the moment and place of the practice is itself the enlightenment we seek. we practice intimacy with all things by entering into the interbeing realm of the in-between of an i and a thou. 

    chan master sheng yen’s teachings of amithaba buddha's pure land on earth are an explicit argument in favor of a buddhism that is engaged in the "redemption" of the world of the “here and now”. these teachings represent the essential basis for the mahayana doctrine of the boddhisatvah. for sheng yen, the pure land of the buddha should not be understood as a transcendent realm of the spirit, something akin to a paradise in heavens or even paranirvana, neither should it be psychologized as just a cultivated mind's enlightened approach to existence. sheng yen explains that pure land is a concrete and practical goal attainable in our current lives through actions of social responsibility and mutual solidarity. and this is a central point to understand: considering the buddhist teachings of the centrality of the practices of metta and karuna, pure land teaching is a social philosophy flowering freely from within the lotus ponds of buddhadharma. the boddhisatvah is not postponing entry into nirvana or the pure land, but nirvana is nothing other than the deeds of compassionate and loving embrace of all beings. 

    zen teacher harada sogaku wrote this magnificent poem: "for 40 years i’ve been selling water by the shores of a river. ha! ha! my labors have been wholly without merit." indeed. nothing behind, nothing within, not above nor bellow. all is here and all is now. being this the case, zen teaches that there is nothing to teach, therefore there are no teachers and no students. this idea is also at the foundation of the dialogical practice of the meeting of an i and a thou. but this ought not to be confused with the error that there is no-self and therefore there is no-other, for it is in the between of dialogue of i and thou that we awaken our true-selves and we create all teachings. ego is a delusion, but self is being human. in the between of i and thou, to ask who teaches and who learns, is as senseless as in love making to ask who gives and who receives. you and i are one, but only when you and i are two with one another. 

epilogue:

nobel laureate roger penrose argues that before the big bang gave birth to our universe, there were other previous universes that began and ended with a big bang. some religious traditions present similar creation myths. the big bang explains the origin of the universe, but not the origin of the singularity itself. since space and time began at the big bang, to ask about the before and after of the big bang, or its boundaries, is a question devoid of any meaning. but the singularity did exist, therefore to posit an origin of the singularity that is independent of space and time can brings us to the hypothesis of a god. clearly, however, the nature of such being that is not made out of matter and does not live in time is likewise devoid of any meaning. penrose argues that the singularity originated in a previous collapsed universe, as our university will do and become in the future. penrose's theory seems to result in a regression ad infinitum, therefore it is a logical absurdity that could only be resolved by positing a definite beginning. to the extent that it begs the question as to the origin of the singularity, penrose's view does not add nor it subtracts from the god question. the big bang is the mechanism by which the universe expanded, but the question i ask regards to the origin of the singularity. this uncertainty as to the origin of the origin itself is the ultimate source of poetry. i argue that religious theologies are poetries gone astray.