花は愛惜にちり|Philosophy and beauty superimposed

日本の伝統文化を「かさね」と「うつし」の観点から考えてみよう。かさね(重ね・襲ね)は空間構成に、うつし(移し・現し)は時間様相に主眼があるが、両者は別のものではない。重ねられた各層は推移として経験されるし、移りゆく時は記憶や語りの中で重ね合わされる。

たとえば、茶の湯は所作の系列として構成される。露地(庭)の径を伝い歩いてゆく奥に、茶室が佇む。躙口(にじりぐち)を入ると、そこには露地の自然とは対照的な極小の閉空間が設えられている。開口部には和紙が貼られ、濾過光が静かに落ちてくるほかは、室内から外の様子を見ることはない。招かれた客はしばし静寂に身を委ねて茶を喫し、やがて退出して露地を戻っていく。この

露地(A)– 茶室(B)– 露地(A’)

という空間の継起にあって、後の露地はもはや前の露地と同じものとしては経験されない。しかるに露地そのものには何の変更も加えられていないのである。

道元の手になる仏法書『正法眼蔵』は次の一文で始まる。

諸法の仏法なる時節、すなはち迷悟あり

仏法の「時節」とは? 仏法は常住不変の法ではなかったか? と誰しも思うところだ。その仏法の時節に、仏法の無い時節が続く。

万法ともにわれにあらざる時節、まどひなくさとりなく…  

そして一段はこう結ばれる。

  しかもかくのごとくなりといへども、花は愛惜にちり、草は棄嫌におふるのみなり。

そもそも仏法は釈尊が開き、諸仏諸祖が工夫を加えてきた一つの壮大な作為にほかならない。衆生が世界から出離し、仏法の所作を修めて後、再び世界を見るとき、世界はもはや以前の世界ではない。しかるに世界そのものは何一つ変ることなく、花は散り、草は生え続けるのである。

本来常住の仏法を日本化するにあたって、道元は

世界(A)– 法界(B)– 世界(A’)

の形式で世界に仏法をかさねたのではないだろうか。正法眼蔵の冒頭巻の標題「現成公案」は、公案(法界)を世界に現(うつ)という趣意を反映するものではないのか。法界の本質を抽出し、純化し、そして分析するのではなく、経験の推移のなかにそれを置くという考え。これは、茶を茶として翫味するのではなく、それを一つの所作系列に収めるという思考に通じているように思われる。

見渡せば花も紅葉もなかりけり浦の苫屋の秋の夕暮  定家

もののあはれを言葉に写す技を究めて後、それを可能にしてきた花と紅葉を去ってみれば、ありふれた浦の夕景にあはれを知る。歌のわざにも茶の湯の心はすでに兆していた。まして定家と道元は同じ時代に生き、同じ文化環境のなかで、詩と仏法をそれぞれに究めたのである。

 

Among a number of qualities pervading Japanese culture, kasa-ne (superimposition) and utsu-shi (transition) are well worth focusing on. They represent the spatial and temporal aspects of the idea, respectively, defining the way how multiple elements could be organized into a single system, where different layers of things do not conflict but are superimposed on one another while they are experienced as a transition of distinct phases.

In cha-no-yu (tea ceremony), for example, guests are invited to walk along a path in roji (the garden) to find the tea house behind bamboo trees. Through the small entrance, they enter into the inner space filled with soft, filtered light. Openings are covered with translucent paper, keeping the interior away from the outside view. Calmness prevails in the space, where participants take a sip of tea and enjoy a moment of encounter. After the session, they leave the house to be back on roji, moving along the path again for the exit. In this sequence of spaces, roji (A) – the tea house (B) – roji (A’),  all the movements and equipments, including the tasting of tea itself, are designed to be experienced as equal; they are superimposed to create a complex which could potentially change the participants’ view of the world even though the world itself stays unchanged.

Dogen begins his treatise of dharma, Shobogenzo, with the passage:

“When everything is under dharma, there are delusion and awakening, …”

Why “when”? Dharma represents absolute and eternal truths in Buddhism, doesn’t it? Dogen goes on, however, to say that the time of dharma will be followed by the time of its absence:

“When all dharma leave me, there is no delusion, no awakening, …”

Finally, the entire passage is closed with the line:

“And yet blossoms just fall in sorrow and weeds grow against tidiness.”

Dharma is certainly an artifact like a tea house built and expanded by Gautama Buddha and his followers over time. It invites people to leave their nature and learn the wisdom of buddha, and guides them to achieve the “true eyes” to view the world differently even though nothing in the world physically changes – blossoms fall and weeds grow just as before.

I think that Dogen, introducing the Chinese Buddhist version of dharma to Japan, had the idea of reformulating it under the scheme: the world (A) – dharma (B) – the world (A’). The title of the treatise’s first chapter, Genjo Koan, which means “realizing the universals”, could reflect his aim to place dharma or the universal ideas in the context of the real world – in other words, to superimpose the real on the super-real – instead of analyzing the universals in their pure essences. If that is the case, Dogen’s way of dharma shares the scheme with cha-no-yu, where the tasting of tea is inserted in the sequence of spatial experiences.

Poet Fujiwara Teika produced the piece:

Looking over, there are no blossoms, no colored leaves
but a solitary hut standing on the waterside against the autumn sunset

While blossoms and autumn leaves had been the major motifs that allowed waka poets to evolve their styles and techniques, the verse quoted here seems to have set a boundary beyond which another sphere of beauty, without blossoms and without leaves, would lie before them. 

This does not mean that they turned out to be inessential to poetry; on the contrary, it is about the transition where poetry went through the blossoms-leaves-oriented phase of beauty to depart from it and be able to meet a new experience.

One thought on “花は愛惜にちり|Philosophy and beauty superimposed

Add yours

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: