Discursive Notes on “Eternity”

二零二二 攝于西藏拉薩 八廓南街

---

What's the word?

Concerning the English equivalence (in a platitudinous sense) of the Chinese "永恒": Distinction between “infinite duration” (ontological commitment of something that exist, at the same time, in the past, the present, and the future), and an “unchanging present” (ontological commitment to the present only, i.e., a presentist interpretation).

• Candidate Group 1: Perpetual, Everlasting, Abiding, Permanent, Perennial etc. – “infinite duration”, or “sempiternity”, as defined by Plato

• Candidate Group 2: Timeless, Eternal, Immortal – “unchanging present” (As defined by Plato, Timaeus)

                  Eternity:

“always is, having no becoming” (τὸ ὂν ἀεί, γένεσιν δὲ οὐκ ἔχον, 27d6)

                              “always the same” (ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὄν, 28a2)

                  Transient Sensible Objects:

                              “never truly is, but always undergoes the process of becoming” (τὸ γιγνόμενον μὲν ἀεί, ὂν δὲ οὐδέποτε, 27d6-28a1)

Why the three words in group 2 originally mean exactly the same?

                  Both from the Greek “αἰών”, and at the same time being translated into the three words in Plato’s works.

                              e.g., Phaedo, 79d, when describing the soul: “…she goes away to the pure, and eternal, and immortal, and unchangeable…”

An ontological commitment to Eternalism is way too tough for platitudinous interpretations.

                  e.g., a Minkowski space-time framework is too high a requirement in ontology.

                              Group 1 hereby rejected.

Semantic Alteration of “timeless” in 1908 as put forward by McTaggart:

“A universe in which nothing whatever changed (including the thoughts of the conscious beings in it) would be a timeless universe.”

Scilicet, ontological denial of time.

                                    “timeless” rejected.

            “Immortal” rejected because of one of its other interpretations, which is more popular, that is: not liable or subject to death”.

                        “immortal” rejected.

Therefore “eternal”.

Case I

“所有的生物都获得了永恒”

Two possible interpretations:

• a. Every being has attained/acquired/secured/gained/achieved eternity.

i.e., Eternity gained through a posteriori endeavours/opportunities.

“a posteriori” = def. That which is inducted from observational evidence. (Aristotle, Organon)

• b. Every being is [endowed with eternity]/[bestowed with eternity by what is prior absolutely].

i.e., Eternity gained through [a priori]/[transcendent] existences.

“a priori” = _def. That which is deducted from first principles (as a first pass: e.g., God, Tao, Buddha-dhātu, forms, etc.). (Aristotle, Organon)

As a note: [“It is also useful in connection with the first things concerning each of the sciences. For it is impossible to say anything about the science under consideration on the basis of its own principles, since the principles are first of all, and we must work our way through about these by means of what is generally accepted about each. But this is peculiar, or most proper, to dialectic: for since it is examinative with respect to the principles of all the sciences, it has a way to proceed.”] Aristotle, Topics, I.2.

Existentialism: “Man exists. For him it is not a question of wondering whether his presence in the world is useful, whether life is worth the trouble of being lived. These questions make no sense. It is a matter of knowing whether he wants to live and under what conditions…One can not start by saying that our earthly destiny has or has not importance, for it depends upon us to give it importance.” (The Ethics of Ambiguity, Simone de Beauvoir, 1947)

Interpretation a. indubitably falls within the realm of existentialism, to which, in a broader sense, humanism, personalism, individualism, and even absurdism, etc., all pertain.

The crux of existentialism: Existence Precedes Essence.

“Existentialists forward a novel conception of the self not as a substance or thing with some pre-given nature (or “essence”) but as a situated activity or way of being whereby we are always in the process of making or creating who we are as our life unfolds. This means our essence is not given in advance; we are contingently thrown into existence and are burdened with the task of creating ourselves through our choices and actions.” (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy)

An existentialist interpretation works perfectly fine for “humans”. But can it be extended to “all beings”?

            No, for animals, essence seems to precede existence.

                        E.g., the necessity of bees gathering honey is necessary and intrinsic, not set by themselves.

                        “饿鬼” is endowed with Buddha-dhātu (as in the Tiantai School), but is it, as a default position, that they all endeavour to solve the existential crisis of their own? Hard to imagine, devils do evil things, this should be the default position.

            Objections to the aforementioned denial of animal minds: “no truth appears to be more evident, than that beast are endow’d with thought and reason as well as men” (David Hume, 1739, A Treatise of Human Nature)

                        Reply: Even if animal minds are universally as intelligent as men, what about plants, then?

Conclusion: a. cannot be right.

A justification for b. (also it’s necessity, for there can only be two options):

Multiply demonstrable:

1. From the inception of philosophy itself: Plato — Meno & Phaedo.

In Meno, Socrates managed to make it clear to a boy regarding the question “how to double the area of a square” by merely questioning, instead of teaching geometry. Therefore, he contended that we do not acquire knowledge from empirical investigations of the external world, rather, we discover it from recollections of our immortal (i.e., eternal) souls, which is, obviously, instilled within us upon the reincarnation of the soul. The engagement with the outside world serves as reminders to us, which would be conducive to our recollection process.

SOCRATES: If he has not acquired them in his present life, is it not clear that he had them and had learned them at some other time?—It seems so.

SOCRATES: Then that was the time when he was not a human being?—Yes.

SOCRATES: If then, during the time he exists and is not a human being he will have true opinions which, when stirred by questioning, become knowledge, will not his soul have learned during all time? For it is clear that during all time he exists, either as a man or not.—So it seems.

SOCRATES: Then if the truth about reality is always in our soul, the soul would be immortal so that you should always confidently try to seek out and recollect what you do not know at present—that is, what you do not recollect?

(Plato, Meno, 86a-b)

In Phaedo (74e-75a), a similar case of the transcendental knowledge of equality is also referred to.

“Then we must previously have known the equal, before that time when we first, on seeing the equals, thought that all of them were striving to be like the equal but fell short of it.”

There will be no animal mind problem for this interpretation, for every being, including plants, are all instantiations from the eternal forms.

1. A Taoist interpretation.

Ontology of Tao:

道沖而用之或不盈，淵兮似萬物之宗；挫其銳，解其紛，和其光，同其塵，湛兮似或存。吾不知誰之子，象帝之先。

先秦道家「道」的觀念的發展 （國立臺灣大學 楊儒賓）：

它生成萬物，但最後又使萬物回歸自己，「遠曰反」。（p. 27）

道的第三義，可以說是種「自然的規律或法則」之道° (p. 28)

陈荣捷, The way of Lao Tzu:

Tao “brought all things into existence and governs their every action, not so much by force as by a kind of natural curvature in space and time.” When things obey its laws, all parts of the universe will form a harmonious whole and the universe will become an integrated organism.” (p.9)

Tao is metaphysically similar with Plato’s forms (N.B., not meta-ethically, though). All beings are endowed with an eternal Tao from which they instantiate. The problem lies in whether one can identify the Tao (Taoism is therefore not a type of determinism), obey it, and therefore come to harmony.

眾人熙熙，如享太牢，如春登臺。(many people are unaware of Tao)

我獨泊兮其未兆，如嬰兒之未孩；(Rather I’m not like them)

…

眾人皆有餘，而我獨若遺。

我愚人之心也哉! (realising the existence and importance of Tao)

Supplementary: How is it like to obey the Tao?

天地之間，其猶橐籥乎？虛而不屈，動而愈出。

多言數窮，不如守中。

1. Mahayana Buddhism

大般涅槃經： every being is endowed with a Buddha-dhātu.

云何为知？知无有我无有我所，知诸众生皆有佛性；以佛性故，一阐提等舍离本心，悉当得成阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。

一切众生悉有首楞严三昧，以不修行故不得见，是故不能得成阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。

What is “一阐提等”? (Within the Tiantai framework)

诸佛法界、菩提萨埵、辟支佛、阿罗汉、天道、人间、阿修罗、旁生(即畜生, so there’s still no animal mind problem for this Buddhist interpretation)、饿鬼、地狱法界.

1. Other frameworks to be briefly mentioned:
2. Song Confucianism:

朱熹: 月映万川 on 天理；

王阳明：良知即是未发之中，即是廓然大公、寂然不动之本体，人人之所同具者也。

• Romanticism

William Wordsworth: Heaven lies about us in our infancy! (Ode on Intimations of Immortality) – Disillusion through growing up.

• Some Theology

“Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.” (Summa Theologiae, Q. 2, Art. 3)

Case II

1. “永恒，已经存在于我的生命中了！”.

Again, two possible interpretations:

• a. Within the author’s life as a whole (in its completed duration, accomplished in his final realisation of what eternity is), the eternity exists/is present.

Under this interpretation, the translation should be: I have come to/concluded the eternity within my life!

1. Seems inconsistent with some aforementioned theoretical frameworks (as shown below).
   1. A need for a “final point” or “time of revelation” would make it hard for some beings, especially those with transient life spans, or those who die of accidents, to have a guaranteed attainment of eternity. 

• b. Within every moment of the author’s life, the eternity exists/is present.

Seems more plausible. For example, Plato would argue that [Every now and then, when being in transient empirical/phenomenological engagements with the tangible world, we are constantly being reminded of what is already in our mind — the forms (which are eternal). Such reminders are conducive to recollecting what we already know from past reincarnations of the soul.]

        Under this interpretation: Eternity has already taken root, blossoming with each passing moment.

“…if having got them, we did not on each occasion forget them, we must always be born knowing, and must continue to know throughout life: because this is knowing-to possess knowledge one has got of something, and not to have lost it…using the senses about the things in question, we regain those pieces of knowledge that we possessed at some former time…” (Meno, 75d-e)

                          Or, as Chinese Mahayana Buddhist Schools (Tiantai, Huayan, Pure Land, Chan, etc.) would argue:

      禅宗：永嘉证道歌

      “一月普現一切水，一切水月一月攝”

        All beings instantiate the same transcendent eternity, and each being’s generis eternity could reflect the eternity as an omnipresent whole.

        Each passing moment in life all instantiate the same transcendent eternity, and the eternity as a compound whole can be realised in each and every moment in life, even just for one single moment, it is enough

华严：一尘摄一切，一切摄一尘

《华严义海百门》：以一佛土满十方，十方入一亦无余。今卷，则一切事于一尘中现；若舒，则一尘遍片一切处。即舒常卷，一尘摄一切故；即卷常舒，一切摄一尘故。

                          The same meaning.

                                      A more platitudinous one from a portmanteau of禅宗 and 净土宗:

灵隐慧远: 一花一叶一如来。一佛一刹一报土。

      From tiny bits of the sensible world (花, 叶), to the eternity (如来). From tangible lands (佛, 刹), to the transcendent pure land (报土).

天台：十界互具、一念三千

      每一境界可通至其他境界，如饿鬼成佛。

                        Therefore, go with the second interpretation.

1. Shakespeare, Macbeth ↩︎