1.3 THE FALLACY OF MATERIALISM: HOW THE ACTUALITY CONTRADICTS OUR ASSUMPTION THAT
OUR HAPPINESS AND SADNESS DEPEND UPON MATERIAL THINGS
No one in the sensual, aesthetic, or formless realms has revealed the secret
essence of mind except the Buddha Shakyamuni. For anyone seeking happiness,
the first crucial thing to know is that mind is the root of all happiness and
suffering. This is contrary to our ordinary human assumption because through
beginningless time to the present day, we all presume that our happiness and
suffering depend upon external objects. Due to this false assumption, we all search
for beautiful things to gaze upon, sweet sounds to listen to, fine aromas to enjoy,
subtle tastes to savor, and soft clothes to wear, and so on. In short, everyone, from
the highest to the lowest, from four-footed creatures to all the birds of the air and
even down to the smallest insects, constantly, day and night, runs in search of
objects that they believe will provide happiness. Likewise, we assume that
suffering depends upon material objects or external phenomena, and we
manufacture weapons to subdue those external forces that cause us such
suffering. Thinking that this particular external cause can produce a particular
disease and that particular external cause will hurt us, we are led to believe that if
we could only destroy the external physical objects that appear to be the cause of
our misery, we would be happy. Our assumption, therefore, that suffering and
happiness inhere in external material objects is common to all six classes of
beings. Many scientists, particularly, hold such a view.
Now let us consider the example of a beautiful woman. Such a woman is seen
variously by different beings. To her father, she is a daughter. To her children, she
is a mother. To her husband, she is a wife. To a tiger, she is not so much a
beautiful woman but is instead something tasty to eat. To the exalted arhat, she is
not a beautiful woman at all but rather something unclean and repulsive. If the
body of a woman were a single substantial entity, there would not be such a
multiplicity of concepts as to her identity. The key point here is that the
multiplicity of concepts regarding each material object indicates that objects on
their own have no substantial or definite reality.
If an object is defined by an immutable attribute, then no circumstance can
change that attribute. If an object has the attribute of immutable happiness or
immutable sorrow, then changing conditions will not be able to affect it. Its
essential identity cannot change, just as fire cannot turn into water or water into
fire. Even if innumerable people try to prove that fire is cool, it remains
undeniably hot, and likewise no one in this world can prove that water has an
inherent quality of heat. But happiness and sadness are not immutable attributes
of a thing, for it is evident that, in the minds of different people, they arise
variously from a single object. The crucial point here is that all phenomena are
unreal and therefore can appear in different ways. They appear but in reality do
not exist.