千碉之国

East female kingdom in Tibet 《西藏东女国》，172.43 x 112 cm

Like day and night, crest and trough, Male and female are the two sides of the coin. While our society according to some philosophers is largely phallogocentric and patriarchal modernism hopefully has been (and will) acknowledging the role of women and will tend the society towards a greater equality. 

In the meanwhile it is interesting to see and study the implications of matriarchal societies. Like that of Mosuo or they call it the “Na” community, where the matrilineality and matriarchy is prevalent. It’s crucial to notice the kind of socio-sexual and interpersonal liberation it engenders. Feminine energy has been associated with a lot of divine qualities. For instance consider the Venus of Willendorf. Interpreting the statue one can arrive at many conclusions about the nature of woman’s body and its associated metaphorical symbolism like fertility, love etc., 

But when do we go beyond the labels like “this woman” or “woman” to discover the very nature of feminine? This is the whole philosophy of abstraction and composition. Let me digress and explain what I think of those terms. Mark and John are men, and Mary and Stella are women. This is the first level of abstraction. From Mark to man. Then we can consider Male and Female and group them under living beings along with dogs, cats, birds etc., which themselves are abstractions. The more we abstract the harder it is for us to think about the individual attributes. A new whole emerges along with some peculiar global emergent phenomena. We can’t think about forest and trees at the same time. We will definitely lose the whole forest for a tree, if we ever attempt to do so.

Water is wet. But can we go ahead and wonder if each water molecule (H_2O) is wet? It’s a meaningless question to ask and even attribute the wetness which is a global attribute to its molecules which are parts. This is the problem of composition. To study how the whole is connected to its parts. 

What is wall? But a collection of bricks. What is nation? But a collection of houses and people? So is wall not really different from sets of bricks? If so why not call it a set of bricks? Is it just a linguistic convenience or is there some deep truth lurking behind? This problem of meta levels, sets of sets and so on has baffled not just philosophers but mathematicians and physicists leading to a complete structural change at the foundations of set theory and sciences. 

I chanced upon this deep truth while reading the “Diamond Sutra” or “vajracchedikā prajñāpāramitā sūtra”. It primarily touches upon this deep distinction as how words, objects and worlds differ. Tathagata — a highly self realised soul, uses — as any other human — certain words to refer to certain objects or entities using linguistic machinery. While people fantasise over names and conventions, they miss the boat of truth. The whole point is to possess a fluid ontology, to realise that world is ever changing and to see impermanence of things and at the same time be pragmatic and work your way around the humdrum activities following conventions, rather than purely objectifying the words and creating Dharmas.

This is what this seemingly confusing statement hints at, when Buddha asked, ”What do you think, Subhuti? Is there any dharma that the Tathagata teaches?” Subhuti replied, “The Tathagata has nothing to teach, World-Honored One.” “What do you think, Subhuti? Are there many particles of dust in the 3,000 chiliocosms?” “Very many, World-Honored One.” “Subhuti, the Tathagata says that these particles of dust are not particles of dust, That is why they are truly particles of dust. And what the Tathagata calls chiliocosms are not in fact chiliocosms. That is why they are called chiliocosms”. 

Chiliocosms are collections of worlds, in Buddhist cosmology. If chiliocosms are real they are but an assemblage of particles. But they aren’t! Collection of world is more than just a group of particles. It’s just a name or convention for an assemblage and the names are misleading. Nothing in that is real. The term “Chiliocosm” is but a mere name. The real harmonious principle can’t be spoken in words, because words are empty. In seeing this one realises that one is nothing and how being nothing one is everything. This is the deep implication of negation. And how all dharmas are pratītyasamutpāda or dependent arising. This is so, because that is so. Inter contextual dependencies.

When I painted on the back of the Queen, many Tibetan religious sacred animals: elephants, apes, cuckoo, snow lion, fish, vultures, etc., as well as other animals such as Snow Wolf, shape fox, leopard etc., I tried to emphasise on the fluid boundaries that exist between various entities in the picture and how each one of them are smoothly being transformed into others and how each one of them lack any fixed attributes. The harmonious principle. 

Just like in the Rorschach test: what you see depends on the SELF, this painting let’s you enter into a phenomenological garden, where you chose the interpretation and the painting gives a new meaning. Rightmost is the profile of Buddha, smiling and overlooking the East Tibet female kingdom – the States of thousand Blockhouses, surpassing the dualities. 

This painting, like chiliocosm, is not just a collection of strokes and particles. Can we go beyond it? Can we surpass the conventions of strokes and colours to realise the Diamond sutra? Can we go from words to worlds? Fasten your seat belts... 

《西藏东女国》作画步骤

“东女国”是一个神秘、浪漫的女性王国，带有强烈的母系氏族社会烙印，曾经在历史上一度活跃，一度辉煌。直到唐朝时期，人们才对其有相当的了解。

东女国是西元6、7世纪出现的部落及地方政权，是藏族历史中重要的文明古国。在藏语文献记载，东女国王城位于芒那色雄，王城南面是脚尔基神山，北靠甲尔木神山。根据史书，东女国建筑都是碉楼，女王住在9层的碉楼上，一般老百姓住4、5层的碉楼。女王穿的是青布毛领的绸缎长裙，裙摆拖地，贴上金花。

另外，《西游记》写过一个“尽是女人，更无男子”的西梁女国，古书中记载的“纯女无男”的女国很多，都是虚幻之国，如浴于黄池，出即怀孕的女子国(《山海经·海外西经》及注)，等等。唐张说《梁四公记》写到八种女国，其中五种也都是这一类国家。另三种女国则属另一类女国：“国中有男女”而“女人为君”。这类女国大抵是真实国家，古代的东女国和西女国就是如此，很有名，实际是母系社会。《镜花缘》的女儿国则是建立在另一种“女穿男服，男服女装”；“女治外事，男治内事”的对现实不合理的暗讽式颠覆上。此时的女儿国变成了一个寓言形式。研究《镜花缘》的人都很重视女儿国这部分，因为无论从思想内涵上还是从艺术描写上看，都是书中最精彩的文字。

因为近期在读与理解《金刚经》，金刚经里有一段说“若世界实有者，即是一合相。如来说一合相，即非一合相，是名一合相。”金刚经整本书都是在讲空性，又同时强调不住空性，即是“如来”。这段话让我感触很深，于是我在女王的背后画上了许多的藏传佛教的神物：大象、猿猴、布谷鸟、雪山狮子、鱼、秃鹫等，还有其他的雪山动物如雪狼、狐狸、豹子…… 不同的动物之间的形状又相互变化，没有固定的形态，像罗夏克墨迹测验一般，看到什么样的动物取决于不同的自性投射。最右边呈现的是菩萨，微笑地俯瞰着千碉之国。