On Tathāgata’s Dream and Bach
Chow Fan Fu
At first glance, it may be a brow-raising proposal to put Tathāgata’s Dream, the suite for unaccompanied erhu by Liu Wenjin, on par with the unaccompanied instrumental suites by J. S. Bach. While Liu’s position as a successful composer in China is indisputable, and his works, from A Northern Henan Ballad and the Sanmen Gorge Capriccio for erhu and piano to his erhu concerto The Great Wall Capriccio, all deserve their eminent places in the history of music in China, they may not warrant his status as being comparable to that of J.S. Bach. After all, Bach is venerated in the West as the Father of Music and his unaccompanied suites for the cello, the harpsichord and the violin are all works of monumental significance in the history of music. His six suites for the unaccompanied cello, which were rediscovered two hundred years after his death, are now the touchstone for the calibre of any cellist. His six pieces for the unaccompanied violin - three sonatas, three partitas - are held in the highest esteem as the “bible of violin music”. So where does the comparison come in? I would say, it is possible purely from the angle of music appreciation.
The reason behind my proposition is not just that all these works in question are performed by single soloists only. It has more to do with the fact that Tathāgata’s Dream, like Bach’s unaccompanied instrumental works, is technically demanding to the extreme. As with works involving only one performer playing a single instrument, any slightest mistake will not go unnoticed.
Both Bach’s unaccompanied instrumental works and Tathāgata’s Dream are works with many movements. But the difference is that the former are works of absolute music, and do not carry descriptive titles, while the latter is programme music, with a thematic title and a title for each of its eight movements. As far as western music is concerned, absolute music and programme music are subject to different aesthetic considerations. Tathāgata’s Dream and Bach’s works are aesthetically subject to different parameters, no less in their being almost three hundred years apart, but also in the divergences between East and West, and between Christian and Buddhist philosophies.
Be that as it may, such differences are immaterial when it comes to music appreciation per se. This is because Bach’s unaccompanied instrumental works, as works of absolute music, may be appreciated purely on the basis of the beauty of their sounds. It is also possible for thoughts to be associated with these works out of the personal experience of individual listeners. While the eight movements of Tathāgata’s Dream all carry very concrete titles, and stylized images of persons are assigned to each of them, the nature of the work carries with it a lot of Buddhist philosophy and cosmic view. Even for someone who has a good understanding of Buddhism, and he has read carefully the notes attached to the music which are after all not that difficult to understand, it would be quite a task to associate words with the philosophical thoughts and the music itself. It would then be similar to listening to Bach, and the listener’s life experience will be the basis for the thoughts that he associates with the music.
For a listener who is not experienced in music appreciation, it may be relatively difficult to develop this type of association of thoughts. But environmental factors definitely have a part to play. For both performers and listeners, Bach’s religious music that is being played in a church definitely evokes a response that is very different from that in a concert hall. That is why Tathāgata’s Dream is going to be performed at the Nan Lian Garden of the Chi Lin Nunnery, and why Tathāgata’s Dream may earn its place next to Bach’s works for unaccompanied solo instruments.
(I would suggest taking a quiet, meditative walk around the Nan Lian Garden and the Chi Lin Nunnery before or after the concert, as such exercise will be conducive to a better understanding of Tathāgata’s Dream. C.F.F.) 
