Cracking the Walnut, page 24
If we want to exist, we have to eat and drink. If we want not to exist we also need conditions for our nonexistence. Therefore, if nirvāṇa means nonexistence, that nonexistence is not independent or unconditioned. Existence and nonexistence are dependent; only nirvāṇa is independent.
9. That which is dependent on conditions
comes and goes in the cycle of birth and death.
That which is not dependent on conditions
is called nirvāṇa.
受諸因緣故
輪轉生死中
不受諸因緣
是名為涅槃
This verse defines nirvāṇa and the cycle of birth and death. Birth and death is saṃsāra (literally “wandering through”); nirvāṇa means we no longer wander—we have arrived, we are home. We wander because we still depend on conditions. Once we no longer depend on conditions, we rest in nirvāṇa.
In the Chinese, 輪轉輪 means “to go in circles”and 轉 means “to change.” The original Sanskrit is ājavaṃ-javī, which means coming and going—or to go in and out of birth and death. We depend on conditions, and this is why we come and go in the realm of saṃsāra. Once we no longer depend on conditions, then we are in nirvāṇa.
The nature of birth and death is dependence, while the nature of nirvāṇa is independence.
10. As the Buddha said in the sutras,
one should end being and nonbeing.
Therefore we know that nirvāṇa
is neither being nor nonbeing.
如佛經中說
斷有斷非有
是故知涅槃
非有亦非無
We should give up being and nonbeing, as the Buddha has taught in the sutras. This is our practice. There is a craving or thirst for being (bhavatṛṣṇā). Bhava means being, while tṛṣṇā means craving. We thirst for existence—for a long-lasting existence or many existences. Alternatively, we are sometimes not satisfied with the quality of our present existence; we want to abandon it and look for a different one. We may want to go to heaven or be reborn in the Pure Land. That thirst for another existence is called vibhava-tṛṣṇā. We may find that we want to relieve our shoulders of the heavy burden of our present existence to look for nonexistence. This is the state of mind of someone who wants to commit suicide. Existence (bhava) and a different existence (vibhava) are both objects of our thirst. The Buddha said that neither of them should be followed and taught us what we should do to transcend them both. He did not teach us to abandon existence for nonexistence.
This is not a theory, but a practice to avoid being caught in becoming or non-becoming. In many sutras the Buddha taught not to crave being and not to crave nonbeing. We should not be attached to being or to becoming. Based on this teaching, we know that nirvāṇa is a state—a reality—that transcends being and nonbeing. In that state of nirvāṇa we are secure; we are not oppressed by the craving for being or nonbeing.
According to Christianity, the kingdom of God exists. If it did not exist, why would we hope to go there? But in the teachings of the Buddha, nirvāṇa is not something that exists. When we look carefully, we see that all that exists has to cease to exist. To look for the kingdom of God or for the Pure Land as something that exists means we are still craving. Existence and nonxistence—in any form—are not objects for a Buddhist to run after.
Therefore we know that nirvāṇa,
is neither being nor nonbeing.
To say that nirvāṇa exists or does not exist is not in accord with the Buddha’s teachings.
Philosophers debate about being and nonbeing as something real. In the Sanskrit text of the Verses on the Middle Way, the second line of this verse uses the terms bhava and vibhava and the fourth line the terms bhāva and abhāva. In both cases the Chinese translation uses being and nonbeing, but there is a distinction that can be made. Bhava and vibhava are being and nonbeing as the object of the experience of our five skandhas in daily life. We can call them empirical events. Bhāva and abhāva belong to the realm of philosophy, to the essential. They are abstract or metaphysical assumptions—ideas that take us beyond the sphere of experience. When people want to talk about a deeper truth in Sanskrit they would use bhāva and abhāva.
11. If you say that being and nonbeing
together are nirvāṇa,
then being and nonbeing would be liberation,
and this is truly absurd.
若謂於有無
合為涅槃者
有無即解脫
是事則不然
Being by itself makes us suffer and nonbeing by itself also makes us suffer. If you combine these two notions, you will only suffer more; how can you call this liberation?
In these verses Nāgārjuna is looking at four propositions: something is, something is not, something both is and is not, and something neither is nor is not. Verse 11 looks specifically into the third proposition: something both is and is not. If truth is not found in it is, then it is found in it is not, but if it is not found in it is not, then it may lie in it both is and is not. Nāgārjuna shows that this is absurd.
12. If you say that being and nonbeing
together are nirvāṇa,
nirvāṇa would not be independent,
since both being and nonbeing arise in dependence.
若謂於有無
合為涅槃者
涅槃非無受
是二從受生
If nirvāṇa were a combination of being and nonbeing, it would not be independent. Since being is dependent and nonbeing is dependent, nirvāṇa would be even more dependent. Nirvāṇa, however, does not depend on conditions. Being and nonbeing arise in dependence, while nirvāṇa is independent. The argument: “Nirvāṇa comes from a combination of being and nonbeing” does not stand firm. We are free from the third proposition of both being and nonbeing.
13. How could we say that nirvāṇa
both is and is not?
Nirvāṇa is unconditioned,
while being and nonbeing are conditioned.
有無共合成
云何名涅槃
涅槃名無為
有無是有為
To take being and nonbeing, combine them, and say that together they are nirvāṇa is absurd because nirvāṇa is an unconditioned phenomenon, while being and nonbeing are both conditioned.
14. How can being and nonbeing
together be nirvāṇa?
Like light and darkness,
they cannot occur together in the same place.
有無二事共
云何是涅槃
是二不同處
如明暗不俱
How can you call nirvāṇa the combination of these two things? Being and nonbeing are like light and darkness; they can never exist together at the same time.
15. If you call nirvāṇa
neither being nor nonbeing,
how could this neither being nor nonbeing
be conceived of?*
若非有非無
名之為涅槃
此非有非無
以何而分別
Neither being, nonbeing, or the combination of being and nonbeing, is nirvāṇa. Now we come to the fourth proposition, neither being nor nonbeing.
If that which we call “neither being nor nonbeing” is nirvāṇa, how are we to conceive of what is neither being nor nonbeing? It is not a concept, but merely words.
16. You conceive neither being nor nonbeing
and call it nirvāṇa.
Neither being nor nonbeing could only be established
if being and nonbeing could be established.
分別非有無
如是名涅槃
若有無成者
非有非無成
It is wrong to consider neither being nor nonbeing to be nirvāṇa. If the concepts of being and nonbeing were apparent, the concept of neither being nor nonbeing would also be apparent. If the concepts of being and nonbeing are not apparent, the concept of neither being nor nonbeing would also not be apparent. If the left is not apparent, how can there be a right? If there is not an above, how can there be a below? If there is no being, how can there be nonbeing? The reasoning here is like that of the previous verses. Once we have toppled the idea of being, the idea of nonbeing, as the opposite of being, no longer has a leg to stand on. When one of them falls down, the other falls as well. We have already overthrown the idea that being and nonbeing together are nirvāṇa. When this idea is overthrown, the idea of neither-being-nor-nonbeing collapses; these two ideas contrast each other in the way that being and nonbeing, right and left, and above and below do. These are the dialectics of Nāgārjuna: since being and nonbeing together cannot be established, the idea of neither being nor nonbeing cannot be established either. As a result, it is mistaken to conceive of “neither being nor nonbeing” and then call it nirvāṇa.
These four propositions are presented in the Anurādha Sutta* as follows:
One day, as Anurādha was walking on the road a number of ascetics stopped him and asked: “Venerable Anurādha, the Tathāgata is often praised for having reached the highest fruit of awakening. He must have explained to you his understanding of these four propositions:
1. After death, the Tathāgata continues to exist.
2. After death, the Tathāgata ceases to exist.
3. After death, the Tathāgata both continues and ceases to exist.
4. After death, the Tathāgata neither continues nor ceases to exist.
Please tell us which of these propositions is true.”
The Venerable Anurādha replied, “Friends, the Tathāgata, the World-Honored One, the one who has realized the highest fruit of awakening, has never proposed or spoken about these four propositions.”
This was correct—and the Buddha confirms it to Anurādha later in the sutta—but the ascetics were not satisfied.
The seventeenth and eighteenth verses below reflect the essence of the Buddha’s teaching in the Anurādha Sutta, which belongs to Source Buddhism and not the Mahāyāna.
17. After the Tathāgata passes away,
you cannot say he exists, does not exist,
both exists and does not exist,
or neither exists nor does not exist.
如來滅度後
不言有與無
亦不言有無
非有及非無
We cannot force the Buddha into any of these four boxes.
In your busy daily life there could be moments when you wonder where you will go after death. Those moments are too short, because you have so much work and so many other worries. Many of us—including many Buddhists—believe that we have an immortal soul that remains just as it was when we were alive and goes looking for another body after this one disintegrates. This is how a number of Buddhists view saṃsāra. This view, however,—which we could call popular Buddhism—contradicts the teachings of the Buddha. It is a wrong view, according to the deep Buddhist teachings. For those who have a low level of understanding this can be a starting point from which they gradually progress. There are also other religions with a belief that there is an immortal soul which ascends to heaven or descends into hell after the death of the body.
There are also those who believe in materialism. Many scientists believe there is a soul that is not immortal; once the body disintegrates, the soul ceases completely to exist. Nothing remains. There are also scientists with a deeper insight who take exception to this materialistic view. “Nothing is created, nothing is lost,” comes close to the Buddha’s teachings. To say that there is something that can be totally annihilated goes against science.
To those who adhere to such nihilism, the Vietnamese poet Vũ Hoàng Chương wrote in the poem “Song of Liberation” the line,
It’s absurd that what existed last night would become nonexistent this morning.
As students of the Buddha practicing according to the insight of the Buddha, how should we see this matter? The story of the monks questioning Anurādha is recorded in many sutras, and questions like this were frequently asked in India at that time. Whenever the Buddha was asked these questions he, finding it impossible to validate or negate them, remained silent.
18. While the Tathāgata is still alive
you cannot say he exists, does not exist,
both exists and does not exist,
or neither exists nor does not exist.
如來現在時
不言有與無
亦不言有無
非有及非無
The Anurādha sutra is wonderful! The ascetics ask what happens to the Tathāgata after death: does he still exist or not, or both exist and not exist, or neither exist nor not exist? At the time that the Tathāgata is present and alive he cannot be described by any of these four propositions. When Anurādha repeats the question to the Buddha, the Buddha replies, “Let’s not speak about what happens after death. Let’s talk about now! Right now, do I exist or not exist? Do I both exist and not exist? Do I neither exist nor not exist?”
Buddhist teachings always bring us back to the present moment so that we can observe things right now. If we can see things in the present moment, we can also see them in the future and in the past.
In the end Anurādha saw that it was not possible to describe the Buddha in the present moment by means of the four propositions. The Buddha said, “I am sitting here in front of you and you are unable to find me in terms of the four propositions; so how can you expect to find me by means of them after I have passed away?”
Imagine you have four containers in which you will put water or tangerines to carry them home. If you bring water home you will have water, and if you bring tangerines you will have tangerines. Bringing the four containers back successfully is called 得 prāpta—which means to be able to attain, conceive, comprehend, or grasp. But can you grasp the Buddha? You will never be able to grasp reality—including the Buddha—by using the four propositions, just as you cannot grasp the wind in your hand. We cannot grasp reality and so it is called ungraspable; as it says in the Heart Sutra, there is no object of attainment. This means there is no object that can be grasped by means of the four propositions. Even while the Buddha is alive you cannot grasp him. Only when you let go of these propositions can you be in touch with the reality of the Buddha.
Whatever really exists cannot become nonexistent. Whatever is really nonexistent cannot become existent. The things that manifest before our eyes do not have a self-nature; we cannot say that they exist or do not exist. The two categories—exists and does not exist—cannot encompass reality. To say that we have to choose to be or not to be is mistaken! In the light of Buddhism, “To be or not to be, that is not the question.” To say that nirvāṇa, the Buddha, or the table exists, does not exist, both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist, is mistaken.
19. Between nirvāṇa and the world
there is not the slightest difference.
Between the world and nirvāṇa
there is not the slightest difference.
涅槃與世間
無有少分別
世間與涅槃
亦無少分別
The reality of birth and death—of being and nonbeing—is called “the world,” or saṃsāra. When we speak of nirvāṇa, we think of something completely different—something that is unborn and undying, not coming and not going, not the cycle of rebirth. Practitioners normally think that they have to let go of the world to find nirvāṇa. Verse 19 booms like a thunderclap. It shows us that there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra.
I often use the example of the wave and the water. Water is a metaphor for nirvāṇa, and the wave is a metaphor for the world. In the world things go up and down, exist and don’t exist, are big and small, beautiful and ugly, and so on. Water is not like that, but if we remove the water there can be no wave, and if we remove the wave there can be no water. Water and wave are one; they cannot be separated from one another. Out of ignorance we see something as saṃsāra. Without ignorance we see the same thing as nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa and saṃsāra are not two separate realities. It is foolish to abandon one to find the other. Only in the Buddhist tradition is this insight presented in such a clear, direct, and powerful way. Our dualistic conception of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa has to be removed. Only then will we have a chance to get in touch with nirvāṇa.
The sentence, “Between nirvāṇa and the world there is not the slightest difference” is already very clear, but Nāgārjuna still adds a second sentence, “Between the world and nirvāṇa there is not the slightest difference.” In the sutras, the Buddha uses this strategy to stress a point. The Heart Sutra also does this: “This body itself is emptiness and emptiness itself is this body.”
20. Between the true nature of nirvāṇa
and the true nature of saṃsāra
there is not the slightest distinction.
涅槃之實際
及與世間際
如是二際者
無毫釐差別
The term true nature (實際) is translated from the Sanskrit bhūta-koṭi, which means “the boundary of reality.” In Chinese 際 means boundary or limit. The true nature is the essence of reality, or suchness—the limit of the truth that we can be in contact with. When we look at things superficially from the outside, we only see their outer appearance and are unable to see their true nature. When we look with mindfulness, concentration, and insight, we discover this true nature. InMaster Liễu Quán’s poem (found on the Plum Village precepts’ transmission certificates) there are the lines:
