Cracking the Walnut, page 25
實際大導
性海清澄
The great way of reality is our true nature’s clear ocean.
As descendants of Master Liễu Quán, we should be able to understand this sentence. The true nature of nirvāṇa is no birth and no death, no coming and no going, no existence, no nonexistence, no both existence and nonexistence, and no neither existence nor nonexistence. This is not only the true nature of nirvāṇa, it is also the true nature of the Tathāgata and all phenomena: the table, the novice, the stone, the cloud, and so on. To summarize, we cannot grasp the Tathāgata or any other phenomenon by means of the four propositions; all phenomena are ungraspable. When we look deeply into a cloud, a pebble, or a flower we see clearly that their true nature is emptiness: not being, not nonbeing, not born nor dying. In the beginning we discriminate between nirvāṇa and the world of birth and death, but when we look deeply into birth and death, we can touch nirvāṇa. Apart from birth and death we cannot find nirvāṇa, just as we cannot find water apart from waves. The teaching of Buddhism is that nirvāṇa and saṃsāra are one. When we are deluded, we discriminate between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra, but when we are enlightened, we see that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are not the slightest bit different; they are identical.
21. Views on existing after death or not,
being finite, eternal, and so on
all rely on nirvāṇa,
the past, and the future.
滅後有無等
有邊等常等
諸見依涅槃
未來過去世
In verse twenty we saw that the true nature of nirvāṇa and that of saṃsāra are not different: the idea of escaping saṃsāra to find nirvāṇa is mistaken. A Vietnamese Zen master* encouraged his disciples not to be attached to the world of birth and death, but to find nirvāṇa. A disciple stood up and asked the master, “Where can we find nirvāṇa?” The master replied, “You must find it right in the world of birth and death!” Outside of saṃsāra it is not possible to find nirvāṇa. Saṃsāra comes about because of our mistaken way of looking; when we can look with the eyes of insight and awakening, saṃsāra becomes nirvāṇa.
Verse 21 is aboutdoctrines, 見 (dṛṣṭi). As we’ve learned from the Anurādha Sutta, these doctrines included the four propositions. Spiritual teachers at that time wanted people to choose one of the four, whereas the Buddha maintained that none of these four propositions contained the truth. When you pick plums you could bring four baskets to hold them, but the truth could never be put into a basket.
Nāgārjuna mentions twelve doctrines: the world is limited, limitless, both limited and limitless, or neither limited nor limitless; after death the Tathāgata continues to exist, ceases to exist, both continues and ceases to exist, or neither continues nor ceases to exist; the world is eternal, subject to annihilation, both eternal and subject to annihilation, or neither eternal nor subject to annihilation. All these doctrines rely on an idea of nirvāṇa and are connected with the two times of past and future; they lie within the frame of space and time.
Another matter for philosophical discussion in India during the lifetime of the Buddha and Nāgārjuna was the life force, 命 (jīva), and the body. Are the life force and the body one or two? Is the life force the body? If the body only exists for a certain time, does the life force only exist for a certain time? Altogether there were fourteen different theories. You were expected to select one of them and fit reality into it. The Buddha, however, taught that we cannot grasp reality by means of any of the fourteen categories. This is the teaching of Nāgārjuna in the verse 22 that follows.
We should note that verse 21 is not Nāgārjuna’s teaching; he is merely listing the theories that people were putting forward and disputing.
The Buddha had a disciple named Mālunkyāputta* who asked him a great number of philosophical questions:
“Please teach me, World-Honored One. I want to know: Is the world eternal or annihilated? Does the universe have a limit or not? Is time infinite or finite? If you cannot answer me, I will leave the sangha and find the answers somewhere else.”
The Buddha replied, “When you became a monk, did I ever promise you that I would answer these questions? Of course not. I never promised that I would reply to these questions.”
The Buddha gave an example, which has become well-known: “Suppose a man walking on the road is struck by a poisonous arrow. Straightaway the poison enters his body and people nearby summon a doctor. When the doctor is about to remove the arrow, the wounded man says: “Stop! Stop! Do not pull it out yet. First, you have to tell me who shot this arrow: What is his name? What clan does he belong to? Why did he shoot me? Only after I know the answers will I allow you to remove the arrow.”
The Buddha said, “Mālunkyāputta, if the doctor were to keep sitting there answering all those questions, the wounded man would die before the wound could be treated. I don’t speak about these metaphysical subjects because I see that doing so would be of no advantage to you. I teach about suffering, the nature of suffering, the causes of suffering, and the path for overcoming suffering. I am a doctor; I’m not here to answer these kinds of questions. If I were to reply to them, you would die before having a chance to practice and to transform.”
We become a monk or a nun first of all to heal our wounds, not to satisfy our curiosity about metaphysical or philosophical questions.
22. Since all phenomena are empty
how can they be limited or limitless,
both limited and limitless
or neither limited nor limitless?
一切法空故
何有邊無邊
亦邊亦無邊
非有非無邊
We have learned that all phenomena are without a self-nature. Limited and limitless are qualities that people apply to the self-nature of phenomena. Only when the self-nature of something really is, however, can we talk about it being limited or limitless! If it is not really existing, how can we say it is or is not limited, both is and is not limited, or neither is nor is not limited?
23. How can there be same and different,
permanence or impermanence,
both permanence and impermanence,
or neither permanence nor impermanence?
何者為一異
何有常無常
亦常亦無常
非常非無常
If all phenomena are empty, why do we have to find out whether they are the same or different—as in the case of life force and the body, or matter and spirit? Here we speak of the characteristics of phenomena: Are they the same or different? Are body and mind the same or different? There are four doctrines: same, different, both the same and different, and neither the same nor different.
If phenomena are empty, how can we call them permanent, impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, or neither permanent nor impermanent? Nāgārjuna’s answer is clear in the following verses.
24. [Realizing that] phenomena cannot be grasped,
we remove all speculation.
There is no person and no location,
and the Buddha did not teach anything.
諸法不可得
滅一切戲論
無人亦無處
佛亦無所說
As we cannot describe phenomena as being or nonbeing, why do we waste time finding out if they are permanent or impermanent, limited or limitless, the same or different? Meanwhile we forget to practice breathing and walking meditation, and we don’t know how to recognize our feelings and internal knots in order to calm and transform them. We are like that man struck by an arrow who did not want to remove it. After the Buddha gave that teaching, Mālunkyāputta accepted it. He stopped asking questions and began to practice.
Phenomena have the character of being ungraspable. We cannot grasp the Buddha because he is a phenomenon, an object of our mind. With what do we grasp the Buddha? We do not grasp him with our hands, but with our thoughts, our ideas, and with mental categories—like being, nonbeing, both being and nonbeing, neither being nor nonbeing, permanence, impermanence, both permanence and impermanence, neither permanence nor impermanence, limited or limitless, both limited and limitless, or neither limited nor limitless. These are all mental categories, and you cannot grasp reality with mental categories. This is what is meant by, phenomena cannot be grasped.
Therefore, we have to remove all of our speculation. The Chinese 戲論 (prapañca) means “useless speculation,”the questions, answers, and theories. 戲 means to play with and 論 means speculation.
Our life is short, and we waste it with vain speculations that lead nowhere.
There is no person and no location.
We cannot find a person’s self or their location in time or space. If, when observing a person and their location, we are able to transcend our ideas about them and their location, then we can see them as they really are. If we only hold on tight to our sense of “here is that person” or “here is that location,” we cannot see the interbeing nature—the nirvāṇa nature—of all things. We allow our brain’s ideas to dominate us, and we are still blind.
The Buddha did not say anything means that the Buddha remained silent before questions like those mentioned above. The Buddha’s silence is referred to in many places in the sutras; we can call this silence noble silence or thundering silence.
One day a very intelligent ascetic called Vacchagotta came and asked the Buddha: “World-Honored One, is there a self? Is it true that there is a self?”
The Buddha smiled but did not say a word. Ānanda was surprised that the Buddha did not reply—even a disciple ordained for only two or three days could have answered this.
After a long while Vacchagotta asked “So there is no self, right?” The Buddha again smiled as he sat in silence. After a while, Vacchagotta left.
Ānanda asked the Buddha, “World Honored One, why did you not answer the ascetic? You normally say that there is no self.”
The Buddha replied: “Ānanda, Vacchagotta was looking for an answer to his intellectual questions. I am not foolish enough to fall into his trap. If I had told him that there is a self, I would have contradicted what I teach. If I had told him that there is no self, it would not have helped. He would have understood ‘no self’ to be a theory contradicting the theory of a self. I do not accept the doctrine of self, so I teach no self; but when I teach no self it is not for people to be caught in it. The purpose of the teachings on no self is to shatter our notion of a self. If I talk about no self with the result that people grasp it and are caught in it, there is no benefit. This is why I was silent.”
That is thundering silence. When we find ourselves in a situation where there is speculation, we can do just as the Buddha did. We can sit quietly, in silence, and simply smile—by doing so, we will be worthy students of the Buddha. When people were caught in a vicious cycle of speculation, the Buddha said nothing, and we, his descendants, can do the same.
* E.g. the Laṅkāvatāra and Śūraṅgama Sutras.
* See Pascal’s wager (le pari de Pascal) in Blaise Pascal, Pensées, fragment 397.
* Kumārajīva, when translating into Chinese, reversed the 15th and 16th verses. The 15th verse in Chinese translates the 16th verse in Sanskrit, and the 16th verse in Chinese translates the 15th verse in Sanskrit. —Eds.
* SN IV 380 in Chanting from the Heart, volume 1, Parallax Press, 2023.
* Master Thiện Hội (d. 950).
* Culamālunkyāputta Sutta, MN 63.
Appendix
The following Appendix includes only the sections of the Verses on the Middle Way that the author has translated and commented on for this book. Numbers preceding the title indicate the chapter in this book; each title is followed by the original chapter name and number.
Verses on the Middle Way
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
Unborn and undying,
neither permanent nor annihilated,
neither the same nor different,
neither coming nor going—
the Buddha thus proclaims conditioned co-arising
that puts an end to all speculation.
I bow down to him,
the supreme and excellent teacher.
anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam
anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamam
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam
deśayām āsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam
1 Examination of Conditions
Pratyayaparīkṣā (Chapter 1)
1. Phenomena are not born from themselves,
nor from others,
nor both from themselves and others, nor without cause.
Therefore we know they are unborn.
2. Seed condition, condition of continuity,
object of cognition as condition and supportive condition:
These four conditions give birth to all dharmas,
and there is no fifth one.
3. The self-nature of phenomena
is not found in the conditions.
Since there is no self-nature,
how could there be an other-nature?
4. Does the effect arise out of the conditions,
or does it arise out of a non-condition?
Is the effect contained in the conditions,
or is there no effect in the conditions?
5. A seed condition that gives rise to an effect
is called a condition.
When the effect has not yet arisen,
why then don’t we call it a non-condition?
6. To say that the effect, prior to arising,
exists or not within the conditions, has no meaning.
If it does not exist, then what does the condition condition?
And if it does exist, then why do we need a condition?
7. If the effect is already present before it arises,
or if it is not present before it arises,
or if it is both present and not present before it arises,
how can we say that it is conditioned?
8. When the effect has not yet arisen
its cause cannot cease.
How can a phenomenon that has ceased condition something?
Therefore there is no continuity condition.
9. As proclaimed by the buddhas,
the true and wonderful Dharmadhātu
transcends subject and object of cognition,
So how could there be an object of cognition as condition?
10. If phenomena are without a self-nature
they do not have the mark of “being.”
For this reason we cannot say
this is because that is.
11. Looking into conditions, at length or in brief,
we are not able to see the effect.
If it is not found in the conditions
how can we say the effect arises from the conditions?
12. If you say that the effect is not in the conditions,
but that the effect arises from the conditions,
then why does not that effect
arise from what are not its conditions?
13. If the effect comes from conditions,
those conditions do not have a self-nature.
If, then, the effect comes from conditions that do not have a self-nature,
how can it be said to come from those conditions?
14. There is no effect that arises from conditions,
nor an effect that arises from non-conditions.
Since there is no effect,
there are neither conditions nor non-conditions.
2 Examination of Coming and Going
Gatāgataparīkṣā (Chapter 2)
1. That which has already gone is not going;
that which has not yet gone is not going.
Besides already-gone and not-yet-gone,
the present going cannot be known.
2. When the act of going is taking place,
there is going;
There is no having-gone nor not-yet-gone at the time of going,
but there is going at the time of going.
3. How could the fact of going be there
during the time of going?
If there is no fact of going
how can there be a time of going?
4. It is a mistake to say that there is going
during the time of going.
Without going, how could the time of going
go by itself?
5. If there is going in the time of going,
then there are two goings:
the first is the time of going,
and the second is the act of going.
6. If there are two goings,
there must be two subjects who go.
Without a subject who goes,
how can we establish the fact of going?
7. If there is no subject who goes,
the act of going will be impossible.
When there is not an act of going,
how can there be someone who goes?
8. The goer does not go;
the non-goer does not go.
Apart from goer and non-goer,
there is no third possibility.
9. How can we conceive
of the goer going?
Without the act of going,
how could there be a goer?
10. If you say that there is a goer going
there would be two kinds of going:
the going of the goer
and the going of the act of going.
11. If you say that the goer goes
