Practical Ethics and Profound Emptiness Read online

  Following the middle way, Prasangikas are free from the two extremes of nonexistence and existence. Production has a cause means that cyclic existence has causes. Prasangikas know with reliable cognizers that the arising of duhkha has its cause, self-grasping. In this way, they transcend the wrong view that there are no causes or effects of wandering in cyclic existence and are free from the extreme of nonexistence.

  They also don’t accept inherent existence because they see with reliable cognizers that the cessation of duhkha has a “cause,” the true path. True cessation comes into being due to the power of meditating on the true path, the direct realization of emptiness. In this way Prasangikas also avoid the extreme of absolutism or existence.

  Cessation does not have a cause in the same way that cyclic existence does, since cessation is permanent. So what does Nagarjuna mean when he says that seeing that cessation has a cause, one does not accept the extreme of inherent existence or absolutism? Cessation is said to have a nominal cause because it comes into being due to the power of meditating on the true path, the wisdom realizing emptiness. Emptiness exists because it can be realized by a reliable cognizer. Through directly realizing emptiness and continuing to meditate on it, we attain true cessation. This dependent sequence refutes the notion of independent existence, and thus Prasangikas reject the notion of inherent existence and do not fall into the extreme of absolutism.

  47.A cause that occurs before [its effect] or simultaneously [with it]

  is not really a cause at all,

  because [such causes] are not accepted nominally,

  and arising is not accepted ultimately.

  Cause and Effect Do Not Inherently Exist

  This verse presents another reasoning to refute inherent existence that is also touched upon in Treatise on the Middle Way (10.21–22).13 It is impossible for an inherently existent cause to produce an inherently existent effect. If a cause existed inherently, it would have to exist before its effect, simultaneously with it, or subsequent to it. There is no other possibility, and none of these three are viable. A cause cannot exist simultaneously with its effect because the cause has to cease for its effect to arise. The cause existing after its effect is absurd. An inherently existent cause cannot exist before its effect because something that exists inherently is independent of everything else. As a self-enclosed thing it could not give rise to an effect. Thus inherently existent arising cannot exist.

  If an inherently existent cause could produce an inherently existent effect, there should be a valid reason that proves that and a reliable cognizer that realizes that effect. But no such valid reason or reliable cognizer can be found.

  In the conventional way that effects arise from causes, a cause has to exist before its effect. Inherently existent causes and effects do not exist either conventionally (nominally) or ultimately.

  48.When there is this, that arises,

  just as when there is long, there is short.

  When this is produced, that arises,

  just as when a lamp’s [flame] is produced, light arises.

  We Do Not Contradict What Is Well Known in the World

  Someone poses a question, “If an inherently existent cause doesn’t give rise to an inherently existent effect, that contradicts what is well known in the world. Farmers know that if seeds are planted in the spring, a crop can be harvested in the autumn.” This person doesn’t differentiate between inherently existent and conventionally existent cause and effect, and thus thinks that when inherently existent cause and effect is refuted, the entire system of cause and effect is negated.

  Nagarjuna replies that his assertion doesn’t contradict common knowledge. He is not negating all existence, only a certain kind of impossible way of existing — inherent existence. To disprove inherent existence, he presents the reasoning of dependent arising.14

  This verse speaks of two kinds of dependence: causal dependence and mutual dependence. “When there is this, that arises” and “when this is produced, that arises” both indicate causal dependence, the fact that effects arise dependent on their causes. First-link ignorance produces second-link formative actions, and so forth, forming the rest of the twelve links. This is similar to a lamp’s flame giving rise to light.

  If a cause and its effect existed inherently, they would be totally independent of each other. That would mean that the effect could arise without a cause, and that the cause wouldn’t need to cease to produce an effect. The cause and its effect could exist simultaneously and eternally. These are unwanted consequences of asserting inherently existent causality.

  “When there is long, there is short” indicates mutual dependence. Something is long in relation to another thing that is short. Long and short exist relative to each other, not independent of each other.

  Usually we think that an effect depends on its cause, not the other way around. However, thinking more deeply, we see that for something to be a cause there must be the possibility of an effect arising from it. In this way, cause and effect are posited relative to each other. Being mutually reliant, they don’t exist independently or under their own power. In the same way, past, present, and future are established in dependence on each other. Friend, enemy, and stranger are also mutually dependent. All these things exist by conceptual designation; they are fabricated by our minds and lack objective existence. In this way they are like illusions and do not exist objectively.

  When we understand these two forms of dependence — causal dependence and mutual dependence — we can establish that things do not exist independently or from their own side. However, they do exist conventionally, nominally. The correct view is that phenomena are empty of inherent existence and exist by being merely designated.

  49.When there is long, there is short;

  they do not inherently exist;

  and when a lamp’s [flame] is not produced,

  the light also does not arise.

  If the cause doesn’t exist, the effect cannot arise. If ignorance is destroyed by wisdom realizing emptiness, formative actions cannot arise. By ceasing formative actions, consciousness ceases. Name and form, the six sources, and the remaining links also cease. This is just like when a candle’s wax is consumed, the flame ceases. When the flame ceases, its light also stops.

  Just as effects cannot exist without their causes, things that are mutually dependent cannot exist without each other. Without a teacher there is no student, and without a student there is no teacher. A valid object and a reliable cognizer depend on each other; without one, the other cannot be established.

  The Svatantrikas and below say that inherently existent causes and effects are seen by reliable cognizers, because the fact that effects come from causes is well known in the world. Once again, they confuse existence and inherent existence, thinking they are the same. They also mistakenly believe emptiness and total nonexistence are the same. Thus they assert that if a cause exists, it inherently exists, and if it is empty of inherent existence, it must be totally nonexistent. As said before, if something existed inherently, it would exist from its own side, without depending on causes, conditions, or anything else. But nothing exists independently like this. Everything exists dependent on other factors. Functioning things depend on causes and conditions; all phenomena rely on their parts; all phenomena are also mutually dependent on other phenomena as well as on conceptual designation.

  50.Seeing that an effect arises from a cause,

  one does not claim that [causality] is nonexistent,

  having accepted conventional [causality] in accord

  with the way it arises for the world from conceptual fabrication.

  51.[Ultimate causality is] refuted:

  it would be absolutist to accept that it has not arisen from conceptual fabrication

  and that it is truly real, just as it is. [Its ultimate reality] is not [accepted].

  Thus not relying on the two [extremes], one is liberated.

  Realizing Nonduality Brings Liberation

/>   In these two verses, Nagarjuna shows the correct view free from the extremes of nihilism and absolutism. He is free of nihilism because he accepts that effects arise from their respective causes. Conventional reliable cognizers know that an effect arises from its cause. Nagarjuna demonstrates his acceptance of conventional existence and causality as merely designated by conception when he explains the causes for higher rebirth, the Buddha’s thirty-two signs, and a bodhisattva’s progression through the ten grounds to buddhahood.

  Nagarjuna does not abide in the extreme of absolutism — also called the extreme of existence, permanence, or eternalism — because he refutes the ultimate existence and true existence of cause and effect and asserts that things do not exist inherently in the way they appear. Causes and their effects do not exist ultimately and cannot be found by ultimate analysis, but they do exist nominally, dependent on conceptual designation. We will attain liberation by meditating on this view of the middle way, free of absolutism and nihilism.

  While Prasangikas say true existence and inherent existence are the same, Svatantrikas differentiate between them, negating true existence but asserting inherent existence conventionally. They accept dependent arising and do not say that phenomena exist in a totally independent fashion. Nevertheless, they still subscribe to the inherent existence of all objects, believing objects still have a degree of independent existence. They do not recognize the internal contradiction in their assertions. In fact, they believe that a thing’s existing dependently proves that it exists inherently. However, Svatantrikas do use dependent arising as a reason to prove that something is not truly existent, saying that dependence and reliance of one thing on another indicates that things cannot be truly existent.

  If you have already studied the Buddhist philosophical tenet systems in depth, these points will be clear to you. If you haven’t, the points will not be so clear to you now; you will understand them better after you have done more study.

  52.A form that is viewed from afar

  is seen clearly by those nearby.

  If a mirage were actually water,

  why would those nearby not see it?

  53.As in the case of a mirage,

  those far away who [view] the world

  see it to be real just as it is,

  but being signless, it is not seen by those nearby.

  An Example of Realizing and Not Realizing the Suchness (Emptiness) of Things

  From a distant mountain, people who are lost in the desert see a place where sunlight and sand meet and believe water is there. Thirsty, they run toward it, only to find when they arrive that there is no water. If the mirage were actually water, water should have appeared more clearly as they approached.

  Similarly, being far from the correct view, ordinary beings see the world as truly existent. If phenomena truly existed as they appear, those truly existent phenomena should become clearer the more we analyzed to see how they existed. However, this is not the case; aryas in meditative equipoise on emptiness see the absence of truly existent phenomena in sparkling clarity.

  Just as the appearance of water vanishes when we go closer to a mirage, so too the appearance of true existence disappears the more we investigate whether truly existent phenomena actually exist. In fact, aryas’ wisdom, which is very close to emptiness (suchness), sees the opposite, the non-true existence of phenomena. Aryas know that the appearance of true existence is false and that therefore true-grasping is an erroneous mind.

  Just as the mirage is not water although it appears to be, all phenomena do not exist from their own side although they appear to. Just as the perception of a mirage and the thought “this is water” are false, perceiving and grasping all phenomena as existing from their own side are both false.

  Except for aryas’ wisdom of meditative equipoise on emptiness, true existence appears to all other consciousnesses of sentient beings. For example, a table appears truly existent to the eye consciousness of an ordinary being. This eye consciousness is a conventional reliable cognizer because it realizes the table: it knows a table is there even though the table appears in a false manner to it. This reliable eye consciousness is mistaken with respect to its appearing object because the table appears truly existent, but it is not erroneous with respect to its apprehended object because it is able to realize the table. However, if someone is very attached to the table and craves it intensely, his or her mental consciousness is mistaken with respect to its appearing object because the table appears truly existent to it, and it is erroneous with respect to its apprehended object because it grasps the table to truly exist.

  54.A mirage seems to be water,

  but it is not water, nor is it real.

  Likewise, the aggregates seem to be a self,

  but they are not a self, nor are they even real.

  The Aggregates Do Not Exist Inherently

  Just as a mirage appears to be water but is not, similarly the aggregates appear to be a person, although they are not. Just as a mirage is not real, so too the truly existent aggregates that appear are not real. The way the aggregates appear and the way they exist are discordant.

  55.[Seeing] a mirage, one might think,

  “That is water,” and then go up to it.

  If one still grasped [the water, thinking], “The water isn’t here,”

  it would be quite foolish.

  56.Likewise, it is confused to apprehend this mirage-like world

  as either [truly] existent or [totally] nonexistent.

  If confused,

  one will not obtain liberation.

  Liberation Is Impossible without Abandoning the Two Extremes

  A thirsty person sees water where a mirage is and runs there to drink it. After finding no water there, he would be foolish to think, “There used to be water here, and it disappeared before I could get here.” There never was any water there. Had he known that, he would not have run after it to start with.

  Similarly, the aggregates appear truly existent although they are not. Through analysis we find there are no truly existent aggregates. At that time, if we thought, “The aggregates used to be truly existent, and my analysis made them nonexistent,” we would be quite foolish. Had we realized sooner that truly existent things have never existed, we would not have suffered so much chasing them.

  A person who thinks that a thing doesn’t exist at all if it doesn’t truly exist is like a person who thinks that the “water” of a mirage has disappeared when they can’t find it. They think things used to truly exist and their analysis made them become totally nonexistent. Those who apprehend the world — that is, the aggregates — as either nonexistent conventionally or as existent ultimately are unable to understand that things were never truly existent and can only exist conventionally, through mere designation. Without relinquishing the two extremes of absolutism and nihilism, they will not be able to free themselves from cyclic existence.

  57.The nihilist goes to a low rebirth;

  the essentialist attains a higher rebirth;

  but through knowing [reality] just as it is,

  not relying on the two [extremes], one is liberated.

  The Importance of Realizing Nonduality

  Nihilists — also called “proponents of nonexistence” — are those who deny the existence of the Three Jewels, the law of karma and its effects, rebirth, and so on. Under the influence of these wrong views, they do whatever they like, thinking they won’t experience any detrimental effects. In this way, they accumulate a great deal of destructive karma and will be born in the lower realms.

  Essentialists — or “proponents of true existence” — accept the existence of the Three Jewels, causality, and so forth. Hence they put effort into creating virtuous karma and as a result they are reborn in a higher rebirth. Essentialists hold the worldly right view but have not yet gained the supramundane right view — the right view of the ultimate nature of existence, emptiness.

  As long as we hold either a nihilistic or an essentialist view
, we have no choice but to be born in cyclic existence because we will continue to create either virtuous or nonvirtuous propelling karma. Neither nihilism nor absolutism is a viable path to nirvana. By abandoning these two extremes, aryas know reality just as it is, realize the right supramundane view, and attain liberation.

  Some people misunderstand the statement “not relying on the two, one is liberated.” They don’t understand that “the two” refers to the two extremes — existence and nonexistence — but rather they take the words literally and believe that all phenomena are neither existent nor nonexistent. However, this is not possible. If something is not existent, by implication it must be nonexistent. If it is not nonexistent, it must be existent. Existence and nonexistence are direct opposites and contradictory. Nothing can be both of them, and there is no third option. So there is no possibility of things being neither existent nor nonexistent. A path based on this wrong view is futile, and those who think like this are paralyzed by confusion.

  It is possible that explaining the statement “not existent and not nonexistent” in a literal manner could be of some temporary benefit for a few disciples, even though that position is untenable. While this may be so, we must use reasoning to understand scripture correctly, analyzing it from this angle and from that angle, comparing the reasons for and against the two positions to see which one has the most supportive reasons and which one has the most reasons disproving it. Follow the one that has the most support and the least harm. By using reasoning, we can see that if all those terms are taken literally, it is not possible to find phenomena that are neither existent nor nonexistent. If we insist that there is something like that, when someone asks us to give an example, what will we say?

  When we want to prove a thesis, it’s good to cite a scriptural quotation to support what we say. For example, a passage in the Sutra Unraveling the Thought (Samdhinirmochana Sutra) says that conventional truth and ultimate truth are neither the same nor different and that if you cling to the thought of same and different you are mistaken, because things are beyond this duality. Taking this statement literally, someone could misconstrue it to mean there is a third possibility in addition to the two truths being either the same or different. This would be like someone citing this verse 57 and saying that there is a third option in addition to things being either existent or nonexistent.