Posted by: Wei Yu

The Buddha rejected the extremes of eternalism and nihilism and taught the middle way which is free from extremes. This post examines what each of these mean with pictorial aid.

Water

Eternalism
There is a water. Water truly exists. Hydrogen and oxygen are attributes of the water.

Nihilism


The water does not exist. OR The water that exists now annihilates later.

Middle Way


Co-dependently arisen hydrogen and oxygen are empty of water, but is conventionally called water. Hydrogen and oxygen are not attributes of an entity "water" (no such thing can be pinned down), not contained by an entity called "water", nor is there a "water" that is "made up of" hydrogen and oxygen. Rather, two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms co-dependently arising ARE what is conventionally imputed as water.

Self

Eternalism


Self view is the held position that there is a self. Self truly exists. Self may be seen as attributeless (as some attributeless pure consciousness as in advaita), or a self that owns or contains attributes, or an agent that manifests, owns, observes, or controls, its aggregates. The precise view of self varies from eternal, partially eternal, to nihilistic (for a lengthy discourse by Buddha on the numerous "thicket of views", refer to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html). From an eternalist perspective, the self remains unchanged despite the changes in life. It remains unchanged even after bodily death. It is either seen as the unchanging self [as an individual soul], or the Self [as an infinite Self or Presence] that is unaffected by the passing aggregates or phenomena.

Nihilism


The self does not exist. OR The self in this life annihilates upon death. There is no karma, cause and effect, or rebirth.

Middle Way


Co-dependently arisen five aggregates are empty of self, but is conventionally called self. Seeing is not a self seeing, but is simply the experience being seen. Volition is not via a doer, but is simply action-activity-process, co-dependently arisen. Consciousness is not a self, it is simply auditory consciousness manifested dependent on ear, sound and attention, so on and so forth. Taste of chocolate has nothing to do with a taster but is simply the process or seamless activity of biting, tongue touching chocolate, consciousness of taste, etc. Ultimately, whatever dependently originates is also empty of any true existence (five aggregates are also empty) - but appearances are not denied.



Now replace "water" or "self" with anything - mind, matter, Buddha-nature, Truth, awareness, cars, houses, atoms, universe, etc. All applies the same way.

Diamond Sutra: "Subhuti, all dharmas are spoken of as no dharmas. Therefore they are called dharmas."

Anuradha Sutta: "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

Ted Biringer: "...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the myriad forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature or mind."

Thusness (2008): The key is in "emptiness" so that there is complete non abiding and (non-)staying (thus avoiding eternalism) and "luminosity" so that there is aliveness and clarity without falling into nihilism.


Note: does that mean that conventionally self truly exists? No. Conventional truths are not in fact true nor existing but are merely deluded projections as a result of ignorance. Five aggregates are deludedly conceived as a self. Such a self may conventionally be considered true, yet there is actually no truth to it. It is merely a false name used by the enlightened for pragmatic purpose, but taken to be true and existing by the ignorant. Nagarjuna: "Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not reject the rest as false?"

The diagrams are inspired by Julian Baggini's speech on Ted talk: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/05/is-there-you.html
11 Responses
  1. Harsha Says:

    I have a question about this - even though 'water' is a label, the underlying parts could have inherent existence. Atoms themselves have parts. But ultimately, there are basic inherent things in the Standard Model of physics - the backgroud spacetime itself and quantum fields whose vibrations we name as elementary particles. Using physics is double edged as even though the models will say somethings are basic, some other things will be.

    True, this model is not final and is in the process of being changed. But the next model will also have inherently existing features. My question is how can we as practitioners without any direct access to physics experiments can directly rule out any model which has inherently existing qualities.

    When one says that one sees sunyata in all dharmas, this seems like an analysis of first person sensory and conceptual experience. I also dont understand this btw - but hopefully will discuss this later.


  2. Harsha Says:

    small correction - the last line of paragraph should end 'models will say some things are not basic, some other things will be.'


  3. "This isn't what annihilation means. When you look at salt under a microscope, you are looking at photons not salt, which are annihilated on your retina. Particles are not objects, they are packets of energy. This energy dissipates into heat when it interacts with cells in your eyes that are photosensitive."


  4. The hinayana schools posit partless elements of dhamma but realizes these are empty of a subjective self or person. Mahayana schools goes one step further by deconstructing dharma as empty, the aggregates are empty. But these have basis in the original pali teachings as well such as kaccayana sutta, phena sutta, kalaka sutta etc. So if your view is that phenomena have partless elements, you may go as far as to realize the firstfold emptiness but not the second emptiness.

    To answer your qn, it is an experiential fact that there is no self, and all dharmas are empty. You do not need to read a scientific report to understand all phenomena are impermanent, stressful, empty of self, etc, or that mind is luminous. You just need to directly contemplate and realize. In fact the need for an objective analysis already falsely presumes that there is objective existence "out there" independently existing outside our minds. This does not mean mind is absolute but more later on.

    By observing the arising of a thought or perception and contemplating it can be discovered that all phenomena are already coreless, without origin, place of abiding, destination. They are completely empty and illusory like a magician's trick. Like when looking at a red rose, that is in fact not "red of the red rose" as dogs only see black and other beings may see something else and quantum analysis discovers mostly void. Red is thus a complete and whole appearance of itself not pertaining to any entity, it is completely empty and illusory, as it is dependently arisen. The way to realize this is not objective analysis or reasoning...

    Dependent origination is also not discovered through scientific reasoning. When I open the old door, a creaking sound manifests... That is completely dependently arisen - it does not come from somewhere but manifests as a new and fresh phenomenon dependent on ear, hand movement, door moving, friction, air, etc.

    Anyway this is an excerpt from a good book http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductExtract.asp?PID=14727 : "The texts on the Middle Way, or Madhyamika in Sanskrit, such as The Root Verses on the Middle Way by Nagarjuna and Entrance into the Middle Way by Chandrakirti, explain the perfection of wisdom (Skt. prajnapararnita). These texts set forth the correct view of the way things exist and provide very dear explanations of the nature of reality. However they don’t explain how to meditate. The Madhyamaka texts explain the view and allow us to develop great faith and understanding of the Dharma, but they don’t address how we can actually meditate to gain a direct understanding of the view.

    Moonlzght of Maharnudra is different in that it explains very clearly how to meditate by developing the practices of shamata, or tranquillity meditation, and vipashyana, or insight meditation. It shows how these meditations allow us to rest our mind evenly in order to see the basic nature of reality. In addition Moonlight of Mahamudra describes many levels of meditation experience. If you are new to the practice of meditation and want to know how to begin, the text describes how to begin. If you have practiced meditation and given birth to some results and wish to know how to proceed, the text talks about that also. If you have developed some genuine meditation and encountered obstacles and difficulties, the text explains where these obstacles come from, what they are, and how to get rid of them. All these explanations are presented with great clarity. That is why the Sixteenth Karmapa said that this is the best book to translate for Western students.


  5. (Continued) Reasons to Meditate on the Nature of Mind

    It is important to know why we practice meditation. There are two main types of meditation: analytical meditation and placement meditation. The Madhyamaka school has given us extensive, clear explanations of how external things or phenomena are actually emptiness. In analytical meditation we meditate on these reasons and arguments; however it is very difficult to actually meditate on the emptiness of phenomena. In the tantric, or Vajrayana, tradition of Tibet, rather than meditating on the nature of external phenomena, we meditate on mind itself. The technique of mahamudra meditation is essential and unique to the Vajrayana tradition."

    Etc etc

    Anyway I like what this guy had to say:

    http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/02/emptiness-and-middle-way.html

    An object is seen by a hundred different people like a hundred reflections in a hundred mirrors. But is it the same object? As a first approximation, it’s the same object, but one that can be perceived in completely different ways by different beings. Only one who has attained enlightenment recognizes the object’s ultimate nature – that it appears, but is devoid of any intrinsic existence – as the direct contemplation of absolute truth transcends any intellectual concept, any duality between subject and object.

    Buddhism’s position is that of the ‘Middle Way: the world isn’t a projection of our minds, but it isn’t totally independent of our minds, either – because it makes no sense to speak of a particular, fixed reality independent of any concept, mental process, or observer. Rather there is interdependence. In this manner, Buddhism avoids falling into either nihilism or eternalism. Phenomena arise through a process of interdependent causes and conditions, but nothing exists in itself or by itself.

    Colors, sounds, smells, flavors, and textures aren’t attributes that are inherent to the objective world, existing independently of our senses. The objects we perceive seem completely ‘external’ to us, but do they have intrinsic characteristics that define their true nature? What is the true nature of the world as it exists independently of ourselves? We have no way of knowing, because our only way of apprehending it is via our own mental process. So, according to Buddhism, a ‘world’ independent of any conceptual designation would make no sense to anyone. To take an example, what is a white object? Is it a wavelength, a ‘color temperature’, and or moving particles? Are those particles energy, mass, or what? None of those attributes are intrinsic to the object, they’re only the result of our particular ways of investigating it.

    Buddhist scriptures tell the story of two blind men who wanted to have explained to them what colors were? One of them was told that white was the color of snow. He took a handful of snow and concluded that white was ‘cold’. The other blind man was told white was the color of swans. He heard a swan flying overhead, and concluded that white went ‘swish swish’... The complete and correct recollection of the story aside, the point being the world cannot be determined by itself. If it was, we’d all perceive it in the same way.

    That’s not to deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena.


  6. To put it in another way - the practice we, as insight practitioners, undergo is to understand the nature and essence of experience (Awareness) for the purpose of liberation.

    Our approach is phenomenological and therefore we do not look elsewhere other than this immediate moment.

    The view challenges our existing dualistic and inherent framework and attempt to neutralize it so that we can have a clean, pure, direct and immediate authentication of "experience" as suchness. The purpose is to liberate our deeply rooted held view rather than to establish anything. When experience is in primordial and natural condition, views are also dropped. The problem is only about dropping it too early.


  7. Harsha Says:

    Thanks for taking the time to write this long reply. I am occupied for a few days, but will try to respond once I am free.


  8. Anonymous Says:

    Yes truly thank you
    One question, what realizes the emptiness of self?


  9. Bane Says:

    Pretty cool, and a very easy way to grasp dependent origination. I also watched the talk; it's cool to see this getting more professional attention in the west.

    While it wasn't directed to me, Harsha, I have some thoughts on your comment.

    The atom arises dependently just as the molecule did; on its respective fundamental particles. Protons, neutrons, electrons. So too do those arise from quarks. My understanding of modern science is too primitive to go farther, but I'd put forth that it's as valid to say that the universe is more 'form' than 'stuff'; pattern than substance. I'll bet that any smaller 'constituents' we might discover will turn out to be the same way.

    For even substance itself to arise there must be the 'gap', a condition for the arising of form. Form is emptiness, etcetera. I extrapolate that future models will fall in line with this, although I don't think it's necessarily that out of line as is. Between the discrete and the continuous; that's a middle way, no?


  10. Bane Says:

    Actually, not to impose on AEN's page or role here, but also on the anonymous question...

    I think your question comes from the nature of language; that there must be an object which has or becomes something. In this case, a 'thing' which has realization. But there is no person and I would even say there is no realization; there is only a process of realizing that occurs, but which itself does not even truly have inherent existence.

    I think Nagarjuna addressed this somewhere, maybe the seventy stanzas, but I've only begun to read his writings.


  11. Hi Anonymous, there is something relevant I wrote in 2nd July 2012 in a facebook group:

    "Hi, there is no realizer, just a stream of wisdom... However wisdom does not mean there is something apart from skandhas called "wisdom" or "rigpa" that realizes the nature of skandha. In this case it is still a dualistic understanding.

    It is rather that the five skandhas themselves arises as wisdom.

    This is why I very much like what Malcolm/Loppon Namdrol has to say here:

    http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/10/dzogchen-rigpa-and-dependent.html

    "...Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway...""