satya

once again, using simple logic, nagarjuna skillfully and effortlessly frustrates the thinking mind into utter nonsense.


Examination of Nirvana

If all this is empty,
Then there is no arising or passing away.
By the relinquishing or ceasing of what
Does one wish nirvana to arise?

If all this is nonempty,
Then there is no arising or passing away.
By the relinquishing or ceasing of what
Does one wish nirvana to arise?

Unrelinquished, unattained,
Unannihilated, not permanent,
Unarisen, unceased:
This is how nirvana is described.

Nirvana is not existent.
It would then have the characteristics of age & death.
There is no existent entity
Without age & death.

If nirvana were existent,
Nirvana would be compounded.
A noncompounded existent
Does not exist anywhere.

If nirvana were existent,
How could nirvana be nondependent?
A nondependent existent
Does not exist anywhere.

If nirvana were not existent,
How could it be appropriate for it to be nonexistent?
Where nirvana is not existent,
It cannot be a nonexistent.

If nirvana were not existent,
How could nirvana be nondependent?
Whatever is nondependent
Is not nonexistent.

That which comes & goes
Is dependent & changing.
That, when it is not dependent & changing,
Is taught to be nirvana.

The teacher has spoken of relinquishing
Becoming & dissolution.
Therefore, it makes sense that
Nirvana is neither existent nor nonexistent.

If nirvana were both
Existent & nonexistent,
Passing beyond would, impossibly,
Be both existent & nonexistent.

If nirvana were both
Existent & nonexistent,
Nirvana would not be nondependent.
Since it would depend on both of these.

How could nirvana
Be both existent & nonexistent?
Nirvana is uncompounded.
Both existents & nonexistents are compounded.

How could nirvana
Be both existent & nonexistent?
These two cannot be in the same place.
Like light & darkness.

Nirvana is said to be
Neither existent nor nonexistent.
If the existent & the nonexistent were established,
This would be established.

If nirvana is
Neither existent nor nonexistent,
Then by whom is it expounded
"Neither existent nor nonexistent"?

Having passed into nirvana, the Victorious Conqueror
Is neither said to be existent
Nor said to be nonexistent.
Neither both nor neither are said.

So, when the victorious one abides, he
Is neither said to be existent
Nor said to be nonexistent.
Neitehr both nor neither are said.

There is not the slightest difference
Between the cyclic existence & nirvana.
There is not the slightest difference
Between nirvana & cyclic existence.

Whatever is the limit of nirvana,
That is the limit of cyclic existence.
There is not even the slightest difference between them,
Or even the subtlest thing.

Views that after cessation there is a limit, etc.,
And that it is permanent, etc.,
Depend on nirvana, the final limit,
And the prior limit.

Since all existents are empty,
What is finite or infinite?
What is finite and infinite?
What is neither finite nor infinite?

What is identical and what is different?
What is permanent & what is impermanent?
What is both permanent & impermanent?
What is neither?

THE PACIFICATION OF ALL OBJECTIFICATION
AND THE PACIFICATION OF ILLUSION:
NO DHARMA WAS TAUGHT BY THE BUDDHA
AT ANY TIME, IN ANY PLACE, TO ANY PERSON.


-Nagarjuna, 2nd cent. CE; from Mulamadhyamikakarika
Translated by Jay Garfield in The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way