93.The Sage has stated that earth,
water, fire, and wind,
short and long, thick and thin, virtue and so on
cease in the awareness [of the ultimate].
The Meaning of All Phenomena Being Empty of Inherent Existence
Phenomena from earth and water, up to virtue and so on — all other phenomena — can be the subject of a syllogism proving non-inherent existence. For example, “Consider earth: it does not inherently exist, because it is not seen by the aryas’ wisdom of meditative equipoise. The reason is indicated because the Sage — the Buddha — stated that the elements cease in the awareness of the ultimate.” In other words, if they were inherently existent, they would be seen by the aryas’ meditative equipoise on emptiness. However, for that awareness they have ceased, in that they do not appear to that mind.
The aryas’ meditative equipoise on emptiness is a nonconceptual wisdom that directly and nonconceptually perceives the emptiness of inherent existence. This is a nondualistic mind in that there is no appearance of subject and object. To this mind, only emptiness appears; conventional objects do not appear to it, and there is no appearance of inherent existence whatsoever. This mind is mixed with the object emptiness inseparably, like water mixed with water.
This wisdom knows the ultimate nature of all phenomena and perceives phenomena as they really are. If earth and so forth existed inherently, this wisdom should perceive them in this way. However, to the aryas’ meditative equipoise on emptiness these things do not appear. Thus the Buddha stated that they cease in the awareness of the ultimate.
In general, if things exist they don’t have to be seen by the aryas’ wisdom of meditative equipoise that sees reality. This is because things exist conventionally and this wisdom perceives only their ultimate nature. But if their ultimate mode of existence were inherent existence, then that wisdom should perceive inherent existence. However, it perceives the opposite; it perceives the emptiness of inherent existence. Thus all these things lack inherent existence.
94.Earth, water, fire, and wind
cannot find any place [to exist]
in that indemonstrable, limitless,
fully sovereign awareness.
95.Short and long, subtle and coarse,
virtue and nonvirtue,
and also name and form,
all cease in this [awareness].
For the aryas’ nonconceptual wisdom of meditative equipoise that is free of true-grasping, true existence does not exist. This wisdom awareness is indemonstrable — it cannot be shown to another person in the same way we can show someone an apple. Aryas cannot point to something and say, “This is emptiness” or “This is the wisdom realizing it nondualistically,” so that others immediately understand. We must experience this wisdom awareness ourselves. It is sovereign in that it perceives the actual mode of existence of all limitless phenomena.
From the perspective of this ultimate wisdom, earth, water, fire, and wind cannot find any place to exist. There is no footing for them to stand on because these objects, which appear inherently existent to our ordinary consciousnesses, do not appear to this mind. This wisdom sees only emptiness; it does not in the slightest perceive conventionalities that are empty. Similarly, all these bases that possess the attribute of emptiness — short and long, virtue and nonvirtue, name and form (this last pair being the fourth of the twelve links) — have ceased from the perspective of this wisdom. Just their reality — their emptiness or suchness — is seen.
A sutra says, “Not seeing is the best seeing.” Do not misunderstand this to advocate blank-minded meditation. Rather, it means that not seeing inherent existence is the most exalted kind of seeing. That mind does not see inherent existence or the conventionalities that appear to be inherently existent. Best seeing refers to seeing the emptiness of inherent existence of conventional phenomena — their actual mode of existence, their reality — that is seen directly and nonconceptually only by the aryas’ meditative equipoise on emptiness. For this reason, that awareness is considered supreme and holy.
The “not seeing” of aryas’ meditative equipoise on emptiness is far superior to the inferential realization of emptiness of ordinary beings. While an inferential realization of emptiness has a powerful impact on a meditator, it is still a conceptual consciousness. It realizes emptiness with the dualistic appearance of subject and object. True existence and conventional phenomena still appear to it. Inferential consciousness does not perceive emptiness intimately, like water poured into water; it knows emptiness via a conceptual appearance. Aryas, in contrast, see emptiness free of dualistic appearance, free of conventional appearance, free of the appearance of subject and object, free of conceptual appearance, and free of the appearance of true existence. They know emptiness directly, just as it is.
Although the aryas’ wisdom of meditative equipoise does not see conventional phenomena, that does not make them nonexistent. Rather, conventionalities are not in the purview of the wisdom realizing the ultimate nature. It is similar to a reliable visual consciousness not seeing a sound. That doesn’t mean the sound is nonexistent; it is simply that sound is not in the scope of what a visual consciousness can perceive.
96.All that previously appeared to awareness,
due to not knowing that [reality],
later will likewise cease in awareness
because one has come to know that [reality].
Here Nagarjuna addresses someone with a doubt: “Do all conventional objects cease in the perspective of the aryas’ meditative equipoise on emptiness because this wisdom destroys conventionalities? Does wisdom make things empty that were not previously empty of inherent existence?”
If conventionalities existed inherently and aryas’ wisdom did not see them, then that wisdom would destroy things that previously existed. That is, if conventionalities existed inherently they would exist as they appear, and this appearance would be their ultimate nature. Since aryas’ wisdom of meditative equipoise perceives the ultimate nature of phenomena, it should perceive inherently existent conventionalities. In that case, if inherently existent conventionalities were not seen by this wisdom of aryas, that wisdom would have destroyed them.
However, this is not the case. The appearance of conventionalities as inherently existent is false, so the fact that they are not seen by aryas’ wisdom realizing the ultimate nature doesn’t destroy something that previously existed. Rather, aryas’ wisdom of meditative equipoise sees the absence of something — inherent existence — that never existed. This wisdom is not nihilistic.
Emptiness exists primordially. Things, by their very nature, have always lacked inherent existence. The emptiness of inherent existence is not newly created by aryas’ wisdom of meditative equipoise. Rather, that wisdom realizes what has been there all along.
For example, when someone’s sight is obscured by vitreous floaters, an eye disease that makes one see falling hairs, he cannot see forms clearly. Although from the outset the form itself was clear, this person could not see it due to the obscurations caused by the disease. However, when the eye disease is cured, and his eyes are free of that defect, he can clearly see what was there all along. Similarly, when ordinary beings’ minds are covered by afflictive obscurations, they cannot see the emptiness of inherent existence that has always been the ultimate nature of phenomena. By practicing the path, they remove obscurations and purify their wisdom so they can then directly perceive the emptiness of true existence that has always been there. In short, the arya’s meditative equipoise on emptiness neither destroys something that previously existed nor makes something empty that previously existed inherently. It simply sees what has been there all along, the emptiness of inherent existence.
97.It is maintained that all beings and [their] qualities
are fuel for the fire of awareness.
Having been incinerated by brilliant true analysis,
they are [all] pacified.
When fire burns fuel, the fuel ceases
to exist. When the aryas’ wisdom of meditative equipoise sees emptiness, all the conventional phenomena that appear inherently existent cease in the sense that they do not appear to that wisdom. The aryas’ wisdom does not see them as nonexistent — they just do not exist for that wisdom. Just as sunlight eliminates darkness, the aryas’ wisdom of meditative equipoise directly sees reality and pacifies all elaborations of dualistic appearance. This wisdom sees the ultimate mode of existence of conventional phenomena without seeing those objects themselves. However, when aryas come out of their meditative equipoise on emptiness, conventionalities reappear and are ascertained by their conventional reliable cognizers.
98.The reality is later ascertained
of what was formerly imputed by ignorance.
When a thing is not found,
how can there be a non-thing?
Ignorance — specifically true-grasping ignorance — means not knowing. This distorted mind is not only blind to the ultimate nature of reality but also superimposes true existence on what is not truly existent. After we study, reflect, and meditate on emptiness and determine through reasoning that phenomena are empty, we ascertain reality and understand that the actual mode of existence of phenomena is their emptiness. It is clear to us that the true existence imputed by ignorance does not exist at all.
Someone says, “Although things don’t truly exist, that non-true existence itself truly exists.” To this Nagarjuna responds, “When we analyze things to see if they truly exist, we don’t find any truly existent things. How, then, could a non-thing — the emptiness of true existence of things — be truly existent?” That “non-finding” of truly existent things is not truly existent, because the things themselves are not truly existent. Emptiness exists in relation to conditioned phenomena that are the bases of emptiness. Since those bases don’t truly exist, what is based on them — their emptiness — cannot truly exist.
99.Since it is merely the absence of form,
space is merely a designation.
How can there be form without the elements?
Therefore, the mere designation also does not exist.
Refuting the Inherent Existence of Unconditioned Space
In the previous verses, Nagarjuna established the non-inherent existence of conditioned things such as the person, aggregates, elements, and their derivatives. This verse examines unconditioned phenomena to see if they exist inherently.
As an unconditioned phenomenon, space is merely designated on the absence of obstructing form. It is a non-affirming negative that is the mere negation of obstructing form. Because obstructing form — which is its object of negation — does not exist inherently and is a mere name, space too must be a mere designation. Since it is posited in relation to form and form lacks inherent existence, space must also lack inherent existence.
Nagarjuna asks, “How can there be form without the elements?” Form or material objects depend on and cannot exist without their parts, the elements. Since the elements lack inherent existence, so do the material objects that are composed of them and that are designated in dependence on them. Since the bases for designations don’t exist inherently, the designated objects also lack inherent existence. Therefore, the mere designation also does not exist. Since the elements lack inherent existence, so do the forms designated in dependence on them. And since form is empty of inherent existence, so is space, which is designated in dependence on the absence of form.
Saying that objects are mere names does not mean that they are words or sounds. If a tree were a sound, it couldn’t grow leaves. Being “mere names” means that objects exist by being merely conceptually fabricated or designated.
100.One should consider feelings, discriminations,
volitional factors, and consciousnesses
in the manner [that one considered] the elements and self.
Hence, the six constituents are selfless.
Applying the Same Analysis to the Remaining Aggregates
Nagarjuna has explained why the person, as well as form, which is the first of the five aggregates that are the basis of designation of the person, does not inherently exist. He analyzes whether the person was inherently identical or different from the aggregates, and analyzes the parts and attributes of gross material objects — the elements and elemental derivatives. To understand that the four mental aggregates — feelings, discriminations, volitional factors, and consciousnesses — also do not exist inherently, he applies a similar analysis. We should meditate on each of the four mental aggregates individually to determine if it exists inherently or not. This way we can conclude that the six constituents are selfless — they do not exist inherently, truly, from their own side, objectively, substantially, by their own characteristics, and so forth. While the lower tenet systems have different meanings for these terms, Prasangikas say they all come to the same point and thus negate them all.
In short, nothing that is totally independent of causes and conditions, or any other factors, can be found under ultimate analysis, which searches for the ultimate mode of existence. Everything relies on something else that is not the thing itself. Because of this, nothing exists inherently. That doesn’t mean that things don’t exist at all. They exist, but not independently. They exist by being merely designated by conceptuality, and everything still performs its own function in this interdependent world.
This completes the commentary to part I of the Precious Garland by Nagarjuna, entitled “Higher Rebirth and Highest Good.”
_______________
15.See Tsong Khapa, Ocean of Reasoning, 101–26.
16.See chapter 7 of Treatise on the Middle Way and Tsong Khapa, Ocean of Reasoning, 175–220.
17.The reason last part is used instead of end is because in the technical language of debate, end refers to the moment a thing has ceased, whereas it is still present during its last part. Following its last part is its end, at which time it is no longer present. The end of one moment occurs simultaneously with the beginning of the next moment. For example, at the time of the last moment (or last part of a moment) of a seed, the seed is present. In the next moment, it has ended, and the sprout exists. At the end of the seed, the seed no longer exists and the sprout is present. The seed and its sprout cannot exist at the same time because a cause must cease for its result to arise.
18.Existence and nonexistence have different meanings according to the context. The former may refer to conventional existence or inherent existence; the latter may refer to total nonexistence or to emptiness.
19.The word conceptualization or conceptuality has many different meanings according to the context. In this verse, it refers to true-grasping. However, when it is said that everything exists by mere concept, it simply means conceiving an object and giving it a name. In yet another context, conceptualization refers to distorted ways of thinking and false projections, and in still another way, it can refer to discursive thoughts that interrupt concentration. Virtuous conceptuality also exists, for example, when we engage in hearing and reflecting on the Dharma.
20.See Tsong Khapa, Ocean of Reasoning, 439–52.
21.See Tsong Khapa, Ocean of Reasoning, 369–91.
22.See Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness, 131–93.
23.These definitions are from the Collected Topics (dura), one of the first texts studied at monastic universities.
II. An Interwoven Explanation of the Causes and Effects of Higher Rebirth and Highest Good
5. Delving into the Profound
In part I, Nagarjuna explained higher rebirth and then highest good. Now he interweaves these two topics, first discussing the causes and effects of highest good, followed by the causes and effects of higher rebirth. Then he once more returns to the causes and effects of highest good.
CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF THE HIGHEST GOOD
Having stimulated us to reflect on emptiness, Nagarjuna continues on that theme. If phenomena don’t exist inherently, how do they exist? They exist like illusions, falsely, deceptively. While they are n
ot illusions, they are similar to them in that they appear to exist one way but actually exist in another. Things appear to exist inherently but in fact are empty of inherent existence and exist dependently. As such, they exist by being merely designated by name, merely fabricated by conception.
101.When one splits apart the plantain tree along with all its parts,
[one finds] no [core] at all,
so too, when one “splits apart” the person with its six constituents,
[one finds] no [essence] at all.
An Example
When the bark of most trees is removed, we find hardwood underneath. But this is not the case with a plantain tree. If we search for a core of hardwood by peeling off its bark layer by layer, nothing is found.24 Similarly, when we use ultimate analysis and search the basis of designation to find a person, we don’t find one. Whether we search in the aggregates, the constituents, the elements, or the elemental derivatives, we cannot identify a person. Although the person depends on these, it is not any of them individually. Nor is it the collection of them as a whole. The person is also not found separate from these components. The same holds true for all phenomena: they cannot be found in their basis of designation as either inherently one or inherently separate from their parts. Furthermore, they are not the collection of parts.
102.Hence, the Victors have said
that all things are selfless;
it has been demonstrated to you
that the six constituents are selfless.
103.In this way, neither self nor non-self
are ultimately perceived just as they are.
Therefore, the Great Sage refuted
both views of self and non-self.
Self and Selflessness Do Not Inherently Exist
Practical Ethics and Profound Emptiness Page 16