The Meaning of Sunyata

[Guest guest]

The Meaning of Sunyata in Nagarjuna's Philosophy

 

Introduction

 

"In this essay I will discuss the meaning and import of sunyata

(emptiness) as it is presented by K. Venkata Ramanan in Nagarjuna's

Philosophy.[114] Ramanan's comprehensive exposition of the Madhyamika

philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism is based primarily upon Nagarjuna's

commentary on the Prajnaparamita-sutras. This commentary, the Maha-

prajnaparamita-sastra, was lost in its original Sanskrit and survives

only in Chinese and Tibetan translation.

 

Nagarjuna, who is regarded as the greatest Buddhist philosopher ever,

founded Madhyamika philosophy, the philosophy of the Middle Way. At

the heart of the Middle Way is the concept of sunyata, perhaps

Nagarjuna's single most important contribution to Buddhist thought.

The whole philosophy, in fact, can be viewed as different aspects of

sunyata. As Ramanan says of his book, "the whole of the present work

may be said to be an attempt to lay bare the different meanings of

the central, the most basic concept, sunyata."[115] Thus, I will

attempt to bring to light the meaning and import of sunyata through

the following summary of Nagarjuna's Philosophy. For the purpose of

clarity I have divided the following exposition into three parts:

ignorance, criticism, and knowledge.

 

Ignorance

 

Motivated by compassion, the wise teach sunyata as a remedy for

suffering. According to Madhyamika, the root of all suffering lies in

the ignorance of clinging, the error of mistaking the relative for

the absolute, the conditioned for the unconditioned. We take imagined

separation as real, supposed division as given. By virtue of self-

consciousness, we have an awareness of the unconditioned reflected in

our conditioned nature, a sense of the real. But under ignorance we

do not discriminate between the unconditioned and conditioned,

causing us to confuse them and take the relative as absolute. "The

error of misplaced absoluteness, the seizing of the determinate as

itself ultimate, is the root-error."[116] Sunyata is the antithesis

to this error, the antidote for suffering.

 

The most important instance of this error of misplaced absoluteness

is with regard to our own selves: "The intellect, owing to the

operation of ignorance, wrongly transfers its sense of

unconditionedness which is its ultimate nature to itself in its

mundane nature."[117] Thus, inherent existence is wrongly applied to

the mind-body complex; we take our determinate, conditioned existence

as unconditioned and self-existent. In this way there arises the

false sense of "I" and the belief in an eternal soul as a particular

entity. This error "makes the individual unrelated to the organic,

dynamic course of personal life and deprives the latter of all

significance."[118] For with the positing of an absolute "I" there is

the necessary "not-I" to oppose it. The individual is then forever

divided from and in conflict with the world. Since this separation is

taken as absolute, their relation is inconceivable and there is no

hope for reconciliation: we are bound to a life of continual conflict

and frustration.

 

Following the pattern of this error which gives rise to the false

sense of "I," the intellect then posits substantiality upon every

object it finds. It distinguishes objects and invents distinct names

for them, then takes the apparent difference it has created as a real

given. "To seize the determinate is really to allow oneself to be

misled by names; it is to imagine that different names mean separate

essences; this is to turn relative distinctions into absolute

divisions."[119] As a result, not only is the individual person in

conflict with the world, but the world is now in conflict with

itself. The parts, conceived as independent entities, are isolated

from each other and the organic unity that relates them in harmony is

lost.

 

To complete the fall, the intellect mistakes its own relative views

and conceptual systems as unlimited and absolute, putting it at war

with itself. For the dogmatic assertion of a single point of view

necessarily excludes other views: the former as true is divided from

the others as false and conflict results. Furthermore, every view,

taken as exclusively true, ultimately ends in self-contradiction.

Clinging to extremes, one is necessarily led to contradictions and

dead ends. Then we either swing from extreme to extreme or reject the

whole enterprise of thought altogether, subjecting ourselves to self-

exile in a philosophical wasteland. But in both cases we are lead to

our suffering by the same root-error.

 

The error of misplaced absoluteness which is the root of all

ignorance and suffering takes two general forms: the error with

regard to the mundane truth and with regard to the ultimate truth.

The error with regard to the mundane truth is, as we have been

discussing, to take the conditioned as unconditioned, to cling to the

fragmentary as complete. This error results in (among other things)

dogmatic views and the false sense of self. Sunyata, as a remedy for

this error with respect to the mundane, teaches the relativity of all

things, the dependent arising of determinate entities. As mundane

truth, sunyata means that all things are empty of inherent existence.

But if one were to take this understanding of the emptiness of things

as itself absolute, this again would be clinging: clinging to

sunyata. This mistake is the error not with regard to the mundane

nature of things but with regard to their ultimate nature. It is to

take the conditionedness of the conditioned as itself unconditioned.

But "this would mean an absolute division between the conditioned and

the unconditioned, the divided and the undivided, the permanent and

the impermanent, and in this case the undivided would not be the

truly undivided, as it would be divided from the divided."[120] Thus

one teaches the sunyata of sunyata: in the ultimate truth even

sunyata is empty of absoluteness. Ultimately, even the division

between the conditioned and the unconditioned is not absolute.

Therefore we are not forever bound to our conditionedness because we,

as conditioned entities, already are (in our ultimate nature) the

unconditioned reality. In short, there is an end to ignorance and

suffering.

 

Criticism

 

Madhyamika philosophy is conceived in compassion, for its fundamental

purpose is to liberate individuals from ignorance and suffering.

Through criticism one discriminates between the real and the unreal,

cancels the confusion of the relative with the absolute, and ends

ignorance and suffering through recognition of sunyata as truth. The

sense of the real is the basis for this cancellation. Just as the

sense of the real leads to ignorance when misapplied, the sense of

the real leads to knowledge when guided by criticism in light of

sunyata. Without the sense of the real liberation would not be

possible--but then neither would ignorance. Thus ignorance implies

the possibility for liberation. "The truth that man is not confined

to the level of the determinate, but has in him the possibility of

rising above it, that he is the meeting point of. . .the conditioned

and the unconditioned, is the basic import of the sense of the real

in him."[121]

 

Criticism consists in first assuming as absolute the distinctions and

claims upon which a particular extreme view is based. From this basis

one draws the necessary logical conclusions which turn out to be

false because of the falsity of the initial error. "The one way which

Nagarjuna frequently adopted was of showing up the self-contradiction

and absurdity to which the holders of exclusive views would lead

themselves on their own grounds."[122] In this way, one is lead by

the sheer force of logical truth to surrender the ignorance of the

exclusive claim. By repeated application of this method, the relative

is no longer mistaken for the absolute and the true sunya-nature of

all of determinate existence is revealed. "It is the mission of the

Madhyamika to reveal that the notion of the ultimacy and separateness

of these basic elements is not only devoid of ground but is

definitely contradicted by the very nature of things."[123] Sunyata,

as emptiness, means that the conventional world is not, as we fancy

to think, composed of substances inherently existing; in truth, these

entities are devoid of inherent existence--they are empty.

It is important to point out that what is denied by such criticism is

not the conditioned world itself but our clinging to it as absolute,

our ignorance. Thus, it is not the views or determinate entities as

such which are denied by sunyata but rather our clinging to them, our

misconceptions with regard to them. Sunyata does not deny the

conditioned, relative world; it only denies our mistaking it as

absolute. "Words, concepts, are in themselves pure; what makes the

difference is the way in which we use them."[124] Furthermore, the

conditioned world does not vanish when its true sunya-nature is

realized. Only our ignorance is destroyed.

 

As an example of the application of the critical method, let us

consider the true nature of the self. Our first error, it is

said, "is the imagination of absolute exclusiveness in regard to

the 'I,' i.e., the entity that constitutes the object of the notion

of 'I.' "[125] Now if I inherently exist, then there is an absolute

division between that which is 'I' and that which is 'not-I.' There

is then no dependence of one upon the other. Each is independent and

self-existent. But without mutual dependence how can 'I' be in any

way related to 'not-I,' how can I know or be aware of the world at

all? If I exist inherently, I am absolutely isolated and divided from

the world with no possibility of experiencing it or affecting it.

This is obviously absurd.

 

By revealing the contradictions that arise in this way from taking

the relative self as absolutely existent, we thus reveal the sunya-

nature, the relative and conditioned nature, of the self. We have

then arrived at the truth with respect to the conventional world:

that all things (in this case, the self) are empty of inherent

existence. However, having denied the inherent existence of the self,

suppose we now cling to this denial as itself absolute. In other

words, we assert inherent non-existence, we make emptiness or

relativity itself an absolute. Now in this case there is an absolute

division between the relative and the absolute, the divided and the

undivided. But then the undivided is not truly the undivided for it

is divided from the divided. This contradiction forces us to

surrender our clinging to the conditionedness of the conditioned as

itself absolute.

 

At this point in the criticism we thus come to recognize that

emptiness, sunyata, is not the ultimate truth. While this

conditionedness and relativity of the self is its true nature in the

conventional world, it is not its ultimate nature. Ultimately, the

self is empty even of its conditionedness and relativity: it is

ultimately empty of emptiness (sunyata-sunyata, as it is called). And

since the conditionedness of the conditioned is ultimately

conditioned, since the distinction between the conditioned and the

unconditioned is itself conditioned, the conditioned is ultimately

identical to the unconditioned reality.

 

Since criticism has revealed contradictions in clinging to both

inherent existence and inherent non-existence, in the end we can

neither absolutely assert nor absolutely deny the existence of the

self. We are left with the Middle Way, passing between the

extremes. "This is the unerring sense of 'I,' which comes with mature

self-consciousness in which there is not the clinging to the

determinate self either as absolutely determinate and therefore

totally different from the undivided being or as itself an eternal

independent substance."[126] The method of criticism thus functions

to cancel all exclusive claims to existence or truth, whether with

respect to the mundane nature of things (taking the conditioned

existence as unconditioned) or with respect to their ultimate nature

(taking conditionedness of the conditioned as itself unconditioned).

 

Knowledge

 

"The understanding that is the consummating phase of criticism is

appreciative of the unique nature and value of every specific

standpoint, and yet is not confined to any one point of view."[127]

The wise are thus said to have a comprehension of the truth which

rises above exclusiveness and clinging. "Transcending all

determinations it is yet not exclusive of anything determinate, and

is therefore itself undeniable."[128] To the wise, particular views

and conceptual systems are not extremes but alternatives. Thus even

Madhyamika itself can not be put forward as an absolute truth,

exclusive of others. As the teaching of non-clinging, the Middle Way

is itself relative to the ignorance of clinging. Sunyata makes sense

only in contrast with the error of misplaced absoluteness. The

undeniable, ultimate truth is the unspeakable dharma.

 

Since the undivided reality is not ultimately divided from the

divided, since the ultimate nature of the conditioned is itself the

unconditioned, the wise do not forsake the world, clinging to nirvana

as though it were other than samsara. Their compassion is a necessary

consequence of their wisdom. Conversely, if we seek liberation and

truth exclusively for ourselves, then the selfish motivation itself,

as a form of ignorance, will prevent our attainment of the highest

truth. Therefore the Bodhisattva vows from the very beginning to

attain Nirvana for the sake of helping release others from their

suffering. Compassion and wisdom are inseparable aspects of the

highest comprehension of truth.

 

Conclusion

 

By way of summary, we may frame the philosophy of the Middle Way in

the context of the Four Noble Truths.

 

The First Noble Truth: there is suffering, the world is impermanent.

In our terms, this truth expresses the mundane truth that all things

are empty of inherent existence, they are conditioned and relative.

Because we cling to them as if they were permanent and substantial,

suffering is the inevitable consequence.

 

The Second Noble Truth: there is a cause of suffering. The cause of

suffering is clinging to the relative as absolute, the conditioned as

unconditioned, the insubstantial as substantial. The ignorance of the

true emptiness or sunya-nature of things, the confusion of the real

and unreal, is the root error that leads to all suffering.

 

The Third Noble Truth: there is an end to suffering. Because even

emptiness is empty, because relativity and conditionedness themselves

are not absolute, suffering is not ultimate. While the mundane nature

of the conditioned is conditionedness, yet in its ultimate nature,

the conditioned is itself the undivided, unconditioned reality. While

the ultimate reality is beyond the distinctions that hold in the

world of the determinate, yet the ultimate reality is not wholly

separate from the determinate, but is the real nature of the

determinate itself. It is because we already are identical to the

unconditioned reality that we can recognize this truth and become

liberated from the imagination that we are otherwise, and thereby end

our suffering.

 

The Fourth Noble Truth: there is a path that leads to the end of

suffering. The Middle Way is the non-exclusive way that destroys the

ignorance of clinging to the relative as absolute. Through the method

of criticism, extreme views are shown to lead to contradictions which

reveal the truth of sunyata with regard to all things. Ultimately,

even sunyata or relativity itself is denied as absolute, revealing

the unutterable unconditioned reality which is the ultimate nature of

ourselves and all things."

 

© Thomas J. McFarlane 1995

 

 

LoveAlways,

 

Mazie