The Two Truths
Within the Buddhist contemplative traditions, numbered lists of items abound. One may indeed find oneself wading through a sea of numbers: four of this, eight of these, twelve of those, and so on. Here we focus on a pair, a simple set: the two truths. Understanding this duo may be the key to unlocking an intuitive grasp of the others, or, more aptly, a loosening of the grasping tendency to veer toward the two extremes).
Not to be confused with the "Four Noble Truths," which describe suffering in a diagnostic and prognostic capacity, the "two truths" are even more basic. In being the basis for the rest of the Buddhist contemplative traditions, they are also perhaps the most all-encompassing. Moreover, despite their seemingly opposing natures, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the two truths co-operate in every aspect.
What are these two truths and how are they relevant to us? We provide an introduction to emptiness in relation to the two truths in this article, drawing on core teachings from the work of the Indian Buddhist scholar Nāgārjuna, a forerunner of the "Middle Way." In a strange twist, the two truths in actuality return to "zero" (śūnya, शून्य).
The Middle Way
Living in approximately the years 150-250 of the common era, Nāgārjuna was a philosopher-practitioner credited with founding the Madhyamaka school of Indian Buddhism, which no longer exists as an independent entity, but was absorbed by various other traditions (most notably, Tibetan Buddhism) that survive to this day. Importantly, the name of this school literally means "Middle Way," from the Sanskrit madhyama (मध्यम), reflecting its efforts to tread the line between eternalism and annihilationism, substantialism and nihilism, without veering to either extreme.
Understood as extreme positions, these views were rejected by the Buddha as early as those teachings documented in the Pāli Canon. In fact, much of Nāgārjuna's main treatise, the Mūla-Madhyamaka-Kārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), traces to an early text of the Pāli Canon, the Kaccānagotta Sutta (SN 12.15) which likewise documents the Buddha taking the "middle way" with reference to the extreme views of "existence" and "non-existence" in metaphysical terms.
Rather than concern himself with abstract metaphysics (literally, that which is beyond nature) the Buddha grounded his teachings in addressing the sources and solutions to suffering. While some may say the Buddha taught a sort of alternative metaphysics which could even be said to be existential, it was directly concerned with experienced reality and intended to be put into practice, not to remain in the form of abstract principles intended for mere speculation.
Recognizing that metaphysical positions were binding, not liberating, the Buddha set them aside. In the Kaccānagotta Sutta (SN 12.15), he states, "Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathāgata teaches the Dhamma via the middle" which begins his teaching on the twelve links of dependent origination, concluding with, "Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering" (Trans. Thanissaro Bhikkhu). The "middle" here is the source and inspiration for Nāgārjuna's development of the Madhyamaka or "Middle Way" school.
The Two Extremes - Re-Balancing the Lop-Sided
Framed in new terms, the "Middle Way" may be envisioned as an effort at re-balancing a system that otherwise has grown lop-sided. Explaining the situation in reference to the extremes of existence and non-existence, substantialism and nihilism, eternalism and annihilationism, we offer a brief illustration.
The former of each pair (existence, substantilism, eternalism) all lend themselves to the belief in an enduring, unchanging reality. The latter of each pair (non-existence, nihilism, annihilationism) all lend themselves to belief in an utter obliteration of reality as we know it. These are the extreme views the Buddha considered tangential to the contemplative path.
Instead of indulging people's proclivities to debate these positions, the Buddha simply offered a means to restore balance. Nāgārjuna does the same, echoing the Buddha's teachings. In the Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, he reflects:
astīti śāśvatagrāho nāstīty ucchedadarśanam |
tasmād astitvanāstitve nāśrīyeta vicakṣaṇaḥ ||15.10||
"It is" is grasping at eternity, "it is not" is an annihilationist view.
Therefore, the wise have recourse to neither "it is" nor "it is not."
In this verse, both metaphysical assertion and negation are set aside. The question is not "to be or not to be," but how to transcend the dichotomy all together. Whenever we find ourselves veering to either of these extremes, we've grown lop-sided in our understanding of our own experience. For instance, a scenario might unfold in one of two ways: success or failure. Believing that a moment of success and the happiness it brings with it will or should last indefinitely is one extreme. Believing a moment of failure and the sadness it invites is the ultimate end of us is another extreme. Both are mistaken.
Either case can in turn lend itself to further branches of extreme views, like extremities branching away from a tree. We may think success or failure reflects on our character in some substantial or enduring way, identifying with the experience in either positive or negative terms. Whatever kind of identification we indulge, whether positive or negative, it takes the form of the extreme of existence, substantalism, or eternalism, as we've taken something in our experience to be substantially "me" in an enduring way. Likewise, if we believe there is no point in any of our actions, regardless of whether they lead to success or failure, and that they will leave no imprint on the world whatsoever, then that takes the form of the extreme of non-existence, nihilism, and annihilationism, which deny causality and continuity. Again, both are mistaken.
Both of the two extremes are lop-sided perspectives, distorting our understanding of our own experience. Both are to be overcome.
Emptiness - A Zero Sum Game
How does one correct for lop-sidedness? By returning to center. Such a return qualifies as a zero sum game of sorts.
What do we mean by zero sum game? We suggest that understanding emptiness, as defined by the Buddha and picked up by Nāgārjuna, effectively collapses the two extremes into zero. Indeed, the Sanskrit term for emptiness, śūnyatā, may also denote zero-ness, wherein śūnya, from the root śvi, stands numerically for zero.
In a zero sum game, two sides cancel out, their sums amounting to zero. No more, no less. As a depiction of the character of a market economy, for instance, a zero sum game represents the pervasive trend that the gain of one portion of society necessitates the loss of another. Where there are winners, there must be losers. Where there is wealth, there must be poverty. Haves and have-nots, and so on. Such trends correspond roughly to the two extremes. Emptiness, we suggest, is a positive twist on the zero sum game, a twist wherein there are no winners or losers, neither rich nor poor. This is made possible via the deconstruction of all such constructs whatsoever, namely through a thorough understanding of emptiness. Nāgārjuna uses the "zero sum" aspect of śūnyatā and the two truths to put an end to all games. But what does emptiness mean in practical terms?
There are two verses penned by Nāgārjuna that strike directly at the heart of the two truths and emptiness. We provide the original Sanskrit below along with our translations.
dve satye samupāśritya buddhānāṃ dharmadeśanā |
lokasaṃvṛtisatyaṃ ca satyaṃ ca paramārthataḥ ||24.8||
Two truths are the basis for the Buddhas' teaching the Dharma:
Worldly conventional truth and the ultimate.
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaḥ śūnyatāṃ tāṃ pracakṣmahe |
sā prajñaptir upādāya pratipat saiva madhyamā ||24.18||
Whatever is dependently originated, that we declare to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation, is the middle way.
Here, we find in the latter verse a simple definition of emptiness. Emptiness refers to that which is dependently originated. While this often refers specifically to the twelve links of dependent origination, beginning with ignorance and culminating in suffering, it may also be applied broadly. Rich are not independent of poor, and vice versa. Winners are not independent of losers, and so on. All such constructs rely on other constructs to make sense and receive meaning in relation to other constructs. In being constructs, they are, after all, constructed from other elements. All that is constructed, or dependently originated, arises through causes and conditions and can just as easily subside through alterations to those causes and conditions. In realizing their emptiness, their insubstantiality, their dependently constructed nature, we can dismantle them.
In the former verse, we are reminded of the two truths. While emptiness or dependently originated insubstantiality may prevail as the underlying nature of phenomena, one may still acknowledge their conventional or worldly functioning. One can't simply scream on the streets, "there is no such thing as the rich or the poor - they're both empty!" without raising eyebrows. Rich and poor operate on the conventional or worldly level as convenient designators for dependently originated phenomena, which are empty at the end of the day. The conventional and the ultimate coexist, side by side, as two means of understanding the same set of phenomena. By skillfully utilizing conventional constructs while at the same time understanding their "ultimate" emptiness (which itself is empty as well), one actualizes the middle way.
Extracting the Marrow
Extracting the marrow or meaning from emptiness is not the first thing that springs to mind upon hearing the term. Indeed, given the connotations of the term emptiness, meaning may be the last on the list of associations, with emptiness instead implying meaninglessness. Yet as we discussed in our introductory post on emptiness in early Buddhism, emptiness is not a meaningless negative, but a meaningful negation. A negation of what? A metaphysically substantial separate self.
Emptiness thereby allows for an understanding of the selfless nature of experience. By implication, it enables an understanding of interdependence. Given that nothing exists in and of itself as a totally independent, separate, isolated entity, but only in a constellation of interacting and intersecting dependently originated processes, a greater sense of connection emerges from an understanding of emptiness. Meanwhile, by understanding the two truths, we veer to neither of the two extremes. In this way, we walk the middle way.
Eventually, we will return to this subject and build upon these reflections. We would love to hear from you in the meantime. Please leave us a comment below on anything you found striking, or reflections that were stirred in the course of venturing into this subject with us. Many thanks and best wishes.
No comments:
Post a Comment