Eternalism, Nihilism and the Middle Way

An Eternal Now SG

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 means 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

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.

Nihilism

The self does not exist. OR The self in this life annihilates upon death.

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."

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 deluded 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?"

Also see: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/05/is-there-you.html

Thusness SG

Hi AEN,

The article is a great summary of the view and thanks for sharing. I have gone through several of your conversations in DHO as well as those facebook conversations you emailed to me and somehow I find that you have missed that piece of link that allows a practitioner to progress from 5 to 6 insights. It also give rise to this opportunity to emphasize once again what exactly lead to the transition of the journey and the importance of having a balance emphasis on realization, experience and view.

The youtube video - Is There A Real You? by Julian Baggini presents very well the view of anatta and emptiness. However you should not mixed a practitioner progressing from direct non-dual realization and experience to anatta (your case in particular) and one that jumps start from having the right view. It will be apt at this point in time to ask yourself the following questions:

1. Will a practitioner that clearly experienced and realized “in the seen, just the seen” or “no thinker, just thoughts” also sees and understands “no self” as presented by Julian Baggini?

2. How will the experience of a practitioner be like without the direct experience of non-dual?

3. How is 1 and 2 related?

This is not a textbook Q&A, go through these questions with a sincere heart. We will talk about them next time we meet. :-)

An Eternal Now SG

Thanks Smile

allkosong SG

Hi AEN -

Thank you for the article, very well explained. I would like to know if we continue this process of breaking down each entity, eg. oxygen, what do we ultimately arrive at?

Likewise, if we try to break down this concept/entity called consciousness or volition, what do we get ultimately?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

An Eternal Now SG

Hi AEN -

Thank you for the article, very well explained. I would like to know if we continue this process of breaking down each entity, eg. oxygen, what do we ultimately arrive at?

Likewise, if we try to break down this concept/entity called consciousness or volition, what do we get ultimately?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

All kosong lor. All are empty. The aggregates are also empty. All aggregates are dependently originated, and what dependently originates has no core of its own.

Have you heard the 心经，色即是空，空即是色？

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsZ8YlVQeOo

When Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara was practicing the profound Prajna Paramita, he illuminated the Five Skandhas and saw that they are all empty, and he crossed beyond all suffering and difficulty.

Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not differ from form. Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form. So too are feeling, cognition, formation, and consciousness.

Shariputra, all Dharmas are empty of characteristics. They are not produced, not destroyed, not defiled, not pure; and they neither increase nor diminish. Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, feeling, cognition, formation, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no sights, sounds, smells, tastes, objects of touch, or Dharmas; no field of the eyes up to and including no field of mind consciousness; and no ignorance or ending of ignorance, up to and including no old age and death or ending of old age and death. There is no suffering, no accumulating, no extinction, and no Way, and no understanding and no attaining.

Because nothing is attained, the Bodhisattva through reliance on Prajna Paramita is unimpeded in his mind. Because there is no impediment, he is not afraid, and he leaves distorted dream-thinking far behind. Ultimately Nirvana! All Buddhas of the three periods of time attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi through reliance on Prajna Paramita. Therefore know that Prajna Paramita is a Great Spiritual Mantra, a Great Bright Mantra, a Supreme Mantra, an Unequalled Mantra. It can remove all suffering; it is genuine and not false. That is why the Mantra of Prajna Paramita was spoken. Recite it like this:

Gaté Gaté Paragaté Parasamgaté

Bodhi Svaha!

End of The Heart of Prajna Paramita Sutra

The International Translation Institute
1777 Murchison Drive
Burlingame, CA USA, 94010-4504

(415) 692-5912 phone
(415) 692-5056 fax

An Eternal Now SG

Consciousness is imputed, reckoned, based on the manifestation and causes and conditions. As such, the view of consciousness as being a Self, a soul, an entity, a core, a noumenon, a substance, a substratum, a source... etc, is deconstructed to a coreless flow, a process, of dependently-arisen activities.

The Buddha said:

"No, venerable sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness."

"Good, bhikkhus! Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for his suffering for a long time.

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.

allkosong SG

i think i am able to grasp the concept of no-self on an intellectual level. problem is: i don't feel/experience it (understanding a concept being just another thought process). what should i do now? how can i actually REALIZE no-self? thank you in advance for your response.

An Eternal Now SG

Hi, someone asked me what path should he practice and he is interested in realizing anatta. I wrote the following:

Hi,

Do you have a practice background? Also are you practicing any particular tradition, I.e. Theravada, zen, tibetan, advaita, etc?

There are a few paths but it all depends on one’s own inclination, one must guage for himself.

Personally I went through the path of self-inquiry first because I am more inclined to realizing that luminous essence in the beginning and the advaita teachings were really appealing to me at that time, so seeing my inclinations and directions, Thusness asked me to practice self-inquiry which was also what he practiced in the beginning. (My path of practice is documented in my ebook: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/... )

For others they may be more inclined to contemplate on anatta directly. Still for others they may be more inclined to a more gradual path. Therefore Thusness did not give the same advise to everyone but advises accordingly. Sometimes he ask people to do vipassana for example (this is important and should be complimented with anatta contemplation so that realization can arise).

For such a person that is inclined to realizing anatta, I generally recommend them to do some form of direct contemplation on anatta: link removed due to error in displaying ...

“As with any insight practice, one must look nakedly at the nature of your experience. Because the conceptual layer is always unknowingly reinforcing a sense of self arising from latent bonds and uninvestigated views and constructs, in order to investigate, we have to drop our conceptual thoughts with its whole layer of presumptions/conceptions and investigate our own direct experience. This non-conceptual insight practice is often misunderstood however. It does not mean staring blankly at one spot waiting for some magical insight to arrive. It is not just a kind of concentration practice. Rather, it means to really investigate and challenge this core sense or position that “I am”, “I exist” to see if there is any validity or truth in our direct (unmediated, bare, prior-to-concepts) experience.

An advise I often give is to strip yourself of concepts and just observe nakedly and experience our sensate reality as clearly as possible. It means to see the sights, colours, shapes, forms as clearly and intensely as can be, to hear the sound as clearly and vividly as can be, to experience everything in crystal clarity. Our senses are brimming with clarity. Then, investigate for yourself, is there ever a real self/subject/agent/etc, is this the way things are – that a self truly exists? Or is there always already simply the experience without an observer. In seeing, is there a self? Or is seeing simply the seen (shapes, colours and forms) without seer. Same goes for hearing, smelling, etc… Thinking…

We are investigating and challenging every uninvestigated notion, view, position, of a self/Self by checking out if they stand up to reality itself. For non-dual insight, you start asking yourself, does reality exist in terms of an “inside” or an “outside” – Where does the subjective pole ends and objective pole begins, or where does awareness/observing ends and manifestation begin? As for anatta, we question our assumption of a “self” as an inherent essence (like the weird notion of a “water” molecule linking up 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms – http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/05/i… ) by seeing if it stands up to reality: isn’t self/awareness/etc simply always (just a convention for) just the sights, sounds, tastes, i.e. in the seen just the seen, hearing is just sounds, etc (without a seer seeing the seen or a hearer hearing the heard)? Or is there truly an awareness/self/perceiver/observing/agent that contains, expresses, or observes things? Is there a core self that is the agent which controls, observes, the aggregates or is “self”, “awareness”, etc simply an imputation for hearing/sounds, seeing/sights, etc? Then we may begin to see that there is no “water” molecule at the center linking the 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms: rather, it is the co-dependently arising conglomerate of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms that is conventionally imputed as a “water” molecule! There is no “water molecule” as a truly existing entity at all, it is mere imputations! Likewise, there is no “an awareness”, “a self”, any kind of subjective essence behind seeing, hearing, smelling, and so on. “Self” is thus a mere imputation for the five changing aggregates of form, feelings, perceptions, volitions and consciousness (consciousness itself is divided into six kinds), all of which are everchanging, arising and subsiding, without any linking core whatsoever!

In effect, what we felt as some solid entity at the center, or a being inside a solid entity called a body (another falsely constructed image of some solid entity with shapes and forms out of a bunch of disconnected and spontaneous sensations) gets deconstructed through insight by this kind of contemplation which investigates and challenges our baseless constructs like self, body, inside and outside, subject and object, etc etc… When we directly realize the falsity of our constructs through this kind of deconstructive investigation, we realize and discover, oh this is how it always is and has been! And what’s seen through is simply seen through, no longer an experience that is entered and left (like those peak experiences where suddenly sense of self drops off but returns in a few moments).”

But this should also be balanced with regular meditation practice if possible, see the first two posts in this thread: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/440368?p…

That means if possible sit at least 30-45 mins. Then throughout the day, not just in sitting, we practice vipassana as best as we can according to our ability.

On vipassana practice: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/256048

A great way to contemplate anatta is by contemplating the two stanzas of anatta: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/...

Along with Bahiya Sutta, which is what led to my realization of anatta: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/...

Regards
AEN

An Eternal Now SG

Removed

allkosong SG

Hi, someone asked me what path should he practice and he is interested in realizing anatta. I wrote the following:

Hi,

Do you have a practice background? Also are you practicing any particular tradition, I.e. Theravada, zen, tibetan, advaita, etc?

There are a few paths but it all depends on one’s own inclination, one must guage for himself.

For such a person that is inclined to realizing anatta, I generally recommend them to do some form of direct contemplation on anatta: link removed due to error in displaying ...

But this should also be balanced with regular meditation practice if possible, see the first two posts in this thread: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/440368?p…

That means if possible sit at least 30-45 mins. Then throughout the day, not just in sitting, we practice vipassana as best as we can according to our ability.

On vipassana practice: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/256048

A great way to contemplate anatta is by contemplating the two stanzas of anatta: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/...

Along with Bahiya Sutta, which is what led to my realization of anatta: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/...

Regards
AEN

Thank you, AEN, this is very helpful.

An afterthought: Why all this seeing, hearing, sensing etc when in reality, there is only Emptiness? Is there a purpose at all in all these manifestations and if there is, what?

Dharmadhatu SG

Hi, someone asked me what path should he practice and he is interested in realizing anatta. I wrote the following:

Hi,

Do you have a practice background? Also are you practicing any particular tradition, I.e. Theravada, zen, tibetan, advaita, etc?

There are a few paths but it all depends on one’s own inclination, one must guage for himself.

For such a person that is inclined to realizing anatta, I generally recommend them to do some form of direct contemplation on anatta: link removed due to error in displaying ...

But this should also be balanced with regular meditation practice if possible, see the first two posts in this thread: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/440368?p…

That means if possible sit at least 30-45 mins. Then throughout the day, not just in sitting, we practice vipassana as best as we can according to our ability.

On vipassana practice: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/256048

A great way to contemplate anatta is by contemplating the two stanzas of anatta: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/...

Along with Bahiya Sutta, which is what led to my realization of anatta: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/...

Regards
AEN

Thanks, helpful sharing...

An Eternal Now SG

Thank you, AEN, this is very helpful.

An afterthought: Why all this seeing, hearing, sensing etc when in reality, there is only Emptiness? Is there a purpose at all in all these manifestations and if there is, what?

色即是空，空即是色

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

If you think emptiness is the annihilation of form, you have totally misunderstood it.

Emptiness and luminosity (cognizance, awareness, presence) is inseparable. This inseparability of luminosity and emptiness is the nature of mind, buddha-nature.

This is why Thusness said long ago,

bycai SG

the pictorial aid is an awesome effort but it may not convey the right context for eternalism, nihilism and middle way. Pictorial aid on water being refrigirated as ice bear, ice monkey, ice dog etc would be more approaching. Eternalism and middleway are liken to water as its ultimate origin of bear being formed as ice bear, ice monkey, ice lion. Unfortunately, the bear may be habitually & unawarely indoctrinated that there is no more life continuation thereafter known as nihilism. That is very sad to develop nihilism, for instance, the poor will always remain poor in life and probably disgruntle against the wealthy, and never know that all is having the same buddha wisdom and compassion.

Pegembara SG

An afterthought: Why all this seeing, hearing, sensing etc when in reality, there is only Emptiness? Is there a purpose at all in all these manifestations and if there is, what?

In reality your senses creates the world. There is nothing that can be sensed or cognized beyond your six senses ie. sights, sounds,smells, taste, touch and mind objects. The world that you create is different from everyone else.

In essence the world that you create is empty/unreal but it exists. An Australian aborigine may be living in a world that is very strange for us. But is our world really any different! The Buddha has seen through this illusion.

View the world, Mogharaja, as empty — always mindful to have removed any view about self. This way one is above & beyond death. This is the way one views the world so as not to be seen by Death's king.

An Eternal Now SG

Pegembara: In essence the world that you create is empty/unreal but it exists.

What you said is well said... but like to add: Not exactly 'it exists'. But what dependently originates Appears, but is empty of extremes like existence or non-existence. There is nothing which could be pinned down that can exist or not-exist. This is emptiness.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.