Why Samsara is Nirvana
may have been unfair the other day in my post Sufferings are
Nirvana with my characterization of the early Buddhist view,
and that of present day Theravada, on nibbana. Richard, who blogs
at My
Buddha is Pink, pointed out in his thoughtful response
that annihilation “is a mistaken translation . . . Nibbana is not
annihilation, but really is an image of freedom because the
underlying Pali root in the term ‘nibbana’ means ‘unbinding’.”
I am not convinced that annihilation or something on that order
doesn’t figure in somewhere, however I will leave it for others to
explain those teachings.
I would like to share a few more thoughts on how nirvana is
viewed in Mahayana, specifically in Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka or
Middle Way philosophy, as far as I understand it.
I should point out that Madhyamaka looks at everything through
the lens of the Two Truths: the conventional or relative truth
(vyavahara) and the ultimate or absolute truth (paramartha). What
is valid from the standpoint of the relative truth of our everyday
world is not necessarily valid from the ultimate side. In the final
analysis, though, the relative and the ultimate are neither
different, nor identical. Nor does one stand independently of the
other.
The same can be said of samsara and nirvana. In Madhyamaka,
samsara represents the world of birth and death, the world of
suffering, while nirvana represents realization of the ultimate
truth, without which freedom from the bondage (bandhana) of
suffering is not possible.
As noted above, one sense of nirvana is that of “unbinding.” In
the Madhyamaka-karika or “Roots Verses on the Middle Way,”
Nagarjuna says, “If binding, would exist prior to one who is bound,
there would be bondage, but that does not exist.”
Binding/bondage belongs to the relative truth. In the ultimate
truth, if binding existed prior to the bondage of a sentient being,
then it would have inherent existence. Yet, ultimately,
neither bondage nor anything else has inherent existence (Svabhava,
own-being, self), and so release from bondage is not an inherently
existent phenomenon either.
This is important because grasping onto the false idea of
inherent existence is the primary cause for suffering. Nagarjuna
felt that the term “nirvana” was useful for indicating spiritual
release, but only if the term did not refer to something that could
be an object for clinging. A few verses on, he says, “Those who
grasp at the notion, ‘I will be free from grasping and Nirvana will
be mine,’ have a great grasp on grasping.”
In The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, Jay Garfield
provides a good explanation of this:
It is [possible] to grasp after nirvana – to reify it as a state
and to crave it as a phenomenon inherently different from samsara
and as highly desirable since it is indeed characterized as
liberation from suffering. But this grasping onto the end of
grasping is itself a grasping and so precludes the attainment of
nirvana. Nirvana requires, according to Nagarjuna, a complete
cessation of grasping, including that onto nirvana itself. While
that might seem paradoxical, it is not: To grasp onto something in
this sense requires, inter alia, that one reify it. By refusing to
reify liberation, in virtue of seeing it as the correlative of
bondage, which itself is not inherently existent, it is possible to
pursue the path to liberation without creating at the same time a
huge obstacle on that path – the root delusion with regard to
nirvana itself.
If things do not exist in themselves, then from the ultimate
truth they are unreal, illusions. Nirvana, for Nagarjuna, if seen
as something inherently existent, is only an illusion that will
perpetuate more grasping, followed by more suffering.
There are no real distinctions in Madhyamaka philosophy because
all things are considered empty of inherent existence or
own-nature. For samsara and nirvana to be distinct from one
another, they would have to be inherently existent things. But they
are empty, and within this emptiness, they are without
distinction.
Samsara and nirvana are only different in the relative sense,
because they designate entirely different things. Again, in the
ultimate sense, there is no difference, because of their emptiness.
Everything is empty, including emptiness.
This many sound like theoretical nonsense, but it has a
practical application. The aim of this thinking is to shatter all
dualities and destroy all avenues for grasping. When we can get
past dualistic thinking, that is, seeing only the distinctions, not
recognizing the parity or the correspondence between things, then
the world opens up for us. We then see the wholeness of life. We
become whole. Being whole means to be healthy, and this sort of
spiritual health translates into release from the things that bind
us to suffering. It is freedom.
Frederick Streng has written,
This is a freedom which applies to every moment of existence,
not to special moments of mystical escape to another level of
being, nor to the freedom attained by priestly activity at a sacred
time and place . . . To know things as they actually are, frees the
mind of presuppositions and the emotions from attachments. Thus
this freedom is also a purification process; it removes such evils
as hated, fear, greed, or nimiety which accompany attachment.
Without suffering, one can never know release. As long as we see
freedom as something separate from our suffering, we are grasping
onto an object, inviting more suffering. Just as we are related to
our karma, we are related to our suffering, and nirvana, our
freedom, is also related to our suffering.
If we can understand that samsara “is” nirvana in this way, in
each moment, and know that suffering, ultimately related to our
goal, is the very tool that allows us to reach the goal, then I
think, we are one step closer to where we want to be. Of course, we
need take that extra step of realizing that the goal of freedom is
ultimately empty, for as long as we live we will experience
suffering in one form or another. The goal of complete release is
an illusion. There is only the Endless Further.[/quote]
http://theendlessfurther.com/?p=1339
/\