Empty Mountains: the Two Truths of the Middle Way between Extremes

“Before practicing meditation, we see that mountains are mountains.
When we start to practice, we see that mountains are no longer mountains.
After practicing a while, we see that mountains are again mountains.
Now the mountains are very free. Our mind is still with the mountains,
but it is no longer bound to anything.”

(Thich Nhat Hanh, The Diamond that Cuts through Illusion:
Commentaries on the Prajnaparamita Diamond Sutra
, p. 56, © 1992)

email: emptymountains@yahoo.com



Welcome to Empty Mountains...

This website was developed in order to respond to questions about Buddhist teachings on renunciation, selflessness, and emptiness. Buddhism is often misunderstood to be a pessimistic religion claiming that all desires are bad, that we have to lose our individuality in order to reach enlightenment, and that ultimate reality is a mere nothingness or void. How bleak! It is my hope that Empty Mountains will provide a much needed clarity.

The presentation of Buddhism on this website helps us to broadly understand all of Buddha’s teachings on the model of the middle way—the touchstone of the Buddhist faith. The following sections illustrate the middle way in terms of Buddhist practice, selflessness, and emptiness (i.e., the true nature of all things), respectively.

The Buddha’s return is a pivotal moment, one of those rare events when the divine penetrates history and transfigures it. Like Moses returning from Mt. Sinai, like Jesus appearing in the crowd at the river Jordan to be baptized by John, a man who has left the world returns to serve it, no longer merely human but charged with transcendent power. As the scriptures record of Moses and Jesus, we can imagine how the Buddha must have shone that bright spring morning in the Himalayan foothills. Dazzled by the radiance of his personality, it is said, people gathered about him and asked, “Are you a god?” “No.” “Are you an angel?” “No.” “What are you then?” The Buddha smiled and answered simply, “I am awake”—the literal meaning of the word buddha, from the Sanskrit root budh, to wake up. (Eknath Easwaran, The Dhammapada: Translated for the Modern Reader, introduction, p. 29, © 1993)



Finding the Middle Way

The middle way (madhyama-pratipad in Sanskrit) is the foundation of all Buddhist teachings. It was discovered some 2,500 years ago by the young prince Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha-to-be, during his search for the answer to the sufferings of sickness, ageing, death, and rebirth. Having been raised in luxury, he found that indulgence in pleasures is superficial, because a life lived in excess brings no lasting happiness. Therefore, to escape samsara (i.e., cyclic existence), he tried giving up ‘all’ pleasures, hoping that the end of suffering would come if he could suppress ‘every’ desire. At the time, Siddhartha also felt this meant having to abandon his wife and newborn son, but this extreme response came before he found the middle way.

After leaving his princely life, Siddhartha chose a life of extreme austerity along with five other ascetics who were living in the forest, exposed to the elements. However, six years after beginning his spiritual journey, Siddhartha was on the verge of death due to self-mortification and denial of his body’s most basic requirements for sustenance. It is said that at one point, his daily nourishment consisted of just one sesame seed, one grain of rice, and one drop of water. Having taken asceticism to its furthest extreme, Siddhartha’s body had wasted away to mere skin and bones, and he no longer possessed the strength to meditate. He had gone too far, and there was still no relief for his existential pain.

Lying emaciated along the side of a riverbank, he overheard an elder musician on a passing boat teaching his pupil how to properly tune a musical instrument: “If you tighten the string too much, it will snap. And if you leave it too slack, it won’t play.” Siddhartha recognized himself in the instruction, for he too had lived both the ‘slack’ life of hedonism and also now the immoderate life of asceticism which was about to ‘break’ him. Inspired by the lesson of the tempered string, he saw the fault and futility of both extremes and realized a path of moderation (i.e., neither sensual indulgence nor self-mortification), which he called the middle way:

Asceticism (spiritualism) The Middle Way Hedonism (materialism)
Self-Mortification Not Sensual Indulgence Correcting hedonism.
Correcting asceticism. Not Self-Mortification
Sensual Indulgence

We need inner peace, but we also need good physical health, and for this we need certain external conditions such as food and a comfortable environment to live in. There are many people who concentrate exclusively on developing the material side of their life, while completely ignoring their spiritual practice. This is one extreme. However, there are other people who concentrate exclusively on spiritual practice, while ignoring the material conditions necessary for supporting a healthy human life. This is another extreme. We need to maintain a middle way that avoids both extremes of materialism and spiritualism. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Transform Your Life: A Blissful Journey, p. 10, © 2007)

My brothers, there are two extremes that a person on the path should avoid. One is to plunge oneself into sensual pleasures, and the other is to practice austerities which deprive the body of its needs. Both of these extremes lead to failure. The path I have discovered is the Middle Way, which avoids both extremes and has the capacity to lead one to understanding, liberation, and peace. (Buddha Shakyamuni, Dhammacakka-pavattana Sutta 1:2, translated by Thich Nhat Hanh, Old Path White Clouds: Walking in the Footsteps of the Buddha, p. 146, © 1991)

Shortly thereafter, he accepted his first decent meal in years, and he found that it only helped his mental focus and meditative concentration. (Indeed, Siddhartha learned the middle way through a “balanced diet”!) Having restored his body and mind to health with this new perspective, Siddhartha now had not only the physical strength but also the correct view so as to reach enlightenment. (Learn more about the path to liberation and enlightenment at AboutKarma.org.) Having uprooted the causes of suffering, he taught the middle way to the world, although he knew few would understand his words, for this path lies at the razor’s edge between extremes.

For that reason—that the Dharma is deep and difficult to understand and to learn—the Buddha’s mind despaired of being able to teach it. (Nagarjuna, Mula-madhyamaka-karika 24:12, translated by Jay L. Garfield, Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, p. 301, © 1995)

It is this balanced view that seems to have no place in our everyday, dualistic language. We habitually polarize life as being “all or nothing.” Therefore, we say desire or no desire, and we say self or no self. We think that there are only two possibilities, and even among those who study and practice Buddhism, the four noble truths are often read as though nirvana comes through the “extinction of all desires.” This absurdly causes us to characterize the four noble truths as promoting asceticism! What happened to the middle?

Not all desires are desirous attachment. It is important to distinguish between virtuous and non-virtuous desires. Virtuous and compassionate desires are not delusions because they do not destroy our peace of mind. For example, a sincere wish to attain enlightenment for the benefit of others is a desire, but it is not a desirous attachment because such a wish cannot confuse and disturb our mind and it cannot harm ourself and others. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Joyful Path of Good Fortune: the Complete Buddhist Path to Enlightenment, p. 313, © 2003)

As a word, nirvana is negative. It means “to blow out,” as one would extinguish a fire, and the Buddha often describes it as putting out, cooling, or quenching the fires of self-will and selfish passion. But the force of the word is entirely positive. Like the English flawless, it expresses perfection as the absence of any fault. Perfection, the Buddha implies, is our real nature. All we have to do is remove the veil of self-centeredness that covers it. (Eknath Easwaran, The Dhammapada: Translated for the Modern Reader, introduction, pp. 57-58, © 1993)



Ultimate Selflessness & Conventional Self

The middle way is not only a path between extreme practices (such as wrong conduct and wrong moral discipline), but also between extreme views (such as eternalism and nihilism). In deep meditation, Siddhartha came to understand the true nature of reality. What he discovered were the two aspects of the middle way, each with its own special function: on the one hand, the ultimate aspect corrects the extreme practice of hedonism and the extreme view of eternalism; and on the other hand, the conventional aspect corrects the extreme practice of asceticism and the extreme view of nihilism.

Nihilism (nothingness) Right View of Self Eternalism (permanence)
No-Self-At-All Ultimate Selflessness Correcting eternalism.
Correcting nihilism. Conventional Self
Self-grasping Ignorance

The Buddha’s teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha’s profound truth. (Nagarjuna, Mula-madhyamaka-kakarika 24:8-9, translated by Jay L. Garfield, Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, pp. 296-297, © 1995, emphasis added)

[T]he essential point of the middle way [is] the union of the two truths. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Great Treasury of Merit: How to Rely Upon a Spiritual Guide, p. 252, © 1992)

Sitting under the Bodhi Tree, Siddhartha applied the two truths of the middle way to every philosophical question, including the nature of the self. He came to reject the existence of an atman, understood either as a self-supporting, substantially existent self existing independently of the five aggregates of body and mind or, more subtly, as an inherently existent (or objectively findable) self existing somewhere within the aggregates or even as the collection of those aggregates. Instead, the Buddha taught anatman (literally, ‘no-self,’), but by this he merely meant “no atman.” The doctrine of ‘selflessness’ is too often overapplied because first we try to translate atman simply as ‘self,’ and so then we think that anatman is meant to negate every notion of self!

It is important to distinguish the inherently existent self, which does not exist, from the self merely imputed by conception on the aggregates of the body and mind, which does exist. The inherently existent self is to be negated, but the existent self is not. The existent self performs actions, experiences their effects, takes rebirth in samsara, experiences suffering, and experiences happiness. It is the very basis of both samsara and liberation. Among both non-Buddhists and Buddhists there are many different views on the nature of the self, but only the Madhyamika-Prasangikas identify it correctly, because only they identify the negated object of subtle selflessness correctly. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Ocean of Nectar: Wisdom and Compassion in Mahayana Buddhism, p. 294, © 2003)

The Sanskrit word atman denotes an independent or inherently existent self, so it is best translated in a way that carries these connotations, rather than just the misleading single word self. Similarly, anatman should also be rendered into English as a phrase: “no independent self” or “no inherent self.” However, with the doctrine of no-self, Buddhists do not go so far as to mean a rejection of the conventional self, which will be explained below. Thinking that we can affirm nothing at all when we negate atman causes us to over negate and leads to nihilism. However, the Buddha never negates the middle view, only the two extremes flanking it. Each of the extremes is only a half-truth: eternalism is conventional truth without ultimate truth, and nihilism is ultimate truth without conventional truth.

That there is a ‘self’ has been taught, and the doctrine of ‘no-self,’ by the Buddhas, as well as the doctrine of ‘neither self nor nonself.’ (Nagarjuna, Mula-madhyamaka-karika 18:6, translated by Jay L. Garfield, Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, p. 249, © 1995)

In the above scripture, the famous second-century Buddhist Nagarjuna says that there is a conventional self, which is in accordance with ultimate selflessness (anatman). As they are both aspects of the middle way, then for a Buddha conventional self is none other than ultimate selflessness. Though at first they may seem to be contradictory, ‘self’ and ‘selflessness’ in this sense are in fact “two truths”! The middle way, by definition, excludes both extremes of an inherently existent self and utter self-negation. The negation of an extreme returns us back to the middle; and as there are two extremes, the middle way is thereby seen as twofold: neither one extreme nor the other. This is why enlightened beings teach the doctrine of ‘neither self nor nonself,’ which is to say, neither eternalism nor nihilism.

Ananda Sutta: To Ananda (on Self, No Self, and Not-self) - Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: “Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?”

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

“Then is there no self?”

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, “Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?”

“Ananda, if I—being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self—were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests and contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I—being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self—were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests and contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I—being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self—were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?”

“No, lord.”

“And if I—being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self—were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: ‘Does the self I used to have now not exist?’”

The Buddha intuitively understood what the wanderer meant by his two questions. By asking a question and then its exact opposite, Vacchagotta believed he was covering every possible point of view, but in fact he was merely going from one extreme to the other. That is to say, the Buddha knew that these questions had eternalistic and nihilistic slants. Many people have taken the Buddha’s silence to mean that such questions are unanswerable. But this is not always the case, since his chief disciple Ananda asked too, and the Buddha explained. The difference is that the Buddha could—in a way that Ananda would understand—qualify the differing concepts of self. While Ananda would not be confused by the seeming double-talk, the Buddha chose to save Vacchagotta from further confusion.

Notice that the Buddha remained silent towards Vacchagotta on both sides of the issue of self: he could not affirm conventional truth without being mistaken for being an eternalist, nor could he affirm ultimate truth without being taken as a nihilist. Since Vacchagotta did not have an understanding of the centrist doctrine of selflessness, he and the Buddha had no frame-of-reference by which the Buddha could answer and not be misunderstood. It is for this reason that the Buddha chose silence, since any answer would have been taken the wrong way, thereby unintentionally reinforcing either eternalism or nihilism, at least in Vacchagotta’s mind. To free us from the limitations of binary language, the Buddha always has a “neither-nor” answer for every “either-or” question we might ask.

In seeing things to be or not to be, fools fail to see a world at ease. (Nagarjuna, Mula-madhyamaka-karika 5:8, translated by Stephen Batchelor, Verses From the Center: a Buddhist Vision of the Sublime, p. 90, © 2001)

In general, there are two extremes—the extreme of existence and the extreme of non-existence. Everything that exists is free from these two extremes. This book, for example, is free from the extreme of existence because it does not exist inherently, and it is free from the extreme of non-existence because it does exist conventionally. By understanding the two truths we shall realize the middle way that is free from the two extremes. Most people veer towards the extreme of existence, thinking that if something exists it must exist inherently, thus exaggerating the way in which things exist without being satisfied with them as mere name. Others may veer towards the extreme of non-existence, thinking that if phenomena do not exist inherently they do not exist at all, thus exaggerating their lack of inherent existence. We need to realize that although phenomena lack any trace of existence from their own side, they do exist conventionally as mere appearances to a valid mind. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Eight Steps to Happiness: the Buddhist Way of Loving Kindness, pp. 195-196, © 2000)



Emptiness & Interdependence

Nihilism (nothingness) Relativity Realism (true existence)
Utter Non-Existence Emptiness of Ind. Existence
Interdependent Appearance
Independent Existence
No dividing line at all, making us unable to draw conventional distinctions.
Undifferentiated Oneness:
No dividing line at all, making us unable to draw conventional distinctions.
A conventional fuzzy dividing line, which does not itself ultimately exist.
An Open System:
A conventional “f u z z y” dividing line, which does not itself ultimately exist.
An absolutely solid dividing line, abstracting a convention out of its context.
A Closed System:
An absolutely “solid” dividing line, abstracting a convention out of context.

There is no such thing as a closed system. Although the Sanskrit word shunyata is accurately translated into English as emptiness, it is sometimes alternatively translated as spaciousness or openness, meaning that everything is an open system, neither isolated nor self-contained. The reality of interdependence demonstrates that, rather than things being cutoff from each other, everything is ‘wide open,’ interconnected, and interrelated.

Like anatman, the term shunyata is more faithfully translated as a phrase: “emptiness of inherent existence” or “emptiness of independent existence.” What does this mean? Anytime we search for a self that would give a phenomenon its supposed autonomous or separate existence, we come up empty-handed. However, this does not mean that emptiness negates conventional existence, only inherent existence (Skt. svabhava). As we shall see, a phenomenon’s existence does not indwell or inhere in itself but is merely a projection of mind, which is why we say that that object lacks ‘inherent existence.’ What is the best way to introduce this? In The Three Principal Aspects of the Path, Je Tsongkhapa says:

But, even though you may be acquainted with renunciation and bodhichitta,
If you do not possess the wisdom realizing the way things are,
You will not be able to cut the root of samsara;
Therefore, strive in the means for realizing dependent relationship.

The easiest way to understand emptiness, then, is to begin by meditating on dependent relationship, also known as interdependence. These two—interdependence and emptiness—reflect the conventional and ultimate aspects of the middle way, respectively. Interdependence and emptiness are really getting at the same thing, albeit with different words: compare “every phenomenon exists dependently” with “no phenomenon exists independently.” Interdependence affirms dependent existence while emptiness negates independent existence, making emptiness just the flip side of interdependence; they always go hand in hand. So if we can accept the Buddha’s teachings on dependent relationship, then we can accept his teachings on emptiness.

There are three levels of dependent relationship: gross, subtle, and very subtle. First, gross dependent relationship tells us that any impermanent phenomenon is dependent upon its causes for it to come into existence. No produced phenomenon exists independently of its causes. By removing just one cause or condition, the object would not have come into existence at all.

We can take the example of a sprout of wheat growing in a field. This sprout could not be produced unless its causes, such as wheat seed, soil, and moisture, were assembled. Even after a new phenomenon, such as a sprout of wheat, has been produced, it continues to undergo change. The sprout of wheat gradually grows and eventually produces its crop of grain. We can see these changes taking place over a period of time, but we also know that on the atomic level countless subtle changes take place in the sprout every moment. All these changes, both gross and subtle, take place in dependence upon causes and conditions. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Heart of Wisdom: an Explanation of the Heart Sutra, pp. 85-86, © 2005)

Second, subtle dependent relationship shows us that a phenomenon is dependent upon its parts. No composite phenomenon exists independently of its parts. For example, is a flower wholly different from its parts? No, the flower must be related to its parts, because if we take away all its parts, then there is nothing left to call a flower. Is the flower any of its individual parts? No, the flower is more than just one or two of its parts. A petal or stem alone is not the flower, and in fact none of the individual parts by itself could be called the flower. Is the flower then just the collection of all its parts together? (This is the hard one!) No, a collection of flower parts cannot be the flower because a collection of parts is just parts, but not the thing itself. Taking our body as an example, “the collection of all the parts of our body remains simply parts of our body—it does not magically transform into the part-possessor, our body” (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Eight Steps to Happiness: the Buddhist Way of Loving Kindness, pp. 195-196, © 2000).

We have already established that each individual part of our body is not our body. The collection of the parts of our body is therefore a collection of objects that are not a body. We can say it is a collection of ‘non-bodies’. It is impossible for the mere collection of non-bodies to be a body, just as it is impossible for a collection of non-sheep, for example goats, to be sheep. Since a collection of sheep is sheep and a collection of books is books, it follows that a collection of non-bodies is non-bodies and cannot possibly be a body. We can conclude that the collection of parts of our body is parts of our body, but it is not our body itself. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Heart of Wisdom: an Explanation of the Heart Sutra, pp. 40-41, © 2005)

Third, very subtle dependent relationship reveals that a phenomenon exists in dependence upon naming or imputation by mind (with the ‘basis of imputation’ being the arbitrary collection of parts). No conceived phenomenon exists independently of imputation by mind. No object is more than the sum of its parts; the gestalt is merely what our minds are adding to the picture. That is to say, an object’s self-identity is nothing more than a mental construct, created from our side and not appearing from the side of the object.

Emptiness is not nothingness but is the real nature of phenomena; it is the way things really are. Emptiness is the way things exist as opposed to the way they appear. We naturally believe that the things we see around us, such as tables, chairs, and houses, are truly existent, because we believe that they exist in exactly the way that they appear. However, the way things appear to our senses is deceptive and completely contradictory to the way in which they actually exist. Things appear to exist from their own side, without depending on our mind. We feel that this book that appears to our mind, for example, can exist without our mind; we do not feel that our mind is in any way involved in bringing the book into existence. This way of existing independently of our mind is variously called “true existence,” “inherent existence,” and “existence from its own side.” (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, The New Meditation Handbook: Meditations to Make Our Life Happy and Meaningful, p. 107, © 2003)

Indeed, for a Buddhist it’s not a stretch to say that existence is in the eye of the beholder. What we see is merely an appearence to our mind from our mind. Everything is 100% subjective, yet we still think we are seeing things objectively! This distorted view of reality is what Buddhists refer to as the ‘sleep of ignorance.’ A Buddha is someone who has, quite simply, ‘woken up’ and enjoys the lucid freedom of his or her own mind.



For Everyone Who Dreams of Freedom...

So, what does it mean to say “empty mountains”? Thich Nhat Hanh’s words quoted at the top of this webpage can be understood in the following manner: “Before practicing meditation, we see that mountains are mountains,” is a reference to the extreme of inherent existence. Next are the two truths of the middle way: “When we start to practice, we see that mountains are no longer mountains,” is a reference to ultimate truth, and “After practicing a while, we see that mountains are again mountains” is a reference to conventional truth. Thich Nhat Hanh concludes by saying, “Now the mountains are very free. Our mind is still with the mountains, but it is no longer bound to anything.” This is a reference to the union of the two truths of the middle way, which is the liberating view of an enlightened being.

To be in samsara is to see things as they appear to deluded consciousness and to interact with them accordingly. To be in nirvana, then, is to see those things as they are—as merely empty, dependent, impermanent, and nonsubstantial, but not to be somewhere else, seeing something else. (Jay L. Garfield, Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, p. 332, © 1995)

Look on the world as a bubble, look on it as a mirage; then the King of Death cannot even see you. Come look at this world! Is it not like a painted royal chariot? The wise see through it, but not the foolish. (Buddha Shakyamuni, Dhammapada 170-171, translated by Eknath Easwaran, The Dhammapada: Translated for the Modern Reader, p. 125, © 1993)

Buddha said that we create our own experiences—the world is what we make of it. So, if we understand that all the things we experience in the world around us are full of our own projections, then we can ask ourselves what is left behind once we take away all those projections? Nothing... they are empty! That is to say, everything is empty of our projections. From their side, people and things do not have any of the qualities—such as good or bad—that we are imputing onto them, and so they cannot inherently be sources of happiness or suffering. Therefore, freedom from suffering comes from within. That is to say, if happiness and suffering are experiences of the mind, then their main or substantial cause must also reside within the mind. This is why in the Sutras we are told, “If you realize your own mind, you will become a Buddha. You should not seek Buddhahood elsewhere” (Understanding the Mind: an Explanation of the Nature and Functions of the Mind, p. 1, © 1993, 1997, 2002).

Buddha also said, “Change your mind, change your world.” By understanding the dependent relationship between our mind and external objects, we understand that the world we experience is merely a reflection of our own mind. Subject (i.e., mind) and object are not separately definable. So, if we understand that objects depend on the mind—not only in terms of their subjective qualities but also all their defining characteristics and functions—we can change the way objects appear to us simply by re-conceptualizing them. Even our own self-perceptions either as ordinary beings pervaded by suffering, or as enlightened beings abiding in great bliss, are just as malleable. Gradually, we will gain the ability to control our mind and in this way solve all our problems. What could be more liberating than this?!



DEDICATION

By this virtue may I quickly
Attain the enlightened state of the Guru,
And the lead every living being
Without exception to that ground.

Through my virtues from practising with pure motivation,
May all living beings throughout all their lives
Never be parted from peaceful and wrathful Manjushri,
But always come under their care.

(Heart Jewel: the Guru Yoga of Je Tsongkhapa combined with
the Condensed Sadhana of His Dharma Protector
, p. 14, © 1987, 2002)

OM VAJRA WIKI WITRANA SÖHA



Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS! counter stats