The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana — Th. Stcherbatsky (1927)

But the principle of Relativity (sunyata) did not prove an entirely safe foundation for the New Buddhism. A danger lurked in it which was likely to bring the whole construction in jeopardy. Just as the Absolute of Early Buddhism could not escape from the fate of being declared rela¬ tive, just so was Relativity itself relative , 1 it clearly depended upon its opposite, the non-relative, and without this contrast it was likely to lose every meaning. Nagarjuna did not shrink before this danger and faced it with the same audacious spirit as he was wont to do. This principle, the pivot of the system, is called upon in order to destroy all theories and to replace them, as we have seen above, by direct mystic intuition, not in order to replace it by a new theory. As a theory it is just as bad as the old ones, it is even much worse. «If something non-relative», says Nagarjuna , 2 «did really exist, we would then likewise admit the existence of the relative, but there is absolutely nothing non-relative, how then can we admit the existence of the relative (or the truth of Relativity). »- «Relativity)), explains Candrakirti, «is here the common characteristic of ail the elements (dharma) of existence. That is our view. But since there is no element which would be non-relative, Relativity itself, for want of those objects with which it could be contrasted, (becomes as inane as a mirage), as a garland of flowers in the skv». Does this mean that Rela¬ tivity should be rejected? No, «because the Buddhas have taught that to realise the relativity of all artificial conceptions is the only way to get rid of them. But if people then begin to cling to this very concept of Rela¬ tivity, they must be called irreclaimable )). 3 «It is», explains Candrakirti , 4 «as if somebody said, „I have nothing to sell you,“ and would receive the answer, „ All right, just sell me this your absence of goods for sale!“» We

1 I find the question whether Relativity is itself relative mentioned by B. Russel (A B C of Relativity, p. 14) and declined with the remark that it is absurd. Nevertheless the question exists and cannot be dismissed on such grounds, the more so by an author from whom we learn that «whosoever wishes to become a philosopher must learn not to be frightened by absurdities®. (The Problems of Philosophy, London 1921, p. 31).

2 Ibid. XIII. 7.

3 Ibid. XIII. S.

4 Ibid. p. 247.6

NIRVANA

XIX. EUROPEAN PARALLELS r read in the Ratnakuta , 1 «I declare that those are rotten, and many times rotten who, having conceived relativity, cling to it (as a new theory).

.It is much better to cling to the false idea of a really existing personality (pudgala), notwithstanding it is a blunder of Himalayan dimen¬ sions, than to cling to this doctrine of relativity which (in this case would be) a doctrine of the void (abliava). . . It is as if a doctor 2 administered a powerful remedy which would remove all the ailments of the patient, but could not afterwards be expelled from the abdomen. Do you think that the patient would be really cured? No, he would suffer even much more than he did suffer before!»

The characterisation of reality as Relativity is resorted to in extremis for want of any other expedient. It is a verbal characterisation, it takes into account the necessities of speech (sabclam upadaya prajnaptih). z The Sautrantika made use of the conception of a nominal entity (prajnaptisat), as has been mentioned above, when combating the artificial con¬ structions of Early Buddhism. This conception was extended by the Mahayanists so as to cover all the elements without exception. Sense data, consciousness, feeling, volition were declared by the Sautrautikas ultimate realities. But Nagarjuna did not spare them. They became all relative and nominal, and relativity itself was but a nominal «middle path» of approaching reality. Middle path meant in Early Buddhism steering between materialism (ucchedavada) and the doctrine of an eternal Soul (sasvatavada). Its positive content was the doctrine of separate elements (dharma). In Mahayana this term changes its meaning and becomes syno¬ nymous with Relativity (sunyatd). Relativity is the Middle Path . 4

XIX. Parallel developments in Buddhism and Brahmanism

That the evolution from Hmayana to Mahayana ran parallel with the move¬ ment which in other Indian religions at the same epoch led to the establishing of their pantheons and their supreme deities of Siva and Vishnu, is quite obvi¬ ous. The brahmanical religions were ,likewise founded on a background of pantheism, on radical monism with the Saivists, and a somewhat mitigated

1 Ibid. p. 248.7

2 Ibid. p. 248.11.

3 Ibid. XXIV. 18, XXII.ll, p.215.1, 286 1.

4 Ibid. XXIV. 18. Therefore. Madhyamika-sastra must be translated « A Treatise on Re¬ lativity.))