Chapter 25. Investigation of Nirvāṇa

If all this is empty, there is neither arising nor passing away; whose nirvāṇa, then, is to be expected — through abandonment or through cessation?

pūrvapakṣin wrote:

whose nirvāṇa, then, is to be expected — through abandonment or through cessation?

If all this is non-empty, there is neither arising nor passing away; whose nirvāṇa, then, is to be expected — through abandonment or through cessation?

Unabandoned, unattained, uninterrupted, not permanent, unceased, unarisen — this is what is called nirvāṇa.

First of all, nirvāṇa is not an existent, for then it would follow that it bears the marks of aging and death; for there is no existent that is without aging and death.

And if nirvāṇa were an existent, nirvāṇa would be conditioned; for nowhere and in no way is there any unconditioned existent.

And if nirvāṇa is an existent, how can it be without clinging-dependence? For there is no existent whatever that is without clinging-dependence.

If nirvāṇa is not an existent, will it then be a non-existent? Where nirvāṇa is not an existent, there no non-existent is found either.

And if nirvāṇa is a non-existent, how can it be without clinging-dependence? For there is no non-existent that would be without clinging-dependence.

That existent which is an unbroken flow, dependent upon clinging-dependence — that very thing, without dependence and without clinging, is proclaimed to be nirvāṇa.

The Teacher proclaimed the abandoning of both being and non-being; therefore it holds that nirvāṇa is neither an existent nor a non-existent.

If nirvāṇa were both — both a non-existent and an existent — then liberation too would be both a non-existent and an existent; and that does not hold.

If nirvāṇa were both — both a non-existent and an existent — then nirvāṇa would not be without clinging-dependence, since both of these depend upon it.

How can nirvāṇa be both — both a non-existent and an existent? For nirvāṇa is unconditioned, while the existent and the non-existent are conditioned.

How can nirvāṇa be both — both a non-existent and an existent? For these two do not exist in one and the same place, like light and darkness.

The assertion that nirvāṇa is neither a non-existent nor an existent can be established only when both the existent and the non-existent have been established.

If nirvāṇa is neither a non-existent nor an existent, then by whom is this “neither a non-existent nor an existent” discerned?

It is not asserted that the Blessed One exists after cessation; nor is it asserted that he “does not exist”, or that he “both exists and does not exist”, or that he “neither exists nor does not exist”.

Nor is it asserted that the Blessed One exists while he is present; nor is it asserted that he “does not exist”, or that he “both exists and does not exist”, or that he “neither exists nor does not exist”.

There is no difference whatever of saṃsāra from nirvāṇa; there is no difference whatever of nirvāṇa from saṃsāra.

The limit of nirvāṇa and the limit of saṃsāra — between them there is not the slightest difference, not even the subtlest.

The views about a “limit” and the like after cessation, and about “eternity” and the like, rest upon nirvāṇa, upon the final limit and upon the prior limit.

When all dharmas are empty, what is endless and what has an end? What is at once endless and possessed of an end? What is neither endless nor possessed of an end?

What is the same and what is other? What is eternal and what is non-eternal? What is at once non-eternal and eternal, or else neither of the two?

The calming of every apprehending, the calming of conceptual proliferation — that is blissful; nowhere, to no one, has any dharma been taught by the Buddha.