{"collection":"journals","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/journals/ia/pstn.htm","path":"journals/ia/pstn.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/journals/ia/pstn.htm","text":"BY REV. S. BEAL, M.A., RECTOR OF WARK.\nI shall here give a translation of the 25th section of the Chong-Lun S\u00fbtra or Pranyam\u00fbla-\u0161\u00e2stra-tika, by N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, on Nirv\u00e2.na.\n| (1) | If all things are unreal, Then how is it possible to remove From that which does not exist Something, which, being removed, leaves Nirv\u00e2.na? | \nThis section argues that if all things are alike empty and unreal, then there is no such thing as Birth and Death; consequently there can be no removal from sorrow, and the destruction of the five elements of existence (limited existence), by removal of which we arrive at Nirv\u00e2.na (what is called Nirv\u00e2.na).\n| (2) | But if all things are real, Then how can we remove Birth and Death, real existence, And so arrive at Nirv\u00e2.na? | \nThis section argues that we cannot destroy that which has in itself real existence, and therefore, if all things have this real being, we cannot remove Birth and Death, and so arrive at Nirv\u00e2.na; therefore, neither by the theory of Bhava, nor by the theory of Sunyata (emptiness), can we arrive at the just idea of Nirv\u00e2.na.\n| (3) | That which is not striven for or \"obtained,\" That which is not \"for a time\" or \"eternal,\" That which is not born, nor dies, This is that which is called Nirv\u00e2.na. | \n\"Not to be striven for,\" that is, in the way of religious action (ach\u00e2rya), and its result (fruit).\n\"Not obtained\" (or \"arrived at\"), that is, because there is no place or point at which to arrive.\n\"Not for a time\" (or not by way of interruption) [per saltum] for the five skandhas having been from the time of complete enlightenment proved to be unreal, and not part of true existence, then on entering final Nirv\u00e2.na (anupadi\u0161esha Nirv\u00e2.na).--What is there that breaks or interrupts the character of previous existence?\n\"Not for ever,\" or \"everlasting,\" for if there were something to be obtained that admitted of distinctions whilst in the possession of it, then we might speak of an eternal nirv\u00e2.na, but as in the condition of silent extinction (Nirv\u00e2.na) there can be no properties to distinguish, how can we speak of it as \"everlasting?\"\nAnd so with reference to Birth and Death.\nNow that which is so characterised is what we call Nirv\u00e2.na.\nAgain, there is a S\u00fbtra which says, \"Nirv\u00e2.na is the opposite of 'Being' and 'not Being'; it is the opposite of these two combined, it is the opposite of the absence of 'Being', and the absence of 'not Being'.\nSo, in short, that which admits of no conditions such as are attached to limited existence; that is Nirv\u00e2.na.\n| (4) | Nirv\u00e2.na cannot be called Bhava; For if so, then it admits of old age and death, In fact both \"being\" and \" not being\" are phenomena, And therefore are capable of being deprived of characteristics (lakshanam). | \nThis means that as all things which the eye beholds are seen to begin and to end, and this is what the \u0160l\u00f4ka calls \"Life\" and \"Death\" (or birth and death). Now if Nirv\u00e2.na is like this, then it would be possible to speak of removing these things and so arriving at something fixed--but here is a plain contradiction of terms--for Nirv\u00e2.na is supposed to be that which is fixed and unchangeable.\n| (5) | If Nirv\u00e2.na is Bhava (existent), Then it is personal; But, in fact, that which cannot be individualized Is spoken of as not \"personal.\" | \nThis means that as all phenomenal existence comes from cause and consequent production, therefore all such things are rightly called \"personal.\"\n| (6) | If Nirv\u00e2.na be Bhava, Then it cannot be called \"without sensation\" (anuvedana); For non-Being comes not from sensation, And by this obtains its distinct name. | \nThis means that as the S\u00fbtras describe Nirv\u00e2.na as being \"without sensation\" (anuvedana), it cannot be Bhava; for then Abhava would come from sensation. But now it will be asked, if Nirv\u00e2.na is not Bhava, then that which is \"not Bhava\" (abhava), surely then is Nirv\u00e2.na. To this we reply--\n| (7) | If Nirv\u00e2.na be not Bhava, Much less is it nothing (abhava); For if there be no room for \"Being,\" What place can there be for \"not Being.\" | \nThis means that \"not Being\" is the opposite of \"Being.\" If, then, \"Being\" is not admissible, how can we speak of \"Not Being\"? (its opposite).\n| (8) | If again Nirv\u00e2.na is nothing, How is it called without \"sensation?\" (anuvedana), For it would be wonderful indeed if everything not capable of sensation, Were forthwith spoken of as nothing. | \nIf then Nirv\u00e2.na be neither \"Being,\" nor \"non-Being,\" what is it?\n| (9) | By participation in cause and effect Comes the wheel of continual existence, By non-participation in cause and effect Comes Nirv\u00e2.na. | \nAs by knowing a thing to be straight we also know that which is crooked, so by the knowledge of the elements of finite existence comes the knowledge of continual life and death. Do away with those, and you do away also with the other.\n| (10) | As Buddha says in the S\u00fbtra,-- Separate \"Being,\" separate \"not Being,\" This is Nirv\u00e2.na, The opposite of \"Being,\" the opposite of \"not Being.\" | \n\"Being\" here alludes to the three worlds of finite existence. The absence of these three worlds is \"Not Being.\" Get rid of both these ideas, this is Nirv\u00e2.na. But it may now be asked, if Nirv\u00e2.na is not \"Being,\" and if it is not \"Absence of Being,\" then perhaps it is the intermixture of the two.\n| (11) | If it is said that \"Being\" and \"Not Being,\" By union, produces Nirv\u00e2.na, The two are then one; But this is impossible. | \nTwo unlike things cannot be joined so as to produce one different from either.\n| (12) | If it is said \"Being\" and \"Not Being\" United make Nirv\u00e2.na, Then Nirv\u00e2.na is not \"without sensation;\" For these two things involve sensation. | \n| (13) | If it is said that \"Being\" and \"Not Being,\" United, produce Nirv\u00e2.na, p. 89 Then Nirv\u00e2.na is not Impersonal; For these two things are personal. | \n| (14) | \"Being\" and \"Not Being,\" joined in one, How can this be Nirv\u00e2.na? These two things have nothing in common. Can Darkness and Light be joined? | \n| (15) | If the opposites of \"Being\" and \"Not Being,\" Is Nirv\u00e2.na, These opposites-- How are they distinguished? | \n| (16) | If they are distinguished, And so, by union, become Nirv\u00e2.na, Then that which completes the idea of \"Being\" and \"Not Being\" Also completes the idea of the opposite of both. | \n| (17) | Tath\u00e2gata, after his departure, Says nothing of \"Being\" and \"Not Being.\" He says not that his \"Being\" is not, or the opposite of this. | \nTath\u00e2gata says nothing of these things or their opposites. The conclusion of the whole matter is, that Nirv\u00e2.na is identical with the nature of Tath\u00e2gata, without bound, and without place or time.[1]\n[1. The Oriental, October 9, 1875.]","title":"The Pranyam\u00fbla-/S\u00e2stra-Tika of N\u00e2g&acir...","type":"page"}