Not Coming, Not Going

Not Coming, Not Going

Here is a joke. When I try to compare ‘a few seconds’ to the popular term ‘This Instant’, my mind, being trained by Buddhist practice,

keeps shutting down. Since my brain has investigated and calculated

the existence of ‘a few seconds’, it does not know how to apply

‘This Instant’. Readers may feel confused by now.

Let me clarify it in the following example. Say seeing and

comprehending what happened take only a few seconds. When

trying to describe ‘a few seconds’ with ‘This Instant’, I question

myself right away, ‘Were it not for “a few seconds”, what would be

the percentage of “This Instant” in “a few seconds”?’  Ha! And then I

find myself too stupid to adopt this popular term because I realize

that it is about gathering of ‘a few seconds’, instead of about ‘This Instant’

Mūlamadhyamakakārikā’s ‘Not Coming, Not Going’, about time and

movement, analyzes issues of time staying. After analyzing it

critically, I am aware what minutes and seconds are like and will

follow and execute my recognition automatically. That is, my

recognition of minutes and seconds goes beyond this popular term,

stops me from adopting it, and thus I become too stupid to keep up

with the trends.

The bygone is gone,

‘This Instant’ is not staying,

The coming is not coming yet.

The three points above clarify Buddhist viewpoints of ‘not coming,

not going’, which is one of the essence of Śūnyatā. I keep observing

how time affects me and find myself having shaken a lot off and also

advanced a lot unconsciously along the way.

Ban Ji
Translated by Grace Tsai

不來不去Neither Coming Nor Going

不來不去

說個笑話，我曾嚐試用「幾秒間」跟時下流行用語「當下」做比較。

結果，自己受過佛法訓練的大腦一直當機，因為已經接受過「幾秒」到底能不能存在的訓練，「幾秒」的存在都計較過，所以不知道「當下」是怎麼使出來的？哈！看的人一定一頭霧水！

舉個例子：就算只用眼睛看一件事情，應該會有「幾秒」的時間存在，如果事情用「當下」形容的話，就會自己問自己，剛看那些事明明就是「幾秒」的時間，「當下」到底是幾秒之幾？哈！然後覺得自己真是癡呆！明明就只是個流行用語，自己用起來就是不能接受，因為自己明明感受到是「秒」的匯聚而不是「當下」！

《中觀論》有個「不來不去」的時間跟運動的概念，會分析到時間駐留的問題，很認真分析後，會去執行分、秒在自己身體的感覺，所以就癡呆的不會流行了！哈！

去者已去

當下不住

來者未來

這三個點，訴說佛法「不來不去」！更是空的精神之一。

金剛經裡面有「過去心，現在心，未來心皆不可得」，或許也可以跟「不來不去」做個參考。

我常觀察時間對自己的影響力，不知不覺遺落很多，也前進很多。

（大家好：這些屬於空的寫出都只是介紹性質的文章，想了解更多的大德們，可以參閱印順導師著作《中觀論頌講記》一書）

Neither Coming Nor Going

Here is a joke. I once tried to compare the

phrase “a few seconds” with the popular expression “the present moment.” 

The result? My Buddhist-trained mind

completely froze. I had already undergone rigorous training on whether “a few seconds” could even exist—analyzing the very existence of seconds themselves. So, how was I supposed to understand *the present moment*? Ha! Anyone watching me think this through would be totally confused! 

For example, even when simply looking at

something, there must be “a few seconds” involved. But if we describe the experience as happening “in the present moment,” I immediately start questioning myself: “Wait, what I just saw clearly took“a few seconds”—so exactly how many fractions of a second count as ‘the present moment’?” Ha! And then I realize how ridiculous I’m being. It’s just a trendy phrase, yet my brain refuses to accept it because, to me, it feels like a collection of seconds rather than a single, undefined ‘moment’! 

Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

discusses the concept of “neither coming nor going” in relation to time and movement. If one analyzes it deeply, it leads to an examination of how time *remains*—eventually making someone overly aware of the seconds and minutes within their own body. That’s how I ended up too “dazed” to keep up with modern slang! Ha! 

 The past is

gone, 

The present does not remain, 

 The future has not yet arrived. 

These three points illustrate the Buddhist concept of “neither coming nor going,” which is also a key aspect of śūnyatā. 

Similarly, the Diamond Sutra states: 

 “The past mind is unattainable, 

 The present mind is unattainable, 

the future mind is unattainable.” 

Perhaps this can also be considered alongside the idea of “neither coming nor going.” 

I often reflect on how time influences

me—losing much along the way, yet moving forward as well. 

(For those interested, these writings are

just introductory thoughts on śūnyatā. If you’d like to explore further, I recommend Master YinShun’s A Commentary on the Verses of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.)

 

Śūnyatā and Inclusion 1

Śūnyatā and Inclusion 1

A lot of misunderstandings of Śūnyatā are being transmitted and the most common one is ‘Śūnyatā is nothingness.’ According to it, all is void, and therefore there is no point seeking fame and fortune or clinging to anything.

Another beautiful misunderstanding is ‘Śūnyatā is a kind of emptiness which includes all.’

Nagarjuna advocated "Everything is based on Nidānas, that I said is Śūnyatā." Nidānas are conditions and dependencies (that needs to be satisfied for existence of something). For example, air, food and water are the main dependencies for existence of one’s life.

However, it is not appropriate to apply ‘Śūnyatā is emptiness including all’ to including soil, a dependency for food, in dependencies for life.

Soil is another dependency in our life. The satisfying of necessary dependencies stimulates assembling and then arouse a phenomenon. Śūnyatā serves as the assembling factor of concrete solids/dependencies.

Therefore, to break up solid hindrance and misunderstanding, like a rigid way of thinking, and thus to empirically understand Śūnyatā are what Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā's "Not unity, not plurality" trying to advocate. And they are also the true essence of Śūnyatā.

Ban Ji

Śūnyatā and Inclusion 2

Śūnyatā is transmitted as ‘giving all up’ in many occasions. But few doubt it. If it is true, how could Buddhist followers balance the pressures of nothingness and life?

I was told a folktale about travel that the Buddhist texts in Thailand were flooded when crossing a river and the print became blurry. Therefore they were interpreted variously with different individuals. After hearing this, I was nervous and enquired the taleteller right away if he was talking about novels like The Journey to The West or The legend and The hero? No one dare to say that true Buddhist texts can be interpreted at personal will. What if they are misinterpreted, how can they be practiced? Buddhist texts are the rigorous theories and practice methods from Buddha and his pupils. If they can be interpreted variously with different individuals, how can later Buddhist followers settle down and get on with their practice?

Besides, what is the value of Śūnyatā if it is void and giving up all?

Or if ‘Śūnyatā includes all’, what is it trying to convey? Nonobstruction among individual phenomena? It doesn’t seem to exist in the world. (It does in Utopia)

However, if Śūnyatā is about "No-unity, no differentiation", it makes a huge difference. I myself am not only one but also Śūnyatā. Because I am the assembly of all the conditions. Who is the self if any of the conditions being missed?

Those who have studied Chinese and Western philosophy will be marveled once they understand Mūlamadhyamakakārikā's "Not unity, not plurality".

Not merely theories, Buddhist teachings can be applied to practice. Therefore, theories and practical practice can advance simultaneously in reality. Those Buddhist teachings failing to be practiced are just absurd personal interpretations.

Ban Ji

Śūnyatā and Inclusion3

Buddhist theoreticians have done lots of specialized interpretations of Śūnyatā. I focus on the practical part of Śūnyatā and use it for self-practice. I find it interesting to disassemble myself with ‘concepts of conditions’.

I often consider conditions/elements of Yin (Cause) and Yuán (Conditions) when dealing with personnel matters and problems of things. When conditions are not complete, I strive to make up the deficiency. And while conditions disappear, I practice accepting it. Wandering back and forth between them, I demand myself to accept Śūnyatā of the gathering and disappearing of conditions. And the path progresses between gathering and disappearing of conditions.

Note: I have dedicated myself to reading ‘simple and dynamic’ koans from Chinese Zen recently. Swapping suddenly into writing such complex articles about Śūnyatā are virtually torturing myself. One should treat himself fine when he is old. (Laugh, laugh.)

  Master Ban Ji
  Translated by Grace Tsai
   Proofread by Sophiea Kuo

 

 

空與包容 1

空與包容 1 Śūnyatā and Inclusion 1

 空法的傳達裡面充滿誤會，最常見的是「空是無」，也就是什麼都是空的，所以不要追逐名利與執著！

再來是對空的美好誤解，「空是一種無所不包的虛空」！

 

龍樹菩薩說：「因緣所生法，我說即是空」。因緣是條件的意思，人需要空氣，食物與水的主要條件生存，不能因為講空而認為泥土也是食物的條件（包容）。

 

泥土是生活裡面另一種條件，條件相容便是激發與和合的作用，而固體與固體可以和合是「空」的作用。

破解固體的阻力與誤解，包括大腦固定的認知，進而達到對「空」的體會與認識，就是龍樹菩薩《中觀論》的「不一不異」理論，也是空的精神之一。

There are many misunderstandings about the concept of śūnyatā (emptiness). The most common one is equating śūnyatā with nothingness—believing that since everything is empty, one should abandon all pursuits of fame, wealth, and attachments. 

 

Another common misconception is the idea that śūnyatā is an all---encompassing void that contains everything. 

 

Nāgārjuna said, "Everything is based on Nidānas, that I said is Śūnyatā." Conditions refer to the necessary factors for existence. For example, humans need air, food, and water to survive. But just because we speak of śūnyatā, it does not mean that soil is also a necessary condition for food (inclusiveness). 

 

Soil plays another role in life—it is a different condition. The compatibility of conditions allows for interaction and harmony. The fact that solid objects can merge or combine is a function of śūnyatā. 

 

Breaking through the resistance and fixed perceptions of the mind helps one understand and experience emptiness. This aligns with Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) and its principle of “neither unity nor diversity,” which embodies the essence of śūnyatā.  

空與包容  2 Śūnyatā and Inclusion 2

 

許多有關佛法「空」的傳遞裡面，「空」是放棄一切的說法。果真如此，那追隨佛法的人們又將如何

在「無與生活」的壓力間平衡？！這些說法很少人會提出質疑？

我曾經聽過旅遊的民間故事，傳說泰國的佛經因為載運過河道被水淹過，字跡模糊了，所以佛法就變成個人的解釋！我聽這段故事大為緊張，連忙問說的人；請問：你在說西遊記或封神榜嗎？那是小說耶！

真實的佛教裡面，沒有人敢說佛經可以隨便解釋！因為說錯跟聽錯了要如何修行？佛教有佛陀丶追隨的弟子及嚴謹的修行理論與方法，如果是個人的解釋，將讓修學佛法的大德們，何處安身心？！

 

同樣的，空法如果只是放棄的意思，那「空」有何價值？！

空法如果是包容太虛的解釋，又想說明什麼？事事無礙嗎？人世間似乎沒有事事無礙（這是理想國）！

 

但空法如果是「不一不異」，就大大的不同。

「我是一、也是空，因為是條件下的我，但離開條件的自己又是誰？」

相信讀過中、西哲學的人，如果讀通《中觀論》「不一不異」的思想，會大大禮讚的！

 

佛法不是理論而已，佛法可以修持出來，所以，理論跟現實是同等的延伸，不能延伸的佛法才是隨人。解釋的荒謬。

Many interpretations of *śūnyatā* claim that it means giving up everything. But if that were true, how could Buddhist practitioners balance the pressures of life and so-called nothingness? Surprisingly, few people question this view. 

 

I once heard a folk tale about Buddhist scriptures in Thailand. The story goes that they were transported across a river, got soaked, and the ink blurred—so from then on, Buddhism became open to personal interpretation! 

 

Hearing this, I was alarmed and quickly asked the storyteller, “Are you talking about Journey to the West or The Investiture of the Gods? Those are novels!” 

 

In real Buddhism, no one dares to say that scriptures can be interpreted however one likes. If both teachers and listeners misunderstand the teachings, how can true practice be achieved? Buddhism is a philosophy with rigorous theories and practice methods from Buddha and his pupils. If everything were left to personal interpretation, how could devoted practitioners find peace and guidance? 

 

Similarly, if śūnyatā only meant abandonment, what value would it have? 

And if it were merely an all-inclusive void, what exactly would it explain? That everything is without obstacles? But in reality, nothing is completely free of obstacles—this is an idealized fantasy. 

 

However, if śūnyatā is understood as “neither unity nor different,” then it takes on a completely different meaning. 

“I am myself, and yet I am empty—because I exist under specific conditions. But without those conditions, who am I?” 

Anyone familiar with both Eastern and Western philosophy would deeply appreciate Nāgārjuna’s principle of “neither unity nor diversity” after reading the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. 

 

Buddhism is not just theory—it is something that can be practiced and realized. True Buddhist teachings extend seamlessly from philosophy into real life. Buddhist teachings that cannot be applied is merely an absurd misinterpretation.

 

 

空與包容 3 Śūnyatā and Inclusion3

 

關於「空」的解釋，佛教的論師學派做了很多專精的詮釋，而我個人偏重於跟自身修行有關的「空」，用「條件的概念」拆解自己，相當有趣！

 

我自己做人與做事常常去思考著「因緣的條件」，條件不足盡力補足條件散去，盡力接受常常要求自己接受因緣聚散的「空」

 

路在聚散間不斷演繹！

（最近浸在禪宗「簡單的行動公案」裡，又寫這種複雜的「空」論，簡直在虐待自己的大腦！人老了要對善待自己，哈哈！）

半寄

Buddhist scholars have provided many specialized interpretations of śūnyatā. Personally, I focus on its relevance to my own practice—using the concept of “conditions” to deconstruct the self. It’s quite fascinating! 

Master Ban Ji

 

In both life and work, I often reflect on the Yin (Cause) and Yuán (Conditions). When conditions are lacking, I do my best to fulfill them. When they disperse, I strive to accept it. I constantly remind myself to embrace the arising and passing of conditions—this is *śūnyatā*. 

 

The path continuously unfolds through these cycles of gathering and dispersing! 

(Lately, I’ve been immersed in Zen’s “simple action koans,” yet here I am writing about the complex philosophy of śūnyatā. It feels like I’m torturing my own brain! One should be kinder to himself as he grows old.—haha!)