Nothing essentially different?

Buddhists often read that Nagarjuna in his Mulamadhyamakakarika (hereafter MK) said:

“Samsara is nothing essentially different from nirvana.  Nirvana is nothing essentially different from samsara” (MK 25.19).

And

The limits of nirvana are the limits of samsara.  Between the two, also, there is not the slightest difference” (MK 25.20).

If this were actually so, then the unawakened prithagjanas (ordinary beings) who live, struggle, and die in the world of samsara, only to be reborn again, would be no different than the Buddha who won nirvana.  Of course, this is absurd.  When we look at John Powers’ translation of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra it says: 

"[I]f the character of the compounded and the character of the ultimate were not different, then, because of that, even all ordinary childish beings would see the truth and, while still mere ordinary beings, would attain [the highest achievement] and would even achieve the highest bliss of nirvana.  Moreover, they would completely and perfectly realize unsurpassed, perfect enlightenment.”

The Sutra goes on to say:

“[S]ince ordinary beings are not seers of truth, they are merely ordinary beings.  They have not attained [the highest achievement], nor have they achieved the highest bliss of nirvana.”

Samsara stands for the dependently originated, cycle of repeated birth (being) and death (non-being).  Nirvana is not this kind of world. Here the Buddha teaches us what nirvana is.

“Monks, there  is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded.  Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be apparent no escape from this here that is born, become, made, compounded.  But since, monks there is an unborn . . . therefore the escape from this here is born, become . . . is apparent” (Udana 80, 81).

It is contradictory to imply or say  that there is no essential difference between the conditioned world of samsara and the unconditioned absolute (nirvana).  Maybe from a semantic perspective, in which both are mere words which subsequently give rise to concepts, they are the same.  But the Buddha was not teaching semantics or linguistics to his followers; nor was he playing word games.  

Real nirvana is beyond the range of language and concepts.  Put another way, a concept of nirvana is not real nirvana.  It is actually still within the boundary of samsara.  We can appreciate this better by understanding that a concept of a bar of gold arises in our mind when we read, “bar of gold.” This is not real gold.  It is only semantic gold; it only relates to language, nothing else.  It cannot buy anything.

If samsara and nirvana are essentially the same why did the Buddha say this?

“And what is the noble search?  Here someone being himself subject to birth, having understood the danger in what is subject to birth, seeks the unborn supreme security from bondage, Nibbana; being himself subject to aging, having understood the danger in what is subject to aging, he seeks the ongoing supreme security from bondage, Nibbana; being himself subject to sickness, having understood the danger in what is subject to sickness, he seeks the unailing supreme security from bondage, Nibbana; being himself subject to death, having understood the danger in what is subject to death, he seeks the deathless supreme security from bondage, Nibbana; being himself subject to sorrow, having understood the danger in what is subject to sorrow, he seeks the sorrowless supreme security form bondage, Nibbana; being himself subject to defilement, having understood the danger in what is subject to defilement, he seeks the undefiled supreme security from bondage, Nibbana.  This is the noble search” (M. i. 162–163).

 

Comments

[Eidolon]

I highly, HIGHLY recommend Reb Anderson's new book, *The Third Turning of the Wheel*, a commentary on the Samdhinirmocana Sutra. He is one of Soto Suzuki Roshi's closest students, the ones who practice "just sitting", the shikantaza that makes your blood boil. It's one of the top 10 books I've ever read about Buddhism, and I've read lots of them over the past 40 years.

[Methexis]

Awakening of Faith Shastra, chapter one:

"The revelation of the true meaning of the principle of Mahayana can be achieved by unfolding the doctrine that the principle of One Mind has two aspects. One is the aspect of Mind in terms of the Absolute (tathata; Suchness), and the other is the aspect of Mind in terms of phenomena (samsara; birth and death). Each of these two aspects embraces all sstates of existence. Why? Because these two aspects are mutually inclusive."

Commentary by Fazang:

"Because the two aspects of One Mind, the Absolute aspect and the phenomenal aspect, are not differentiated, but include each other, the words 'in their totality' are used. The one World of Reality is nothing but the world of samsara. At the same time the world of samsara is nothing but the world of the Absolute. In order to indicate these meanings, the Essence which is the same in both aspects is mentioned."

Further commentary by Yoshito S. Hakeda:

"Reality is conceived as the intersection of the Absolute order and the phenomenal order; therefore, it contains in itself both the Absolute and the phenomenal order at once. The Absolute order is thought to be transcendental and yet is conceived as not being outside of the phenomenal order. Again the phenomenal order is thought to be temporal and yet is conceived as not being outside of the Absolute order. In other words, they are ontologically identical; they are two aspects of one and the same Reality. Perhaps the most famous and simplest statement of the relationship between the Absolute and phenomenal order can be found in the sayings of Nagarjuna: 'There is no difference whatsoever between nirvana (Absolute) and samsara (phenomena).' "