by Tang Huyen

There is deed, there is return of deed, but there cannot be
obtained the doer — except for a linguistic convention on things.

The Buddha says in the Scripture on the Ultimate Emptiness
(Paramartha-sunyata-sutra), SA, 335, 92c; Harivarman,
Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 255b1, 332c7–9, 333a17;
Dà zhì dù lùn, T, 25, 1509, 295a4:

"The eye, when it arises, does not come from anywhere, and
when it ceases, does not go anywhere. Thus the eye, having
not become, becomes, and having once become, disappears.
There is deed, there is return (of deed), but there cannot be
obtained (nopalabhyate) the doer, who throws away these
aggregates and takes up other aggregates, except for a
linguistic-convention on things (dharma-samketa), namely,
this being, that is; this arising, that arises; this not being, that
is not; this not arising, that does not arise (asti karmasti
vipakah karakas tu nopalabhyate ya imams ca skandhan
niksipaty anyams ca skandhan pratisamdadhaty anyatra
dharma-samketat, tatrayam dharma-samketo yad utasmim
satidam bhavaty asyotpadad idam utpadyate, asminn asati
idam na bhavati, asya nirodhad idam nirudhyate)."

The important part is: "There is deed (karman), there is
return of deed, but there cannot be obtained the doer,
who throws away these aggregates and takes up other
aggregates, except for a linguistic convention on things
(dharma-samketa), namely, this being, that is; this arising,
that arises; this not being, that is not; this not arising, that
does not arise."

Each "this" or "that" is a conventional carving, somewhat
arbitrary — nothing absolute or ultimate.

Colophon

Posted to talk.religion.buddhism on January 23, 2005, in response to a thread on free will in Buddhism, citing an online resource on the topic. Author: Tang Huyen. Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

Tang Huyen's contribution to the free will thread is characteristically to reach past the philosophical question and produce a canonical text that dissolves the question from the inside. The Scripture on Ultimate Emptiness does not argue about whether the doer is free — it simply states that the doer is unobtainable (nopalabhyate). What is obtainable is only the linguistic convention that tracks dependent origination: this arising because that is, this ceasing because that ceases. The doer is neither free nor bound; it is a conventional carving of the same causal stream, somewhat arbitrary, nothing absolute.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.

🌲