by Tang Huyen

In February 2007, Tang Huyen responded on talk.religion.buddhism to a poster defending the notion that a person who believed in the first noble truth but not in rebirth could logically consider suicide as an end to suffering. The response dispatched that argument quickly, then expanded into one of Tang Huyen's most important statements on the instrumentalist character of all Buddhist teaching.

The key canonical anchor is striking: the Buddha's own declaration in the four Holy Truths that the second truth — the arisal of suffering through craving — must be "given up" (pahātabbaṃ). Mrs. C. A. F. Rhys-Davids, editing the standard English translation, quietly excised "ariya-saccaṃ" from the text to avoid the discomfiting implication that a Holy Truth could and should be discarded. Tang Huyen notes this with characteristic dry warmth.

The essay then distinguishes Buddhism from theistic "Book" religions at their deepest structural level: in the Book, the Word is ultimate, real, and true forever, even after the world ends. In Buddhism, all teachings are fluff — provisional pointers, working tools, neither true nor false in any ultimate sense, discarded once they have helped one cross from suffering to its ending. And Nirvāṇa itself, in this light, is not a possession to be attained but a blowing-out in the instant: what happens happens, is experienced, and is blown out in the instant in which it happens, without remainders.

The Second Holy Truth Must Be Given Up

All Buddhist teachings are mere hypotheses, working hypotheses, and once they have done their job, they are discarded, truth or not truth. In the enunciation of the four Holy Truths, the Buddha says of the second one: this Holy Truth of the arisal of suffering must be given up (taṃ kho panīdaṃ dukkha-samudayaṃ ariya-saccaṃ pahātabbaṃ, Skt. tat khalu duḥkha-samudayam ārya-satyaṃ abhijñāya prahātavyam). SA 379, 103c19; SN V.422 (56, 11, 10); Saṅgha-bheda-vastu I.135; Mahā-vastu III.333.

He says what he says, and means it. After one has realised the four Holy Truths (and not all Buddhist saints, but only a few of them, do so), they are gone for good, period, end of discussion, all of them and not just the second one. Contrariwise, if one still hangs on to them or some of them, one has not realised them yet.

But Mrs. C. A. F. Rhys-Davids, in n. 1 appended to Woodward's translation of the Kindred Sayings V.358, says: "But we must omit ariya-saccaṃ; otherwise the text would mean the Ariyan truth about the arising of Ill is to be put away. Craving has to be put away." (See J. J. Jones, tr., Mahavastu, London: Pali Text Society, 1956, III.326, n. 1).

Mrs. Rhys-Davids, no shrinking violet when it comes to expounding and defending her attachment to the self (atta), shrinks back from the unholy thought that a Holy Truth can and should be put away! Heaven forbid! Is there anything holy anymore? Her pious attachment is quite moving.

Teachings as Tools

One aspect of a method (dharma) that works for the ending of suffering — and Buddhism is all about the ending of suffering — is that it should work for the ending of suffering, be effective in the ending of suffering, and it makes no difference whether the method is factually true or not, so long as it does its job.

For instance: the teaching that all composeds/compoundeds are impermanent. It makes no difference whether in some parts of the universe, there could be permanent composeds/compoundeds, because in our world we don't run into any such, and even if there were permanent composeds/compoundeds in our universe that could become known to us, the teaching is effective for the ending of attachment, and by means of the ending of attachment, it is effective for the ending of suffering. That's all that counts, and whether it is factually true or not makes no difference: in our purview (which is all that matters to us), it works for the ending of suffering.

The Buddha said:

"The Dependent Arisal has not been made by me [and does not exist from its own side, in and of itself, from time immemorial]. Rather, O Kasyapa, the Dependent Arisal exists regardless of whether or not a Tathāgata arises in the world. That very principle, that very founding (that dharma-tā), is the regularity of the dharma (dharma-niyāmatā), the status of the Dependent Arisal (pratītya-samūtpāda-sthatītā). I have fully realised that and, having fully realised it and having awakened to it, I announced it, revealed it and detailed it, made it clear, clarified it and explained it to others. 'Look, monks! Conditioned by birth, ageing-and-death.' Regardless of whether Tathāgatas arise or not, this element stands, this stasis of the Dhamma, this regularity of the Dhamma, this specific conditionality." SN II.25 (12, 20).

Dependent Arisal is what it is (whatever that is) and does not depend on the Buddha's having or not having taught it. But whatever it is, it is merely a tool, a temporary tool, a provisional prop, and is not anything ultimate. It is merely a tool to help one cross over from this shore of suffering to the other shore of the ending of suffering, because it is then to be forsaken once it has done its job. Its ontological status is moot.

Buddhism Versus the Book

This instrumentalist view in Buddhism contrasts sharply with the common view of the history of salvation in the theistic religions, where God laid his Law down in Word, and in order to be redeemed his creatures have to believe in his Word, that is, in the doctrinal content of his Revelation. Even then they still have to practice that content in real life. But practice is in addition to content, on top of content, and content is valid always and forever on its own side, even after the fullness of time, when the saved are already saved forever and the damned are already damned forever.

In the theistic views, the world, all of creation, is forever dependent on the Word of God which created it. The Word of God is true and permanent, from its own side, in and of itself, and never outlives its usefulness and actuality. It created the world, will survive the world and will remain true forever and ever more, even when there are no living beings around to be witnesses to it (as before creation). It is quite literally the Last Word. The world (including living beings in it) is not ultimate, but the Word that created is.

In Buddhism, all teachings, theoretical as well as practical, are mere fluff. All teachings are mere pointers (and not realities in and of themselves), which point to something beyond themselves, that something being the calm, peace, ease and grace of blowing-out (Nirvāṇa), where all mentation has been quiesced.

Nirvana as Blowing-Out in the Instant

And that state is even fluffier than our normal deluded reality, as the latter has norms and standards to firm it up and make it stand still, whereas the former is released from all norms and standards, has no support, foundation or fulcrum, and to be experienced in the "letting pass" mode in the very instant. The world can be whatever it wants to be, and one doesn't attempt to fit it into one's norms and standards. What happens happens, one experiences it and lets it pass in the very instant. That's what Nirvāṇa "blowing-out" means: it means that what happens is blown out in the instant in which it happens, like the flame of a candle. What happens happens, one experiences it and lets it pass in the very instant, without remainders, so that is Nirvāṇa without residues. There is no mystery beyond the instant. Redemption can occur in the instant.

Colophon

Originally posted to talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen, and alt.buddha.short.fat.guy by Tang Huyen, February 8, 2007. Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

This essay is Tang Huyen's clearest statement of the instrumentalist view of all Buddhist teaching — that no Buddhist teaching, including the Holy Truths themselves, is meant to be grasped permanently. The canonical anchor is arresting: the Buddha explicitly declares that the second Noble Truth "must be given up," a phrase Mrs. Rhys-Davids suppressed in the standard English edition. Tang Huyen's distinction between Buddhism (where all teachings are provisional tools pointing beyond themselves) and Book religions (where the Word is ultimate and permanent from its own side) is a structural insight of lasting value. The closing description of Nirvāṇa as "blowing-out in the instant" — no mystery beyond the instant, redemption possible in the instant — is among his most memorable formulations.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

🌲