by Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen was a scholar of Buddhist studies who posted to talk.religion.buddhism and related groups from 2003 to 2008, working from primary Pali, Sanskrit, and Chinese sources. His contribution to the newsgroup was consistently analytical: where others debated in generalities, Tang Huyen cited canonical texts with chapter and verse.
This December 2007 post addresses one of the most frequently misread teachings in Buddhism: the middle path between existence and non-existence. Common readings of the Katyayana Sutra (SN III.132-135) treat the Buddha's avoidance of both "the world is" and "the world is not" as a general metaphysical position — a universal agnosticism about existence. Tang Huyen argues this is a mistake: the teaching is context-dependent. In ordinary life and on the path, the Buddha freely distinguishes between the real and the unreal, the true and the false. The avoidance of existence/non-existence is a teaching on transcendence, not on ordinary discourse.
He supports the argument through two additional canonical passages: AN IV.36, where the Buddha explicitly promises to teach "of the real that it exists, of the unreal that it does not exist"; and the Vatsagotra episode (SN IV.400-401), where the Buddha's silence about the self is explicitly said to be situation-specific — given because asserting either "the self is" or "the self is not" would have deepened Vatsagotra's particular confusion, not because neither is ever true in any context.
"Katyayana! When one contemplates correctly the arisal of the world (loka samudaya), one does not give rise to the view that the world is non-existent (natthita, Skt. nastita). When one contemplates correctly the cessation of the world (loka nirodha), one does not give rise to the view that the world is existent (atthita, Skt. astita). Katyayana! The Tathagata does not approach these two extremes (ubho anta, Skt. ubhav antav) and teaches the Law by the middle (majjhena, Skt. madhyamaya pratipada, by the middle path): to wit, this being, that is, this arising, that arises, namely, dependent on ignorance, the compositions [arise], etc. until: thus arises this whole mass of suffering; this not being, that is not, this ceasing, that ceases, namely ignorance ceasing, the compositions cease, etc. until: thus ceases this whole mass of suffering." SA, 262, 67a, SN, III, 132-135 (22, 90).
This teaching on abstention from existence and non-existence is a teaching on transcendence. In normal life, the Buddha has no qualm about using existence and non-existence about things that exist and don't exist. It all depends on the context — whether he is talking transcendence outside of thought and language or normal life within thought and language, this normal life within thought and language including the path prior to transcendence. Figuring out the context is the first part of understanding what he means, and if you miss it, you won't understand what he means.
"Whatsoever things, Ananda, conduce to realising of this or that statement of doctrine, confidently I claim, after thorough comprehension of it, to teach the Law about them in such a way that, when proficient, a man shall know of the real that it exists (yatha yatha patipanno santam va atthi ti ñassati, literally 'that it is'), of the unreal that it does not exist (asantam va natthi ti ñassati, literally 'that it is not'), of that which is inferior (hinam) that it is inferior, of that which is superior (panitam) that it is superior, of that which has something beyond it (sa-uttaram), that it has something beyond it, of that which is unsurpassed (an-uttaram), that it is unsurpassed." AN, IV, 36 (10, 22), SA, 703, 189.
Here he clearly and positively distinguishes between the real (sat) and the unreal (asat), and asserts of the former that it exists (atthi, literally "that it is") and of the latter that it does not exist (natthi, literally "that it is not").
Also relevant is what the Buddha tells Ananda after the dialogue (or absence of it) which he, the Buddha, had with Vatsagotra. The wanderer Vatsagotra (Pali Vacchagotta) asks the Buddha: "How is it, friend Gautama, the self is?" (atthatta, Skt. asty atmeti); the Buddha remains silent. Vatsagotra asks: "How is it, friend Gautama, the self is not?" (natthatta, Skt. nasty atmeti); the Buddha again remains silent. Vatsagotra asks three times, gets no answer, and leaves.
Ananda inquires as to the reason. The Buddha says: "If I had answered that the self is (atthatta, Skt. asty atmeti), that would have increased the wrong views which he had before he came. If I had answered that the self is not (natthatta, Skt. nasty atmeti), then confused as he already was, he would have become even more confused, thinking: 'Surely I had a self before, but now I have none (Skt. abhut me atma sa me etarhi nastiti).' If he thinks 'Surely I had a self before,' that would be the view of permanence (Skt. sasvataya paraiti), if he thinks 'but now I have none,' that would be the view of annihilation (Skt. ucchedaya-paraiti). The Tathagata does not approach the two extremes and teaches the Law by the middle (Pali majjhena): to wit, this being, that is, this arising, that arises, namely, dependent on ignorance, the compositions [arise], etc. until: thus arises this whole mass of suffering." SA, 961, 245b, SN, IV, 400-401 (44, 10).
In this exchange with the wanderer Vatsagotra, the Buddha is reacting to a particular situation, and his answer — or absence of it — has meaning only with regard to the wanderer Vatsagotra. The Buddha tells Ananda plainly so:
"If I had answered that the self is (atthatta, Skt. asty atmeti), that would have increased the wrong views which he had before he came. If I had answered that the self is not (natthatta, Skt. nasty atmeti), then confused as he already was, he would have become even more confused, thinking: 'Surely I had a self before, but now I have none.'"
The second part of this teaching — "if he thinks 'but now I have none,' that would be the view of annihilation (Skt. ucchedaya-paraiti)" — is valid only when contrasted with the first part: "If he thinks 'Surely I had a self before,' that would be the view of permanence (Skt. sasvataya paraiti)."
The wanderer Vatsagotra thought that he had a self before, and to tell him that he had no self would make him think that he had a self before but now no longer had one — and that would be annihilation. It would be annihilation only because he thought that he had a self before.
The reply given by the Buddha to Ananda is valid only for the particular situation of the wanderer Vatsagotra. The teaching on the middle path does not prohibit saying "this is real" and "that is not real" in ordinary discourse. It addresses transcendence: the mode of knowing that goes beyond the duality of existence and non-existence, beyond thought and language entirely, in the state the Buddha elsewhere calls "the cessation of the compositions" (sabba-sankhara-samatho).
Colophon
Written by Tang Huyen (Laughing Buddha, Inc.) and posted to alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, and talk.religion.buddhism, December 2007. The post addresses the context-dependence of the Buddha's teaching on existence and non-existence, drawing on SA 262 67a, SN III.132-135 (22, 90); AN IV.36 (10, 22), SA 703 189; and SA 961 245b, SN IV.400-401 (44, 10) — the Katyayana Sutra, the Ananda discourse on the real, and the Vatsagotra episode. Original Message-ID: [email protected].
Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.
🌲