I’m gone. I’m not gone. I’m not gone. I’ve already left, and I’m not leaving again.
中論 (佛教)/02 - 维基文库，自由的图书馆
This chapter is a summary of Chapter 2, “Kwan Kwai Lai Pieces” in Buddhist sect originating in the seventh century. The main points of discussion are as follows
- analyze the relationship between “去” (movement) and “去者” (one who moves)
- a critical examination of the concept of “leaving” in the three tenses of past, present, and future
- denies the unity and difference between “go” and “goer”
- the same logic applies to the analysis of “dwelling” (stationary) and “dweller” (one who is stationary)
- questioning the reality of the phenomenal world visible to the eye
- dragon tree (Dracaena draco) argues that
- There is no “gone” in “already gone.”
- There is no “gone” in “not gone” (not yet gone) either.
- There is no independent “going away” in “leaving time” (when one is leaving).
- The “leaveer” and the “leaving law” (to leave) are interdependent and do not exist independently
- It is not logically possible for the “leaving” and the “leaving” to be the same or separate.
In conclusion, Ryūju argues that “去”, “去者”, and “所去処” (place to go) all do not exist as entities, but are interdependent temporary entities (pseudonyms), like illusions. Through this analysis, Ryūju questions the reality of the phenomenal world and develops the idea of emptiness (śūnyatā).
Here’s the important part.
When you leave, you leave.
- to go away for a reason, 2. to go away for a reason.
If there is a departure at the time of departure, there are two kinds of departure One is called the time of leaving, and two are called the time of leaving This part can be explained as follows
- If we insist that there is a “going away” (going) at the “going away time” (in the midst of going), then there are two kinds of “going away” out there.
- The “time of leaving” itself (the time or state of being gone)
- Gone at the time of leaving (the action of going while in the process of going).
Ryuju points out here that the assertion that “there is a ko when there is a ko” contains a logical contradiction. This is because to assert so would unnecessarily duplicate the concept of “going away”. This is part of the logic of the Middle View school, which criticizes the substantiation of the concept and argues to show its emptiness.
- Since the gatherer and the left are unparalleled in history (unparallelled) entities, it is strange that “the left exists independently of the gatherer” in the first place, and if they are not independent, then there are two gatherers, which is strange!
What is the relationship between the time of departure and the “time of departure and departure of the uniquely different?
The relationship between the time of leaving and the relationship between “the one who leaves and the other who leaves”:
- The time of leaving (in the midst of going) is considered to be the scene in which the relationship between the gatherer and the leaving becomes manifest. However, the time of leaving itself also follows the principle of “[unparalleled in history (unparallelled):
- The leaving time is not completely independent of the gatherer and the leaving (or else we would not know what “time” it is).
- However, the time of leaving is not identical to the person leaving or the leaving itself (since the concept of time is different from the act or the actor).
Ryuju’s argument attempts to show that these concepts (gatherer, gatherer, and gatetime) are interdependent and do not exist as independent entities. This points to the emptiness (lack of independent selfhood) of all phenomena. Such analysis demonstrates the limits of everyday cognition and language use and encourages deeper insight into ultimate reality.
So here’s what I’m saying.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/觀去來品 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.