What is beyond "no"?

We have all heard that Reality-as-such is beyond any duality, beyond any affirmation or denial. It is often said that emptiness is not "no," but what is it exactly? -- The fact that we're so frequently discouraged in Zen from asking questions with presumptuous words like "what" makes it all the more pressing that we try to find a way forward.

Let's turn to its logical formulation for a second. What this amounts to goes by many names, but in the West it usually goes by "apophatic" or "negative" theology. It's an idea you find in a lot of cultures, and it seems pretty clear to me that this is the driving factor behind why so many holy texts are filled with mountains of negations. The idea behind it is pretty simple: it's more accurate to say what Reality *isn't* than what it *is*. This is motivated by metaphysical technicalities that I won't get into in my OP, but it can be said that our project is basically trying to put Boundless Reality into a limited, bounded explanation, and for this reason it's difficult to *speak* about Reality-as-such. The ink-blood of many minds has been spilled over the relationship between language and metaphysics, and I won't try to solve it here.

Anyway, the idea is just simple negation. However, Reality is beyond yes and no, being wholly inclusive (it being contradiction in terms for a real thing not to be included in Truth). So Wu/Mu (無) is not just "no", since it indicates reality.

Negation isn't the whole picture. I want to try, with all of you, to speak more clearly about what is. Particularly, is there a logical form that's closer than mere negation? At some point I expect this to break down since Reality-as-such is beyond individuation and affirmation/denial, the two foundations of logic, but I think it can be taken a little further.


Perhaps Zhuangzi's wordplay with 是 is relevant here: when paired with 非, the pair indicates affirmation and denial. When paired with 彼, they indicate "this" and "that" (i.e. individuation).

What is interesting here is the link between these two concept (which happen to be the foundation of logic) being 是. Zhuangzi sees that there is a fundamental relationship between, if I may put it this way, where one stands (perspective) and what one sees (what one affirms/denies). I affirm this and not that because I am this way.

It is like this: on an indefinitely large plane, any point can be taken as the center; but you must pick a center in order to start making measurements. (This seems to be the idea behind *rational* coming from *ratio*: that rationality is from comparing things.) In order to say anything, I need a place to stand, so to speak. But as soon as I have a place to stand Reality is /this/ way and not /that/ way. So when I tried to say something about it I had to get my hands messy and join the fray! I couldn't say anything about Reality "objectively", but had to hop right in in order to speak.

This project seems self-defeating, since every time we try to get closer to Reality than "no", we are met with "abandon individuation and affirmation/denial, for they are unreal." But these appear to be the very foundations of language and logic, of sayability! So must we rethink saying? How can something closer than "no" be said? -- Try as you might, the question stubbornly refuses to go away despite our pulling the rug out from under it.

So, in trying to go beyond "no", there appears to be this radical affirmation of limitedness. I keep coming back to the saying:

Before enlightenment, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers.
During enlightenment, mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers.
After enlightenment, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers.

I think the individuality of a thing is being affirmed as its Reality. But this "individuality" must not be construed the way we usually do.

So we are pulled in two directions, neither affirming it nor denying it are fully "it." But "no" says something crucial, and when we look closely at this "no" we find a radical affirmation of the Reality of the individual-as-such.


f this is completely obscure to you, why don't you read up on "emptiness", "dependent (co)origination/arising", and "expedient means" in Buddhism in the meantime? It'll make this whole "emptiness is not 'no'" business a lot clearer. The Diamond Sutra in particular is good for teaching this, and the basic form in it is "x is not x (being empty), therefore we talk about 'x'" The Lotus Sutra has a couple of chapters early on expedient means, which is CRUCIAL to understanding Buddhism (and why it is slander to say that the Buddha taught anything, according to Buddha himself).

The important thing to keep in mind is what things are empty OF: inherent, separate existence. "Essences."


So the way I see it, a large part of what makes Zen so weird is the extent to which they take two concepts: UPAYA and PRATITYASAMUTPADA/SHUNYATA.

PRATITYASAMUTPADA ("dependent origination/arising") - This is simply the teaching of relativity. Things do not exist by themselves, being constituted by their relationships (Thich: "a self is a marriage of non-self elements"). This is known as the teaching of ANATTA or "no-self." In Mahayana Buddhism, it is seen that the relative existence of things means that they are "shunya" (empty) of inherent, separate existence. Their arising ("birth") is dependent in many ways including causally and semantically. Thus Buddhists speak of the SHUNYATA ("emptiness") of things. Since things have "no self", it is said over and over in the Diamond Sutra that "x is not x, so we speak of 'x'." It is SLANDER to say that the Buddha taught because there was nothing to teach! Nothing was born and nothing dies. "Things" are not actually /things/ but rather the entire world is this strange, pulsating mass of relationships. A house isn't a house, it's an arrangement of beams. The beams aren't even "beams", just wood. I cut some wood into boards. When I put them in the wall they are studs (and they can be jack, queen, etc.), when I put them in the floor they become floorboards, when in the ceiling they're beams.

Let me put it this way. In Western philosophy, it was noticed that positing an "essence" of a thing ran into the following problem. If I say that there is a "chair" there, which is not merely its sittability or the wood it's made from or its shape or of its other "qualities", can you point to the chair independent of its qualities? It ought to be possible if indeed the "chair" is a real thing, which isn't just the marriage of its parts. The Buddha taught with anatta that this question arises from a fundamental confusion about the existence of "selves." He remedied that with his teachings on emptiness.

I won't get too much into it, but for these reasons Mahayana is metaphysically "nondualist," and Zen is absolutely committed to this. There is no separation between the relative and Absolute (or appearance and Reality).


PAYA ("expedient means", "[Buddhist] teaching") - for reasons in the West that led God to be declared "ineffable" and metaphysics to be "impossible" or "senseless", it is very difficult if at all possible to point directly to Reality, since Reality leaves nothing out and in order for speech to be meaningful it must exclude. Not only this (and more importantly), ACTION IS A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN THOUGHT in Buddhism (to put it crudely, though Buddhists are certainly far from anti-intellectual) and so the emphasis is not on correct speech in Buddhism, but on enlightening others. This means that the Buddha's teachings are not to be clung to as absolute. It is said: "the teaching on impermanence is permanent, and the teaching on permanence is impermanent."

So all upaya really means is that you don't take what the Buddha says too far. Don't construct idols. Don't take the words of the teaching for the Reality taught. Do not confuse the letter with the Spirit.

Upaya is like a balancing act, and Buddhism is the MIDDLE PATH. If you stray too far into essentialist/reificationist territory, a buddha will remind you of emptiness; straying too far into nihilism buddhas will remind you about relativity (or just smack you and tell you to look right in front of your face!).

Given this background, one way to interpret my question is that I'm asking how to resolve the disparity between emptiness and the logical form of negation. In other words, "not x" doesn't quite square with emptiness (Reality) and I want to find a better one. Of course, "not not x" immediately comes to mind, but that's not entirely satisfying...


One day Buddha produced a gatha:

You were never stricken by poverty,
Nor have you lost wealth and nobility.
Only in order to pursue the Truth, you have left home.
You will be able to endure the hardship.

This is the essence of Buddha's teaching on suffering: sit up straight, clear your head, and act in the dignified manner of the sages. Your suffering is an opportunity to turn the Dharma Wheel helping others along the Way. Great Sages like Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, and Confucius ask us to do ourselves a favor and bring out the best in ourselves. Buddhism is a PHILOSOPHY OF ACTION and it demands that we strive to improve ourselves. In Abrahamic terms, we ought to embody the Image of God that we are and carry out the Lord's work on earth. It's not easy, if it were, it wouldn't be worth it.

Master Dogen tells us that we ought to remember that buddhas have toilets too. What he means is that real men carry themselves with dignity when they take a *beep* Real men carry themselves with dignity when they go through some *beep*

Strive to carry yourself like a buddha moment to moment. This is called: "True Man", as it is what is most worthy and dignified in man, his very raison d'etre. "True Man" is true to himself and his fellow man. That's it.


The sound of the rain needs no translation.