Buddhist Writings.
The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.
The Middle Doctrine
1. Translated from the Samyutta-Nikya (xxii. 9016)That things have being, O Kaccana, constitutes one extreme of doctrine; that things have no being is the other extreme. These extremes, O Kaccana, have been avoided by The Tathagata, and it is a middle doctrine he teaches:—
Thus have I heard.
On a certain occasion The Blessed One was dwelling at Svatthi in Jetavana monastery in Anthapindika’s Park. And there The Blessed One addressed the priests.
“Priests,” said he.
“Lord,” said the priests to The Blessed One in reply.
And The Blessed One spoke as follows:
“O priests, on ignorance depends karma; … Thus does this entire aggregation of misery arise.”
“Reverend Sir, what are old age and death? and what is it has old age and death?”
“The question is not rightly put,” said The Blessed One. “O priest to say: ‘What are old age and death? and what is it has old age and death?’ and to say: ‘Old age and death are one thing, but it is another thing which has old age and death,’ is to say the same thing in different ways. If, O priest, the dogma obtain that the soul and the body are identical, then there is no religious life; or if, O priest, the dogma obtain that the soul is one thing and the body another, then also there is no religious life. Both these extremes, O priest, have been avoided by The Tathgata, and it is a middle doctrine he teaches: ‘On birth depend old age and death.’”
“Reverend Sir, what is birth? and what is it has birth?”
“Reverend Sir, what is existence? … attachment? … desire? … sensation? … contact? … the six organs of sense? … name and form? … consciousness? … karma? and what is it has karma?”
“The question is not rightly put,” said The Blessed One. “O priest, to say: ‘What is karma? and what is it has karma?’ and to say: ‘Karma is one thing, but it is another thing which has karma,’ is to say the same thing in different ways. If, O priest, the dogma obtain that the soul and the body are identical, then there is no religious life; or if, O priest, the dogma obtain that the soul is one thing and the body another, then also there is no religious life. Both these extremes, O priest, have been avoided by The Tathagata, and it is a middle doctrine he teaches: ‘On ignorance depends karma.’
“But on the complete fading out and cessation of ignorance, O priest, all these refuges, puppet-shows, resorts, and writhings,—to wit: What are old age and death? and what is it has old age and death? or, old age and death are one thing, but it is another thing which has old age and death; or, the soul and the body are identical, or the soul is one thing, and the body another,—all such refuges of whatever kind are abandoned, uprooted, pulled out of the ground like a palmyra-tree, and become non-existent and not liable to spring up again in the future.
“But on the complete fading out and cessation of ignorance, O priest, all these refuges, puppet-shows, resorts, and writhings,—to wit: What is birth? … existence? … attachment? … desire? … sensation? … contact? … the six organs of sense? … name and form? … consciousness? … karma? and what is it has karma? or, karma is one thing, but it is another thing which
Inasmuch as it is dependently on each other and in unison and simultaneously that the factors which constitute dependence originate the elements of being, therefore did The Sage call these factors Dependent Origination.
For the ignorance etc. which have been enumerated as constituting dependence, when they originate any of the elements of being, namely, karma and the rest, can only do so when dependent on each other and in case none of their number is lacking. Therefore it is dependently on each other and in unison and simultaneously that the factors which constitute dependence originate the elements of being, not by a part of their number nor by one succeeding the other. Accordingly The Sage, skilful in the art of discovering the signification of things, calls this dependence by the name of Dependent Origination.
And in so doing, by the first of these two words is shown the falsity of such heresies as that of the persistence of existences, and by the second word, a rejection of such heresies as that existences cease to be, while by both together is shown the truth.
By the first:— The word “Dependent,” as exhibiting a full complement of dependence and inasmuch as the elements of being are subject to that full complement of dependence, shows an avoidance of such heresies as that of the persistence of existences, the heresies, namely, of the persistence of existences, of uncaused existences, of existences due to an overruling power, of self-determining existences. For what have persistent existences, uncaused existences, etc., to do with a full complement of dependence?
By the second word:— The word “Origination,” as exhibiting an origination of the elements of being and inasmuch as the elements of being originate by means of a full complement of dependence, shows a rejection of such heresies as that of the annihilation of existences, the heresies, namely, of the annihilation of existences, of
By both together:—By the complete phrase “Dependent Origination,” inasmuch as such and such elements of being come into existence by means of an unbroken series of their full complement of dependence, the truth, or middle course, is shown. This rejects the heresy that he who experiences the fruit of the deed is the same as the one who performed the deed, and also rejects the converse one that he who experiences the fruit of a deed is different from the one who performed the deed, and leaning not to either of these popular hypotheses, holds fast by nominalism.