Interpretation of Sunyata in China – from ‘Ben wu’ to ‘Xing kong’ and ‘Zixiu

Abstract

Just as the teaching on Anatta put forward by the Buddha in the 6th century B.C. created a great stir in the religious scene of the time, the teaching on Suñña, specially when systematically propounded by Ācārya Nāgārjuna, gave rise to much enthusiasm debate and even confusion. Ever since then, there has been a continuous interest shown by many on both the concepts. Some have spoken in their favor, upholding the concept as presenting the real essence of the Dhamma, others have spoken critically of them, and attempted to show that these are misconceptions about the true nature of reality. Whatever is the position taken up by scholars regarding these two major concepts Anatta and Suñña, there is no doubt about the fact that both these concepts were instrumental in provoking much philosophical debate and spurring the development of Buddhist thought throughout the ages. This development of Buddhist thought is now seen in the appearance of new interpretations that are presented to these concepts. The Anatta doctrine of early Buddhism was misunderstood by the Buddha‟s own disciples. For example, as seen in the Mahātahāsakhaya Sutta of the Majjhimanikāya (1) a monk called Sāti insisted on holding the mind to be similar to the Ātman, put forward by the upanishadic teachers. In many a Sutta the Buddha had explained clearly to the monks that all five aggregates (Pañcakkhandha) are impermanent. In Suttas such as Anattalakkhana (2) the second Sutta, preached to the five ascetic monks, Pohapāda Sutta in the Dīghanikāya (3) etc, the Buddha has taken up each aggregate and shown that there is no permanency in any of them, and then he has explained that such an impermanent aggregate or a collection of such impermanent aggregates cannot possess any permanency.(4).