The Coyote Who Made Good His Escape


From Nagarjuna's Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom
(Dharmamitra Translation)

Moreover, the person who upholds the precepts becomes weary and abhorrent of the sufferings of the world and the calamities of aging, sickness and death. His mind brings forth vigor and the resolve that he will certainly seek his own liberation while also bringing about the deliverance of others.

This is analogous to the coyote who lived in the forest and, as a means of surviving, relied on following along after the lions, tigers and leopards, seeking after the meat from their leftover carcasses. There was a period of time when there was a shortage of food for him and so in the middle of the night he slipped into the city and made his way deep into a man's household. He was seeking for meat but did not find any. He fell asleep in a screened-off spot and, unaware that the night had already ended, awoke, startled, frightened and at a loss for what to do. If he tried to run out, he figured he would be unable to save himself, but if he remained he feared he would fall victim to the pain of death. He then fixed his mind on laying there on the ground, pretending to be dead. Many people came to see. There was one man who said, "I have need of the ears of a coyote." He then cut them off and took them away.

The coyote thought to himself, "Although it hurts to have one's ears cut off, still, the body is allowed thereby to remain alive."

Next, there was a man who said, "I have need of the tail of a coyote." He then cut that off as well and then departed.

The coyote next thought, "Although it hurts to have one's tail cut off, still, it's a minor matter."

Next, there was a man who said, "I have need of a coyote's teeth."

The coyote thought, "The scavengers are becoming more numerous. Suppose they were to take my head. If they did, I would have no way to survive." He then jumped up off the ground and, arousing the strength of his intelligence, suddenly sprang for a narrow exit and straightaway succeeded in saving himself.

In seeking liberation from the difficulty of suffering, the mind of the cultivator is just like this. If old age arrives he may still find reason to forgive himself and be unable to be diligent, earnest and lacking in decisive application of vigor. It is the same with sickness. Because there is hope for a cure he is still unable to be decisive in his strategy. But when death is about to come he knows himself that there is no further hope. He is then able to exhort himself and as a result he is able to dare to be diligent and earnest and devote himself mightily to the cultivation of vigor. Then, escaping from the spot where death is upon him he finally succeeds in reaching nirvana.


How Offense, Non-offense and Beings Can't Be Gotten At


From Nagarjuna's Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom
(Dharmamitra Translation)

Question: If one is able to relinquish evil and practice goodness, it is this which constitutes upholding the precepts. How can it be said that offense and non-offense cannot be gotten at?

Response: This is not referring to the "can't be gotten at" of erroneous views and of course thought and speech. If one enters deeply into the mark of all dharmas and practices the samaadhi of emptiness, because one uses the wisdom eye to contemplate, offenses cannot be gotten at. Because offenses are nonexistent, non-offense cannot be gotten at either.

Moreover, because beings cannot be gotten at the offense of killing cannot be gotten at either. Because the offense cannot be gotten at, the precept cannot be gotten at either. How is this? It is on account of the existence of the offense of killing that the precept exists. If there were no offense of killing then there would be no precept either.

Question: It is manifestly the case that beings do now exist. Why do you say that beings cannot be gotten at?

Response: That which is seen by the fleshly eye constitutes non-seeing. If one contemplates with the wisdom eye then one does not find any being. This is just as explained above in the section on daana paaramitaa wherein it was stated that there is no donor, no recipient and material object offered as a gift.

Additionally, if as you say, a being does exist, is it identical with the five aggregates or does it exist apart from the five aggregates? If it is identical with the five aggregates, the five aggregates are fivefold whereas a being is singular. If that were the case then five could constitute one and one could constitute five. To use the trading of goods in the market as an analogy, one is unable to get something worth five units in exchange for only a single unit. Why? Because one cannot equal five. Therefore one knows that the five aggregates cannot constitute a singular being.

Moreover, the five aggregates are characterized by production and extinction. It is the characteristic dharma of beings that they come forth from a former life and arrive at a later life and undergo punishments and blessings in the three realms. If it were the case that the five aggregates constituted a being, then this would be a case where they would be born naturally and die naturally just like grass or trees. If this were actually the case, then there would be no being bound by offenses nor would there be any liberation. On account of this one knows that it is not the case that the five aggregates constitute a being. If one holds that there exists a being apart from the five aggregates, this is the same as was already refuted in the prior discussion which addressed the fallacy of a spiritual soul (aatman) which is supposedly eternally-existent and universally pervasive.

Furthermore, if one asserts there exists a being apart from the five aggregates then, [apart from the five aggregates], the thought which holds the view of a self cannot arise. If one asserts that a being exists apart from the five aggregates this constitutes a falling into eternalism. If one falls into eternalism this then entails the nonexistence of birth and the nonexistence of death. Why? Birth refers to something having formerly been nonexistent now coming into existence. Death refers to something already born then being extinguished. If it were the case that beings were eternally-existent then it ought to be the case that they exist everywhere filling up the five paths of rebirth. If something already exists eternally, why would it then now come to birth yet again? And if it does not have a birth then it has no death either.

Question: It is definitely the case that beings exist. Why do you say that they are nonexistent? It is based on the causes and conditions of the five aggregates that the dharma of a being exists. This is analogous to the case of the causes and conditions of the five fingers generating the dharma of a fist.

Response: This statement is not the case. If the dharma of a being exists in the causes and conditions of the five aggregates then aside from the five aggregates there exists a separate dharma of a being. However, it cannot be found. The eye itself sees forms. The ear itself hears sounds. The nose smells fragrances. The tongue knows flavors. The body knows tangibles. The mind knows dharmas. They are empty and devoid of the dharma of a self. Apart from these six phenomena there is no additional "being."

On account of inverted views, the non-buddhists claim that when the eye is able to see forms this is a being and so forth until we come to when the mind is able to know dharmas this is a being. Additionally, they claim that when one remembers and when one is able to undergo suffering and pleasure, this is a being. They simply create this view. They do not know the actual truth associated with this "being."

This is analogous to the case of an old, senior and very venerable bhik.su. People were of the opinion that he was an arhat. They brought many offerings. Later on he became ill and then died. Because the disciples were alarmed that they would lose the offerings, they surreptitiously removed him during the night and in the place where he had been laying down, they arranged blankets and pillows, causing it to appear as if the master was present but lying down. People came and asked about his illness, inquiring "Where is the Master?"

The disciples replied, "Don't you see the blankets and pillows on the bed?" The stupid ones did not investigate into it. They believed that the master was lying down with illness, gave large offerings and then left. This happened more than once.

Next there was a wise person who came and asked about it. The disciples replied in the same way. The wise person said, "I did not ask about blankets, pillows, beds, or cushions. As for myself, I'm looking for a person." He then threw back the covers looking for the master. In the end there was no person who could be found. Apart from the appearances of the six matters, there is no additional self or person. As for one who knows or one who perceives, they are just the same as this.

Moreover, if it were the case that a being exists in the causes and conditions of the five aggregates, since the five aggregates are impermanent, beings too ought to be impermanent. Why? Because of the similarity in the causes and conditions. If beings were impermanent then there would be no arriving at a later life.

Furthermore, if it is as you say, then beings have existed eternally from their very origin on forward through time. If that were the case then it should be that beings are what produce the five aggregates. It should not be the case that the five aggregates produce beings. Now, the causes and conditions of the five aggregates give rise to the name "being." People who have no wisdom chase after the names in seeking for what is real. For these reasons, beings are in fact nonexistent. If there are no beings then there is no offense of killing either. Because there is no offense of killing there is no upholding of precepts either.

Also, when one deeply enters into the contemplation of these five aggregates, one analyzes and realizes that they are empty, like something seen in a dream, and like images in a mirror. If one kills something seen in a dream or an image in a mirror there is no killing offense committed. One kills the empty marks of the five aggregates. Beings are just the same as this.

Additionally, if a person is displeased by offenses and is greedily attached to being without offenses, if this person sees a person with offenses who has broken the precepts then he slights him and is arrogant. If he sees a good person who upholds the precepts then he is affectionate and respectful. If one's upholding of precepts is carried out in this manner, then this itself gives rise to the causes and conditions of offenses. It is for this reason that it is stated, "Because committing offenses and not committing offenses cannot be gotten at one should perfect shiila paaramitaa."