Translated from the Sanskrit by Chris Rahlwes
Suffering
You think,
“suffering is self-created,
other-created,
both,
or uncaused.”
You shouldn’t.
Self-created suffering
Its conditions wouldn’t be elsewhere.
Through mutual conditioning,
segments fuse with segments.
A self-made self is without suffering.
I ask,
“who would make themselves suffer?”
Other-created suffering
Difference entails another
made by difference.
A non-sufferer would inflict suffering.
I ask,
“how would this suffering
be made without a sufferer?”
“Who is this non-sufferer?”
A non-sufferer incites another.
You ask,
“when suffering isn’t established
as self-made or other-made,
how does another inflict suffering?”
If another inflicts suffering,
a self making suffering,
a self-made suffering.
I ask,
“if it cannot be self-made,
how can it be other-made?”
“If it cannot be other-made,
how can it be self-made?”
Suffering created by both
Created one by one
inflicted by
other than oneself
appears as another.
Suffering as uncaused
I ask,
“how does suffering arise
by a non-cause?”
A fourfold of suffering is not discovered.
A fourfold of being is not discovered.
Fire
If fire was fuel,
agent,
action
would be singular.
If fire was non-fuel,
fuel excludes fire.
Burning eternally,
possessing a cause of non-ignition.
Restarting,
useless.
Possessor of non-action.
Indifferent to another,
fuel possesses
a cause of non-ignition.
Restarting,
useless.
Embracer of an external flame.
You ask,
“fuel in the process of burning,
isn’t that just what fuel is?”
As an other,
it will not burn.
Unburned,
it isn’t able to further scorch.
It will not be extinguished.
Unextinguished,
it stands as its own mark.
Fire as other than fuel
would reach fuel
like lovers grasping for each other.
Fire reaches the desired fuel
only through a mutual dejection.
Fire depending on fuel;
fuel depending on fire.
You ask,
“which arises first, which depends on which?
If fire depends on fuel,
fire engulfs fuel,
accomplished.
The existent fuel
would be without fire.
A being
dependent,
establishes a dependency.
You ask,
“if dependency is established,
what depends on what?”
I ask,
“how does a being,
dependent
have an unestablished
dependency?”
You establish this for dependency.
Do not.
Fire isn’t dependent
nor independent
on fuel.
Fuel isn’t dependent
nor independent
on fire.
Fire isn’t fuel
nor other than fuel;
fire doesn’t possess fuel.
Fuel is not fire.
One is not in another.
From fire and fuel,
the process of clinging to a self,
pottery,
clothes
are explained.
Some proclaim
self’s being
and nature’s being
as separate.
You should not.
Senses
Seeing,
hearing,
smelling,
tasting,
touching,
thinking
the six senses
are of the perceivable
field of experience.
Seeing doesn’t
see itself.
You ask,
“how does that which cannot see itself
see others?”
Fire,
which does not burn itself,
is insufficient
in establishing
a non-self-perceiving
sense perceiving.
The activity of perceiving
is explained by the activity
of going,
non-going,
the process of going.
There is not
a non-process
of seeing
when there is a slight of seeing.
Now, seeing looks,
but I ask,
“how is this right?”
Seeing,
non-seeing
do not see.
The seer is explained
and understood
only through seeing.
The seer
is not unconcealed,
nor concealed.
Being seen,
seeing
cannot exist
in the seer.
You ask,
“how could they?”
I reply,
“like the birth of a child
is dependent on two parents,
the birthed awareness’ emission
is dependent on eye
and form.”
From the non-being of seeing,
seen,
the fourfold awareness
does not exist.
You ask,
“how will there be any of the senses?”
Hearing,
smelling,
tasting,
touching,
thinking
are explained
by seeing.
The hearer,
hearing,
heard
is understood
like seer,
seeing,
seen.
Nāgārjuna (c. 150-250 C.E.) was the founder of the Madhyamaka school of Buddhism. Following the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, he established the theory of emptiness (śūnyatā). He is a fundamental influence on both Tibetan and Zen Buddhism as well as others. Little is known of his life outside his philosophical accomplishments.
Chris Rahlwes teaches philosophy and logic. He has an MA in Philosophy from the University of New Mexico and is a PhD student at the University of Connecticut researching Buddhist logic and philosophy of language. He translates Buddhist classical texts in both Sanskrit and Pali.
World Poetry Review 