Ven. Thich Minh Chanh/ Ven.

Phap Q - M A student at Srilanka International Buddhist Academy

The Silence of The Buddha

What is called the silence of the Buddha has become almost proverbial. Numerous writers, academic and popular, have mentioned it, given their opinions about it and tried to plum the meaning behind it. According to Raimon Panikkar, The ultimate reason for the Buddhas silence seems to me to be rooted neither in the inherent limitation of the human subject, nor in the imperfection of our cognition, nor in the mysterious, recondite nature of reality. Instead, it seems to me that the ultimate reason for the silence of the Buddha resides precisely in the fact that this ultimate reality is not. Contrary to what Panikkar thinks the Buddha affirmed the is-ness of ultimate reality (Nirvana) in his famous saying. Buddha kept silence, when metaphysical questions were discussed, not because he had nothing to say about great matters, but because he had far too much, because he was overwhelmed by the flood of his own mighty thoughts, and because the channels of expression which the riddle-mongers of his day invited him to use were both too narrow and too shallow to give his soul relief. "'If a man,' Buddha proceeds, 'were struck by a poisoned arrow, and his friends and relatives called in a skilful physician, what if the wounded man said: "I shall not allow my wound to be treated until I know who the man is by whom I have been wounded, whether he is a noble, a Brahman,"--or if he said: "I shall not allow my wound to be treated until I know what they call the man who has wounded me, and of what family he is, whether he is tall or small or of middle stature, and how his weapon was made with which he has struck me." What would the end of the case be? The man would die of his wound.' According to Sri Chinmoy the Buddha said, Sometimes silence is the best answer. The Punjabi poetess Amrits Pritam, an admirer of Mother Meera and Osho has written, Where the dance of Meera and the silence of Buddha meet, blossoms the true philosophy of Osho. Allan Smiths in his Philosophy of the East says The Buddha elevated silence to a philosophy. It was the very essence of his teaching. According to the Proverbs of Buddha website he said Silence is an empty space, space is the home of the awakened mind. Given all this you couldnt blame someone for thinking that the

Buddha often affected an enigmatic silence when questioned and that much of his teachings was communicated through silence, perhaps accompanied by a knowing smile. Now we have some idea of what others have said about and thought of the Buddhas supposed silence lets see what original sources say. The Buddha was an advocate of silence, not in response to questions, metaphysical or otherwise, but simply as an alternative to the idle chatter that often takes place in a social context. He said to his monks, When you meet together either talk about the Dhamma or maintain a noble silence. He certainly encouraged silence in the face of anger and provocation. Occasionally he would go into solitude for half a month during which time he probably didnt speak. Nothing particularly philosophical or mystical about any of this! One of the few original sources ever mentioned in discussions on the Buddhas supposed silence is his dialogue with the wandering ascetic Vacchagotta. This man asked the Buddha a series of questions - Is the universe finite, infinite, both or neither? Is the soul the same as the body? Is it different from the body? Does an enlightened person exist after death?...etc. To each of these the Buddha replied I am not of that view Vaccha (Na kho aham Vaccha evamditthi). Finally Vacchagotta asked the Buddha why he had no opinion on these matters and he replied because such questions and any answers that could be given to them are just opinions, the grasping of opinions, the jungle of opinions, the wriggling of opinionsThey do not lead to giving up, turning away, dispassion, stopping, calming, higher knowledge, to awakening nor to Nirvana. Far from responding to Vacchagottas barrage of questions with silence the Buddha replied coherently by saying that he has no opinion one way or another about them. He was not silent. Then he gave a clear and understandable reason why he has no opinion about them; because they are just opinions that distract attention from the things that really matter. Nothing particularly paradoxical or metaphysical about that either! In fact, there is only one place, I repeat, one place, in the whole Tipitaka where the Buddha declined to answer a question or questions put to him. On another occasion the same Vacchagotta asked the Buddha, Is there a self? The Buddha was silent. Vacchagotta continued, Then is there no self? and again the Buddha was silent. Perhaps a bit peeved or disappointment Vacchagotta got up and left. Then Ananda asked the Buddha why he met these questions with silence and he replied, If when asked if there is a self I had answered yes I would have been siding with those teachers who are eternalists. And if I had answered no I would have been siding with those teachers who are annihilationists. If I had answered yes would this have been consistent with the knowledge that everything is without self? No Lord
2

replied Ananda. And if I had answered no there is no self an already bewildered Vacchagotta would have been even more so and would have thought, Before I had a self and now I dont. Father A. Chandrakanthan has a different interpretation. A philosopher once visited Buddha and asked him: Without words, without the wordless, will you tell me the truth? Buddha kept silence. After a while the philosopher rose up gently, made a solemn bow and thanked Buddha saying: With your loving kindness, I have cleared away all my delusions and entered the true path. When the philosopher had left, Ananda, a senior disciple of Buddha, enquired: O, Blessed One, what hath this philosopher attained? Buddha replied: A good horse runs even at the shadow of the whip! For Buddha, Silence as the inevitable path that leads to the Truth is not distinct from the Truth itself. That is, as the way to the Truth, Silence already contains the reality of the Truth. They are two aspects of the same reality. So once again, clearly and simply, the Buddha explains why, on this single occasion, he remained silent when asked a question; because he didnt want to be identified with particular philosophical standpoints and because he did not want to further bewilder an inquirer. All the theoretical, fanciful and speculative explanations about the Buddhas so-called paradoxical, enigmatic and mystical silence are based on this one incident. So it would seem that people have created an imaginary silence of the Buddha and then filled it with their own noise. In some cases they have done this because they have never bothered to check original sources, and in others because they have wanted to co-opt the Buddha into their own philosophical beliefs. "Why has Buddha not taught his disciples, whether the world is finite or infinite, whether the saint lives on beyond death or not? Because the knowledge of these things does not conduce to progress in holiness, because it does not contribute to peace and enlightenment. What contributes to peace and enlightenment, Buddha has taught his own: the truth of suffering, the truth of the origin of suffering, the truth of the path to the cessation of suffering. 'Therefore, Mlukyaputta, whatsoever has not been revealed by me, let that remain unrevealed, and what has been revealed, let it be revealed.'"