1960:293). If one could not use the literal language descriptively to
illustrate the ineffable reality, he or she could not avoid the ambiguity
in using words. For example, the words such as ‘void’, ‘darkness’,
‘undifferentiated unity', and ‘joyfulness’ are used metaphorically to
describe the ineffable reality. But, these literal words, metaphors, or
symbols are not identified with the ineffable realm of the reality.
One could explain for the blind what the sun looks like by giving
some metaphoric examples, i.e., round like a gong, blazing like a candle
flame, and others. Although the sun possesses the same characteristics
of the roundness of a gong and the brightness of a candlelight, the sun
is not the gong and the candlelight in reality. The finger pointing to
the moon in the sky should not be identified with the moon itself. For
this reason, all words, symbols, and metaphors used by the mystics are
not descriptive but remain metaphorical and symbolical. In other words,
the view of metaphoric resemblance holds that the ineffable reality still
remains beyond conceptualization.
IV. Paradoxical Silence: Neither the Positive nor Nihilistic View
Teaching without relying on words is also emphasized in the
Buddhist tradition. In the early Buddhist scriptures, the meaningful
silence of the Buddha is described. For example, Ch'an or S*n
Buddhism asserts the transmission of the Buddha dharma without
relying on the words. The main theme of the Ch'an literatures is found
in its emphasis on the mind as the key in the transmission of Buddha
dharma. What is the function of the Buddha's silence in Buddhist
tradition?
It is clear that the Buddha did not answer questions relating to
metaphysical topics such as: “Is the universe infinite?”, “Are the soul
and the body identical?”, or “the effect of karman”, or “existence after
death”, and so forth (Thomas, 1935:25). It is not clear whether the
International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture
253
Buddha, as T. Watsuji claims, did not consider these metaphysical
questions as real philosophical questions. However, the Buddha
explained his reasons for not answering the metaphysical questions by
using a metaphor of a wounded person who was shot by a poisoned
arrow. What was urgent for the wounded person was to pull out that
arrow to save his life, but it would not be urgent for him to ask where
the arrow came from or who shot it.
Another story gives the Buddha's viewpoint for not answering the
question about the existence of an2tman. Vacchagotta, a monk, asked the
Buddha whether 2tman existed. The Buddha did not answer but
explained his reasons to 0nanda: the answer of whether “2tman exists”
or “2tman does not exist” will be either on the side of Eternalism
($2$vata-v2da) or of Nihilism (uccheda-v2da) (S.N. IV:400ff; Organ,
1954:129). The silence of the Buddha gives his clear viewpoint to be
neither Eternalistic nor Nihilistic because both sides mislead or do not
elaborate the true nature of 2tman.
According to the bibliographies of both the Mah2y2na and
H6nay2na traditions, we can also find the reluctance of the Buddha to
answer some questions after his enlightenment at the foot of the Bodhi
tree at G2ya.
But if I were to teach the Doctrine, and others did not
understand it, it would be a weariness to me, a vexation. …
Through painful striving have I gained it,
Away with now proclaiming it;
By those beset with lust and hate
Not easily in this Doctrine learnt.
This Doctrine, fine, against the stream,
Subtle, profound, and hard to see,
They will not see it, lust-inflamed,
Beneath the mass of darkness veiled.
(Thomas, 1935:23; Nagao, 1991:36-7)
The Buddha mentioned not only the subtle and profound truth
but also the difficulty of understanding it. It is not clear whether he
denied the validity of words to explain the Dharma completely.
Kwangsoo Park: An Analysis of the Buddha's Paradoxical Silence
254
The Buddhist schools such as M2dhyamika, Yog2c2ra, and Ch'an
schools interpreted the Buddha's silence in different ways. The
Vimalak6rtinirde$an2-s^tra also states that the Ultimate Truth is beyond
verbal expression: “It is in all beings wordless, speechless, shows no
signs, is not possible of cognizance, and is above all questioning and
answering” (T.14.551c; Organ, 1954:137-8). It is clear that the Buddhist
scriptures, in one aspect, generally claim the invalidity of words and
logical reasoning in describing the ineffable realm. However, we might
consider that the Buddha's silence would be one way to show the
ineffable reality. In other words, silence is not a simple rejection of the
validity of the words, but a skillful means to guide people to
understand the ultimate reality which is ineffable.
Peter Moore insists that “What mystics are trying to describe
cannot be described without their falling into contradiction, even though
one might envision other language systems in which the experience