Mahayana Buddhism diverges from its Theravadan ancestors in its diagnosis of the source of dukkha, or suffering. Traditional Theravadan scriptures generally claim suffering to come from the misidentification of permanence in what is in truth, impermanent. In contrast, the Vimilakirti Sutra, one of the early key Mahayana texts, places the source at a plane above the desire for permanence: the source of suffering is the use of conceptual and discriminative faculties to divide what was originally a unitive, dependently arising reality into a fractured one; with consequences of perceived differentiation and dualism following. It is imbuing meaning into perceived independent entities that are in reality interdependently arisen and truly void of essence. In chapters five of the sutra, Vimilakirti, the titular character and lay practitioner, regards sickness as arising from this kind of misidentification:

“Sickness arises from total involvement in the process of misunderstanding from beginningless time. It arises from the passions that result from unreal mental constructions, and hence ultimately nothing is perceived which can be said to be sick.”

Furthermore, Vimilakirti teaches Subhuti, a disciple of Buddha’s, that language is of the same nature as the illusion of all things. There arises the problem of language use going forward. If language is used to refer to independent entities or abstract concepts, and those entities and concepts are absent of true, stable meanings due to the interdependence of all, what is the value of language use going forward? Must we remain entirely silent to achieve complete removal from suffering? Under this framework, should language, our primary means of communication, be abandoned altogether?

Going forward, I will argue that the Vimilakirti Sutra claims that language be used with full awareness of its ineptitude and voidness, to not be seduced by its alluring appearances. However, speaking in this context is not purely for communication’s sake. In this framework, it primarily serves as a means towards a pedagogical, revelatory end: the end of language itself.

In chapter five of the sutra, Vimilakirti describes the source of his sickness to Manjusri: “Manjusri, my sickness comes from ignorance and the thirst for existence and it will last as long as do the sicknesses of all living beings. Were all living beings to be free from sickness, I also would not be sick. Why? Manjusri, for the bodhisattva, the world consists only of living beings, and sickness is inherent in living in the world. Were all living beings free of sickness, the bodhisattva also would be free of sickness.”

The sickness of the Bodhisattvas is tied to the sickness of the world. And again, the sickness is the aforementioned desire and misidentification that all living beings participate in. And with this bond of shared sickness, therein lies the mission of the Bodhisattvas: to voluntarily dwell with the world in its suffering and help bring it to a liberating escape, toward a knowing of reality as it is.

In chapter eight, the nature of Bodhisattva-hood is further described. Particularly mentioned is the means that Bodhisattvas employ in service of cultivating their respective Buddha-fields, or universes. It is said “they play with illusory manifestations in order to develop human beings.” Chapter five details the clearest depiction of what it means to balance wisdom and Upaya, or liberative technique:
"How is wisdom integrated with liberative technique a liberation? Wisdom integrated with liberative technique consists of being motivated by the great compassion and thus of concentration on cultivation of the auspicious signs and marks, on the adornment of the Buddha-field, and on the work of development of living beings, all the while concentrating on deep investigation of voidness, signlessness, and wishlessness - and it is liberation.”

In being a Bodhisattva, one must balance a deep knowledge of the voidness of all things while also manifesting and utilizing the illusions relative to the conditions of particular Buddha fields. Upaya, in particular, is a kind of provisional teaching that is not of the highest reality itself. but is used in aid of delivering the intended student toward it. It can oftentimes be deceitful, but it is not immoral if it is in service of that greater purpose. Examples in the Vimilakirti Sutra include Vimilakirti manifesting his sickness, The Goddess changing her and Sariputra’s genders temporarily, or Vimilakirti locating another Buddha-field in which the Dharma is taught through fragrances. The last example in particular showcases a compelling message regarding language itself: that Upaya is used to highlight the voidness of language. In revealing to Sariputra and his audience a Buddha-field in which the Dharma is taught through fragrances, Vimilakirti shows that language is only a conditional medium relative to our present Buddha-field, and that it is one of innumerable Buddha-fields with diverse forms of communication other than ours. Before they partake in the Dharma food of that Buddha-field, Vimilakirti warns them not to remain preoccupied with their traditional narrow-minded ways, otherwise, they will not be able to understand its true meaning. Again, balancing wisdom when partaking in an Upaya teaching prevents one from losing oneself in its alluring or disorienting nature and seeing where it is truly directing one.

Contradictions within language represent yet another Upaya method to indicate voidness. Consider Vimilakirti saying how the Bodhisattvas should regard living beings:
“like the perception of color in one blind from birth; like the inhalation and exhalation of an ascetic absorbed in the meditation of cessation; like the track of a bird in the sky; like the erection of a eunuch; like the pregnancy of a barren woman; like' the unproduced passions of an emanated incarnation of the Tathagata; like dream-visions seen after waking; like the passions of one who is free of conceptualizations; like fire burning without fuel; like the reincarnation of one who has attained ultimate liberation.”

To consider anything one encounters as oxymoronic is to turn one’s attention toward the conception and languageless nature of the perceived. A similar technique is employed in the Diamond Sutra, another key Mahayana text. In the Diamond Sutra, something called the Prajñaparamita Dialectic occupies most of the text. The formula is as follows: A is non-A, which is why it is called A. For instance: a dandelion is not a dandelion, that is why it is called a dandelion. The negation of the initial term in the former half ushers the reader to a position in which they might see through the gossamer nature of the term once it is reencountered in the latter half. In this sense, Upaya uses language to clear the brush of language.

Returning to the original question: must language be abandoned altogether? The pedagogical methods and their consistent intentions behind them in both the Vimilakirti Sutra and Diamond Sutra show that language is not necessarily to be discarded; it can be spoken if one holds a liberatory awareness of voidness and no longer fears being trapped by language. Furthermore, language can be utilized as a means of teaching the true languageless nature of reality. The Diamond Sutra mentions these kinds of provisional means as “rafts” that carry one to the shore of liberation. Just as Vimilakirti abandons speech when asked to demonstrate the teaching of the entrance to the door of non-duality, the rafts must be abandoned once one begins to step foot on those very same shores.

Sources:
Hanh, Thich Nhat. The Diamond That Cuts Through Illusion: Commentaries on the Prajñaparamita Diamond Sutra. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 2010.

Thurman, Robert A. F., ed. The Holy Teaching of Vimalakīrti: A Mahāyāna Scripture. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1976.

React with 🫶