by Jointu Chakma
Introduction:
Nāgārjuna is a great figure of
Madhyamika school of
Mahayana
Buddhism who was lived between in the 1
st and 2
nd
century CE.
He was born as a
"Hindu," which in his time connoted religious allegiance to the
Vedas, probably into an upper caste Brahmin family and probably in the southern
Andhra region of India.
According to David J.Kalupahana, Nāgārjuna has been considered as the
second Buddha and has occupied a second position in the line of patriarchs in
almost all schools of Buddhism. Nāgārjuna represented an excellence doctrinal
teaching against
Śarvāstivādins and
Puggalavādins dogmatic
dharma-s doctrine which gained
popularity among every society people. Nagarjuna wrote
Fundamental Verses on
the Middle Way (
Mulamadhyamakakarika), by which after his
passing away a school is emerged named as “
Madhyamaka
or
Madhyamika” (middle-way).
Nāgārjuna attempted to make understand about the world beyond neither believing
on existence (
atthita) nor
non-existence (
natthita) but everything
is dependently co-arising (
pratityasamutpāda)
and empty of self-nature (
svabhāva)
of things.
His doctrine of emptiness (
Śūnyatā) rejects two extremes of
existence and non-existence of things and follows middle way (
madhyamapratipāda).
In this short
writing I will briefly attempt to analyze the Śūnyatā (emptiness) doctrine of Nāgārjuna with comparison to early
teaching of the Buddha. I have been attended that almost many of scholars
roughly misunderstand the concept of emptiness as nihilistic doctrinal
teaching. From my position I will summarize to make understand about the
significance of Nāgārjuna Śūnyatā doctrine
with historical background, why Nāgārjuna reinterpreted the doctrine of
“Anatta” (no-self) and “Paticcasamuppada” (dependent co-arising) of the Buddha, is
neither a doctrine of nihilism nor eternalism.
The Śūnyatā doctrine of
Nāgārjuna is the fundamental doctrine of the Buddha will be examined.
The meaning of the term
“Śūnyatā”:
Śūnyatā is a
Sanskrit term, which generally translated into English as ‘Emptiness’ or
‘Nothingness’ or ‘Voidness’, is a concept of central importance in the teaching
of the Buddha.
In Pāli it is called
Suññata which
stands on the same meaning in English as ‘emptiness’ or ‘voidness’ and
sometimes it has translated as un-substantiality, phenomenality, freedom from
lust, ill-will and dullness.
The word
Śūnyatā comes from adjective
śūnya (in Sanskrit),
suñña (in pāli),
śūna (in vedic). These three words are translated as the same
meaning of ‘empty’ or ‘void’.
Empty of something else or empty of permanent
substance
(svabhāva śūnya). Actually,
this term
“Śūnyatā” is the gradual
development of Buddhist scholasticism.
In early Buddhist literatures “emptiness” (suññata) was described in the three perspectives, treating
it (1)
as a meditative dwelling, (2) as an attribute of objects, and (3) as a type of
awareness release. For example, the Buddha at Samyutta Nikāya referring to ānāpānasati “mindfulness by in and out
breathing” says:
“Monks, in this connection, a monk, going to the forest (araññagato) or going to the root of a
tree (rukkha-mūlagato) or going to an
empty place (suññagāra-gato), sitting
cross-legged, holding the body straight, setting mindfulness in front of him,
mindfully breathes out and in”.
Again in the Saṃyutta Nikāya the Buddha explained about the
notion of emptiness when Ananda asked to the Buddha in thus;
“Venerable Sir, it is said the world is empty, the world is
empty. In what respect the world is empty? The Buddha replied, “Insofar as it is
empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self (suññam idam attena vā attaniyena vā); thus it is said, Ananda, that the
world is empty”.
The Buddha clearly
explained that the self is so-called world, and it pertain non-self. Nāgārjuna
too, explained the meaning of Śūnyatā
in this way, as he denies about the existence of intrinsic self-nature. The
Heart Sutra of Mahāyāna Buddhism declares that the skandhas, which constitute our mental and physical existence, are
empty in their nature or essence, i.e., empty of any such nature or essence.
“Sariputra,
the Characteristics of the emptiness of all dharmas
are non-arising, non-ceasing, non-defiled, non-pure, non-increasing,
non-decreasing."
The word “Śūnyatā”
has been interpreted and used for various purposes by the Buddha himself, and
mainly in Nāgārjuna Śūnyatā doctrine it used to denote the empty of own self-nature (svalaksana).
The background of Nāgārjuna Śūnyatā
doctrine:
The
Śūnyatā (emptiness) doctrine of Nāgārjuna evolved during his life
time, it is believed that he was a historical human being who lived sometime
between 150 and 250 CE.
The main purpose of developing the
Śūnyatā
doctrine is due to
Abhidharmikas
interruption against the Buddha teaching.
Abhidharmikas
developed a doctrine among many Buddhist schools that the all
dharmas are exists in the three period
of time. Therefore, Nāgārjuna invented the restatement of
“anatta” doctrine and “
paticcasamuppada”
of the Buddha to answer the
dharma-theory
of
Abhidharmikas. There are several
Abhidharmika schools by which majority
of people were influenced, such as
Sarvāstivādins,
Vaibhāsikas, Sautrantikas and
Vātsiputriya.
Sarvāstivāda was the most influential
abhidharma
school at that time which had developed probably by the middle of the 3
rd
Century B.C.
This school opposed to Vibhajyavādins, and claimed that “all
exists (sarvam asti)” in the sense of this manner is: the past dharma-s have
existed; the future dharma-s will come into existence; the present dharma-s are
existing”. All dharma-s in phenomenal existence are pratītya-samutpanna—dependently
originated from an assemblage of conditions. According to Sarvāstivādins a dharma
insist within which had in the past, in the present and in the future is real
existence. Sarvastivadins forwarded the theory of “self nature” (svabhāva) and Sautrantikas
introduced their conception of self or person (ātman, pudgala).On the other
hand, the Vaibhāṣika eventually came to connote
the orthodox Sarvāstivādins. The Vaibhāṣikas
maintain that everything exist for ever (sarvaṃ sarvadā asti) it means that all dharmas exist in
the three periods of time, and the emphasis put on the reality (svabhāva) of dharmas
is indicative of the conception that not only their present, but their past as
well as future transition, too, represent something real. In the
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya of Vasubandhu explains about the term “
dharma” as follows:
“A
dharma is so called because
it sustains its own characteristics. This
dharma
faces (
abhi) toward the
dharma in the highest sense –
Nirvāṇa, or toward the characteristics of
dharma-s, thus it is
abhidharma”.
In the
Abhidharma-mahā-vibhāṣa-śastra it is said that
dharmas have own-self character which can not be separated,
explained in thus; “The entity itself is [its] characteristic, and the
characteristic is the entity itself; for it is the case for all
dharma-s that the characteristic cannot
be predicated apart from the
dharma
itself”.
Vātsīputrīyas ideas define those who
had in believing a
pudgala or
existing person.
Sarvāstivādins and
Pudgalavādins were connected. The
Pudgalavādins also had connection with
Mahāsaṃgikas, i.e.
Prajñaptivādins.
On contrary of the
Abhidharma-schools,
Nāgājuna gave the doctrine of “emptiness or empty of self-nature or empty of
existing
dharmas” by which he recounts
the “
anatta” doctrine of the Buddha.
This is the main reason to maintain the
Śūnyatā
doctrine of Nāgārjuna against the
dharma-theory
of
Abhidharmikas-schools.
Nāgārjuna “Śūnyatā” and the Buddha “Anatta” doctrine
In this
sub-topic I would like to analyze with comparison between the doctrine of
Nāgārjuna “
Śūnyata” (emptiness) and
the Buddha “
Anattā” (no-self). The
concept of
Ātman
(universal self) was the foremost central philosophical problematic doctrine
among 62 views
in India during the time of the Buddha. The concept of
Ātman (universal self) is the essence of the human existence
developed in the
Upaniṣads.
They believed that the
Ātman, the self which had to be a Self
of some creature needed for itself a certain definiteness in this bond with
certain substratum. In the same time they developed the idea of ego, of Self to
Brahma as Supreme Being with the one name. Hermann Oldenberg described in his
book about the concept of
Ātman and
Brahman in thus, “When they wanted to
describe
Ātman, they said it was
Brahman. If one asked for the
Brahman, they explained it as
Ātman.”
But the Buddha rejected such kind of dogmatic doctrine and formed a new
pragmatic doctrine whereas he asserted in detail about “
Atta” (self) and “
Anattā”
(no-self) in his
Anattalakkhana sutta
of
Samyutta Nikayā as follows:
“
The body, monks, is not
self….'Feeling is not self.... Perception is not self.... Mental processes are
not self....Consciousness is not self…..”“Any feeling whatsoever....Any
perception whatsoever....Any mental processes whatsoever....Any consciousness
whatsoever past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle,
common or sublime, far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it
actually is with right discernment as: "This is not mine. This is not my
self. This is not what I am."
Nāgārjuna in his
position sees the
dharmas from an
entirely different angle. He reinterprets the causal law (
pratītyasamutpāda) to mean relativity (
Śūnyatā) and, on the basis of that interpretation, undertakes a through
examination of the
dharma-theory
of the
Abhidharma-schools. He
criticizes to
Abhidharma-schools
while examining the dharma-theory in relation to
anātma-doctrine. He rejects both the substance view (
ātma-vāda) and the modal view (
dharma-vāda). If there is no self, how
character of own nature (
svabhāva)
could be ultimate reality? In
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
he examines in thus;
In the absence of a self,
how can there be something that belongs to the self? From the appeasement of
the modes of self and self-hood, one abstains from creating the notions of
“mine” and “I” (ātmany asati cātmīyam kta
eva bhavisyati, nirmamo nirahamkārah samād ātmātmani-nayoh).
Thus, Nāgārjuna
rejects the dharma-theory of the Abhidharma-schools alike the Buddha
rejects the “soul-theory” (ātman) of Upanisadic religious doctrine. According
to many Buddhist scholars, the theme of Śūnyatā emerged from the Buddhist
doctrines of Anattā. Of course Nāgārjuna did not use
“Śūnyatā” doctrine just only for
reinterpreting “anattā” doctrine, but
meaningfully he tried to make clear vision on Abhidharmikas dogmatic views and recounts the Buddha teaching that
“all dharma-s are without a self” (sabbe dharma anattā ti).
Then how
something do exist if there is neither-nor, is a common question was asked by Abhidharmikas. Nāgārjuna answered it by
analyzing casual-law (pratityasamutpāda).
Nāgārjuna Śūnyatā and Pratityasamutpāda:
The Buddhist doctrine of Interdependent Origination implying
as it does from the Madhyamaka standpoint,
the continuity of cause (hetu) and
effect (phala), the avoidance of
alternative views and ultimately Emptiness (śūnyata).
Madhyamaka is not nihilism (nāstivāda),
but a clarification of dependent co-arising. Nāgārjuna reclaimed the doctrine
of dependent co-arising as a doctrine of emptiness. The Buddha's teaching called Paticca-samuppada, usually translated as
Dependent Origination, is fundamental to the Dhammā (Truth) awakened to by The Buddha on the night of His
Enlightenment. The Buddha said:
“One
who sees the dependent origination (pratityasamutpāda)
sees the Dhammā; one who sees the Dhammā sees dependent origination”.
Here
Dhammā (in the plural) meaning phenomena
or things.
According to David J.Kalupahana, these are dependently arisen phenomena
referred to earlier. They may also be described as elements of experience.
Nāgārjuna in
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
said:
“One who sees all things
as arising in dependence, sees unregenerate existence and its origin, its
cessation and the path to its cessation as they truly are.”
The dependent
origination describes the dependence of all phenomena upon cause (hetu) and condition (pratyaya), thus:
“When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of
this, that arises. When this doest not exist, that does not come to be; with
the cessation of this, that ceases” (Imasmim
sati idam hoti, imassa upādā idam uppajjati. Imasmim asati idam na hoti, imassa
nirodha idam nirujjhati).
Nāgārjuna
wrote in the causality verses of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
in thus:
“
Nothing
whatever arises. Not from itself, not from another, not from both itself and
another, and not without a cause.”
Nāgārjuna
significantly justified and examined that the emptiness is only way to be seen
as possibility of relational arising, indeed as that without which nothing is possible.
“
Nothing fails to happen
in this way, nothing is not empty.”
Nāgārjuna
represented this dependent origination formula of the Buddha to negate the
conditions (
pratyaya) interpretation
of early
Abhidharmikas. He says: “
The self-nature of existence is not
found in the condition, etc.”
Nāgārjuna criticized the theory of causation presented by the
Sarvāstivādins and the
Sautrāntika. He says: “whatever is
subject to conditionality, is by its very nature tranquil and empty” (
Pratītya yad yad bhavati, tat tac śūntam
svabhāvataḥ).
“Dependent co-arising” (
pratityasamutpāda)
was, to reiterate, the principle in terms of which the Buddha was able to
explain the functioning of phenomena (
dharma)
without resorting to a conception of permanent and eternal entity (
nitya ātman). In this sense, emptiness (
śūnyatā) of Nāgārjuna is considered as
significant reinterpretation of the Buddha’s dependent co-arising (
pratityasamutpāda). So it says that he,
who will not understand the Buddha’s dependent origination, will not able to
understand the
Śūnyatā doctrine of
Nāgārjuna.
Nāgārjuna
Śūnyatā doctrine and Middle-way:
According to
Buddhadassa P.Kirthisinghe, “Voidness is not nothing, but rather no-thing; no
thing that we know by our limited consciousness. What I realized in a
transcendal state can only be described as no-thing or voidness”.
The
main teaching of Nāgārjuna is the doctrine of “emptiness”
(śūnyatā) which is known as “Middle-way” (
Mādhyamapratipada). Nāgārjuna, in his
Madhyamaka kārikā clearly states that the doctrine of “
Śūnyatā” itself depends upon and falls
under the middle way position.
“We state that whatever is dependent-arising
that is emptiness. That is dependent upon convention. That itself is the middle
way” (Yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaḥ śūnyatām tām pracakṣmahe; yā prajñaptir
upādāya pratipat saiva madhyamā).
In the Kaccāyana Gotta
sutta of Samyutta Nikāya is
clearly stated that the Buddha avoided two kinds of extreme views, (i)
existence (atthitā) and (ii)
non-existence (natthitā) in thus;
"Kaccāyana the view that 'everything exists' is one
extreme. ‘Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these
two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the
Dhamma
via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come
fabrications…etc.”(
Saban atthiti kho kaccāyana ayam eko anto, sabbam
natthiti ayam dutiyo anto ete te ubho ante anupagamma majjhena tathāgato
dhammam deseti. Avijja paccayā sankhārā……etc).
Nāgārjuna recounts
the same view in his Mādhyamikakārikā when
he says:
“Exists” implies grasping
eternalism “Does not exist” implies the philosophy of annihilation. Therefore a
discerning person should not rely on either existence or non-existence(
Astiti
Sāsvata grāho nāstity uccheda darsanam, Tasmād astitva nastitve nasriyet
vicaksanah).
Eternalism (śasvatavāda) implies the existence of a
transmigrating soul and Nihilism (ucchedavāda)
is a metaphysical materialistic views. The Buddha categorically rejected both
the existence of a permanent entity called “soul” that propounded in the early Upanisads and the view of “nihilism”
(everything doesn’t exists) that suggested by the Materialists. Even in the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta the Buddha
rejected the two extremes of self-indulgence (kāmasukhallikānuyoga) and self-mortification (attakilomathānyoga) and followed the noble eight fold path (ariya aṭṭhangika maggo) as Middle-way.
"Bhikkhus,
these two extremes ought not to be cultivated by one gone forth from the house
life. What are the two? There is devotion to indulgence of pleasure in the
objects of sensual desire, which is inferior, low, vulgar, ignoble, and leads
to no good; and there is devotion to self torment, which is painful, ignoble
and leads to no good…"The middle way discovered by a Perfect One avoids
both these extremes; it gives vision, it gives knowledge, and it leads to
peace, to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana. And what is that
middle way? It is simply the noble eightfold path….,”
Nāgārjuna
significantly states the rejection of Sarvāstivādins
interpretation of self-nature in thus;
“Those who see the own-nature, other-nature,
being, and non-being do not see the reality (tattva) in the Buddha’s teaching.”
Here
he tried to make understand that the Buddha’s teaching means the path which
leads to middle position. The western scholars have been often misunderstood
and misinterpreted the “Śūnyatā”
doctrine of Nārārjuna as a nihilistic doctrine. Madhyamika Kārika of Nāgārjuna clearly reveals that his Śūnyatā (emptiness) is not nihilistic
either, but is the Middle-way and it is the causal genesis (pratityasamutpada). The Middle-way of
Nāgārjuna is Śūnyatā (emptiness), implies
on the state of empty from every thing where there is no Acceptance or Negation
and even neither Acceptance nor Negation (acceptance—middle way—negation).
Conclusion:
Finally
Nāgārjuna comes to conclude his
Śūnyatā
(emptiness) doctrine in logical way that the things are based on two truths in
reality. According to his view the Buddha expounded two truths in thus: “The
Buddha’s teaching rests on two truths: conventional truth (
saṃvṛti
satya), and truth in the highest sense (
paramārtha
satya). One who does not comprehend the distinction between these two
truths, does not comprehend the profound meaning of the Buddha’s teaching.”
As it has discussed in above about the concept of
abhidharmikas, who claim the entity (
svabhāva) is ultimately real. But for Nāgārjuna, an entity could
have to depend on other entities. If the entity is found to be dependent, then
evidence will prove that it lacks of essence (
svabhāva) and is thus not ultimately real. He points out that even
emptiness (
śūnyatā) lacks of
self-nature (
svabhāva) and is thus
ultimately unreal. This emptiness is empty of really being emptiness, thus, one
avoids nihilism. In
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
he states that there is no differentiation between
nirvāna and
saṃsara,
because without experiencing the true nature of
dukkha (un-satisfactoriness) in this sa
ṃsara,
how could one realize the essentiality of
nirvāna.
Saṃvṛti Satya (conventional truth) conceals the true
nature of reality. On the other hand the
Paramārtha
satya (highest truth), which always transcends conventional truth, is
beyond thought and language. This is why the Buddha always keep in “noble
silence” when he was questioned on metaphysical matters, which cannot bring to
be liberated from
Saṃsara.
Nāgārjuna in
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
states that the Highest Truth cannot be understood without conventional truth,
thus said: “The highest truth cannot be taught without recourse to conventional
language.
Nirvāna cannot be realized,
if we do not realize the highest truth.”
According to him,
Śūnyatā (emptiness)
is the ultimate reality as said: “It is empty” is not to be said, “It is
non-empty,” nor “It is both (empty or non-empty), nor “It is neither”. They are
only for the purpose of “verbal designation” (
prajṇāpti).
This is the way in which he attempted to
establish the non-substantiality of elements (
dharma-nairātmya) and the non-substantiality of the human
personality (
pudgala-nairātmya).
To conclude this
essay I can obviously assert that the Śūnyatā
doctrine of Nāgārjuna is significant among other doctrines in Buddhism.
Nāgārjuna did not accept any kind of dogmatic concepts, but clearly explained
in logical way and showed to the people not to attach in attachment as the
Buddha advised. The Śūnyatā doctrine
of Nāgārjuna is the teaching of the Buddha, which is par excellence.
_______________________________________________________________________________
End Notes:
__________
The
Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism, Choong Mun-keat, Motilal Banarsidass,
Delhi, 1999, p.8]
The
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nāgārjuna; http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nagarjun.htm;
accessed date—25/10/08
The
Essence of Scholasticism, Abhidharmahṛdaya- T1550, Charles Willemen, Delhi, 2006. p. 15
SN 12.15;
Kaccayanagotta Sutta; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html;
accessed date: 25/10/08
Bibliography
____________
Mun-keat,
Choong. The Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi,
1999.
Willemen, Charles. The Essence of
Scholasticism, Abhidharmahṛdaya- T1550, Delhi—2006.
Anattalakkhana
Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya XXII, 59;
Nāgārjuna,
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nagarjun.htm
The Heart Sutra, Prajna Paramita Hrydaya Sutra,
The Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nāgārjuna; http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nagarjun.htm
