MÅ«lamadhyamakakÄrikÄ
BY NÄGÄRJUNA
Dedicatory Verse
anirodham anutpÄdam anucchedam aÅÄÅvatam |
anekÄrtham anÄnÄrtham anÄgamam anirgamam ||
yaįø„ pratÄ«tyasamutpÄdaį¹ prapaƱcopaÅamaį¹ Åivam |
deÅayÄmÄsa saį¹buddhas taį¹ vande vadatÄį¹ varam ||
THIS VERSE serves not only as a dedication of the work to the Buddha but also as an announcement of purpose. One often finds at the beginning of an Indian treatise a statement indicating why one should read it: how one will benefit from its contents. NÄgÄrjuna does not explicitly claim here that this work will help one achieve liberation from saį¹sÄra (it is CandrakÄ«rti who says this is the purpose of the text), but what he does say suggests that is the intention behind his work.
The verse begins with the famous eight negations: āneither cessation nor originationā and so on. (Our English translation reverses the word order of the Sanskrit original in order to make the meaning more easily intelligible.) These negations are said to describe the content of the Buddhaās central teaching of dependent origination (pratÄ«tyasamutpÄda). The verse thus claims that when we say everything is subject to dependent origination, what this actually means is that nothing really ceases or arises, nothing is ever annihilated nor is there anything eternal, that things are neither really one nor are they many distinct things, and that nothing really ever comes here from elsewhere or goes away from here.
Some of this would come as no surprise to NÄgÄrjunaās fellow Buddhists. For instance, the claim that nothing ever really moves (discussed in chapter 2) was widely accepted by Buddhist philosophers as one consequence of the impermanence of existents; the idea that dependently originated entities form a causal series was thought to explain why it appears to us that there is motion. Likewise āNeither annihilation nor the eternalā echoes the Buddhaās claim that dependent origination represents the correct middle path between the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism. This is discussed in chapters 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 27, though in ways that go considerably beyond what had been the orthodox understanding. But the claim that there is neither cessation nor origination (discussed in chapters 1, 7, 20, 21, and 25) would have come as a shock to many, since dependent origination was thought to involve (and explain) the origination and cessation of ultimately real entities. And while āneither one nor manyā will have a familiar ring to many Buddhists (the Buddha did say that the person in one life and the reborn person in another are āneither identical nor distinct,ā e.g., at S II.62, S II.76, S II.113), the standard Abhidharma account of dependent origination relies on the notion that there are many ultimately real dharmas that are mutually distinct. So when (as in chapters 6, 14, and 27) NÄgÄrjuna claims that what are thought of as two distinct things can ultimately be neither one nor many, this will surprise quite a few.
The purpose is not to shock, though. Instead, the commentators tell us, the point of understanding dependent origination through these eight negations is to bring about nirvÄį¹a by bringing an end to hypostatizing (prapaƱca). By hypostatization is meant the process of reification or āthing-ifyingā: taking what is actually just a useful form of speech to refer to some real entity. Because the doctrine of dependent origination plays so central a role in the Buddhaās teachings, Abhidharma scholars developed a complex web of concepts designed to explicate it. The suggestion is that the eight negations are meant to remind us that conceptual proliferation can distract us from the real goalāliberationāand perhaps even serve as a barrier to the achievement of the cessation of suffering. (See 18.6, as well as chapters 24 and 27.) But these negations (as well as other allied negations) are not to be accepted because some wise person has told us so. MMK consists of philosophical arguments meant to refute such things as cessation and origination. This work would then be designed to help foster liberation by enlisting the tool of philosophical rationality in the task of putting in their proper place the sorts of conceptual distinctions developed by other Buddhist philosophers. The āproper placeā of these concepts is in the toolkit carried by every skillful Buddhist teacher, to be used when appropriate given the circumstances of a particular suffering being. (See 18.5ā12.)
1. An Analysis of Conditions
THIS IS THE first of several chapters investigating the concept of causation. It is important to note at the outset that in classical Indian philosophy causation is usually understood as a relation between entities (āthe seed, together with warm moist soil, is the cause of the sproutā) and not, as in modern science, between events (āthe collision caused the motion of the ballā). It begins with a statement of the thesis: that existing things do not arise in any of the four logically possible ways that causation might be thought to involve. The Äbhidharmika opponent (i.e., a member of one of the Abhidharma schools) then introduces a conditions-based analysis of causation, which is a version of the second of the four possible views concerning causation. The remainder of the chapter consists of arguments against the details of this theory that entities arise in dependence on distinct conditions. In outline the chapter proceeds as follows:
1.1 | Assertion: No entity arises in any of the four possible ways: (a) from itself, (b) from a distinct cause, (c) from both itself and something distinct, or (d) without cause. |
1.2 | General refutation of arising on possibilities aād |
1.3 | Opponent: Entities arise (b) in dependence on distinct conditions of four kinds. |
1.4 | Refutation of relation between conditions and causal activity |
1.5ā6 | Definition of āconditionā and argument for the impossibility of anything meeting the definition |
1.7ā10 | Refutations of each of the four conditions |
1.11ā14 | Refutation of thesis that effect arises from conditions |
na svato nÄpi parato na dvÄbhyÄį¹ nÄpy ahetutaįø„ |
utpannÄ jÄtu vidyante bhÄvÄįø„ kvacana kecana || 1||
1. Not from itself, not from another, not from both, nor without cause:
Never in any way is there any existing thing that has arisen.
This is the overall conclusion for which NÄgÄrjuna will argue in this chapter: that existents do not come into existence as the result of causes and conditions. There are four possible ways in which this might be thought to happen, and he rejects all of them. According to the first, when an effect seems to arise, it does so because it was already in some sense present in its cause; its appearance is really just the manifestation of something that already existed. The second view claims instead that cause and effect are distinct entities. The third has it that cause and effect may be said to be both identical and distinct. The fourth claims that things originate without any cause; since there are thus no causes, an originating thing could not be said to originate either from itself or from something distinctāit does not originate from anything.
We follow Ye 2011 and accordingly diverge from translations that follow the La VallƩe Poussin edition, in reversing the order of t...