Mūlamadhyamakārikā(MMK.10)中觀論頌:
Examination of Fire and Fuel (Agnīndhana-parīkṣā)

By Paramartha

Introduction

The Vātsīputrīya or Sammītiya School, one of the early Hīnayāna Buddhist schools of Thought advocated the Doctrine of Person (Pudgalavāda). This Personalist School expounded that there is real person (pudgala) existing in the human personality. According to the original Word of the Gotama Buddha, the word ‘Person’ is mere designation (prajñapti). It is only a nominal view. A nominal view is unreal and illusive. The substantial view of ‘Person’ is not compatible with the Buddhist fundamental doctrine of Insubstantiality (Anattā) or Dependent Co-arising (Paṭiccasamuppāda).

One of the heretical views refuted by Nāgārjuna in his treatise of ‘Root Verses of the Middle Philosophy’ (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, MMK) is to refute the substantive position of Vātsīputrīya School. Readers should cherish the MMK because from Nāgārjuna’s refutations of the substantive position of some of the early Hīnayāna Buddhist Schools, we are able to discern the profound exposition of Buddhist fundamental doctrine of Insubstantiality or Emptiness. Furthermore, Nāgārjuna dialectical feat of reductio ad absurdum is so precise and sharp that the authentic Word of Śākyamuni Buddha is lucidly expounded to us through the disputaions. His most outstanding contribution to Mahāyāna tradition is that his commentary or exegesis literature on Mahāyāna Sūtras helps make the obstruse Word of the Buddha crystal clear to us.

The Personalists adopt the metaphor of ‘Fire and Fuel’ (agnī and indhana) to explain the concept of pudgala (person or individual).This metaphor of ‘Fire and Fuel’ is explained in detail by Vasubandhu in the final chapter of his celebrated treatise of the ‘Abhidharmako’sa-bhāṣa’. Chapter 10 of the MMK is presented by Nāgārjuna to refute the concept of pudgala which conflicts with the Buddhist fundamental doctrine of Dependent Co-arising (Pratītyasamutpāda).

Definition

The pudgalavādins define that pudgala is neither a substance (dravya) nor a mere designation (prajñapti). To justify the concept of pudgala, the pudgalavādins adopt a middle position between substantialism (dravya) and nominalism (prajñapti) to elucidate pudgala.. Nominalism mirrors that multiplicity of all phenomena are illusive and unreal. The metaphor of fire and fuel is used to transcend the view of substantialism and nominalism. They argue thus:-

A fire is neither identical nor different from the fuel. Likewise, thepudgala is neither identical with the five aggregates nor different from the five aggregates. The pudgala is neither visually recognizable nor visually non-recognizable; it is neither material form nor non-material form.

 Nāgārjuna views the identity of fire and fuel as being similar to agent and action. The fuel is the agent and the fire is the action. The agent and the action are mutually co-existent and dependently co-arisen. They are non-dualistic and are interconnected. They are one and the same and interdependent according to the law of dependent co-arising. There is non-duality or intrinsic unity between fuel and fire. The insubstantial view of the Buddha is that all subjects and objects are non-dualistic and intrinsically united. They are dependently co-arisen to function as an integral part of a micro-unity or macro-unity. This is the eternal Truth preached by all esoteric religions. Buddhism is no exception.

The Abhidhamma’s Theory of Elements (Dhammavāda) elucidates the actuality of the building blocks of the empirical world. With the knowledge of Dhammavāda, it is not difficult for a Buddhist physical chemistry student to comprehend the modern atomic theory. Every substance is dependently co-arisen from diverge atoms. Every atom is dependently co-arisen from sub-atomic particles,such as protons, electrons and neutron. Modern scientists have discovered that these sub-atomic particles can still be further analysed and reduced into more elementary constituents. The scientists work on Theory of Elements physically but not spiritually or psychologically. Śākyamuni Buddha expounds a comprehensive Theory of Elements which includes both the physical and spiritual dimensions of the empirical world. The material or secular world is never separate from religion. Science is a subset of the universal set of religion.

Mutual Contigent

Though Nāgārjuna does not accept the fire and the fuel as two separate discrete entities, he is prepared to accept them to be different yet complementary and mutually contigent or dependent. They are symbiotic and mutually penetrative.

Their mutual contigence should be like the metaphor of ‘Magnet and Iron Nails’’which are mutually attracted. It is just like the tango dance performed by a pair of tango dancers. The dance cannot be performed without a pair of tango dancers in intimate physical contact. To dance perfectly, each member of the tango dancer must forget about himself and concentrates only on the dance. He or she must fully immerse in the dance itself bringing two persons into one. Besides, if there are only two tango dancers without the contigent conditions of music, light, hall, the cheering cheering supporters or spectators, and other supporting conditions, the tango cannot come into being. Likewise, the Buddhist fundamental doctrine of dependent co-arisen unity or non-duality unveils that all phenomena, events, or occurrences are supporting and are being supported conglomerating the many into one.

Nevertheless. Nāgārjuna sets one condition to accept that the fire and fuel are different. This one condition is that they must be separate and not connected by any permanent substance. The following diagram illustrates the contigent relationship between the fire and fuel.

 FIRE  FUEL

 Fuel and fire are separate but mutually contigent-

Complimentary Relation between Fire and Fuel

 Prior Entry

But the pudgalavādins do not perceive the fire and the fuel as mutual contigence of supporting and being supported but view them as two separate entities. They view the fuel as the prior entity (pre-existing substance) and the fire as the superficial entity (attribute). Other metaphors that can picture or mirror their substantialist or metaphysical views are the metaphor of’ Clay and Pot’ and that of ‘Thread and Cloth’.

Conclusion

̄Nāgārjuna’s position in defence of the Buddha’s message of Pratītyasamutpāda is that there will be no whatsoever compromise as long as any entity is conceived to embody a permanent substance, such as self-nature (svabhāva) or soul (ātman) as the pre-existing or primodial entity. Insubstanbtiality or Emptiness of inherent existence cannot be compromised. This is what MMK fervently apologizes or defends on behalf of the Buddha. Nāgārjuna emerged as a towering figure of Mahāyāna philosophy for his nominal or insubstantial position to protect the Word of the Buddha from being sullied.

In this sense of defending the authentic Word of the Buddha, Nāgārjuna enjoyed equal position of importance as Moggalī̄puttatissa in identifying Buddhist doctrinal errors or heretical views of the early Buddhist Schools and in putting forwards the authentic Word of the Buddha to rectify them. Moggalīputtatissa compiled the Abhidhamma treatise of Kathāvatthu after chairing the third Buddhist Council in 244 B.C.E in ancient India. The treatise compiled by him contains the critiques of Theravādins against the heretical views of substantialism and ontological commitment of the early Hīnayana Schools of Buddhist Thoughts. The critiques served to purify the contaminated Word of the Buddha by those early Buddhist schools. Today, all these early Buddhist schools are extinct except the Theravāda School.