Mūlamadhyamakārikā(MMK)中觀論頌:
Chapter 12: Examination of Suffering Duḥkha-parīkṣā - Part II
By Paramartha
Nāgārjuna uses his disputation skill of reduction ad absurdum to present his ratiocination or philosophical argument against his substantialist opponents to defend the Word of the Śākyamuni Buddha thus:-
Refutations
Nāgārjuna wrote in his MMK, “Since the subject or self-nature (svabhāva) is a permanent substance, how can a permanent substance give rise to another entity? A substance, having a permanent identity with an immutable self-nature, should undergo no transformation. How could the change occur when its self-nature is permanent and immutable ?”
The logical paradox raised by Nāgārjuna instantaneously floored his substantialist or metaphysical opponents, such as the Sarvāstivādins who advocated the Doctrine of Self-nature (Svabhāvavāda) in tri-temporal existence. The Doctrine of Self-nature contradicts with the Buddhist dynamic process of the ontology of becoming.
He questioned further, “If suffering is not self-caused, how could suffering be caused to others?”.
If self-nature is asserted, an inherently violent person is forever violent. How can he turn peaceful subsequently after picking up the tranquility and insight mediation? According to Buddhism, an inherently violent person does not exist neither does an inherent tranquil person exist. A human personality is not a permanent entity. It is a dynamically organic grouping of five aggregates. Every aggregate is dynamic and changeable. Thus, a human being is subject to a continual, dynamic change depending on contigent conditions which are moving. A human being a unity of contigent conditions which are impermanent and mutable. He is conditioned by the contigent conditions both internally as well as externally. An ordinary human being is actually a movement of the process of contigent conditions. Only the Arahant, Paccekabuddha and Bodhisattva are not conditioned by internal or external conditions in the environment.
He continued to question further, ”If self-causation and other causation are not proper, the combination of these two causations are equally invalid as the cause of suffering.”
If self-causation is not valid and other causation is also invalid, thus the combination of these two causations is equally invalid or not applicable. He concluded that spontaneous causation [adhiccasamutpāda or ahetuvāda] is also not proper as there is no such thing as the uncaused suffering.
Conclusion
It is so obvious that Dharma is the eternal Truth expressed through Insubstantiality or Non-self (Anattā) and Dependent Co-arising (Pratītyasamutpāda). They are parallel to the universal religious doctrine or the eternal Truth of Unity or Non-duality. Perceiving the Buddha is perceiving the Dependent Co-arisen Unity or Non-duality. Perceiving the Dependent Co-arisen Unity or Non-duality is perceiving the Dharma. Perceiving Dharma is perceiving the eternal Truth of the One in All and the All in the One. Unity or Non-duality is the Truth of Emptiness of inherent existence (niḥsvabhāva). Emptiness is the dynamic process philosophy of the ontology of becoming denying ontological commitment. Ontologcal commitment is the substantial view of ontology which is an erroneous worldview.
The philosophical disputation between Nāgārjuna and his Substantialist opponents is focused on the disputations on conflicting issue between niḥsvabhāvavāda (emptiness of self-nature) and svabhāvavāda (non-emptiness of self-nature). Emptiness carries a soteriological significance. Non-emptiness is an obstruction to soteriological attainment. Substantial worldview creates the illusive self-centric ego which impedes enlightenment. Enlightenment destroys human fallibilities and vulnerabilities. It was indeed a serious philosophical debate aimed at preserving the purity of the authentic Word of the Buddha (Buddhavacana).
I pay homage to Nāgārjuna and the Tathāgata ! |
