Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK18) Chapter 18 Examination of Self Ātman- parīkṣā (1/2)

By Paramartha

Introduction

If concept of Ātman is defined  as a permanent and eternal soul (ātman or attā) or intrinsic nature (svabhāva), Nāgārjuna would negate it with Emptiness (‘Sūnyatā). To be more exact, Ātman is Brahmanhood. Brahmanhood is  enlightenment mind (bodhicitta) of Non-duality. Generally, the ordinary wordldling would ignorantly equate the soul with self-centric ego. Vedāntan or Upaniṣadic concept of Ātman is the mind of Brahman – the Mind of God.  The self or soul  which directs and empowers the sense activities of a deluded worldling is self-centric ego. ‘Sākyamuni Buddha would negate it with Anattā.

The self-centric ego is not the Ātman. The self-centric ego is the false self, carnal self, lower self or animal self. All major world’s religions negate the existence of self-centric ego or ego self. The Ātman is the True Self which is Brahman. Brahman, Buddha and God are synonymous in quintessence. It is erroneous to conceive Ātman to be ego self.  Since Upanisads equate Ātman with Brahman, Ātman is similar to Mahāyāna concept of Buddha-nature. Buddha-nature like Brahman is the negation of self-centric ego.  Ātman is synonymous with the Brahman-nature. Ātman is concealed by the multiplicity of the empirical world. The veil of multiplicity concealing Ātman must be lifted by knowledge of wisdom which dispels the darkness of ignorance (avidyā) of the true nature of the multiplicity.

Logical Paradoxes

The substantialists conceive Ātman as a permanent and eternal substance that transmigrate tri-temporarily. They also advocate that Ātman is identical with the five aggregates.  Ātman is permanent and immutable but five aggregates are impermanent  and mutable. Thus, the substantialist ignorantly raised a logical paradox.  Nāgārjuna raised a logical paradox to the substantialists thus : How can Ātman, which is permanent and immutable, be identical with the five aggregates which are  impermanent and mutable (five aggregates) ?

Nāgārjuna raises another logical paradox thus : Conversely, if the Ātman is d̄ifferent from the five aggregates, how can Ātman regulate the five aggregates if it is different from the five aggregates? When x is different from y, x should be alienated from y . Y should not be influenced by x because they are separate or alienated.

The substantialists assert that all human activities are attributed to Ātman which acts as well as experiences its consequences. Ātman is erroneously perceived as an autonomous entity which is an agent of activity as well as an experiencer of activity. The paradoxes presented by Nāgārjuna mirror the illogical views of the substantialists. Nāgārjuna refuted his philosophical opponents  not to win a philosophical debate but to purify the Word of the Buddha. The concept of agent or experiencer is a private or personal entity. Besides Buddhism, all major world religions teach that no separate individuality exists except the cosmic Unity of Existence. The cosmic Unity of Existence is Brahman, Buddha or God. This communal Truth of cosmic Unity of Existence reconciles Monotheism consisting of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, with the key philosophical standpoint of  Hinduism and Buddhism.

Process Reality

The Buddhist position is that all human activities are dependently co-arisen from the unity of the six sense faculties and the corresponding objects of perception to produce the corresponding consciousness. There is no whatsoever permanent substance existing in the five aggregates. The five aggregates are empty of any inherent existence. The five aggregates perform the function  of integrating the six sense faculties with the six objects of perception in the immediate external environment  to create the unceasing occasions of human sense experiences.

There is no independent and permanent agent called Ātman  acting as the agent of  the human activities. A human personality is a conditioned phenomenon arisen from the unity of five aggregates. The five aggregates integrate with other external contigent environmental conditions to produce a series of occasions of human sense experiences. The multiplicity of the five aggregates integrating with external conditions constitutes a series of reified conditioned phenomena. This is the process philosophy communicated by Sākyamuni Buddha through the Buddhist fundamental doctrine of Emptiness (‘Sūnyatā) and Dependent Co-Arising (Patītyasamutpāda)

Wrong View of I or Mine

If  Ātman is not substantially objectified or reified, there will be no notion of ‘mine’ or ‘I’ which leads to the notion of personal possessions (attribute of the substance,Ātman). The construction of  self or ‘I’ or ‘mine’ eventually leads to the belief in eternalism or annihilationism  which is  incompatible with the process reality of  dependently co-arisen Unity or Non-duality.

Nāgārjuna says the wise or the enlightened person is capable of  doing two wise things:

1.  Appeasement of the notion of  self-instinct to eliminate reified concept of Ātman  and
2. Appeasement (non-reification)  of  object due to the awareness of the non-substantiality of the object perceived leading to non-grasping

 The appeasement of both self-instinct and object eliminates selfishness (absence of selfishness=nirmama) and egoism illustrated in the following mind-map:

Mind-map showing how human egoism and pride arise

The following mind-map shows how grasping can be eliminated from the human personality.

Mind-map showing how grasping can be eliminated from the Human personality

Self-awareness of the human being causes no problem to us. In fact, we can not live without it. What is dangerous or damaging is the mental activity of theorizing or conceptualizing reified objects such as things, events, entities, persons and so on. The cause of reification of the external stimuli is Inessrooted in the notion of false notion of Ātman. Cogito is not creating the problem. It is the ‘ergo sum’ that creates the problem for us. ’Cogito ergo sum’ means ‘ I think therefore I am.’ Cogito is self-awareness and ergo sum is conceptualizing or theorizing what one has perceived. Man can not live without cogito or self awareness  which must not be destroyed in order to live normally .What must be eliminated or destroyed is the activity of theorizing or conceptualizing i.e ergo sum. False view of Ātman leads to mental conceptualizations and obsessions. Therefore, Nāgārjuna concludes thus:

When theorizing or conceptualizing has ceased, grasping also ceases. When grasping ceases, one attains freedom WHILE still LIVING. One dies before one dies. The cessation of grasping eventually leads to the termination of rebirth. This is illustrated in the following mind-map:

 The mind-map showing how suffering ceases in the human personality

The obsessions can be appeased or pacified by realizing that the human personality, objects, phenomena and so forth are substantially empty of inherent existence. This notion of  Emptiness leads to the middle path of avoiding the pair of extreme views of eternalism and annihilationism. Most importantly, it brings about the cessation of the reification of the  objects. The following mind-map illustrates the elaboration above.

The Mind-map showing how a human being can attain emancipation

The ‘Sākyamuni Buddha explains the notion of Ātman and anātmanin terms of Dependent Co-arising in order to transcend the pair of extreme views of eternalism and annihilationsm. Gotama Buddha is wise in using the notion of the Middle Path to accomplish his mission of preaching the Dharma. The Middle-path teaching is important to avoid the pair of  extreme views. Anyone who reifies Ātman ends up in the belief in eternalism.; anyone who reifies Anātman ends up holding the view of annihilationism. The doctrine of Dependent Co-arising transcends this pair of extreme views. Dependent Co-arising is insubstantial view of ontology. It is beyond the realm of thought (cittagocara). Therefore, Nāgārjuna affirms thus:

When the sphere of thought has ceased,
that which is to be designated also has ceased.

This statement of Nāgārjuna should be taken in the context of the substantial ideas which he refutes throughout the MMK. The ontology of substantiality  refers to  following attributes which are constructed on the basis of  intellectual concepts which are illusory and unreal. :

1. The notion of permanent soul (Ātman)
2. The notion of self-identity (svabhāva) & other identity (parabhāva)
3. The notion of absolute existence
4. The notion of absolute non-existence
5. The notion of eternalism
6. The notion of  annihilationism

The  Eight negations presented in the dedicatory verse in the opening of the MMK are meant to refute the ontology of substantiality which is wrong view. The right view is the ontology of Insubstantiality or Emptiness. The pair of extreme views of absolute existence and absolute non-existence is refuted with the notion of  neither arising nor ceasing. When the substantialist uses the word ‘eternalism’, Nāgārjuna would take it to mean non-cessation. When the substantialist uses the word ‘annihilationism’, Nāgārjuna would take it to mean ‘non-arising’.

To be continued...