Mūlamādhyamikakārikā(MMK) : An Overview of its Enterprise

by Satiman

For many centuries, the Buddhist philosophers felt obligated that they were their deontological duties to preserve and apologize the pure teaching of the Buddha from being defiled by the impure teaching of the heretical views of the diverge schools of Buddhist thought which emerged about a decade after the demise or parinibbāna of Śākyamuni Buddha in ancient India about 2,500 years ago. Continuous attempts had been by these Buddhist philosophers or scholars to preserve the original fundamental Buddhist doctrine or the authentic Word of the Buddha. This is exactly what the enterprise of the treatise ‘ Root Verses of the Middle Way (Mūlamādhayamikakārikā; MMK), composed by celebrated Buddhist highly witted philosopher, Nāgārjuna (2nd -3rd century C.E),is all about. One of these praiseworthy, prominent reformers were Moggaliputta-tissa (3rd century B.C.E) who compiled the treatise ‘Points of Controversies (Kathāvatthu) after chairing the third Buddhist Council. The other great Buddhist reformer was none other than Nāgārjuna who was one of the fearless critics of metaphysical or substantial views or ontological commitment to phenomena and language promulgated by other early Hīnayāna Schools of Buddhist Thought in India..

Right and Wrong Views

Śākyamuni Buddha was adept in the exposition of the natural law of Dependent Co-arising which transcends the pair of extreme views, such as absolute existence (atthita) and absolute non-existence (natthita). The view of absolute existence leads to a corresponding metaphysical view of eternalism (sassatavāda). The view of non-existence corresponds with the metaphysical view of annihilationism (ucchedavāda). The metaphysical or substantial views of the heretics are either directly or indirectly and either explicitly or implicitly related to these two pairs of extreme views. All metaphysical or substantial views are not compatible with the central theme of original Buddhism which is Dependent Co-arising (paṭiccasamuppāda). The heterodox views of the heretics who were the metaphysicians or substantialists were like wild weeds scattered about in the pond of charming lotuses. Both Moggaliputta-tissa and Nāgārjuna were the Buddhist crusaders who pulled out those weeds which sullied the pond of lotuses.

Nāgārjuna’s Contributions

Though it was not the original intention of Nāgārjuna to promote Mahāyāna Buddhism, the doctrine of Emptiness (Śūnyatā) advocated by Nāgārjuna had paved the way to the development of later Mahāyāna Buddhism. However, the original enterprise of MMK is to purify and apologize the authentic Word of the Buddha which had been defiled by the Buddhist heretics themselves. Nāgārjuna ought to be credited and extolled for his altruistic energy, astute precision, wit and spiritual wisdom to make the abstruse doctrine of Insubstantiality and Dependent Co-arising intelligible to the serious learners or practitioners of the true Doctrine (Saddharma) of Śākyamuni Buddha. The pragmatic value of Nāgārjuna’s critique of the heretics help us comprehend the profound message of Śākyamuni Buddha. MMK is highly valuable or beneficial in this regard. His refutations and dialectic arguments help explicate the abstruse doctrinal points of original Buddhism so that what are abstruse are made intelligible to us. Without Nāgārjuna’s expert utility of the concept of Emptiness (existing implicitly in his inner mind but not expressed explicitly in MMK) as an expedient device or skillful means to apprehend the ineffable ultimate truth of Reality, the profound message of Śākyamuni Buddha will forever remain obscure and abstruse to us. It would not be amazing at all that his insightful logical analysis and doctrinal wisdom in the exposition of MMK could have awakened many serious Buddhist practitioners to discern the highest ultimate truth of the true Dharma which the Blessed One was even reluctant to preach initially after His unsurpassed supreme enlightenment under the bodhi tree. MMK is actually not only a treatise of Buddhist reform movement but also, most significantly, it is a grand commentary (atthakathā) on the quintessence of the entire Buddhist canonical texts (Tipiṭaka of the  Theravāda tradition and Tripiṭaka of the Mahāyāna tradition). MMK is evidently a diligent attempt made by Nāgārjuna to furnish a correct view of the fundamental doctrine or thought of Buddhism or the authentic Word of the Buddha. It presents a concise and systematic view of the thought of Nāgārjuna which mirrors or pictures the true or original tenet of Śākyamuni Buddha. MMK is actually a grand commentary on the Kaccayanagotta-sutta (S.N) of the Theravāda tradition. Therefore, MMK may be considered as a form of resurrection of Early Buddhism. The value is immense as it eliminates the unnecessary distinction made between the Theravāda and Mahāyāna tradition. Therefore, MMK should not be viewed as the promotion of Mahāyāna Buddhism by Nāgārjuna. From the perspective of the enterprise of MMK, it is more appropriate to consider Nāgārjuna as one the two prominent Buddhist reformers. The other one was Moggaliputta-tissa who compiled the final treatise of the  Theravāda Abhidhamma, Kathavatthu (Book of Controversy) to refute heretical doctrines or views of diverge early schools of Buddhist Thought so as to purify and apologize the authentic Word of Śākyamuni Buddha.

The Saṅgha schism into Sthaviravāda and Mahāsaṃghika Schools of Buddhist Thought occurred about a decade after the demise of Śākyamuni Buddha and after the second Buddhist Council due to doctrinal controversies in Dhamma-Vinaya. The different Ābhidharmika systems based on the Theory of Elements (Dharmavāda) propounded by these diverse schools of Buddhist thought stimulated Nāgārjuna’s dialectic responses to opologize original Buddhism and refuted the heretical views posited by Sarvāstivāda School, Sautrāntika School, Pudgalavāda School and others. The emergence of 18/20 Hīnayāna Schools of Buddhist Thought mirrored the fermentation of Buddhist thought or philosophy in India about 100 years after the parinibbāna of Śākyamuni Buddha.The Sarvastivada propounded the doctrine of Self-nature (Svabhavavāda) and Theory of Tri-temporal Existence (Sarvamastivāda). Sautrāntika promulgated the doctrine of Perfuming Effect (vāsanā) and Seed Theory (Bījavāda). The Pudgalavāda or Saṃmītiya expounded the Theory of Individual (Pudgalavāda). The permanent substances which contradict with the fundamental doctrine of Insubstantiality and Dependent Co-arising kindled the reform spirit of Nāgārjuna to refute various erroneous views and apologize the authentic teaching of

Insubstantiality (Anatman) and Dependent Co-arising (pratītyasamutpāda). Any notion of permanent substance, substantiality or intrinsic nature is not compatible with the original Buddhism promulgated by Śākyamuni Buddha. The reform work of Nāgārjuna in MMK was to refute, rectify false or heretical views and put forwards the Right View of original Buddhism. Many Mahayanists generally but erroneously believe that MMK is an exposition of the Scriptures of Perfection of Wisdom (Prajñāpāramitā-Sūtras) discovered by Nāgārjuna in a dragon cave in southern India. A careful scrutiny of the entire MMK unveils that Nāgārjuna did not expound the doctrine of Emptiness (Śūnyatā) explicitly to promulgate the Mahāyāna Buddhist Canons of Prajnaparamita-Sūtras believed to be the precursor of the early Mahāyāna movement. What Nāgārjuna had actually undertaken was to preserve the original Word of Śākyamuni Buddha on the basis of the Kaccayanagotta-sutta (S.N). The Kaccayanagotta-sutta (SN) expounds the quintessence of the fundamental doctrine of Dependent Co-arising which is the middle view transcending the pairs of extreme views of absolute existence (atthita) and absolute non-existence (natthita) corresponding with eternalism (sassatavāda) and annihilationism (ucchedavāda) respectively. The central theme of the original teaching of Śākyamuni Buddha (including all Suttas of Theravāda and Sūtras of Mahāyāna traditions) is focused on the following key assertion of the Buddha:

Everything exists – this, Kaccayana, is one extreme.
Everything does not exist – this, Kaccayana, is the
second extreme.
Kaccayana, without approaching either extreme, the
Tathāgata teaches you a doctrine by the middle.

Kaccayanagotta-sutta (SN)

To ensure that we really discern this profound message of Dependent Co-arising which is the middle view of the ultimate truth of Reality, Nāgārjuna posited the Theory of Eight Negations in his Dedicatory Verses in the MMK enumerated as follows:

Neither Ceasing nor Arising
Neither Annihilationism nor Eternalism
Neither Identity nor Difference
Neither Appearance nor Disappearance

Nāgārjuna struck the nail right at the head revealing to us that whoever has intuitively apprehended or discerned these Eight Negations has realized the profound message of Dependent Co-arising. With such self-realization or self-awakening, all mental obsessions and dispositions are appeased. The resultant is the highest fruit of soteriology – the consummation or self-actualization of Nirvāṇa.

Reductio Absurdum

In the MMK, Nāgāna exhibits his dialectical skill of reductio ad absurdum. There are a few scholars who regard Nāgārjuna as the supreme logician or dialectician  who is able to defeat his metaphysical or substantialist opponents’ views by posing  sharp questions that cannot be refuted by the heretically doctrinal opponents when the logical paradoxes of the opponents were exposed by Nāgārjuna.It is an effective debating strategy of utilizing the opponent’s points of view to defeat his points of views. It is the utility of the opponent’s weapon to defeat the opponent’s views. Nevertheless, Nāgārjuna’s dialectic flair and wit were not exploited to personally defeat and frustrate the opponents who adhered to metaphysical or substantial views. His dialectic was a positive and constructive expedient device aimed to search for the ultimate truth of Reality and rectify wrong views with right views to defend the authentic teaching of the Tathāgata. In this positive note, a debater or reformer ought to learn from Nāgārjuna’s skill of Reductio Ad Absurdum. Nāgārjuna also utilized the expedient device of ratiocination of syllogisms to refute and convince his doctrinal opponents.

In the MMK, Nāgārjuna first presents the proposition of his metaphysical or substantial opponent. The proposition of the opponent is the assertion of a conventional truth (saṃvṛti satya) or a substantial view of ontological commitment. Nāgārjuna applies either the dialectic device of Reductio Ad Absurdum or Ratiocination of Syllogism to expose the logical paradox of his opponent. A proposition is a logical paradox when it is found to be irrationally or foolishly illogical. Next, he puts forwards his counter-proposition which embodies an ultimate truth (paramārtha satya) of Emptiness or Insubstantiality. The counter-proposition of ultimate truth instantaneously nullifies the proposition of the conventional truth of the opponent. The dialectic process of disputation is to utilize a right view to annihilate each wrong view or heretical view.

Conclusion

Behind Nāgārjuna strategy of Reductio Ad Adsurdum and Ratiocination of Syllogisms is the conception of Emptiness which is not explicitly expressed in MMK but existed implicitly in his mind. Reductio Ad Adsurdum is an art of disputation in which one’s position is not advanced but instead the proposition of the opponent is utilized as a counter-weapon to defeat him. The position of no position advanced is adopted because Emptiness relinquishes all views. The ultimate truth of Reality is ineffable and cannot be communicated. A conditioned phenomenon is just like an onion or banana trunk. When an onion or a banana trunk is peeled off layer by layer, no permanent substance or essence is to be found at the end of the peeling. Nāgārjuna launched the reform movement through his MMK because the metaphysicians or substantialists had inserted a permanent rod into the middle of the onion or banana. Nāgārjuna and Śākyamuni Buddha had repeatedly admonished the heretical opponents to abandon the permanent substance as it is an obstacle to actualize self-realizaton.  

References and Recommended Readings:

1. K.Inada, Kenneth,Nāgārjuna: A Translation of Mulamadhyamakarika with Introductory Essay.Dehli: Sri Satguru Publications, 1993.
2. Kalupahana, David.J, Mulamadhyamakakarika of Nāgārjuna: The Philosohy of the Middle Way. Dehli: Motilal banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, 2004.
3. Winters,Jonah, Thinking in Buddhism: Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way.http://www.geocities.com/gileht/thesis/nag0.5.htm, accessed 06.08.2002
4. Yin Shun, A Discussion on the Stanzas of the Mulamadhyamkakarika,Chinese Version.Taiwan: Right Hearing Publication Society, 1992