In the eyes of Buddhism,the doctrine of dependent arising solves
all
metaphysical philosophical problems.Etiology is solved because
there is,
not an absolute beginning, but an temporally indeterminate welling
up of
mutually-conditioned factors.Since no factor is temporally prior,
as such,
the discussions of genesis manage to avoid positing an absolute
beginning
without recourse either to a metaphysical entity like a
transcendent
God or to causal priority ad infinitum. Eschatology is solved
because,
since the ultimate end of existence is merely the appeasement of
arising
through appeasement of ignorant dispositions, there is no need to
predict
apocalypses or nihilistic destruction of existence. Things arose,
but there
was no ultimate cause, and things will cease, but there is no
ultimate fate.
Soteriology is likewise solved; one need not face either a final
Judgment
Day nor mere annihilation, but rather one will just face the
self-caused
abandonment of equally self-caused afflicted existence.When
ignorance
ceases, birth ceases, and death ceases. Karma, metempsychosis, and
the
nature of the soul are also all solved without recourse to abstract
soul-
theories. Karma is neither an adventitious elemental defilement,
like it is
for the Jains, nor a subtle and transcendental deterministic fate,
like for
certain schools of Hinduism. Karma is simply the correlation
between
cause and effect. Karma is determined by ones actions and
dispositions,
and when one appeases ones dispositions then, when eventually the
lingering effects of prior causes have come to fruition, existence
will be no
more. The simple conditioning of one link by another link enables
the
Buddhist karma to be determined without being deterministic,and
subtle
without being transcendental. Reincarnation is similarly solved
with no
recourse to atman-theories.Death is conditioned by birth, which is
in turn
conditioned by ignorance.Thiscontiguous contingencyobviates the
need
to posit a substantial and transcendently-enduring soul. The
perceived
existence and continuity of the individual is likewise explained
without
recourse to atman: since the aggregates of the individual arise
together,
and these aggregates account for the entire nature of the
individual, there
is no need to posit an extraneous metaphysical entity like the
self.The debate
of free will versus determinism is also solved.There can be no
free
will, for no element of existence is independent. All things are
dependent
upon other things, and so is the will. This does not mean that the
universe
is bound by inexorable determinism: the Buddha declared himself to
be
an upholder of free action,1 for it is ones will in the form of
volitional
dispositions which both caused existence in the first place and
will ultimately
bring about appeasement and freedom.2 Two more theories
repugnant
to the Buddha, the extremes of eternalism and
annihilationism,
are obviated by dependent arising. Nothing is eternal, for, when a
things
conditioning factors cease, then it will cease.Neither is anything
destined
to face destruction in non-existence for,as contingent upon other
things, it
was never independently real in the first place. Finally, dependent
arising
solves ontology. Things are empirically real, for they were arisen.
However,
they are not ultimately real, for there is no substance, tòn, on
which
they are founded. There is Becoming, but no Being. Since things are
not
ultimately real, the affliction of suffering can be vanquished; if
suffering
were ultimately real, then it could never be abolished.
The Abhidharma schools were the first to offer an interpretation of
the doctrine of dependent arising, but interpretation probably was
not their intent. They understood the doctrine to mean the temporal
succession of momentary and discrete elements (dharmas) which were
in themselves real.1They did not see dependent arising to mean that
the elements were only relatively real, but rather they saw it as
describing the interactions
between already-existing elements. The point of the doctrine
dependent
arising, they felt,was solely to negate soul-theories, not to
negate
the elements themselves. Dependence was thus seen as referring to
the
conditioning relations between the elements,which relations were
meticulously
analyzed and systematized. It was these relations that became
seen as the dynamic force of becoming.
The Perfection of Wisdom (Prajnaparamita) writings criticized
the
Abhidharma theory of relations as being, not an explanation of
dependent
arising, but an interpretation of it, and an interpretation with
which
they disagreed. The systematic hierarchy of relations was seen as
being
no less metaphysical than the speculative theories of causality
which the
Buddha was trying to avoid.2 A further problem was that, while it
was
not explicitly wrong to describe the universe as made up of
discrete elements,
it was misleading. To isolate an element temporally was to
take
a first step towards conceptually reifying that element. The
approach
adopted by the Perfection of Wisdom school was to elevate the
theory of
dependent arising from the empirical to the conceptual by
formulating a
two- truth theory, a theory later embraced by Nagarjuna. This
approach
declared that the Abhidharma schools saw reality from the
standpoint of
lower, conventional truth, and so they saw all as being composed of
real
elements which are mutually dependent in terms of causal efficacy.
The
Perfection of Wisdom, on the other hand, believed themselves to
have
access to perfect prajna, wisdom (hence the name of this school,
Prajnaparamita).
From the standpoint of higher, ultimate truth afforded by
such wisdom, elements were seen as being, not just causally
conditioned,
but even ontologically conditioned. That is, the elements did not
merely
constitute conglomerate things which, as an assemblage, had no
inherent
identity and real existence;moreover, rather, the elements
themselves had
no inherent identity or real existence.
The result of this interpretation of dependent arising is that the
elements
are empty; as dependent arisen, they are not real and are
without
self-nature. Furthermore, concepts, too, are unreal.3 All concepts
are
based on dualities as tallness is dependent on shortness. The
ultimate
implication of this interpretation is a shift from emphasis on
logical reasoning,
as evidenced in the Abhidharma, to non-dual intuition, or
prajna.
This non-dual intuition prefigured Nagarjunas use of
comprehensive
four-fold negations and the later mysticism of Zen.1 In the
writings of both the Perfection ofWisdom school and Nagarjuna, all
propositions regarding
a subject are negated (e.g. something is, is not, both is and is
not,
neither is nor is not), but no alternative proposition is offered.
The only
way to grasp the subject is through non-dual, non-conceptual
intuition.
(pls continue reading from the book...)
Source: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika with Commentary (You can
msg me for a request of this E-Book, I think there are some very
valuable teachings in there but I haven't got the time to read
much. Sent by a friend.)
