Chapter 2.3 - Nagarjuna’s Perspective of Mula-Madhyamika-karika

Human being consists only of five Skandhas viz.

1. Rupa — Form,
2. Vedana — Sensation,
3. Sanna — Perception,
4. Samskara — Mental Condition,
5. Vinnana — Consciousness.

Ch. IV examines the skandhas, the method of treatment of all existents feelings etc. are similar to that of material form. In Karma-Karika-Pariksha (Ch. VIII), Nagarjuna says: An agent proceeds depending upon action and action proceeds depending upon the agent. We do not perceive any other way of establishing them. The refutation of all metaphysical formulations of the motion of identity as applied to fire and fuel is presented in Ch. X that deals with the Agnindhana-Pariksha. This is done in terms of the analytical method followed in Ch. I namely, Pratyaya-Pariksha. Nagarjuna insists that what is being asserted as a self or soul is nothing other than the arising of a set of aggregates; depending upon (Pratitya) another set of aggregates. He analyzes the cause and effect of the suffering-duhkha-in the DuhkhaPariksha. On analyzing the Dukkha in the Duhkha-Pariksha, Nagarjuna certainly knows that the Buddha was utilizing the conception of dependence to avoid any metaphysical theory of eternalism. This was the basic theme and it was the middle position between the two extremes of eternalism and annihilation. The eternalism that comes to be embodied in a theory of selfcausation of suffering pertains more to the individual self or soul (Atman). Here analyzing the Skandhas and Svabhava, Nagarjuna insists that what is being asserted as a self or soul is nothing other than the arising of a set of aggregates.

Among the five aggregates (Skandhas) Nagarjuna selects the Rupa-Skandha, the object of perception. The material form is analyzed into the four great elements and these elements constitute the foundation of all forms of matter. These elements are the Earth (Prithvi), Water (jala), Fire (Agni) and Air (vayu). This explains the manner, in which they are experienced. The Abbidharma defines the four elements that support self-nature as well as what is derived from. Nagarjuna theoretically examines the method of treatment of all existents such as feeling, thought, perception and dispositions in every way similar to that of material form.

The theme of the Skandha-Pariksha is the rejection of any metaphysical Substance as the cause of material form. This means there is no rejection of the cause of material form but the criticism of the view that this cause is an invisible permanent entity distinct from the perceived material form. This analysis is made on the basis of mutual ‘dependence’ of material form (rupa). Thus, materials form and the cause are empty of substance because they are mutually dependent. Hence the verses (sutras) are very significant in that they seem to admit that the Madhyamikas have a positive thesis, namely ‘dependent arising’ which is accepted on the basis of experience. Thus, we can assume that Nagarjuna is an analytical Philosopher whose enterprise was confirmed solely to ‘analysis’ of opposing views utilizing the conception of emptiness (Sunyata), emptiness being the counterpart of dependent arising.

In the Agnindhana-Pariksha, Nagarjuna pointed out that fuel is not fire; but apart from fuel there is no fire. Fire is not possessed of fuel. Fuel is not in the fire, nor is fire in fuel. The refutation of all metaphysical formulations of the notion of identity as applied to fire and fuel is presented here. This is done in terms of the analytical methods followed in Ch.-I namely, PratyayaPariksha.

In the Svabhave-Pariksha, Nagarjuna examines the occurrence of self-nature through cusses and conditions without self-nature and other nature, whence can there be an existent? The existence is established only when there is self-nature or other nature. In the admonition to Katyayna, the two theories i.e. Existence and non-existence have been refuted by the Buddha who is adept in existence as well as in non-existence. In this discourse which exposes the un-tenability of the two extremes of metaphysical views (astitiva) existence and nastitva (non-existence). This is done by appealing to the empirical notions of arising (utpada) and ceasing (nirodha).

Nagarjuna has presented an outstanding explanation of the empirical conceptions of arising and ceasing of impermanence and change. Hence, thus, Buddha and Nagarjuna deals with the rejection of two metaphysical extremes. ‘Exists’ implies grasping after eternalism. ‘Does not exist’ implies the Philosophy of annihilation. Therefore, discerning person should not rely on either existence or non-existence. The theories of existence and nonexistence are not simple and harmless. They contribute unfortunate consequences. Theory of existence leads to the dogmatic grasping on the belief in eternalism. The conception of non-existence leads to an equally dangerous view of annihilation. Both these views are to damage the moral life of man. Hence a discriminative person or wise man would not associate himself with such extreme views.

The Ch. XVI examines the transmigration of dispositions (Samskara) though they would not transmigrate as permanent entities. The Buddha’s answer to these believers (Nithya) in a permanent and eternal self or entity is that any factor that contributes to human level, whether it is consciousness (Vinnana) or disposition (Sankara) or action (karma) or even grasping (Upadana), all these are dependently arisen. For Buddha, continuity can be explained in a more empirical way by following the principle of dependence of impermanent factors of existence, where one leaves an impression on another thing eliminating the need of assuming a permanent entity. Nagarjuna, here refers to two extremes, permanence and impermanence (Nitya and Anitya). The former represents the Sarvastiva idealism. The impermanence (Anitya) being the momentary destruction Kshanabhanga-Vada of the Buddhist metaphysicians.

Self-nature that is occurred as a result of causes and conditions would be something that is made, self-nature or Svabhava thus, becomes a major issue in Nagarjuna’s examinations. Svabhava and Parabhava represent the bifurcation of bhava, the latter is itself dependent upon abhava. Parabhava and Svabhava involve metaphysical motions of identity and difference. Buddha and Nagarjuna also expressed clear views on the metaphysical notions of identity and difference. This Svabhava and Parabhava dichotomy should be understood as the characteristic of nothingness. The metaphysical notions, the results of assuming a substance or Svabhava in a phenomenon, an assumption that is mutually related by a conception of absolute is Parabhava.

One who is substantially bound (Buddha) one who he’s the self-nature Svabhava, cannot be freed. He is absolutely free whose self-nature is freedom.

Karma-Phala-Pariksha examines self-restraint as well as benefitting others (good to all beings). This constitutes the seed that bears fruit here as well as in the next life. In the first Sutra of the Seventeenth Chapter, Nagarjuna deals with moral responsibility-‘Maitram Dharma’, where karma is identified with volition whether it is physically, mentally and verbally, wherein both physical and verbal actions are considered to have mind as the basis. Wherever the sprout proceeds from a seed, and then produces the fruit since a continuous series arises from thought, and from the continuous series that uprising of a fruit, the fruit that is preceded by action. We have to see whether our intensions or conscious volitions produce their intended effects. A good intention, when being translated into action, may be modified by many circumstances, or may be so the waited as to produce no result. The unfortunate habit of intending evil for others comes of the ignorance of the common brotherhood of man and all sentiment beings.

The pure paths of action are the means of achieving good. And the strands of sense pleasure represent the fruit of good here as well as in the next life. Nagarjuna is about to explain, in a more appropriate way of thought conceptualization (Kalpana). A right thought (Samyak Sankalpa), by the right view perception relating to right karma and its fruit (Phala). The imperishable karma would not be relinquished by simple action thus, imperishable arises the fruit of action though then Nagarjuna says the abandoning of the fruits of karma by constant practice. It can be done by performing the good actions and the constant avoidance of evil actions. Hence Nagarjuna as well as Buddha elaborates the doctrine of karma in a Psychological nature. And Nagarjuna emphasizes the imperishability of action-such is the doctrine of karma which taught by Buddha. The karma theory advocates the leading of ordinary people towards accepting a moral life. Indeed a morally perfect person is expected to promote good, while eliminating evil actions. If action were to be determined became it possessed self-nature, then a maturity that has matured will again mature. If both action and agent are non-existent, where could there be the fruit born of action? When there is no fruit, where can there be experiences? Here Nagarjuna describes the formulation of the metaphysical ideas of self and the perceptions in the mind and its images. He analyzes the mental activities and metaphysical ideas of self and Svabhava.