- Metaphysics or Metapraxis -
With his book, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way,” as translated by Jay L. Garfield, Nagarjuna makes one of the greatest contributions to Buddhist Philosophy. His text not only inspired new traditions of Buddhist practice, but did so in a matter that seems to blur the lines between metapraxis and metaphysics. In this essay, I will show the philosophical context to which Nagarjuna is responding, describe how he is doing both metaphysics and metapraxis, and finally, I will briefly reveal the chief tenets of his work.
Like the traditions that precede him, Nagarjuna is responding to the teachings of the Buddha, hoping to properly interpret his word and ultimately achieve liberation from suffering. Clearly, this continues to be the cause of much debate. It was said that the Buddha gave no absolute guidelines to his followers, that he had no teachings about how everyone should practice.[1] Furthermore, throughout the Buddha’s sutras, we hear the rejection of the idea of an eternal, independent, or substantial ‘self’. [2] It is my personal belief (and what seems to be Garfield’s as well) that Nagarjuna has desperately tried to keep these two sentiments in full view.
This South Indian Buddhist philosopher began writing in second century C.E. to respond to Abhidharma schools of Buddhism that he found disagreeable. Such schools were practicing in ways that seemed to violate or abandon the spirit of the Buddha by proposing fixed religious practices and, to some degree, proposing the idea of an inherent self or essence. The earliest disciples of Buddha (the ‘First Council’) immediately began living in accordance to a monastic vinaya, and despite their understanding of anātman, they eventually ascribed an inherent and essential quality to dharma (svabhāva) [3]. To Nagarjuna, these two aspects were absurd, and seemingly, the very tenets that the Buddha hoped for his followers to avoid. Not only was Abhidharma literature trying to establish normative guidelines [4], but now dharma had two contradictory characteristics: a permanent substance and impermanent properties. For Nagarjuna, the misinterpreting of Buddha had gone too far.
Nagarjuna, too, was nonetheless an avid follower of the Buddha, and equally concerned with the soteriological as any other Buddhist. Having a soteriological orientation “requires the practitioner to develop a deep insight into the nature of his/her own mind,”[5] and dharma is precisely the relation between our mind and the world beyond ourselves—it is our duty towards other things/people, and it is the conventions we create to understand such attitudes. For this reason, the Nikāya[6] Monks were right to see the need to be clear with their understanding of dharma.[7] Unfortunately, their understanding of dharma was not only contradictory, but Nagarjuna insists that it was just plain wrong. Despite this philosophical lacuna, the Abhidharma Buddhists believed so deeply in the regimented processes of meditation offered by their tradition, that suddenly Nikāya Buddhism looked more like an ortho-praxis methodology, which was precisely the kind of praxis the Buddha wanted to prevent. Ironically, the many different Abhidharma schools thereof were in disagreement. This is the special case where Nikāya Buddhists had an improper understanding of the world, which in turn led to an improper basis for meditation. What was needed was a clear understanding of dharma, specifically its arising and cessation. Nagarjuna gives us this. He gives us a definition of dharma that is consistent on the metaphysical level, and suddenly we have a Mahayana tradition that practices meditation, but not as a fixed path.[8]
The Nikāya tradition was clearly developed for metapraxis—as it was a tradition built from an assumption of dharma and focused on the practice of meditation for the achievement of nirvana. However, I believe that these Abhidharma traditions were in disagreement because there was no binding metaphysics to ground their understanding of dharma. No metaphysical definition of dharma was available because fundamentally, they were unable to understand the way the world works. Nagarjuna gives us such a definition. I understand that the fundamental issue for the Nikāya monks and for Nagarjuna is not knowledge of the world, but rather, liberation from suffering and knowing the proper ways to meditate. This is chiefly a concern of metapraxis. However, Nagarjuna needs to reconstruct our understanding of dharma, and all phenomena in the world for that matter, and this is to root the praxis on metaphysical grounds. Hence, Nagarjuna is doing both—one for the sake of the other. The question becomes, ‘how does Nagarjuna reconstruct the Nikāya understanding of dharma?’
Admittedly, the Abhidharma philosophers were at an impasse, where they struggled to articulate what actually happens at higher forms of meditation. They knew to meditate on impermanence, but amongst their ‘systematic accounts of dharma’ and ‘divided matrices of experience’ [9], they found it difficult to map out precise ways in which dharma actually change [10]. Furthermore, they tried to fix this problem by coming up with different theories to explain how dharmas interact causally. Nagarjuna will show that the Nikāya Buddhists were mistakenly troubled with trying to understand dharma through causation. He achieves this by showing two things: a) there is no such thing as causal power [11]; it is only the case that conditions constitute everything [12], and b) nothing has an essence; everything is empty, including emptiness itself. These are the major tenets of Nagarjuna’s text, and he basically explains these premises at the onset, and spends the rest of his book showing how every phenomena in the world, including ourselves, is the result of one of the four conditions, and what falls from this is that nothing has inherent existence.
I could delve further into Nagarjuna’s explanations of ‘conditions’ and ‘inherent existence’, but I’ll save that for another paper. I will leave you with one last thought: in this paper, I am proposing that Nagarjuna reconstructs our understanding of dharma, and that this is a metaphysical undertaking. I say this because it deals with the way the universe works, the way we experience phenomena in the world. However, by the time Nagarjuna is done with his metaphysical work, we are left with an understanding that dharma is not only empty, but purely conventional and conditional. That is to say that it is without inherent existence, without essence and surely without ātman. Nagarjuna divides the world into two truths: ultimate reality, and conventional/nominal reality, only to tell us that ultimate reality does not exist (and to think so is our root delusion!). Well, now I am left to contemplate—are we really engaged in metaphysics if ultimate reality is inexperience-able?
This is a question that stumped me for days. But I must maintain that to provide a definitional account of dharma is still metaphysics, and yet, I concede that there is no way to understand what Nagarjuna is explaining without practice. So, I stick to my guns, and insist that in his book, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, Nagarjuna engages in both metaphysics and metapraxis in order to restore the tenets of the Buddha to Mahayana tradition, and to rescue practioners from falling victim to a misguided ortho-praxis.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Abhidharma Buddhism, Chp. 2, pg. 41 (following the anecdotal story of the Buddha’s favorite disciple, Ānanda).
[2] “In some of the Buddha’s most important teachings, he rejects the idea of an eternal, independent, or substantial ‘self,’ and develops the idea that a person is composed of a complex inter-relation between five aggregates (skhandha) … ” (Abhidharma Buddhism, Chp. 2, p. 38). This exhibits the Buddhist notion of “anātman,” where there is no hidden or unchanging self. Such an understanding of the self is in direct contrast to the Hindu view, called “ātman”— the existence of an indestructible, eternal soul.
[3] To their credit, I should mention that different Abhidharma traditions differed in their interpretation of svabhāva (for the Sarvāstivādin, dharma had a causal identity that remained throughout the 3 time periods much like ātman [p.55]; whereas, for the Sautrāntika, dharma was simply a ‘continuous flow’ that came in and out of every moment instantaneously [p.59] ), but nevertheless, they agreed that an essential nature of dharma played some role in their mediation regimens.
[4] Vasubandhu reflects this opinion in his Abhidharmakośa, basically saying that liberation entails following a fixed meditative routine, where examining/investigating existents through the teachings of a true doctrine and by way of a particular meditation was the only way to attain liberation (Abhidharma Buddhism, Chp. 2, pg. 46).
[5] The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way (FWMW, p. 107)
[6] This is a reminder for me, more than anything, but after the ‘Second Council’, the schisms deepened into two major groups: The Mahāsāmghika (great assembly) which underwent 9 more schisms that led to the Mahayana tradition [Nagarjuna]; and the The Sthaviravāda (monks of great council) that divided into 11 different Abhidharma schools which are all referred to as Nikāya Buddhism.
[7] “Without understanding how dharma arise and cease, how they condition other things, and how they are related through subtle relays of cause and effects, one cannot attain liberation,” (Abhidharma Buddhism, Chp. 2, p. 46)
[8] Or at least, this is what I’m left to assume… I haven’t been assigned any reading that shows exactly how the Mahayana tradition views meditation, or how it suggests reaching nirvana… and clearly the FWMW book doesn’t offer any means for overcoming our suffering/delusion.
[9] Abhidharma Buddhism, Chp. 2, p. 60
[10] Abhidharma Buddhism, Chp. 2, p. 52.
[11] “Neither from itself nor from another,/ Nor from both,/ Nor without a cause,/ Does anything whatever, anywhere arise,” (FWMW, p. 105).
[12] Garfield justly writes, “Nagarjuna, we shall see, argues against the existence of causes and for the existence of a variety of kinds of conditions” (FWMW, p. 104)… Nagarjuna then goes on to explain the four conditions and to show the ways that such conditions constitute all phenomena.
[…’Reincarnation’ as just a hopeful romantic ideal…]
If I believe in I Heart Huckabees’ blanket theory that says we recede back into the cosmic force when we die, and we understand this cosmic will to constitute all of the material world, couldn’t we assume that if I died in Africa (or USA, or Eugene), that I’d likely reincarnate near the same region? What is the likelihood that my spirit will travel around the globe, and reabsorb into human form halfway across the world— especially if the soul reincarnated immediately! … I can see how the Dali Lama tradition proceeded as so…
Do you ever read Emerson and think you just might be Emerson reincarnate?… picking up where you left off, moving forward in precisely the same way? Maybe we really only live once, but leave behind a spirit/path that others follow. It’s a system meant to inspire. Nothing more. And only the few will reach enough Enlightenment to influence the world. How? I do not yet know. But I will try.
Each life is one effort to push the potential of mankind. Cosmic Will wants you to help nuture her, but we will extinguish ourselves if we cannot live in her harmony. Yes, reincarnation aside, we will die anyway, but there is a way to be at peace with all experience. Simply trying to live in this way will give those that live after you a better chance as well— in fact, your biological disposition (environmental context, psychological persuasion, etc.) compels you! You are given a gift.
What is the consequence if you (don’t) take advantage of it?
Ayn Rand (1981) said that ‘philosophy studies the fundamental nature of human existence and mankind’s relationship to existence.’ I like this definition, and think it’s accurate. Don’t you?
However, the idea that we study our own relationship to experience is kind of a tricky idea, isn’t it?
Particularly, Rand’s description of philosophy raises some concerns for me:
Considering all these questions, can we really deny that THIS kind of thinking is exactly what Rand’s definition calls for? Aren’t we already doing philosophy, even while disputing the definition itself? That being said, it seems clear to me how there is so much work to be done in philosophy…. doesn’t it?
I climbed into the plum tree
and ate the grapes I found there.
The owner of the garden called to me,
“Why are you eating my walnuts?”
[ha ha! I think this is as ridiculous as the idea that ‘atman is brahman’,
… ha ha!.. oh, wait ;P
Finally got my head on straight. I slowed it all down, and took a look at it…
An old friend, Moriah, came into Little’s Market while I was working on Saturday afternoon, and she was with a friend named Jennifer. My mood was casual and I’ve been reading—as many hours in the day that I can manage to free up— this Emerson manuscript for about a week straight (titled, “Emerson & the Light of India” by Dr. Robert Gordon). It’s consumed me. I look up from my chair at work, and am quickly greeted by an old familiar smile. I’m already at peace before she even walks in, so my expression barely changed. “Hey, what’s goin’ on,” I asked. Introductions are made, small-talk and catch-up ensues, and then boom, we’re discussing the book, and what’s more, we’re back into the conversation that they (Moriah and Jennifer) were having before entering into the store… The exact same kind of discussion, questions on ‘how one should live in the world.’ It couldn’t have been more than an instant before we were all into such progressive converation. It was real talk. Admittedly, it hasn’t happened in a while. We weren’t just relaying events that happened, but actually hammering out our comparisons of real conscious experience. As if a director behind a camera snapped his fingers, we were off to the races with our minds.
Moriah is a good thinker and appears to be a strong believer as well. I think these people struggle/suffer the most, but their effort is the most rewarding—I believe their shift to ‘clear’ thinking to be the largest and crudest kind of awakening. Anyways, we have an exchange that transcends time for a moment. In retrospect, an hour might have passed… a whole slew of customers and friends must have come and gone, but I only remember our chat. We shared views on Emerson, on Buddha, on Hinduism, Heidegger, Krishnamurti. We raised examples from the bible, from Nagarjuna, from Ouspensky, from the world…
She reminded me of the pain of attachment. She was raw, and I could feel that. She walked into the store mentally distracted by the fear of living a life that one day falls under judgment. I quickly opened the conversation to how Emerson once believed the same, even became ordained as a Unitarian minister. But he quickly found the philosophy of India and abandoned the view that life is a trial which one day comes to Judgment, and in its place, adopted a more ‘pragmatic’ approach—one that sees life as a spiritual process. He went so far as to believe in a kind of reincarnation called transmigration… the spirit of a person comes back lifetime after lifetime, each time bettering their ability to awaken to the soul within (atman), which really is the exact same fabric of the one Cosmic Will (Brahman) that is all things.
Moriah found such talk familiar, and we found ourselves wondering what authority confirms that a traveler is ‘on the right path’, or searching/practicing correctly. It’s a good question, and I could only offer her what I’ve read and experienced. A mystic will tell you (ie., Emerson, Ouspensky, Buddha, etc.) that “Atman is Brahman,” and you will agree because that’s what you’ve read, or know to be true of what they say, but the fact of the matter is that this isn’t some philosophical statement. It’s an actual experience—an experience that results from practice. Let us not forget the question: “How shall I know what I’m practicing, and who will tell me I’m practicing rightly?”
The Abhidharma Literature from the monastic monks of yesteryore would insist that there are certain systematic ways of practicing transcendental meditation. They agree that the goal is to rid the mind of thoughts, to burn off the conventional beliefs, feelings, thoughts that we impose onto reality. The Buddha reminds us that we have attachments to such things, and that these are difficult to shake (ie., fear, jealousy, pain, pride, etc). Once we think about clearing our minds of such attachments, eventually not even a thought will stand between you and the experience of what you are doing. This is freedom, this is the experience of the soul itself (atman), which is all one Nature (Brahman), and this is nirvana. And if everyone on earth would arrive at this state, Heaven would reign on earth. Compassion would unfold from our actions and unite all things. Emerson insists that truth is pragmatic and progressive. It is organic and grows as Nature progresses. Nature and soul are one, and the more souls that reunite with Nature, the more Nature is fulfilled, and even the concept of what is understood to be Truth expands. So, with each new awakened soul, truth on earth grows. Compassion on earth grows. Right action grows. Heaven on earth would be a world like you’ve never seen, a virtue and a love unprecedented.
We agreed that this sounded marvelous, then Moriah raised a shocking prejudice: the conecpt of “self-righteousness”. What do we make of the self through all of this? Is all perspective illusion? She argued that we are here destroying the experience of ego, but at the same time, it is this same ego that is justifying the use of meditation to kill the ego— rather, what then, when the ego wrongfully serves as an authority? “Interesting.” I thought for a moment and continued my response,
“You’re asking if we can trust the ego here, while knowing that all views are illusion? Do I hear you saying that this system of thought is all one egotistical fabrication? I think I do. And I like it, but the clear response from Buddha is that the ego itself is illusion…”
She interrupted. She had to expand on this question of ‘self-righteousness’. She was stuck: “Aren’t we acting self-righteously when we think that we are of the spiritual level that is ready to travel the ‘right’ path?” Emerson will say that this is a freedom we are born with, a freedom that we earned over the course of our soul’s development. Not everyone even has such inclinations—some people are still stuck acting on purely instinctual, animalistic behaviors. Others barely know how to exercise the freedom to choose to live a spiritual life. Still fewer, are born with the inclination to give themselves to the path of enlightenment. This is not self-righteousness, Emerson will tell her. I thought a bit more and asserted, “It might be self-righteous to believe you’re ready to practice, and then never actually begin…”. But I digress.
Where were we? I think the buddha was going to tell us that, in general, Moriah’s question is a good one. How can we trust the ego if it’s just an illusion? Well, yes, our entire selfhood is an illusion. Our root delusion is what constructs the material world and all of our thoughts and actions thereto. This illusion seperates the world into individual things, and we see the world in parts. All I can tell you is of things. But to know them youreself is to acknowledge the arduous process of practice. Ouspensky will tell you that practice will bring results, and to let the practice itself show answers to your questions. But again, you must start. I remembered what I read in the Tao Te Ching:
My words are very easy to understand and very easy to put into practice
Yet no one in the world understands them or puts them into practice. (TTC, 70)
I spoke again, “Just put yourself to practice, and start with your attachment to the fear that the ego is self-righteous.” We continued to talk, and agreed that the Abhidharma Buddhists, who tried to systematize the practice itself, were too strict in their thinking, and that she could begin her practice the moment she went outside and began walking down the street. But the truth of the matter was that, eventually, she would have to practice specifically so as to achieve the absence of the thought itself. This requires patient and careful meditation, and cannot be done while doing other things. You will know when you are close, and with each new right foot that hits the pavement on your path, you will walk that much more awakened consciousness, and what’s more, you will somehow come to know what to do next.
Next thing I knew, I was helping a line of customers, and Moriah and Jennifer were gone. Only one thing concerns me… we didn’t finish! But, I guess, when do you ever? I wrongly told her that Emerson ended up rejecting the benevolence of Nature for a Nature that was indifferent to humanity. As I read on, I learned that this is a common misconception. I may have steered Moriah wrong. I also wondered: did she take the existential leap into phenomenology, or did I keep her on the side of transcendental mysticism?
Even if we all agreed that to awaken was to strive, a kind of striving that might even continue lifetime after lifetime all the while trying to one day empty the consciousness—even if this emptying is just a momentous road stop on the path of life, we should acknowledge that it is real achievement, for all of us as one humanity. The Buddha will tell us that this clarity is blissful and heavenly. But yes, life keeps going. We must return to interacting with the real world, and after awakening we should return to acting compassionately in the world. But, something tells me that Moriah will hear all this and raise the existential concern. Camus or Sartre, true existentialist thinkers, reach this emptiness and call it ‘existential dread.’ They find this emptiness to imply that there is no reason for us to be on earth, and that we must live so as to construct some meaning.
What the existentialist does not realise is that they are still imposing view on the world. Ultimate reality, Nature itself, will not fit the description of any human conception. I have to believe that existentialists exist one hair below the line between Fate and Freedom. They are stubborn, and stranded. Caught between two worlds. They are in limbo between illusion (maya) and awakened consciousness. I could say more, but I’ll save it. I just hope Moriah finds the answers… the world needs her.