Mulamadhyamakakarika – A talk on the meaning of Nagarjuna's seminal work

Complete English transcript — About transcripts

I'd like to have a kind of general theory of Buddhism at the beginning of the lecture, especially relying upon a Buddhist Indian book called Mulamadhyamakakarika. Because recently I translated Mulamadhyamakakarika from Sanskrit into Japanese, and I published it from a publishing house. And in the translation, I noticed the fundamental basis of the author, Nagarjuna's Buddhist thought. So I think it is rather interesting for you to know the philosophical system of it. In the book, we can find four lines of poem at the beginning of the book.

And the four lines of poem suggest the fundamental view of Gautama Buddha, who was the establisher of Buddhist philosophy. And the four lines described this world. He described that this world is not concealed. This world has not appeared just now. In other words, this world has been in front of us. And he also described that this world is not so instantaneous, instantaneous, but not eternal. So, and he described this world does not serve for any other different aim. Therefore, this world exists for itself. And he said this world does not come, this world does not leave.

And this word suggests that this world exists at the present moment. And the author Nagarjuna said, Gautama Buddha preached us such words as are quiet, excellent words. So reading such poem, we can notice that Master Nagarjuna, the author's Buddhist idea is to accept this world as it is. So to accept this world as it is, the fundamental basis of Buddhist thought. And he described that there is no subjectivity and objectivity. So I would like to explain such idea on the board. We Buddhists believe in the existence of Dharma.

So Nagarjuna said at the beginning of the book, to accept this world as it is. And then, in the first verse of the first chapter, he denied existence of subjectivity and objectivity. So I have to explain the meaning of subjectivity and objectivity. Subjectivity is what we think, and objectivity means what we perceive. So usually people think this world by our intellectual ability. So people usually think about this world from the outside of this universe or Dharma. So we can get idea of this world.

And Nagarjuna says, idea or what we think is only superficial description of Dharma or this world. So Nagarjuna insists that what we think does not exist inside Dharma. And he also insists that objectivity does not exist. That means when we look at this world through our sense organs, we can get many kinds of sense stimuli. But sense stimuli is also image on the surface of Dharma.

So Nagarjuna insists that such objectivity, or what we perceive, does not exist in Dharma. So when we listen to this idea, we usually feel very strange, because we have excellent civilization. And in our civilization, what we think is very important. What we think is called thoughts. And some philosopher insists that thoughts are just real existence. For example, in Greece, there is a famous philosopher called Plato, and he insists that what we think, or ideas, are just reality. Ideas are existence. So thinking about such situation, Nagarjuna's idea is completely opposite. And at the same time, he denied the existence of sense stimuli.

Sense stimuli exist only in our sense. So it is difficult for us to think that such kind of sense stimuli is just the world. So Nagarjuna denied the existence of sense stimuli as reality. But in our philosophical area, there is another one famous philosophy which is called materialism. Materialism insists that what we perceive is just matter. That is just the real existence. So Nagarjuna's idea is different from such materialistic philosophy too, from materialistic philosophy too. So thinking about such thought, we can think that Nagarjuna's idea is strong criticism of our civilization, which are enjoying now.

Our civilization is based on idealistic philosophy, or what we think. And our civilization is based on what we perceive. But Nagarjuna insisted what we think is not reality, what we perceive is not reality. So he insisted the existence of Dharma, which is different from what we think or what we perceive. When we think about Buddhism, this understanding is very important. We usually think that what we think is just the truth, or what we perceive is just matter, and matter is another name of truth. But Nagarjuna's idea is different.

There is something called Dharma, and what we think is a superficial image of Dharma. What we perceive is a superficial surface of Dharma. And relying upon such the idea, his thought goes ahead. In the second verse of the chapter, he listed up four which cannot be doubted by him. And four is one is reason, and second is the external world, and the third is the present moment, and the fourth is reality. He quoted those four, and he described it as contents of belief.

He described that there is four contents of belief. So I guess the reason why he used the word belief. Because existence of those four cannot be testified. He believed the existence of those four. But it is impossible for him to testify the existence of those four. [unclear, 00:15:34–00:15:44: “Verify. Verify. So, certify. Certify.” / “Very fine. Verify. Verify. So uh certify. Mm certify. Mm.”] So he believed those four, but he noticed that to certify the existence of those four is beyond human ability. So he used the words belief. And then he described that other than those, there is something more real. And more real is action. So he noticed the existence of action in our daily life. And the present moment is the time when action exists. And Nagarjuna suggested that action and Dharma may be the same.

So according to his idea, this world exists at the present moment as action, and action is just Dharma. This is the fundamental philosophical system of Nagarjuna. And this idea sounds a little strange or very strange to us. But relying upon this idea, he described philosophy which is based on action. And in the Mulamadhyamakakarika, or Songs of Middle Way, does not have any description about zazen. But at the same time, I notice that without the experience of zazen, he never arrived at this idea, because his another works described zazen so much.

So I think that, as his conclusion of Buddhist thought, he wrote Madhyamaka-karika as the fundamental theoretical structure of Buddhism. Therefore he does not describe about practice. But at the same time, without practice, I think this idea can never... appear in his mind, I think, because he insists that when we are acting, we are in this place, or in Dharma. Many thoughts are based on when we are thinking the Dharma, and many materialistic philosophy was established when we are looking at Dharma from the outside. But our life is just in Dharma. Therefore, if we want to know Dharma, we have to enter into Dharma itself.

When we are thinking Dharma from the outside of Dharma, we can have thoughts about Dharma. But thoughts about Dharma is different from Dharma itself. When we are looking at Dharma from the outside of the world, we can get the sense stimuli of surface of Dharma. But such sensory stimuli does not mean the real feeling when we are living in Dharma.

So Buddhism insists that we should recognize that we are living in Dharma. Relying upon such experience, we can notice Dharma really, not intellectually, not sensually, but actually we can know Dharma relying upon action, relying upon experience. Therefore, this philosophical system suggests the necessity of practicing zazen. So relying upon such theory, we can understand the necessity of practicing zazen. And relying upon such philosophy, Buddhism revere action so enormously. Buddhism is philosophy which is based on action, or Dharma, or Reality. And relying upon such philosophy, we can have very strong reverence of morals.

Now we are living in the end of modern age, and we have very developed excellent sciences. And relying upon such scientific methods, we can have very strong destroying power. One example is atomic bombs. So if we use such powerful arms, we can have possibility to destroy human civilization completely. And in such situation, what we need is morals itself. The criteria of how to behave is the most important matter in the world today. And thinking about such situation, I esteem the value of philosophy which is based on action.

Relying upon such philosophy, we can esteem the value of virtues so strongly. And relying upon such virtues, we can survive in future. Without such moral criteria, whether we can survive in future or not is problematic. So in such meaning, we have to think about the meaning of Buddhist philosophy. Buddhist philosophy is based on reality. Buddhist philosophy based on morals. Buddhist philosophy based on action. And Buddhist philosophy is based on human physical conditions. Those four factors make Buddhism exist.

So thinking about such situation and thinking about Nagarjuna's intention to describe Buddhism, I notice that existence of Buddhism in the world today is very important for human existence in future. So my talk today is rather too abstract. So I think it is not so interesting. But to think about such theoretical matter is also important. To study Buddhism. Now I would like to stop my talks and have the time of questions and answers.

Question: Well, 17 years ago, when I first came to your seminar, you said once very strongly, You can teach us the whole of Buddhism in English. And I had a doubt for many years, because although you explained the four philosophies, something was missing. But in your explanation today, I feel completely satisfied.

Nishijima: Oh, thank you very much.

Question: So I'm very happy. Something in the explanation, reason, external world, present moment, reality, [unclear, 00:28:38–00:28:41: “and your four views of” / “and they are four views of”] action matches exactly with my experience at last. (laughter) So thank you very much. [unclear, 00:28:52–00:28:55: “It took you a long time.” / “It took took it a long time.”]

Nishijima: So, [unclear, 00:28:54–00:29:13: “there have been the lecture of Shobogenzo, or of the question.” / “Le pedano shobogendo, o a abdekristen,”] And in... [unclear, 00:29:13–00:29:46: “Madhyamaka Karika was the sayings of the middle way.” / “For the times of the middle way”] He said, he denied existence of soul, spirit. It has one chapter. In the chapter, he denied the existence of soul or spirit completely, reading it I was rather surprised. Before that time, I have doubt whether spirit exists or not. And in Shobogenzo by Master Dogen, he described also the non-existence of spirit. But among many religions, they usually believe in the existence of soul or spirit. Therefore, my idea is wobbling between the two, spirit exists or spirit does not exist.

But according to Master Dogen's idea in Shobogenzo, I have to think about that spirit does not exist. And reading Madhyamaka Karika, Nagarjuna insists also non-existence of soul or spirit. So, in the fundamental basis of Buddhism, such idea may be true. So according to such idea, I had some kind of rather clear decision about the soul or spirit. And according to Buddhist idea, Dharma, something which is including both spirit and matter. Spirit and matter does not exist independently. Spirit is human concept. Matter is also human concept. Dharma exists, and spirit does not exist. That is the Buddhist idea about spirit.

And in Madhyamaka Karika, he wrote about nirvana, and he just said, Nirvana is just our daily life. In Shobogenzo, Master Dogen also said, Our daily life is nirvana. Nirvana is just our daily life. So Buddhist idea is always realistic, not idealistic or not materialistic.

And relying upon such realistic philosophy, we can open the new age in which we can live relying upon reality. And this philosophy is very important when I think about the situation in the Eastern Asia, where they have wars. I think that both, if both sides rely upon reality itself, there is no difference. It is impossible for them to have different basis. And in such situation, they notice it is not necessary to fight. It is not necessary to pull the trigger of the guns.

So, to rely upon reality itself is very important attitude for human beings, I think. And Buddhist idea suggests such contents. So, reading Mulamadhyamaka-karika, I think that Buddhism is not religion, but philosophy itself, because the contents of Mulamadhyamaka-karika is just philosophy, just theory, and I cannot find any kind of religious attitude in the book. So in ancient India, people, some people, rely upon such philosophy and regulate their life. So I guess that in 21st century or later, human beings arrive at the realistic philosophy.

And realistic philosophy, we can feel that it is not necessary for fighting. It is not necessary to fight. Relying upon reality, we can have common conclusion in many problems. So I hope we can meet such age in future. Of course, at that time I am not living. But I expect such hope in the future of human society. Are there any questions?

Question: Very concrete question. You say that spirit doesn't exist. Sometimes we use spirit in a kind of everyday way. For example, this week I have a cold, so physically I feel not so good. But my spirit, somewhere I feel quite happy. So I call that somewhere spirit. Is that the same spirit which Nagarjuna denies?

Nishijima: So in that meaning, spirit is word. So word spirit suggests something. Something exists, but spirit does not exist. That is his idea. So Dharma exists, but human thoughts and sense stimuli are not real existence.

Question: But he doesn't deny our feelings which we group together with a word called spirit.

Nishijima: Ah yes. So he does not deny the value of concepts. But we should not think that concept is real existence. Yes.

Question: What does Master Nagarjuna mean about? What does he mean by reason?

Nishijima: Reason is the mental ability. So the ability to think, ability to perceive. The mental function is called reason. That is my interpretation.

Question: He believes that he denies subjectivity, objectivity, thinking about. And reason is part of the thinking function.

Nishijima: Ah, so that his idea is different. When he denied the subjectivity and objectivity, I guess he found something which cannot be doubted. So there is something which he have to believe in, and those objects are four. That is his idea. [unclear, 00:40:15–00:40:24: “So subjectivity, he does not affirm” / “So objectivity, he doesn't uh affirm”] the existence of subjectivity. He affirmed the existence of Dharma, but he does not affirm the existence of subjectivity. But in another area, he thought something which cannot be doubted, and those are four.

Question: The reason, in a way, is that something which cannot be categorized, which, [unclear, 00:41:10–00:41:12: “okay, it's like the objective,” / “I guess like objective”] our objective nature, but it transcends objectivity, I mean our thoughts.

Nishijima: Ah, so the four are real feeling of himself.

Question: And external world is our subjective feeling.

Question: [unclear, 00:41:27–00:41:29: “Reason? No, what you said.” / “Re reason no. Why do you say”]

Question: No.

Question: Otherwise we can't have any discussion about the word. Reason means a way of using thought to explain, doesn't it? Reason.

Nishijima: Ah, so I used the reason, the mental function.

Question: What is it in Japanese?

Nishijima: Risei. Risei is a rather philosophical word in Japanese. So usually we use kokoro.

Question: Kokoro. Working of the mind, the working of the mind.

Nishijima: Yes, that is my idea.

Question: So we can believe in the working of the mind, but he denies that what the mind sees, he denies that that is reality.

Nishijima: Ah, so yes, that is his idea.

Question: But the process of the mind working is called reason.

Nishijima: So he could not deny it.

Question: [unclear, 00:42:48–00:42:49: “You can't deny it.”]

Question: Just like the external world is, you can't deny that something exists, but our concepts of it are our... There was also one more thing he said, say that Nagarjuna denies the instantaneousness of this world.

Nishijima: Ah, so he described the time in one chapter, and in the chapter he suggests time is related with existence. Existence is related with time. So such idea is very similar or the same as Master Dogen's idea in Shobogenzo. So we can find many similarities between Master Dogen's thoughts and Madhyamaka.

Question: I think that Nagarjuna denied instantaneousness and eternal as well, two together.

Nishijima: It is not philosophical description, but looking at this world, it seems not instant, but it does not seem eternal.

Question: So both together.

Nishijima: Ah, yes. So relying upon this philosophy, when I think about human society, nowadays people who are intelligent are revered, and people who have sharp sense are also revered. But I think that people who do not wrong are not so [unclear, 00:45:29–00:45:41: “revealed” / “deviant”]. Especially in Japanese society, especially after the World War II, Japanese people do not believe the people who do not wrong. Therefore, I think that criteria of morals are not so important in society where we are living.

Question: It means society doesn't think that it's important.

Nishijima: So the people in the society do not reveal, revere, the value of morals. So the, in Japanese proverb, a person who is honest is stupid. This proverb is very strong, a kind of philosophy. And this proverb is very popular in Japanese society. And another proverb, red sign on the street does not make us fear when we are cross the street with many people. This idea also, whether to follow the rule or not is not so important. Many power of many people is strong. So this is also the denial of moral value.

Question: It's also true in Tokyo, for example.

Nishijima: Yes.

Question: It's quite interesting. In the West, if there are a group of people and one person passing, then the people imagine some kind of equal right to each individual. But in Japan, the group which is walking this way has much more power than the individual walking this way. So has to step to one side.

Nishijima: Yes. So the such conditions in Japanese society is not always. Before the war, the situation is a little different. So I think Japanese situation today should be changed. So I am making my effort.

Question: When I see a group of Japanese people walking towards me as a group, I always want to push right through the middle. It's a very rude feeling, but I always want to do it. What do you advise me to do?

Nishijima: So to follow the rules of the country is rather important. So when the country is decided, we should walk on the right side. We should walk on the right side. If country decided, we should walk on the left side. We should walk on the left side. And it is rather strange that in Japan such rules are not so clear today. So some people walk on the right side. Some people walk on the left side. So some people think that to follow rules is not so adequate. To follow the real situation without rules is one attitude and one kind of philosophy.

So to recover morals is very important point in Japanese society, I think. And to recover morals, we have to rely upon Buddhist philosophy, which is based on action itself. Relying upon the philosophy, we can explain why we should follow morals theoretically. So to explain it theoretically, we need philosophy which is based on action. So, okay? So at the end of the lecture, let us...

[recitation, 00:51:29–00:53:04]