Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika

Complete English transcript — About transcripts

Editorial note: This transcript of a spoken talk has been lightly edited to read well as written text, keeping the speaker’s voice and meaning; the wording was adjusted with great care. We recommend listening to the original audio recording too.

I'd like to give a kind of general theory of Buddhism at the beginning of the lecture, especially relying upon an Indian Buddhist book called Mulamadhyamakakarika, because I recently translated Mulamadhyamakakarika from Sanskrit into Japanese and published it with a publishing house. 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 its philosophical system. At the beginning of the book, we can find four lines of verse.

These four lines of verse suggest the fundamental view of Gautama Buddha, who was the founder of Buddhist philosophy. The four lines describe this world. He described this world as not concealed. This world has not appeared just now; in other words, this world has been in front of us. He also described this world as not so instantaneous, but not eternal. He said that this world does not serve any other aim; therefore, it exists for itself. And he said that this world does not come, this world does not leave.

These words suggest that this world exists at the present moment. And the author Nagarjuna said that Gautama Buddha preached to us these quiet, excellent words. So reading this poem, we can notice that the Buddhist idea of the author, Master Nagarjuna, is to accept this world as it is. So to accept this world as it is, the fundamental basis of Buddhist thought. And he said that there is neither subjectivity nor objectivity. So I would like to explain this idea on the board. We Buddhists believe in the existence of Dharma.

Nagarjuna said at the beginning of the book: to accept this world as it is. Then, in the first verse of the first chapter, he denied the 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. Usually people think about this world with their intellectual ability. They usually think about it from outside this universe, or Dharma, and so we can get an idea of this world.

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

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

Sense stimuli exist only in our senses. So it is difficult for us to think that such sense stimuli are just the world. So Nagarjuna denied the existence of sense stimuli as reality. But in our area of philosophy, there is another famous school, which is called materialism. Materialism insists that what we perceive is just matter, and that is just the real existence. So Nagarjuna's idea is different from such materialistic philosophy too. Thinking about this, we can think that Nagarjuna's idea is a strong criticism of our civilization, which we 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 that what we think is not reality and what we perceive is not reality. So he insisted on 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 that what we perceive is just matter, and matter is another name for 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. Relying upon this idea, his thought goes ahead. In the second verse of the chapter, he listed four things which cannot be doubted by him. Of the four, the first is reason, the second is the external world, the third is the present moment, and the fourth is reality. He quoted those four and described them as contents of belief.

He described that there are four contents of belief. So I guess the reason why he used the word belief is that the existence of those four cannot be testified. He believed in the existence of those four, but it is impossible for him to testify to it. Verify... certify. So he believed in those four, but he noticed that to certify the existence of those four is beyond human ability. So he used the word belief. And then he stated that, other than those, there is something more real, and what is 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. This idea sounds a little strange, or very strange, to us. But relying upon this idea, he described a philosophy which is based on action. The Mulamadhyamakakarika, or Songs of Middle Way, does not have any description of zazen. But at the same time, I notice that without the experience of zazen he would never have arrived at this idea, because his other 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 practice. But at the same time, I think this idea could never have appeared in his mind without practice, because he insists that when we are acting, we are in this place, or in Dharma. Many thoughts are based on our thinking about Dharma, and many materialistic philosophies were established when we were 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 about Dharma from outside Dharma, we can have thoughts about Dharma. But thoughts about Dharma are different from Dharma itself. When we are looking at Dharma from outside the world, we can get sense stimuli from the surface of Dharma. But such sensory stimuli do 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; we can actually know Dharma by relying upon action, relying upon experience. Therefore, this philosophical system suggests the necessity of practicing zazen. Relying upon this theory, we can understand the necessity of practicing zazen. And relying upon this philosophy, Buddhism reveres action so enormously. Buddhism is a philosophy which is based on action, or Dharma, or Reality. And relying upon this philosophy, we can have a very strong reverence for morals.

Now we are living at the end of the modern age, and we have very developed, excellent sciences. Relying upon such scientific methods, we can have very strong destructive power; one example is atomic bombs. So if we use such powerful arms, it is possible for us to destroy human civilization completely. In such a situation, what we need is morals themselves. The criterion of how to behave is the most important matter in the world today. And thinking about this situation, I esteem the value of a philosophy which is based on action.

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

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

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

Nishijima: Thank you very much.

Question: So I'm very happy. Something in the explanation, reason, external world, present moment, reality, and your four views of action, matches my experience exactly, at last. (laughter) So thank you very much. It took you a long time.

Nishijima: In Madhyamaka Karika, the sayings of the middle way, he denied the existence of soul, spirit. It has one chapter on this. In the chapter, he denied the existence of soul or spirit completely, and reading it I was rather surprised. Before that time, I had doubts about whether spirit exists or not. And in Shobogenzo, Master Dogen also described the non-existence of spirit. But many religions usually believe in the existence of soul or spirit. Therefore, I was wobbling between the two: spirit exists, or spirit does not exist.

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

In Madhyamaka Karika, he wrote about nirvana, and he 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 the Buddhist idea is always realistic, not idealistic and not materialistic.

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

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

With realistic philosophy, we can feel that it is not necessary to fight. Relying upon reality, we can have common conclusions on many problems. So I hope we can meet such an age in the future. Of course, at that time I will not be living. But I have such a hope for the future of human society. Are there any questions?

Question: A 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 don't feel so good. But in my spirit, somewhere, I feel quite happy. So I call that somewhere spirit. Is that the same spirit which Nagarjuna denies?

Nishijima: In that sense, spirit is a word. The 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 under a word called spirit.

Nishijima: Yes. He does not deny the value of concepts. But we should not think that a concept is real existence.

Question: What does Master Nagarjuna mean by reason?

Nishijima: Reason is the mental ability: the ability to think, the 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: So his idea is different. When he denied subjectivity and objectivity, I guess he found something which cannot be doubted. So there is something which he has to believe in, and those objects are four. That is his idea. So he does not 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 of something which cannot be doubted, and those are four.

Question: Reason, in a way, is something which cannot be categorized, which is, I guess, like our objective nature, but it transcends objectivity, I mean our thoughts.

Nishijima: So the four are his own real feeling.

Question: And the external world is our subjective feeling.

Question: Reason? No, what you said.

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: So I used reason as 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. 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 is reality.

Nishijima: Yes, that is his idea.

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

Nishijima: So he could not deny it.

Question: You can't deny it.

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

Nishijima: He described time in one chapter, and in that chapter he suggests that time is related to existence, and existence is related to time. Such an idea is very similar to, 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 eternity as well, the two together.

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

Question: So both together.

Nishijima: Yes. Relying upon this philosophy, when I think about human society, nowadays people who are intelligent are revered, and people who have a sharp sense are also revered. But I think that people who do no wrong are not so revered. Especially in Japanese society, especially after World War II, Japanese people do not believe people who do no wrong. Therefore, I think that the criteria of morals are not so important in the society where we are living.

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

Nishijima: So people in the society do not revere the value of morals. According to a Japanese proverb, an honest person is stupid. This proverb is very strong, a kind of philosophy, and it is very popular in Japanese society. And another proverb: a red sign on the street does not make us afraid when we cross the street with many people. In this idea too, whether to follow the rule or not is not so important. The power of many people is strong. So this is also a 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 is a group of people and one person passing, then people imagine some kind of equal right for each individual. But in Japan, the group which is walking this way has much more power than the individual walking this way, so the individual has to step to one side.

Nishijima: Yes. Such conditions in Japanese society have not always been so. Before the war, the situation was a little different. So I think the Japanese situation today should be changed, and so I am making an 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: To follow the rules of the country is rather important. When the country has decided that we should walk on the right side, we should walk on the right side. If the country has decided that 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. Some people walk on the right side, and some people walk on the left side. So some people think that following 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 a 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 this philosophy, we can explain theoretically why we should follow morals. So to explain it theoretically, we need a philosophy which is based on action. Okay? So at the end of the lecture, let us recite Fueko.

[recitation, 00:51:29–00:53:04]