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

The opening verses

I'd like to give a kind of general theory of Buddhism, relying upon an Indian Buddhist book called Mulamadhyamakakarika, because I recently translated it from Sanskrit into Japanese.^[1]

At the beginning of the book, we can find four lines of verse. They suggest the fundamental view of Gautama Buddha. 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; as not serving any other aim, therefore existing for itself; and as not coming and not leaving. These words suggest that this world exists at the present moment. 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. Then, in the first verse of the first chapter, he denied the existence of subjectivity and objectivity.^[1][2]

What we think and what we perceive

We Buddhists believe in the existence of Dharma. Subjectivity is what we think, and objectivity means what we perceive. Nagarjuna says that an idea, or what we think, is only a superficial description of Dharma. So Nagarjuna insists that what we think does not exist inside Dharma. 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.^[1][2][3]

We usually feel this idea is very strange, because in our civilization, what we think is very important. Plato insisted that ideas are just reality; Nagarjuna's idea is completely the opposite. Materialism insists that what we perceive is just matter, the real existence; 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 is based on what we think and on what we perceive. 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.^[3][4]

Belief and action

In the second verse of the chapter, he listed four things which cannot be doubted by him: reason, the external world, the present moment, and reality. He described them as contents of belief. I guess he used the word belief because the existence of those four cannot be testified: he believed in those four, but he noticed that to certify their existence is beyond human ability.^[4]

And then he stated that, other than those, there is something more real, and what is more real is action. 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.^[4][5]

Zazen

The Mulamadhyamakakarika does not have any description of zazen. But 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 it as the fundamental theoretical structure of Buddhism; therefore he does not describe practice. But 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.^[5]

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. And sense stimuli from the surface of Dharma 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.^[5][6]

Action and morals

Relying upon this philosophy, Buddhism reveres action so enormously, and we can have a very strong reverence for morals. Now we are living at the end of the modern age. Relying upon scientific methods, we can have very strong destructive power, for example atomic bombs. 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.^[6]

Buddhist philosophy is based on reality, on morals, on action, and on human physical conditions. Those four factors make Buddhism exist. So, thinking 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.^[6][7]

Spirit

In Madhyamaka Karika, he denied the existence of soul or spirit completely in one chapter, and reading it I was rather surprised. Before that time, I had doubts about whether spirit exists or not. Master Dogen in Shobogenzo 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. But according to Master Dogen's idea, I have to think that spirit does not exist, and 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. 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.^[7]

Question: Sometimes we use spirit in a kind of everyday way. This week I have a cold, so physically I don't feel so good, but in my spirit, somewhere, I feel quite happy. Is that the same spirit which Nagarjuna denies?

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.^[9]

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

Yes. He does not deny the value of concepts. But we should not think that a concept is real existence.^[9]

A realistic philosophy

In Madhyamaka Karika, 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. 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, and in such a situation, they notice that it is not necessary to fight.^[8]

Reading Mulamadhyamaka-karika, I think that Buddhism is not a religion, but philosophy itself, because its contents are just philosophy, just theory, and I cannot find any kind of religious attitude in the book. I guess that in the 21st century or later, human beings will arrive at the realistic philosophy. Relying upon reality, we can have common conclusions on many problems. So I hope we can meet such an age in the future.^[9]

Reason and time

Question: What does Master Nagarjuna mean by reason?

Reason is the mental ability: the ability to think, the ability to perceive. The mental function is called reason. That is my interpretation.^[10]

Question: He denies subjectivity and objectivity, and reason is part of the thinking function.

So his idea is different. When he denied subjectivity and objectivity, I guess he found something which cannot be doubted, something which he has to believe in. 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.^[10]

Question: Reason means a way of using thought to explain, doesn't it?

So I used reason as the mental function.^[10]

Question: What is it in Japanese?

Risei. Risei is a rather philosophical word in Japanese, so usually we use kokoro.^[10]

Question: Kokoro. The working of the mind.

Yes, that is my idea.^[10]

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

Yes, that is his idea.^[11]

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

So he could not deny it.^[11]

Question: There was also one more thing he said, that Nagarjuna denies the instantaneousness of this world.

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.^[11]

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

It is not a philosophical description, but looking at this world, it does not seem instant, but it does not seem eternal.^[11]

Morals in Japanese society

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 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. According to a Japanese proverb, an honest person is stupid. 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.^[11][12]

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

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. And it is rather strange that in Japan such rules are not so clear today. 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.^[13]

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.^[13]