Refutation of Pratītya-samutpāda as Theory of Causality:
Refutation of Pratītya-samutpāda as Theory of Causality: In the case of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
1. Introduction
1.1: Theory of pratītya-samutpāda
1.2: Chronicle of Buddhist Canon
1.3: Nāgārjuna and Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
2. Critical Analysis of Pratītya-samutpāda in MMK
2-1. A Brief Remark on Three Modern Writers on MMK.
2-2. Therāvadin or Standard Theory of Pratītya-samutpāda.
2-3. Philological Analysis on MMK
2-3-1: Analysis on the chapters of MMK
2-3-2: Analysis on MMK’s Key Words.
3. Critical analysis on the dedicatory verse.
3-1. Importance and implication of the dedicatory verse.
3-2. A critical note on the authorship of the dedicatory verse.
4. Critical analysis on the chapter of examination on pratyaya
5. Critical analysis on the chapter of 12 links.
6. Critical analysis on this and that
5. Critical analysis on the concept of PS.
7. Criticism on the analysis of PS of Nakamura.
8. Conclusion
1. Introduction
1.1: Theory of pratītya-samutpāda
Perhaps, there is no other theory that discussed and tried to explain than the theory of pratītya-samutpāda (Sanskrit) or paṭicca-samuppāda (Pāli)—a technical term which is generally rendered in to English as dependent origination—in the field of Buddhist philosophy. The number of discussions and the degree of debate itself prove importance of the theory. Every philosophical book—whether it is ancient one or modern one—necessarily mentions and belabours its implication.
Hence, no one can exaggerate importance of the theory in the field. In spite of the fact, rather disappointingly, its implication is not only yet fully explained but it is considered as rather enigmatic. It is hardly sceptical about the fact that the Buddha taught the theory of pratītya-samutpāda and it was
one of his main teachings that forms essential part and closely related with other parts of the teaching. But the problem is we don’t have the exact record of the teaching of the Buddha, and almost every text and each philosopher gives slightly different or completely different version of the theory. Under that circumstance, the chaos occurs so that everyone comes to claim that I know and understand what the core teaching of the Buddha, that is the theory of pratītya-
samutpāda, of which each one has different description and understanding. Nevertheless, the situation rather proves that either only a few people understood or none of them understood the theory properly. Even if the second chance is not impossible to be happened, we will not take it seriously as we have nothing to do with it. What we actually can do with the theory is distinguish the difference between all the major texts and its philosophers or its schools, and then organize them chronically so that we can see the difference and development of the theory.
1.2: Chronicle of Buddhist Canon
In order to proceed the work suggested above, it would be most convenient if we have the actual record of the teaching of the Buddha. Then, we no need to resort to various commentaries and philosophical texts of disciples of the Buddha to know about the theory. That’s because of it is not that we want to know the philosophy of the theory itself, rather we want to know how the Buddha understood it and preached it. None of Buddhist or the disciples would claim that I
know or understand better than the Buddha. They all will follow or understand it in the line of the master’s enlightenment on the theory. Therefore, it sounds as simple as we look at the canon, and list all of the records related to it and simply compare it if there is any difference. It seems there is no need of studying any other texts and thinkers of Buddhism for the purpose. But the actual situation is not so simple as we might thought above. Unfortunately, still
many scholars seem to believe that the teaching of the Buddha is well preserved and transmitted to us through various councils and written materials from the very time of the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha. However, the historicity of the councils are not only questioned by various scholars, actual time of inscription is quite late than we image. The Buddhist canon is committed to inscribe first time in our historical record in the time of the reign of King Vaṭṭagamiṇi (29-17
B.C.E.). This is also called as Alu-vihāra redaction as this event was happen at Alu-vihāra. Nonetheless, we don’t know regarding the actual contents and scope of the recording of the redaction. What we definitely know about the present form and contents of the canon is at the time of Buddhaghoṣa(ca. 5th C.E.) or one century earlier than that, as we can find in the Chinese translation of the canon. However, this is not to deny that the Buddhist canon contains the teaching of the Buddha, but that is to say that its ideas and philosophies contain in the canon would tend to reflect the current or little older fashion of the society at the time of inscription. Thereby, tracing the implication of the theory given by the Buddha through listing and comparing of the Buddhist canon cannot be a legitimate option for us.
1.3: Nāgārjuna and Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
Nāgārjuna is the most prominent personality in Tibetan and East Asian Buddhism. He born at South India and lived around 150 to 250 C.E. His position in those countries is even much higher than the blessed commentator Buddhaghoṣa in Therāvadin countries. Thence two grand epithets are given to him: The second Buddha and the patriarch of eight schools(八宗祖師). Here, the eight schools do not mean just eight among numerous schools, rather all the important schools of China
at the time when the epithet is coined. Numerous texts are attributed to him. Among them, some attribute only Root Verses of the Middle Way and Teaching on 12 Doors, while some others are tend to do it to Root Verses of the Middle Way and the End of Disputes. The only sure thing is that Root Verses of the Middle Way is his own writing. The importance of the text lies on the fact that there are not many philosophical texts before him. As modern research reveals that the
date of composition of Mahā-Vibhāshā of Sarvāstivāda, that which is the major result of Fourth Buddhist Council in Kashmir convened by the Kushan emperor Kanishka (r. 127-151 CE), is not much earlier than that of Root Verses of the Middle Way, we may legitimately refer the text as one of oldest Buddhist philosophical writing. By the way, Nāgārjuna is also generally called the founder of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The tradition says that he went to the Nāga’s palace and got Mahāyāna scripture, thereafter he learned and preached Mahāyāna Buddhism. In spite of this legend is hardly believable as historical fact, it seems
that there is hardly anyone who is sceptical about Nāgārjuna as the founder of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Such phenomenon comes to be largely, not because of the legend, from late commentators and followers. The difference of philosophical position with preexisting schools also contributed to the tendency. Nevertheless, if we look at the text critically there is no any internal evidence that we can attribute him as Mahāyāist. Most people would point out that the frequent use
of the term and concept of emptiness(śūnya) is the evidence. But if one says so, it just proves that he simply does not know how frequently the term appears in the Āgama/Nikāya literature or in other canonical literature. The term ‘middle path’ also occurs in the canonical literature. Then the only base to call him as Mahāyāist or unorthodox is either from attribution of late follower or philosophical difference with other schools. But none of them appear to me as a legitimate reason to call him as Mahāyāist or unorthodox. From the above consideration, I will avoid the terms Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna intentionally as much as possible. Instead of them, I prefer to use the terms Southern tradition and Northern tradition.
2. Critical Analysis of Pratītya-samutpāda in MMK
2-1. A Brief Remark on Three Modern Writers on MMK.
Although MMK was a subject of serious study for most Buddhists scholastics, that is inclusive of many of Southern traditions of ancient time, for nearly two millenniums, the remain writings and exegetic are mostly based on the Chinese translation of Kumārajīva (334–413 CE). Although his translations are most preferred by scholastics of Chinese based culture or East Asia, hence was studied by the most, it shows serious problems for the right understanding of MMK when we do comparative study with Sanskrit text of MMK, especially the topic of PS and that is related with causality. The study of PS or causality of the past, when scholastics are using only Chinese translations of MMK, having serious problems in their analysis and understanding of the topic, if it was not simply wasting of their time. There were publications on several good transitions and commentarial books on MMK, and on distinct books in which MMK is
systematically analyzed. I would like to mention three of them briefly: Yūichi Kajiyama, Hajime Nakamura and Jan Westerhoff. They are distinct in their field of study: Yūichi expertise both in Western and Buddhist philosophy and Nakamura shows great knowledge on traditional Buddhist philosophy while Jan demonstrates very critical and systematical analysis on the text. Yūichi Kajiyama gives amazing inspiration and much great suggestion in his book. His analysis is not only based on orthodox Buddhist philosophy, but also very creative and imaginative. There is no doubt that he inspired so many modern scholars and infused excellent sense to then the dry and tedious Buddhist exegetics. Even if he mentioned about PS and causality in the text intermittently, didn’t dedicated a chapter for it unlike others. Therefore, his contribution to the topic is pretty limited. On the other hand, Hajime Nakamura served great contribution to the topic through
sharing one chapter for the purpose. This writing must be worked out in early time as one of his article in 1965. He is a great philologist. He listed all the previous arguments given by renowned figure or text of past time exhaustively. Then, they are systematically arranged it in a certain order. His acquaintances on Sarvāstivāda literature as well as Madhyamaka commentaries are remarkable. Most themes that we going to discuss are already introduced and explained.
Nonetheless, his explanations are less critical and discussions are given rather in a superficial way. For example, he quotes a Buddhist claim from Abhidharma-kośa that PS is Asaṃskāra. This claim is very exotic and rare for any Buddhist. In stead of giving any justification for the claim, he just introduces the position of Sarvāstivādin as opponent to the claim rather disappointing way. Another example that can be presented here is he claims, “Thus, it is impossible to interpret Pratītya as ‘by the reason of,’ therefore Pratītya should not be interpreted as ‘by the cause of.’” I cannot see any impossibility in interpret Pratītya in either way as the two meaning is not contradictory. Since he uses the ambiguous term ‘mutual dependency’ to refute and justify all his position,
his explanations and justifications are not very sound. Lastly, Jan Westerhoff gives very logical and systematic explanation. Each line requires great care and attention to be read properly. He dealt with all most important topics of MMK and present very systematic analysis. However, he seems not much showing philological approach. Accuracy in translation of lines and words are taken for granted, he trying to analyze it in a systematical and logical way. He also
hardly suggests any acquaintance of former commentary so that misses all the important point made by ancient commentators. As the consequence, it seems that he faces hardship in understanding of the author and the text by saying, ‘it also has to be noted that Nāgārjuna asserts, somewhat puzzlingly, that the absence of svabhāva, that is, emptiness, is not compatible with causation either.’ With the inspiration and information given by those scholars, we may can go further and present more systematical and philological approach to the topic.
2-2. Therāvadin or Standard Theory of Pratītya-samutpāda.
Before we examine concept of PS in MMK, it would be useful to review it in its standard form appears in Southern traditions. The importance of PS cannot be more exaggerated in those traditions as they all consider it as ultimate reality through which one can obtain liberating knowledge, hence achieve summon bonum of the tradition. Such fact can be confirmed from a proposition which appears numerous places in the canon: The one who sees PS sees the reality, and the one
who sees reality sees PS. In addition, the Buddha is described as being enlightened while he contemplate and realize the twelve links in the beginning of Mahāvagga of Vinaya Piṭaka. The traditions explain PS in terms of three distinct entities: the term or concept Pratītya-samutpāda, idappaccayatā that which is generally rendered into English as the four-fold formula, and dvādaśâṅgika or the twelve links. These three entities are identified in the course of time so that they play role as either definition or definiendum to each other. However, close examination and philological analysis proves that they existed or developed separately. We will leave it here as those are subject of further investigation in the next chapters.
2-3. Philological Analysis on MMK
In ancient India, pseudepigraphy and pseudepigrapha was wide spread fashion or common practice. Hence, enormous number of sutras is composed under the name of the Buddha, that are obviously not the case. It is not the different case for Nāgārjuna, as most of texts attributed to him are proven to be pseudepighapha. They are not only composed an entire book and ascribed it to a very renown figures in the history, but also corrupted texts of the people through modification and interpolation of a few entire chapter to the text. The fact can be illustrated with the example of Milindapañha. The text in Pāḷi is much larger, and later
portions are not appearing in its Chinese parallel. Hence, modern scholarship such as Mrs. Rhys Davids left following comment on the text: ‘the detached first portion of the Milinda Pañha is in no way to be matched in style or ideals with the quite different dilemmas and the following portions. …... The latter
portions, i.e. V-VII are evidently written composition, dummy conversation. Moreover, some Western scholars also find out that some texts have stratification in which many layers of different time and authors are arranged in order. The purposes of such interpolations are recognized as to fade out or distort the p
revious messages. Even if there are disputes going on to scope and extension of the text that involved such matter, the fact that ancient Indian texts are subjected to later interpolation, thus existence of strata or layers in it is hardly deniable. Those practices could happen easier in India as they transmitted important texts verbally rather than write or inscribe in a safe place. Thus, we can conclude that there are mainly three kinds of textual corruptions that is
practiced widely in ancient India: 1. Ascribing an entire book to a renown figure; 2. Insert a number of chapters to a text; 3. Insert new paragraphs to a text. In the case of MMK, the first kind of problem cannot be applied. Among numerous texts that ascribed to Nāgārjuna, MMK is the only one what we can sure about its authorship. Thus we can take a look in the second and third kind of problem in MMK.
2-3-1: Philological Analysis on the chapters of MMK
MMK consists of 27 chapters. But, can we be sceptical about the authorship of all the chapters as Nāgārjuna? The claim that any of the chapter of MMK is later interpolation or is not written by the author seems very bold and might not be accepted all monastic orders and monastic universities. Nonetheless, Nīlanetra (靑目 ca. 4th C.E.) distinguishes and indentifies the last two chapter as the teaching of Śrāvakayāna by adding following question at the beginning of the 26th
chapter: ‘Question: you have been taught the ultimate meaning through Mahāyāna, but I like to listen the path to the ultimate meaning through propagation of Śrāvakayāna.’ Mūlamadhyamaka abhaya vṛtti, that is another text which traditionally ascribed its authorship to Nāgārjuna, also says exactly the same things. Accordingly, renown Chinese Madhyamaka scholastic Jizang (吉藏 549–623), who is also considered as the founder of Chinese Madhyamaka school, purposes that MMK
can be divided into two section, and the last two chapters are the teaching of Hināyana in his own vṛtti of MMK. Kajiyama, who is most representative modern scholarship, also subscribe to the matter on the basis of that unlike other chapters, the last two chapters are not meant for criticize other’s views. From above descriptions, we can clearly see that many eminent thinks considered the last two chapters as either heretical or extraneous. Even if Nakamura and some
others consider the last chapters of Hināyana are being added by Nāgārjuna himself at the end, it is hardly probable and they themselves are not convinced about the event. It is better to understand the event when we consider that the last two chapters were interpolated at later time by someone with certain purpose as it was happen to many Ancient Indian literatures. However, there is big problem to think that the last chapter is the teaching of Hināyana. That’s
because of the verse says that the Buddha taught in order to eliminate all views. Hināyana schools cannot accept such bold claim as they all accept right views (samyag-dṛṣṭi) as in Noble Eightfold Path (āryāṣṭāṅgamārga). Moreover, it is not only the last two chapters that do not criticize other’s views—that Kajiyama suggested, but other chapters, such as 24th chapter on Examination of the Noble Truths also feces the same problem. No Hināyana school denies the existence of
the four noble truths. In addition, the two truths principle is somewhat extraneous to the earlier chapters. If it is true it had to be mentioned in earlier chapter and repeatedly, as it has utmost importance in his system of ideas. I may suggest that chapter 20th is also later interpolation on the ground of two reasons. Firstly, examination and discussion on cause is completed in chapter 1st. There was no need of any separate discussion for assemblage or harmony (sāmagrī) of cause. If there was a need for it, the author also could discuss it in the first chapter. The other reason for the suspicion is the relation of hetu and pratyaya is disrupted. In the first chapter, hetu is defined as one of four pratyayas. But the relation between the two terms is no more in use in the 20th chapter. Overall, the chapters after 20th seem interpolated after some time since the former part is composed by the author. In addition, the verses after
8th of 4th chapter and 28th of 17th chapter are also subject to criticism. It appears to me that discussion is completed at the previous lines and the remaining verses are standing awkwardly in the chapter. Hence, we may infer that these are later stratum of the text. I, of course, know that such reasons cannot give definite answer to the matter. The only sure thing that can answer the question is that we can find earlier manuscript to confirm the suggestions. Nonetheless, further research and discussion might give us more firm and definite answer to the question. As the conclusion of this section, I like to remind that the chapter 26th is identified by many eminent scholars, if it is not unanimous, from ancient to modern time as heretical teaching and we should keep in mind in order to continue the investigation.
2-3-2: Analysis on MMK’s Key Words.
We briefly introduced at the beginning part of 2-1 that there is a serious problem in Kumārajīva’s translation of MMK in respect of terms that related to PS and causality. Both Nakamura and Kajiyama left a very short note on the matter. Nakamura says, ‘As Kumārajīva translated PS (緣起 yuánqǐ) as yīnyuán(因緣), zhòng yīnyuán(衆因緣), zhū yīnyuán(諸因緣), the theory of PS in MMK is cannot be grasped by scholars.’ On the other hand, Kajiyama pointed out a very important
problem: ‘PS in the title of the first chapter and hetu in 5th verse of the 1st chapter, and Dvādaśāṅga in the title of 26th chapter are all translated as yīnyuán.’ For such puzzling and confounding translation of MMK by Kumārajīva, Scholars who use the translation as main text could not distinguish the difference, hence they naturally perplexed in its meanings. There are mainly five terms that that are used in MMK in respect of expressing dependency and
causality: pratītya-samutpāda, pratītya, pratyaya, hetu, phala. For the case of PS, the implication of the term in MMK cannot be grasped easily. Hence we will scrutinize it in the following chapters through examine the usage and definition given by the author. And the last term, that is phala, literally means fruit. It is coupled with the term bīja, which means seed, hence used in the text rather as a metaphor of result. The remaining three terms, that are pratītya,
pratyaya and hetu are translated as the same and used interchangeably in Kumārajīva’s translation. Instead of giving etymological meaning of the terms, which might can give us certain ideas of it, but cannot applicable to a specific text, I suggest to grasp the meaning of it in its context. By the way, we going to do the investigation in the 4th chapter, hence leave it for a while. Instead of it, I like to show some statistical data of the key words that which might make us to see certain aspects of the text. The terms what I am going to show here are pratītya, pratyaya, hetu and phala.
Figure 1. the number of appearance of the term pratītya per chapter (29 times in total).
Figure 2. the number of appearance of the term pratyaya per chapter (46 times in total).
Figure 3. the number of appearance of the term hetu per chapter (61 times in total).
Figure 4. the number of appearance of the term phala per chapter (78 times in total).
Figure 5. the number of appearance of the key words before/after 20th chapter (85/129 verses).
We can see that the term pratītya is used from the beginning to the end continuously, though the number of time that being used are less than half of the synonymous term hetu, and less than 2/5 of the term phala. However, the density of appearance is slightly higher in the ending part. The term pratyaya is being used in the first chapter a lot, but stopped to appear till the chapter 15. In the ending portion, it again appear and used but little compare to the beginning
portion. The terms hetu and phala are being used remarkably at the ending portion, especially at the 20th chapter, while it hardly appear it the beginning portion. The proportion of the four key words is much higher in the latter part in spite of the number of chapters of the latter part are less than half of MMK. In addition, the number of verses is higher in the latter portion by almost 2/3, even if the number of chapters is less than half of the former chapters. Those statistics appear to be a reasonable corroboration of the argument of interpolation or corruption of the text that I suggested at the end of 2-3-1.
3. Critical analysis on the dedicatory verse.
3-1. Importance and implication of the dedicatory verse.
The dedicatory verse of MMK comes to the very beginning of the text. It consists of two lines of verses, play a role as an introduction to MMK. Unlike that of Abhidharmakośa of Vasubandhu, the dedicatory verse of MMK in not only eulogizes and expresses the author’s respect to the Buddha but also proclaims essential philosophy of the entire text. The proclaim plays a role as Mātikā (Matrix) of Abhidhamma texts of Pāli canon or an abstract of modern academic writing. The
first line of the dedicatory verse consists of so-called the eight negations, and then these characteristics are attributed to the first half of the second verse, especially for the term PS. Importance of the dedicatory lies on the fact that it mentions our main theme, that is PS, and then defines the term with the eight negations. But this interpretation or definition of the term PS gives great difficulty to many, especially for the followers of Southern tradition,
as they learn the implication of PS as causality through various sources such as the Buddhist canon. It is unacceptable for certain modern scholars, particularly for Kalupahana, who is one of most popular translator of MMK, and a renown scholar from Southern tradition and a vehement propagator who preaches that the essence of the teaching of the Buddha is causality. Hence ha gave very different version of translation of the verse, which we can find nowhere else.
The following translation is done by the translator:
anirodhamanutpādamanucchedamaśāśvatam|
anekārthamanānārthamanāgamamanirgamam||1||
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṁ prapañcopaśamaṁ śivam|
deśayāmāsa saṁbuddhastaṁ vande vadatāṁ varam||2||
I salute him, the fully enlightened, the best of speakers, who preached the non-ceasing and the non-arising, the non-annihilation and the non-permanence, the non-identity and the non-difference, the non-appearance and the non-disappearance, the dependent arising, the appeasement of obsessions and the auspicious.
He puts the relationship between PS and the eight negations in rather parallel way. Therefore he denies the subordination relation or definition and definiendum relationship between the two. But this translation obviously misleads the meaning and the relation of the words as he ignored the relative pronoun ‘yaḥ.’ The relative pronoun, that which is generally rendered into English as ‘who’ or ‘which,’ marks the previous line of words indubitably. Thus, this
translation that which says the Buddha taught both non-arising and dependent arising cannot be maintained. General translation and interpretation in which non-arising is being attributed to dependent arising is unanimous so that Tibetan translation also consists in that point, although the order of the words in the translation is quite different. I may tentatively translate the related Tibetan translation into English:
Every phenomenon is dependently arising: the non-ceasing and the non-arising, the non-annihilation and the non-permanence, the non-identity and the non-difference, the non-appearance and the non-disappearance. I salute to the excellent teaching of the complete Buddha who pacified futile discursion and demonstrated the auspicious.
In Tibetan translation, PS and the relative pronoun are located at the very beginning of the verse. And the subordination of the eight negations is being observed indubitably. Thereby, we can extract or deduce from the dedicatory verse following two propositions: The Buddha taught PS; the PS is being characterize by the eight negations including non-arising.
3-2. A critical note on the authorship of the dedicatory verse.
I doubt the authorship of the dedicatory verse. It is not certain when the tradition of beginning with dedicatory verse in a text of Buddhist or Indian proper has started. Such verse is not appearing in Milindapañha, which is one of oldest texts of a follower of the Buddha. Standard text of Abhidharmakośa has two
dedicatory verses: the prior one is quite short, and simply homage to the Buddha in a line. This fact suggests that either the latter dedicatory verse is later interpolation or both are inserted in a later time. Otherwise, there is no need of salutation to a same person twice continuously. Likewise, it is not
impossible that the dedicatory verse of MMK also inserted in a later time. The term PS appears only four times in the entire text. In spite of the fact that a similar term pratītya-utpattim appears in chapter 17th, the term PS never occurs before chapter 24th that I suggested before as possible later interpolation.
As the verse plays very crucial role as matrix of the entire text, any insertion and manipulation will affect the text enormously. Hence, it is the best place to do it for one who has any intention to change or divert the overall meaning and direction of MMK.
Asaṅga (ca. 4th C.E.) also
4. Critical analysis on the chapter of examination on pratyaya
5. Critical analysis on the chapter of 12 links.
6. Critical analysis on the this and that
5. Critical analysis on the concept of PS.
7. Criticism on the analysis of PS of Nakamura.
· Falk, Harry (2001): "The yuga of Sphujiddhvaja and the era of the Kuṣâṇas." In: Silk Road Art and Archaeology VII, pp. 121–136.
· Falk, Harry (2004): "The Kaniṣka era in Gupta records." In: Silk Road Art and Archaeology X (2004), pp. 167–176.
