Elements are Known via Characteristics
Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā
Reading Nāgārjuna's masterwork one verse at a time.
5.01 Elements are Known via Characteristics
nākāśaṃ vidyate kiṃcit pūrvam ākāśalakṣaṇāt |
alakṣaṇaṃ prasajyeta syāt pūrvaṃ yadi lakṣaṇāt ||
Space is not found prior to the characteristic of space;
If it were to exist prior to the sign, it would follow that it was without characteristic.
Vocab
ākāśa 'space'
pūrva 'before, formerly'
ākāśalakṣanāt 'from the characteristic of space' (ākāśa-lakṣana, ablative sg.)
lakṣaṇa 'mark, characteristic' (-āt ablative)
prasajyeta 'it should follow, apply or be applicable' (from pra√sañj; passive voice; 3rd sg. optative)
syāt 'it may be' (from √as 'to be'; optative 3rd sg.)
yadi 'if'
Comments
Moving on to chapter five we begin to deal with the elements (dhātu) and use space (ākāśa) as the prototype of the category. Philosophically this is a blunder, as space is unlike any of the other elements. Earlier texts make it clear that earth, water, fire and wind (pṛthvī, āpas, tejas, vāyu) form a distinct group known as the mahābhūta. Part of the reason for this, as the Theravāda Abhidhamma observes, is that the four represent elements that can be experienced as fixity, cohesion, maturing, and movement (stabdha, ābandhana, paripācana, vistambhana) respectively (see Vism XI.2).
Stabdha and vistambhana both come from the verb √stambh 'to fix'. So stabdha is without freedom while vistambhana is without fixity. Thus the earth is seen as fixed in contrast to everything that moves - a stambha is a pole fixed into the earth - a fixed point of reference. Earth resists change; while wind resists stability. Ābandhana comes from ā√bandh 'bind together, combine, adhere, cohere'. Paripācana comes from √pac 'to cook' and with pari- comes to mean 'to be cooked [as in finished cooking], bring to maturity, become ripe.' So when we say 'the element of fire' we are not talking about a direct analogue of the Western idea of the four elements. The Buddhist world does give fire itself as an exemplar of the category but this is because it is a process: wood is turned to ash and smoke by fire. It is this process which fire typifies and this is why it gives it's name to the category. Digestion is another process by which food is ingested and shit excreted and is thus characterised as 'fire'. Similarly what we often call 'air' is in fact 'wind' which is characterised as movement. Breathing is an example not because it involves breathing in air, but because of the movement involved. Indeed as far as I can see the Indians did not understand role of air (or any gases) in breathing. Similarly the moving of our limbs involves 'wind'.
So where the Western tradition saw the four elements as four elemental substances, in Buddhist India they were four fundamental processes. It is apparently almost impossible for Westerners not to think of the elements as substances because even quite well informed people still approach the six element meditation from the point of view of substances rather than processes or experiences.
So, for Buddhaghosa the elements are not substances but processes. Space by contrast can only be inferred and even after it was added to the list the four 'great elements' continued to be recognised as fundamentally different. In Buddhaghosa's definition "the element of space has the characteristic of delimiting form" (rūpa-pariccheda-lakkhaṇā ākāsadhātu. Vism xiv.63). In other words we infer space from the fact that form has volume.
In any case Nāgārjuna begins his analysis with space, perhaps because he has dealt with rūpa under the heading of the skandhas, and it is rūpa that is made up from the four fundamental processes (mahābhūtas). This has the interesting corollary that rūpa itself is a process rather than a substance. Sue Hamilton identified rūpa as the 'locus of experience' in her study of the five skandhas.
The claim here seems to be that an element cannot be experienced before it's characteristic (ākāśa-lakṣana - singular). It's not clear what 'characteristic' refers to here. Kalupahana does not discuss this word, but routinely translates it in the plural when Nāgārjuna uses it twice in the singular. Jones simply says it is "essential to the phenomenon", then prevaricates on what this might be. Garfield hardly does any better: "the sense of 'characteristic (mtshan nyid) is that of a distinguishing characteristic, or a characteristic mark or signature of a thing" (p.149) which is just the dictionary definition. Thus some of the most prominent commentators simply ignore then most important term in this kārika.
If the characteristic of an element (especially) one as nebulous as 'space' is how we know the element exists, I would have thought it deserved at least some attention. In the lack of any other information perhaps we can assume that what is meant is the process that is typical of each element, including the notional process of 'delimiting' (pariccheda) which characterises space.
