World of Philosophy

Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan

Page 883

teaches us non-substantiality of all dharmas.13 The Phenomena, being dependent on conditions are devoid of substantial reality, hence they are Sūnva. Nirvana, being transcendent to all categories of thought is Sūnyaemptiness itself. Both Samsāra and Nirvana, the conditioned and unconditioned are mere thought-construction and are so devoid of reality (Sünya). Sūnya transcends all impirical determinations and thoughtconstruction. It is thus equated with ultimate reality. Thus Sünya and Prajñā became synonymās.14 So, these Mahāyānasūtras made it (Sünya) mean the same thing as suchness which is indescribable.15 But this doctrine of Sūnya is treated in a laconic and desultary manner. Nāgārjuna, thinking that this doctrine dealt in Prajñāpāramitā might be misunderstood as mere nothingness, tried to defend it with logical rigour in M. K. and Vigrahavyāvartani. His sharp logical mind found that the Prajñāpāramitā literature, though profound, was wanting in logic, for they did not prove what they thought. Thus his main aim in M. K. is not to defend Mahāyāna sect, but to establish the doctrine of Sūnyatā propounded by Prajñāpāramitā literature, in the light of reasoning. Thus quoting Mahāyānasūtra is not a criteria in judging Nāgārjuna's affiliation to Mahāyāna or non-Mahāyāna, but it lies in the logical assessment of the development of the doctrine of emptiness (Šūnyatā) in early Buddhism and in Nāgārjuna's works.
Again, there is a close similarlity of the general structure between M. K. and Astasahasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. The doctrine of Sūnya, conception of Nirvana, the doctrine of Dependent Origination, the conception of personality and two kinds of truths that found logically developed form in M. K. are certainly based on Asta and purely Mahāyānistic in nature. 16 The similes which are peculiar to Mahāyāna in general and Asta in particular are used in more than 11 places in M.K. by Nāgārjuna."? It is also not proper to say that there are no terms peculiar to Mahyāna in M.K. In fact the term "Sūnyatā' itself is peculiar to Mahāyāna literature because, it stands for doctrine, not for mere nothingness of the early Buddhism. Again, the conception that everything is like dream, like illusion, thought construction, Gandharva Nagar and thus unreal, is the special feature of Prajñāparamitā Mahāyānā literature. 18 To explain the doctrine of Sünya' Nāgārjuna has used the same terms and similes used by Asta.' We can find numerous examples from M.K. to prove that Nāgārjuna has developed most of his conceptions from Asta.20
It is true that many important, peculiarly Mahāyānists ontological and religious terms found in Asta are not occur in the M.K. such as Prajñā, Tathatā, Advaya, Dharmadhātu, Paramită, etc., even the term Bodhisattva occours only once in the M.K. But it is important to note that the choice of the authors, words depends on what he is talking about and whom he is talking to. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is not written to
834