[Buddha-l] Prapanca

[Dan Lusthaus]

Eric asks:

> I still cannot figure out where pratiitya samutpaada fits in. Is that not
the real meaning of s'uunyataa?
> And why is it not possible to start from a noun and invent a root later?
Languages tend to be full of surprises, due to the irregularities of
history.

Starting with the second question, the answer of course is that it can go
both ways. Nonetheless, historically and linguistically Sanskrit is a
language that is rooted in verbs (literally). Over many centuries nouns
began to gain greater prominence, and it was that trend that Nagarjuna
(among others) was challenging in its early stages -- not because he had a
preference for verbs (that was already integral to the Sanskrit language and
the understanding of that language by its grammarian tradition that long
predated Nagarjuna -- i.e., Panini, Yaska, Patanjali, etc.), but because -- 
as I mentioned -- nouns are more prone to svabhavic reification.

As for the first question, it would be unrealistic to expect to construct
Nagarjuna's entire system from a single verse. Nonetheless this particular
verse is rather extraordinary, and we can find pratitya-samutpada operating
in it in several ways.

First, the most obvious. The "shorthand" version of pratitya-samutpada is
"this coming to be, that is; in the absence of this, that does not exist,"
or words to that effect. In short, the classic conditional: if x, then y; no
x, then no y.

The verse (MMK 8:4) is framed thus (with emphases):

HETAAV ASATI kaarya.m ca kaara.na.m ca NA VIDYATE |
TAD-ABHAAVE kriyaa kartaa kaara.na.m ca NA VIDYATE ||


IF A CAUSE IS ABSENT, the enacted (kaarya) and activator (kaara.na) ARE
NONEXISTENT.
In THE ABSENCE OF THAT, activity (k.riyaa), actor (kartaa), and acting
(kaara.na) DO NOT EXIST.


That is a classic statement of the negative portion of the
pratitya-samutpada formula. Many verses in MMK are syntactically formed in a
similar manner -- many more, for instance, than use the catuhskoti
(four-cornered negation), though, for some reason, the latter has become
synonymous with Nagarjuna in most modern treatments. Nagarjuna has a much
fuller bag of tricks, and the four-cornered negation is not his main tool or
most frequently used strategy. On the contrary... But it's fun, and a simple
(=simplistic) way to "explain" Nagarjuna.

Second, pratitya-samutpada is about dependence; x can only arise dependent
on y, z, q, n, etc. In the absence of those conditions, it doesn't arise.
That entails that whatever exists does so dependent on things / conditions
other than itself. Since those "other" conditions also lack svabhava
(independent -- as opposed to dependent -- existence), they are not "things"
that cause another thing, but differentials in complex causal chains. An "x"
would be a self-same identity, a nominal that -- due to tricks of language
and thinking -- would appear to have a consistent identity across time or
apart from temporal considerations. The same for y, z, and all the other
"conditions." Hence he says in the first chapter of MMK that things do not
arise from themselves, from others, both, or from neither. Candrakirti
summarizes the point by saying pratyayataa matre.na -- utter conditionality.
That is, as you note, another way of saying emptiness  (i.e., empty of
svabhavic being).

So, back to the verse: It there is no cause (hetu), then the "effect"
(karya) and the "cause" (karana) are not found, or don't exist (na vidyate
can mean either).

Without karya and karana to depend on, i.e., lacking such a basis, kriya,
karta and karana won't be found either.

In other words, in the absence of a cause, this proliferation of k.r is
unreal verbal diversification, not reality. For further arguments and
demonstrations of this, see MMK ch. 4 and passim.

Dan Lusthaus