Emptiness

This document is a review by J.W. de Jong of Frederick J. Streng's book "Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning," which focuses on Nagarjuna's concept of "emptiness" (śūnyatā). De Jong examines the historical interpretations of Nagarjuna's philosophy and then delves into Streng's specific approach, offering his own perspective.

Here's a comprehensive summary of the key points:

1. Historical Interpretations of Nagarjuna's "Emptiness":

• Early Western Interpretations: Initially, scholars like Burnouf viewed Nagarjuna's doctrine as "nihilistic scholasticism."
• Positive Interpretations: In the early 20th century, Stcherbatsky proposed a positive interpretation, seeing "emptiness" as the reality of the whole (dharmatā or dharma-kāya) and the "reality of the Buddha" as the "reality of the Universe," accessible through intuition. This view influenced others like Schayer and de La Vallée Poussin.
• Stcherbatsky's Reversal: Notably, Stcherbatsky later retracted his positive interpretation, arguing that Madhyamika denied the possibility of an Absolute Reality. He saw Madhyamikas as monists in terms of a "unique principle of explanation" that excluded plurality.
• Schayer's View: Schayer continued to advocate for a Mahāyāna absolute, describing it as infinite, homogenous, undifferentiated, pure consciousness transcending concepts and words, and a subtle spiritual substance. He drew support from texts other than Nagarjuna's primary works.
• Tuxen's Contribution: Poul Tuxen, though less recognized, analyzed Nagarjuna's works and Candrakirti's commentary, viewing Nagarjuna's dialectic as a negation of particulars to reveal the "whole." However, Tuxen cautioned against equating this "whole" with a mystical intuition, suggesting words like "totality" are inadequate. He also emphasized the religious aspect of Nagarjuna's teachings, which he felt Stcherbatsky and Schayer overlooked.

2. Post-World War II Scholarship and Streng's Approach:

• New Generation of Scholars: De Jong highlights the contributions of scholars like Bareau, May, Murti, Conze, and Robinson in advancing the understanding of the Madhyamika system.
• Streng's Focus: Streng's book is presented as a significant recent study, notable for its approach from the perspective of a historian of religions. De Jong praises Streng's clear thinking, extensive knowledge of scholarly works, and his willingness to engage with difficulties, even if the reading isn't easy.
• Streng's Core Argument: Three Structures of Religious Apprehension: Streng distinguishes between:
  • Mythical Structure: Uses the paradigm of words or myth to form religious truth.
  • Intuitive Structure: Assumes an absolute essence or "universal" knowable through a unique perception, often apprehending the "real" as the totality of phenomena.
  • Nagarjuna's Dialectical Structure: Characterized by negative dialectic, which negates particular entities to reveal "emptiness." Streng argues this dialectic provides a positive apprehension of the absence of independent, absolute things, and that the power of reason is key to realizing Ultimate Truth.

3. De Jong's Critique and Elaboration on Key Concepts:

• Negative Dialectic vs. Wisdom (Prajñā) and Intuition: A central critique from de Jong is Streng's perceived ambiguity in differentiating the roles of negative dialectic, wisdom (prajñā), and intuition.

  • Streng describes wisdom as dissipating absolute notions and as an exercise that dissolves attachment by recognizing the emptiness of "things."
  • De Jong notes that Streng distinguishes Nagarjuna's dialectic from an intuition that apprehends a totality or absolute essence (contrary to Murti and Schayer).
  • However, Streng seems to suggest both reason (dialectic) and intuition can lead to Ultimate Truth, with wisdom transcending both. De Jong questions if Streng adequately clarifies these relationships.

• The Importance of Commentaries and Broader Textual Basis:

  • De Jong emphasizes that understanding Nagarjuna requires consulting commentaries on his works, particularly on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikās. He criticizes Streng for not adequately utilizing these commentaries, which led to some mistranslations or misinterpretations of specific verses (e.g., a verse on Pratyekabuddhas).
  • Furthermore, de Jong argues that the Kārikās and Vigrahavyāvartani, while excellent for understanding Nagarjuna's negative dialectic and analysis of concepts like dharma and nirvāṇa, do not explicitly discuss the nature of prajñā or intuition.
  • To fully grasp Nagarjuna's teachings and the Madhyamika school, de Jong stresses the need to consider all of Nagarjuna's works (including hymns and other treatises like the Ratnāvali), as well as the works of later Madhyamikas (Āryadeva, Buddhapālita, Bhāvaviveka, Śāntideva) and their commentaries.

• De Jong's Own Perspective:

  • De Jong posits that true insight in Buddhism is obtained through concentration of mind (śīla, samādhi, prajñā).
  • He believes the Ultimate Truth in the Madhyamika system is apprehended by prajñā through concentration.
  • Negative dialectic, for de Jong, prepares the ground for insight but does not directly lead to it. It demonstrates the unsubstantiality of all phenomena.
  • Prajñā transcends reason and is best described, albeit imperfectly, as a mystical intuition that "sees by way of not seeing."
  • Philosophically, Madhyamika represents the culmination of Buddhism's tendency to "empty" ontological categories, extending the concept of impermanence to the point of "all is empty" (sarvam śūnyam).

4. Contrast with Greek Philosophy:

• De Jong concludes by contrasting the Indian yogin's mystical vision, turned inward toward the invisible, with the Greek philosophical pursuit of understanding essences within the visible world (theoria). He suggests this fundamental difference contributes to the difficulties in understanding profound Indian thought from a Western perspective.

In essence, de Jong's review is a scholarly engagement with Streng's attempt to understand Nagarjuna's concept of "emptiness" through the lens of religious meaning. While acknowledging Streng's merits, de Jong argues for a broader textual basis and a deeper engagement with traditional commentaries to fully grasp the nuanced relationship between Nagarjuna's dialectic, wisdom, and the ultimate apprehension of reality. He concludes with his own interpretation, emphasizing the centrality of concentration and prajñā in achieving this realization, distinct from dialectical reasoning.