ASSIGNMENT ON ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF MAHAYANA

DATE OF SUBMISSION:12-03-2013 M.A.PHILOSOPHY IV SEM 64586

BY:SHIVALIKA VASUDEV

INTRODUCTION The term Mahayana is usually translated as Great Vehicle and the term Hinayana as Small Vehicle, "Inferior Vehicle," "Deficient Vehicle," the "Abandoned Vehicle," or the "Defective Vehicle". The original meaning of the element hina in the term Hinayana is discarded; it also denotes inferior or base. The appellation Hinayana thus was a deprecatory term used by Mahayana practitioners to refer to Nikaya Buddhism. No Buddhist group ever referred to them as Hinayanists. Hinayana is a Sanskrit and Pali term which is applied to some schools of early Buddhism. The term appeared around the 1st or 2nd century. Hinayana is contrasted with Mahayana, which means the "Great Vehicle." There are a variety of interpretations as to who or what the term "Hinayana" and Mahayana refer to. The terms Mahayana and Hinayana are known only to Northern Buddhism but not to Southern Buddhism. This Mahayana Buddhism has been developed in the period between the time of King Asoka and that of Nagarjuna (roughly 2nd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.). Etymologically, 'Mahayana' means great vehicle and 'Hinayana' means small vehicle. On the face of it, the terms are suggesting a relation of superiority and inferiority of some things. In the history of Buddhism, we may receive two aspects of Buddhism, one is what we have termed Original Buddhism and another is the Developed Buddhism. By original Buddhism we mean the doctrine preached by Buddha himself in public; while Developed Buddhism means the doctrine which, though existing in Buddha's perception rather implicitly, was manifested and developed later on by his disciples and followers after his Parinirvana. However, these two different aspects of Buddhism are nothing but only manifestation of Buddha's two-fold perception of the world; that is to say, when Buddha attained Enlightenment he realized the Truth of the Universe. The Truth of the Universe can be presented from two points of view; one is Truth of the physical nature of this world and another is the Truth of the reality behind it. In other words, when he obtained Enlightenment he understood the real condition of the Samsarai and at the same time he penetrated the reality of the Internal Universe. The former I have called Buddha's Phenomenological perception and the latter his Ontological perception. Buddha was enlightened with both these truths. But the religious and philosophical conditions in India at that time only allowed him to preach the doctrines formulated from a Phenomenological point of view, and his Ontological perception was bound to be left in the hands of his disciples to be manifested afterwards when the proper time for it came. What we call Buddha's Ontological perception was merely formulated and manifested by his disciples and followers; therefore, sometimes we termed it as Developed Buddhism. But we should not forget that history records its growth, but not its origin. All the same, the idea of Developed Buddhism remained in Buddha's perception when he was preaching what is usually called Original Buddhism. Now we see that the terms Mahayana and Hinayana are applied to two different sets of doctrines of Buddhism. That is to say, in relation of 'time,' the doctrines which

are expressed by the term Hinayana were promulgated earlier during Buddha's life-time by himself, while the doctrines expressed by the term Mahayana were formulated by Buddha's disciples and followers after his death, were manifestations of his Introspectional perception. Again, in relation of 'space' these two aspects of Buddhism expressed by the terms Mahayana and Hinayana respectively represent Buddha's Introspectional perception and his Phenomenological perception. Therefore, now it is clear that the terms Mahayana and Hinayana were applied undoubtedly later on, when the mutual conflict engendering a sense of superiority arose between the Original and the Developed Buddhism in the shape of school. It is thus clear that the school of Developed Buddhism wanted to display their own superiority over Original Buddhism, and they named their own school Mahayana or the Great Vehicle and called their opponents by the term Hinayana or Small Vehicle. If we look at the stupendous work called Prajnaparamita sastra and Dasabhumi-Vibhasa-sastra of Nagarjuna, we actually find many Mahayana sutras which have been quoted by the author. And this will convince us at least that before Nagarjuna there were many Mahayana sutras. Of course, we meet with the terms 'Mahayana and Hinayana sometime in the Mahayana sutras which definitely existed before the time of Nagarjuna, but there the terms were seldom used and even if used, it was not in a comparative sense of superiority and inferiority . From the above we can very well understand that the terms Mahayana and Hinayana practically came into use in their proper usual sense from the time of Nagarjuna. Again, we see that the term 'Ekayana' appears in the place where Buddha's Ontological doctrines are dealt with, while on the contrary when there is an indication of Buddha's personality or his theory upon human beings then the terms 'Buddhayana' and 'Bodhisarrvayana' were used. It was clear that the terms like `Bodhisativayana' and Tuddhayana' only indicate a particular aspect of Buddhism, namelyBuddha's personality. But the doctrinal side was totally missed and left out of consideration. So they again began to search for yet another newer and more suitable term which would indicate both aspects of Buddhism, and at last they invented the terms 'Mahayana' and 'Hinayana.' Broadly speaking, the difference between Mahayanism and Hinayanism is this : Mahayanism is more liberal and progressive, but in many respects too metaphysical and full of speculative thoughts that frequently reach a dazzling eminence : Hinayanism, on the other hand, is somewhat conservative and may be considered in many points to be a rationalistic ethical system simply. Mahayana literally means "great vehicle" and Hinayana "small or inferior vehicle," that is, of salvation. This distinction is recognized only by the followers of Mahayanism because it was by them that the unwelcome title of Hinayanism was given to their ritual brethren, thinking that they were more progressive and had a more assimilating energy than the latter. But the major difference, at least according to the Mahayana tradition, lies in the attitudes of each toward the salvation of others. The Mahayana tradition maintains that a person must save himself by saving others. The Mahayana descriptions of religious practice as the six

perfections illustrate how a person could benefit himself only by helping others. These doctrines reflected a view of the world based on the teaching of DEPENDENT ORIGINATION. The difference between Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism resulted in a variety of divergent doctrines. For Hinayana Buddhists, Nirvana was the final goal, chracterized by some Mahayanists as the exticntion of the body and the mind. In contrast, Mahayanist Bddhists argued that the practioner was to attain Active Nirvana in which he did not remain quiescent. The term Mahayana ("Great Vehicle") was originally an honorary synonym for Bodhisattvayana ("Bodhisattva Vehicle") the vehicle of a bodhisattva seeking Buddha hood for the benefit of all sentient beings. [4] The term Mahayana was therefore formed independently at an early date as a synonym for the path and the teachings of the bodhisattvas. BODHISATTVA The Bodhisattva is that class of Buddhists who, believing in the Bodhi (intelligence or wisdom), which is a reflection of the Dharmakaya in the human soul; direct all their spiritual energy toward realizing and developing it for the sake of their fellow-creatures. Central to Mahayana ideology is the idea of the bodhisattva, one who seeks to become a Buddha. In contrast to the dominant thinking in non-Mahayana Buddhism, which limits the designation of bodhisattva to the Buddha before his awakening (bodhi), or enlightenment, Mahayana teaches that anyone can aspire to achieve awakening and thereby become a bodhisattva. For Mahayana Buddhism, awakening consists in understanding the true nature of reality. While non-Mahayana doctrine emphasizes the absence of the self in persons, Mahayana thought extends this idea to all things. The radical extension of the common Buddhist doctrine of dependent arisal (pratityasamutpada), the idea that nothing has an essence and that the existence of each thing is dependent on the existence of other things, is referred to as emptiness (sunyata). The bodhisattvas seek to understand this reality through wisdom ( prajna) and to actualize it through compassion (karuna). They realize that since no individual has a self, there can be no real difference between themselves and others, and therefore their own liberation is not distinct from the liberation of all beings. They are thus self-less, both philosophically, in the sense of understanding the absence of self or essence in all things and persons, and ethically, since they act for all beings without discrimination. In the Mahayana tradition, the emphasis is less on nirvana and more on knowledge or wisdom, the mastery of which constitutes awakening. The bodhisattva is the ideal in Mahayana Buddhism . Bodhisattvas are beings who are able to escape the endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth known as samara but choose to remain active in the world to help others along the path to enlightenment According to the Mahayana, followers of foundational Buddhism selfishly pursued only their own personal salvation rather than following what Mahayanists believe to be the superior path of the bodhisattva, the allcompassionate hero who, resolving to become a Buddha in some far-distant future, dedicates

countless lives to saving all beings. Mahayana Buddhism postulates an expanded pantheon that includes innumerable bodhisattvas and multiple Buddhas. Since the two terms Mahayana" and "Hinayana" have two distinct meanings, let us clarify their usage. MAHAYANA Mahayana Buddhism Mahayana (Great Vehicle") is a term used by proponents of texts hat began to appear roughly four centuries after the death of the Buddha. The texts were regarded as the word of the Buddha. The origin of Mahayana may be traced to an earlier school known as Mahasanghika and earlier literary sources known as Mahayana Sutras. At the council held at Vaisali, certain monks differed widely from the opinions of other monks on certain important points of the dharma. Though the monks that differed formed the majority, they were excommunicated by the others who called them 'Papa Bhikkhus and Adhamma-vadins'. In Buddhist history, these Bhikkhus were known as Mahasanghika, because they formed the majority at the council or probably because they reflected the opinions of the larger section of the laity. The Bhikkhus who excommunicated them styled themselves Sthaviras or the Elders, because they believed that they represented the original, orthodox doctrine of the Buddha. We have seen that the Mahasanghika coined the term Mahayana to represent their system of belief and practice, and called the Sthaviras Hinayana. The Madhyamaka school is usually considered to have been founded by Ngrjuna, though it may have existed earlier. The name of the school is perhaps related to its close adherence to Ngrjunas main work, the Mlamadhyamakakrik. The term Madhyamaka is related to 'madhya' ('the middle'). The father of the Mahayana was considered to be Nagarjuna, who lived between the first and second centuries of our era, and founded what is known as the Madhyamika philosophy or philosophy of the Middle Way and Maitreyanatha who lived in the third century of our era. Let us see what the main tenets of the Mahasanghika were. Their contributions can be summed up under four heads.
1. THE STATUS OF THE BUDDHA

According to the Mahasanghika, the Buddha was not simply a historical person. The real Buddha was transcendental, supramundane, eternal, and infinite. The historical Buddha was only a fictitious person sent by Him to appear in the world, to assume a human body, to live like an ordinary human being and teach the dharma to the inhabitants of the world. The real Buddha is the Reality par excellence and will continue to send messengers to the world to teach the true dharma to mankind.
2. THE STATUS OF THE ARHAT

The Sthaviras had attributed perfection to the Arhats. The Mahasanghika maintained that the Arhats were not perfect; they were troubled by doubts and were ignorant of many things. They

should not be held up as ideals. Rather those should be emulated as ideals who during aeons of self-sacrifice and struggle attained to Buddhahood.
3. THE STATUS OF EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE

According to the Mahasanghika, empirical knowledge could not give us an insight into Reality. Only Sunyata which transcends all worldly things can give us a vision of the Real. All verbal statements give us a false view of the Real; they are mere thought- constructs.
4. THE UNSUBSTANTIAL NATURE OF THE DHARMAS

The Sthaviras believed that the pudgala or a personal self was unsubstantial, but the dharmas or elements of existence were real entities. The Mahasanghikas maintained that not only were the pudgalas unsubstantial (pudgala-nairatmya). But the dharmas (elements of existence) were also unsubstantial (dharma-nairatmya). Everything was unsubstantial (riga). It will be seen from the above account that the germs of practically all the important tenets of Madhyamaka philosophy were present in the system of the Mahasanghikas. It is the Mahasanghikas who first of all gave expression to Buddha's ontological perceptions which were first embodied in the Mahayana sutras and were later developed into 'Mahayana philosophy and religion. The most important of these works are the Prajnaparamita sutra. Prajnaparamita sutra is generally translated as 'perfect wisdom.' The word `paramita' i.e. 'gone beyond' suggests that it would be better to translate Prajna-paramita as 'transcendent insight' or 'transcendent wisdom'. The principal theme of the Prajnaparamita literature is the DOCTRINE OF SUNYATA. Nagarjuna taught that there is neither reality nor non-reality but only relativity. Madhyamika introduced the concept of Sunyata or emptiness. It taught that all elements (Dharmas) are impermanent and have no independent existence in themselves. They may be broken down into parts, the parts into sub-parts and so on infinitely. Therefore, taught Nagarjuna, all phenomena have a relative as opposed to an absolute existence. All of life is reduced to a single, underlying flux, a stream of existence with an everlasting becoming. However, Madhyamika tells us nothing of the nature of this stream of life. Nagarjuna used the dialectic method to ruthlessly negate all pairs of opposites. He taught that Sunyata is the absolute reality and that there is no difference between Samsara (the phenomenal world) and Sunyata (the indescribable absolute). Another important concept attributed to Nagarjuna is his teaching of Samvrti or relative truth and Paramartha or ultimate truth. Relative truth is conventional or empirical truth - that experienced by the senses, whereas, the ultimate truth is Sunyata which can only be realized by transcending concepts through intuitive insight. The Hinayanists believed only in pudgala- nairatmya or the unsubstantiality of the individual. They classified Reality into certain dharmas or elements of existence and thought that the

dharma were substantially real. Prajna-paramita gives a knock-out to this belief. It teaches sarva-dharma-Sunyata; the unsubstantiality of all dharmas. Phenomena are dependent on conditions. Being so dependent, they are devoid of substantial reality. Hence they are Sunya (empty). Nirvana being transcendent to all categories of thought is Sunyata (emptiness) itself. Both Samsara and Nirvana, the conditioned and unconditioned are mere thought-constructs and are so devoid of reality- Ultimate Reality may be called Sunyata in the sense that transcends all empirical determinations and thought-constructs. PRAJNA or TRANSCENDENT INSIGHT consists in ceasing to indulge in thoughtconstructs. So Prajna becomes synonymous with Sunyata. One, however, acquires insight into Sunyata not merely by avowing it enthusiastically, nor by logomachy, but by meditation on Sunyata. One has to meditate on Sunyata as the absence of self-hood, on the absence of substantiality in all the dharmas, on Sunyata as even the emptiness of the unconditioned. Finally one has to abandon Sunyata itself as a mere raft to cross the ocean of ignorance. This meditation will, however, be ineffective unless one has cultivated certain moral virtues. A Mahiyanista Mahayana personis one who practices the path as it is set forth in Mahayana sutras. The stages of practice for the Mahayanists led to the attainment of Buddha hood. Consequently, Mahayana paths to enlightenment such as the ten stages or forty-two stages had little in common with the Hinayanist list of four candidates and four fruits or with the Hinayana goal of becoming an arhat. Some Mahayanists conceived of the Buddha as a savior of helpless beings and developed doctrines concerning easier paths to salvation or the Buddha's use of his own power to save men. Such doctrines were found only in Mahayana Buddhism. Still other differences between Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism could be indicated. But the basic distinction lies in the Mahayana insistence that helping others is a necessary part of any effort to save oneself while Hinayana doctrine stresses the salvation of oneself. ANATMAN OR ANATMAVADA (Sanskritthe doctrine that the atman or I does not exist) is the view in Buddhism that there is no substantial soul or enduring I as the ground of mans psychological acts. The concept of Anatman did not appear in the teachings of the Buddha. He regarded the non-phenomenal soul as an absolute mystery. Buddhas teaching explained that the human I is an uninterrupted train of ideas and states without an existing subject who would experience them (atman), and that individual immortality is a groundless abstraction. All the arising and transitory factors of existence depend on each other only functionally (dharma). They are processes without any ground upon which they would occur; the only reason for their existence is a so-called causal braid which is the stream of conscious life.

In the Interpretation of Hinayana, the I (pudgala) has no distinct existence in relation to the five real psychic elements (shape, feeling, perception, disposition, and intelligence) which constitute personal life. The alleged unity of the individual that appears in the awareness of ones own I is an illusion that results from the continuity of momentary and changing states of consciousness. In the Mahayana interpretation, the world is an illusion and the changing states of consciousness are not real. There are different views within this school of the subject of internal experience: the Yogacara (idealist) school thinks that the stream of consciousness is the constantly growing and changing I, but it is merely the background and store of an infinite variety of psychological experiences that have no beginning or end; the Madhyamika school thinks that the I is only a simple series of passing states of consciousness. The doctrines of later Buddhist schools clearly depart from primitive Buddhism which stated only that the skandhas do not constitute the real I and the made no explicit statement regarding the soul substantially or insubstantially. THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HINAYANA AND MAHAYANA The Hinayana School is the old form of Buddhism. The meaning of the word Hinayana is a small vehicle or short sect (Laghu Panth). The champions of the Mahayana sect have given this name. In the Hinayana sect individual salvation (Vyaktigat Nirvan) has been the main prominence. The word Mahayana means big vehicle or wider road (Brihad Path). The Mahayana sect emphasizes the welfare of the group (Smashti). Below we refer to the main differences between these two sects: 1. Hinayana denies a "true being" behind a phenomena and avoid making metaphysical statements, the Mahayana teaches an Eternal Absolute under many names. Beings in all forms of rebirth are said to be identical in their cores with the absolute. 2. The ideal of Hinayana is individual salvation, but the ideal of Mahayana is Bodhisattva. A Bodhisattva is that being who does not accept his own salvation till all beings attain the same (salvation). Thus a Bodhisattva neglects his salvation for the sake of salvation of others. The followers of Hinayana see the immediate goal as in achieving nirvana. Those who follow Mahayana see the immediate goal as in following the ways of the Bodhisattva in leading all beings to liberation.

3.

Nirvana, to Hinayana is the final exit from the world, while it to Mahayana considered becoming conscious of one's own absoluteness and gaining a state of mental aloofness from all. Hinayana has to create nirvana while Mahayana sees all beings as holding liberation from very begining but not aware of its existence.

4.

Difference in the Interpretation of Pratityasamutpada- The doctrine of Pratityasamutpada is the causal law both of the universe and the lives of individuals. Pratityasamutpada is generally translated as 'conditioned co-production' or 'interdependent

origination. The Madhyamika system of Mahayana undertook a critical examination of this law. Their interpretation of this law differs considerably from that of Hinayana. According to Hinayana, Pratityasamutpada is the causal law regulating the coming into being and disappearance of the various elements (dharmas).According to the Madhyamika, Pratityasamutpada does not mean the principle of temporal sequence, but the principle of essential dependence of things on each other. In one word, it is the principle of relativity

5.

Mahayana is filled with the feeling of welfare of all. To serve the poor and miserable is its highest ideal. The attitudes of Mahayana are such that a person should lend a hand to help the world and educate its followers to be selfless. The Hinayana attitude is to defeat the world by analyzing its elements and using that knowledge for individual conduct. It is pragmatic in its approach.

6.

Mahayana believes that Bodhisattvas alone practiced the ten far-reaching attitudes. Hinayana Buddhism does not hold this view. According to Mahayana Buddhism, the ten farreaching attitudes are generosity, skill in means, patience, ethical self-discipline, mental stability, joyful perseverance, strengthening, deep awareness, aspiration-filled prayer and discriminating awareness. Hinayana replaces mental stability, skill in means, aspiration-filled prayer, strengthening and deep awareness by renunciation, being true to ones word, resolution, love and equanimity. 7. The two sects differ in the treatment of the four immeasurable attitudes as well. It is indeed true that both the sects teach the practice of the four immeasurable attitudes of love, compassion, joy and equanimity. At the same time they differ in the definitions of these attitudes. Although, there is an agreement between them in terms of the definitions of love and compassion, there is some difference in the treatment of immeasurable joy and equanimity. While, Hinayana defines immeasurable joy as rejoicing in the happiness of others in the absence of jealousy, Mahayana defines immeasurable joy as the wish that others have the experience of joy or happiness of continuous enlightenment. 8. The Mahayana is worship-oriented. The Hinayana is feeling- oriented. The Mahayana regards Lord Buddha as the God of the entire universe, so his statue is worshipped. Mahayana Buddhism introduced the idea of a deity in the religion. Buddha became the principal deity. According to them, Arhats are more limited than Buddhas or the enlightened beings. Hinayana follows the underlying principles of the Pali canon. Hinayana Buddhism stresses the importance and the significance of the four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path . This is the reason why they are considered as the sect that closely follows the teachings of the Buddha. On the other hand, Mahayana Buddhism tries to reinterpret the obscure doctrine in its own way. The replacement of the ideal of the Arhat by that of the Bodhisattva (Being of Wisdom) is the basic distinction between the old sects and the new, which came to be known as Hinayana. Faith in the Bodhisattvas and the help they afforded was thought to carry many beings on the

road to bliss, whereas the older school, which did not accept the Bodhisattva ideal, could save only a few patient and strenuous souls. 9. The Historical Gautama is seeing as the projection of the absolute. In essence Gautama holds the core of being absolute but possesses a frail mortal frame of illusion. Hinayana regards the Gautama as a natural teacher, and at most a superman. 10. The Mahayana emphasizes five concepts which are charity (Dan), modesty (Sheela), tolerance, valor, attention (Dhyan) and knowledge (Buddha or Pragya). The Hinayana stands for ten concepts which are charity, modesty, selflessness, knowledge (Pragya), valor, tolerance, effort, abode, friendship and indifference. 11. The philosophical concepts of Anityavada (transitoriness), Anatmavada (not believing in soul and Anishwarvada are the main contributions of the Hinayana sect. Vigyanvad and Sunyavada (nothingness) are the philosophical contributions of die Mahayana sect. According to the Mahayana, the entire world is an extension of Vigyan, i.e. knowledge). According to Nothingness all religions are purport less. Through Pragya the concept of Sunyata/ Nothingness may be realized. Sunya is beyond all alternatives, in other words, it is the realization of salvation beyond the eternal and transitory. According to Mahayana there are two truths Samvritti and Paramartha. These are contributions of the Mahayana. Under the Samvritti come the worldly or practical knowledge. The Paramartha is the consciousness of the welfare of all. RISE OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM Madhyamika philosophical school of Mahayana Buddhism, based on the teaching of "emptiness" and named for its adherence to the "middle path" between the views of existence or eternalism and nonexistence or nihilism. The school was founded by Nagarjuna. About 25 works are attributed to Nagarjuna, the most important being the Middle Stanzas (Madhyamika Karika ). Nagarjuna took key ideas from early Mahayana scriptures and expounded them using a rigorous dialectic. He attacked the concept of essence or "self-nature" ( svabhava ) as selfcontradictory, holding that nothing self-existent can be subject to change. He then refuted all possible answers to philosophical problems such as causality, identity, and change by showing their logical inconsistency, with the aim of freeing the mind from all speculative views, which are the source of attachment that prevents enlightenment. He claimed to have no view of his own and to be attempting only to refute the views of his opponents. Nagarjuna's ultimate principle of emptiness was equated by him with "dependent co-arising," the causally conditioned, relative nature of all phenomena. He declared that there is no distinction between nirvana and Samsara (bondage in birth-and-death) when the latter is seen without delusory concepts. He recognized two levels of truth, the absolute and the conventional. Thus his system does not deny the validity of empirical experience in its own sphere, although it does not accept the possibility of statements about absolute reality, which is beyond conceptualization.

Following the Buddhas path of eliminating all philosophical speculation, Nagarjuna used the process of reductio ad absurdum, a negation of all viewpoints on any topic to reveal that all arguments which attempt to prove or disprove the existence of any conceivable statements about Ultimate reality are untenable, unintelligible and contradictory, thereby dispelling all philosophical viewpoints, all extremes of thought and setting one clearly on the path of the Middle Way taught by the Buddha and towards wisdom and the end of suffering. Nagarjunas dialectic can be brought down to four basic propositions: All things (dharma) exist: affirmation of being, negation of non-being All things (dharma) do not exist: affirmation of non-being, negation of being All things (dharma) both exist and do not exist: both affirmation and negation All things (dharma) neither exist nor do not exist: neither affirmation nor negation From this tetralemmatic dialectic, Nagarjuna argued neither production nor destruction; neither annihilation nor permanence; neither unity nor difference; neither coming nor going. He thereby refuted all metaphysical speculation about Ultimate Reality or the highest truth (paramartha-satya). It is possible to say that there are three important, but, in true Buddhist fashion, interconnected, ideas in the work, none of which can stand on its own but which together make up the central thrust of the teaching. They are the two truths doctrine, emptiness ( Sunyata) and dependent arising or co-dependent origination (Pratityasamutpada). Together, these three make up the Middle Way of Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna links Pratityasamutpada to Sunyata and the two together is the Middle Way of Buddhism. The two are intimately linked: if something is dependent on something else to manifest, it is empty and has no self-existence. And if something is empty, it depends on something else to come into being; it cannot manifest on its own. Furthermore, everything that is mutually dependent must have a uniqueness or particularity of its own, at least in terms of form. We can say things are alike, but we cannot say they are identical or the same. The implications of Nagarjunas teachings are wide-ranging, startling and, at first reading, contradictory, even incomprehensible. For example, if all things are empty, does this mean that emptiness and dependent arising is the Ultimate Truth, in the sense that emptiness is the essence of all things? Not at all. Nagarjuna said that everything is empty. Therefore, emptiness itself must be empty or else emptiness would be the essence of everything and Nagarjuna asserted that there is no essence to anything, even emptiness itself. Madhyamika Buddhism refutes all truths as being but provisional: One should be empty of

all truths and lean on nothing. Emptiness, Pratityasamutpada, the Four Noble Truths, all of the Tathagatas teachings are just upaya; none should be asserted as the truth. The two truths doctrine is based on the view that there are two realities: conventional reality and the truth about this reality (a lower truth), and ultimate reality and its truth (a higher truth). In the final analysis, however, Nagarjuna rejects this duality and teaches that both realities are one and the same. It is our so-called common sense understanding of the world that causes the problem because we tend to see the world as a collection of discrete entities interacting with each other and with the self. In the Buddhist view, this is called ignorance and leads to suffering (dukha). The two truths doctrine is based on the practicality of teaching (upaya) rather than dogma. From a conventional viewpoint, we can say that things are causally produced and are impermanent but from a higher viewpoint, causal production and impermanence (or permanence) cannot be established and dualistic thinking must be rejected. Truth could be linguistic truth. In English we have no difficulty distinguishing a table from a desk. In other languages, this may not be so. To some a table is nothing more than four sticks surmounted by a slab of wood. The table exists only because we call it a table and it is dependent on wood, on its parts, on its uses and upon agreement by us that it is indeed called table and not desk. The table has no existence outside of the materials it is made of and the person who constructed it and the agreement among those who use it that we are talking about a table. Post-modernists would have no difficulty with these types of conventional truths, truth being in the eye of the beholder and there being no ultimate truth. The mistaken belief that conventional reality is the ultimate reality is called ignorance, which leads to Samsara, the world of pain and suffering and ignorance. We tend to believe that once a thing exists (such as a table), it is not only distinct from all other things, but can continue existing unchanged until such a time as something affects it to cause a change. Our tendency to objectify the world around us, while it may be convenient, causes us to believe that things (and this includes ourselves) have an independent self-existence. Nagarjunas dialectic was all about destroying this viewpoint.