Abstract
This chapter focuses on the cosmology within Nāgārjuna’s thought, the foundational philosopher in the Mādhyamaka Buddhist tradition. Nāgārjuna weaves a carefully reasoned path—the ‘Middle Way’—between substantialism and nominalism. Yet his emphasis on Śūnyatā (‘Emptiness’) is widely misinterpreted in the West as leading to nihilism when read with little consideration of its twin element, Pratı̄tyasamutpāda (defined as ‘Dependent Origination’, or my preferred nomenclature ‘Interdependent Co-arising’). I argue that these two concepts, when unified, can overcome the trappings of both nihilism and of nominalist existence that seem to hold such a fixation in the metaphysical assumptions of many theories of IR. In particular, I show how this dialectic of Emptiness and Interdependent Co-arising provides a unique philosophical expression of the unity of all things within a cosmology of deep relationalism without the need of ontotheology. This alternate foundation offers a far more complex understanding of relations and intersubjectivity and thus provides a reorientation for a genuine cosmopolitan politics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Of course, Nietzsche sought to overcome this malaise and looked towards the day when Christian values and nihilism were overcome.
- 2.
I thank Jonardon Ganeri for a discussion on this point.
- 3.
There is an important connection here with Plotinus and Mādhyamaka that should be taken up in further research. For a similar comparison between Plotinus and Vasubandhu, see Sabo 2017, 494–505.
- 4.
The Upanisa Sutta (the ‘Discourse on Supporting Conditions’) in the Samyutta Nikaya formalises this position.
- 5.
Nāgārjuna claims throughout that he does not negate anything, for there is nothing to be negated. That is, as all things are empty, there is neither a thing to be negated nor a negation (2005, LXIII). It is important to note that non-conventional truth of the ultimate is incapable of expression through conceptual or other perceptual attachments and hence should not be a point of speculation that would be merely ego drive.
- 6.
Nāgārjuna argues that because of our reification conventional thinking, many of us naively perceive things as substantial. It is this predisposition to delusion that lies at the basis of all suffering.
References
Abe, M. (1985). Zen and Western Thought (W. R. La Fleuer, Ed.). Honollul: University of Hawaii Press.
Bhagavad Gita. (2007). II, 2nd Edition (E. Easwaran Trans.). Delhi: Nilgiri Press.
Berger, D. L. (2017). The Pivot of Nihilism. In M. T. Conard (Ed.), Nietzsche and the Philosophers. London: Routledge.
Bodhi, B. (1995). Transcendental Dependent Arising: A Translation and Exposition of the Upanisa Sutta. Retrieved August 20, 2019, from https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html.
Brincat, S. S., & de Groot Heupner. (forthcoming). Dialectics in Critical IR Theory. In S. Roach (Ed.), A Handbook for Critical IR Theory. London: Routledge.
Burtt, E. A. (Ed.). (1955). The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha. New York: Mentor.
Chadha, M. (1998). Topics in Indian philosophy. Monash Philosophy: Churchill.
Cox, R. W. (2003). The Political Economy of a Plural World. London: Routledge.
Davies, P. (1992). The Mind of God. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Daye, D. (1971). Major Schools of the Mahayana: Mādhyamaka. In C. S. Prebisch (Ed.), Buddhism, A Modern Perspective. University Park: Penn State University Press.
Devaraja, N. K. (1962). An Introduction to Samkara’s Theory of Knowledge. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Garfield, J. L. (1994). Dependent Arising and the Emptiness of Emptiness: Why Did Nāgārjuna Start with Causation? Philosophy East & West, 44(2), 219–251.
Hayes, R. P. (2003). Nāgārjuna: Master of Paradox, Mystic or Perpetrator of Fallacies? (Philosophy Department at Smith College, 2003). Retrieved August, 19, 2019, from http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/Master_of_Paradox.pdf.
Hobbes, T. (1839). Leviathan. In The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, Vol. III (W. Molesworth, Ed.). London: John Bohn.
Ichimu’ra, S. (1988). An Analysis of Mādhyamaka Dialectic in Terms of Logical Principle of Anvaya-Vyatireka. Studies in Buddhology (Samtani Ed.). Delhi: Indian Books Centre, 1988, esp., Sect. IV 973.
Jaspers, K. (1953). The Origin and Goal of History (M. Bullock, Trans.). London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.
Johnston, E. H., & Kunst, A. (2005). Introduction. In The Dialectical Method of Nāgārjuna: Vigrahavyāvartani (K. Bhattacharya, E. H. Johnston, & A. Kunst, Trans.). Delhi: Motilal Barnarsidass.
Kalupahana, D. (1986). A Path of Righteousness: Dhammapada: An Introductory Essay. Delhi: University Press of Amer.
Kulke, H. (1986). The Historical Background of India’s Axial Age. In S. N. Eisenstadt (Ed.), The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations. New York: SUNY.
Liberman, K. (2007). Dialectical Practice in Tibetan Philosophical Culture. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Ling, L. H. M. (2014). The Dao of World Politics. London: Routledge.
Matilal, B. M. (1985). Logic, Language and Reality. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Mavelli, L. (Ed.). (2014). Towards a Postsecular International Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Muraly, C. D. (1998). Madhyamika Dialectics and Deconstruction. Thesis. Department of Philosophy, University of Calicut. Retrieved August 18, 2019, from http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/42809/8/08_chapter%202.pdf.
Murti, T. R. V. B. (1998). The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. London: Unwin Hyman.
Nāgārjuna. (1995). The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nāgārjuna (2005). The Dialectical Method of Nāgārjuna: Vigrahavyāvartani (K. Bhattacharya, E. H. Johnston, & A. Kunst, Trans.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Nietzsche, F. (1990). The Anti–Christ (R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.). London: Penguin Books.
Phuntsho, K. (2005). Mipham’s Dialectics and the Debates on Emptiness. London: Routledge.
Radhakrishnan, S. (1970). Selected Writings on Philosophy, Religion and Culture (A. McDermott, Ed.). New York: E.P. Dutton.
Radhakrishnan, S. (2009). The Hindu View of Life. New Delhi: Harper Collins Publishers.
Renou, L. (Ed.). (1963). Hinduism. New York: Washington Square Press.
Sabo, T. (2017). Plotinus and Buddhism. Philosophy East and West, 67(2), 494–505.
Saṃyukta Āgama (2015). Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation Taipei.
Samyutta Nikāya (1959). J. Kashyap (Ed.). Patna: Pali Publication Board, 361ff.
Sarvasara Upanishad. (1914). Thirty Minor Upanishads (K. N. Aiyar, Trans.). Madras: V̇asanṭā Press.
Sharma, C. (1960). A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Shankara (1965). The Brahma-Sutra Bhaysa of Sankaracarya (S. Gambirananda, Trans.). Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.
Warder, A. K. (2000). Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brincat, S. (2020). The Cosmology of Mādhyamaka Buddhism and Its World of Deep Relationalism. In: Paipais, V. (eds) Theology and World Politics. International Political Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37602-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37602-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37601-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37602-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)