Background of the Issue of Causality in India with Reference to Nāgārjuna’s View
Subject Areas : Geneology of philosophical schools and Ideas
Hossein Saberi Varzaneh
1
*
,
Azim Razavi Sufiani
2
1 - Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy of Religion, and Denominations, and Mysticism, Farabi College, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran
2 - Lecturer, Department of Political Sciences, Denominations, and Mysticism, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
Keywords: India, Causality, Nāgārjuna, Śūnyatā, Buddhism,
Abstract :
The problem of causality and the cause-effect relation is of prime importance in both metaphysical and theological discussions. It also plays a significant role in the foundation of empirical sciences, ordinary life, and common sense. This problem has also been propounded in Indian religious and philosophical schools in different forms and has developed various dimensions. Following a descriptive-analytic method, this study aims to explore three problems: 1) In which context has the philosophical discussion of causality in Indian philosophical been developed? 2) How do these schools explain the cause-effect relation? 3) What is the view of Nāgārjuna, the Buddhist monk and the founder of the philosophical school of Madhyamaka, in this regard? In sum, it can be said that the philosophical discussion of causality in India has a strong presence in theological (the relationship between the world and its origin) and eschatological (the relationship between source of pain and the path leading to relief) contexts. The philosophical schools of India have propounded five different theories on explaining the issue of causality and the cause-effect relation: 1) theory of internal causality, 2) theory of external causality, 3) synthetic theory, 4) theory of negation of causality, and 5) theory of dependent origination in Buddhism. Nāgārjuna, whose view of causality mainly enjoys a negative and contradicting aspect, has expanded the Buddhist view based on the theory of Śūnyatā (lack of svabhāva or inherent, independent existence), the mutual dependence between the cause and effect, and the differentiation between the cause and condition and rejected the first four theories by resorting to several arguments. Finally, it can be said that Nāgārjuna defends causality and attempts to reconcile it with his view that beings have no inherent existence.
چاترجی، ساتیش‌چاندرا؛ داتا، دریندراموهان (1384) معرفی مکتبهای فلسفی هند، ترجمۀ فرناز ناظرزادۀ کرمانی، قم: مرکز مطالعات و تحقیقات ادیان و مذاهب.
رادهاکریشنان، سروپالی و دیگران (1382) تاریخ فلسفۀ شرق و غرب، ترجمۀ خسرو جهانداری، ج1، تهران: علمی و فرهنگی.
شایگان، داریوش (1383) ادیان و مکتبهای فلسفی هند، ج1، تهران: امیرکبیر.
علمی، قربان؛ محمدپور، محمدحسین (1392) «جستاری در باب خداشناسی در اندیشۀ ناگارجونه»، جستارهای فلسفۀ دین، سال 2، شمارۀ 2، ص79ـ59. https://journals.ihcs.ac.ir/article_876.html
Majjhima Nikāya: The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha (1995). trans. by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. Wisdom Publications.
Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India (2014). vol. 1. trans. by S. Jamison and J. Brereton, Oxford: Oxford University Press; https://doi.org/10.7817/jameroriesoci.136.1.158
Samyutta Nikãya: The Connected Discourse of the Buddha (2003). trans. by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Upanishads (1968). trans. by S. Radhakrishnan, London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Bajzelj, Ana (2020). Clay Pots, Golden Rings, and Clean Upper Garments: Causality in Jaina Philosophy. Framing Intellectual and Lived Spaces in Early South Asia. ed. by L. D. Boer and E. A. Cecil. De Gruyter; https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110557176-008
Buddhapālita (2021). Commentary on Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way. introduction and trans. by Ian James Coghlan. Wisdom Pub.
Chandrakirti (1979). Prasannapadā: Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way. trans. by Mervyn Sprung. Prajñā Press.
Culp, John (2023). Panentheism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman; https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/panentheism.
Dalai Lama (1998). The Four Noble Truths. London.
Day, Terence P. (1982). The Conception of Punishment in Early Indian Literature. Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Deussen, Paul (1906). The Philosophy of Upanishads. trans. by Rev Geden. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Dasgupta, Surendranath (1975). A History of Indian Philosophy. vol. I, Cambridge University Press.
Frauwallner, Erich (1995). Studies in Abhidharma Litrature and Origins of Buddhist Philosophical systems. New York: State University Press.
Ganeri, Jonardon (2001). Philosophy in Classical India: The Proper Work of Reason. London: Routledge; https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203158272
Garfield, Jay L. (2001). Nāgārjuna's Theory of Causality: Implications Sacred and Profane. Philosophy East and West. vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 507-526; https://doi.org/10.1353/pew.2001.0055
Hayes, R. P. (1994). Nāgārjuna's Appeal. Journal of Indian Philosophy. vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 299-378; https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01095223
Kalupahana, David (1986). Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. University of Hawaii Press.
Keith, Berriedale (1923). Buddhist Philosophy. Oxford.
Keith, Berriedale (1925). The Religion and Philosophy of the Vedas and Upaniṣads. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
MacDonell, A. A. (1897). Vedic Mythology. Strassburg: Verlag Von Karl J. Trubner; https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111405964
Matilal, B. K. (1975). Causality in the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika School. Philosophy East and West. vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 41-48; https://doi.org/10.2307/1398431
Matilal, B. K. (1990). Logic, Language and Reality: Indian Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Pub.
Myers, Michael W. (2001). Brahman: A Comparative Theology. Surrey: Curzon Press; https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315028200
Nāgārjuna (1995). The Fundamental Wisdom of Middle Way: Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. trans. and Commentary by Jay L. Garfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nāgārjuna (2006). Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: The Philosophy of the Middle Way. trans. and & Annotated by D. J. Kalupahana. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Pub.
Nāgārjuna (2010). Vigrahavyāvartanī: The Dispeller of Disputes. trans. and commented by Jan Westerhoff. Oxford: University of Oxford Press; https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732692.003.0003
Nāgārjuna (2013). Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way: Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. trans. by M. Siderits & Sh. Katsura. USA: Wisdom Pub.
Oldenberg, Hermann (2004). The Religion of the Veda. Trans. by Shridhar Shrotri, Delhi.
Perrett, Roy W. (1998). Indian theories of causation. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. by Edward Craig, vol. 2, pp. 251–257; https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415249126-F055-1
Potter, Karl (1999). Presupositions of India’s Philosophies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Pub.
Ronkin, Noa (2005). Early Buddhist Metaphysics. New York: Routledge; https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203537060
Shaw, J. L. (2002). Causality: Sāmkhya, Bauddha and Nyāya. Journal of Indian Philosophy. vol. 30, pp. 213–270; https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016195225345
Sopa, G. L.; Hopkins, J. (1976). Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism. New York: Grove Press.
Stcherbatsky, Th. (1998). Buddhist Logic. vol 1, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Pub.
Taber, J. (1998). On Nāgārjuna’s So-called Fallacies: A Comparative Approach. Indo-Iranian Journal. vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 213–244; https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003025028235
Westerhoff, Jan (2009). Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka. Oxford: Oxford University Press; https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195375213.001.0001
Williams, Paul (2008). Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. Routledge; https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203428474
