This paper considers the philosophical interpretation of the concept of svabhāva, sometimes translated as 'inherent existence' or 'own-being', in the Madyamaka school of Buddhist philosophy. It is argued that svabhāva must be understood as having two different conceptual dimensions, an ontological and a cognitive one. The ontological dimension of svabhāva shows it to play a particular part in theories investigating the most fundamental constituents of the world. Three different understandings of svabhāva are discussed under this heading: svabhāva understood as essence, (...) as substance, and as the true nature of phenomena (absolute svabhāva). The cognitive dimension shows svabhāva as playing an important rôle in our everyday conceptualization of phenomena. Svabhāva is here seen as a superimposition (samāropa) which the mind projects onto the world. (shrink)

This article argues that the Sarvāstivāda’s “_X_ takes _Y_ as _svabhāva_” system constitutes a multilayered reduction system where “_X_ takes _Y_ as _svabhāva_” can be understood as “_X_ is reduced to _Y_.” Here, _svabhāva_ functions as a means of reduction. The reduction system comprises three layers, and its primary aim is to reduce non-dharma types to dharma types. Furthermore, the article discusses whether the multilayered reduction system is ontological or epistemological. Moreover, based on the third layer of the reduction system, (...) the article suggests that _svabhāva_ has only played a limited role in defining dharma types. (shrink)

Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way (Madhyamaka) doctrine met with the objection that it is a mere verbal attack (vitaṇḍā) against other philosophical positions. As one of the Madhyamaka critics pointed out: because Nāgārjuna does not hold own position, he is not able to justify his criticism of the essence (svabhāva). The article is an answer to the question whether, in the context of Indian philosophy, it is possible to know things devoid of essences. Theory of knowledge of this kind, i.e. the concept (...) of omniscience (sarvajña) was presented in Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā sutra. Associations between Nāgārjuna’s texts and the sutra suggest that omniscience could be a substrate for epistemological position of the Middle Way. (shrink)

Ālāpa Paddhati, composed by Ācārya Devasena (c. tenth century, Vikrama Samvat) is a Jaina text primarily on the topics of the standpoints (naya) and the secondary-standpoints (upanaya). It also delves into the substances (dravya), their qualities or attributes (guṇa), modes (paryāya), and nature (svabhāva). It is true that without appreciating the import and applicability of the individual standpoints (naya), one may get lost in the complex maze of the standpoints and cause great harm to one’s understanding, and even to one’s (...) mental balance. Ālāpa Paddhati is essential reading for every serious reader of the Dravyānuyoga that spreads the light of right (scriptural) knowledge by illuminating the Reality of substances – soul (jīva) and non-soul (ajīva), merit (puṇya) and demerit (pāpa), bondage (bandha) and liberation (mokṣa), including influx (āsrava), stoppage (saṃvara), and gradual dissociation (nirjarā). The book has a useful Appendix that explains the doctrines of non-absolutism (anekāntavāda) and conditional predication (syādvāda). This slim volume needs to be read over and over again to internalize the underlying concepts fully. (shrink)

This paper takes contemporary attempts to engage South and East Asian philosophies regarding their conceptual resources for addressing environmental philosophical problems as an opportunity to discuss the concept of nature within the tradition of classical Advaita Vedānta. Initially, the ambiguity of the European concept of nature and corresponding equivalents in the Indian context are outlined. Subsequently, a widespread interpretation is reconstructed, which regards Śaṅkara’s non-dual Vedānta as an illusionistic variant of akosmian monism and cites this ontology as evidence that such (...) an understanding of nature can only lead to alienation from and contempt for the natural world. Even if this interpretation proves correct under certain conditions, it overlooks the fact that the ambiguity embedded in the Western term “nature”—as the totality of phenomena (jagat, prakṛti, nāmarūpa, māyā) on the one hand, and as the essence of this totality (svabhāva) on the other—in Śaṅkara’s Vedānta does not pertain to an ontological problem but to a methodological strategy of non-dual philosophy. (shrink)

Nāgārjuna’s “middle path” charts a course between two extremes: Nihilism, and Absolutism, not unlike earlier Buddhism. However, as early Buddhists countinanced constituents of reality as characterizable by essences while macroscopic objects lack such essences, Nāgārjuna argues that all things lack what he calls svabhāva – “own being” – the Sanskrit term for essence. Since everything lacks an essence, it is Empty (śūnya). To lack an essence is to lack autonomy. The corollary of this is that all things are interrelated. The (...) Mahāyāna (Great Vehicle) school of Buddhist thought draws heavily on this insight: if all things are related, individualism has to give way to inclusivity. According to Nāgārjuna, the key to understanding his Middle path philosophy is dharma: ethics. It is only by a prior commitment to ethics that we can properly understand the Buddha's philosophy as teaching no doctrine of reality, for it is not a teaching of metaphysics, but of ethics, which is to say, Dharma. At the center of Dharma is a kind of Contractualism of the Buddhist community (saṅga). A failure to approach emptiness via ethics is like trying to hold a snake dangerously. However, approaching the emptiness of reality via ethics is grounds for optimism: nothing is stuck by essence, and we have reason to believe in positive change made possible by prudent ethical choice. In this module I consider some objections to Nāgārjuna's position from Vedic positions, and Yoga, and identify responses available to Nāgārjuna. (shrink)

The problem of identity of being in Buddhist philosophy: The Buddhist philosophical school of Madhyamaka is famous for its statement that things do not have their own inherent nature, essence or self‑nature (svabhāva). As a result, it is said that there is no objective foundation of the identity of things. Thus, the identity of things is not grounded in things themselves but is solely imputed and externally imposed on them. Things are what they are only for us, whereas for themselves, (...) or from their ‘own side’ they are empty (śūnya). That is why Madhyamaka philosophy is often compared to the philosophical conceptions inspired by a linguistic reflection (from Ludwig Wittgenstein to Jacques Derrida) which defines the problem of identity in terms of cognitive subjectivism and constructivism. Starting the analysis from the Abhidharma Buddhist tradition I will show that this reading of Madhyamaka view is too narrow. I will demonstrate that it is a result of an assumption, shared by Parmenides and Plato and wrongly ascribed to this Buddhist school, that the identity of being must be grounded in the self‑existing, self‑defined and (relatively) permanent ontological foundation. This tacit assumption, if rejected, makes any identity a completely subjective and relative construct. The point I am going to argue for, however, is that the Madhyamaka school sticks to an alternative understanding of objectivity; the foundation of all things is nothing but pure relation that precedes, in the ontological sense, all co‑related elements (i.e. things). Therefore, the question comes up: how being‑in‑relationship or ‘relationality’ may be the foundation of identity and what kind of identity it endows. I will try to answer these questions. (shrink)

Two of the most fundamental distinctions in metaphysics are (1) that between reality (or things in themselves) and appearance, the R/A distinction, and (2) that between entities that are fundamental (or real, etcetera) and entities that are ontologically or existentially dependent, the F/D distinction. While these appear to be two very different distinctions, in Buddhist metaphysics they are combined, raising questions about how they are related. In this paper I argue that plausible versions of the R/A distinction are essentially a (...) special kind of F/D distinction, and conversely, that many F/D distinctions imply an R/A distinction. Nevertheless, while this does suggest that the F/D distinction is more basic than the R/A distinction, it does not favor a particular understanding of the F/D distinction. There are many kinds of existential or ontological dependence that cannot be meaningfully combined into a single notion, and reality does not force us to accept any specific kind of dependence as more fundamental. Consequently, what we consider to be ‘real’, ‘fundamental’, or ‘really existing’ is not entirely given by reality, but partially up to us. (shrink)