Against movement and atomism: a comparison among Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, and Zeno of Elea
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_32_24Keywords:
Zeno, Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Motion, Atomism, MultiplicityAbstract
In the first two sections of this paper, I present some of the arguments that the Buddhist Indian philosophers Nagarjuna (second/third century) and Vasubandhu (fourth/fifth century) use to show the logical untenability of the phenomena of motion and of the existence of multiple external/extramental objects. The logic of these arguments seems to be quite comparable – and actually, within contemporary buddhological studies, it was sometimes compared – to the one that Zeno of Elea uses in his paradoxes against motion and multiplicity. However, in the third section, I try to show that the most immediate philosophical purposes of these three thinkers diverge and are irreconcilable. While Zeno criticizes motion and multiplicity in order to show the plausibility of the attributes of motionlessness and uniqueness of Parmenides’ Being, Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu’s paradoxes should be understood within philosophical projects that, in tune with the Buddha’s teaching of the “middle way”, try to keep themselves equidistant from the categories of “being” and “non- being”, avoiding both. Finally, in the fourth and last section, I defend the thesis that the ultimate purposes of the Eleatics’ view and those of the two Buddhist philosophers are, once again, comparable. Both Parmenides and the Buddha, as well as their respective epigones, try to promote an “epistemic revolution”, in their followers, which consists in the shift from the ordinary vision of reality to an extraordinary or supreme understanding, coincident with reality in itself and, therefore, ultimately true.
Downloads
References
AMES, W. L. (1995) Bhavaviveka’s Prajnapradipa: A Translation of Chapters Two: “Examination of the Traversed, the Untraversed, and that which is being Traversed”. Journal of Indian Philosophy, v.23, n. 3, p. 205-365.
ARNOLD, D.(2008). Buddhist Idealism, Epistemic and Otherwise: Thoughts on the Alternating Perspectives of Dharmakirti. Sophia, v. 47, p. 3-28.
BARNES, J. (1979). The Presocratic Philosophers. London; New York: Routledge.
BHATTACHARYA, K. (1985). Nagarjuna’s Arguments against Motion. The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, v.8, n. 1, p. 7-15.
BRUHACS, L. (2008). Vasubandhu’s Argument Against Atomism in the Twenty Verses. Tese (Doutorado em Filosofia) – Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitat Institut fur Philosophie, Frankfurt am Main.
CANDRAKIRTI. Prasannapada (1913). In: POUSSIN, Louis de La Vallée (Ed.). Mulamadhyamakakarikas (Madhyamikasutras) de Nagarjuna avec la Prasannapada commentaire de Candrakirti. St. Petersburg: Bibliotheca Buddhica IV.
CHATTERJEE, A. K. (1971). Readings on Yogacara Buddhism. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University.
DASGUPTA, S. (1933). Indian Idealism. London: Cambridge University Press.
DIELS, Hermann (1906). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
FERRARO, G. (2019). Two Boats Fastened Together: Nagarjuna’s Solution to the Question of the Origin of Ideas. Philosophy East and West, v.69, n. 1, p. 108-129.
FRAUWALLNER, E. (1951). On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu. Roma: Istituto per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
GALLOWAY, B. (1987). Notes on Nagarjuna and Zeno on Motion. The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, v.10, n. 2, p. 80-87.
GARFIELD, J. L. (2002). Empty Words. New York; Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
KANO, K. (2008). Two Short Glosses on Yogacara Texts by Vairocanaraksita: Vimsikatikavivrti and *Dharmadharmatavibhagavivrti”. In: ISAACSON, H.; SFERRA, F. (Eds.). Manuscripta Buddhica, 1. Roma: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, p. 343–380.
KAPSTEIN, M. (1988). Mereological Considerations in Vasubandhu’s “Proof of Idealism” (Vijnaptimatratasiddhih). Idealistic Studies, v.18, n. 1, p. 32-54.
KELLNER, B.; TABER, J. (2014). Studies in Yogacara-Vijnanavada idealism I: The interpretation of Vasubandhu’s Vimsika. Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques, v.68, n. 3, p. 709-756.
LUSTHAUS, D. (2004). What is and isn’t Yogacara. Yogacara Buddhism Research Association Online Articles. Disponível em: http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro-uni.html. Acesso em: jul. 2019.
MABBETT, I. W. (1984). Nagarjuna and Zeno on motion. Philosophy East and West, v. 34, n. 4, p. 401-420.
MAY, J. (1971). La Philosophie Bouddhique Idéaliste. Asiatische Studien,v. 25, p. 265-323.
NAGARJUNA. Mulamadhyamakakarika (1882). In: SHAOYONG, Ye (Ed.). Mulamadhyamakakarika. New Editions of the Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese Versions, with Commentary and a Modern Chinese Translation. Shanghai: Zhongxi Book Company, 2011.
SIMPLÍCIO. Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum. Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria. Edição de Hermann Diels. Berlin: Academia Litterarum Regia Borussica.
SAITO, A. (1984). A study of the Buddhapalita-mulamadhyamaka-vrtti. Tese (Doutorado em Filosofia) – Australian National University.
SHULMAN, E. (2010). The Commitments of a Madhyamaka Trickster: Innovation in Candrakirti’s Prasanna-pada. Journal of Indian Philosophy, v.38, n. 4, p. 379-417.
SIDERITS, M. (2007). Buddhism as a philosophy. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
SIDERITS, M.; O’BRIEN, J. D. (1976). Zeno and Nagarjuna on Motion. Philosophy East and West, v. 26, n. 3, p. 281-299.
STCHERBATSKY, Th. (1994). Buddhist Logic. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. (1a ed. 1930-32).
VAN INWAGEN, P. (2009). Metaphysics. Boulder: Westview Press.
WILLIAMS, P. (1989). Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. London: Routledge.
VASUBANDHU. Vimsika (Vasubandhu) (1925). In: LÉVI, Sylvain. Vijnaptimatratasiddhih: Deux traités de Vasubandhu: Vimsatika (La Vingtaine) accompagnée d'une explication en prose et Trimsika (La trentaine) avec le commentaire de Sthiramati. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Giuseppe Ferraro
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.
1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.