Abstract
The doctrine of impermanence can be called the most salient feature of the Buddha’s teaching. The early Buddhist doctrine of impermanence can be understood in four different but interrelated contexts: Buddha’s empiricism, the notion of conditioned/constituted objects, the idea of dependent arising, and the practical context of suffering and emancipation. While asserting the impermanence of all phenomena, the Buddha was silent on the questions of the so-called transcendent entities and truths. Moreover, though the Buddha described Nibbāṇa/Nirvāṇa as a ‘deathless state’ (‘amataṃ padam’), it does not imply eternality in a metaphysical sense. Whereas the early Buddhist approach to impermanence can be called ‘phenomenal’, the post-Buddhist approach was concerned with naumena (things in themselves). Hence, Sarvāstivāda (along with Pudgalavāda) is marked by absolutism in the form of the doctrines of substantial continuity, atomism, momentariness, and personalism. The paper also deals with the approaches to impermanence of Dharmakīrti and Nāgārjuna, which can be called naumenal rather than strictly phenomenal. For Dharmakīrti, non-eternality was in fact momentariness and it was not a matter of experience but derivable conceptually or analytically from the concept of real. Nāgārjuna stood not for impermanence, but emptiness (śūnyatā), the concept which transcended both impermanence and permanence, substantiality and non-substantiality.
Highlights
In this paper, I want to show that though Buddhism is known for its doctrine of impermanence, the Buddhist approach to impermanence underwent change
Whereas the early Buddhist approach to impermanence can be called ‘phenomenal’, the post-Buddhist approach was concerned with naumena
The paper deals with the approaches to impermanence of Dharmakırti and Nāgārjuna, which can be called naumenal rather than strictly phenomenal
Summary
I want to show that though Buddhism is known for its doctrine of impermanence, the Buddhist approach to impermanence underwent change. The Buddha’s approach can be called phenomenal (or phenomena-oriented). He said that all phenomena, that is, appearances or experiential objects, are impermanent. We have reality-oriented approaches, which can be called naumenal (or naumenaoriented) approaches to impermanence. One was the approach of Sarvāstivāda (along with Pudgala-vāda); the other two are found in the positions of Dharmakırti and Nāgārjuna. Nāgārjuna precedes Dharmakırti, I have discussed the former at the end, as he deviates from the Buddha’s approach to impermanence most
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have