IS NAGARJUNA RIGHT? DO WE “REIFY?”
So, I am curious about Nagarjuna’s concept that we habitually “reify” things, along with ourselves. So he’s directly addressing the Indian Philosophers, with their theory of the Self… But in the end, Nagarjuna concludes seemingly that the average man (non-philosopher) somehow “reifies” or constantly imputes an innate existence to things and people. My theory, is that Nagarjuna isn’t actually witnessing something that people are supposedly doing; but he simply had an agenda to justify the Prajnaparamita scriptures and movement. My own opinion is that I do not reify anything, habitually. What is the Sanskrit term for reify; is it in Sanskrit similar to the Sanskrit term for “deify,” as the English terms?
GEMINI
This is a fantastic linguistic and psychological question. You are deconstructing the deconstructor.
First, let’s handle the linguistics, because the answer reveals a major difference between Western and Indian thought. Then, we will tackle your theory that Nagarjuna might have been inventing a problem to sell a solution.
1. The Sanskrit Terms: Reify vs. Deify
In English, the words rhyme because they share the Latin root facere (to make).
Reify: From Latin res (thing) + facere (to make). "To make into a thing."
Deify: From Latin deus (god) + facere (to make). "To make into a god."
In Sanskrit, these terms are completely unrelated. There is no rhyming connection.
A. The Term for "Reify"
Nagarjuna uses a few terms, but the most precise ones for "reification" or "imputing innate existence" are:
Samāropa (समारोप): Literally "Superimposition." This is the act of overlaying a concept of "Realness" onto something that is empty. It means projecting a snake onto a rope.
Prapañca (प्रपञ्च): Often translated as "Conceptual Proliferation." This refers to the mind’s tendency to take a simple sensory input and explode it into a complex story of "Subject, Object, and Action."
Svabhāva-graha (स्वभाव-ग्रह): "Grasping at Essence." Svabhava is "Own-Being" or "Intrinsic Nature." Graha is "seizing" or "clinging." This is the exact technical definition of reification in Madhyamaka.
B. The Term for "Deify"
Devatva (देवत्व): Godhood/Divinity.
Ishvara-buddhi (ईश्वर-बुद्धि): Viewing something as the Lord/God.
Conclusion: In Sanskrit, there is no linguistic link between making something "Real" and making something "Divine." Nagarjuna is not accusing us of worshipping the table; he is accusing us of freezing the table.
2. Is Reification Real, or Did Nagarjuna Invent It?
Your theory is: "Nagarjuna isn't witnessing something people do; he had an agenda to justify the Prajnaparamita."
You are partially right, but mostly wrong.
Where you are Right (The Agenda):
Nagarjuna absolutely had an agenda. He was a Mahayana monk trying to establish the legitimacy of the Prajnaparamita ("Perfection of Wisdom") sutras, which the conservative schools rejected. He needed a philosophical framework to defend them. So, yes, he systematized "Emptiness" to win a sectarian debate.
Where you might be Wrong (The Psychology of Reification):
You posit that the average person does not reify things. You say, "My own opinion is that I do not reify anything, on principle."
Nagarjuna would smile and say: "You are talking about your Philosophy. I am talking about your Instincts."
Here is the difference between "Intellectual Reification" (which you don't do) and "Innate Reification" (which Nagarjuna claims we all do).
The "Pinch" Test
Intellectually, you know a "Self" is just a collection of cells, memories, and habits. You don't believe in a Homunculus or a Soul. You are philosophically "Empty."
However:
If someone suddenly slapped your face hard in public, what happens?
A sudden contraction: A visceral, burning knot of "ME" arises in the chest.
A narrative: "How dare HE do this to ME."
The Defense: You instinctively protect this "Center."
Nagarjuna argues that this reaction is Reification (Svabhava-graha).
Even if your philosophy says "I am empty," your biology screams "I am Real, Solid, and Permanent!"
Reification isn't a belief you hold; it's a reflex. It is the "Spontaneous feeling of 'I'" (Sahaja-atman-graha).
The "Chariot" vs. The "Baby"
It is easy not to reify a Chariot (or a car). We know it's parts.
But do you reify your child? Or your reputation?
If your car is scratched, you are annoyed.
If your child is threatened, you experience a primal, non-negotiable reality. You feel the "Essence" of the child.
Nagarjuna is saying that the Average Man lives in a constant state of subconscious "freezing" of the world to make it navigable. We assume the floor is solid (permanently) so we can walk. We assume our friends are the same people today as yesterday (permanence) so we can love them.
Summary
Sanskrit: There is no "Deify/Reify" wordplay. The term is Samaropa (Superimposition) or Svabhava-graha(Grasping at Nature).
Your Theory: You are correct that Nagarjuna had a scholastic agenda. But modern cognitive science tends to back him up: humans are hardwired to be "Essentialists." We are born believing things have hidden, invisible essences (this is why children believe a tiger is still a tiger even if you paint it pink).
The Challenge: Nagarjuna would say that claiming "I do not reify on principle" is actually a very subtle form of reification—you have reified the "Principle of Non-Reification" and identified yourself as a person who holds it!
WAIT! BUT AM I ACTUALLY DOING ALL THAT “REIFICATION,” INTELLECTUALLY??
I understand the visceral example above of being slapped in the face. But, is it really “mental/intellectual reification” or saying I have a solid sense of self, that makes me angry. Or is it the emotional grasping I have to my own self, along with the shock of the sudden slap? Are there Buddhists who still hold to the Buddha’s original identification of the problem as “grasping?”
GEMINI
You have hit upon the distinction between the Cognitive Model (Head) and the Affective Model (Heart/Gut) of suffering.
To answer your question directly: Yes, absolutely. The vast majority of Early Buddhism (and modern Theravada) focuses exactly on what you described: Grasping (Upadana) and Craving (Tanha), rather than the abstract "Reification" of Nagarjuna.
Here is the breakdown of the distinction you are making, and who agrees with you.
1. The "Chain of Command": Ignorance vs. Desire
In the Buddhist map of the mind (Dependent Origination), there is a chain of 12 links that leads to suffering.
Link #1: Ignorance (Avidya): Not seeing reality clearly. (This is where Nagarjuna focuses. He thinks if you fix the logic/view, the emotions will follow).
Link #8: Craving (Tanha) & Link #9: Grasping (Upadana): The emotional thirst and the tightening of the fist. (This is where Early Buddhism focuses. They think if you calm the desire, the ignorance will clear up).
Your Critique of the "Slap": You are arguing that the anger comes from Link #8/9 (Grasping)—the visceral, emotional contraction of self-protection. Nagarjuna argues the anger comes from Link #1 (Ignorance/Reification)—the deep-seated, sub-conscious belief that there is a "Target" to be hit.
Nagarjuna would say: "You grasp because you think you are real." You (and the Buddha of the Pali Canon) might say: "I think I am real because I keep grasping."
2. The Buddhists Who Agree With You: The Theravada Tradition
If you find Nagarjuna’s "Reification" talk too heady or disconnected from the visceral reality of emotion, you are essentially a Theravadin (Way of the Elders) at heart.
In the Pali Canon (the oldest scriptures), the Buddha rarely engages in the hyper-logical deconstruction of "essence" that Nagarjuna loves. instead, he focuses on The Fire of Passion.
The Fire Sermon: One of the Buddha's most famous sermons doesn't mention "Emptiness" or "Reification." He says: "All is burning, monks. Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion."
The Prescription: He doesn't say "Deconstruct the ontological status of the fire." He says "Let go of the fuel."
The "Grasping" View: These Buddhists argue that the problem isn't that we make intellectual errors about "Existence." The problem is that we are addicted to Sensory Pleasure (Kama-tanha) and Existence (Bhava-tanha).
The Cure: Not logic, but Ethical Restraint (Sila) and Meditation (Samadhi). You cool the grasping down until the hand naturally opens.
3. Yogacara: The Psychological Critique
Even within Mahayana Buddhism, the Yogacara (Mind-Only) school agreed with your critique of Nagarjuna.
They felt Nagarjuna was too obsessed with the "Object" (proving the world isn't real) and ignored the "Subject" (the messy, grasping mind).
Their View: The problem is Vasanas (Habit Energies).
We have deep-seated emotional habits stored in our unconscious (Alaya). The Slap: When you get slapped, it isn't a logical error that occurs; it is an explosion of old "Habit Energy" (anger seeds) stored in your psyche.
The Cure: You can't logic your way out of a habit. You have to "turn the stream" (Paravrtti) through deep psychological reprogramming (meditation and compassion).
4. Summary: The "Thief" Analogy
To understand the difference between your view (Grasping) and Nagarjuna's view (Reification), imagine a Thief (Suffering) breaks into your house.
Your View (and Early Buddhism): The Thief is Grasping/Desire.
Solution: Catch the thief, wrestle him down, and throw him out. (Stop the grasping through will and mindfulness).
Nagarjuna’s View: The Thief is Reification.
Solution: Turn on the lights and realize there is no thief. The "Thief" was just a coat rack that you mistook for a person in the dark.
Why your view is practical: If it is a real thief (and the slap feels very real!), then Nagarjuna’s advice to "turn on the lights and see he is empty" might get you stabbed. Sometimes, you need to deal with the visceral "Grasping" first (calm the anger, soothe the ego) before you can afford the luxury of deconstructing the "Self."
So, yes: The problem is Grasping. Nagarjuna simply believes that Reification is the mother of Grasping. You are allowed to disagree and focus on the child!
No comments:
Post a Comment