Semiotic Upaya
Within the Diamond Sutra, the Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti, and the Wisdom of Nagarjuna, issues concerning the application of language are addressed. While the Diamond Sutra and the Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti present an ineffability of language in regards to the wisdom of the Buddha, Nagarjuna presents a deconstruction of language in expressing the message of the Buddha. Ultimately within all three texts, language is presented as reliant designation.[1]
While each of these texts present discourses, dialogues, and silence in regards to transmitting the ‘prajnaparamita’[1] of the Buddha, integral to these modes of transmission is ‘semiotic Upaya’. As semiotics refers to the process of identification (of the identified by the identifier), Upaya refers to the means of identification. Thus, in investigating concepts such as dependence and reliance, ‘semiotic upaya’ refers to the designation of language to address reality.
Within these Mahayana texts, semiotic ideas are reflected upon in two ways. One, semiotics is recognized as the association of names and terms in classifying reality (Hayes 19); and two, semiotics is recognized in the deconstruction of such names and classifications (Hayes 19).
In the case of linguistic semiotics, these texts illustrate how linguistics are both
1. Dunne, J.D. Selections from Wisdom pg.15
2. Conze, Edward. “The Development of Prajñāpāramitā Thought” In particular his seventh stage recognition of upayakausalya prajnaparamita
conceptual and instrumental[3]. Conceptually, it recognizes linguistics as creating realities perceived through the categorization and conceptualization of perceptual data through semantic articulation. Instrumentally, language is a systematic manipulation of linguistic signs, put into practice, in order to bring language beyond its limits. When these texts refer to the Upaya of the Buddha, Upaya is recognized as skilful in the extent by which it illustrates a void of absolutes, but necessary in order to help humans to attain a truth transcending language[4].
Within the Diamond Sutra[5], the Buddha this recognizes this transcendence when he points out how mind-made references are not the independently existing objects. Thus, objects of the mind remain beyond explanation, and thus one should recognize all objects with a non-discriminatory approach. This non-discriminatory approach must be taken in light of semiotics. The Buddha seems to allude to the problematic nature of semiotics, and in particular linguistics.
This Sutra refers to ‘names’ and ‘signs’ as wrongly conceived notions of classification. This classification leads to a comprehension of an apparent reality which actually exists independent of its ‘classification’. As the Buddha taught that names, signs, and further more labels are mere illusive descriptions, it is easy to understand how an object is not what it is ‘classified’ as. Furthermore, names and signs which are associated with objects allude to a nature of an object which exists independent of
3,4: Cobb, John B. Beyond Dialogue, pg.127
5: Conze. Trans.
semantic classification.
Classification, and more specifically ‘association’ of names with objects creates ignorance and deception of the objects true nature. Thus, as the Buddha taught, something which has been falsely identified is both the supposed and the not supposed. As the role of this Sutra is to expound on the perfection of wisdom, this sutra teaches of the ignorance of attachment, and in particular within this sutra, the attachment of names to demark what something is or is not. Within the Holy Teachings of Vimalakirti[6], Vimalakirti addresses semiotics in regards to epistemology and metaphysics. Thus, Vimalakirti engages in a rhetorical discussion with Manjusri in order to get at the root of concepts which create reality. By dissecting these concepts, Vimalakirti gets to a baselessness of all things (which makes constructions of existence difficult to assert). In addressing emptiness, Vimalakirti once again engages in dialogue with Manjusri by which, similar to the baselessness of concepts, Vimalakirti distinguishes the ultimate emptiness of concepts. Vimalakirti’s also states that as “the ‘concept’ is itself empty, emptiness cannot construct emptiness”.
As Vimalakirti has already made concepts and fomulative constructions of these concepts illusive, Vimalakirti goes one step further by presenting the theory of
nonduality. In addressing the meaning of nonduality, Vimalakirti engages in a Q&A
6: Thurman, Robert A. F. The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti
session with thirty-two Boddhisattva’s. It is not until the thirty-second bodhisattva (Manjusri) is addressed until a suitable answer as to “what is nonduality” is declared: to
express nothing, to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing, to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing - that is the entrance into non-duality. Complementarily, Vimalakirti presents this theory of nondualism by remaining silent.
As Vimalakirti deconstructs and separates concepts from conceptualized, Vimalakirti also reevaluates the conception of dharma. Vimalakirti states that dharma is ultimately without formulation and without verbalization. Vimalakirti even goes as far as to say that whomever states "suffering should be recognized, origination should be eliminated, cessation should be realized, and the path should be practiced," is not interested in the dharma but is interested in verbalization. This illustrates an ‘ineffable’, non-verbalized, and somewhat ‘inconceivable’ message of the Buddha.
Thus, the Upaya of Vimalakirti is presented through theories verbalized by Vimalakirti, as well as through putting theses theories into practice. The teachings of Vimalakirti truly illustrate Vimalakirti’s ‘skillful’ ability to illuminate theories through actualization, and thus, illuminate a hidden meaning into preconceived conceptions.
Within the interpretation of the message of Nagarjuna, as has been formulated within the Madhyamic tradition, Nagarjuna attempts to articulate emptiness which transcends the categories of 'existence’ and ‘non-existence’[7]. Within Yogacara
7. Dunne, J.D. Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes
epistemology, the mind is said to be all that exists, and the world is the result of the articulating activity of the mind[8]. Thus, as the conceptual is an articulation,
so to the ordinary world is nothing else than an interpretation of language. However, Nagarjuna recognizes how ultimately external reality is non existent, therefore any verbal designation remains ambivalent[9]. Thus, Nagarjuna recognizes the erroneous view which conceives of essential nature being dependent upon verbal designation (prajnapti)[10].
Cosmologically semiotic, Nagarjuna’s conception of the external world is no more than "semiotically real" in its conceptual sense[11]. To sketch this semiotic cosmology, Nagarjuna refers to emptiness. For Nagarjuna, since there is no way to talk about the "objective reality" of emptiness, the conception of emptiness is a reality in so much as it is semiotically articulated[12].
This interpretation of emptiness illustrates the relationship between the ultimate existence of phenomena and the conventional emptiness of phenomena. Thus, when Nagarjuna analyzes prajnaparamita he creates the Madhyamika position constituting a middle path of interpretating and comprehending existence (Iida 251). As a consequence, he argues, all phenomena exist interdependently and conventionally. Most importantly, the text identifies two truths: an ultimate reality (the emptiness of phenomena of any essence); and a conventional reality (the interdependence of things) (Iida 253).
Within the philosophies of Nagarjuna, Nagarjuna systematically expands upon the
established doctrine of Yogacara when stating: the words of ordinary language are related
8-10: King, Richard. Early Yogacara: Philosophy East & West Vol. 44 Issue 4
11,12: Issues of Semiotics- within the intro of Merrel, Floyd. Signs Becoming Signs pg.x
to superficial aspects of phenomena, conditioned by fallacious attachment to wrong ideas (Iida 264). Thus, Nagarjuna created a distinction between the external world and the signs conveying it.
Similarily, in regards to the ultimate nature of the external world, Nagarjuna states
that all phenomena are empty (sunyata) of essence[13]. Nagarjuna argues that emptiness is not another essence, but rather is the complete absence of anything that could be an essence. This creates the idea that "emptiness" is an independent phenomenon. However, as emptiness can be explained in regards to what it is not, emptiness itself becomes dependent upon it’s own “suchness”[14].
In fact, the very act of referring to an entity or emptiness necessitates its identity. In order to refer to the entity that has just been declared, one must refer to it as an 'entity’ (compared to a ‘non-entity’). Also, one cannot help but to attempt to explain the nature of emptiness in reference to the “empty”. Necessarily this involves an implicit affirmation of that emptiness as ‘empty’.
In conclusion, it appears that semiotics, no matter how skillfully applied or deconstructed can establish essential independence. However, this is precisely the wisdom of the Buddha. Through intermittences of silence and explanations of interdependence, the Buddha skillfully presents a semiotic message of reliant designation[15].
13,14: Dunne, J.D. Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes
15. Dunne, J.D. Selections from Wisdom pg.15
Works Cited
Cobb, John B. Beyond Dialogue Fortress Press, US. 1982
Conze, Edward. “The Development of Prajñāpāramitā Thought.” University of South Carolina Press, US. 1968
Conze. The Diamond Sutra Religious Studies 442 Mahāyāna Course Bibliography
Dunne, J.D. Selections from Wisdom [Nagarjua] Root Verses on the Madhyamaka Unpublished Manuscript, 2001
Dunne, J.D. Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes Religious Studies 442 Mahāyāna Course Bibliography
Hayes, Richard P. Dignaga on the Interpretation of Signs Kluwer Academic Press, UK.1988
Iida, Shotaro. Reason and Emptiness: A Study in Logic and Mysticism Hokuseido Press, Japan. 1980
King, Richard. Early Yogacara: Philosophy East & West Vol. 44 Issue 4 University of Hawaii Press, US.
Merrel, Floyd. Signs Becoming Signs. Indiana University Press, US. 1991.
Thurman, Robert A. F. The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti Pennsylvania State University Press, US. 1994
Within the Diamond Sutra, the Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti, and the Wisdom of Nagarjuna, issues concerning the application of language are addressed. While the Diamond Sutra and the Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti present an ineffability of language in regards to the wisdom of the Buddha, Nagarjuna presents a deconstruction of language in expressing the message of the Buddha. Ultimately within all three texts, language is presented as reliant designation.[1]
While each of these texts present discourses, dialogues, and silence in regards to transmitting the ‘prajnaparamita’[1] of the Buddha, integral to these modes of transmission is ‘semiotic Upaya’. As semiotics refers to the process of identification (of the identified by the identifier), Upaya refers to the means of identification. Thus, in investigating concepts such as dependence and reliance, ‘semiotic upaya’ refers to the designation of language to address reality.
Within these Mahayana texts, semiotic ideas are reflected upon in two ways. One, semiotics is recognized as the association of names and terms in classifying reality (Hayes 19); and two, semiotics is recognized in the deconstruction of such names and classifications (Hayes 19).
In the case of linguistic semiotics, these texts illustrate how linguistics are both
1. Dunne, J.D. Selections from Wisdom pg.15
2. Conze, Edward. “The Development of Prajñāpāramitā Thought” In particular his seventh stage recognition of upayakausalya prajnaparamita
conceptual and instrumental[3]. Conceptually, it recognizes linguistics as creating realities perceived through the categorization and conceptualization of perceptual data through semantic articulation. Instrumentally, language is a systematic manipulation of linguistic signs, put into practice, in order to bring language beyond its limits. When these texts refer to the Upaya of the Buddha, Upaya is recognized as skilful in the extent by which it illustrates a void of absolutes, but necessary in order to help humans to attain a truth transcending language[4].
Within the Diamond Sutra[5], the Buddha this recognizes this transcendence when he points out how mind-made references are not the independently existing objects. Thus, objects of the mind remain beyond explanation, and thus one should recognize all objects with a non-discriminatory approach. This non-discriminatory approach must be taken in light of semiotics. The Buddha seems to allude to the problematic nature of semiotics, and in particular linguistics.
This Sutra refers to ‘names’ and ‘signs’ as wrongly conceived notions of classification. This classification leads to a comprehension of an apparent reality which actually exists independent of its ‘classification’. As the Buddha taught that names, signs, and further more labels are mere illusive descriptions, it is easy to understand how an object is not what it is ‘classified’ as. Furthermore, names and signs which are associated with objects allude to a nature of an object which exists independent of
3,4: Cobb, John B. Beyond Dialogue, pg.127
5: Conze. Trans.
semantic classification.
Classification, and more specifically ‘association’ of names with objects creates ignorance and deception of the objects true nature. Thus, as the Buddha taught, something which has been falsely identified is both the supposed and the not supposed. As the role of this Sutra is to expound on the perfection of wisdom, this sutra teaches of the ignorance of attachment, and in particular within this sutra, the attachment of names to demark what something is or is not. Within the Holy Teachings of Vimalakirti[6], Vimalakirti addresses semiotics in regards to epistemology and metaphysics. Thus, Vimalakirti engages in a rhetorical discussion with Manjusri in order to get at the root of concepts which create reality. By dissecting these concepts, Vimalakirti gets to a baselessness of all things (which makes constructions of existence difficult to assert). In addressing emptiness, Vimalakirti once again engages in dialogue with Manjusri by which, similar to the baselessness of concepts, Vimalakirti distinguishes the ultimate emptiness of concepts. Vimalakirti’s also states that as “the ‘concept’ is itself empty, emptiness cannot construct emptiness”.
As Vimalakirti has already made concepts and fomulative constructions of these concepts illusive, Vimalakirti goes one step further by presenting the theory of
nonduality. In addressing the meaning of nonduality, Vimalakirti engages in a Q&A
6: Thurman, Robert A. F. The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti
session with thirty-two Boddhisattva’s. It is not until the thirty-second bodhisattva (Manjusri) is addressed until a suitable answer as to “what is nonduality” is declared: to
express nothing, to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing, to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing - that is the entrance into non-duality. Complementarily, Vimalakirti presents this theory of nondualism by remaining silent.
As Vimalakirti deconstructs and separates concepts from conceptualized, Vimalakirti also reevaluates the conception of dharma. Vimalakirti states that dharma is ultimately without formulation and without verbalization. Vimalakirti even goes as far as to say that whomever states "suffering should be recognized, origination should be eliminated, cessation should be realized, and the path should be practiced," is not interested in the dharma but is interested in verbalization. This illustrates an ‘ineffable’, non-verbalized, and somewhat ‘inconceivable’ message of the Buddha.
Thus, the Upaya of Vimalakirti is presented through theories verbalized by Vimalakirti, as well as through putting theses theories into practice. The teachings of Vimalakirti truly illustrate Vimalakirti’s ‘skillful’ ability to illuminate theories through actualization, and thus, illuminate a hidden meaning into preconceived conceptions.
Within the interpretation of the message of Nagarjuna, as has been formulated within the Madhyamic tradition, Nagarjuna attempts to articulate emptiness which transcends the categories of 'existence’ and ‘non-existence’[7]. Within Yogacara
7. Dunne, J.D. Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes
epistemology, the mind is said to be all that exists, and the world is the result of the articulating activity of the mind[8]. Thus, as the conceptual is an articulation,
so to the ordinary world is nothing else than an interpretation of language. However, Nagarjuna recognizes how ultimately external reality is non existent, therefore any verbal designation remains ambivalent[9]. Thus, Nagarjuna recognizes the erroneous view which conceives of essential nature being dependent upon verbal designation (prajnapti)[10].
Cosmologically semiotic, Nagarjuna’s conception of the external world is no more than "semiotically real" in its conceptual sense[11]. To sketch this semiotic cosmology, Nagarjuna refers to emptiness. For Nagarjuna, since there is no way to talk about the "objective reality" of emptiness, the conception of emptiness is a reality in so much as it is semiotically articulated[12].
This interpretation of emptiness illustrates the relationship between the ultimate existence of phenomena and the conventional emptiness of phenomena. Thus, when Nagarjuna analyzes prajnaparamita he creates the Madhyamika position constituting a middle path of interpretating and comprehending existence (Iida 251). As a consequence, he argues, all phenomena exist interdependently and conventionally. Most importantly, the text identifies two truths: an ultimate reality (the emptiness of phenomena of any essence); and a conventional reality (the interdependence of things) (Iida 253).
Within the philosophies of Nagarjuna, Nagarjuna systematically expands upon the
established doctrine of Yogacara when stating: the words of ordinary language are related
8-10: King, Richard. Early Yogacara: Philosophy East & West Vol. 44 Issue 4
11,12: Issues of Semiotics- within the intro of Merrel, Floyd. Signs Becoming Signs pg.x
to superficial aspects of phenomena, conditioned by fallacious attachment to wrong ideas (Iida 264). Thus, Nagarjuna created a distinction between the external world and the signs conveying it.
Similarily, in regards to the ultimate nature of the external world, Nagarjuna states
that all phenomena are empty (sunyata) of essence[13]. Nagarjuna argues that emptiness is not another essence, but rather is the complete absence of anything that could be an essence. This creates the idea that "emptiness" is an independent phenomenon. However, as emptiness can be explained in regards to what it is not, emptiness itself becomes dependent upon it’s own “suchness”[14].
In fact, the very act of referring to an entity or emptiness necessitates its identity. In order to refer to the entity that has just been declared, one must refer to it as an 'entity’ (compared to a ‘non-entity’). Also, one cannot help but to attempt to explain the nature of emptiness in reference to the “empty”. Necessarily this involves an implicit affirmation of that emptiness as ‘empty’.
In conclusion, it appears that semiotics, no matter how skillfully applied or deconstructed can establish essential independence. However, this is precisely the wisdom of the Buddha. Through intermittences of silence and explanations of interdependence, the Buddha skillfully presents a semiotic message of reliant designation[15].
13,14: Dunne, J.D. Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes
15. Dunne, J.D. Selections from Wisdom pg.15
Works Cited
Cobb, John B. Beyond Dialogue Fortress Press, US. 1982
Conze, Edward. “The Development of Prajñāpāramitā Thought.” University of South Carolina Press, US. 1968
Conze. The Diamond Sutra Religious Studies 442 Mahāyāna Course Bibliography
Dunne, J.D. Selections from Wisdom [Nagarjua] Root Verses on the Madhyamaka Unpublished Manuscript, 2001
Dunne, J.D. Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes Religious Studies 442 Mahāyāna Course Bibliography
Hayes, Richard P. Dignaga on the Interpretation of Signs Kluwer Academic Press, UK.1988
Iida, Shotaro. Reason and Emptiness: A Study in Logic and Mysticism Hokuseido Press, Japan. 1980
King, Richard. Early Yogacara: Philosophy East & West Vol. 44 Issue 4 University of Hawaii Press, US.
Merrel, Floyd. Signs Becoming Signs. Indiana University Press, US. 1991.
Thurman, Robert A. F. The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti Pennsylvania State University Press, US. 1994
No comments:
Post a Comment