SPECIFIC CHARACTER of PHILOSOPHICAL REASONINGS
In BUDDHIST TRADITION
In research considers a buddhist tradition into буддології. Shown her sameness with tradition of european scepticism as for reverberation of maintenance of basic identification categories. Separately considered teaching of Нагарджуни and his interpretation famous for Є. orientalist Торчиновим.
Question about world, his кінечність and endlessness, about time nature, to space a buddhist tradition reckons in premature, such, промислювати which can only after певного consciousness clearance from deforming structures turned out in society, that are called скандхами. A buddhism Aim is liberation of man (whether at all all of living wights). It interest that questions, answers on which conduce namely to this aim. In this we вбачаємо a певну прагматичність - property, which western period civilization of bourgeois relations imputes exceptionally oneself. But buddhist прагматичність, quick, spiritual plan, western - exceptionally material. However in both cases a прагматичність comes forward as a значима and absolute aim of all of man actions. Buddha says: "Much I got to know, but.. not much to you open... to That is why they (these truths are авт.) vain, do not contribute to clearance..., to coolness..., to rest, do not conduce to full of understanding, full of просвітлення, nirvana. That's why they do not declare by me. And that then declares by me? Exists дуккха is here that I explain. Exists a cause дуккхи is here that I explain. Exists suppression дуккхи is here that I explain. Exists a way to suppression дуккхи is here that I explain. " [4, с.13].
Скандхи is the stereotypes and templets forming a consciousness base пересічної - uneducated - man, and at all this is the experience elements groups. All such elements groups five. Name General of all, that associated with скандхами, - дуккха (suffering).
However afterwards, when a tradition ramifies and differentiates on different schools and directions, attention to consciousness questions, in that number and to скандх, becomes stronger. But by source of buddhist концептуалізацій it makes no odds there is namely work with consciousness, directed on her просвітління, adduction to normal appearance allowing to see a things gist so, as it is, and to stage question in correcting editoral office. To be sure, easily to imagine, that if consciousness by певним rank to transform, then will change and ourselves questions for subjects and for form. Because we study in western philosophizing tradition practically identical work by consciousness development, then attached to serious attitude to problem capable to dispense with specific buddhist work receptions by clearance of consciousness.
The Поняттєві thinking structures, that describe buddhist просвітлення experience and attitude in myself buddhism, to be sure, adapted, because will it need describe experience and to generalize it. Under this виникла practice of rationalistic generalized reasonings, original philosophical self-knowledge component, which repeatedly exposed to criticism within the pale of very this practice.
Because buddhism tradition extraordinarily many plans, that includes into oneself a row of competitive (by whether special rank взаємодоповнюваних) conceptions, we will limit by account of his foundation-stone, base outgoing assertions, that given, as contemplate, myself Буддою. These principles are laid out in three бенареських Гаутами sermons-lectures, the names of which in traditional translation from sanscrit sound so:
- "Сутра, that brings over wheel to motion" (about four шляхетні truths, восьмеричний way of their achievement, five скандх);
- "Сутра about essence анатмана" (teaching about non-existances soul and being descriptions );
- "Law of dependent origin" (about elements миттєвість - кшанікаваду, about причинно-наслідковий tie in world - карму).
Кшанікавада is teaching about миттєвість of elements - дхарм, that compose a base of психофізичного man experience. Дхарми consolidate into скандхи create myself man personality. A Gyre of everyday life is сансара is characterizes by changeability and нетривкістю of all (анітья). From this assertion swims out conception about миттєвість of existence. In its lectures from буддології one of leading orientalist of our Є.А. Торчинов time writes about this so: "Teaching about миттєвість directly ensues from first thesis about changeability всезагальність. It affirms, that each дхарма (and, accordingly, all complex дхарм, living wight) exists only one insignificant миттєвість (picked out by me - авт.), into following moment it replaces on new дхарму, that causally conditioned previous" [1, с. 35]. Є.А. Торчинов thinks, that such conception testifies as about stream континуальність дхарм, so and about his дискретність: "Substantially, each following moment exists new personality, causally associated with previous and conditioned by it. Like so, for миттєвості theory, a дхарм stream, that forms a living wight, is for hours together континуальним and discrete" [There само]. On our thought, exactly will say, that nor континуальності, nor дискретності here not. Континуальність is existence continuity - here affected, and a дискретність can be brought in only attached to presence of actual continuity as дискретності measuring. However such measuring in given interpretation not.
Two leading directions in buddhist tradition are хінаяна and махаяна is variously value the outgoing regulations: first adopts them literally, as final truth, second - as preparatory degree to higher understanding level.
Critical reasonings about time and motion, that take place in one значеннєвому key, are присутні in buddhist tradition махаяни, by наійвідомішим spokesman and founder of which Нагарджуна was (near ІІ a. н.е.). Є.А. Торчинов analyses Нагарджуною criticism of basic philosophical categories, that bear upon adequate reality description. To our theme belong two examples of such criticism - причинно-наслідкового description and buddhist theory of миттєвості, time. Нагарджуна considers and throws away as нерелевантні such a categories as causality, motion, time, space, amount and whole row of other [There само, с. 87].
A Нагарджуна its analysis takes in successive mental key, gist of which - in at most clear notions maintenance distinction. However such approach in analysis of abstract notions always conduces to loss of their maintenance. So is going and this once. Question is that for clearing up of richness of content of any notion necessary carruing of not only mental dale, but simultaneous vision of transition of relative confluence, interdependency and notions maintenance unity. However task this is not such simple in sufficient scope in european tradition for the first time expressly put only Гегелем. Will Trace current of Нагарджуни thought in Є.А. account Торчинова: "Нагарджуна stages question: as correlate cause and supervention? Whether can we say, that a supervention differs from cause? No, do not be able, at this rate impossibly to lead, that a given supervention is by supervention of namely this, and not some other cause Can happen, a supervention and cause is identical? Also no, because then them at all there is not to purport to contradistinguish. Може, cause and supervention for hours together and identical, and carnage? No, this also impossibly, because this look will combine the mistakes of two first assertions. Whether one can be said, that a cause causes a supervention? No, because at this rate we ought to foresee a possibility of such alternatives: and) a supervention уже was присутнім in cause; б) supervention not передіснував in cause, but evinced anew; в) had a place and that, and other for hours together. These alternatives are equally impossible. In first case at all it is impossible to say about causes and superventions, because this simply one that namely. In second affirms something impossible, because being and non-existence, as well as life and death, lightly and darkness, are by контрарними (взаємовиключними) oppositions, and if something is missing, then it go on with you at all - «nor» can not walk across into «so», from «nothing» can not do «something». A Third case combines a tactlessness and first, and second variants. Like so, a cause does not give birth a supervention, nothing at all go on with you given birth. Causality empty" [There само, с. 87].
So, reasonings are seen out by naturalist logically in-series, got певний deduction. But зауважимо, that all it motion is abstract and brought out mental, without examples, from by entangling of unsimple theoretical інструментарію in apportionment operation appearance of full of alternatives admission, uses of key correlation words, distinction, identity, presence, передіснування, are impossible, result. Such умовиводи very near to sophisms, from which absurd or unbelievable deduction swims out with usual parcels. To clear up, why so takes place, will return to answer on outgoing question is namely in it is pawned following deduction unconformity about causality emptiness. Нагарджуна stages question about distinction of supervention from cause, and following reasonings create in foreshortening of this task. That it need have in поняттєво-instrumental guaranteeing for discretion of namely such distinction? It is Need a distinction criterion, that ensues from uniting cause category third, and beginning supervention. In other words telling, necessary apportionment значеннєвого of тла, on which their authentic correlation will exude. Such criterion not, and to that unexpected sophistic result becomes definite. Окрім that, Нагарджуна makes for its analysis use of picked out key words, but they similarly complicated, and it is possible, and more complicated and incomprehensible, than that notions, that dismount. To Dismount more simple maintenance by the medium of more complicated понятійних constructions, that only protrude intelligible, - such way straightly conduces to tangling question. However deduction about causality emptiness is not lawful. Really by result of directed reasonings there is attitude vagueness between cause and supervention, his emptiness from positions of thrashed умовиводів type and parcels. Subdividing thinking ( "so" can not walk across into "no", and on the contrary) Mental, not dialectical, and insolvent to express authentic notions maintenance. However, logical Нагарджуни work has by its result not one only negation. It shows, to begin with, real practice of especially logical thought motion, and, secondly, demonstrates scantiness of such approach. Scantiness, щоправда, can be and not seen, in this case Нагарджуни approach conduces to nihilistic світосприйняття.
Identical work in Europe worked in XVІІІ Д. age Юм. It also dismounts a causality notion and shows his arbitrariness. His key words something other - a contiguity, tie, attitude, однозначність, sameness, compound. But deduction identical: "Like so... I attempt to argue reader into veracity of its hypothesis, due to which all of our reasonings as for causes and actions are founded exceptionally on habit" [2, с. 336]. But a habit is by experience supervention, and далі Юм writes: "From here swims out, that all of reasonings as for causes and actions are founded on experience and that reasonings from experience are founded on foresight, that in nature will invariably be kept one and order" [that There само, с.338].
As see, with big temporal interval (in ІІ age and in XVІІІ) in different cultures disturb the identical questions, причому their analysis and answers prettily near.
Will Consider further directed Є.А. Торчиновим Нагарджуною interpretation of time category.
At first formulates outgoing time interpretation, that then and exposes to analysis:
"Approximately similarly Нагарджуна shows a category «tactlessness time». That such time? The past This is, present and future" [1, с.87].
A time Reduction to intelligible and simple image took place. If time to understand on the strength of counting of his модусів, then each following time category maintenance change easily to foresee.
"But to be sure, that neither of these measuring is «not своєбутнім», they exist only relatively one to one, quite stipulate one one: notion «the past» has purport only with respect to future and present, future is with respect to the past and present, and present - with respect to the past and future. But the past already not. Future - still not. Where then present? Where and herself moment between the past and future, which is called «life»? For this allegedly real «present " exists as for two fictions - that, why уже not, and that, why still not" [There само].
Such reasoning was присутнє into Аристотеля, and into Августина, and formulated it practically by that myself words. At all interpretation this is is by time thinking over beginning result domestic, that his form, that comes forward for man directly. This spontaneity it aims to realize and at once потрапляє into field leveling суджень, for which it not in змозі to indicate real richness of content. Appears, that time is fiction, as to this appeared by fiction causality and motion. At the same timed, in everyday нерефлексивному life we excellently participate in these, quasi fictitious, by notions, and no contradiction our everyday practice does not feel. But as only in construction of sense constructions adapts mentally-logical thinking is one negation swims out for other. Аристотель and Августин do not make with its logical difficulties deductions about time fictitious nature. Нагарджуна thinks sufficient seen out logical reduction for removal of philosophical categories as such, and here it near to Вітгенштейна Людвіга aiming to depose the metaphisical postulates as such, that do not be subject to верифікації procedure.
Є.А. Торчинов continues: "Like so, is going a wonderful picture: empiric exist and causality, and time, and space, and motion, but as only we attempt rationally to analyse the categories meaning these phenomena, we immediately steep into ocean insoluble суперечностей. Like so, all philosophical categories come forward by only products of our ментальної activity, absolutely unsuitable for reality description, as it is» [There само, с.87-88].
"Ocean insoluble суперечностей" arises not by reason of insufficiency of rational thinking ability as such, and on the strength of limitation by her strict logicality, in which there is not mutual transition from "so " to "nor". Inflexible thought strategy makes it quite abstract and formal, and such thought really insolvent right to describe reality.
As accomplishs in this Нагарджуна situation? It goes over to theory of two truths, or two levels of identification. First - level of empiric reality (санврітті сатья), everyday practice. As for this level one can be said about conditional causality existence, motion, time, space, unity, plurality and volume identical. This level differs from clean illusion - sleeps, hallucinations, mirages and other affected phenomena, identical to «horns into hare», «вовни in tortoise» or «son death of sterile woman». But it so illusive as for level of absolute or higher truth (парамартха сатья). This level inaccessible for logical дискурсу, but cognizable by the medium of йогічної intuition" [There само].
We can not assent to Нагарджуни deduction about two truths namely in such editoral office. Medieval Europe knows theory of two truths, but they bear upon truth dale on philosophical (scientific) and theological. We will put question so: if authentic understanding reachable "by forces йогічної of intuition", then whether it is possible to describe by his right neat and formed categories, if former appeared insufficiently well-thought-out? That to us prevents to produce a suitable поняттєво-термінологічний vehicle and to affect in it catch sight of силоміць tie intuitions? However answer on question this is gives not in east tradition, where rationality appears by subordinate moment in prosecution of perfecting of consciousness, and in western metaphisics namely aiming to віднайти and the suitable words, offences, expression methods of its intuitive understanding.
Will Direct typical tail-piece of discussion between вайбхашиками and саутрантиками from "Абхідхармакоши" (V, 24-6) as for question of reality of future and former elements. A Translation into russian language is done remarkable soviet буддологом Ф.І. Щербатським.
«Вайбхашик: And into каком смысле было said into писании, что «all существует»?
Саутрантик: О брахманы! Было said: «all существует»; это означает лишь: «элементы, включенные into двенадцать категорий, существуют».
Вайбхашик: And three времени (они not включены into number этих элементов)?
Саутрантик: (Нет, not включены!) Как понимать их бытие, мы уже разъяснили...
(by not обескуражен row аргументов) Мы, вайбхашики, однако, утверждаем, что прошедшее и будущее безусловно существуют. Но, (принимая во внимание вечную сущность элементов бытия, мы признаем), что есть что-then, to что us not удается объяснить; их сущность глубока, (она трансцендентальна), ибо ее существование not может быть established рациональными by methods. And что касается of that, как мы употребляем понятие времени into обычной жизни, then оно противоречиво. Мы употребляем выражение «что появляется, исчезает», (подразумевая, что тот самый элемент появляется и исчезает so, как «какая-then материя появляется и исчезает»). Но мы также говорим: «one вещь появляется, другая исчезает», подразумевая, что one элемент (будущий) входит into жизнь, and другой (настоящий) останавливается. Мы говорим также о появлении myself времени («время пришло»), потому что элемент, входящий into жизнь, включен into понятие времени. И мы говорим, что рождаются «here времени", ибо будущее включает многие моменты (и лишь one из of them действительно входит into жизнь)" [3, с. 185-186].
Elements, about which says in directed text, there are the elementary experience elements - дхарми. Their nature acknowledges by full measure unknowable and трансцендентальною. These elements and time coincide, between them there are not disagreements. As unknowable дхарми, so, will continue we, by full measure, rationally, unknowable acknowledges and time.
Дхарми instantaneous, they "constantly arise and disappear, replacing on new, but conditioned previous дхармами for law of causally-dependent origin" [1, с.35]. All of questions about time, like so, are here summary to interpretation дхарм.
Buddhism is by extraordinarily ramified philosophical tradition, and it does not limit, comprehend, by direction махаяни and Нагарджуни creation, which б ponderable it was not. But one can be affirmed, that дотепер book practice of Western Europe does not solve the reader education tasks with that brilliance and sequence, as this executed in buddhism. The Buddhists went towards not by dint of perfecting complication of понятійної structure (it was very unsimple уже into добуддійський period), and, on the contrary, the texts were within the frameworks usual colloquial language, but had a specific orientation on reader consciousness. Theme own time within the pale of investigated буддистської tradition was not thrown open, but this was not by her straight task.
1. Торчинов Е.А. Введение into буддологию. СПб.: Санкт-Петербургское философское общество, 2000. - 304 с.
2. Юм Д. Трактат о человеческой природе // Peace философии. In 2Nth ч. Ч. 1. - М.: Политиздат. - 1991. - 672 с.
3. Щербатской Ф.И. Избранные труды on buddhism. - М.: Science. - 1988. - 426 с.
4. Корнев В.И. Сущность учения буддизма // Философские вопросы буддизма. - Новосибирск: Science. - 1984. - С. 10-20.
 Regulation This is near to Геракліта utterance about плинність of all. But this changeability can be carried away to thinking level, and not to external object world. In buddhism underlines, that personality abides in permanent change and only protrudes integral, and to that, continuing Геракліта, into one river it is impossible to come in twice to not only that there flow new waters, but to that that change, who enters. In this assignment is reached a top десубстанціалізації of description in the world, his dethronement as world of illusive forms.
 About unconformity we tell that, without respect to expressed mental by dint of causality category emptiness, we by it make use both in everyday life and in scientific researches. In last causality principle at all is домінантним.
 Intuition in rationalism of New time is by leading identification form, and it quite not necessarily ought to contradistinguish to levels почуттєвому and mental. That's why it is impossible to say, that western rationalism lost something principled important for identification.