SAṂVEGA and UPANISĀS AS RESOLUTION of PAṬICCASAMUPPĀDA: with PHENOMENOLOGY AS FRAMEWORK a Dissertation Presented to the F
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
i SAṂVEGA AND UPANISĀS AS RESOLUTION OF PAṬICCASAMUPPĀDA: WITH PHENOMENOLOGY AS FRAMEWORK A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Religious Studies at University of the West In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Religious Studies by Dat Trong Nguyen Spring 2019 ii Approval Page for Graduate Approved and recommended for acceptance as a dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Religious Studies. Dat Trong Nguyen Candidate May 8, 2019 SAṂVEGA AND UPANISĀS AS RESOLUTION OF PAṬICCASAMUPPĀDA: WITH PHENOMENOLOGY AS FRAMEWORK APPROVED: William Chu May 8, 2019 Chair Jane Iwamura May 8, 2019 Committee Member Darui Long May 8, 2019 Committee Member iii I hereby declare that this dissertation has not been submitted as an exercise for a degree at any other institution, and that it is entirely my own work. © 2019 Dat Trong Nguyen ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii Acknowledgments Many have been supportive and/or influential in my graduate education and whom I have always felt sincere gratitude toward. My beloved father’s inculcation of Buddhism in my childhood and early passing were seminal to my pursuits and ultimately my intuitions with dukkha and saṃvega. I formally studied under Venerable Dr. Havanpola Ratanasara Maha Thera then under Dr. Ananda W. P. Guruge who was a committee member for this paper before his passing and whose tutelage was such that I addressed him as Dhamma Dad. Drs. Lewis Lancaster, James Santucci, Donald Swearer, Darui Long, Miroj Shakya, and Jane Iwamura all carried and imparted their formidable knowledge and experience with gentle humility and smiles. Dr. Santucci was my examiner in the field of reincarnation research—perhaps a first of its kind in the U.S. Dr. Iwamura was my examiner in the field of Buddhist meditation. My undying gratitude toward committee members Drs. Iwamura and Long for the punishing schedule they endured to accommodate me and Dr. Iwamura’s unhuman turnaround time to read and judiciously comment and guide. For many years early Buddhism was the ever-elusive promise like distant rolling thunder. It was in Dr. William Chu’s seminars that claps of clarifying thunder breached the hills. I entered as an empiricist and exited as a phenomenologist. It was in AccessToInsight.org and Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu’s writings where I read the word saṃvega for the first time; I found remarkable kinship as especially in the treatment and re- emphasis on saṃvega. Further, it was for Dr. Chu’s examination in the field of Buddhist philosophy that I first learned of the upanisās. My debts are obvious. iii I thank Chief Academic Officer Dr. Peter Rojcewicz for his compassion. I was financially sustained by Drs. Allen and Lily Huang and their International Buddhist Education Foundation for nearly the entirety of my doctorate studies. Words of gratitude are insufficient so I will endeavor to pay it forward. I thank Jeanette Anderson and Judy Hsu for their patient and kind administrative assistance throughout. May my mother know my gratefulness for all her sacrifices. May she and my father thrive in the Dhamma to reach the further shore. I dedicate this present study to my dearest parents. Also to my precious wife and newborn son who deserve much more than my strength to give, so I will find an effort beyond my strength. iv Abstract SAṂVEGA AND UPANISĀS AS RESOLUTION OF PAṬICCASAMUPPĀDA: WITH PHENOMENOLOGY AS FRAMEWORK By Dat Trong Nguyen This dissertation argues that a more complete interpretation of paṭiccasamuppāda (dependent co-arising)—which is consistently limited to the anuloma (forward causality) twelve mundane nidanas (conditioning factors)—must interactively include saṃvega (the shock empathetic of loss) and the paṭiloma (reverse causality) twelve transcendent upanisās (prerequisites). My thesis is that saṃvega is a phenomenological looking at (versus looking through) the aging-&-death nidana for its 1) occurrences of life, loss, aging, and death, 2) attributes of grief and despair, and 3) theme of dukkha and unworthiness. Within the phenomenological reduction, this insight of saṃvega counterpoises from the mundane passion-centric nidanic frames to the transcendent dispassion-centric upanisic frames. Buddhism’s encounter with Western modernity has led to the discourse on scientific Buddhism which includes the imputation of Buddhism as empirical. As part of my emphasis on the transcendent aspect of saṃvega and the upanisās, I argue against paṭiccasamuppāda’s characterization as secular, natural, and empirical. I disabuse the empirical Buddhists’ interpretation of early Buddhist epistemology in part explaining the empirical demarcation, the agnostic, and the empirico-propositional flaws. v I contend that empiricism and phenomenology have sometimes been conflated because of their shared ground in saḷāyatana (six sense media) with empiricism claiming it for verification, and phenomenology and early Buddhism both claiming it as the entire horizon of experience. Although empiricism and phenomenology are grounded in saḷāyatana, they diverge in the direction of their reducing—empiricism’s is outward toward physical absolutes and Husserlian transcendental constitutive phenomenology’s is inward toward non-physical absolutes. I explore classical Husserlian phenomenology and early Buddhism’s insistence and establishment in subjective experience comparing intentionality to Buddhist consciousness classified by requisite condition. However, this Buddhist classification connects to saṅkhāra (fabrication), paṭiccasamuppāda, then soteriology thus differentiating itself. Relying on the primacy of mind for pivot and counterpoise, I use the conceptual tool of the frames of reference divided into the egocentric mind/body, first centroidal (ego-projection), second centroidal, and absolute frames to clarify reduction in the spectrum from pure subjectivity to pure objectivity. Within the mind/body frame, I use Ray Jackendoff’s Representational Modularity of Mind hypothesis to support consciousness modularity and interface as aspects of intentionality and paṭiccasamuppāda. vi Table of Contents Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... ii Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi Objective and Rationale for the Study ........................................................................................ 1 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 6 Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 8 Saṃvega ... ........................................................................................................................ 8 Upanisās……………. .................................................................................................... 12 Paṭiccasamuppāda .......................................................................................................... 13 Chapter One: The Frames of Reference ................................................................................... 15 1.1 The Architecture of the Linguistic-Spatial Interface and Representational Modularity........................................................................................................17 1.2 The Conceptual Structure and Spatial Representation within Representational Modularity........................................................................................................22 1.3 The Egocentric and Allocentric Spatial Frames ..............................................28 1.4 The Centroid ....................................................................................................30 1.5 Freely Switching between Centroidal Frames of Reference ............................32 1.6 Participation versus Engagement in the Frames of Reference .........................33 1.7 Reduction is Directional Reframing ................................................................37 1.8 Worldview and Directional/Reductional Framing ...........................................38 1.9 An Alternative Away from Objective Absolutes .............................................41 1.10 A Hypothesis that Directional Framing Distinguishes Phenomenological Meditation from Objective Empiricism ...........................................................42 1.11 Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................44 vii Chapter Two: The Mundane-Transcendent Purview of Paṭiccasamuppāda – Extended and Internal Spaces ................................................................................................................ 47 2.1 Paṭiccasamuppāda: The Complete Udāna List Covers the Nidanas ................47 2.2 Paṭiccasamuppāda: The Upanisā Sutta Completes the Nidanas ......................49 2.3 The Four Noble Truths as True Realities to Be Directly Experienced ............50 2.4 Mundane versus Transcendent .........................................................................53 2.4.1 The Lacunae of the Upanisās ................................................................