The Metaphysical Foundation of Buddhism and Modern Science

constitutes the middle way”. [MMK: chapter 24, verse 18] Nagarjuna's view
consists principally of two aspects. The first is an exposition of his view of
reality (sunyata, pratityasamutpada), according to which reality has no firm
core and does not consist of independent, substantial components. Reality is
rather a system of two-bodies or many bodies which reciprocally affect each
other [3]. This view of reality is diametrically opposed to another key concept:
‘svabhava’, ‘own being’ or ‘inherent existence’, also known in the Greek tradition
as ‘substance’.
The second aspect of
Nagarjuna’s philosophy is an answer to the inner
contradictions of four extreme modes of thought which can be subsumed
under the headings: ‘substantialism’, ‘subjectivism’, ‘holism’ and
‘instrumentalism’. My thesis is that these four modes of thought are
unsustainable.
(1) Substantialism
Substance (or own being) is defined as something that has independent
existence. [4] Substantialism is at the centre of traditional metaphysics,
beginning with pre-Socratic philosophers, for example Parmenides and
Heraclitus, who were two critics of substantial thought, and going right up to
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Substance is considered to exist by itself, i.e. the
unchangeable, eternal and underlying basis for the entire non-material
foundation of the world in which we live. Plato (4th century BCE) made a
distinction between two forms of being in his Parmenides: on the one hand,
singular objects which exist exclusively through participation without own
being and, on the other hand, ideas that do have own being. Traditional
metaphysics adopted Plato’s dualism. An independent own being is
characterised as something that, as an existing thing is not dependent on